Permanent Constitution or a Permanently Changing One?

[Kuciwalker]

No it's not. Nothing in that has to do with fetuses or their rights.

[MRT144]

also i dont understand how banning abortion when a certain criteria is met is somehow saying it's unconstitutional to ban abortion.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
No it's not. Nothing in that has to do with fetuses or their rights.

You don't know what you're talking about. The entire basis for specific circumstances in which it is constitutional to ban abortion is completely dependent on that.

[Kuciwalker]

Because Roe established very stringent, limited criteria (the "compelling reason" criterion, which is used only for highly protected rights), which no state has ever met in the 34 years since.

[MRT144]

it's completely constitutional to limit abortion. does that mean you cant ban it, or it can be banned?

a half of a whole isnt a whole.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by MRT144
You don't know what you're talking about. The entire basis for specific circumstances in which it is constitutional to ban abortion is completely dependent on that.

In Roe, yes, the exceptions are based on personhood of the fetus. But Roe itself is a terrible decision.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Because Roe established very stringent, limited criteria (the "compelling reason" criterion, which is used only for highly protected rights), which no state has ever met in the 34 years since.

while it might be an effective ban, it doesnt mean it cant be done. You must fashion pro-life lawyers stupid.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by MRT144
it's completely constitutional to limit abortion. does that mean you cant ban it, or it can be banned?

Under Roe it is not. It is unconstitutional to ban or restrict abortion except in very limited circumstances.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by MRT144
while it might be an effective ban, it doesnt mean it cant be done. You must fashion pro-life lawyers stupid.

There's no good constitutional basis for nearly any restriction on the states' powers to regulate abortion.

The fact that Roe is theoretically not absolute doesn't change the fact that it's a bad decision in every way.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


In Roe, yes, the exceptions are based on personhood of the fetus. But Roe itself is a terrible decision.

Because of the rationale used to reach the decision? maybe, but that hardly means "TEH JUDICIAL ACTIVISTS!"

Something can be a bad decision without it being activism.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by MRT144
Because of the rationale used to reach the decision? maybe, but that hardly means "TEH JUDICIAL ACTIVISTS!"

Something can be a bad decision without it being activism.

Yes, but Roe is both a bad decision and activism

[MRT144]

says you... How would you determine it was activism? You seem to be solely using the rationale as evidence of activism.

[Kuciwalker]

No I wasn't. I was using the rationale as additional criticism.

It was activism because the judges clearly tried to stretch the Constitution to meet their personal convictions.

[MRT144]

clearly? All hail Kuciwalker, whom has a time machine, and mind reading machine and went to time and place. How did you exactly formulate the clarity of their personal convictions?

[MRT144]

I also would like to know why this piece of activism has survived so long. Almost anyone on the supreme court would instantly overturn Roe because it was so obviously activism, right?

Unless justices since have seen merit in the arguement, even on a limited level.