CNN Goons Heads Explode After Republicans Big Win in Texas

His entire argument is predicated on the implication that he is arguing against the notion of the interpretation being incorrect.

He specifically said "Ajd at one time it was a constitutional right to own another human being. Again the constitution does not mention anything about a right to abortion. The court handed down many grossly unjust decisions over the years, plessy vs Ferguson , and Roe v Wade were all such decisions."...

How in the world could you possibly conclude that he is not arguing against the notion that he disagrees with the interpretation put forth in Roe V Wade? You didnt even need to bother to infer anything because he spelled it out in black and white.

You only further my point which is that you and others spend all of your time playing this silly semantical game rather than addressing the actual debate.

See above. Then simply argue against his clearly spelled out point rather than going off on irrelevant semantics that only serve to obfuscate the actual debate.

 

I would be glad to do that.

Please allow me to cut out the middleman.

Garyd? Is abortion a constitutional right or not?

 

Are you for the practice of abortion as it exist in this country? Do you support mothers being able to kill their unborn children? Are you pro both of those?

 

Sounds pro-abortion to me then since you support the mother being able to kill her unborn baby and you support how abortion is practiced in this county. Why do you have difficulty with that?

 

But that isn't abortion as defined by roe v wade so your point is moot.

Thanks though.

 

Because I'm not pro-abortion I'm pro-choice.

 

some Republicans already trying to make it a crime

 

Some states would be pro-choice, others not.

 

Where in the Constitution does it mention abortion?

 

Where is there a right to an abortion in the Constitution? What court case said that there is such a Right? No, its not RvW..that was based on Right to Privacy, and State interests, nothing in it affirms abortion as a Right.

 

Yep, I've heard of that. Now prove that abortion is one of them. As your own quoted part notes they are inferred from the language, history, and structure of the Constitution or cases interpreting it. Abortion has none of those.

 

Liberty and pursue of happiness.

 

Southern WHITE Racists cherished Dredd Scott.

How did that turn out again?

FACTS matter!

 

The RvW ruling determined that what the states did was UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

 

It's interesting that Trump 5th Circuit Court of Appeals appointee James Ho shot down the Mississippi Heartbeat bill, I wonder what made the Texas bill constitutional? Actually, since the Declaration of Independence states that the right to life is unalienable
Unalienable Rights vs Inalienable Rights (gemworld.com)

and that is backed up by the the due process clauses in the 5th and 14th Amendment, killing a baby before he or she reaches the heartbeat stage of life (6 weeks) is unconstitutional.

 

Removing life support results in the death of the individual that CANNOT survive without that life support.

Is that KILLING or is it euthanasia?

 

Pursuit of Happiness is no where in the Constitution. It IS in the Declaration of Independence. However the courts have never referred to it and does not consider it as part of the law of the land. Liberty appears 3 times in the Constitution. However it has never referred to abortion. Particularly since abortion is about two sets of Rights. Whether you want to acknowledge the other set or not is not relevant. RvW established that at the point of viability the State does have a States interest to secure the unborns life.

 

Both. :shrug: Euthanasia is just the polite term for killing. Killing in and of itself is neutral in that it can mean killing someone legally or illegally. Euthanasia is just condoned killing. Same with the death penalty which when performing the act is also called euthanizing. Same with abortion, its nothing more than condoned killing.

 

The courts have never recognized the DoI as a legal document. Nothing in it confers any recognizable Rights as far as the law is concerned. Just as well since that is a document talking about treason. You don't want to make treason legal do you?

The 14th Amendment only applies to those that are born. Indeed the first few words of it says "All persons born or naturalized in the United States..."

The 5th amendment, talks about "persons". Unfortunately it only refers to live persons per RvW. And they made a legitimate reason as to why. Every time the word "person" appears in the Constitution it is referring to someone that is already alive. For instance the 5th Amendment talks about a person as being able to commit crimes, have property removed etc etc. The unborn cannot commit crimes. Nor can they hold any sort of property. The 5th obviously is only referring to those that are born and capable of doing the things mentioned in it.

 

It also determined that at the point of viability the State did have an interest and could determine whether an abortion was allowed or not.

 

Not in anything like the numbers today and the practice was not accepted in the broader society. Not to mention which medical tech was way more limited.

 

Just answer this question....

Does the following quote "imply anything regarding interpretation"?

"Ajd at one time it was a constitutional right to own another human being. Again the constitution does not mention anything about a right to abortion. The court handed down many grossly unjust decisions over the years, plessy vs Ferguson , and Roe v Wade were all such decisions."...

Does it indicate that he is arguing against the interpretation made in Roe v Wade? Obviously his argument is that it should not be interpreted that way and thus he is calling it an unjust decision. Instead of taking on that debate head on, you hide behind semantics which has been my point all along. No matter how many times you try, it is always going to go back to the same thing, which is you refusing to acknowledge the obvious which is that he and others know full well what Roe V Wade declares, and when they call it unconstitutional they are arguing against the interpretation made rather than them not understanding that due to R v W it is considered constitutional. Of course they know that. Instead of understanding that and engaging in the actual debate, you choose the smarmy route and argue literally nothing which is not an intellectually honest way to approach the discussion.

 

As was slavery. Again, you champion something that I assume history will ultimately correct. Brava.

 

Yes, Democrats did cherish their slavery. It doesn't seem to have changed at all. Democrats look to their utopian plantation model. And facts do matter. Democrats today don't seem to be any different from the cats they were long ago.

 

touché