Should Roe v. Wade be overturned?

[historia]

More precisely: Should the current Supreme Court precedent on abortion -- first established by Roe v. Wade, but later modified by Planned Parenthood v. Casey -- be overturned?

My question here is not so much whether abortion should be legal or not, since overturning Roe would not, in itself, make abortion illegal, with several states having laws that explicitly allow for abortions.

[AgnosticBoy]

Of course, to you, such concerns are merely "alarmists", implying their arguments have no merit whatsoever.

Of course, to you, such concerns are from "Christian zealots", implying their arguments have no merit whatsoever.

You are doing some of the same things that you accuse the Christians of but fail to see it when it comes to your side. I haven't seen you make a valid argument against the Conservative side. And mud slinging is a complete turn off to a rational crowd that wants to see a good debate.

Do you think that your secular/political opinion is automatically right?
Do you think the Christian or any Conservative position is automatically wrong?

I wouldn't want a zealot of any kind (secular included) in the Supreme Court or any where else in government, for that matter.

Even some Liberals have agreed with some of Justice Alito's thinking:
An excellent read in The New Yorker by Jill Lepore:

I don’t happen to think Roe was well argued. I agree with Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s early analysis—that grounding the right in equality rather than privacy might have been a sounder approach. I’m not even a hard-liner on the question of abortion; I find it morally thorny.

[Bust Nak]

If you read Jose Fly's twitter reference, then I think it will show that the point behind my post is more than justified.

How? There is already an attempt by Missouri lawmakers at stopping people from travelling to out of state for an abortion. Fortunately the provision didn't making it into a bill.

[JoeyKnothead]

Of course, to you, such concerns are merely "alarmists", implying their arguments have no merit whatsoever.

Of course, to you, such concerns are from "Christian zealots", implying their arguments have no merit whatsoever.

Then please present for us all the merits behind, "God's up there, and me nor him both want you wimmins to have control of your reproductive / medical decisions."

You are doing some of the same things that you accuse the Christians of but fail to see it when it comes to your side. I haven't seen you make a valid argument against the Conservative side. And mud slinging is a complete turn off to a rational crowd that wants to see a good debate.

Your rejection of my argument neither means I didn't present one, nor that it's invalid. What about your comment here refutes an argument you can't even recognize as an argument?

You imply a "rational crowd" wants to see a good debate.

I propose you lack the ability to see, much less understand what's rational - as evidenced by your thinking your inability to even recognize my argument, well that somehow means I ain't put me one up.

Do you think that your secular/political opinion is automatically right?

No, which is why I present it for critique, only to have you being incapable of even realizing I've put me up an argument.

I got me an old lady. I've long since given up on thinking I'm right, even when I am.

Do you think the Christian or any Conservative position is automatically wrong?

To the Christians, I merely ask they provide some means to confirm their favored god has an opinion on the matter.

As to the Conservatives, I ask how come they're for small government, except when it comes to the wimmins' uteri.

I wouldn't want a zealot of any kind (secular included) in the Supreme Court or any where else in government, for that matter.

As I noted previously, with the Overton window skewed so far to the right, even moderates're considered zealots.

Even some Liberals have agreed with some of Justice Alito's thinking:
An excellent read in The New Yorker by Jill Lepore:

I don’t happen to think Roe was well argued. I agree with Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s early analysis—that grounding the right in equality rather than privacy might have been a sounder approach. I’m not even a hard-liner on the question of abortion; I find it morally thorny.

When that bunch comes in here afussing, I'll get on them too.

Women have it rough enough just being women, we oughtn ever compound their problems by stripping their rights right out from under em.

[AgnosticBoy]

Of course, to you, such concerns are from "Christian zealots", implying their arguments have no merit whatsoever.

Then please present for us all the merits behind, "God's up there, and me nor him both want you wimmins to have control of your reproductive / medical decisions."

Even some Liberals have agreed with some of Justice Alito's thinking:
An excellent read in The New Yorker by Jill Lepore:

I don’t happen to think Roe was well argued. I agree with Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s early analysis—that grounding the right in equality rather than privacy might have been a sounder approach. I’m not even a hard-liner on the question of abortion; I find it morally thorny.

When that bunch comes in here afussing, I'll get on them too.

Women have it rough enough just being women, we oughtn ever compound their problems by stripping their rights right out from under em.

The bulk of your points is just you stating that women are getting their rights stripped away from them. You've used that to respond even to historia's point about the democratic process and the role of SCOTUS. You're offering us a slogan. Even if it were an argument, then it would be a repeated strawman in your case.

When asked if you even considered Alito's argument, you responded with saying "Alito is an old guy". That is not an argument, and neither is repeating a slogan about woman's rights an argument either. And ask yourself, what is the purpose of a slogan?

Christians aren't allowed to preach or sell their points (and there are atheists members who are good at reminding them on that), then secular or political advocates should not be allowed to try to sell their points here either.

An old guy telling the wimminfolk what they can and can't do with their bodies.

I take it from this reply that you didn't actually read the draft argument.

Alito is an old guy.

Unless, I guess, you're even older.

[JoeyKnothead]

Of course, to you, such concerns are from "Christian zealots", implying their arguments have no merit whatsoever.

Then please present for us all the merits behind, "God's up there, and me nor him both want you wimmins to have control of your reproductive / medical decisions."

Even some Liberals have agreed with some of Justice Alito's thinking:
An excellent read in The New Yorker by Jill Lepore:

I don’t happen to think Roe was well argued. I agree with Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s early analysis—that grounding the right in equality rather than privacy might have been a sounder approach. I’m not even a hard-liner on the question of abortion; I find it morally thorny.

When that bunch comes in here afussing, I'll get on them too.

Women have it rough enough just being women, we oughtn ever compound their problems by stripping their rights right out from under em.

The bulk of your points is just you stating that women are getting their rights stripped away from them. You've used that to respond even to historia's point about the democratic process and the role of SCOTUS. You're offering us a slogan. Even if it were an argument, then it would be a repeated strawman in your case.

When asked if you even considered Alito's argument, you responded with saying "Alito is an old guy". That is not an argument, and neither is repeating a slogan about woman's rights an argument either. And ask yourself, what is the purpose of a slogan?

Christians aren't allowed to preach or sell their points (and there are atheists members who are good at reminding them on that), then secular or political advocates should not be allowed to try to sell their points here either.

An old guy telling the wimminfolk what they can and can't do with their bodies.

I take it from this reply that you didn't actually read the draft argument.

Alito is an old guy.

Unless, I guess, you're even older.

And that's my point...

Some old man / guy, who happens to be a Supreme Court Justice, is using his position to strip a woman of her rights.

Do you disagree with my argument?

[AgnosticBoy]

And that's my point...

Some old man / guy, who happens to be a Supreme Court Justice, is using his position to strip a woman of her rights.

Do you disagree with my argument?

I disagree because it is a strawman.

You might be able to win some Democrats over with that type of argument, but as an Independent, I see right through it.

[JoeyKnothead]

And that's my point...

Some old man / guy, who happens to be a Supreme Court Justice, is using his position to strip a woman of her rights.

Do you disagree with my argument?

I disagree because it is a strawman.

You might be able to win some Democrats over with that type of argument, but as an Independent, I see right through it.

So it's your contention Alito is some random young female?

You're to independent what Fox News is to fact.

[AgnosticBoy]

And that's my point...

Some old man / guy, who happens to be a Supreme Court Justice, is using his position to strip a woman of her rights.

Do you disagree with my argument?

I disagree because it is a strawman.

You might be able to win some Democrats over with that type of argument, but as an Independent, I see right through it.

So it's your contention Alito is some random young female?

You're to independent what Fox News is to fact.

Are you able to ask your question without questioning my political identity?

[JoeyKnothead]

And that's my point...

Some old man / guy, who happens to be a Supreme Court Justice, is using his position to strip a woman of her rights.

Do you disagree with my argument?

I disagree because it is a strawman.

You might be able to win some Democrats over with that type of argument, but as an Independent, I see right through it.

So it's your contention Alito is some random young female?

You're to independent what Fox News is to fact.

Are you able to ask your question without questioning my political identity?

Answer my question if you want me to answer yours.

[Diogenes]

No. For the Supreme Court to overturn Roe would be the ultimate in hypocrisy and politicization of the Court. For years the 'right' has whined about the Court taking over the function of the legislature at the same time they have systematically set out to stack the Court with conservatives who will fill their legislative agenda of imposing their religious-political beliefs on the nation.

Five of the six conservative members of the Supreme Court are Roman Catholic and the sixth, Neil Gorsuch, was raised Catholic and graduated from a Jesuit high school.

Only 28% of the American public wants 'Roe' overturned. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... oll-finds/

In addition to engendering further lack of respect for the Court, overturning 'Roe' would be a social disaster for the United States on a level akin to prohibition of alcohol in 1920 when a minority successfully imposed their will on the people. Not only would we go back to having dangerous and illegal abortions, but people would secretly cross state lines to visit 'abortion havens.'
Overturning 'Roe' would disproportionately impact the poor and further divide an already divisive national politic. It would threaten the right to interstate travel, a concept not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. Already states ready to enact anti-abortion laws have in place legislation that would criminalize interstate travel to get an abortion

Perhaps the ultimate irony is that the strident religious voices against abortion, those claiming human life begins at conception, cannot support their opinion with scripture.