SCOTUS to overturn Roe v Wade

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

cowboyinexile

Have some class
A/V Subscriber
Jun 29, 2004
21,347
11,614
1,743
42
Fairmont, MN
It’s quite a stretch to claim infringement of freedom when there will remain states within the republic that will gladly welcome your visit to their state.
Mississippi passes a law saying women can't vote. Every other state sees that as idiotic so women run for Bama and Florida so they can vote. This sounds stupid but it's the way you interpreted this.
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
20,190
21,205
1,743
Mississippi passes a law saying women can't vote. Every other state sees that as idiotic so women run for Bama and Florida so they can vote. This sounds stupid but it's the way you interpreted this.
Mildred and Richard Loving didn’t have their rights violated by Virginia’s miscegenation laws. They could move somewhere else and get married.:facepalm:

i don’t think I have seen a more inane, insane post than that one of his in a long time.
 

CPTNQUIRK

I'm Your Captain!
A/V Subscriber
Nov 20, 2006
39,774
22,669
1,743
71
In the Boondocks in Creek County, Oklahoma
It’s quite a stretch to claim infringement of freedom when there will remain states within the republic that will gladly welcome your visit to their state.
You didn’t really think this through, did you? If Oklahoma were to ban something like gay people opening a business, according to you their rights wouldn’t be infringed because the could go to other states and open a business.
 

Rack

Legendary Cowboy
Oct 13, 2004
27,087
11,155
1,743
Earth
14th Amendment say hi.
How so, that one guarantees life first and foremost...14th Amendment Section #1 ==="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."

This is the whole issue, reasonable people don't agree on this part and what that means. To me it says all states have been breaking the 14th Amendment for a long time by depriving citizen persons in the womb of life. Granted that needs to be outlines in terms of when, how, why, that life becomes the protect form of life granted to all citizen persons. Point being we need to be able to let the states do their job when they sharply disagree on what life, citizens, and persons are. Once again, I know you are a lawyer, but can you not see both sides of this argument as having strong points and weak ones? Can you see where we may need to decided on when life and personhood begin and agree on when protection of that personhood should start? I can certainly see that both women and babies need to be protected and granted life, but definitions are going to very by state due to when they believe personhood starts..are the courts not designed as are the states to work this out?
 
Last edited:

oks10

Federal Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Sep 9, 2007
11,677
7,028
1,743
Piedmont, OK
Are laws set in stone or do they get Amended and challenged over time? We all know the answer...being triggered over this law is no different than the far right being triggered over the California one.
You asked a question and that's my answer. The man who has said he wants to make Oklahoma the most pro-life state in the country.
 

Rack

Legendary Cowboy
Oct 13, 2004
27,087
11,155
1,743
Earth
You didn’t really think this through, did you? If Oklahoma were to ban something like gay people opening a business, according to you their rights wouldn’t be infringed because the could go to other states and open a business.
Please don't take offense to this example, I just want you to feel the depth of the argument for many...AND also know that the life of the women is EQUALLY important to someone who is truly pro life and is so in a loving meaningful way. I'm conflicted on the issue as I'm pro life but I know we must make exceptions in cases of extreme hardship...
To many, this is more like Dread Scott, than gays doing business. Dread said if a slave is a slave in one state and he/she goes to a free state, when he returns they are still a slave. Btw, they were also not a "person" under the law, because if they were you couldn't own them as they did. This is the depth that people feel about life in the womb, the rub is where this begins and when personhood should be granted. Slaves were not seen as persons, that is why I used that example...life in the womb is not seen as persons by the unrestricted abortion on demand side... with this example one get's to think about it even more deeply. Also this is the issue that has to be "worked out."
 
Last edited:

Rack

Legendary Cowboy
Oct 13, 2004
27,087
11,155
1,743
Earth
You asked a question and that's my answer. The man who has said he wants to make Oklahoma the most pro-life state in the country.
I'm for life and I know he is, that includes the life of mothers...So if we want to be the most pro-life state we will have to make exceptions in some cases and that will need amended. That's how the arguments with this law need to go...pro life has to be for all life.
 

CPTNQUIRK

I'm Your Captain!
A/V Subscriber
Nov 20, 2006
39,774
22,669
1,743
71
In the Boondocks in Creek County, Oklahoma
Please don't take offense to this example, I just want you to feel the depth of the argument for many...AND also know that the life of the women is EQUALLY important to someone who is truly pro life and is so in a loving meaningful way. I'm conflicted on the issue as I'm pro life but I know we must make exceptions in cases of extreme hardship...
To many, this is more like Dread Scott, than gays doing business. Dread said if a slave is a slave in one state and he/she goes to a free state, when he returns they are still a slave. Btw, they are also not a "person" under the law, because if they were you couldn't own them as they did. This is the depth that people feel about life in the womb, the rub is where this begins and when personhood should be granted. Slaves were not seen as persons, that is why I used that example...life in the womb is not seen as persons by the unrestricted abortion on demand side... with this example one get's to think about it even more deeply. Also this is the issue that has to be "worked out."
I am not offering an opinion on Roe V Wade. I’m pointing out the flaws in his argument about infringement of freedom.
 

oks10

Federal Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Sep 9, 2007
11,677
7,028
1,743
Piedmont, OK
Not surprised by your non-response. Just proves you have no facts to support anything you disagree with.
You just said that you can't be infringed on if there's another state you can go to that shares your beliefs. That's quite possibly the stupidest thing I've seen you say on this board. By your own words, one state can freely violate the rights/freedoms of individuals and as long there's another state nearby that doesn't they aren't infringing. Is that not what you meant? Because, as shown by the responses to your post, that's definitely how it came across to many of us.
 

Rack

Legendary Cowboy
Oct 13, 2004
27,087
11,155
1,743
Earth
I am not offering an opinion on Roe V Wade. I’m pointing out the flaws in his argument about infringement of freedom.
I wasn’t either, just pointing out that a similar thing has already happened historically and a war resulted to end it. I think if Row never happened we wouldn’t even be in this situation of abortion states (slave states in my example) vs pro life ones (free states in my example). Once again this all revolves around the central issue of when life and personhood begins….if a baby in the womb is a person at what point are they given rights afforded as such…when we hand this to the states to decide this is what will need to be determined…hopefully not in the very costly anti life way we had to settle the thing in my example.
 

CPTNQUIRK

I'm Your Captain!
A/V Subscriber
Nov 20, 2006
39,774
22,669
1,743
71
In the Boondocks in Creek County, Oklahoma
I wasn’t either, just pointing out that a similar thing has already happened historically and a war resulted to end it. I think if Row never happened we wouldn’t even be in this situation of abortion states (slave states in my example) vs pro life ones (free states in my example). Once again this all revolves around the central issue of when life and personhood begins….if a baby in the womb is a person at what point are they given rights afforded as such…
And I’m not delving into THAT argument. I have my opinion and that’s what matters to me. Others can have their opinions.
 

Rack

Legendary Cowboy
Oct 13, 2004
27,087
11,155
1,743
Earth
And I’m not delving into THAT argument. I have my opinion and that’s what matters to me. Others can have their opinions.
That’s fair. I just want us to have unity And stand for life for everyone. Mothers, babies, people who have been wronged and need to be given an exception.
 
Sep 3, 2010
1,213
241
1,693
That’s fair. I just want us to have unity And stand for life for everyone. Mothers, babies, people who have been wronged and need to be given an exception.
Just want to say that you've been a voice of reason in this discussion and have managed to articulate my views in a way that I probably couldn't. Hat's off to you man.
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
20,190
21,205
1,743
How so, that one guarantees life first and foremost...14th Amendment Section #1 ==="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."

This is the whole issue, reasonable people don't agree on this part and what that means. To me it says all states have been breaking the 14th Amendment for a long time by depriving citizen persons in the womb of life. Granted that needs to be outlines in terms of when, how, why, that life becomes the protect form of life granted to all citizen persons. Point being we need to be able to let the states do their job when they sharply disagree on what life, citizens, and persons are. Once again, I know you are a lawyer, but can you not see both sides of this argument as having strong points and weak ones? Can you see where we may need to decided on when life and personhood begin and agree on when protection of that personhood should start? I can certainly see that both women and babies need to be protected and granted life, but definitions are going to very by state due to when they believe personhood starts..are the courts not designed as are the states to work this out?
Oh lord....let me see if I can explain the post you quoted in a manner that even you can understand because I've already given my analysis of RvW and I'm not interested in dumbing that down further for you.

The post you quoted was in response to this post:

It’s quite a stretch to claim infringement of freedom when there will remain states within the republic that will gladly welcome your visit to their state.
Wherein someone argued that it is a stretch to claim infringement of freedom in one state when there remains states within the republic that will gladly welcome your visit to their state. That when one state violates someone's Constitutional rights, it's not an infringement on freedoms simply and solely because there are other states that don't.

That's absurd because the 14th Amendment says that Constitutional rights apply across the board regardless of what state you are in....it's not contingent upon other states recognizing those rights or not.

Constitutional rights are not subject to letting "the states do their job when they sharply disagree on what life, citizens, and persons are"....they are either Constitutional rights which ALL states cannot violate or they aren't. Ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court is arbiter of whether a Constitutional right exists or it doesn't.

Until the Loving v. Virginia decision of the Supreme Court states "sharply disagreed" on whether marriage between a white man and a black women should be allowed to marry. That fact is completely and wholly....ridiculously even....irrelevant to whether the Lovings rights and freedom to marry were infringed upon. The fact that they could have gone to another state to get married is completely and wholly...ridiculously even....irrelevant to whether the Lovings rights and freedom to marry were infringed upon by Virginia.

Because of the 14th Amendment.

You're focused on RvW and the upcoming decision. I long ago gave my analysis on RvW.

My post you quoted was not in anyway a statement that the 14th Amendment guarantees the right to abortion. It was a response to the idiotic notion that a citizen can't claim that one state infringes upon their Constitutional rights because others states give them those rights.

Because of the 14th Amendment.
 
Dec 9, 2013
2,003
678
743
52
I wasn’t either, just pointing out that a similar thing has already happened historically and a war resulted to end it. I think if Row never happened we wouldn’t even be in this situation of abortion states (slave states in my example) vs pro life ones (free states in my example). Once again this all revolves around the central issue of when life and personhood begins….if a baby in the womb is a person at what point are they given rights afforded as such…when we hand this to the states to decide this is what will need to be determined…hopefully not in the very costly anti life way we had to settle the thing in my example.
But how is that personhood and the associated rights different just bc that life was created by consensual sex vs rape/incest?
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
20,190
21,205
1,743
But how is that personhood and the associated rights different just bc that life was created by consensual sex vs rape/incest?
You’re asking him to be internally logical and rational with his opinions.

That may be beyond him.

We’ll see.
 
Mar 11, 2006
4,979
2,588
1,743
[
You’re asking him to be internally logical and rational with his opinions.

That may be beyond him.

We’ll see.
While I may not always agree (this issue for example) with @Rack l, he is always extremely thoughtful in his response. I appreciate his views.

People, that understand and like to read
differing perspectives, get that.

I get you don’t.
 
Jul 5, 2020
2,162
408
213
59
Broken Arrow
You just said that you can't be infringed on if there's another state you can go to that shares your beliefs. That's quite possibly the stupidest thing I've seen you say on this board. By your own words, one state can freely violate the rights/freedoms of individuals and as long there's another state nearby that doesn't they aren't infringing. Is that not what you meant? Because, as shown by the responses to your post, that's definitely how it came across to many of us.
I never said you can’t be infringed because I understand the definition of infringement. I simply stated that it was a stretch to make that claim. Will you have to drive or fly to another state? Maybe, but if this draft is made final then abortions will still be legal and available in this country.