Roe v. Wade overturned?

The_Foxer

Council Member
Aug 9, 2022
1,298
790
113
States are allowed to pass laws that grant MORE rights than the Constitution, but never LESS rights. For example, the city of Cincinnati, Ohio, has a civil-rights ordinance that forbids discrimination based on "Appalachian heritage," i.e., hillbillies from western Kentucky. The city can do that. What it cannot do is permit discrimination against, say Black people.

Your interpretation of the Constitution betrays an ignorance of the Ninth Amendment.
That would be accurate and relevant IF the constitution guaranteed the right to abortion.
But it doesn't. So it isn't. :) Swing and a miss :)

And further, as discussed the state could grant MORE rights to the fetus if it was believed that the fetus was a human being, unless the constitution said otherwise.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
50,509
3,991
113
Washington DC
That would be accurate and relevant IF the constitution guaranteed the right to abortion.
But it doesn't. So it isn't. :) Swing and a miss :)

And further, as discussed the state could grant MORE rights to the fetus if it was believed that the fetus was a human being, unless the constitution said otherwise.
Wrong again. The Ninth Amendment states “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” So, if the people have only the rights stated in the Constitution, why does the Constitution itself acknowledge the existence of, and forbid "denying or disparaging" other rights?
 

The_Foxer

Council Member
Aug 9, 2022
1,298
790
113
Wrong again. The Ninth Amendment states “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” So, if the people have only the rights stated in the Constitution, why does the Constitution itself acknowledge the existence of, and forbid "denying or disparaging" other rights?
Again - not relevant. All that means is that rights exist other than those in the constitution. For example, if a state were to decide a fetus had a right..... ;)

But that doesn't make it a 'fundimental' right. You have a bad habit of changing language when you start to run into challenges with your argument, I specifically noted the 'fundimental' rights were the constitution. Not that there aren't other rights. And abortion isn't addressed in the constitution,

Which means the states are free to address giving women or fetuses additional rights as they see fit.

And given your statement was that the states can grant MORE rights but not LESS rights than those in the constitution - my comment that it wasn't relevant because the constitution does not speak to abortion and therefore contains no abortion rights (according to the court) is absolutely correct.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
50,509
3,991
113
Washington DC
Again - not relevant. All that means is that rights exist other than those in the constitution. For example, if a state were to decide a fetus had a right..... ;)

But that doesn't make it a 'fundimental' right. You have a bad habit of changing language when you start to run into challenges with your argument, I specifically noted the 'fundimental' rights were the constitution. Not that there aren't other rights. And abortion isn't addressed in the constitution,

Which means the states are free to address giving women or fetuses additional rights as they see fit.

And given your statement was that the states can grant MORE rights but not LESS rights than those in the constitution - my comment that it wasn't relevant because the constitution does not speak to abortion and therefore contains no abortion rights (according to the court) is absolutely correct.
The word "fundamental" (note spelling) is not contained in the Constitution. You can hardly quibble over whether a right is "fundamental" under the Constitution if the Constitution makes no distinction.

Why are the rights to marry and to have children "fundamental Constitutional rights?" The Constitution mentions neither.
 

The_Foxer

Council Member
Aug 9, 2022
1,298
790
113
The word "fundamental" (note spelling) is not contained in the Constitution. You can hardly quibble over whether a right is "fundamental" under the Constitution if the Constitution makes no distinction.
It IS in the dictionary tho. "Of or relating to the foundation or base;" "Forming or serving as an essential component of a system or structure; central."

The constitution is the foundation of all law and rights in america. It essentially defines the system, it is central to it.

So the definition fits quite well. IF 'fundamental' doesn't appear in the enabling documents - why did you claim that 'fundimental' rights should be dealt with by the Fed gov't? Gotcha :)
Why are the rights to marry and to have children "fundamental Constitutional rights?" The Constitution mentions neither.
I don't know that they are. I believe the constitution only says that whatever the states laws on marriage, it must not discriminate against gays etc.

But if it has been interpreted by a judge to be so then it's because denying marriage would interfere with another provision that is mentioned. However, a court has ruled that is not the case with abortion.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Serryah

Serryah

Senate Member
Dec 3, 2008
6,812
1,244
113
New Brunswick
You cannot. All you're doing is arguing that 'state rights' issues are appropriate. My argument was that they either are or they aren't, you can't say you support it AND don't support it. Her argument was they weren't.
Just for clarification - my comment about 'state rights' was moreso because that is what REPUBLICANS are using as the excuse for all this BS. That whole "let the people decide"... and yet here are people wanting to see the question on the ballot, and nope, sorry, they used lame excuses to vote down the question that it now has to go to Court.

My actual thoughts on states rights have never been brought up/mentioned.
 

The_Foxer

Council Member
Aug 9, 2022
1,298
790
113
Sooo - you're only against state rights when republicans use them?

It seriously doesn't work that way.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Serryah

The_Foxer

Council Member
Aug 9, 2022
1,298
790
113
Your reading comprehension is lacking. Here, I'll help you.


My actual thoughts on states rights have never been brought up/mentioned.
Your writing comprehension is lacking. You stated specifically you weren't ok with them because republicans. These ones in this specific case.

Well there you go.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Serryah

Serryah

Senate Member
Dec 3, 2008
6,812
1,244
113
New Brunswick
Your writing comprehension is lacking.

So is your reading.


You stated specifically you weren't ok with them because republicans. These ones in this specific case.

No, I said: "Yeah, don't tell me that "state rights" was a good idea."

Nowhere in that sentence did I state my own view of state rights or bring up republicans in this. It could have been Dems that did this and I'd have said the same thing.

Well there you go.

Yes, there you go.

You lack comprehension in reading.

Or you just made huge assumptions.

Either way... there you go. :)
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
50,509
3,991
113
Washington DC
It IS in the dictionary tho. "Of or relating to the foundation or base;" "Forming or serving as an essential component of a system or structure; central."

The constitution is the foundation of all law and rights in america. It essentially defines the system, it is central to it.

So the definition fits quite well. IF 'fundamental' doesn't appear in the enabling documents - why did you claim that 'fundimental' rights should be dealt with by the Fed gov't? Gotcha :)

I don't know that they are. I believe the constitution only says that whatever the states laws on marriage, it must not discriminate against gays etc.

But if it has been interpreted by a judge to be so then it's because denying marriage would interfere with another provision that is mentioned. However, a court has ruled that is not the case with abortion.
The Constitution says nothing at all about marriage or childbearing. Not in the Articles, not in the Amendments.

You've never read the four-page document you're making pronouncements about.
 

The_Foxer

Council Member
Aug 9, 2022
1,298
790
113
So is your reading.
Wow. Zing. :)


No, I said: "Yeah, don't tell me that "state rights" was a good idea."
That's literally a comment on your feelings about state rights, which you claimed you didn't comment on
Nowhere in that sentence did I state my own view of state rights or bring up republicans in this. It could have been Dems that did this and I'd have said the same thing.
Asking people not to tell you it's a good idea is a statement of your position on it. It's a colloquial phrase, "don't tell me..." It means you disagree with the idea so strongly that you don't even want to hear it. That's literally what it means. So .... yeah, that's a strong statement about how you feel about state rights.

If you're changing your mind, or you didn't mean to say what you actually did, then fine. But you absolutely made a statement regarding your feelings towards the subject. You disagree SO strongly with the idea that state rights were a good idea that you don't even want people to say it to you.

Yes, there you go.

You lack comprehension in reading.

Or you just made huge assumptions.

Either way... there you go. :)
LOL - well as we've seen it's not MY comprehension issues that are the problem here :)

It's either a problem with your communication skills (can't say what you mean), or a problem with you changing your mind after and not wanting to admit it, or you just don't understand what english words mean. But yeah you absolutely did make a comment on your feelings towards state law.

So there you go :)
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Serryah

Dixie Cup

House Member
Sep 16, 2006
4,532
2,565
113
Edmonton
13 states are looking to prevent it in varying degrees of tyranny (yes, tyranny, because when you dictate if people can even LEAVE the state to get an abortion, or you can SUE because someone you MIGHT know got one, or sue the doctor for doing so, that is tyranny) and more will likely pass laws after.



AAnnndddd... suck on that right wing bullshit claim, suck it back now!



You "heard" it; got proof?

Though to be honest if true it's smart; at least less women will likely die that way.



or medical reasons that pop up during the pregnancy? Do they count?



Haven't been paying attention, have you? "cheap and readily available and most insurance companies cover it". Funny!



And that doesn't matter; what you "Believe" or not has no bearing what so ever on what a woman chooses to do with HER body.



Why? You don't care even if told the truth. You're one of those "care for the fetus, not for the child" types. So what's it matter to you?
Yes serryh, all you need to do is Google Newsome to find a video with him stating that very thing - tourist abortions available. I suspect you'll be hearing more if he decides to go for it. He's a disgusting individual!
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Serryah

Dixie Cup

House Member
Sep 16, 2006
4,532
2,565
113
Edmonton
13 states are looking to prevent it in varying degrees of tyranny (yes, tyranny, because when you dictate if people can even LEAVE the state to get an abortion, or you can SUE because someone you MIGHT know got one, or sue the doctor for doing so, that is tyranny) and more will likely pass laws after.



AAnnndddd... suck on that right wing bullshit claim, suck it back now!



You "heard" it; got proof?

Though to be honest if true it's smart; at least less women will likely die that way.



or medical reasons that pop up during the pregnancy? Do they count?



Haven't been paying attention, have you? "cheap and readily available and most insurance companies cover it". Funny!



And that doesn't matter; what you "Believe" or not has no bearing what so ever on what a woman chooses to do with HER body.



Why? You don't care even if told the truth. You're one of those "care for the fetus, not for the child" types. So what's it matter to you?
Wtf are you talking about re: care for the "baby" not for the child types? You have no clue do you? WOW!
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Serryah

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
50,509
3,991
113
Washington DC
Well, I'll be damned.

The VA has announced that it will be providing abortions to all eligible patients at all VA facilities, regardless of state laws, in cases of rape, incest, or for the health of the woman.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Serryah