]2epo]v[an
Banned
Knee deep in a domestic terrorist war, crys about insanity. Welcome to the trenches, rookie.
If the government forces you to give birth to a child,
- Thread starter BidenPresident
- Start date
Diesel
Well-known member
The basis of the Roe ruling is literally the 14th Amendment.
The 14th was only used to make the ruling applicable to the states because the Bill of Rights applied to the federal government only until the incorporation process (1925-2010).
Griswold v. CT (1965) used the 9th Amendment reference to the existence of "other rights" not mentioned in 1-8 to include the right to privacy as it struck down a CT law against dissemination of birth control information to say that should be a decision between husband-wife.
Roe used that same right to apply to abortion as a private decision between woman and doctor. They used the freedom of assembly, quartering of troops, search and seizure, and right to remain silent to illustrate the founder's desire to protect privacy. They then used the 14th to make the 9th applicable to the states.
]2epo]v[an
Banned
Prove it.
The basis that gives the supreme court the power to legistlate by precedent is stare decesis not the 14th amendment. Disprove that or shut your whore hole. It is defined by stare decesis, not the other way around.
Last edited:
Old Trapper
Verified User
According to the Atheist world everything they do "interferes" with someone else.
Old Trapper
Verified User
Funny you should say that. The 14th. says "“…nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” which is why pro-abortion minions deny so vehemently that the baby is human, and therefore a person. Of course, we do know that a corporation given power by State charter is a "person".
]2epo]v[an
Banned
The fourteenth amendments function has to do with the protocol by which higher courts can essentially overturn a lower court's ruling. It has nothing to do with abortion.
Last edited:
]2epo]v[an
Banned
The point at which a zygote is considered a fetus and a fetus is considered a human is completely subjective. Arguing that your subjectivity should be enforced while the mother's subjective choice should be arbitrary is a fallacious and unconstitutional basis unless you first successfully challenge woman's rights as a whole. Horse, then cart. No one has the right to force their personal or collectivist subjectivity on another.
The "point of humanity" argument cannot challenge constitutionality of abortion, it's fundamentaly unconstitutional to try.
You have to go after abortion by challenging for jurisdiction and challenging with a previously unconsidered valid argument and you have to do it with a challenge by a higher court. The only higher court is the will of the people. And you have to do it with a popular vote in hand that currently has a jurisdiction to field a challenge. Such as a nation wide women's only vote. Should that fail to appear, a popular state vote should work also as per states rights.
The "point of humanity" argument cannot challenge constitutionality of abortion, it's fundamentaly unconstitutional to try.
You have to go after abortion by challenging for jurisdiction and challenging with a previously unconsidered valid argument and you have to do it with a challenge by a higher court. The only higher court is the will of the people. And you have to do it with a popular vote in hand that currently has a jurisdiction to field a challenge. Such as a nation wide women's only vote. Should that fail to appear, a popular state vote should work also as per states rights.
Last edited:
The SC was not actually legislating but ruling the states violated constitutional rights just like they did when they overturned laws restricting free speech, laws prohibiting mixed race marriage, segregated schools, or the personal right to own guns.
I agree Roe did some distorted reasoning to reach their objective. I think the issue should be left to the states. I don't support decisions just because I like the outcome.
]2epo]v[an
Banned
No it's very exactly a form of legistlation. Legislating by judiciary. While the judiciary doesn't have complete power to legistlate, it does so by common law under the concept of stare decesis.(case law, legal precedent) which is weaker in many regards than legistlated law.
What was the legal precedent in Roe v. Wade?
What stare decisis was cited in Roe?
Read Roe v. Wade and it lays out the basis for its decision.
I remember Roe being settled on the idea of privacy.https://www.history.com/topics/womens-rights/roe-v-wade As you can see the destruction of Roe in texas will result in the destruction of privacy at the same time. They are willing to get into\girls lives to see if they are pregnant, aborted, or had miscarriages. They invite a police state for girls. They lose their rights to privacy and they are subject to the power of the police and the government. They are also targets for a bounty.
I really don't think it works that way. They sue the abortion provider. They don't have to get into the private lives of women. The expectation was that providers would just quit performing abortions which seems to have happened.
I don't think the Texas case will survive. But, it does not do away the the right to privacy for any other of our rights. The right to privacy was established in Griswold v. CT in 1965-before Roe. It only applies to certain limited cases.
BidenPresident
Verified User
If no abortions were ever performed it would affect nothing. Abortion is not a moral issue.
]2epo]v[an
Banned
Apples and oranges. Stare decisis is the basis by which a court gains limited legislative authority. "limited legislative authority" "legistlation by judiciary" was my point, and absolutely nothing else.
Last edited:
]2epo]v[an
Banned
Google stare decesis or Stare decisis. Seem to be multiple spellings. It wouldn't be announced as it is common law and would go unspecified as a given.
Roe v wade was legistlated as a right by the supreme court's decision by virtue of Stare decisis, not by a legislative body. That's my point where it now says Stare decisis. Is this much clear yet?
Old Trapper
Verified User
And SCOTUS disagreed with you. End of story.
]2epo]v[an
Banned
Roe v wade. Not legal precedent in Roe v wade. Row v wade as precedent.