GOP talking point: if you oppose SCOTUS decision, you're against democracy

[Flash]

They have an innate right to privacy & dominion over their own bodies.

The Constitution doesn't provide time limits, or talk about abortion specifically. Technically, one could argue that it would legally support abortion at ANY time. But Roe is a compromise between the competing rights of the mother and the unborn.

This all sounds like political decisions rather than anything in the Constitution.

 

[BartenderElite]

This all sounds like political decisions rather than anything in the Constitution.

Maybe. But the Constitution isn't perfect. There are things the founders couldn't anticipate.

On issues like abortion, it can be used as a guide, though. Roe was a good decision. Now we're in the wilderness.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

Maybe. But the Constitution isn't perfect. There are things the founders couldn't anticipate.

On issues like abortion, it can be used as a guide, though. Roe was a good decision. Now we're in the wilderness.

Not perfect? The Constitution is a catastrophic failure. A disaster.

The founders were a bunch of wealthy country squires, not the elite lawyers it would have taken to write a functional constitution.

 

[Into the Night]

It does not go before the people until the legislature writes the bill and votes to put it on the ballot.

Semantics fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

It was not an inherent right until 1973.

It is not an inherent right to murder your own children.

If it is an inherent right it would have been in the Constitution and all the state constitutions.

Denial of the Constitution of the United States. You are ignoring the 9th amendment again.

It was a court interpretation

The court does not have authority to interpret the Constitution. You are ignoring Article III again.

of a right

It is not a right.

that did not have a history in the U. S. or British common law.

Irrelevant. Rights do not come from a piece of paper.

 

[Flash]

Semantics fallacy.

But an accurate description of how the process works. It does no go before the voters before the legislature votes to place it on the ballot.

 

[Into the Night]

Yes the left hates Democracy

They prefer an oligarchy, though they say they support democracy. There currently is no democracy anywhere in the world. The United States was never a democracy. It was organized as a federated republic.

whenever they don't get their way and do everything within their power to circumvent it whenever they can,
your reiterating that incontrovertible fact derisively does nothing to change that that's reality.
Notice you can't actually argue against the point and offer no rebuttal to it whatsoever?

A vacuous truth, since there are no democracies anywhere in the world.

BTW, I abhor democracies. They have no leaders, no constitution, and it is an unstable form of government. They almost always dissolved into oligarchies or dictatorships (Athens dissolved into a dictatorship).

 

[Flash]

It is not an inherent right to murder your own children.

Denial of the Constitution of the United States. You are ignoring the 9th amendment again.

The court does not have authority to interpret the Constitution. You are ignoring Article III again.

It is not a right.

Irrelevant. Rights do not come from a piece of paper.

Women did not have the right to an abortion until the Supreme Court interpreted a piece of paper to say the 9th amendment protects the right to privacy between a woman and her doctor to have an abortion. That right did come from a piece of paper called the Constitution.

 

[Into the Night]

Since the 2020 election, almost every conservative on this site has argued that "we're not a democracy."

Conservatives always want fewer people to vote. They are not pro-democracy.

There was no election in 2020. The election faulted due to election fraud by Democrats.

A democracy is government by popular vote. It has no constitution, no representatives. It is mob rule. Despite this, you reject it.
A republic is government by constitution. It has representatives, elected by the process outlined in that constitution. You reject it. You discard the Constitution of the United States and all State constitutions.
A dictatorships is government by an individual. They usually have a title like 'king', 'ruler', 'monarch', or even 'prime minister' (which more often is like a hand of the king, but may himself be the king).
An oligarchy is dictatorship by committee. This is what Democrats want, and what they have turned the federal government into. Democrats reject and discard constitutions.

Democrats use the word 'democracy' like a buzzword. You don't want democracy. You want an oligarchy, with yourself as part of the Elite. It is YOU and Democrats that don't want a vote. You are describing yourself (inversion fallacy).

Fuck you. I know what you are and what you want.

 

[Into the Night]

Women have inherent rights over their own bodies.

No, they don't. Neither do men.
There is NO inherent right to murder your own children.

That this was not specified in the Constitution is more a reflection of the time that document was established.

Discard of the Constitution of the United States. Presentism fallacy.

You have no moral argument. Murdering your own children is not moral. It doesn't matter if you dress it up as "women's rights".

 

[Into the Night]

Well if you want to get technical we're a Constitutional democratic republic under a federalist system.

No such thing as a "democratic republic". A democracy is government by popular vote. There is no constitution and no representatives. A republic is government by law, a constitution. That constitution describes what representatives there are, what power and authority they have, and how they are to be elected.

The United States was organized as a federated republic. Each State is a republic. A federated republic is simply layers of republics.

This may sound picky, but you set yourself up for their trap the instant you try to refer to the United States as any kind of democracy. It never was.

Democrats do not want a democracy. They want and have implemented an oligarchy. They call this a 'democracy'. It's a buzzword to them.

 

[Into the Night]

They don't have inherent rights over the life and death of other human bodies and becoming pregnant is a voluntary act, voluntary actions have consequences.

Absolutely correct.

 

[Into the Night]

And also a representative democracy.

Democracies have no representatives.

 

[BartenderElite]

Democracies have no representatives.

All do. Ours does.

 

[Into the Night]

It must not be inherent if it was only recently discovered.

It is not a right at all to murder your own children.

Does a woman (or man) have the inherent right to be a prostitute or use drugs or have sex at 17?

No.

I think it is more of a political than a constitutional rights issue.

Rights do not come from a piece of paper.

I favor keeping it legal in my state,

So you favor people murdering their own children for convenience. Gotit.

but it is hard to find a constitutional justification for that right.

Rights do not come from a piece of paper.

 

[Into the Night]

It is not always a voluntary act. And well beyond the usual "rape & incest" exception (which many states aren't even planning on making).

Please describe how it is an involuntary act (other than rape). Incest is a voluntary act.

 

[Into the Night]

Those are poor comparisons.

Actually, Flash brought up valid comparisons, even if you reject them. Fallacy fallacy.

If nothing else, America is - or was - about individual liberty.

No, it isn't. It is about liberty and being responsible for your own actions, and a government defined and limited by a constitution.

Forcing a woman to carry a fetus from conception to term is like something from the dark ages.

Nobody is forcing a women to do any such thing. The Supreme Court is simply poised to return the question to the States, since there is no authority given to the federal government to legalize or ban abortions.

It gives no consideration to her individual rights.

YOU give no consideration to the life of the aborted child. You are talking about murder here.

It's completely misogynistic and draconian.

No. KILLING is draconian. This is what you are arguing for. The right to murder your own child. THERE IS NO SUCH RIGHT.

The action proposed by the Supreme Court is not about this at all. Strawman fallacy.

 

[Monad Portal]

Because, hey - now the VOTERS get to decide if a woman has rights nor not. Why would anyone be opposed to that? Don't you trust voters to do the right thing?

I've already heard it a half dozen times in the past day. If you oppose overturning a 50+ year old precedent and what has been the law of the land for a generation, you're against democracy. You're against Americans.

They really play us all for fools.

this is why we're a constitutional republic not a pure democracy, so rights cannot be voted away.

 

[Into the Night]

It is always a voluntary act except in the cases of rape and statutory rape what the hell are you talking about?

That accounts for 1.5 abortions per year and that's being generous, if we allow abortions in the cases of rape and incest through statutory rape would you agree to banning the rest of abortions? Didn't think so.

Making up numbers and using them as data is a fallacy, known as an argument from randU fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

Where did you get 1.5?

He made it up, obviously.

Like I said, it goes well beyond rape & incest (which are very hard to prove in court, btw).

Incest is a voluntary act. It doesn't matter if it's easy to prove in court. You also seem to ignore DNA tests, which is admissible evidence in court.

Birth control is nowhere near 100% effective in many cases. There are many unplanned pregnancies.

Still a voluntary act.

We shouldn't be judging these things

Yes...we should.

or trying to parse them.

What's to parse? You are advocating killing.

Women should have a right to terminate pregnancies in the 1st trimester.

No such right. You do not have a right to murder your own children.