Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, eliminating constitutional right to abortion

well then there's the self-refutation again--"hoist by your own petard." The very last lines of the Dobbs decision basically say the right to regulate and/or allow abortion, an issue that a great number of people obviously disagree about, is "returned to the people." Doesn't get any more "no belief system should be imposed on others"-ish than that.

 

I'm trying to say that given that science and any belief system has failed to reasonably establish when a human life begins during gestation, the woman should be granted the freedom to make that choice for herself according to her own belief system.

 

Abortion is not being regulated!! Being made illegal under any circumstances is one hell of an interpretation of “regulated”.

My guess is you guys know you went too far as extremists and you are trying your hardest to convince Democrats what just happened isn’t really that bad because you actually don’t want to be on par with the Taliban socially…. But that lie is only going to get you so far.

You guys are so extreme you don’t even realize it yet. You aren’t going to get away with your lies to people like me so maybe you should stop lying to yourself.

 

While I appreciate Shakespeare we're talking different petards here.

The Courts isn't returning it to the people, it's returning it to the state gov'ts. I am saying it should return to the individual to govern themselves - the most fundamental conservative and libertarian principle there is.

 

you don't need the preamble, you can just argue "the woman should be granted the freedom to make that choice for herself according to her own belief system."

 

When you say “returned to the people”, which people?

There is a tacit assumption that we have a functioning democratic system, where decision making powers are in the hands of people whose lives are actually affected by the decision. Do you honestly believe that is the case?

 

Dobbs's conclusion reads: "The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives."

To the extent that Roe established policy for 330 million Americans and was written by seven people, "returned to the people" in this context means what the Dobbs opinion suggests: the return of "that authority" to the people (all 330 million of them) and their elected representatives through which they work.

not sure I follow what you're asking here.

 

Saying the right to an abortion isn't in the constitution is pretty ridiculous. The right to choose your own food isn't in the constitution either. There are millions of choices that aren't in the constitution.

But you don't have to be allowed to eat salad by the state in which you live. Yet for some reason because the constitution doesn't specify women are allowed to make their own health care decisions, then it's okay to get rid of it.

The fact is that women now have less freedom and fewer rights than they did before the court made this decision.

 

You do need that preamble, because apparently our Court has decided that it is not the woman's decision but rather the state's.

 

“and their elected representatives”


The people whose lives will be impacted by this and who live in Red States are not the ones, by and large, who elected these representatives. So it’s not correct to say that the beliefs of others aren’t being imposed on them.

 

Abortion has been turned back to the state legislatures to decide. In some states they will be made "illegal under any circumstances" (as murder should be) and in other states they will not. So yes it is being regulated by states to represent the views of the people who elect the legislatures (and governors). If anyone wants it different then they can move to a state that represents their views or work to flip the state they live in so different laws they support can be passed.

 

the preamble I was referring to was yours: "given that science and any belief system has failed to reasonably establish when a human life begins during gestation" . . . .

I agree with you that abortion per se is an individual's decision. That agreement, however, doesn't change the political and empirical reality that people disagree about that belief.

 

yes, that's correct.

 

Exactly. No one can argue against this. The poor attempt that it was not a constitutional right was funny.

Secondly, I quickly reviewed all of the Court decisions that overturn previous decisions and I can’t find a single instance, until now, that a constitutionally granted right was taken away. This decision is historic in that manner- it’s the first time in US history that Americans have lost a granted right due to the Court. I think this is significant in many ways - the main of which is this Court has no issue with taking American constitutional right away. Those that think they simply will just stop here are foolish, Susan Collin-type foolish (if you believe she was honest in her judgment).

 

https://www.wral.com/fact-check-has...r-taken-away-a-constitutional-right/20340137/

 

Yes that's the preamble I'm referring to as well. Maybe in our debate you don't see it as necessary because you agree with the second part, but we're not just debating what we think and believe, but rather how the Court should rule on these kinds of issues. Which ties into the last part of what you wrote.

The courts have to recognize this as a religious issue and not anything but. It fundamentally comes down to what someone believes, and therefore should be an individual's right to make that choice. Whether or not Roe V Wade was argued correctly or not, the Court is allowed to apply a different interpretation to yield the same result. In that sense Roe V Wade is a bit moot. What is important is that by allowing states to apply the beliefs of their constituents upon an individual with different beliefs without a standard of scientific evidence constitutes the establishment of a religious doctrine, and thus is a type of religious persecution given the penalties associated with having an abortion.

That is why I see it as blatantly unconstitutional. I've been consistent with my argument around this being a religious issue, even if I have not been consistent or accurate with my articulation. But I think it's becoming a bit more clear.

 

All I’m saying is I’d be more comfortable with this decision if state legislators, when drafting laws, actually were answerable to the people under their jurisdiction who would be most impacted by those laws. That seems to clearly not be the case here.

 

The inherent flaw in your argument is that you say abortion is murder. That the destruction of a zygote is murder despite that the majority of people do not see it that way.

Can you have the self-reflection to understand that is your belief?

 

I understand how critics of Dobbs might argue that "religion" is somehow at the root of the decision to overturn Roe. While religious fervor may certainly underlie much public anti-abortion activism, there is nothing in Dobbs that directly entails a religious cause rooted in any justice's specific religious beliefs.

Now, I know one might object "but six of the justices are Catholic and certainly that informs their worldview and judicial reasoning!" Which of course is true in a non-trivial sense; but does not prove as much as the objector believes it does. After all, it may simply be a "correlation does not imply causation" phenomenon. Perhaps all six Catholic judges truly do "leave their Catholic hats at the door" when they don their judicial robes. That part of your argument (if it is in fact part of your argument, I'm not actually insisting that it is) is speculative and not amenable to proof. And a parsimonious reading of Dobbs reveals that one can make the "Roe was badly reasoned and poorly-decided" without one iota of religious contribution from the worldviews of any of those six Catholic justices.