When US Senators questioned Samuel Alito at his confirmation hearing in 2006, the now-Supreme Court Justice, author of Friday's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, hinted that the landmark 1973 abortion ruling was an "important precedent."

 

"It is a precedent that has now been on the books for several decades," Alito said. "It has been challenged. It has been reaffirmed."

 

At the same hearing, he talked about the principle of "stare decisis," where Supreme Court justices respect the precedents set by previous decisions in making their rulings. He stopped short of calling it settled law, noting that Roe v. Wade, which established a nationwide right to abortion, was "involved in litigation now at all levels."

 

In Friday's majority opinion for Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, Alito wrote that the Roe v. Wade decision was "on a collision course with the Constitution from the day it was decided," comparing it to the Supreme Court decision that upheld racial segregation laws. "Stare decisis is not an inexorable command," he wrote in the majority opinion, and when properly applied, meant that Roe should be overturned, not upheld.

 

(more)

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-stare-decisis-roe-wade-dobbs-jackson-2022-6?inline-endstory-related-recommendations=

 

 

Abortion ruling conflicts with public opinion

The Supreme Court went against the prevailing public opinion on abortion rights when it overturned Roe v. Wade Friday.

 

Driving the news: After a leaked draft opinion showed the court was planning to overturn Roe, three in five Americans said abortion should be legal always or most of the time, per an NBC News poll.

 

That's the strongest support for abortion rights in NBC polling since 2003.

 

What they’re saying: In his majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito rejected the idea that the court should even consider the public’s response when determining its position on a case.

 

(more)

 

https://www.axios.com/2022/06/25/supreme-court-abortion-ruling-public-opinion

 

 

 

Yep.  Six old male Christian farts deciding on a women's right to control her own body.  USA Land of the Free...ya right.  What has happened to the USA?

 

1 minute ago, Jerno said:

Yep.  Six old male Christian farts deciding on a women's right to control her own body.  USA Land of the Free...ya right.  What has happened to the USA?

 

Well its not just her body, there's a body of a baby involved as well .

 

13 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Well its not just her body, there's a body of a baby involved as well .

 

It's her decision not some religious nut case. 50 years and nine justices established that.

Edited June 25, 20224 yr by ozimoron

3 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

It's her decision not some religious nut case. 50 years and nine justices established that.

Just because the baby is still attached to her, that shouldn't give her a right to kill that baby 

4 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Just because the baby is still attached to her, that shouldn't give her a right to kill that baby 

Yes it does. It's HER baby. Not some else's baby, Nobody.

Edited June 25, 20224 yr by ozimoron

5 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Just because the baby is still attached to her, that shouldn't give her a right to kill that baby 

If you get pregnant, then you will surely keep it. Otherwise, it's none of your bidness. 

3 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Yes it does. It's HER baby. Not some else's baby, Nobody.

Should she also then be able the kill the baby after its born ?

27 minutes ago, Jerno said:

Yep.  Six old male Christian farts deciding on a women's right to control her own body.  USA Land of the Free...ya right.  What has happened to the USA?

 

Hijacked by RADICAL right wing theocrats. Not conservatives. RADICALS. 

 

 

Opinion | Supreme Court's Dobbs decision adds to culture war - The Washington Post

The court’s abortion ruling pours gasoline on our culture-war fires

Just now, ozimoron said:

Yes it does. It's HER baby. Not some else's baby, Nobody.

 

In my world view and I think by definition, it's not a "baby" until after it's born... So prior to birth, for me, it ought to be left to the mother to decide what goes.

 

So I don't see abortion as killing a "baby," I see it as removing a "fetus." 

 

"A fetus or foetus is the unborn offspring that develops from an animal embryo."  Note the term... unborn.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus

 

3 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Should she also then be able the kill the baby after its born ?

Obviously. Until age 13, the age of reason. 

Just now, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

In my world view and I think by definition, it's not a "baby" until after it's born... So prior to birth, for me, it ought to be left to the mother to decide what goes.

 

So I don't see abortion as killing a "baby," I see it as removing a "fetus." 

 

"A fetus or foetus is the unborn offspring that develops from an animal embryo."  Note the term... unborn.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus

 

Correct, I was just repeating his terminology, however incorrect that might be. The right like to use loaded and emotive language instead of rational argument.

Just now, Jingthing said:

Obviously. Until age 13, the age of reason. 

Are you saying that Parents should legally have the right to kill their Children, up to the age of 13 years old ?

Just now, Mac Mickmanus said:

Are you saying that Parents should legally have the right to kill their Children, up to the age of 13 years old ?

Is that even controversial?

5 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Should she also then be able the kill the baby after its born ?

Of course not, why are you even asking that? It's not a person until it's born.

Just now, ozimoron said:

Correct, I was just repeating his terminology, however incorrect that might be. The right like to use loaded and emotive language instead of rational argument.

 

That's why I objected to his terminology and characterization... because it obviously was loaded and politically biased, in addition to being medically incorrect....  The specific "baby" choice he offered doesn't come into play in regards to abortion.

 

59 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Well its not just her body, there's a body of a baby involved as well .

 

No there is not.

 

Back to biology 101 you go.

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

No there is not.

 

Back to biology 101 you go.

Sorry, I did mean an unborn baby , I thought that would be obvious , but yes an unborn baby, sorry for the confusion , as were were talking about an unborn baby, it didn't think that it would be necessary to write unborn .

   The Woman has an unborn baby , which will soon be a baby and grow up to be an adult , unless she kills it 

16 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Sorry, I did mean an unborn baby , I thought that would be obvious , but yes an unborn baby, sorry for the confusion , as were were talking about an unborn baby, it didn't think that it would be necessary to write unborn .

   The Woman has an unborn baby , which will soon be a baby and grow up to be an adult , unless she kills it 

She has a fetus, which when born is a baby.

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

She has a fetus, which when born is a baby.

Yes and a fetus is also referred to as an unborn baby 

 

"In this video, a clinical psychologist talks about what your unborn baby may feel in the womb."

 

https://www.nhs.uk/pregnancy/week-by-week/13-to-27/15-weeks/

30 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Yes and a fetus is also referred to as an unborn baby 

 

"In this video, a clinical psychologist talks about what your unborn baby may feel in the womb."

 

https://www.nhs.uk/pregnancy/week-by-week/13-to-27/15-weeks/

If somebody shoots dead a pregnant woman, how many murders does the law say they have committed?

7 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

If somebody shoots dead a pregnant woman, how many murders does the law say they have committed?

Depends on which County and the circumstances , 

In the U.K they could get charged with "Child destruction" for killing an unborn baby 

 

"(1) Subject as hereinafter in this subsection provided, any person who, with intent to destroy the life of a child capable of being born alive, by any wilful act causes a child to die before it has an existence independent of its mother, shall be guilty of felony, to wit, of child destruction, and shall be liable on conviction thereof on indictment to penal servitude for life:"

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_destruction

7 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Depends on which County and the circumstances , 

In the U.K they could get charged with "Child destruction" for killing an unborn baby 

 

"(1) Subject as hereinafter in this subsection provided, any person who, with intent to destroy the life of a child capable of being born alive, by any wilful act causes a child to die before it has an existence independent of its mother, shall be guilty of felony, to wit, of child destruction, and shall be liable on conviction thereof on indictment to penal servitude for life:"

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_destruction

So you are trawling around the UK’s NHS and UK law to find something applicable to the United States.

 

 

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

So you are trawling around the UK’s NHS and UK law to find something applicable to the United States.

 

 

You asked a general question , you didn't ask a Country specific question . 

You made a hypothetical situation up and didn't state the Country where the hypothetical  situation (didn't) occur 

1 minute ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

You asked a general question , you didn't ask a Country specific question . 

You made a hypothetical situation up and didn't state the Country where the hypothetical  situation (didn't) occur 

Tge discussion is a ruling by the SCOTUS applicable in the USA.

 

Let’s see if you can work it out.

 

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Tge discussion is a ruling by the SCOTUS applicable in the USA.

 

Let’s see if you can work it out.

 

Yes, this is about  abortion .

Why did you mention a hypothetical situation about someone shooting an unborn baby ?

   But if you want to ask the same hypothetical  question about the USA , the answer is the same 

 

"In the U.S., most crimes of violence are covered by state law, not federal law. 38 states currently recognize the unborn child (the term usually used) or fetus as a homicide victim, and 29 of those states apply this principle throughout the period of pre-natal development.

  

   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foeticide#Laws_in_the_United_States

Actually the topic here is NOT a general abortion topic.

It's about how the SCOTUS just TRASHED a constitutional right that American women have had for 50 years by disregarding stare decisis.

The USA is in a state of shock and even deeper division now. We were Balkanized before, this adds steroids to that.

The generic pro life vs. pro choice stuff has been done to death like forever and in general people do not change their minds about that.

How many of the bible beating right wingers who applaud letting the government force a woman to give birth to a baby that she does not want would feel that way if their daughter/sister/granddaughter/niece  if their gal was raped by a gang banger? What if said girl is 14 years old?  

 

My guess is close to zero...they would secretly send her away for an abortion.  Bible beaters have been sending girls "away" secretly for decades to get abortions.  Hypocrisy at it's best.

 

If you do not want an abortion no one is forcing you to get one.  If you do, for your own reasons, want an abortion than a bunch of religious zealots should not be allowed to pass judgement on you and deny you the right to control YOUR body.

 

I for one am sick and tired of religious hypocrites trying to shove their beliefs down the throats of others, playing holier than thou, and of course supporting a wannabe criminal dictator who just grabs em by the pxxxy, encourages violence, mocks the handicapped, lies and cheats his way through life, and if "his" man jesus showed up at mar lago would spit in his face. 

5 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Well its not just her body, there's a body of a baby involved as well .

 

It is not a baby, it is a fetus; incapable of life on its own and for the first two trimesters without a functioning human brain.  Calling a fetus a baby is akin to calling an egg a chicken or an acorn an oak tree.

Edited June 25, 20224 yr by heybruce