Reply With Quote
Really, yoni. Make it part of the cons ution.
Given the proper political climate, I think Roe vs. Wade and the imaginary right to abortion could easily be reversed.
The pervading dishonesty of Roe v. Wade
And, I don't think those three people and I agree on much else.Just look at what pro-choice legal scholars say. Ruth Bader Ginsburg called the ruling "heavy-handed judicial activism." Laurence Tribe wrote "behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found." Former Harry Blackmun clerk Edward Lazarus wrote "[A]s a matter of cons utional interpretation, even most liberal jurisprudes — if you administer truth serum — will tell you it is basically indefensible."
Really, yoni. Make it part of the cons ution.
Given the proper political climate, the anti-abortion crowd could get the cons ution amended too.
I don't particularly think such climate anywhere near as feasible, but anyone can dream.
Given the quotes, in that article, and there were more at the bottom, it's more likely a case will eventually come before the court that will wreck your absolute and irreversible right to abortion.
Hey, those were liberal legal scholars.
I think an abortion survivor, bringing the right cause, could probably wreck the whole Roe vs. Wade house of cards.
Film traces real-life story of abortion ‘survivor’
The decision has already been challenged at least once (Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 1992) and upheld.
Everybody is en led to their opinions. That doesn't make it any more or less likely that a decision will be overturned.
As a matter of fact, if the vast amounts of challenges mounting in the SCOTUS on that decision are any indicator, the ruling is pretty safe.
You're right but, with arguably the most liberal Justice on the Court calling it heavy-handed judicial activism, I think it would only take the right case, asking the right question to see Roe vs. Wade overturned.
There are anti-abortion lawyers staying up at night trying to find the combination.
I think it's probably more likely than you; particularly if a conservative is elected in November.
Or not.
I'll bet anyone that RvW does not get overturned in the next decade. Any takers?
I don't bet with people's lives.
You're a callous, heartless, prick.
If a person survives an abortion, why is it not a person that doesn't?
Well, considering the ruling dates back to 1973 and that the only failed challenge was 20 years ago, I think the ruling, at the very least, is on fairly solid ground and it isn't going anywhere anytime soon.
Just my opinion.
You can bet with money. The bet is on the ruling being overturned within the next 10 years, as far as I can tell.
To which you're en led.
I'll ask you the same question I asked Manny; if a person can survive an abortion why isn't it considered a person that dies from an abortion?
And, how do you feel about the abortion survivors that are intentionally killed after surviving the abortion?
Per what I posted earlier, there's no legal concept of a pre-natal "person" (or abortion-survivor for that matter). If you look at my previous link on USC code that deals with "unborn children", they had to specifically state that should somebody kill an "unborn children", then the penalties would be similar to those killing another human. Obviously, if the "unborn children" would be considered a person, then there would be no need to specify that.
I would argue that an approach to overturn under the "right to life" is probably misguided, as the SCOTUS made fairly clear the language on the cons ution as currently constructed does open the door to pre-natal persons.
Legal concepts aside, aren't you in the least bit bothered by abortions that result in live births of babies that are horribly disfigured and either die, are killed, or survive to live with disabilities caused by the attempted abortion?
How often does this happen?
I'm absolutely bothered by that. The abortion doctors should do a better job of preventing that from happening when a woman exercises her right to terminate her pregnancy.
Fairly often but, how often does it have to happen to be an issue for you?
Have you seen the movie October Baby?
It talks about abortion survivors that have grown up with the physical affects of the violence done to them in an attempt to kill them in the womb.
Only if they vote republican
Seriously, I personally think abortions should be reserved for cases of rape or where's danger to the mother's health. That said, I'm not a host to the fetus and I think a women's opinion in this particular matter should weight more than mine.
When you're killing them by the millions a year, it's going to happen.
October Baby is a work of fiction, fwiw.
Um, you know that movie isn't a do entary right?
The film won the Grand Jury Prize as the Best Fiction Feature at the 2011 Red Rock Film Festival. At the festival Rachel Hendrix won the Special Achievement Award for Acting.
Then I imagine you're anti-war because of the risk of collateral damage.
Aborted babies aren't collateral damage, they're the target. Don't change the subject.
The comparison is between collateral damage and failed abortions.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
