Ruth Bader Ginsburg Disagreed With Roe vs Wade

[Shadow Wolf]

You say freedom for all, but don't you realize that there are many that are against abortion, both male and femal, thus not freedom for all
Just freedom for what you think is right, correctr?.

Being against abortion, to have that freedom just don't have one. It's not their right to infringe upon the right of women to have one.

 

[F1fan]

You say freedom for all, but don't you realize that there are many that are against abortion, both male and femal, thus not freedom for all
Just freedom for what you think is right, correctr?.

Why are you working to force your moral views on the rest of society? Don't you believe in personal responsibility and freedom?

 

[F1fan]

So, does anyone agree that Roe vs Wade should be overturned by the SCOTUS and legilative bodies make the law governing abortion?

No I think the decision is pretty good. Are you aware it rules differently on the three trimesters of pregnancy?

Do you know what the three different rulings say off the top of your head?

If you are open to states allowing abortion why are you against it nationally? Are you saying you don't think it should be banned from the whole nation?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why are you working to force your moral views on the rest of society? Don't you believe in personal responsibility and freedom?

The argument is very similar to arguments against marriage equality. If you don't like abortions, don't get one. If you don't like gay weddings, don't marry a gay person. The absence of those that do not like gay marriages will not harm the ceremonies at all.

 

[F1fan]

The argument is very similar to arguments against marriage equality. If you don't like abortions, don't get one. If you don't like gay weddings, don't marry a gay person. The absence of those that do not like gay marriages will not harm the ceremonies at all.

The amazing thing about these folks who hate gay marriage, abortion rights, science, liberalism, etc. is a complete lack of personal accountability to admit it is all about them. They like to say it is what God demands, as if they are merely innocent agents for God and none of us have any choice.

But I suspect they know very well what they are doing, a power grab to offset their own insecurity and powerlessness in life. Such folks don't like liberty, they like authority and control. That is what allows citizens no necessity for education, responsible thought, moral introspection, moral accountability, tolerance, maturity, kindness, fairness, cooperation, etc. It's easier to follow orders. If they do wrong, they were just following orders.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The amazing thing about these folks who hate gay marriage, abortion rights, science, liberalism, etc. is a complete lack of personal accountability to admit it is all about them. They like to say it is what God demands, as if they are merely innocent agents for God and none of us have any choice.

But I suspect they know very well what they are doing, a power grab to offset their own insecurity and powerlessness in life. Such folks don't like liberty, they like authority and control. That is what allows citizens no necessity for education, responsible thought, moral introspection, moral accountability, tolerance, maturity, kindness, fairness, cooperation, etc. It's easier to follow orders. If they do wrong, they were just following orders.

Well I used to think that marriage was a "straight thing" too. After all it was what I had grown up with for at least 40 years. It took me a while to see that gay marriage did nothing to the marriages of others. That getting in the way of allowing two people to love each other is a real jerk move. I am happy to say that our state had an initiative on marriage equality before the Supreme Court decision and I voted for it without any second thoughts. But at first it is hard to buck what one grew up with.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So, does anyone agree that Roe vs Wade should be overturned by the SCOTUS and legilative bodies make the law governing abortion?

No.
But that has nothing to do with Roe vs Wade as such.

 

[Ponder This]

The 14th works for Roe v Wade. The only definite person that is deprived of life, liberty, or property (maybe that should be in bold too) without the process of law are the pregnant women that need an abortion. No one has as of yet proved that globule of cells is a person.

Can you explain how this applies to abortion?

The 9th:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The 14th:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
These can be read as blanket rights and protections for all, including HIPAA laws.
Other than the woman and doctor it is no one's business knowing she even had anything done. For all we need to know she went to ask for directions to the gas station. We don't even need to know that much.

Operations are not justifiable because you conceal those affected or conceal the effects of the operations. Can you explain why a state must allow abortions?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Can you explain how this applies to abortion?

You appear to be trying to use an equivocation fallacy. A fetus is not "alive" in that sense.

Operations are not justifiable because you conceal those affected or conceal the effects of the operations. Can you explain why a state must allow abortions?

What does that even mean?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Operations are not justifiable because you conceal those affected or conceal the effects of the operations. Can you explain why a state must allow abortions?

Can you explain the bolded part?

 

[Ponder This]

You appear to be trying to use an equivocation fallacy. A fetus is not "alive" in that sense.

What do you think it means to be "alive"?

What does that even mean?

Can you explain the bolded part?

You said:

These can be read as blanket rights and protections for all, including HIPAA laws.
Other than the woman and doctor it is no one's business knowing she even had anything done. For all we need to know she went to ask for directions to the gas station. We don't even need to know that much.

I am trying to understand your argument, which appears to be that states can't regulate abortion because no one (except the doctor) needs to know if a woman has had an abortion. I don't understand this argument because the health and well-being of people remains a concern for the state regardless of a need to know who was affected. Please explain how the 14th amendment prevents a state from regulating abortion?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What do you think it means to be "alive"?





You said:

​

I am trying to understand your argument, which appears to be that states can't regulate abortion because no one (except the doctor) needs to know if a woman has had an abortion. I don't understand this argument because the health and well-being of people remains a concern for the state regardless of a need to know who was affected. Please explain how the 14th amendment prevents a state from regulating abortion?

In some cases the doctor's role is only to tell a patient if a procedure is wrong for them. That decision cannot be based upon a personal religious belief. For example if you asked a doctor for some Viagra he could deny it if you had certain medical conditions but it would not be any of his business who you were having sex with.

 

[Ponder This]

In some cases the doctor's role is only to tell a patient if a procedure is wrong for them. That decision cannot be based upon a personal religious belief. For example if you asked a doctor for some Viagra he could deny it if you had certain medical conditions but it would not be any of his business who you were having sex with.

Was this a roudabout tangential way of agreeing that states may ban abortion?

FYI: Doctors have the right to refuse to perform an abortion. They don't need to know who you have sex with to make this refusal.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Was this a roudabout tangential way of agreeing that states may ban abortion?

FYI: Doctors have the right to refuse to perform an abortion. They don't need to know who you have sex with to make this refusal.

Doctors can very often very narrowly define who they will work with and what procedures that they will do. I never implied that they could not refuse to do abortions. They could get in trouble for who they say they will not perform abortions for. For example if a white doctor (or if we switch roles for a doctor of color) refused to do abortions on white people that doctor would be in trouble. One cannot allow race to come into one's decisions on who gets treatment and who does not. Religion would also be an area where one would have to be consistent. But you are right about their ability to decide what their area is. There was never any disagreement about that.

And no, I was trying to see if a person could be at least a little bit reasonable. I found out that one cannot be reasonable with very many anti-abortion people. They seem to know that their late term abortion arguments are pretty much garbage. They merely use them for emotional effect.

 

[Ponder This]

Doctors can very often very narrowly define who they will work with and what procedures that they will do. I never implied that they could not refuse to do abortions. They could get in trouble for who they say they will not perform abortions for. For example if a white doctor (or if we switch roles for a doctor of color) refused to do abortions on white people that doctor would be in trouble. One cannot allow race to come into one's decisions on who gets treatment and who does not. Religion would also be an area where one would have to be consistent. But you are right about their ability to decide what their area is. There was never any disagreement about that.

And no, I was trying to see if a person could be at least a little bit reasonable. I found out that one cannot be reasonable with very many anti-abortion people. They seem to know that their late term abortion arguments are pretty much garbage. They merely use them for emotional effect.

Hmm. Do you have an argument or are you merely claiming that anti-abortion people are unreasonable?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hmm. Do you have an argument or are you merely claiming that anti-abortion people are unreasonable?

It is an observation. I am sure that there are some reasonable anti-abortionists, but most will not argue logically and consistently. They will not compromise even though their own religious books do not support them. They frankly often act as if they have been brain washed into a particular belief. They believe what they preach but they cannot support it.

 

[Ponder This]

It is an observation. I am sure that there are some reasonable anti-abortionists, but most will not argue logically and consistently. They will not compromise even though their own religious books do not support them. They frankly often act as if they have been brain washed into a particular belief. They believe what they preach but they cannot support it.

Okay, let me know if you come up with an argument in support of a right to abortion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Okay, let me know if you come up with an argument in support of a right to abortion.

The right to bodily autonomy trumps anything that you have posted so far.