Abortion is in the constitution.

Yes, and . . . ?

 

And that's why there should be no death penalty.

 

Death penalties are reserved for people who have done really horrible things and there is substantial evidence.

 

Yea except for the fact that mistakes are made.

 

That's a separate discussion.

 

So if someone goes into a school and shoots a ton of kids,there are multiple witnesses and video and evidence as well. You would argue that they should not get the death penalty? Personally I'd prefer torturous living conditions in permanent solitary confinement but I'd probably have to settle for the death penalty.

 

doctors are not forced to provide medical procedures on anybody.

 

It’s really horrific that the justices on the bench failed to recognize that this is a legitimate medical procedure and it can save a woman’s life. Pro-life Christians have made the phrase abortion synonymous with murder. I always think it’s funny when pro-lifers get confused when abortion is used on a fetus that’s already dead.

Why does a woman want to murder her baby if it’s already dead?

That question always makes me laugh but I’ve heard pro-lifer say it numerous times. The reality is that abortion is used when a fetus is dead, and it’s also used to remove tubal pregnancies. It’s a legitimate life-saving procedure. What’s also fascinating is trying to have a conversation with the pro-life woman who’s had a non-elective abortion. It horrifies them that it’s on their medical records, because they’ve been taught to be so judge mental towards women who had abortion.

 

That right - California not doing too well

 

California is in the middle of the pack.

https://data.ers.usda.gov/reports.aspx?ID=17826#P757fd30299cd4774ad01026c783bffad_2_241iT3

The bottom 10 also have some of thr highest uninsured rates among children, so likely they are miserable. So much for a better living environment.

 

You can decry you have 'inalienable' rights by birthright, all you want.

If you neighbor infringes on that right, and has a bigger, badder, gun than you, or more people, stronger people, to bully and fight you than you have to defend your right, what do you do, then?

You sue.

See, without a government to defend your rights, it's all talk.

That is the point.

 

My point was just because a term, or word, or phrase, is not in the constitution doesn't mean it's necessarily unconstitutional.

 

Roe/Casey is the parameter.

 

"Until the law codifies a fetus as having the same rights as someone who has been born"

It has the right not to be murdered. Fetal homicide laws have been passed to protect them.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by that so please clarify. Words, terms and phrases are neither constitutional nor unconstitutional. Laws and acts/actions can either be constitutionally compliant or unconstitutional. The word "murder" (which is not in the Constitution) is not unconstitutional, it's the act of murder that's unconstitutional (violation of the 5th Amendment - deprivation of life absent due process). Laws that prohibit the possession of cannabis (also not in the Constitution) under penalty of a fine or incarceration are unconstitutional because they violate the 9th Amendment (deprivation of an unenumerated right protected by the 9th Amendment).

In the case of the unborn, it is a part of and dependent on its host mother until birth. And the rights of the mother always take precedence and all her rights are protected by the Constitution.

 

"""Until the law codifies a fetus as having the same rights as someone who has been born"""
They have ... murdering a pregnant lady is a double homicide... the lady and the unborn baby.

 

\

That's a bogus argument.

Abortion isn't a beautiful thing, but unless Roe is reversed, it's a woman's decision, and no one else's, and that is that.

 

But I say to you, how is it even are religious argument? Are we talking about Christian religion?

I think God loves abortion:

https://bobcargill.wordpress.com/20...us-husbands-shaming-their-wives-in-the-bible/

 

The argument is not about the fetus. No one suggests abortion is a beautiful thing.

But, it is not the government's place force a woman to give birth passed viability.

I started a new OP on 'implications of reversing Roe' look for it, and I'd like to see your counter arguments.

 

Lets be clear -- O'Donnell is for founding principle (respect for essential liberty) but only for things he agrees with.. and this is the same problem on the Right.. "Everybody is for Freedom" .. except - freedoms they disagree with.

So .. neither actually believes in freedom .. as belief in freedom .. is belief in freedom for things you disagree with.

 

The constitution is not based on logical fallacy - and does not apply to the ZEF - even if your inferred claim that a Zef is defacto a person was true.

2) clearly you don't well understand "your rights end at tip of nose"

 

What evidence can you provide that he doesn't support freedoms he disagrees with?

Thing is, that's a very specific allegation, and are you sure that your disagreements with him actually equal your allegation?

 

That you need to ask such a question -- is proof that you do not understand what essential liberty is .. especially given the context of recent disussions. Does Laurence not support Biden's vax Mandate .. . do we hear him presenting constitutional arguments against such mandates - or is he engaging in "The Sin of Omission" -- A standard tool in the box of utilitarians .. and Laurence is a staunch Utilitarian .. as all of the MSNBC clownshow.

Was Laurence regularly doing segments on how the Mueller investigation as a kangaroo clown show ?

Yeah.. I think not .. did our good friend Laurence come out in support of Dershowitz when being demonized by the left .. Yeah .. suppose not.

I'm pretty sure you don't have the faintest idea what essential liberty is .. in th context of a constitutional republic -- hence why you don't have the faintest idea that Laurence is a violater.

 

I don't know if you noticed, but the OP is posted to the "Political opinions & Beliefs" forum.

DUH.

So what?

It's my opinion, but my OP quotes the two learned persons arguing my point to SCOTUS, which is to say, it is their point, which I've restated as an OP.

Nothing you've written counter's the supported opinion.

 

The right to something does not equate to that something requiring to be provided. You have a right to free speech, but no one has to provide you with air time on a broadcast station or to publish your book, or even give you a soap box to stand upon. While I will agree with you that many use right to healthcare improperly, it is still an actual right. Abortion, as a healthcare option, is a right. And as such should not be restricted any more than your right to free speech should.