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.
It restores the US Constitution. Abortion is a states' rights issue.
Again, overturning Roe is not a ban on abortion. There is not one state that will ban abortion. Your responses are histrionically incoherent.
Unsound interpretation.
Unlike the SCOTUS Justices who created the ‘Separate but Equal’ doctrine thereby making laws ‘from the bench’ in Plessy v. Ferguson, the Justices in Roe v. Wade were enunciating a common mandate rooted in the Constitution. The states went on to create Jim Crow laws that remained in effect for over a century until the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s & 60s.
This from PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PA. v. CASEY in 1992:
b) Roe determined that a woman's decision to terminate her pregnancy is a "liberty" protected against state interference by the substantive component of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Neither the Bill of Rights nor the specific practices of States at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment's adoption marks the outer limits of the substantive sphere of such "liberty."
Rather, the adjudication of substantive due process claims may require this Court to exercise its reasoned judgment in determining the boundaries between the individual's liberty and the demands of organized society.
The Court's decisions have afforded constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 , procreation, Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 , family relationships, Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 , child rearing and education, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 , and contraception, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 , and have recognized the right of the individual to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child, Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 453 . Roe's central holding properly invoked the reasoning and tradition of these precedents. Pp. 846-853.
Unlike the SCOTUS Justices who created the ‘Separate but Equal’ doctrine thereby making laws ‘from the bench’ in Plessy v. Ferguson, the Justices in Roe v. Wade were enunciating a common mandate rooted in the Constitution. This from PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PA. v. CASEY in 1992:
b) Roe determined that a woman's decision to terminate her pregnancy is a "liberty" protected against state interference by the substantive component of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Neither the Bill of Rights nor the specific practices of States at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment's adoption marks the outer limits of the substantive sphere of such "liberty."
Rather, the adjudication of substantive due process claims may require this Court to exercise its reasoned judgment in determining the boundaries between the individual's liberty and the demands of organized society.
The Court's decisions have afforded constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 , procreation, Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 , family relationships, Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 , child rearing and education, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 , and contraception, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 , and have recognized the right of the individual to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child, Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 453 . Roe's central holding properly invoked the reasoning and tradition of these precedents. Pp. 846-853.
I have never seen any pro abortion poster EVER criticize any pro abortion protest.
If these aren't accurate representations, why aren't these posters demanding that they are represented accurately?
Have you seen the pro abortion female protestors? Angry. Hateful. Bitter. Vengeful. Vulgar. Destructive.
No denying that. At all. Thousands of pictures, videos, and audio ... don't lie.
I don’t think “pro abortion” is an appropriate way to characterize people who support abortion rights. Those who do support abortion rights generally want to leave that choice up to the individual based on their own circumstances. I’ve never met an abortion rights supporter who holds women who choose not to have an abortion in disdain. My own observation is that the use of the term “pro abortion” is intended to be a disparaging, insulting, etc.
Regarding the demeanor of “pro abortion” protestors….yeah, sure some of them are probably angry, bitter, but etc. But, I think it’s understandable when you consider that a relatively small group of people in the US (based on poll after poll, there is NO denying that the vast majority of Americans support Roe and Casey) have been working to eliminate a Constitutional right that 50% of the population has enjoyed for half a century. Most women alive today, never knew a time when Roe was not the law of the land. So yeah, I can see where some protestors would be angry.
If you want to be fair though, look at the ugly, gross, reprehensible, disrespectful, hateful behavior of some pro-life people like Donald Trump, MTG, Madison Cawthorn, and Lauren Boebert. Their behavior is universally grotesque.
Sorry, but even pro-abortion RBG knew Roe had an insufficient Constitutional basis and was likely to be overturned. She was correct.
You are like a ‘broken record’ repeating the same ‘scratched’ arguments over & over & over …
RBG argued a better legal argument would have included constitutional equal protection principles.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
She wrote, “The conflict is not simply one between a fetus’ interests and a woman’s interests, narrowly conceived, nor is the overriding issue state versus private control of a woman’s body for a span of nine months. Also in the balance is a woman’s autonomous charge of her full life’s course.”
I don’t think “pro abortion” is an appropriate way to characterize people who support abortion rights. Those who do support abortion rights generally want to leave that choice up to the individual based on their own circumstances. I’ve never met an abortion rights supporter who holds women who choose not to have an abortion in disdain. My own observation is that the use of the term “pro abortion” is intended to be a disparaging, insulting, etc.
Regarding the demeanor of “pro abortion” protestors….yeah, sure some of them are probably angry, bitter, but etc. But, I think it’s understandable when you consider that a relatively small group of people in the US (based on poll after poll, there is NO denying that the vast majority of Americans support Roe and Casey) have been working to eliminate a Constitutional right that 50% of the population has enjoyed for half a century. Most women alive today, never knew a time when Roe was not the law of the land. So yeah, I can see where some protestors would be angry.
If you want to be fair though, look at the ugly, gross, reprehensible, disrespectful, hateful behavior of some pro-life people like Donald Trump, MTG, Madison Cawthorn, and Lauren Boebert. Their behavior is universally grotesque.
It's not disparaging. It's accurate.
According to everyone ... All are in agreement with motherhood, abstinence, birth control and adoption.
The diverging point is abortion.
People are either for or against abortion. Pretending to be "pro choice" is a nice sidestep so a person can avoid directly stating "I am pro abortion."
If they are "pro choice"? It means that they are PRO ABORTION.
But they don't want to openly admit that. Why? If abortion is so great, why are pro choice people so terrified to say that they are pro abortion?
I don’t think “pro abortion” is an appropriate way to characterize people who support abortion rights. Those who do support abortion rights generally want to leave that choice up to the individual based on their own circumstances. I’ve never met an abortion rights supporter who holds women who choose not to have an abortion in disdain. My own observation is that the use of the term “pro abortion” is intended to be a disparaging, insulting, etc.
Regarding the demeanor of “pro abortion” protestors….yeah, sure some of them are probably angry, bitter, but etc. But, I think it’s understandable when you consider that a relatively small group of people in the US (based on poll after poll, there is NO denying that the vast majority of Americans support Roe and Casey) have been working to eliminate a Constitutional right that 50% of the population has enjoyed for half a century. Most women alive today, never knew a time when Roe was not the law of the land. So yeah, I can see where some protestors would be angry.
If you want to be fair though, look at the ugly, gross, reprehensible, disrespectful, hateful behavior of some pro-life people like Donald Trump, MTG, Madison Cawthorn, and Lauren Boebert. Their behavior is universally grotesque.
Links to their behavior as pro life protestors????
According to everyone ... All are in agreement with motherhood, abstinence, birth control and adoption.
The diverging point is abortion.
People are either for or against abortion. Pretending to be "pro choice" is a nice sidestep so a person can avoid directly stating "I am pro abortion."
If they are "pro choice"? It means that they are PRO ABORTION.
But they don't want to openly admit that. Why? If abortion is so great, why are pro choice people so terrified to say that they are pro abortion?
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 27 days ago)
35,752 posts, read 18,101,092 times
Reputation: 50818
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtovenice
It's not disparaging. It's accurate.
According to everyone ... All are in agreement with motherhood, abstinence, birth control and adoption.
The diverging point is abortion.
People are either for or against abortion. Pretending to be "pro choice" is a nice sidestep so a person can avoid directly stating "I am pro abortion."
If they are "pro choice"? It means that they are PRO ABORTION.
But they don't want to openly admit that. Why? If abortion is so great, why are pro choice people so terrified to say that they are pro abortion?
That's not true. I don't believe I would have chosen that for myself, so you could call me "anti abortion". In a perfect world, we would have zero abortions.
That's pretty much it. A baby can't be half dead, just like a woman can't be half pregnant.
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.
