Opinion of Roe vs Wade

[OSR stands with Israel]

HP decision as it helped contribute to the destruction of federalist values in our nation and also is a huge reason for polarization in this nation , as without Roe im sure we would have come to a European Solution on this issue of a 12-18 week ban .

[Ferguson97]

Huge FF decision, one of the best decisions in SCOTUS history.

[RFayette]

A ghoulish, genocidal decision.  A depraved and constitutionally indefensible decision to the very core. 

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

an abomination of a ruling, that helped lead to the deaths of millions of unborn.

[Benjamin Frank]

FF. 

Excellent legally sound ruling consistent with the 14th Amendment and with the concept of Judicial Review.

Drew a reasonable compromise between the rights of the woman and the rights of the growing fetus.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

Constitutionally absurd and obviously harmful for the common good.

[John Dule]

Horribly decided, but with incredibly beneficial results for America as a whole.

[SWE]

Legally: Doesn't matter, there's no way to objectively interpret the law and trying to is stupid, judges should only rule based on what's morally right

Morally: Fantastic

[Ferguson97]

Legally: Doesn't matter, there's no way to objectively interpret the law and trying to is stupid, judges should only rule based on what's morally right

Morally: Fantastic

Hard agree here. It doesn't make sense to pretend that there's an objective way to interpret something inherently subjective.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Legally: Doesn't matter, there's no way to objectively interpret the law and trying to is stupid, judges should only rule based on what's morally right

Morally: Fantastic

Hard agree here. It doesn't make sense to pretend that there's an objective way to interpret something inherently subjective.

Ok name me where in the constitution does it mention abortion at all . It’s clear just clear that it’s a 10th amendment issue and the states have the power to decide

[S019]

Legally: Doesn't matter, there's no way to objectively interpret the law and trying to is stupid, judges should only rule based on what's morally right

Morally: Fantastic

Hard agree here. It doesn't make sense to pretend that there's an objective way to interpret something inherently subjective.

Ok name me where in the constitution does it mention abortion at all . It’s clear just clear that it’s a 10th amendment issue and the states have the power to decide

It was decided as an issue of privacy, which is honestly a fair decision. It also doesn't say in the constitution that states have the right to ban reproductive healthcare.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Legally: Doesn't matter, there's no way to objectively interpret the law and trying to is stupid, judges should only rule based on what's morally right

Morally: Fantastic

Hard agree here. It doesn't make sense to pretend that there's an objective way to interpret something inherently subjective.

Ok name me where in the constitution does it mention abortion at all . It’s clear just clear that it’s a 10th amendment issue and the states have the power to decide

It was decided as an issue of privacy, which is honestly a fair decision. It also doesn't say in the constitution that states have the right to ban reproductive healthcare.

Uh that’s not what the 10th amendment says ,

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The constitution does not give the US Government the power to makes laws on abortion and doesn’t mention anywhere that states have the right to ban it .

[S019]

Legally: Doesn't matter, there's no way to objectively interpret the law and trying to is stupid, judges should only rule based on what's morally right

Morally: Fantastic

Hard agree here. It doesn't make sense to pretend that there's an objective way to interpret something inherently subjective.

Ok name me where in the constitution does it mention abortion at all . It’s clear just clear that it’s a 10th amendment issue and the states have the power to decide

It was decided as an issue of privacy, which is honestly a fair decision. It also doesn't say in the constitution that states have the right to ban reproductive healthcare.

Uh that’s not what the 10th amendment says ,

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The constitution does not give the US Government the power to makes laws on abortion and doesn’t mention anywhere that states have the right to ban it .

It's a ruling based on due process in the 14th amendment, not based on the 10th amendment

[OSR stands with Israel]

Legally: Doesn't matter, there's no way to objectively interpret the law and trying to is stupid, judges should only rule based on what's morally right

Morally: Fantastic

Hard agree here. It doesn't make sense to pretend that there's an objective way to interpret something inherently subjective.

Ok name me where in the constitution does it mention abortion at all . It’s clear just clear that it’s a 10th amendment issue and the states have the power to decide

It was decided as an issue of privacy, which is honestly a fair decision. It also doesn't say in the constitution that states have the right to ban reproductive healthcare.

Uh that’s not what the 10th amendment says ,

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The constitution does not give the US Government the power to makes laws on abortion and doesn’t mention anywhere that states have the right to ban it .

It's a ruling based on due process in the 14th amendment, not based on the 10th amendment

Ok then the only requirement states must be required to have is to have a life exception and health of mother exception .

 

[S019]

Legally: Doesn't matter, there's no way to objectively interpret the law and trying to is stupid, judges should only rule based on what's morally right

Morally: Fantastic

Hard agree here. It doesn't make sense to pretend that there's an objective way to interpret something inherently subjective.

Ok name me where in the constitution does it mention abortion at all . It’s clear just clear that it’s a 10th amendment issue and the states have the power to decide

It was decided as an issue of privacy, which is honestly a fair decision. It also doesn't say in the constitution that states have the right to ban reproductive healthcare.

Uh that’s not what the 10th amendment says ,

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The constitution does not give the US Government the power to makes laws on abortion and doesn’t mention anywhere that states have the right to ban it .

It's a ruling based on due process in the 14th amendment, not based on the 10th amendment

Ok then the only requirement states must be required to have is to have a life exception and health of mother exception .

 

What about rape or incest?

Do you really want a woman to be reminded of such a horrid experience?

[OSR stands with Israel]

Legally: Doesn't matter, there's no way to objectively interpret the law and trying to is stupid, judges should only rule based on what's morally right

Morally: Fantastic

Hard agree here. It doesn't make sense to pretend that there's an objective way to interpret something inherently subjective.

Ok name me where in the constitution does it mention abortion at all . It’s clear just clear that it’s a 10th amendment issue and the states have the power to decide

It was decided as an issue of privacy, which is honestly a fair decision. It also doesn't say in the constitution that states have the right to ban reproductive healthcare.

Uh that’s not what the 10th amendment says ,

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The constitution does not give the US Government the power to makes laws on abortion and doesn’t mention anywhere that states have the right to ban it .

It's a ruling based on due process in the 14th amendment, not based on the 10th amendment

Ok then the only requirement states must be required to have is to have a life exception and health of mother exception .

 

What about rape or incest?

Do you really want a woman to be reminded of such a horrid experience?

Ok the point is it banned states from banning abortion even with those exceptions

[S019]

Legally: Doesn't matter, there's no way to objectively interpret the law and trying to is stupid, judges should only rule based on what's morally right

Morally: Fantastic

Hard agree here. It doesn't make sense to pretend that there's an objective way to interpret something inherently subjective.

Ok name me where in the constitution does it mention abortion at all . It’s clear just clear that it’s a 10th amendment issue and the states have the power to decide

It was decided as an issue of privacy, which is honestly a fair decision. It also doesn't say in the constitution that states have the right to ban reproductive healthcare.

Uh that’s not what the 10th amendment says ,

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The constitution does not give the US Government the power to makes laws on abortion and doesn’t mention anywhere that states have the right to ban it .

It's a ruling based on due process in the 14th amendment, not based on the 10th amendment

Ok then the only requirement states must be required to have is to have a life exception and health of mother exception .

 

What about rape or incest?

Do you really want a woman to be reminded of such a horrid experience?

Ok the point is it banned states from banning abortion even with those exceptions

Also correction, it only did in the first trimester, which is perfectly ok... Many times, the fetus isn't even viable in the first trimester, so it isn't a life, even if you consider yourself pro-life

[Hope For A New Era]

Doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but the outcome is good.

[John Dule]

Legally: Doesn't matter, there's no way to objectively interpret the law and trying to is stupid, judges should only rule based on what's morally right

Morally: Fantastic

Hard agree here. It doesn't make sense to pretend that there's an objective way to interpret something inherently subjective.

What an inane pair of comments. Seriously, why even bother having laws at all? Why not just let judges, with their superior """subjective personal morality,""" decide on a case-by-case basis who wins and loses? I hope to God that subjectivist postmodern zoomers like you two never find yourselves in charge of the law in this country. What you are describing is the foundation of a theocracy or a dictatorship.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Legally: Doesn't matter, there's no way to objectively interpret the law and trying to is stupid, judges should only rule based on what's morally right

Morally: Fantastic

Hard agree here. It doesn't make sense to pretend that there's an objective way to interpret something inherently subjective.

Ok name me where in the constitution does it mention abortion at all . It’s clear just clear that it’s a 10th amendment issue and the states have the power to decide

It was decided as an issue of privacy, which is honestly a fair decision. It also doesn't say in the constitution that states have the right to ban reproductive healthcare.

Uh that’s not what the 10th amendment says ,

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The constitution does not give the US Government the power to makes laws on abortion and doesn’t mention anywhere that states have the right to ban it .

Don't forget about the 9th Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

It rarely makes an appearance in constitutional law but I'm rather astonished that it wasn't used to justify the Roe outcome. Jack Kevorkian cited it all the time to justify his right to practice euthanasia, although obviously with abortion being as complex as it is, the amendment would still fail to address dissenting arguments.

EDIT: Actually, it was considered in the Roe arguments:

Since Griswold, some judges have tried to use the Ninth Amendment to justify judicially enforcing rights that are not enumerated. For example, the District Court that heard the case of Roe v. Wade ruled in favor of a "Ninth Amendment right to choose to have an abortion," although it stressed that the right was "not unqualified or unfettered."[10] However, Justice William O. Douglas rejected that view; Douglas wrote that "The Ninth Amendment obviously does not create federally enforceable rights." See Doe v. Bolton (1973). Douglas joined the majority opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in Roe, which stated that a federally enforceable right to privacy, "whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."[11]

[Big Abraham]

Legally: Doesn't matter, there's no way to objectively interpret the law and trying to is stupid, judges should only rule based on what's morally right

Morally: Fantastic

Okay, but there's no objectively correct way to interpret morality either.

Do you not think that written, documented law is more objective to rule on than ever-shifting cultures mores?

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Legally: Doesn't matter, there's no way to objectively interpret the law and trying to is stupid, judges should only rule based on what's morally right

Morally: Fantastic

This is insane and basically undermines any functioning society. That said, bodily autonomy is absolutely a fundamental human right. Fortunately, this right is protected under the 14th amendment which makes this specific distinction pointless.

But really, how can a person unironically believe the law is more subjective than morality?

[WD]

Legally: Doesn't matter, there's no way to objectively interpret the law and trying to is stupid, judges should only rule based on what's morally right

Morally: Fantastic

What the hell? Are you serious? Morality is subjective, certainly more-so than the law, and what is moral varies depending on who you ask. If Judges can just ignore the law and rule on whatever they think is right, whats the point of having laws? You might as well not have a legal system.

[Ferguson97]

Legally: Doesn't matter, there's no way to objectively interpret the law and trying to is stupid, judges should only rule based on what's morally right

Morally: Fantastic

Hard agree here. It doesn't make sense to pretend that there's an objective way to interpret something inherently subjective.

What an inane pair of comments. Seriously, why even bother having laws at all? Why not just let judges, with their superior """subjective personal morality,""" decide on a case-by-case basis who wins and loses? I hope to God that subjectivist postmodern zoomers like you two never find yourselves in charge of the law in this country. What you are describing is the foundation of a theocracy or a dictatorship.

Why don't you explain to be how you can objectively interpret the law?

[100% pro-life no matter what]

A decision that we have paid for in 62,262,682 lives lost (as of this writing).

Not to mention that it was clearly a decision where the court had its desired outcome and needed very tenuous reasoning to make it happen.