Abortion is in the constitution.

All rights are enshrined in the constitution. The right to kill isn’t.

 

Still avoiding the obvious.

 

Just can’t admit a fact eh?

 

Your statement contradicts itself.

 

You think there is a right to kill? No wonder you are so confused.

 

Where in the Constitution does it say a rock has no rights? What kind of question is that? Do you believe the Constitution is a document that has to itemize every single thing in the Universe? You apparently didn't understand anything I posted, don't know what rights are or the purpose of the Constitution. Here are some hints (emphasized):

Prior to birth everyone is a part of their mother. In other words her property. You would not exist without your mother and have absolutely no rights. ALL rights to her body are hers because everything within her body is her property. When you don't own your own body you are nothing more than a slave. And this is why slaves were considered to have no rights even after the Constitution was ratified, because they were not considered human, they were considered property.

You mean those unelected lawyers dressed in black robes for show? The ones who were so brilliant as to declare that corporations (a paper created fiction) are persons with the same protected rights as human beings and that money is speech? The ones who seized the power to "interpret" the Constitution as they see fit (Marbury vs Madison) in violation of Article III (no such power was ever granted to the Judiciary) and in violation of the 10th Amendment? Those "smart" bunch of phony corporate boot lickers? It's only a "harshly debated issue" because of religious fanatics who want to make it a harshly debated issue and a willing judiciary.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it make it clear that I have to defecate in a toilet and not on the steps of the Supreme Court either (see my first and second paragraph in this response).

 

These folks say you are wrong

Are our bodies our property? | Conscious Entities

 

LOL, you apparently do not understand if corporations are not considered persons there would never be any right to take them to court. Evidently you don’t like that so side with corporations.

 

A lot of people say I'm wrong. And?

The US government is not supposed to be a person either, yet the First Amendment protects the right to petition the government for redress of grievances.

 

And what, you continue to embrace it?

 

so basically i’m right and you are wrong. You can’t point to anything in constitution which resolves the abortion issue. Nowhere in constitution does it address when life begins and which rights (woman vs unborn child) takes precedence over the others. This is just a fact. Deal with it.

Then to attempt to discredit justices, not sure you can be taken seriously at this point

funny enough, you belittle justices yet are ok with roe vs wade where the ‘unelected lawyers dressed in black robes for show’ basically attempted to force abortion laws on whole country. If you want to be consistent here, then these unelected lawyers in black robes should leave this to us, the voters, to decide what laws we want state by state, democratically. So you belittle the justice but when convenient, want them to decide these things for us, not let us decide democratically.

Somehow people think overturning roe vs wade will outlaw abortion. NO. It will up to us, the voters. Why do you have a problem with this? Why do these unelected lawyers in black robes get to decide?

 

Nope.

 

What exactly am I "embracing" other than what I posted? If you mean the latter, corporations were sued long before Citizens United vs FEC.

 

So basically I'm right and you're wrong, now you are making all the sense in the world because you said so.

I already did but like I said you don't know what rights are or what the purpose of the Constitution is and especially what the 9th Amendment does.

This is just a fact deal with it (or in your case don't bother, it's way over your head).

No I made no such attempt, I intentionally did discredit those phony black robed pirates. I haven't taken you seriously since you first posted your response to my post. But I am here to discuss regardless. That is until your end of the discussion starts losing me entirely.

I am not "ok" with Roe v Wade, it never should have been an issue in the first place if those fools masquerading as a government actually adhered to the Constitution according to their Oath. The right to an abortion was always protected by the 9th Amendment.

You are making crap up about me. The only time I ever want SCOTUS to get involved in anything is when they are actually doing the job within the powers granted to them in Article III. That is to decide if a law or an act is in compliance with the Constitution or not. Not to invent fanciful "interpretations" of the Constitution as the wind blows.

It will because states will invent new laws that will outlaw abortion, they already do.

Because it was never an issue to begin with. Again the right to an abortion is protected by the 9th Amendment.

Because of people like you who bought into this judicial scam that has existed since 1803.

 

What do guns do?

 

no, you haven't. You seem to be the only person in the world who can point to where constitution resolves the abortion issue, explicitly, as fact.. It's your opinion and your interpretation, nothing else. Not a fact.

same here, you cannot be taken seriously in how you discredit those who are much smarter and prepared than you are, your arrogance points to what is usually the case with those who think they are smarter than everyone else.......

wrong. Many know that the 9th amendment has very broad and ambiguous language which activists and supreme court have loosely interpreted to protect rights not explicitly stated in constitution. This is why legals scholars and people MUCH smarter than you struggle to protect 'abortion rights' which are nowhere in bill of rights. If it were, there would be no arguments, it would be an open and shut case. Of course, your just one of the people loosely interpreting the ambiguous language to claim, for a fact, constitution protects abortion rights. IT DOES NOT.. Abortion or rights of unborn child are NOT MENTIONED anywhere. Then, since you you know this, you try to preemptively destruct my argument my telling me justices are just guys in black robes who now nothing. The arrogance you exhibit and the delusions of being the smartest who knows it all, discredits you instantly.

agreed

States represent us, a state is not an entity in isolation which unilaterally decides these things. We, the voters, ultimately decide what abortion laws we want in our states. in California, they will have loose abortion laws, in Texas, they won't. Why do you have a problem with us, the people determining what we want, in our states? explain. I myself am not strongly in either camp, but i prefer we decide what laws we want on our states. I believe in reasonable laws. If a woman is raped, or at high risk of death from having birth, it should be a decision left to parents. If it's just a woman who is irresponsible and gets pregnant and wants to abort just because, shouldn't be allowed.... It's life, not matter what you claim it is. But the voters can decide this...

no it's not, this is just your loose interpretation and opinion of ambiguous and board language. FACT

 

Interestingly, the two fields of medicine which can legally breach the oath are Obstetrics, and Plastics. Both are allowed to perform medical procedures in the absence of medical necessity.

So .. babies, and vanity. How about that.

 

I addressed most all points in your argument in my various posts.

see my previous posts before my declaration

 

Per the parameters of viability, the state cannot force a woman to have a baby against her will.

America is not The Republic of Gilead.

My logic doesn't mean any of those things. You are creating a strawman.

 

Your opinion.

Per law, the Bill Of Rights only to persons.

Before birth, the concept of 'personhood' is not codified.

 

quite a stretch. You begin with your conclusion and then serve up humongous servings of word salad to reach it. Well written but . . .

ETA: I will do you the courtesy of re-reading this later just to be sure i didn't miss a key point.

 

Nothing, They are inanimate objects.

 

That's a legalistic argument and therefore not very good.

If you believe things are moral because they are legal then you believe at one time it was moral to keep slaves.

 

Then why do people have them?

 

Anyone can say that, it means nothing.


You declare something in a post, the onus is on you to argue your point, and back it up, that includes

1. Reason, an argument.
2. Facts and evidence, if available.
3, backing it up with links.

You provided none of the above.

Therefore, your claim is vacuous on it's face.

I only respond to comments at face value, not what 'you posted before in some other thread and/or 'various posts', and the reason is I'm posting to too many posts to too many people to keep track of all that crap.

Vacuous.

I have answered every argument in every post I responded to, at one point or another.

But, if I make a new claim, I'm still going to make the argument, and back my position up.

I don't expect anyone to research my posting history, that's nuts.

So, your claim is vacuous, and by that measure, incompetent until you make your argument, etc.