Supreme Court Will Strike Down Roe v Wade

[Sam 77]

@mods maybe it time to change the name of this topic to supreme court strikes down roe v wade

[AsherO]

Does it really come down to that? Say it isn't murder, does that make it a right protected by the Constitution? How? Where?
Imagine people started amputating their own limbs for the heck of it, would they have a constitutional right to obtain this procedure? Would states be forced to provide this service without "unnecessary burdens"?

Hol’ up, you think people are getting abortions for the h*ck of it?

[S209]

Imagine people started amputating their own limbs for the heck of it

So you’re insinuating that obtaining an abortion is a *negative* for the woman? A better analogy would be an operation that *improves* the plight of a patient. Using that analogy, does the argument make more sense? I don’t believe even the fiercest anti-abortion absolutist makes the claim the abortions are actually bad for the woman.

You are demonstrating that your bias is clouding your ability to think clearly, resulting in

The 2 sides here are talking different languages.

[AsherO]

@mods maybe it time to change the name of this topic to supreme court strikes down roe v wade

I have mixed feelings about this. So many big threads have names that don’t always match the evolved contents of the thread, but they’re easy to find because I remember the name. If you kept renaming threads it would be hard to know what’s what. OTOH you kinda have a point, hence the mixed feelings.

[imayid2]

Hol’ up, you think people are getting abortions for the h*ck of it?

Certainly not. But Roe ensures they can if they wish. Was there any process ensuring that was a reasonable cause? No sir, abortion on demand, at a whim, all enshrined as a sacred right, right there in the 14th amendment where nobody can see it.

[gozalim]

Does it really come down to that? Say it isn't murder, does that make it a right protected by the Constitution? How? Where?
Imagine people started amputating their own limbs for the heck of it, would they have a constitutional right to obtain this procedure? Would states be forced to provide this service without "unnecessary burdens"?

um, they're already doing that with organs...

[S209]

Certainly not. But Roe ensures they can if they wish. Was there any process ensuring that was a reasonable cause? No sir, abortion on demand, at a whim, all enshrined as a sacred right, right there in the 14th amendment where nobody can see it.

Should you need to prove reasonable cause to have the ability to undergo a necessary- or even cosmetic- surgery be enshrined in the constitution as an inalienable right?

[gozalim]

If you consider the fetus to be entirely a part of the mother is that still the case?

even if you accept that, where does the constitution protect that?

[PlatinumGuy]

If you consider the fetus to be entirely a part of the mother

That is essentially a mefurash Gemara...

[imayid2]

Should you need to prove reasonable cause to have the ability to undergo a necessary- or even cosmetic- surgery be enshrined in the constitution as an inalienable right?

To override state law? Yessiree.

[jj1000]

Does it really come down to that? Say it isn't murder, does that make it a right protected by the Constitution? How? Where?
Imagine people started amputating their own limbs for the heck of it, would they have a constitutional right to obtain this procedure? Would states be forced to provide this service without "unnecessary burdens"?

People are cutting things off these days...

[S209]

even if you accept that, where does the constitution protect that?

Is your question where is it implied in the constitution that individuals are protected from states infringing on their personal right to privacy (a necessary life saving surgery, the right to assemble, protection against searches and seizures, etc.)?
 

To override state law? Yessiree.

Interesting. You have a scary take on what the government should be allowed to do. The burden should be on the individual to prove to the state the necessity of any operation they want to undergo?

[gozalim]

Is your question where is it implied in the constitution that individuals are protected from states infringing on their personal right to privacy (a necessary life saving surgery, the right to assemble, protection against searches and seizures, etc.)?

what connects surgery to privacy?

[imayid2]

 Interesting. You have a scary take on what the government should be allowed to do. The burden should be on the individual to prove to the state the necessity of any operation they want to undergo?

We are only talking about cases that a state criminalized that procedure. In such a case certainly the burden of proof would be on the individual to prove it’s his constitutional right.

[imayid2]

 Interesting. You have a scary take on what the government should be allowed to do. The burden should be on the individual to prove to the state the necessity of any operation they want to undergo?

Yes very scary world. The government can make something illegal if the legislators so choose, unless it’s a constitutional right.
Thankfully most issues you’d be nervous about  either are constitutionally protected, or no one has any plans of making them illegal.
The system is working. We are and have been protected. It’s why our grandparents came to this land.

[aygart]

what connects surgery to privacy?

That everyone should mind their own business.

[aygart]

That is essentially a mefurash Gemara...

This is untrue and you know it. There are aspects that it is and aspects that it isn't.

[imayid2]

Is your question where is it implied in the constitution that individuals are protected from states infringing on their personal right to privacy (a necessary life saving surgery, the right to assemble, protection against searches and seizures, etc.)?

The right to assemble is protected explicitly by the first amendment. See, not so scary 

[imayid2]

That everyone should mind their own business.

Mind their business = states be forced to provide this service without "unnecessary burdens"?

[avromie7]

Does it really come down to that? Say it isn't murder, does that make it a right protected by the Constitution? How? Where?
Imagine people started amputating their own limbs for the heck of it, would they have a constitutional right to obtain this procedure? Would states be forced to provide this service without "unnecessary burdens"?

Like circumcision?