Opinion of Roe vs Wade
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 05:04:00 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Individual Politics (Moderator: The Dowager Mod)
  Opinion of Roe vs Wade
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
Poll
Question: Opinion of Roe vs Wade
#1
FF
 
#2
HP
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 100

Author Topic: Opinion of Roe vs Wade  (Read 2700 times)
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: September 26, 2020, 07:00:15 PM »

Although the court’s reasoning could have been better, I believe that Roe was correctly decided. Making abortion illegal both deprives women of liberty without due process of law and does not offer them the equal protection of the laws.

One can argue about whether the decision made America more polarised, but judges do not and should not make such considerations in their decisions.

Your position assumes that the unborn are unworthy of due process or the equal protection of the law. There's nothing in the Constitution to either make that assumption or make the opposite assumption that the unborn are worthy of due process and the equal protection of the law. Without a textual basis to make that decision, the Court should have left the decision to the legislative branch to make.
Logged
MarkD
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,132
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: September 26, 2020, 08:12:34 PM »

Byron White was appointed to the Court by JFK in 1962, and he dissented from Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, writing this, which sums up precisely what is wrong with those decisions.

Quote
I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant women and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally disentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the woman, on the other hand. As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court.
Logged
Ferguson97
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,812
United States


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: September 26, 2020, 08:23:35 PM »

Great historic decision.

The fact that it's only polling 49% here as opposed to 60%-75% nationally is one of the cases where the white male skew of this Forum really outweighs its liberalism.

Maybe your conclusion follows logically if you assume that white males have a superior ability to apply the law without bias, but I dunno, that sounds kinda racist to me.

Implying that Roe v Wade is legally dubious

Are you insinuating that judges don’t really apply the law when ruling? And just just the law to justify a pre-determined conclusion? Because thats just not true, quite literally no judge with any self-respect does that.

Supreme Court justices? Yeah, absolutely.
Logged
Big Abraham
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,023
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: September 26, 2020, 08:27:05 PM »

Great historic decision.

The fact that it's only polling 49% here as opposed to 60%-75% nationally is one of the cases where the white male skew of this Forum really outweighs its liberalism.

Maybe your conclusion follows logically if you assume that white males have a superior ability to apply the law without bias, but I dunno, that sounds kinda racist to me.

Implying that Roe v Wade is legally dubious

Didn't you just get done claiming that the law is inherently subjective? Wouldn't that make all landmark SC decisions "legally dubious"?
Logged
Ferguson97
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,812
United States


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: September 26, 2020, 08:29:04 PM »

Great historic decision.

The fact that it's only polling 49% here as opposed to 60%-75% nationally is one of the cases where the white male skew of this Forum really outweighs its liberalism.

Maybe your conclusion follows logically if you assume that white males have a superior ability to apply the law without bias, but I dunno, that sounds kinda racist to me.

Implying that Roe v Wade is legally dubious

Didn't you just get done claiming that the law is inherently subjective? Wouldn't that make all landmark SC decisions "legally dubious"?

Within the context of how John Dule claims that the law should be interpreted, it's inconsistent to say that Roe is legally dubious
Logged
John Dule
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,322
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.57, S: -7.50

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: September 26, 2020, 08:37:41 PM »

Great historic decision.

The fact that it's only polling 49% here as opposed to 60%-75% nationally is one of the cases where the white male skew of this Forum really outweighs its liberalism.

Maybe your conclusion follows logically if you assume that white males have a superior ability to apply the law without bias, but I dunno, that sounds kinda racist to me.

Implying that Roe v Wade is legally dubious

Didn't you just get done claiming that the law is inherently subjective? Wouldn't that make all landmark SC decisions "legally dubious"?

Within the context of how John Dule claims that the law should be interpreted, it's inconsistent to say that Roe is legally dubious

How do you reason that out? (Keeping in mind that reason is just a subjective social construct and I am free to entirely disregard the logic you use if it conflicts with my personal morality.)
Logged
WD
Western Democrat
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,573
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -0.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: September 26, 2020, 08:46:08 PM »

Great historic decision.

The fact that it's only polling 49% here as opposed to 60%-75% nationally is one of the cases where the white male skew of this Forum really outweighs its liberalism.

Maybe your conclusion follows logically if you assume that white males have a superior ability to apply the law without bias, but I dunno, that sounds kinda racist to me.

Implying that Roe v Wade is legally dubious

Didn't you just get done claiming that the law is inherently subjective? Wouldn't that make all landmark SC decisions "legally dubious"?

Within the context of how John Dule claims that the law should be interpreted, it's inconsistent to say that Roe is legally dubious

1. It certainly is legally dubious.

2. How is that inconsistent? Saying Roe is dubious is one of many conclusions and interpretations you can come too by objectively applying the law and the constitution to the issue.  Which is exactly what he was arguing: Being Objective and unbiased in your analysis of a case will lead different people to different conclusions or views. Which is completely fair, as long as the conclusions are made based on the facts of law/ statues and not personal opinions or feelings of what is right or moral.

One side of the argument is “Roe is perfectly fine and acceptable” and another is “Roe should be overturned”, while another could be “Roe is legally questionable and should be looked at closer”, these are all reasonable and objective interpretations, to say “Roe is legally dubious” doesn’t contradict anything. You’re assuming the idea that it’s legally dubious is being stated as unchallenged fact, when it’s simply a valid and reasonable opinion that many people hold.
Logged
KaiserDave
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,589
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.81, S: -5.39

P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: September 26, 2020, 09:08:22 PM »

Legally dubious, but should not be overturned.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,665
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: September 26, 2020, 09:50:44 PM »
« Edited: September 26, 2020, 09:54:53 PM by 🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸 »

Great historic decision.

The fact that it's only polling 49% here as opposed to 60%-75% nationally is one of the cases where the white male skew of this Forum really outweighs its liberalism.

Posters here, being keyed into political debates, probably are more knowledgeable on the whole than the general public about what the decision actually is.   A lot of Americans support Roe v Wade, but also support restricting abortion in ways Roe does not allow.  

Hispanics are a bit more anti-abortion than whites who are a bit more anti-abortion than blacks; the racial difference isn't huge.  Young single women are the most supportive demographic for abortion rights; older married women with children are the least.
Logged
The world will shine with light in our nightmare
Just Passion Through
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,175
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.48

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: September 27, 2020, 01:51:50 AM »

Great historic decision.

The fact that it's only polling 49% here as opposed to 60%-75% nationally is one of the cases where the white male skew of this Forum really outweighs its liberalism.

Posters here, being keyed into political debates, probably are more knowledgeable on the whole than the general public about what the decision actually is.   A lot of Americans support Roe v Wade, but also support restricting abortion in ways Roe does not allow.  

Hispanics are a bit more anti-abortion than whites who are a bit more anti-abortion than blacks; the racial difference isn't huge.  Young single women are the most supportive demographic for abortion rights; older married women with children are the least.

I'm too lazy to look up polls, but I would assume that younger Hispanics, given their increasing detachment from the Catholic Church, are more supportive of legal abortion than older ones. The age gap would be very interesting.
Logged
Vosem
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,625
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.13, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: September 27, 2020, 02:39:42 AM »

My opinion here is the same as RBG's; terrible decision that strangled the nascent pro-abortion legalization movement in its cradle and prevented the issue from being decisively won by the pro-choice side. Was also very poorly thought out.

That said, is having abortion be legal the better policy? Yes, of course. Should it be overturned 47 years later? No, not unless virtually all states adopt laws keeping abortion legal in its absence.
Logged
Horus
Sheliak5
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,564
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: September 27, 2020, 02:47:19 AM »

Great historic decision.

The fact that it's only polling 49% here as opposed to 60%-75% nationally is one of the cases where the white male skew of this Forum really outweighs its liberalism.

Posters here, being keyed into political debates, probably are more knowledgeable on the whole than the general public about what the decision actually is.   A lot of Americans support Roe v Wade, but also support restricting abortion in ways Roe does not allow.  

Hispanics are a bit more anti-abortion than whites who are a bit more anti-abortion than blacks; the racial difference isn't huge.  Young single women are the most supportive demographic for abortion rights; older married women with children are the least.

I'm too lazy to look up polls, but I would assume that younger Hispanics, given their increasing detachment from the Catholic Church, are more supportive of legal abortion than older ones. The age gap would be very interesting.

Younger hispanics are more likely to be detached from the Catholic church, but those who do stay religious are more likely to be Evangelical. I doubt there's much of a generational gap here. Abortion is not like SSM or marijuana in that way.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,806


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: September 27, 2020, 04:00:26 AM »

Great historic decision.

The fact that it's only polling 49% here as opposed to 60%-75% nationally is one of the cases where the white male skew of this Forum really outweighs its liberalism.

Posters here, being keyed into political debates, probably are more knowledgeable on the whole than the general public about what the decision actually is.   A lot of Americans support Roe v Wade, but also support restricting abortion in ways Roe does not allow.  

Hispanics are a bit more anti-abortion than whites who are a bit more anti-abortion than blacks; the racial difference isn't huge.  Young single women are the most supportive demographic for abortion rights; older married women with children are the least.

Actually, the general public is well familiar with the most important aspect of the case, which is that it is a key landmark in postwar women's rights law that established a woman's right to control her own body. The specifics of what restrictions it allows are of secondary importance, since that has already changed over time, as is the precise legal framework under which the result is justified (as some have pointed out, that has been superceded by Casey).

This is a Forum for brosocialists; John Dule's post outright asserting white male superiority frankly shows this. There are times I wonder how many here would turn to outright fascism if it happened to promise Medicare for All... probably a lot. We are a more Trumpist forum than is commonly appreciated. It is only when discussing certain topics though that this tendency becomes insufferably intolerable and Roe is one of them.
Logged
John Dule
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,322
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.57, S: -7.50

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: September 27, 2020, 04:04:41 AM »

This is a Forum for brosocialists; John Dule's post outright asserting white male superiority frankly shows this.

Uh...
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,665
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: September 27, 2020, 07:39:01 AM »

My opinion here is the same as RBG's; terrible decision that strangled the nascent pro-abortion legalization movement in its cradle and prevented the issue from being decisively won by the pro-choice side. Was also very poorly thought out.

That said, is having abortion be legal the better policy? Yes, of course. Should it be overturned 47 years later? No, not unless virtually all states adopt laws keeping abortion legal in its absence.


interesting metaphor for this issue


Roe v Wade gave the abortion legalization movement what it wanted far beyond what was possible legislatively.  It helped galvanize the opposition to abortion, it's true, but the pro-lifers pre-Roe were already fighting back against abortion legalization efforts.

Quote
In 1971, twenty-five states considered abortion legalization bills. Every one of them failed to pass. In 1972, the pro-life movement went on the offensive and began campaigning for measures to rescind recently passed abortion legalization laws and tighten existing abortion restrictions. In the wake of the Central Park protest, the New York state legislature voted to repeal New York’s liberal abortion law and was thwarted only by Governor Rockefeller’s veto.
https://time.com/4154084/anti-abortion-pre-roe/
Logged
Starry Eyed Jagaloon
Blairite
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,853
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: September 27, 2020, 07:43:37 AM »

Great historic decision.

The fact that it's only polling 49% here as opposed to 60%-75% nationally is one of the cases where the white male skew of this Forum really outweighs its liberalism.

Posters here, being keyed into political debates, probably are more knowledgeable on the whole than the general public about what the decision actually is. A lot of Americans support Roe v Wade, but also support restricting abortion in ways Roe does not allow.  

Bad take. First off, Roe allows for a lot (too many, imo) of exceptions. But more importantly, it's the only justification for a constitutional right to an abortion. If you overturn it because you want some exception or another, the rationale has to include that it isn't a right protected under the 14th amendment. If that goes, then you're inviting a lot of Republican legislatures to pass bans way, way, way to the right of what you deem acceptable. You can't guarantee long-term abortion rights in this country without Roe.
Logged
lfromnj
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,221


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #66 on: September 27, 2020, 09:24:51 AM »

Great historic decision.

The fact that it's only polling 49% here as opposed to 60%-75% nationally is one of the cases where the white male skew of this Forum really outweighs its liberalism.

Posters here, being keyed into political debates, probably are more knowledgeable on the whole than the general public about what the decision actually is. A lot of Americans support Roe v Wade, but also support restricting abortion in ways Roe does not allow.  

Bad take. First off, Roe allows for a lot (too many, imo) of exceptions. But more importantly, it's the only justification for a constitutional right to an abortion. If you overturn it because you want some exception or another, the rationale has to include that it isn't a right protected under the 14th amendment. If that goes, then you're inviting a lot of Republican legislatures to pass bans way, way, way to the right of what you deem acceptable. You can't guarantee long-term abortion rights in this country without Roe.

The thing is, is that this forum is more pro choice than the nation as a whole. Its 75% pro choice according to the current poll on this board. However this forum also understands what Roe V Wade unlike most of the nation which can't even name a SCJ. And there are plenty of pro-choice people on this forum who are skeptical of  the legal origins of Roe v Wade or even outright oppose the legal argument for Roe v Wade. The 70% polls of being pro Roe v Wade are obvious bs due to the ignorance of the average American.. The nation ranges  to the pro choice side a bit but not too far .
Logged
Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers
olawakandi
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 87,805
Jamaica
Political Matrix
E: -6.84, S: -0.17


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #67 on: September 27, 2020, 11:14:27 AM »

Birth rates have gone down since 1973 from 3.5 to 1.5, with many contraceptives, abortions arent necessary like they were in past
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #68 on: September 27, 2020, 10:10:18 PM »

Your position assumes that the unborn are unworthy of due process or the equal protection of the law. There's nothing in the Constitution to either make that assumption or make the opposite assumption that the unborn are worthy of due process and the equal protection of the law. Without a textual basis to make that decision, the Court should have left the decision to the legislative branch to make.
The suggestion that there is a plausible reading of the 14th that includes "unborn persons" in the category of persons entitled to due process and equal protection is absurd. Nowhere in the 14th is the word "persons" interpreted to include fetuses — pregnant women are not counted as two people when apportioning representatives by "counting the whole number of persons in each State," and the Citizenship Clause explicitly reserves citizenship to persons born in the US.

There is also nothing in the historical record to suggest that the authors of the 14th intended it to extend to "unborn persons," and there is certainly no precedent supporting that reading. Positioning those as as two equally valid (or even remotely comparable) readings of the document requires a particularly blinkered textualism, in the process producing a far more expansive interpretation of the 14th than what is relied on in Blackmun's opinion in Roe (to say nothing of the even more restrictive view advocated by White in dissent).

Nowhere in the Constitution is the term person defined, indeed under the law as interpreted today, you don't even have to be human being to be a person. While "corporations are people too" is bad politics, it is good law.

By your argument, Ginsburg was wrong in her briefs in cases such as Reed v. Reed. After all, there's nothing in the historical record to suggest that the authors of the 14th Amendment intended it to extend to women. Indeed, when Congress was discussing the Reconstruction Amendments, there was discussion about explicitly addressing women's rights, and doing so was flatly rejected.

Your argument about the Citizenship Clause is nonsense. The Citizenship Clause only establishes a minimum standard, which Congress can extend to others using its Article I Section 8 powers, for who is a citizen and thus by extension a person. While all citizens are persons, it is definitely not the case that only citizens are persons. If that were the case, then noncitizens would have no Constitutional rights. I doubt that anyone on here other a few trolls would argue that noncitizens should be denied Constitutional rights. Moreover, even if one were to accept your Citizenship Clause argument, then the Federal government could enact nationwide restrictions against abortion by using its power over naturalization in Article I Section 8 to extend citizenship to the unborn.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,251


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #69 on: September 27, 2020, 11:38:53 PM »

Reading pro-choice content into the text of the Fourteenth Amendment and reading pro-life content into it are both eisegetic and absurd, guys.
Logged
Former President tack50
tack50
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,891
Spain


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #70 on: September 28, 2020, 12:34:36 PM »

I am pro-choice, but I don't think that you can infer a right to abortion from the US constitution?

I can easily see the argument for infering a "right to privacy", but I cannot see how to expand from there to a right to abortion.

However I am 100% not a legal expert so my opinion matters little tbh.

Ironically in Fantasyland I was the attorney in a case that was a complete mess and where if the courts ruled my way would have led to full on no restrictions on abortion, Canada style Tongue
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,665
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #71 on: September 28, 2020, 01:16:39 PM »

Your position assumes that the unborn are unworthy of due process or the equal protection of the law. There's nothing in the Constitution to either make that assumption or make the opposite assumption that the unborn are worthy of due process and the equal protection of the law. Without a textual basis to make that decision, the Court should have left the decision to the legislative branch to make.
The suggestion that there is a plausible reading of the 14th that includes "unborn persons" in the category of persons entitled to due process and equal protection is absurd. Nowhere in the 14th is the word "persons" interpreted to include fetuses — pregnant women are not counted as two people when apportioning representatives by "counting the whole number of persons in each State," and the Citizenship Clause explicitly reserves citizenship to persons born in the US.

There is also nothing in the historical record to suggest that the authors of the 14th intended it to extend to "unborn persons," and there is certainly no precedent supporting that reading. Positioning those as as two equally valid (or even remotely comparable) readings of the document requires a particularly blinkered textualism, in the process producing a far more expansive interpretation of the 14th than what is relied on in Blackmun's opinion in Roe (to say nothing of the even more restrictive view advocated by White in dissent).

Many of the states that passed the 14th amendment also passed laws banning abortion around the same time, often under their homicide codes. I'm not sure whether anyone expected the 14th to apply to banning abortion, but there's a stronger argument than for allowing it. At the very least the original meaning would have included saying that if there were a law banning abortion for whites but not for blacks, it would be applicable as a violation of equal protection of the child's life.
Logged
brucejoel99
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,459
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #72 on: September 28, 2020, 02:13:26 PM »

In the years leading up to Roe, approximately 1 million women each year had an illegal abortion. The vast majority of those women had to resort either to dangerous self-induced abortions or to the dark & often forbidding underworld of untrained & unreliable back-alley abortionists. As a result, many thousands suffered serious illness or permanent injury, not to mention those who died in the course of illegal abortions.

The realities of that world alone makes Roe a freedom decision.
Logged
Chunk Yogurt for President!
CELTICEMPIRE
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,235
Georgia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #73 on: September 28, 2020, 07:53:13 PM »

In the years leading up to Roe, approximately 1 million women each year had an illegal abortion. The vast majority of those women had to resort either to dangerous self-induced abortions or to the dark & often forbidding underworld of untrained & unreliable back-alley abortionists. As a result, many thousands suffered serious illness or permanent injury, not to mention those who died in the course of illegal abortions.

The realities of that world alone makes Roe a freedom decision.

One million women getting abortions each year didn't occur until after Roe v. Wade.  When abortion is illegal, less women get abortions.
Logged
Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner
Jalawest2
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,481


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #74 on: September 28, 2020, 08:39:18 PM »

In the years leading up to Roe, approximately 1 million women each year had an illegal abortion. The vast majority of those women had to resort either to dangerous self-induced abortions or to the dark & often forbidding underworld of untrained & unreliable back-alley abortionists. As a result, many thousands suffered serious illness or permanent injury, not to mention those who died in the course of illegal abortions.

The realities of that world alone makes Roe a freedom decision.

One million women getting abortions each year didn't occur until after Roe v. Wade.  When abortion is illegal, less women get abortions.
Seriously, Democrats avoiding the central moral issue of this is obvious bullsh**t.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.084 seconds with 13 queries.