Democrats Lie About Their Abortion Stance After Donald Trump Exposes How Radical They Are.

a reply to: JinMI

Don't be obtuse. Roe V Wade acknowledged a woman's constitutional right to abortion and Dodd reversed that decision, declaring that there is no constitutional right to abortion.

The Supreme Court's decision in the Planned Parenthood v. Casey case in 1992 reaffirmed abortion as a constitutional right

www.cbsnews.com...

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: JinMI

Don't be obtuse. Roe V Wade acknowledged a woman's constitutional right to abortion and Dodd reversed that decision, declaring that there is no constitutional right to abortion.

RBG...again.

“Roe isn’t really about the woman’s choice, is it?” Ginsburg said. “It’s about the doctor’s freedom to practice…it wasn’t woman-centered, it was physician-centered.”

Speaking of being obtuse....

a reply to: JinMI

Who's moving goal posts and deflecting from the point, YOU ARE!

The point...which is....women don't have abortions because of malice towards a developing fertilized egg. They're motivated by self-preservation.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Smart.

Move away from the contentions you yourself posted.

Bravo.


Question: Are malice toward a developing fertilized egg or fetus and self preservation mutually exclusive?

If I can concoct an argument including both, does that change your position at all?

a reply to: JinMI

Move away from the contentions you yourself posted.

Nice try. I'm not moving away from anything. It's just really hardfor you to admit that your beloved SCOTUS revoked a constitutional right from The People that The People enjoyed for 50 years. They didn't just take it from women, they took it from the men too, they took it from families too.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: carewemust

I have NEVER heard Democrats explain why allowing states to determine abortion rules/regulations makes them so angry.

Yes you have. You just refuse to admit that Roe V Wade acknowledged a woman's constitutional right to reproductive choice, and that the Dodd ruling revoked a woman's constitutional to reproductive choice and gave it to elected state legislators.

Face it though, you don't like it being a states' right any more than I do. You want a federal ban on abortion. You don't want the people deciding through their votes. You don't want states like New York and California to offer safe and legal abortions. You want to go further and ban abortion on a federal level.

A federal ban on abortion is not practical and would be cruel. Admit it!

Why do you say that? Why isn't a 6 week federal abortion ban practical for everyone if it's practical for Texas women?

Everyone is getting off track. First, it must be determined who owns the little person's life. A Human, or God, or the Government?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I showed where even the liberal RBG rejected your argument. If you can't make amends with that, I've nothing more to offer you.

You do realize that all you're doing here is making the argument for why women have zero autonomy prior to conceiving a child right?


Lastly, if it was a Constitutional right, as you claim, then why does not only RBG disagree with you but where is it in the Constitution?

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: carewemust

I have NEVER heard Democrats explain why allowing states to determine abortion rules/regulations makes them so angry.

Yes you have. You just refuse to admit that Roe V Wade acknowledged a woman's constitutional right to reproductive choice, and that the Dodd ruling revoked a woman's constitutional to reproductive choice and gave it to elected state legislators.

Face it though, you don't like it being a states' right any more than I do. You want a federal ban on abortion. You don't want the people deciding through their votes. You don't want states like New York and California to offer safe and legal abortions. You want to go further and ban abortion on a federal level.

A federal ban on abortion is not practical and would be cruel. Admit it!

Why do you say that? Why isn't a 6 week federal abortion ban practical for everyone if it's practical for Texas women?

Everyone is getting off track. First, it must be determined who owns the little person's life. A Human, or God, or the Government?

How about the little person, can they own their own life?

originally posted by: dandandat2

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: carewemust

I have NEVER heard Democrats explain why allowing states to determine abortion rules/regulations makes them so angry.

Yes you have. You just refuse to admit that Roe V Wade acknowledged a woman's constitutional right to reproductive choice, and that the Dodd ruling revoked a woman's constitutional to reproductive choice and gave it to elected state legislators.

Face it though, you don't like it being a states' right any more than I do. You want a federal ban on abortion. You don't want the people deciding through their votes. You don't want states like New York and California to offer safe and legal abortions. You want to go further and ban abortion on a federal level.

A federal ban on abortion is not practical and would be cruel. Admit it!

Why do you say that? Why isn't a 6 week federal abortion ban practical for everyone if it's practical for Texas women?

Everyone is getting off track. First, it must be determined who owns the little person's life. A Human, or God, or the Government?

How about the little person, can they own their own life?

When they reach the age of majority.

Constitutionally speaking.

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: dandandat2

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: carewemust

I have NEVER heard Democrats explain why allowing states to determine abortion rules/regulations makes them so angry.

Yes you have. You just refuse to admit that Roe V Wade acknowledged a woman's constitutional right to reproductive choice, and that the Dodd ruling revoked a woman's constitutional to reproductive choice and gave it to elected state legislators.

Face it though, you don't like it being a states' right any more than I do. You want a federal ban on abortion. You don't want the people deciding through their votes. You don't want states like New York and California to offer safe and legal abortions. You want to go further and ban abortion on a federal level.

A federal ban on abortion is not practical and would be cruel. Admit it!

Why do you say that? Why isn't a 6 week federal abortion ban practical for everyone if it's practical for Texas women?

Everyone is getting off track. First, it must be determined who owns the little person's life. A Human, or God, or the Government?

How about the little person, can they own their own life?

When they reach the age of majority.

Constitutionally speaking.

So untill then they have no rights over their life; between the ages of conception and majority?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: JinMI

Move away from the contentions you yourself posted.

Nice try. I'm not moving away from anything. It's just really hardfor you to admit that your beloved SCOTUS revoked a constitutional right from The People that The Peopleenjoyed for 50 years. They didn't just take it from women, they took it from the men too, they took it from families too.

“Shall not be infringed” like other stuff?

originally posted by: dandandat2

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: dandandat2

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: carewemust

I have NEVER heard Democrats explain why allowing states to determine abortion rules/regulations makes them so angry.

Yes you have. You just refuse to admit that Roe V Wade acknowledged a woman's constitutional right to reproductive choice, and that the Dodd ruling revoked a woman's constitutional to reproductive choice and gave it to elected state legislators.

Face it though, you don't like it being a states' right any more than I do. You want a federal ban on abortion. You don't want the people deciding through their votes. You don't want states like New York and California to offer safe and legal abortions. You want to go further and ban abortion on a federal level.

A federal ban on abortion is not practical and would be cruel. Admit it!

Why do you say that? Why isn't a 6 week federal abortion ban practical for everyone if it's practical for Texas women?

Everyone is getting off track. First, it must be determined who owns the little person's life. A Human, or God, or the Government?

How about the little person, can they own their own life?

When they reach the age of majority.

Constitutionally speaking.

So untill then they have no rights over their life; between the ages of conception and majority?

Largely, no. They are under the umbrella of their parents rights.

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: dandandat2

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: dandandat2

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: carewemust

I have NEVER heard Democrats explain why allowing states to determine abortion rules/regulations makes them so angry.

Yes you have. You just refuse to admit that Roe V Wade acknowledged a woman's constitutional right to reproductive choice, and that the Dodd ruling revoked a woman's constitutional to reproductive choice and gave it to elected state legislators.

Face it though, you don't like it being a states' right any more than I do. You want a federal ban on abortion. You don't want the people deciding through their votes. You don't want states like New York and California to offer safe and legal abortions. You want to go further and ban abortion on a federal level.

A federal ban on abortion is not practical and would be cruel. Admit it!

Why do you say that? Why isn't a 6 week federal abortion ban practical for everyone if it's practical for Texas women?

Everyone is getting off track. First, it must be determined who owns the little person's life. A Human, or God, or the Government?

How about the little person, can they own their own life?

When they reach the age of majority.

Constitutionally speaking.

So untill then they have no rights over their life; between the ages of conception and majority?

Largely, no. They are under the umbrella of their parents rights.

So their parents hold the rights over their life between the ages of conception and majority?

originally posted by: dandandat2

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: dandandat2

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: dandandat2

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: carewemust

I have NEVER heard Democrats explain why allowing states to determine abortion rules/regulations makes them so angry.

Yes you have. You just refuse to admit that Roe V Wade acknowledged a woman's constitutional right to reproductive choice, and that the Dodd ruling revoked a woman's constitutional to reproductive choice and gave it to elected state legislators.

Face it though, you don't like it being a states' right any more than I do. You want a federal ban on abortion. You don't want the people deciding through their votes. You don't want states like New York and California to offer safe and legal abortions. You want to go further and ban abortion on a federal level.

A federal ban on abortion is not practical and would be cruel. Admit it!

Why do you say that? Why isn't a 6 week federal abortion ban practical for everyone if it's practical for Texas women?

Everyone is getting off track. First, it must be determined who owns the little person's life. A Human, or God, or the Government?

How about the little person, can they own their own life?

When they reach the age of majority.

Constitutionally speaking.

So untill then they have no rights over their life; between the ages of conception and majority?

Largely, no. They are under the umbrella of their parents rights.

So their parents hold the rights over their life between the ages of conception and majority?

I see where you're going, so lets just put a quick end to it.

Is child abuse illegal?

How about sexual abuse?

Does the penalty depend on the age of the child?

If yes why is that?

*** The semantics of the 14th Amendment and interpretations. ***

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.

Pre 2022 - Amdt14.S1.6.4.1Abortion, Roe v. Wade, and Pre-Dobbs Doctrine -

The Roe Court ruled that states may not categorically proscribe abortions by making their performance a crime. The constitutional basis for the decision rested upon the conclusion that the right of privacy embraces a woman’s decision to carry a pregnancy to term. With regard to the scope of that privacy right, the Court stated that it includes only personal rights that can be deemed ‘fundamental’ or ‘implicit in the concept of ordered liberty’ and bears some extension to activities related to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education. Such a right, the Court concluded, is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.

Post 2022 - Amdt14.S1.6.4.3 Abortion, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, and Post-Dobbs Doctrine

In 2022, a majority of the Court overruled the Court’s prior decisions in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, determining that the Constitution does not confer a right to an abortion. In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the Court maintained that it was returning the regulation of abortion to the people and their elected reprentatives.1 Writing for the Court in Dobbs, Justice Samuel Alito described Roe as egregiously wrong from the start because the Constitution makes no reference to abortion and a right to the procedure is not implicitly protected by any constitutional provision

The only thing that changed was a reinterpretation of liberty with the mother's right to choose being deemed less important than that of the fetus' right to develop... by a ridiculously conservative Supreme Court that ruled against a near super-majority of American opinion. Using things like Bush's obvious Christian-lobbied 2004 Crime Victims act to serve as justification for elevating a mass of multiplying non-sentient cells above the mother carrying it. Done specifically with abortion in mind.

I support States rights on a lot of things, but this was more a "Just get it the f*** over with because everyone knows it's been planned forever!"

Look at Kentucky and Kansas as the trend worth fearing or write laws preventing state referendum. Deliberately try to subvert a referendum that would enshrine reproductive care for woman. That is a fear I've seen about.

Like how SCOTUS ruled against the majority American opinion, state legislators may try to prevent the states opinion from having an impact. Like passing a law that insulates the current law from being altered by referendum.

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: carewemust

I have NEVER heard Democrats explain why allowing states to determine abortion rules/regulations makes them so angry.

Yes you have. You just refuse to admit that Roe V Wade acknowledged a woman's constitutional right to reproductive choice, and that the Dodd ruling revoked a woman's constitutional to reproductive choice and gave it to elected state legislators.

Face it though, you don't like it being a states' right any more than I do. You want a federal ban on abortion. You don't want the people deciding through their votes. You don't want states like New York and California to offer safe and legal abortions. You want to go further and ban abortion on a federal level.

A federal ban on abortion is not practical and would be cruel. Admit it!

Why do you say that? Why isn't a 6 week federal abortion ban practical for everyone if it's practical for Texas women?

Everyone is getting off track. First, it must be determined who owns the little person's life. A Human, or God, or the Government?

It's not a matter of ownership. It's matter of easement.

a reply to: JinMI

I showed where even the liberal RBG rejected your argument.

No. You showed that RBG didn't think that SCOTUS went far enough with the ruling, that the ruling failed to completely articulate the nature of the right.

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: dandandat2

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: dandandat2

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: dandandat2

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: carewemust

I have NEVER heard Democrats explain why allowing states to determine abortion rules/regulations makes them so angry.

Yes you have. You just refuse to admit that Roe V Wade acknowledged a woman's constitutional right to reproductive choice, and that the Dodd ruling revoked a woman's constitutional to reproductive choice and gave it to elected state legislators.

Face it though, you don't like it being a states' right any more than I do. You want a federal ban on abortion. You don't want the people deciding through their votes. You don't want states like New York and California to offer safe and legal abortions. You want to go further and ban abortion on a federal level.

A federal ban on abortion is not practical and would be cruel. Admit it!

Why do you say that? Why isn't a 6 week federal abortion ban practical for everyone if it's practical for Texas women?

Everyone is getting off track. First, it must be determined who owns the little person's life. A Human, or God, or the Government?

How about the little person, can they own their own life?

When they reach the age of majority.

Constitutionally speaking.

So untill then they have no rights over their life; between the ages of conception and majority?

Largely, no. They are under the umbrella of their parents rights.

So their parents hold the rights over their life between the ages of conception and majority?

I see where you're going, so lets just put a quick end to it.

Is child abuse illegal?

How about sexual abuse?

Does the penalty depend on the age of the child?

If yes why is that?

Because little person owns their own life?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I'll agree to that, no problem.

She didn't live to see it enshrined as that would have fulfilled the "far enough" aspect.

Now it's back to the states, where she said:

“My criticism of Roe is that it seemed to have stopped the momentum on the side of change,” Ginsburg said. She would’ve preferred that abortion rights be secured more gradually, in a process that included state legislatures and the courts, she added. Ginsburg also was troubled that the focus on Roe was on a right to privacy, rather than women’s rights.

“Roe isn’t really about the woman’s choice, is it?” Ginsburg said. “It’s about the doctor’s freedom to practice…it wasn’t woman-centered, it was physician-centered.”

Link

So yes Sookie, RBG herself rejects your argument of it being about woman's rights/choices etc. It was bad law from the get.

originally posted by: NorthOfStuffx2

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: JinMI

Move away from the contentions you yourself posted.

Nice try. I'm not moving away from anything. It's just really hardfor you to admit that your beloved SCOTUS revoked a constitutional right from The People that The Peopleenjoyed for 50 years. They didn't just take it from women, they took it from the men too, they took it from families too.

“Shall not be infringed” like other stuff?

I'm sure those several women, who almost lost their lives, because the Texas law insists that a woman's must be dying before an abortion can be performed, think they had 2nd Amendment rights that are not supposed to be infringed, too. But you've got a bunch of legislators that can't decide when the woman's life becomes more important than the fetus' life, and doctors are afraid to pull the trigger.