The Conservative Principle

[RedDuke]

I dont see Roe being flat out overturned, but neither do I see the states being left without any power to set limits against some of the crazier developments, infanticide being one of them. Last I knew, I baby born alive was a U.S citizen under the constitution, regardless of what the mother wanted and may need to have guardian appointed to protect.

Are you insane with states having no power??? Look at the shit on right in Alabama - no exceptions even when a women is raped. Then look at the shit on the left in NY - baby can be killed even right before delivery.

I truly hope sane minds prevail in this argument are some common ground is found. Otherwise states will just go to their own extremes.

So States do have the power.

We are on 2019 and still arguing over this issue, like we have nothing else to fix.

 

[El OchoCinco]

You can argue that all of the various constructed arguments around the fourth amendment search and seizure can somehow be cobbled into the right to abortion, and in fact that has been done. At the same time, no one in their right frigging mind would believe that the Framers thought the fourth amendment covers the right to abortion.

Again it is easier to discuss without the hyperbole. I never said the Right to Privacy means the constitution includes the right to abortion. I said the case was about right to privacy and limiting what the state can regulate or interfere with with respect to a private decision to some extent. The subject matter of the case was abortion but the case never said as you are claiming that the constitution grants a right to abortion. You repeated that a few times but save that for someone making that claim.

In fact the Court rejected the notion that a pregnant woman's right to abort her pregnancy was absolute, and held that the right must be balanced against certain other government interests.

You would know that if you actually...read the case.

 

[El OchoCinco]

By the way...you might want to read the case before you discuss it, your claim about the 4th amendment shows you have not read the case, it does not base its decision on the 4th.

 

[Buy1Sell2]

By the way...you might want to read the case before you discuss it, your claim about the 4th amendment shows you have not read the case, it does not base its decision on the 4th.

But it does codify murder decisions by 1 of at least 3 interested parties without telling the others or getting their approval. -----That's a state issue, not a federal one.---

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

By the way...you might want to read the case before you discuss it, your claim about the 4th amendment shows you have not read the case, it does not base its decision on the 4th.

As I said, I am not going to do re-runs of the arguments, as it is clear that the composition of the court will be the deciding factor, and so when ruthie leaves, it will be what it will be - with consideration to the recent addition of gorsuch and kanavaugh of late as well and especially.

In regard to your legal snark, I will just say this.

Roe relied on the 14th which is a passing of the basic basket full of liberty clauses and amendments down to the states. Although Roe may not have specifically pointed out the alleged applicability of the first, third, fourth, fifth, and nineth amendments, the Griswold v. Connecticut case did and Roe v. Wade was constructed upon the precedent of Griswold. Griswold, for those following along, raised the privacy issue but in regard to birth control in general rather than specifically abortion.

Done. You go ahead and be right about whatever you need to be right about. If you have justices on the supreme court that agree with you after ruthie is replaced then that is what matters out in the real world.

 

[El OchoCinco]

But it does codify murder decisions by 1 of at least 3 interested parties without telling the others or getting their approval. -----That's a state issue, not a federal one.---

But it is not codifying murder when it is rape or incest...so the rapist has the right to tell the woman to keep the baby I guess in your world. That is the problem with this argument. it is murder and wrong but not in case of rape or incest or if mother's health is at risk. Then it just becomes abortion which is fine by you.

 

[Nine_Ender]

There is no "right to privacy" explicitly stated in the Constitution. It is just a bullshit construction by activist judges. You can perhaps construct a right to privacy from the fourth amendment in regard to search and seizures, for home and personal intrusions. But to extrapolate that to a right to abortion, is activist bullshit.

The idea that an dumb ass like you has some say in what a women chooses to do with their body is repulsive to the core. I mean, seriously, look at the bs you post on here and your complete lack of ability to think critically about any topic. You have enough trouble looking after yourself never mind making critical decisions in random women's lives. The law has to protect people from people like you who have little or no respect for others and their own private choices in life.

 

[Buy1Sell2]

But it is not codifying murder when it is rape or incest...so the rapist has the right to tell the woman to keep the baby I guess in your world. That is the problem with this argument. it is murder and wrong but not in case of rape or incest or if mother's health is at risk. Then it just becomes abortion which is fine by you.

Your argument is a classic Liberal misdirect. Abortion is a state issue and has no place being added to The Constitution by activist judges.

 

[El OchoCinco]

Right....just like civil rights is a state issue and states can pass laws such as Jim Crow segregating restaurants and bars and hotels. Those are within a State. You must also hate all those cases decided by the SC on those issues. let States pass any laws they want.

 

[Buy1Sell2]

Right....just like civil rights is a state issue and states can pass laws such as Jim Crow segregating restaurants and bars and hotels. Those are within a State. You must also hate all those cases decided by the SC on those issues. let States pass any laws they want.

Massive Classic Liberal Misdirect (MCLM) again. The two subjects have no correlation or connection whatsoballsout.