Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

MadameButterfly

(3,632 posts)

7. i'm surprised there hasn't been more ridicule that

Reply to bigtree (Original post)

Wed May 4, 2022, 05:28 PM

May 2022

Alito cites a barrister from the 1600's in his opinion. If he has to go back that far to support his opinion, how desperate must he be? There wasn't even democracy back then. Anywhere. Rights came and went as monarchs pleased. Are we going to look to 400 year old kings, czars, and cheiftans to decide our laws?

Anyone want to examine the rights of women in the 17th century? There are a few problems there beyond abortion.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

7 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Alito's surprised there's little mention of abortion in a 4k word, 1787 document crafted by 58 men [View all] bigtree May 2022 OP

There's also no mention of "pregnancy" either viva la May 2022 #1

The constitution doesn't reference children either. jmbar2 May 2022 #2

Alito is a fucking idiot and a liar. fightforfreedom May 2022 #3

At the time the Constitution was written, abortion--to the point of "quickening"--was legal. MissMillie May 2022 #4

its also of interest that the states cited by Alito as his justification don't ban abortion outright bigtree May 2022 #5

Brilliant piece, well written and very informative msfiddlestix May 2022 #6

i'm surprised there hasn't been more ridicule that MadameButterfly May 2022 #7