Abortion is in the constitution.

Wow, Your grasp on these simple things is quite unique.

 

you continue to fail. Where is the verbiage in the constitution which protects right to abortion and considers right of unborn child irrelevant, as if it weren't a life but an appendage of the woman? Until you can show me the verbiage, you will continue to fail miserably to back up your claim that right to abortion is addressed in constitution. The fact is it's your loose interpretation and why this debate never ends and will never end. It's simply because it is not resolved in constitution and it will always continue to be interpreted differently and loosely by opposing sides. In Roe vs Wade, the supreme court relied on sections in 1st, 9th and 14th amendment to 'create the implied right of personal liberty and personal privacy' and they explained that right to terminate pregnancy is included. This is not in constitution, justices created this in their heads. It's likely other justices will disagree and possibly overturn Roe vs Wade because it boils down to how different people interpret constitution. At least the conservatives look for specific verbiage, liberals 'create' what's not there.

In the dissenting opinion Justice Rehnquist stated the below showing legal scholars will never stop debating this due to the ambiguous verbiage and a lack of the bill of rights actually resolving the abortion issue. This will never be resolved as it is simply not addressed in constitution and this is a FACT. You can continue to be smug and tell you it IS in constitution but you will be unable to prove it is, only tell me this is how you interpret certain passages in constitution. This is why we need to leave this to the voters, let democracy play out. Seems you don't like the idea.

'If the Court means by the term "privacy" no more than that the claim of a person to be free from unwanted state regulation of consensual transactions may be a form of "liberty" protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, there is no doubt that similar claims have been upheld in our earlier decisions on the basis of that liberty. I agree with the statement of MR. JUSTICE STEWART in his concurring opinion that the "liberty," against deprivation of which without due process the Fourteenth [410 U.S. 113, 173] Amendment protects, embraces more than the rights found in the Bill of Rights. But that liberty is not guaranteed absolutely against deprivation, only against deprivation without due process of law. The test traditionally applied in the area of social and economic legislation is whether or not a law such as that challenged has a rational relation to a valid state objective. Williamson v. Lee Optical Co., 348 U.S. 483, 491 (1955). The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment undoubtedly does place a limit, albeit a broad one, on legislative power to enact laws such as this. If the Texas statute were to prohibit an abortion even where the mother's life is in jeopardy, I have little doubt that such a statute would lack a rational relation to a valid state objective under the test stated in Williamson, supra. But the Court's sweeping invalidation of any restrictions on abortion during the first trimester is impossible to justify under that standard, and the conscious weighing of competing factors that the Court's opinion apparently substitutes for the established test is far more appropriate to a legislative judgment than to a judicial one.


'To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment.'

'Even if there were a plaintiff in this case capable of litigating the issue which the Court decides, I would reach a conclusion opposite to that reached by the Court. I have difficulty in concluding, as the Court does, that the right of "privacy" is involved in this case. Texas, by the statute here challenged, bars the performance of a medical abortion by a licensed physician on a plaintiff such as Roe. A transaction resulting in an operation such as this is not "private" in the ordinary usage of that word. Nor is the "privacy" that the Court finds here even a distant relative of the freedom from searches and seizures protected by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which the Court has referred to as embodying a right to privacy. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967).'

'Even if one were to agree that the case that the Court decides were here, and that the enunciation of the substantive constitutional law in the Court's opinion were proper, the actual disposition of the case by the Court is still difficult to justify. The Texas statute is struck down in toto, even though the Court apparently concedes that at later periods of pregnancy Texas might impose these selfsame statutory limitations on abortion. My understanding of past practice is that a statute found [410 U.S. 113, 178] to be invalid as applied to a particular plaintiff, but not unconstitutional as a whole, is not simply "struck down" but is, instead, declared unconstitutional as applied to the fact situation before the Court. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886); Street v. New York, 394 U.S. 576 (1969).'

 

Liberals interpreting the Constitution works out about as well as Christians interpreting The Bible. They can make it say whatever they want it to say to suit their ends...

 

First off conflating "liberty" with "rights" is erroneous to the max. Second the right to keep and bear arms is specifically delineated, where as the "right to an abortion was mystically created by SCOTUS claiming its origin from penumbras and eminences.
It's, to be kind, disingenuous to claim the founding fathers had any thought to abortion as being among the rights they saw God endowing on us.
You can't use the mention of "liberty" as the foundation or any "right" you fabricate.

 

Why should a woman be forced to let another being inhabit her body?

 

why would that being's life take a back seat to woman's right to keep being in body or not? (if we can call it a right).

 

Because its her body.

 

it's not... the unborn baby is not her body. The baby is in her body but it's not her body. The fact that she can MURDER the baby and not harm herself, tells you, it's not her body.

Why do people like you have a problem letting us, people like you and me, decide this democratically? by state?

 

Yep, its very simple, if the woman doesn't want it inhabiting her body she has every right to have it removed even if this results in its death

 

Are you an American? Because if you go to a public hospital, bleeding from a gaping wound, you will be sewn up. It is not just a matter of "rights," but medical ethics. I would accept your argument only as far as abortion's being an elective procedure, so those who contend it should be ever-available, on demand, without delay, are being unrealistic. But for you to see no distinction between an abortion and a gastric bypass, shows that you are only less realistic, than they.

 

The Chief Justice thinks it might be about choice.

Wow, what a coincidence, so's mine.

 

Yours does not seem to be an honest evaluation, of her argument. Here is what you'd quoted:

Patricio Da Silva said: ↑
If this court renounces the liberty interest recognized in Roe and reaffirmed Casey, it would be an unprecedented contraction of individual rights and a stark departure from principles of stare decisis. The court has never revoked a right that is so fundamental to so many AMericans
<End Snip>

The underlined part is what you claimed was the lawyer's argument; you must have "forgotten," the emboldened part.

So, what is an example of a right as fundamental as for a woman to be able to control whether or not she carries a fetus to term, which our Supreme Court has both determined was due, based on the Constitution, and yet, later took away?

 

If that's your best example, you should stick to other arguments. I don't imagine that Abortion-Rights advocates would even mind having it treated the same as the military draft (which we have not had for a long while, and will probably never have, again): if we are in danger of not surviving, as a nation, due to lack of population, pregnant women could be "drafted," to carry their child to term; but, in lieu of that circumstance (which will never come to pass, as long as people want to emigrate to the U.S.), women would be at liberty to do as they wished. Would you be willing to sign on, to that compromise?

Actually, these are already similar systems: all of America's fighting is done by those who voluntarily join our armed forces; and any slack in population growth is taken up by mostly Catholic couples, who don't believe in abortion, or in birth control.

I, of course, left out the single "welfare mothers," with a house/apartment jammed full of kids, since I have a strong suspicion that you have only harsh words for that demographic-- strange if you don't respect them, as population heroes.

 

No, that is not logical at all-- for starters, you are considering the child as if it was picked from a catalog, and delivered UPS! Or, if we were feeling generous, we might say of your argument, here:

 

You just contradicted your entire argument in favor of anti-abortion law.

Abortion has existed for thousands of years, so your claims about it finding "its roots," in either Margaret Sanger, or in eugenics, is ridiculous. If, contrary to popular belief, eugenics was Sanger's motivation, however-- that would be a very interesting thing to read about, were it to be presented in a credible way.

 

The majority of Americans favor keeping abortion legal, yet restricting it to the first trimester with exceptions for the mother's life and serious health risks. That position is pretty much the norm in other countries as well. The 15 weeks in the Mississippi law is actually quite in line with what the majority favors, yet all we hear are the extremists on both sides. Seems like a much better place to draw the line IMO.

 

Yes, written into the constitution.

 

You are not, then, saying that the guarantee of "liberty," is an empty box, are you? You do believe that the founders understood the concept of liberty, and of its unwarranted restriction? So, to what sorts of things would you suppose they were alluding, when they chose to fall back on that term?

The first thing that comes to my mind, as a denial of fundamental liberty, is false imprisonment. We have the liberty to move freely, to go where & when we want, provided that does not infringe on another's rights. So, locking one up, restricting one's movements, without good cause (later referred to as "due process") is clearly an infringement upon one's liberty. Similar to this was the British Navy's Shanghai method, of filling its ranks. On a related note, I would say that choosing one's profession is a fundamental liberty, but I don't think it was one that was much in question, even at that date. Nor was the idea of choosing one's own mate, I don't think, something which needed advocation. So we've got the right not to be falsely imprisoned, or kidnapped. But I'm sure you believe that the liberty, intrinsic to any person, should go beyond just this, yes? So, why don't you list your own ideas of basic liberty. I'll start you off, since I'm guessing you would include gun ownership (though that one was later specified, in the 2nd Amendment). Even choosing one's own religion, at that point, was I think a given. But clearly, the Constitution intends this word to have meaning, to apply to citizens' daily lives.

I would hazard to guess that most of the things that you consider your basic liberties, pale in comparison to not being forced to grow a person inside of you, and then giving birth to it. If there was ever any question as to your gender, your minimalizing attitude towards the imposition upon one's liberty, of being forced to endure 9 months of pregnancy, and childbirth, shows that you are a real man; that is, one who has never experienced those things, and who faces no risk of ever having to.

As to this determination (of something qualifying as a protected liberty) being a matter of opinion, of course this is true, but it is in no way an indictment, as you seem to treat it. Every judgement that our Supreme Court has ever made, concerning Constitutionality, has been an, "opinion." If it was an incontestably stated fact, it would never require the involvement of the SCOTUS, in order to clarify it. But some liberties are more obvious than others. The only reason that any opinion was/is even required, in this case, has nothing to do with whether or not having a child is an imposition on the mother's liberty; put anything else in the woman's womb, and tell me you don't think this violates her personal liberty, to force her to bring it "to term." No, it is only because of one's consideration of the fetus's ultimate potential, to be a child, that the woman's liberty is being discounted. That it should be, though, is only your opinion.

There is little new, in this debate. Those who advocate for basically outlawing abortion, invest with an unusual amount of significance, what the fetus has yet to become. Those who advocate for no restriction whatsoever, are far more rare, so I could not guess what drives their view. But most people, including the SCOTUS, have seen the reasonable need to strike a balance, between the mother's rights, which take precedence in the early stages, and the interests of the unborn, which come to the fore, in the later stages, as it nears birth.

The pro-choice side, seems largely satisfied with the 24 week, viability threshold. Anyone advocating for 3rd trimester abortions (beyond the 27th week) could rightly be disregarded, as a crank. But the same is not true for the pro-life contingent. Any who only felt that the line should be at 20 weeks, and would be legitimately content with that, I could see as a reasonable person, who understands the concept of diversity of opinion, & the need for societal compromise. But this represents a scant fragment, at best, of the pro-life movement, because their "opinions," ultimately, are based on religious belief, which is something outside of fact, and uncompromising, which has no place in political debate, as it pits the beliefs of some against the beliefs of others. Yet we are all entitled to our beliefs and, within the accepted framework of the main of society, we can practice those beliefs, in our own lives. But when we force others to comply with our religious beliefs, we are infringing upon their basic human liberties.

 

Abortion is in the constitution.

By your twisted logic, everything is in the constitution. How convenient for you. Glad you don't practice law.

 

Staunch abortion advocates declare they care for women's rights, but what of the future women who will never be? Torn from the womb.

 

But this is not now nor was it ever a threat to the species. It has operated as a herd culler killing almost entirely the old the sick and the weak.

 

Casey was abortion almost since the day For was passed it has almost constantly been scaled back.

 

You focus on the word "Liberty" but you don't see the word "Life".

Abortion advocates don't want certain future people to come to life. Unfortunately, a fetus has no human rights at all. So they often refer to this. Strictly speaking, the right to have sexual intercourse without making babies stands above the right of existence of nascent life.

I think that's a kind of barbarism in modern liberal times. The increase of this would be: you're allowed to kill anyone who restricts your rights of freedom.

 

So two different things. What we would like or agree with is a separate matter to what is in constitution. I think limiting abortion to first trimester and other situations (rape, health risks etc..) is fair but this doesn’t make it a right which should be federal law, imposed on all states. The fact is that in roe vs wade, the justices implied this right by pointing to 1st, 9th, 14th amendment based on loose interpretation of the verbiage. There is a reason many believe it was the wrong decision as some matters are unresolved - 1. Rights of unborn child 2. When does life begin 3. Why is right to terminate pregnancy a right which supersedes right of life of unborn child 4. How right to privacy (an implied right) and liberty can be used to imply right to terminate pregnancy


So given the above, should be left to states to decide, via democratic process. Some may choose to allow abortion (without restrictions), some may choose to restrict all abortions. The people can decide.

 

Just because you don't understand what I post doesn't mean I have failed, it means you continue to fail to get it.

I already posted it multiple times, it's called the 9th Amendment in case your memory fails you so easily. If you don't understand the plain text of the 9th Amendment, get out a dictionary and follow the bouncing ball, it's your problem, not mine, and it's actually you who will always fail miserably. The unborn are just that, unborn and have no rights, never mind rights that take precedence over their host mother.

As they did in Marbury vs Madison 1803. Interestingly, this guy has this opinion with which I'm not sure if I agree because all 3 branches are dangerous:

The Supreme Court is the most Dangerous Branch of the Federal Government

Who the **** cares what that phony said, he never bothered to cite the 9th Amendment so he's dismissed as a phony. Remember your own words "justices created this in their heads". But I understand you bending over to authority, they are all brilliant in your world because they are in positions of authority.

“They must find it difficult, those who have taken authority as truth, rather than truth as authority.” - Gerald Massey