Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Since Roe was decided on a woman's Right to Privacy, does this mean that gay people don't have that right either? Setting a precedence. Overturn Lawrence v. Texas as well? Think there aren't states which would like that overturned as well? You can also go back to the Lovings case. Should that also be an issue for individual states? Married in one state, but not another? Would apply to both gays, and interracial couples.
Overturning Roe could open a Pandora's Box. Be careful what you wish for.
There is no case reaching the Republican Supreme Court YET. Now that Alito is saying privacy is not a right (Roe), it's open season on gay marriage and host of other issues. Privacy goes right out the door. This allows people that claim they want freedom to get into everyone's most personal business.
It is ironic imho how those who are most attached to the idea of a limited government are disinterested in the founding document that was made to ensure it remain so. The first ten amendments were added for the same reason. Government can only exercise the powers granted to it by the Constitution. These are clarified in Article I, section 8. A limited government with specific enumerated powers does not include the power to violate an individual’s rights.
Where in the Constitution does it give government the power to violate a person’s rights?
Since Roe was decided on a woman's Right to Privacy, does this mean that gay people don't have that right either? Setting a precedence. Overturn Lawrence v. Texas as well? Think there aren't states which would like that overturned as well? You can also go back to the Lovings case. Should that also be an issue for individual states? Married in one state, but not another? Would apply to both gays, and interracial couples.
I'd take a look at Justice O'Connor's concurrence in Lawrence v. Texas. I think there is a very valid equal protection argument to be made against many of the sodomy laws that were on the book pre-Lawrence. But, regardless, whether we like a certain outcome does not mean that the Court should make up rules out of thin air.
As for Loving, there is a clear equal protection and due process argument on that case. A ruling rejecting some made up privacy right won't invalidate the fundamental core in these cases.
Saying that abortion is a fundamental right is like saying promiscuity is a fundamental right.
It is better to leave the most controversial issues to the states, rather than do a blanket decision from the federal government that binds the entire nation.
Last I checked LTA were 1 percent of all abortions. A woman’s medical issues are between her and her doctor. Do you want to get in between a patient and her doctor to second guess the treatment. Lots of articles on the net I’ve read quite a few. I don’t believe for a minute you’d find a doctor willing to abort a healthy 8 month pregnancy on a whim.
Your prerogative to believe that. The goal is to keep a law intact that allows LTA under any circumstances. I have no desire to come between physician and patient, yet federal dollars do just that. For that reason, exceptions like medical necessity and others discussed t/o this thread should be part of the law, rather than relying on over confidence of any doctor's ethics. The door is open.
I read that there has been an increased demand for RU-486. Women stocking up. That works to cause a very early miscarriage at home up to 7 weeks. Past the time of these bans. This is the most common form of an abortion for US women. Better ban that too!
Did you know that the Red Cross is sending these pills to the Ukraine for the women and girls raped by the Russian soldiers. Can't have that either, right?
It is ironic imho how those who are most attached to the idea of a limited government are disinterested in the founding document that was made to ensure it remain so. The first ten amendments were added for the same reason. Government can only exercise the powers granted to it by the Constitution. These are clarified in Article I, section 8. A limited government with specific enumerated powers does not include the power to violate an individual’s rights.
Where in the Constitution does it give government the power to violate a person’s rights?
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 3 days ago)
35,614 posts, read 17,940,183 times
Reputation: 50634
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigCityDreamer
Saying that abortion is a fundamental right is like saying promiscuity is a fundamental right.
It is better to leave the most controversial issues to the states, rather than do a blanket decision from the federal government that binds the entire nation.
An adults right to engage in consensual sexual behavior with other adults IS a fundamental human right. So there's that.
Despite our nation (and world's) long history of telling people what to do in their bedrooms with other consenting adults, we now believe adults have the fundamental right to determine their own private sexual behavior.
The way I see it, the ones who have been crying to "protect the unborn" are the liberals. Conservatives are for less government, which should be across the board on all matters, including this issue. Long ago, a well known conservative (Barry Goldwater) was pro choice, and his wife was a founding member of Planned Parenthood in AZ. His approach was largely hands off on these private matters that are none of anybody's concern, and shouldn't even be political issues.
Also, I'm a firm believer in leaving abortion laws to the states ... as in, letting the voters in each state decide, not judges or legislators. In the end, the only people who should be deciding whether or not to have an abortion are the pregnant woman, her family, and her doctor. Everybody else can mind their own business.
In a number of states, letting voters decide would be much like 5 wolves and 4 sheep voting on the dinner menu. Why should my neighbors get to decided what medical treatment my wife and her doctor think is appropriate?
The individual right to privacy & equal protection of the laws. Channeling old states' rights arguments does not change.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
