U.S. judge blocks enforcement of near-total abortion ban in Texas

I have said nothing different

Now

Can you explain this "fundamental right to privacy" for me? What "fundamental right to privacy" do I have? Is seems the government invades my privacy routinely and the Dems are pushing to do so even more like with their new IRS proposals. So what exactly is this "right to privacy"?

 

Person = human being

nothing more needed

 

Of course and unborn baby is involved. What is it you think is killed in an abortion?

 

The SC argument about privacy is explained in the link I provided. I have not said anything about any 'fundamental' right, but I would not be surprised if some people consider it a fundamental right. I take it you disagree with that.

Me, I wouldn't mind if Roe/Wade is overturned, because I think States can decide on their own, like they do about death penalty, marijuana, etc issues.

 

Actually it shows why RvW and this "fundamental right to privacy" has never been settled law. It was a twisted combobulated created right. Sorta from here and sorta from there. That has ALWAYS been the problem with RvW and why a large body of legal scholars openly state it was one of the worst legal rulings ever issued by the SCOTUS. The majority knew what they wanted they just didn't have a way to get there so they created this "right to privacy" which was merely a "right to abortion". Pardon me but if there is a "fundamental right to privacy" then that would apply to EVERYTHING private in my life, like my having to report my income to the IRS every year. Like any vaccination status I have. Where I live, where I work and on and on.

The only think RvW established was that abortion should be legal because a majority of justices thought it would be a good idea for society. It should have been decided in the legislature and a law written. And I agree it should be a state matter not a federal matter.

 

Yes, and it ALSO means that no one can be forced to give their heart to someone needing a heart transplant nor forced to give blood ..

Don't you want that right?

 

Sorry but basic rights like privacy and bodily autonomy should be for ALL Americans. We shouldn't have to run from state to state to find "freedom of speech" or the right to vote...

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
There is no "baby" involved in abortion.

A ZEF...but then I don't deal in emotion, just facts.

And screaming, "it's a baby! It's a baby" proves NOTHING.

 

Or to buy marijuana......oh, wait....

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
Sorry but basic rights like privacy and bodily autonomy should be for ALL Americans. We shouldn't have to run from state to state to find "freedom of speech" or the right to vote...

So buying pot is the same as the right to free speech or the right to vote?

NO, it isn't.


I see you couldn't refute my post.

 

"Zef" and "baby" are not mutually exclusive as you have been told over and over. "Zef" is just one stage of the life of a baby. I use the common language and I'm not screaming, I am speaking quite civilly. If you think that it is a baby makes it emotional I can't help that I would say that would be a quite normal reaction.

What is it you think is killed in an abortion?

Are you claiming all abortions take place in the zygote stage of a babies life? Well then what is your objection to the Texas law?

 

So the moniker "right to privacy" actually only means "right to kill the unborn child"
And the moniker "right to bodily autonomy" only means "right to kill the unborn child"

Then why do you hide it behind the moniker instead of calling it what it is, the right to have an abortion? You non-sequiturs deserve no comments.

 

Can you sell one of your kidney's to someone or can the government prevent you from doing so?

 

You're entitled to believe that, but it's not a law, not a religious principle, nor is it constitutional.

 

We shall see.

 

Fourth amendment.

Routinely? Care to elaborate?

So, it's a fourth amendment versus sixteenth amendment argument.

Does the former overrule the latter, or the latter limit the former?

I believe the latter limits the former. IF that were not true, there would be no 16th amendment.

Your last statement's premise has yet to be established as fact, the premise of which is whether that a fetus is a human.

That is why I asserted, in the OP, 'we should go with what we know'.

 

That is from a UNREASONABLE search and seizure and a judge can approve you be searched and documents produced. It says nothing about my general "privacy" So can a judge order an abortion not take place?

My income taxes for example, I have to report my income and private financial information, where is my right to privacy?

Are you against having to prove to the government you have been vaccinated and your vaccination being reported to the government? That's a privacy issue.

I just want to know other than abortion what does this right to privacy that RvW created cover, can you cite what the court said?

It is established scientific and medical fact ever studied embryology? A HUMAN fetus is a human it is not some other species that turns into a human at some later time. How about we follow the science?

 

Gimmer a break!

The abortion debate is about the definition of personhood. Repubs don't give a damn about children and it is proven every day by the duplicitous nature of their actions. They have no credibility, and they should be fined heavily for even using the word "logic" when they haven't a clue of what it is.

 

Now you're changing gears to define the abortion debate "about the definition of personhood". That is a part of it, but it's never been crux the liberal position up until the point Biden has Liberals in a contradictory crosswire, and no I'm not going to let Liberals escape it. Either you're for bodily autonomy and self empowerment, or you aren't. Aren't Democratic voters tired of betraying party lines and party ethos? It's time to take a stand for something.

 

I don't have R v W ruling before me. I imagine it has something to do with penumbra rights.
Why don't you read the ruling?

SCOTUS has determined that not all rights are absolute. This right is limited by the 16th amendment.

It's not black and white.

Not all rights are absolute. With vaccines, you have a nation health/national security issue that places a legitimate limit on a right.

Now then, those whose vaccinations are on record with the state did so voluntarily, as I got vaccinated, and accepted a state record of the event.

What I am against, would be any law that makes it illegal to refuse vaccination.

Mandates, if it is a pandemic, I support, if they give a choice (no vax, you must submit to weekly tests, things of this nature).

Mandates for non pandemic or non severe endemic vaccines I do not support. I don't see them is necessary. Most people get those vaccines.

Using a state record against entry to a venue where there will be crowds of people, if the disease in question is pandemic disease, I support for national security/national health reasons.

The only 'state record of vaccination' I would support are vaccines to prevent pandemic diseases, and where the disease is killing a lot of people.

I support prevention of threats to US health and national security by fair and reasonable means

IF it's not a threat to US health and national security, if it's some kind of local thing, no, I would not support mandates for that.

No. You'll have to read the ruling. I'm guesstimating what it said, based on news articles, and so forth.

Embryologists will no doubt agree that a fetus is a human being.

But, as this PHD explains...

https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html

The question as to when the physical material dimension of a human being begins is strictly a scientific question, and fundamentally should be answered by human embryologists not by philosophers, bioethicists, theologians, politicians, x-ray technicians, movie stars, or obstetricians and gynecologists. The question as to when a human person begins is a philosophical question.


Myth 1: "Prolifers claim that the abortion of a human embryo or a human fetus is wrong because it destroys human life. But human sperms and human ova are human life, too. So prolifers would also have to agree that the destruction of human sperms and human ova are no different from abortions and that is ridiculous!"

Is she right?

I don't know. But, I believe she is.

 

Strange that YOU conveniently IGNORE the FACTS regarding women who get "heavily depressed" after giving birth?

Cherry pick much?

 

Care to explain how that is in any significantly different from the current RvW ruling?

 

It's murder.

 

FALSE equivalence!

PREGNANCY is NOT a communicable DISEASE!

 

It is DIFFERENT because pregnancy and diseases are DIFFERENT!