Alito's Argument On Abortion Relies Heavily On Opinions Formed Before Women Could Vote

[Orlando Buffalo]

Tibs I expected more out of you. The discussion is the balancing of the rights of women vs the rights of the child. To act as if it is not a living person is being disingenuous or anti science.

[Demongyz]

So abortion which isn't mentioned in the constitution is a right, and owning guns which is enshrined in the 2nd amendment isn't a right.

 

I understand Tibs better today, they can't read.

[Tiberius]

17 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

So in your view....you can take someone's life because it makes you "happy"? Come on Tibs. You know full well what the issue's about. As a person who's shown great compassion for the concept of Liberty, another word for Freedom, when speaking about slavery, I find it puzzling that you wouldn't be the first one to also stand up for life.

Is that "person" living inside of me? 

 

 

15 minutes ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

Tibs I expected more out of you. The discussion is the balancing of the rights of women vs the rights of the child. To act as if it is not a living person is being disingenuous or anti science.

I made it clear I objected to Alito's arguments and sources which were stupid. 

 

 

[SoCal Deek]

6 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Is that "person" living inside of me? 

 

 

 

Interesting use of quotation marks. You're clearly not ready to come to grips that it's a human being.  Do you really not see that's EXACTLY what they thought about Africans?  My gosh man!  The answers are staring you in the face.  

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

36 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

We don't need an atavistic court 

I wasn't familiar with that word, thanks.  I like it. 

 

I agree with you to a point.  However, we do need a thoughtful, reflective and intellectual group engaged in discourse and doing the right thing based on our laws.   This can be painful at times, controversial at others.  

 

From what I can see, the foundation of Roe V Wade was crumbling from the beginning.  That doesn't seem to be limited to conservative viewpoints, it seems to be a commonly agreed upon premise.  

 

It also seems to me that Congress could take up this issue and push forward with a law that addresses it in the manner you believe it should be addressed.   Given the commonly held principle that 146% of Americans agree with abortion as a right, it should be wildly popular and pass with ease.  

 

Instead, we have major political leaders trashing the institution of the SC, and the targeting individual justices that are doing the hard work trying to make sense of all this stuff, unpopular though it may be.  Ruth Bader Ginsburg must be rolling over in her tiny little grave. 

 

 

 

 

[Tiberius]

19 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Interesting use of quotation marks. You're clearly not ready to come to grips that it's a human being.  Do you really not see that's EXACTLY what they thought about Africans?  My gosh man!  The answers are staring you in the face.  

So you are a "rent free" kind of "soul" huh? 

4 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I wasn't familiar with that word, thanks.  I like it. 

 

I agree with you to a point.  However, we do need a thoughtful, reflective and intellectual group engaged in discourse and doing the right thing based on our laws.   This can be painful at times, controversial at others.  

 

From what I can see, the foundation of Roe V Wade was crumbling from the beginning.  That doesn't seem to be limited to conservative viewpoints, it seems to be a commonly agreed upon premise.  

 

It also seems to me that Congress could take up this issue and push forward with a law that addresses it in the manner you believe it should be addressed.   Given the commonly held principle that 146% of Americans agree with abortion as a right, it should be wildly popular and pass with ease.  

 

Instead, we have major political leaders trashing the institution of the SC, and the targeting individual justices that are doing the hard work trying to make sense of all this stuff, unpopular though it may be.  Ruth Bader Ginsburg must be rolling over in her tiny little grave. 

 

 

 

 

Again, I just find Alito's argument silly. Back when women were not considered or treated as citizens and had no say whatsoever in the law, of course abortion was a thing that would be legal. Women are citizens now and do have opinions, supreme court opinions in fact. No need to drag up a guy who believed in burning women alive for having consultations with the devil. Gees....

[Big Blitz]

2 hours ago, Tiberius said:

Abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution? Wow, Imagine that! While slavery is. 

 

Birth control wasn't either....

 

 

Bingo Tibs!

 

Not mentioned in the Constitution??

 

That's why it's going to be left to the States!  Allegedly. 

 

That's Federalism 101!  

  

[Tiberius]

2 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:

 

 

Bingo Tibs!

 

Not mentioned in the Constitution??

 

That's why it's going to be left to the States!  Allegedly. 

 

That's Federalism 101!  

  

So was slavery 

[Demongyz]

2 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

So was slavery 

You should read the 13th.

 

If you want abortion enshrined in the constitution, see if you can get an amendment for it.  Otherwise, it's up to the states.

[Big Blitz]

9 minutes ago, Demongyz said:

You should read the 13th.

 

If you want abortion enshrined in the constitution, see if you can get an amendment for it.  Otherwise, it's up to the states.

 

 

This is correct.  

 

Slavery was outlawed in non-Democrat run states.  The Democrat Party refused to be on the right side of history so we had to fight a war to end it.....and an Amendment - 3 actually, 1 of which the left has abused to entangle the Government into everything - to protect their freedom from Democrat run states.   

[SoCal Deek]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

 

My gosh people!  It all comes down to this.  "We hold these TRUTHS to be self-evident!" Doesn't anyone know what that sentence means?  How much simpler were they supposed to make it?  Human beings have a Creator bestowed right to live. (Capital C on Creator!)

[BillStime]

Just now, SoCal Deek said:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

 

My gosh people!  It all comes down to this.  "We hold these TRUTHS to be self-evident!" Doesn't anyone know what that sentence means?  How much simpler were they supposed to make it?  Human beings have a Creator bestowed right to live. (Capital C on Creator!)

 

all what?

all MEN

 

 

[Tiberius]

26 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:

 

 

This is correct.  

 

Slavery was outlawed in non-Democrat run states.  The Democrat Party refused to be on the right side of history so we had to fight a war to end it.....and an Amendment - 3 actually, 1 of which the left has abused to entangle the Government into everything - to protect their freedom from Democrat run states.   

That's when the Conservatives were the Democrats, yup! Conservatives were very pro-slavery 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 hour ago, Tiberius said:

 

Again, I just find Alito's argument silly. Back when women were not considered or treated as citizens and had no say whatsoever in the law, of course abortion was a thing that would be legal. Women are citizens now and do have opinions, supreme court opinions in fact. No need to drag up a guy who believed in burning women alive for having consultations with the devil. Gees....

A couple things:

 

• Characterizing it as "Alito's argument" is disingenuous. The decision has been problematic since the beginning, and debated for 50 years.  I'm not an expert on any of it, and I'm not sure how I even feel about all this, but this is well-established.  Correct me if I'm wrong?
• The suffrage movement ended in 1920.  The last woman not allowed the opportunity to vote has been dead for a long, long time.   Multiple generations of women have voted since the landmark ruling and here we sit Roe V Wade still a problem, and the definitive SC ruling still up in the air.  Congress can act, why would you be against that?

 

Last but not least, it's incredibly ironic that you reference a time when women "were not considered or treated as citizens..." while advocating for denying individual the right to cast their vote on this very controversial issue.  In spite of the progress of the last 102 years, you're still looking at women as a collective block of voters versus tens of millions of---wait for it---"citizens"--expressing their opinions through the voting booth.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Demongyz]

53 minutes ago, BillStime said:

 

all what?

all MEN

 

 

New to English?  The word men often refers to humans.

[SoCal Deek]

Just now, Demongyz said:

New to English?  The word men often refers to humans.

And actually back in that day it widely referred to biological men which is exactly why the documents have been amended to include women, blacks, etc.

 

Again….not complicated! 

[Tiberius]

6 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

A couple things:

 

• Characterizing it as "Alito's argument" is disingenuous. The decision has been problematic since the beginning, and debated for 50 years.  I'm not an expert on any of it, and I'm not sure how I even feel about all this, but this is well-established.  Correct me if I'm wrong?
• The suffrage movement ended in 1920.  The last woman not allowed the opportunity to vote has been dead for a long, long time.   Multiple generations of women have voted since the landmark ruling and here we sit Roe V Wade still a problem, and the definitive SC ruling still up in the air.  Congress can act, why would you be against that?

 

Last but not least, it's incredibly ironic that you reference a time when women "were not considered or treated as citizens..." while advocating for denying individual the right to cast their vote on this very controversial issue.  In spite of the progress of the last 102 years, you're still looking at women as a collective block of voters versus tens of millions of---wait for it---"citizens"--expressing their opinions through the voting booth.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Alito---or which ever one wrote it---relied VERY heavily of legal scholars from well before that. Edward Coke was a judge in the late 1500's and early 1600's, and he approvingly had witches burned. And there are some from even longer ago, specifically about abortion. That's ridiculous 

[SoCal Deek]

2 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Alito---or which ever one wrote it---relied VERY heavily of legal scholars from well before that. Edward Coke was a judge in the late 1500's and early 1600's, and he approvingly had witches burned. And there are some from even longer ago, specifically about abortion. That's ridiculous 

“Throw her into the pond!”
Monty Python reference 

[Demongyz]

11 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

And actually back in that day it widely referred to biological men which is exactly why the documents have been amended to include women, blacks, etc.

 

Again….not complicated! 

Well, I think we can all agree that the document was better written than executed.

[BillStime]

Fox News - Martha MacCallum just said Alito is “going too far”

 

Tucker Trump is probably dialing her right now. 
 

lolz