Roe v Wade

CUSP82

Administrator PEGym
Staff member
Excellent !
Well Done !
Joined
Dec 15, 2009
Messages
36,236
Reaction score
2,045
Points
133
Location
In your face
In an extreme situation, Should a 12 year old girl who has been raped by her father be required to give birth to her sister?
Sorry that's dumb and that's putting it mildly. There is no question under any law that exists that prevents abortion under such conditions.
What is so wrong to allow the people of the country, the people of each state to decide by majority vote if they want abortion or not? And you know the answer. The majority of the country either doesn't want abortion or will accept it with limits. So if the majority doesn't want it the minority will get around the will of the people to get what they want using the courts. Now that's democracy huh?
 

Johnny D

Moderator, PEGym Hero
Staff member
Well Done !
Joined
Oct 15, 2016
Messages
1,527
Reaction score
402
Points
103
What is not found in the Constitution was left to the states to decide and the states still have great control over your life. Does the state have to get involved in every little thing we as humans do? No but you'd be surprised about how minute things can get. Your right to get a tat as you call it was never voted on by the people but the people did vote for local governments and they in turn voted for a board of health that will regulate your right to get a tat or pierce your ears.
If a state created a law to prohibit piercings and tattoos, do you not believe that it would be struck down by the Supreme Court? I 100% believe that it would be. Just because states can enact their own laws doesn't mean that they can violate our Constitutional rights. The courts have already determined that "liberties" includes the right to make decisions about our own body. A state can't take that away simply because "tattoos and piercings" aren't enumerated in the Constitution.
 

CUSP82

Administrator PEGym
Staff member
Excellent !
Well Done !
Joined
Dec 15, 2009
Messages
36,236
Reaction score
2,045
Points
133
Location
In your face
That would be a decision for the court to make if it ever made it there.
Now you have to admit that some of these scenarios are way out there.
Now what exactly is the problem with allowing the people to decide whether they want abortion or not? Are they too stupid?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Party

Johnny D

Moderator, PEGym Hero
Staff member
Well Done !
Joined
Oct 15, 2016
Messages
1,527
Reaction score
402
Points
103
That would be a decision for the court to make if it ever made it there.
Now you have to admit that some of these scenarios are way out there.
Now what exactly is the problem with allowing the people to decide whether they want abortion or not? Are they too stupid?
My point is that the issue is one of such importance that it should be addressed as a Constitutional right from whichever side. Just as slavery shouldn't be allowed in some states but not others, the issue of abortion shouldn't be determined state-by-state. The people aren't too stupid to decide whether to prohibit slavery or to allow women to vote. Both of those issues were Constitutional amendments, too important to not apply to all. If abortion is murder, it would be a violation of rights for any state to allow it. If prohibiting abortion is a violation of liberty - the 14th amendment right to bodily autonomy - then o state should be allowed to ban it.
 

CUSP82

Administrator PEGym
Staff member
Excellent !
Well Done !
Joined
Dec 15, 2009
Messages
36,236
Reaction score
2,045
Points
133
Location
In your face
Okay bottom line; that's the way the Court ruled and they don't change their mind often. Other than complain what exactly will you do about it?
 

akaTrex

Senior Member, Member of the Month Jan 2016
Well Done !
Joined
Jul 2, 2013
Messages
2,889
Reaction score
351
Points
103
The PRO-Abortion folks would need to AMEND the CONSTITUTION!
Not going to happen!
 
Last edited:

not2big

Senior Super Moderator, PEGym Hero
Staff member
Well Done !
Joined
Jan 1, 2010
Messages
23,579
Reaction score
896
Points
133
Location
Jersey Shore
There is no question under any law that exists that prevents abortion under such conditions.
I could be wrong, but I understand the Texas and Oklahoma abortion laws do not allow for any exceptions.
 

Party

Senior Member, Member of the Month August 2016
Well Done !
Joined
Sep 13, 2014
Messages
9,362
Reaction score
548
Points
133
Location
Under cloudy skies
I could be wrong, but I understand the Texas and Oklahoma abortion laws do not allow for any exceptions.
I’m assuming he was speaking of Federal laws. Yes?
 

Johnny D

Moderator, PEGym Hero
Staff member
Well Done !
Joined
Oct 15, 2016
Messages
1,527
Reaction score
402
Points
103
Okay bottom line; that's the way the Court ruled and they don't change their mind often. Other than complain what exactly will you do about it?
It's an idealogical discussion point and one worth having
 

Igigi

Registered Users (MTT)
Pretty Good !
Growing ! (ltt)
Well Done !
Joined
Feb 22, 2022
Messages
240
Reaction score
107
Points
63
I'll ask you the same question I asked Big O. If you feel that strongly about it, if you're that resolute, why are you ok with allowing individual states the freedom to kill an innocent life? Why don't you want it enumerated in the Constitution as a prohibited act.


I haven't seen statistics that support that. Why do you believe an overwhelming vast majority support the decision?

Pretty easy answers.

1. Because this is not a democracy.

2. Because the court of the people say so.
 

not2big

Senior Super Moderator, PEGym Hero
Staff member
Well Done !
Joined
Jan 1, 2010
Messages
23,579
Reaction score
896
Points
133
Location
Jersey Shore
The court of the people say yes. The Supreme court of the conservative minority say no. Thanks to the Republicans that prevented Obama from nominating a SCOTUS judge a year prior to the end of his term, the minority gets to rule the Democracy.
 

Igigi

Registered Users (MTT)
Pretty Good !
Growing ! (ltt)
Well Done !
Joined
Feb 22, 2022
Messages
240
Reaction score
107
Points
63
1. This is not a democracy.
2. SCOTUS is the court that represent the will of the people and every institution will comply. It is the law of the land.
 

Johnny D

Moderator, PEGym Hero
Staff member
Well Done !
Joined
Oct 15, 2016
Messages
1,527
Reaction score
402
Points
103
Pretty easy answers.

1. Because this is not a democracy.

2. Because the court of the people say so.
I'm not sure I follow... Are you saying that it wouldn't be democratic to amend the Constitution to prohibit abortion? Or are you saying we don't live in a democracy so it wouldn't work like that? Sorry... I'm not understanding the response.

I haven't seen the statistics that show the overwhelming vast majority of people opposing abortion. What are you referencing?
 

Johnny D

Moderator, PEGym Hero
Staff member
Well Done !
Joined
Oct 15, 2016
Messages
1,527
Reaction score
402
Points
103
1. This is not a democracy.
2. SCOTUS is the court that represent the will of the people and every institution will comply. It is the law of the land.
It's not the role of the Supreme Court to represent the will of the people. If it was they would ask everyone to vote on their rulings. It's their job to determine whether legislation is constitutionally correct - even if the will of the people would prefer it another way. Congress represents (or should, anyway) the will of the people. Not SCOTUS
 
  • Like
Reactions: akaTrex and Party

Johnny D

Moderator, PEGym Hero
Staff member
Well Done !
Joined
Oct 15, 2016
Messages
1,527
Reaction score
402
Points
103
The court of the people say yes. The Supreme court of the conservative minority say no. Thanks to the Republicans that prevented Obama from nominating a SCOTUS judge a year prior to the end of his term, the minority gets to rule the Democracy.
The Constitution rules, regardless of what the people say. Even the very liberal pro-choice advocate RBG said that RvW was faulty.
 
  • Like
Reactions: akaTrex and Party

akaTrex

Senior Member, Member of the Month Jan 2016
Well Done !
Joined
Jul 2, 2013
Messages
2,889
Reaction score
351
Points
103
FACT: Jane Roe aka Norma McCorvey maintained a low profile following the court’s 1973 decision.

In the mid-1990s, Norma McCorvey became friends with the head of an anti-abortion group and converting to Catholicism, Jane Roe aka Norma McCorvey turned into a vocal opponent of Abortion.

The Supreme Court is not a Court of the People. The Supreme Court's job is to interpret the Constitution and the Protection of the Constitution.

Barak Obama had a SUPER Majority and did not codify Roe v. Wade.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Johnny D

Igigi

Registered Users (MTT)
Pretty Good !
Growing ! (ltt)
Well Done !
Joined
Feb 22, 2022
Messages
240
Reaction score
107
Points
63
I'm not sure I follow... Are you saying that it wouldn't be democratic to amend the Constitution to prohibit abortion? Or are you saying we don't live in a democracy so it wouldn't work like that? Sorry... I'm not understanding the response.

I haven't seen the statistics that show the overwhelming vast majority of people opposing abortion. What are you referencing?
Our republic, is not a democracy. Our political system is not a democracy. We are a representative Republic. In our nation, the people does not elect the President, the electoral college elect the President. In a democracy 1 citizen equal 1 vote. Thankfully, we do not that or we would have a tyranny due to tour unique demographics and geography.
 

Igigi

Registered Users (MTT)
Pretty Good !
Growing ! (ltt)
Well Done !
Joined
Feb 22, 2022
Messages
240
Reaction score
107
Points
63
It's not the role of the Supreme Court to represent the will of the people. If it was they would ask everyone to vote on their rulings. It's their job to determine whether legislation is constitutionally correct - even if the will of the people would prefer it another way. Congress represents (or should, anyway) the will of the people. Not SCOTUS

They do not need to ask us to vote on their rulings. We already voted electing a leader that appointed Justices who represent our principles and values and over all, interpret the law of the land as it was written.
 

CUSP82

Administrator PEGym
Staff member
Excellent !
Well Done !
Joined
Dec 15, 2009
Messages
36,236
Reaction score
2,045
Points
133
Location
In your face
Somehow we have to get back to where Congress makes the law, the President enforces the law and if there's a question about the law then the Court gets involved. We just can't keep making up stuff by whoever and letting it run the country; that's not how things were designed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Party and Johnny D

Pegasus

Administrator, PE Gym Editor, PEGym Hero; ,
Staff member
Excellent !
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Messages
43,416
Reaction score
969
Points
133
If the curts do not represt the will of the people and it seems they don't in the US currently then it is a major problem forthe society as a whole.