Tiberius Posted May 5, 2022 Share Posted May 5, 2022 (edited) He claims that no such right as abortion has existed in American history to have an abortion. Hello McFly, Women were not allowed to f'n vote to clod! Of course men were not going to grant women a right that did not concern men, why would they? Heck, they did not allow birth control. No legal right to birth control existed either. Alito is a scum bag. This is bad law https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21835435-scotus-initial-draft Edited May 5, 2022 by Tiberius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 5, 2022 Author Share Posted May 5, 2022 Abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution? Wow, Imagine that! While slavery is. Birth control wasn't either.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCal Deek Posted May 5, 2022 Share Posted May 5, 2022 Put the alcohol down Tibs. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Posted May 5, 2022 Share Posted May 5, 2022 To bad abortion was around when you were born. Traitor. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 5, 2022 Author Share Posted May 5, 2022 It gets better. This sounds like an argument Marg T Green would make Quote "Samuel Alito is reaching back four centuries to use Sir Edward Coke as a moral authority on abortion — a man who believed in witches and believed that they were working with the devil and believed that witches should be murdered by the state and he helped to make sure that they were murdered by the state in England," O'Donnell explained. "So when you are justifying outlawing abortion, because people conducting witch trials also believed that abortion should be against the law, you are morally lost. That is what the twisted reasoning of Samuel Alito has delivered to us in the first Supreme Court opinion in history revoking a constitutional right," he explained. https://www.rawstory.com/roe-v-wade-alito/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCal Deek Posted May 5, 2022 Share Posted May 5, 2022 let’s recap…shall we? Unalienable rights: Life Liberty Pursuit of Happiness not all that complicated really 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 5, 2022 Author Share Posted May 5, 2022 Quote The inescapable conclusion is that a right to abortion is not deeply rooted in the Nation's history and traditions. On the contrary, an unbroken tradition of prohibiting abortion on pain of criminal punishment persisted from the earliest days of the common law until 1973. The Court in Roe could have said of abortion exactly what Glucksberg said of assisted suicide: 'Attitudes toward [abortion] have changed since Bracton, but our laws have consistently condemned, and continue to prohibit, [that practice].' Respondents and their amici have no persuasive answer to this historical evidence. Oh really? How about the fact that women did not have a say AT ALL in policy making? He literally relies almost exclusively on law written when men were totally in control. How pathetic. 6 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said: let’s recap…shall we? Unalienable rights: Life Liberty Pursuit of Happiness not all that complicated really Which means a women's body is her body. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 5, 2022 Author Share Posted May 5, 2022 Here he makes a "Pro-Choice" argument, but says the choice should be with voters of states, not with the women themselves Quote Ordered liberty sets limits and defines the boundary between competing interests. Roe and Casey each struck a particular balance between the interests of a woman who wants an abortion and the interests of what they termed 'potential life.' But the people of the various States may evaluate those interests differently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCal Deek Posted May 5, 2022 Share Posted May 5, 2022 20 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Which means a women's body is her body. The woman is not at risk of losing her LIFE in most pregnancies. But...that's specifically why there's an exception for the woman's life in most, if not all, abortion prohibiting laws. Once again Tibs....not complicated. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coffeesforclosers Posted May 5, 2022 Share Posted May 5, 2022 (edited) 10 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said: The woman is not at risk of losing her LIFE in most pregnancies. But...that's specifically why there's an exception for the woman's life in most, if not all, abortion prohibiting laws. Once again Tibs....not complicated. So why isn't this exception in every single abortion prohibiting law? Edited May 5, 2022 by Coffeesforclosers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 5, 2022 Author Share Posted May 5, 2022 6 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said: The woman is not at risk of losing her LIFE in most pregnancies. But...that's specifically why there's an exception for the woman's life in most, if not all, abortion prohibiting laws. Once again Tibs....not complicated. You said liberty and pursuit of happiness, carrying an unwanted child in your body against your will violates that. And, again, why does Alito lean so heavily on laws from when women were treated as an extension of the husbands? That's basically absurd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted May 5, 2022 Share Posted May 5, 2022 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 5, 2022 Author Share Posted May 5, 2022 Well, oh no!!! Respondents and the Solicitor General also rely on post-Casey decisions like Lawrence vs Texas and Obergefell vs Hodges. These attempts to justify abortion through appeals to a broader right to autonomy and to define one's 'concept of existence' prove too much. Those criteria, at a high level of generality, could licence fundamental rights to illicit drug use, prostitution, and the like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockpile233 Posted May 5, 2022 Share Posted May 5, 2022 Exactly why this is a stupid can of worms to open. There isn’t support. I also hate that we’ll energize the voting public on the state and federal level to campaign on, once again, a subject people don’t care about. The highest court is just an extension of left right bull#### at this point. I only see political motivations for this. I also find it funny that for years we had to hear about Donald Trump the expert negotiator, who literally promised to nominate judges who would overturn Roe, and act like he didn’t use his leverage. He held the key to the pinnacle of these judges careers and you think he didn’t have a little quid pro quo? Not worth the turmoil and distraction from real issues. Abortions will continue at the same clip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted May 5, 2022 Share Posted May 5, 2022 What a childish thread, but what else do you expect from these clowns? 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 5, 2022 Author Share Posted May 5, 2022 Nice way to ignore me. What a d-bag 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted May 5, 2022 Share Posted May 5, 2022 2 hours ago, Tiberius said: He claims that no such right as abortion has existed in American history to have an abortion. Hello McFly, Women were not allowed to f'n vote to clod! Of course men were not going to grant women a right that did not concern men, why would they? Heck, they did not allow birth control. No legal right to birth control existed either. Alito is a scum bag. This is bad law https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21835435-scotus-initial-draft The problem is that everyone should agree with everything always, and once something is, it should never change, except of course when it does! We wouldn’t need the SC to begin with. Thanks a lot, Framers of the Constitution!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 5, 2022 Author Share Posted May 5, 2022 18 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: The problem is that everyone should agree with everything always, and once something is, it should never change, except of course when it does! We wouldn’t need the SC to begin with. Thanks a lot, Framers of the Constitution!!! We don't need an atavistic court Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCal Deek Posted May 5, 2022 Share Posted May 5, 2022 41 minutes ago, Tiberius said: You said liberty and pursuit of happiness, carrying an unwanted child in your body against your will violates that. And, again, why does Alito lean so heavily on laws from when women were treated as an extension of the husbands? That's basically absurd. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted May 5, 2022 Share Posted May 5, 2022 Is he also a poopy head? 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts