Leaked Supreme Court opinion shows conservative majority set to overturn Roe v Wade

The Constitution doesn't grant rights to citizens. It grants certain rights to the government. None of those rights is the right to make a medical decision for a citizen.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Amendment 14 prohibits state government interference in personal liberty. You don't need a right to be enumerated, it is assumed a right is natural and must be RESTRICTED by law, not granted.

Like, High School Government 101, am I right?

I have actually seen that attitude from Republicans on this board who said that. For example the quote below,

And I recall seeing Eoten say something similar. But we shouldnt hold the right wing accountable for these people, it would be akin to trying to make tankies represent the left.

It doesn't matter. You don't get it, there's nothing in the constitution that stops states from banning abortions, what is so hard for you to understand about that? It's not a right, and states are going to pass laws on it very soon. You may have the personal liberty to flail your arms around like an idiot, but you don't have the right to hit someone else while doing so. You cannot show an amendment or law that protects abortions. You don't just get to say you want something and so the 14th amendment grants it to you. That's not how it works.

People who do not want children will have to exercise a bit more personal responsibility in avoiding it. This isn't rocket science.

Ohh boohoo. This is an argument that has gone on since I was a child and it will never change. I just argued with a leftist in this thread that a 9 month old fetus should have 0 rights. There is no arguing with you people.

If these passionate women rights people want to be cat moms forever I'm done trying to to stop them.

It's amazing to me that you keep beating the same stupid drum. Go read Roe yourself if you want to see the decision, then come back to make even more of a fool out of yourself by claiming abortion isn't in the constitution, or something equally stupid. You're good at it.

It's good that you're finally acknowledging that it is a fetus, not a child. And there you go again, conferring special rights to non-people to dictate how women lose the right to decide what happens inside their bodies, all because of feelings. That's all it takes to lose rights with you fascists, feelings? Figures...

It will become a child with 99.9% probability. Sorry but at that point you need to take responsibility. Your inability to put 0 value on that is disturbing. Good thing every single state in the US agrees with me regardless of your feelings.

Im curios what the other leftist on this forum think, that choose to ignore your insane post.

It is a really bad take on its own, the fact that it is an old argument doesnt make it any less awful.

Even ignoring its immorality, it vastly overlooks the fact that a good chunk of the people getting abortions are already mothers.

The fact that you defend that horrible thing you said speaks volumes.

Why are you bringing up 9 month old fetuses?

The most contemporary position on the left is that fetal viability is the end point for when abortion should be legal and illegal.

@silentchief: again with the feelings. Feelings don't matter. I'm not interested in taking away rights because of feelings. Fascists take away rights

No, but given the change without a change, one of those decisions must have been wrong, however when it comes to law, SC is more or less the definition of the right answer.

@Maroxad said:@silentchief said: It will become a child with 99.9% probability. Sorry but at that point you need to take responsibility. Your inability to put 0 value on that is disturbing. Good thing every single state in the US agrees with me regardless of your feelings.

Im curios what the other leftist on this forum think, that choose to ignore your insane post.

Why are you bringing up 9 month old fetuses?

The most contemporary position on the left is that fetal viability is the end point for when abortion should be legal and illegal.

Because when you have no valid defense for a position based on emotion, you have to reduce the argument to absurdity in an attempt to illicit the most emotional response.

A majority of Americans support Roe (It's 2:1). The science supports Roe.

Those examples of posters here that suggest it's good thing that people of a political affiliation have abortions, even though those specific posters already subjectively considered it murder, is insanity and extreme hypocrisy. So you're not pro life after all?

This is like some liberals during Covid saying "well, at least the highest anti-vaxxing demographic is Republicans, we need less of those people voting. This is a good thing!" How nuts is that?

Both things are so F'd up. Tribalism taken to an extreme.

P.S. And not that it matters in these statements and sentiments being vile, but is it really Dems who mostly get abortions, source?

Yeah it's an odd position. Also consider a significant majority (over 92%?) of abortions are done when the Fetus is the size of a grape.

Also aren't laws allowing abortions that late due to extreme viability/deformity cases and potential mother death cases?

Yes, less than 1% of all abortion happen past the 20 week period. Anything later than that is due to viability, health of the mother, etc. People don't carry to term and abort a week before their due date. That's a horror fantasy that conservatives conjure up to scare people.

Well it's one a poster in this very thread agrees with 🤣

It's also odd for you to talk about horror fantasy when the left constantly mentions incest and rape, which make up less then 1% of abortion cases.

Because he believes women should still have the right to do so. Follow along for **** sake.

I agree it is in fact an odd position.

Not necessarily. You were putting words in their mouth in that thread, taking the stuff they said in a semantical debate, and exaggerating them outside their original context.

Maybe Tj can clarify their position in this thread in a more calm and collected manner. So we can see where they truly stand.

It is extremely likely that after 5 months, Tj's position is that Abortions after that should only be done FOR health or life of the mother.

Even many of the supporters of Roe v Wade in the judicial system knew the ruling was weak, and probably wasn't going to hold up down the road. Ruth Bader Ginsburg mentioned this, and even considered this damaging because it completely halted all efforts to pass legislation or constitutional amendments on the issue. She wasn't wrong, and it seems like the new answer is the correct one. This isn't an issue for SCOTUS to dictate on behalf of everyone, that's what legislatures are for.

And that's the beauty of how the US is designed to function. Not everyone has to live under the same blanket rules that may not work for or be desirable to everyone. That's why it's important that states continue to have the ability to fine tune themselves to best suit their constituents.

I didn't put words in anyone's mouth. He said a Fetus isn't a person and therefore should have no rights. I even gave him specific examples and he maintained his position. He can backtrack if he wants but the post history is there.

You do realize that abortion can be wrong without it being murder, right?

And if you dont understand the context of my question.

Murder is the ending of life of a person.

That's a nice semantics debate and a great way to sidestep accountability.

Aww, you were so close to finally getting something, before jumping to random conclusions again.

Still, credit where credit is due, you made osme progress! There may be hope for you yet.

What random conclusion am I jumping too exactly?

"That's a nice semantics debate"

This is perfectly fair, you are correct that it is a semantics debate.

"and a great way to sidestep accountability."

This however is you jumping to conclusions.

The fact that your post was 50% correct might be a new record for you though, congratulations!

I've never actually stated my position. I will do so now. I am ok with banning late term abortion with exceptions for the health of the host, and if it was a pregnancy due to rape or incest, etc, the common exceptions. I did, however, ask why a woman should NOT be able to abort up until the moment of birth, if women have the right to decide what happens to their body at any time, considering that the fetus is not a baby, a child, or a person until it's born. All I got was an emotional response.

The 14th guarantees liberty, and , Liberty is the 'right to be let alone'.

http://www.billofrights225.com/the-right-to-be-let-alone/

Funny that the party of 'personal responsibility and liberty' wants to make all your decisions for you.

You're not going to get anywhere. He's circle jerked himself into a big right wing black pit of anti-abortion propaganda and will never get out. It's pointless to even engage.

I had a hunch that was your position, and your questions to him mostly concerned itself political epistemology.

Not surprised he wasnt able to answer them. This is one of those people who dismiss academic papers simply because he dislikes the conclusions or assumptions. This is the type of person who works backwards from his conclusions.

As far as I am concerned, WHY you believe what you do is far more important than what you believe. A left wing wokescold may agree with me on a lot of social issues. But they will often have terrible reasons for believing in them. Not rooted in utility or any actual philosophical or empirical understanding, but simply accept positions to feel good about themselves. Even if I agree with them more than I do with the rational right winger (which is becoming really rare in the post-TEA party era), I still respect for an intelligent right winger like Angela Merkel than I do for a partisan bootlicker.

I explained my position repeatedly. If a Fetus is viable there is no reason to have an abortion unless it endangers the mother. That is not an emotional responses it's based off the fact that the vast majority of cases that Fetus will become a person. However I am talking to people that don't understand basic arguments.

Listen to TJ defend teans issues for the simple fact he doesn't understand the rights position. I also don't dismiss scientific paper's based off the results I dismiss them based off the shoddy research and the fact that most are unreliable. And that's based off facts not feeling.

While your position isn't wrong per say. Your REASONING for that position is what people are taking issue with.

I think it has more to do with the fact they disagree with the position.

So what if it may become a person. What does that have to do with anything? Why should we ever let one human use another's body without their permission, especially one that isn't even a person? Are we going to suspend the right to decide what happens inside our own bodies, and how they're used, forcing women to be incubators for another life form because we have feelings for something that may become a person one day? This goes much deeper than just abortion; it concerns fundamental rights about your body. I can't imagine anyone would ever want a government telling you must procreate. That's Orwellian and as totalitarian an idea as I can imagine.

If you put aside goofy religious beliefs and personal feelings, you can clearly see that it is one of the, if not the most fundamental violations of individual rights imaginable.

It's one thing to be pro choice but don't deny humanity. As for being an incubator, contraception, while not perfect, mostly prevents that.

If this includes scenarios involving rape or incest then you're still on the wrong side.

Would you have to wait 5 to 7 months to figure out if it was rape or incest?

Many of these victims are basically hostages, even having their communications controlled.

You are talking about rare horror stories .

It's far more prevalent than you think.

https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/sexualviolence/understanding-RRP-inUS.html

Humanity is an emotional argument. It has no place in the discussion. The question, at its simplest, is: Should one human ever be allowed to control the body of another human without that human's permission? If anyone says yes, then they are for the state bestowing special rights to one human over another.

What does it matter? You may be too traumatized to accept what happened. You may be grappling with the morality of the situation and ultimately decide that you should not be forced to bear a rape baby.

The bigger question is why are you so interested in granting special rights to allow one human to use the body of another without their permission?

What human are you referring to specifically? Who's using who?

You already know, but the human fetus using the human host's body without her permission.

Bullshit. It's no more an emotional argument than discussing any other right. Stop with the emotional argument about controlling another human, particularly when it as you just stated is about TWO humans. You can't have it both ways. Your argument is poor and can be flipped the other way.

Do you see how insane you sound right now? It can't ask for permission it has no control. You are acting like a human Fetus is on par with a piece of trash. Again you want to live in a world of 0 accountability.

If they don't want to bear a rape baby they should be able to figure that out before 6 months.

Really? There are plenty of crimes you can do in the privacy of your own home that'll get you thrown in jail. Their absence in the constitution simply means how they are regulated is up to the states or in some cases, federal legislation. Can you look at child pornography in your own home? What abort snort a line of coke? No, your argument does not hold up. States have the right to regulate abortion, and they will do so. You don't get to throw everything you want under the umbrella of the 14th amendment. It doesn't even come close to saying what you believe it does.

States will be regulating as they see fit. So you can whine about this complete non issue to someone else.

Did you even read the link I posted? Of course not, you never do.

Try again. Maybe we'll have something to talk about.

Notice the nonresponse to a very pointed and very fair question on the topic. They know they're in the wrong but are too chicken sh*t to admit it.