Supreme Court Leak
- Thread starter Pirata
- Start date
Yes to the level of a loss of human life. Yes there are funerals.
You clearly chose not to address the fact that there are potential consequences to having sex and taking responsibility for your actions. A person knows when they're getting some whether or not they are capable of handling a child. They know that's the potential risk.
And my last statement isn't dumb. I believe most people feel it is right to treat others as you want to be treated. And according to science that is a human life. The idea of I'm ok with abortion as long as it didn't happen to me is hypocrtical and dumb. Nobody is pro abortion? Turn on the tv. You'll find plenty.
Who said one size fits all? I’m saying exactly the opposite. Some women would never have an abortion some women would. Let them choose.
Most miscarriages happen in the first few hours and days, they often do not even know they occur, it’s probably impossible to have a funeral for every miscarriage even if they wanted to. I’m just pointed the flaws in the argument that fetus are baby’s and is equivalent to murder. If that was the case you would think that you would treat them the same. It is not and can be treated the same.
Please stop saying things I do not say to prop up your arguments. It’s a bad habit you have here.
Always sad. But not to a level of a human loss right? Why do you not have a funeral for it, do they go to heaven? Why not name it?
"Always" preceded your comments.....
By "getting some" I assume you mean having sex?
I do not think it is reasonable to apply your statement to everyone who is having sex. Age, intellect, education, drugs , alcohol, and other factors affect people's judgement at the time they engage in sex.
I believe you would be astonished at some (many) people's lack of awareness of the reproductive cycle.
This is not the first time I have heard of this approach to birth control:
Potato found growing inside woman after being used a contraceptive
Medical staff in the central Colombian town of Honda were shocked to discover a potato growing inside a woman’s vagina. According to Colombia Reports, the 22-year-old unidentified woman sought medi…
wgntv.com
Yes to me, miscarriages are always a sad situation…but I also recognize it is a part of the human experience.
Putting your head in the sand and acting taboo about it or minimizing how common it is, doesn’t help especially when old men who are typically oblivious to the plight of women make decisions for them.
I was talking about when people think of the topic with a clear mind. While engaging in sex the mind isn't always thinking of those things, but I'm sure the average 13-15 year old in this country knows whether they can or can't handle having a baby. They may not think about that when they're fooling around but they damn well know it.By "getting some" I assume you mean having sex?
I do not think it is reasonable to apply your statement to everyone who is having sex. Age, intellect, education, drugs , alcohol, and other factors affect people's judgement at the time they engage in sex.
I believe you would be astonished at some (many) people's lack of awareness of the reproductive cycle.
This is not the first time I have heard of this approach to birth control:
Potato found growing inside woman after being used a contraceptive
Medical staff in the central Colombian town of Honda were shocked to discover a potato growing inside a woman’s vagina. According to Colombia Reports, the 22-year-old unidentified woman sought medi…
People know they shouldn't drive drunk, but sometimes they take the chance anyone. Sometimes it comes with consequences. There's no way out of those consequences.
My legal take of Alito’s opinion and on stare decisis was in my legal opinion weak and not persuasive at all. Moreover, Alito's finding that there is no right to an abortion in the Constitution is also flawed.
First, where is the right to abortion predicated on? The Roe decision is based that a woman's right to an abortion stems from the 14th Amendment which states that no state shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." This is where the constitutional right to liberty and in essence privacy stems from. This was affirmed by the Casey decision which three Conservatives justices all joined in.
Alito's decision is based upon the premise that no where in the Constitution is the right to abortion can be found. Since it is not found in the Constitution, the right must be "deeply rooted in our history and tradition" and whether it is essential to our country's natural scheme of ordered liberty. This is the basis of how Alito believes that Roe was decided fundamentally in error.
Alito argues that the right to abortion is not deeply rooted because there was no real argument to a right to abortion until just before Roe was decided and that abortion was illegal and actually criminal in the states. Alito then starts to trace that abortion was illegal back to the 17th Century.
Alito relies on the fact that the majority of the states at the time the 14th Amendment was passed criminalized abortion. And by the time Roe was decided all but four states had criminalized abortion. This is the bedrock of Alito's treatment of why stare decisis should not be adhered to. Because there is no right to an abortion. Alito states based upon this history "the inescapable conclusion is that a right to an abortion is not deeply rooted in the Nation's history and traditions."
However, Alito then ignores other cases of "liberty" cases that cannot be found in the Constitution. Cases like Loving which legalized interracial marriage, the right to obtain contraceptives, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), Moore v. Fast Cleveland, 431 U. S. 494 1977); the right to make decisions about the education of one's children, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510 (1925), Meyerv. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390 (1925); the right not to be sterilized without consent, Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U. S. 535 (1942); and the right in certain circumstances not to undergo involuntary surgery. All these cases demonstrate the right to liberty and privacy through the 14th Amendment.
The case that I think is ignored by Alito which also has a history of not being legal in this country is sodomy. Prior to 1962, Sodomy was a felony in every state in the United States. While this was mainly for same-sexed persons, it was also very broadly written that this would be illegal for even married persons. Thus, there was no "tradition. to the right to anal sex and oral sex in this country before 1962. Yet, it took until 2003 when the Supreme Court in Lawrence struck down a Texas law that illegallized same sex sodomy laws.
There was no deep rooted tradition in oral an anal sex or in gay sex in this country. Yet, somehow that argument was lost in Alito's decision. This is where Alito takes that Roe was decided wrong so he does not have to adhere to precedent. Alito brushed this aside and just said that abortion was different because abortion destroys a potential life. Alito states that abortion is different because it is a moral issue. Well, at one time it was morally wrong for interracial marriages, gay sex, sodomy etc. What kind of legal analysis is that?
Alito had to get around stare decisis. He stated that there was no legal authority for the right to an abortion in the US until Roe. However, the sodomy laws were equally criminalized in this country and up until the 1960's sodomy was criminalized in all the states. So his reasoning that no where in the Constitution is abortion a right is incorrect. Neither are a whole other set of privacy rights as stated above that I mentioned above and yet we have those rights.
His treatment of stare decisis is that well, the Supreme Court has overturned other Supreme Court decision because they were fundamentally wrong. He then gives the example of Plessy v Ferguson separate but equal. He also cited other cases that overturned precedent as well. All of these cases expanded liberty to persons. However, here, Alito does the opposite and restricts liberty in overturning precedent.
His decision is based upon personal morality. A person's personal morality is one which should be respected, however, it should not be imposed upon the greater population because some in this case many people may not share that view.
In Casey, I find this portion of the decision is really at the heart of the issue.
"Men and women of good conscience can disagree, and we suppose some always shall disagree, about the profound moral and spiritual implications of terminating a pregnancy, even in its earliest stage. Some of us as individuals find abortion offensive to our most basic principles of morality, but that cannot control our decision. Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code. The underlying constitutional issue is whether the State can resolve these philosophic questions in such a definitive way that a woman lacks all choice in the matter, except perhaps in those rare circumstances in which the pregnancy is itself a danger to her own life or health, or is the result of rape or incest. . . Our law affords constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education. Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. at 685. Our cases recognize "the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child." Eisenstadt v. Baird, supra, at 453 (emphasis in original). Our precedents "have respected the private realm of family life which the state cannot enter." [****38] Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166, 88 L. Ed. 645, 64 S. Ct. 438 (1944). These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.
In essence, Alito substituted his own moral code for the law.
First, where is the right to abortion predicated on? The Roe decision is based that a woman's right to an abortion stems from the 14th Amendment which states that no state shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." This is where the constitutional right to liberty and in essence privacy stems from. This was affirmed by the Casey decision which three Conservatives justices all joined in.
Alito's decision is based upon the premise that no where in the Constitution is the right to abortion can be found. Since it is not found in the Constitution, the right must be "deeply rooted in our history and tradition" and whether it is essential to our country's natural scheme of ordered liberty. This is the basis of how Alito believes that Roe was decided fundamentally in error.
Alito argues that the right to abortion is not deeply rooted because there was no real argument to a right to abortion until just before Roe was decided and that abortion was illegal and actually criminal in the states. Alito then starts to trace that abortion was illegal back to the 17th Century.
Alito relies on the fact that the majority of the states at the time the 14th Amendment was passed criminalized abortion. And by the time Roe was decided all but four states had criminalized abortion. This is the bedrock of Alito's treatment of why stare decisis should not be adhered to. Because there is no right to an abortion. Alito states based upon this history "the inescapable conclusion is that a right to an abortion is not deeply rooted in the Nation's history and traditions."
However, Alito then ignores other cases of "liberty" cases that cannot be found in the Constitution. Cases like Loving which legalized interracial marriage, the right to obtain contraceptives, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), Moore v. Fast Cleveland, 431 U. S. 494 1977); the right to make decisions about the education of one's children, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510 (1925), Meyerv. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390 (1925); the right not to be sterilized without consent, Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U. S. 535 (1942); and the right in certain circumstances not to undergo involuntary surgery. All these cases demonstrate the right to liberty and privacy through the 14th Amendment.
The case that I think is ignored by Alito which also has a history of not being legal in this country is sodomy. Prior to 1962, Sodomy was a felony in every state in the United States. While this was mainly for same-sexed persons, it was also very broadly written that this would be illegal for even married persons. Thus, there was no "tradition. to the right to anal sex and oral sex in this country before 1962. Yet, it took until 2003 when the Supreme Court in Lawrence struck down a Texas law that illegallized same sex sodomy laws.
There was no deep rooted tradition in oral an anal sex or in gay sex in this country. Yet, somehow that argument was lost in Alito's decision. This is where Alito takes that Roe was decided wrong so he does not have to adhere to precedent. Alito brushed this aside and just said that abortion was different because abortion destroys a potential life. Alito states that abortion is different because it is a moral issue. Well, at one time it was morally wrong for interracial marriages, gay sex, sodomy etc. What kind of legal analysis is that?
Alito had to get around stare decisis. He stated that there was no legal authority for the right to an abortion in the US until Roe. However, the sodomy laws were equally criminalized in this country and up until the 1960's sodomy was criminalized in all the states. So his reasoning that no where in the Constitution is abortion a right is incorrect. Neither are a whole other set of privacy rights as stated above that I mentioned above and yet we have those rights.
His treatment of stare decisis is that well, the Supreme Court has overturned other Supreme Court decision because they were fundamentally wrong. He then gives the example of Plessy v Ferguson separate but equal. He also cited other cases that overturned precedent as well. All of these cases expanded liberty to persons. However, here, Alito does the opposite and restricts liberty in overturning precedent.
His decision is based upon personal morality. A person's personal morality is one which should be respected, however, it should not be imposed upon the greater population because some in this case many people may not share that view.
In Casey, I find this portion of the decision is really at the heart of the issue.
"Men and women of good conscience can disagree, and we suppose some always shall disagree, about the profound moral and spiritual implications of terminating a pregnancy, even in its earliest stage. Some of us as individuals find abortion offensive to our most basic principles of morality, but that cannot control our decision. Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code. The underlying constitutional issue is whether the State can resolve these philosophic questions in such a definitive way that a woman lacks all choice in the matter, except perhaps in those rare circumstances in which the pregnancy is itself a danger to her own life or health, or is the result of rape or incest. . . Our law affords constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education. Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. at 685. Our cases recognize "the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child." Eisenstadt v. Baird, supra, at 453 (emphasis in original). Our precedents "have respected the private realm of family life which the state cannot enter." [****38] Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166, 88 L. Ed. 645, 64 S. Ct. 438 (1944). These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.
In essence, Alito substituted his own moral code for the law.
I agree! But too funny, you took the complete opposite stance when it came to mandatory vaccination and masking simply because that was your personal view you wanted to impose on others.
cant tell if ur being sarcastic about 13-15 yr olds not being able to make a mistake. and force that mistake to ruin their lives and the life of the unborn child.
adults are one thing, but children should probably be treated differently (they are in a court of law)
and those who want to dictate what goes on i. someones body as it relates to abortion are taking an opposite stance from covid.
im consistent. dont dictate what happens in someone elses body.
Vaccination is not a moral issue. It is a health issue. Your vaccination status impacts on the community at large unlike abortion which is a deeply personal decision. Two completely separate issue but thank you for playing.
You read all of that and that is your takeaway, haha.
Pushing someone’s morality to someone else is much different than protecting the greater population (saving lives, helping prevent closures, crowed hospitals) from public health pandemics IMHO.
I think his point was pushing Sh09 morality onto a random women is not justified within the constitution.
Public health debates on vaccines masks also debatable within constitution but I think easier to argue IMHO.
the argument is that the child is similar to the community. somebody else is effected. obviously its impossibly comparible but thats their POV and equally contradicting
I think the argument would be that your decision to not be vaccinated could potentially be hurting somebody in the community. So that same person should be against abortion since your decision is definitely killing an unborn child.
I think these equivalencies detract from the discussion and don’t really prove anything. People don’t line up in two neat columns.
No, there's a difference. Mandatory vaccination is injecting something into you that you may not want. Mandatory masking is restricting your breathing by order of the government.
Abortion is killing an infant that does not have a say in the matter. The very definition of an innocent victim.
No, that is not true. My vaccination status only impacts myself.
Abortion is killing someone who has zero say in the matter.
Killing an innocent baby because you don't want the responsibility of caring for it is not justified in the Constitution.
Vaccination is a privacy and bodily autonomy issue. The government should never be allowed to force you to inject something you don't want.
No it's not. The argument is simply killing a child should not be allowed. Why this is debatable is a mystery to me. Doesn't society as a whole frown upon killing?
yes. those are the two schools of thought that are happening in this thread, and both equally contradicting.
pro-life/anti vax mandate
pro choice/vax mandate
Read it again. I never said anything about not being able to make a mistake. I said they know the answer to the question if they are able to handle having a baby. If you walked into any middle school or high school and asked the young people in those schools right now if they can handle having a baby today, they would all know the answer.
not a child, organism living inside someone elses body. the idea is to prioritize the organism (essentially functions like a parasite in terms of being 100% dependant on the mother only) over the well being of the living breathing person. and also prioritizes over the wellbeing of the future child in many cases. defects, living conditions, mental neglect, etc. but dont worry once that organism becomes living and breathing its frowned upon to give it any help (esp from the govt).
there should be parameters. timing cutoff, age exceptions, health exceptions, rape exceptions, etc. and if financial exceptions arise then have a program to aid if they have the child. complex situation that cant have sinple solutions. but the idea to outlaw abortions wholesale is the goal and its naieve to think otherwise.
think about vaccine mandates. you all are against them yet were forced to be vaccinated in other ways your entire life. complex issue, not so simple answer.
I don't see either as contradicting. I'll take the pro-life/anti vax mandate. Although I want to say I've been pro vaccines my whole life. I see no contradiction in saying I am pro life and I believe we need to study this vaccine more. To my knowledge there has been 0 long term studies of this vaccine on human beings. I don't understand how me taking a vaccine that there is no science of its effect on humans contradicts the fact that I am pro life. This gets twisted in the my body my choice argument because there is a lack of acknowledgement that there is a living human inside the woman. That living human is not her body. That's not just my opinion, that's scientific fact.
You framed a well thought out dissenting opinion. In the end I think it will end up being just that.
they dont know anything. i bet some of them would say they could handle it and believe it. kids are naieve, and stubborn. they dont realize it until the fully mature
Stupid, stubborn, and naive, yes. But I'll stick with my belief they know they're screwed having a baby. And if know that at a young age you know that when you're in HS, college, and when you're an adult if you're screwed too.
Ok Shu09, then you clearly believe that abortion is killing a baby. That is murder. Then doctors and women should be prosecuted for murder, isn't that correct? Isn't the logical conclusion to your argument that its murder and therefore it should be treated as murder. If you do not believe that doctors and women should be prosecuted as murderers, then you believe that the fetus is something other than a baby or a child. Otherwise, your views are in conflict with each other.
What about babies born prematurely? Science has advanced in 50 years. That “organism” can live outside the body as early as 24 weeks.
Isn't it a zygote? Zygote is life but it is not a human being at that point. A zygote is a single cell organism. My biology may be off but I think this is correct.
I'm sure the scientists at Princeton have a better understanding of this than I do. Combine that with the fact this isn't a debated topic in the world of science but more in politics, philosophy, and other areas, so I'll say they're pretty solid with this science that life begins at fertilization.
"The following references illustrate the fact that a new human embryo, the starting point for a human life, comes into existence with the formation of the one-celled zygote"
Last edited:
Not at all...just shooting down your juvenile theory...remember?
"not a child, organism living inside someone elses body. the idea is to prioritize the organism (essentially functions like a parasite in terms of being 100% dependant on the mother only) over the well being of the living breathing person."
You have a very keen sense for the obvious.
Yes, when this gets remanded to the states, the states that make all or some abortions' illegal will classify it as a crime. Murder, Feticide, Zygicide, Embricide, whatever floats your boat.
Similar threads
