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.
The majority of women in the United States who have abortions are young, poor and unmarried.
It may not be in the best interest of every community in this country to support or promote this lifestyle.
If you don't think it's a good idea to support this lifestyle, why would you force the young, poor and unmarried to carry unwanted pregnancies to term? That only begets more poor people who need tax dollars to survive.
The Supreme Court does not need to be distracted by the emotions of the public. They don’t need to be intimidate by angry mobs showing up on their doorsteps demanding they change their opinions. They need to focus on the Constitution and the law and make decisions based on that and that alone.
Alito in his draft already wrote that public opinion has no bearing on the decision. If fear of protests were a factor, this was already baked in. Whether the leak happens or the final opinion, the reaction will be the same. Protests aren't changing anyone's mind.
But if I'm, say, Justice Kavanaugh and I'm on the fence, now that conservatives know how close this decision is to reality, I might be more inclined to not be the person who blew it all up at the last second.
Alito in his draft already wrote that public opinion has no bearing on the decision. If fear of protests were a factor, this was already baked in. Whether the leak happens or the final opinion, the reaction will be the same. Protests aren't changing anyone's mind.
But if I'm, say, Justice Kavanaugh and I'm on the fence, now that conservatives know how close this decision is to reality, I might be more inclined to not be the person who blew it all up at the last second.
that all depends on whether you fear the wrath of the vicious leftists mobs more or less than the ignominy of being the backtracker.
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.
So, you don't believe a human being has the right to control what happens to their body, especially if a parasitic fetus (look it up, scientifically it IS parasitic!) is involved?
Would you support government mandating all males after puberty getting vasectomies (after all, they are reversible)? That would prevent all abortions in the future. I mean, if the government can determine what happens to a woman's body, why not what happens to a man's? Right?
I guess the illegal release of confidential court draft documents is a part of the whole undermining of our democratic institutions and another shameful act of left-wing ‘whistleblowing’.
Reminds me of the shady work of lefty Eric Ciaramella, don’t tell me he’s a law clerk now.
I listened to an analysis that it is questionable if it was an illegal leak. It depends what position the leaker had within the court, or the relation the leaker had to someone in the court. As example, Ginni Thomas (not saying she did it).
So, you don't believe a human being has the right to control what happens to their body, especially if a parasitic fetus (look it up, scientifically it IS parasitic!) is involved?
Would you support government mandating all males after puberty getting vasectomies (after all, they are reversible)? That would prevent all abortions in the future. I mean, if the government can determine what happens to a woman's body, why not what happens to a man's? Right?
The fetus is not a parasite. That’s absolute nonsense and is so ignorant.
Location: 23.7 million to 162 million miles North of Venus
23,968 posts, read 12,772,585 times
Reputation: 10612
Quote:
Originally Posted by trobesmom
What does not supporting that lifestyle actually mean? No abortions for the young, unmarried or poor?
People of all stripes and economic status will continue to become pregnant. It has been thus since the beginning of time. The question to answer is who is going to support the children who are born who can't be supported by their parents? I know the answer and I think you do too.
Send illegals packing and stop them from coming in. That would free up more than $100 billion dollars every year, which could go far in aiding young, poor, unmarried women and their babies.
A short synopsis of Alito's opinion that even I can understand.
It appears that Roe was based on the 14th Amendment, not the Bill of Rights. However, French points out that when the 14th was ratified, every state prohibited abortion. Alito documents this in a 31 page appendix that lists the laws and regulation in force at the time.
Alito contrasts between substantive rights umbrellaed under the 14th Amendment (even though it does not address substantive right at all, only procedural ones) as applied to decisions on gay marriage vs. abortion. French summarizes, "Gay marriage is between consenting adults. No unborn child consents to his or her own destruction."
So gay marriage is not in the same jeopardy as abortion is.
Also, Ginsburg's support of Roe is more nuanced than categorical. She felt Roe may have been a step too far and thought a more incremental approach would have been better and more stable, better at withstanding legal challenges than a case which has only itself to stand upon.
It concludes with the familiar contrast of jurists legislating vs. legislatures legislating.
A short synopsis of Alito's opinion that even I can understand.
It appears that Roe was based on the 14th Amendment, not the Bill of Rights. However, French points out that when the 14th was ratified, every state prohibited abortion. Alito documents this in a 31 page appendix that lists the laws and regulation in force at the time.
Alito contrasts between substantive rights umbrellaed under the 14th Amendment (even though it does not address substantive right at all, only procedural ones) as applied to decisions on gay marriage vs. abortion. French summarizes, "Gay marriage is between consenting adults. No unborn child consents to his or her own destruction."
So gay marriage is not in the same jeopardy as abortion is.
Also, Ginsburg's support of Roe is more nuanced than categorical. She felt Roe may have been a step too far and thought a more incremental approach would have been better and more stable, better at withstanding legal challenges than a case which has only itself to stand upon.
It concludes with the familiar contrast of jurists legislating vs. legislatures legislating.
All in all, a quiet voice in a sea of shouting.
The opinion is brilliant and correct. That’s why liberals don’t talk about it.
Can’t wait to see the dumpster fire dissent.
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.
