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.
Well, we are eighteen pages into this thread and I have only seen one person cite a specific area of the Constitution that might prevent Roe V Wade from being overturned, which was the original intent of this thread. I also think that says a lot about the Left's argument in support of Roe V Wade...
Oh I can't stand it anymore. I'm going to make their argument for them. Look, the 9th amendment does reference what some people are trying clumsily to argue but let's back up.
Roe v Wade was decided on the 14th amendment and the inherent privacy the previous courts said it conferred under the concept of liberty without due process of law. However, it was a flawed argument as shown in the Alito decision and weak from the get go. There are several reasons but ultimately the idea was that a baby had fetal rights at a specific point in time and thus must be protected was part of the decision. This was always going to backfire because the idea of right to privacy as interpreted in Roe v Wade gave over the decision of continuing pregnancy to the woman but also didn't by attaching the concept of personhood to the baby when it entered the viability argument.
Now, the 9th amendment is a more interesting argument. It's basically a catch all that says there are rights you are born with that are not enumerated in the Constitution but cannot be denied. The idea of bodily autonomy could be argued you are born with the right to do to your own body what you want. To succeed in abortion, there would be two hurdles. One would be to definitively argue against personhood for any baby in utero. This has, as I'm sure most know, been a very, very large hurdle to leap in the court system as you start getting into viability and what makes a person (e.g. conception or birth), etc. The second you would need to prove you are born with bodily autonomy successfully and that's a whole can of wax. Think about everything that would be thrown out. Laws against suicide, seat belt usage, self-harm, forced vaccinations, etc. Point of fact, the US government does NOT believe you have bodily autonomy and never has based on the myriad of laws directed at showing you how much they can dictate what you can and cannot do with your body.
Ultimately, the 9th is the only viable argument for Federal jurisdiction over abortion and it's a very steep hill with a slew of unintended consequences. So if the 9th fails, you fall to the 10th amendment which is anything not covered by the Constitution falls to the states. Hence, the majority's opinion. I'll be honest, it was a good opinion from the majority. Rationale.
Although neither democrat nor female, this ruling is there for 50 years and shouldn’t be changed by a majority of one vote in the SCOTUS. There is huge opposition to such change in the entire country.
For example, I am against guns, but wouldn’t want to see a ruling (by one vote) changing the current status. A big part of the American people would oppose such step.
Additionally, there will be significant growth in populations with big problems (the kind republicans don’t like) as increased poverty, mental health, crime, etc.
There are a bunch of rich abortion supporters that should be able to set up a private fund to help out this category of women.
Where are all the rich pro-lifers offering their homes up to the hundreds of thousands of children in the foster care system?
Where are all the rich pro-lifers offering their homes up to pregnant women who lose their jobs or housing (technically illegal, but hard to prove - particularly if you don't qualify for FMLA or live with family or roommates) because of their pregnancy? Where are all the rich pro-lifers paying for women's lost wages, medical care, maternity clothing, childcare? Seems like more often than not, they're voting to prevent government support for these types of issues.
When has charity ever been enough to help all people who need help? In any category, not just for abortion tourism.
The excuses some people make for making life hard for women.
People who think charity even comes close to addressing the massive needs in this country right this moment are telling on themselves that they do not give to and are not involved in philanthropic work.
It seems that every Progressive/Democrat that argues for not overturning Roe V Wade has an argument (in some cases, no argument) that is chocked full of emotions and not rational thought and reasoning.
Can anyone leave the emotion out of it and tell me why Roe V Wade should not be overturned?
Woman will die. The SCOTUS and GOP has removed a valid medical procedure for one gender.
Abortion's will still be obtained, now without proper medical care.
Woman will die. The SCOTUS and GOP has removed a valid medical procedure for one gender.
Abortion's will still be obtained, now without proper medical care.
Yep.
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.
