Liberal Forum
Archive
‹
No Holds Barred Political Forum
‹
Just from a purely legal standpoint, people
25 Jun 2022 5:18 pm
Well, I'm not defending roe. I've never read it. AND I don't agree with it. I believe a state can outlaw a medical procedure - that is, criminalize its performance. I'm saying a woman has a right to privacy in her person - I'm not saying a doctor has a right to perform an abortion. I don't see that in the Constitution.SJConspirator » 25 Jun 2022, 5:06 pm » wrote: ↑ this is a good argument for the Roe v Wade decision. However, I believe that state constitutions should trump the US constitution when they are in conflict. Of course they don’t, and that is why I am glad Roe v Wade was struck down .
from a purely constitutional law pov, you are correct. Roe v Wade was justified by the wording of the 4th.
When you complain, ur friends roll their eyes and ur enemies rejoice
"Because I SAY I am" is a todler's tantrum, not "science"
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not a friend
An opinion you won't defend is not your own
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
"Because I SAY I am" is a todler's tantrum, not "science"
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not a friend
An opinion you won't defend is not your own
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?