Abortion is in the constitution.

It's a general concept. You're pettifogging the point.

 

Yes, so, given what it says, you can infer it refers to fetus?

That's not realistic, nor logical.

Occam's razor, my friend.

 

What's the point? that America is going by way of Nazi Germany?

Say it isn't so.

 

The only element that stands out in your argument is anger.

Anger is not an argument, it is a sentiment.

One cannot legislate based on the rants of angry people.

Remove the emotion in your argument, and let's see what you are saying, precisely.

Can you do that for me, please?

 

I get it, if you answer the question you prove you are wrong so ignore the question.

 

Oh lord…. Comparing the right to bear arms with abortion. Anyone and their dog can point out where is specifically gives that right. It’s literally written as plain as day. There is no writing that permits the right to abortion. Not one. The only way you can find it is to claim that it hides behind this word or that clause. You can’t tell me that equality for women and liberty for woman can only be achieved by allowing them to kill babies.

 

The DOI is not law. The Constitution does, however, affirm natural rights with which each person under its jurisdiction is endowed because they breathe air.

The question becomes, in my view, is does that fetus breathe air if removed from the womb, or does it die. If it is viable, terminating its life would be a homicide under the laws of the 57 states. If it is not viable on its own, then it seems terminating would merely be medical procedure. This is a question that medical science endeavors to answer but likely never will.

 

Wrong as usual. Your problem is you mistake the word created for the word born. The founders were all men who were conversant with the Bible and that phrase 'I knit you in your mother's womb' hence the word created not born. Hence those rights to life liberty (which, by the way, had nothing to do with the pursuit of pleasure at any cost) and pursuit of happiness (which ditto) accrue even to the unborn.

 

You're are supporting the idea that the state has a right to force a woman to bring her pregnancy to term against her will.

What to do about a SC justice who lied in order to get confirmed? And the clueless rube who believed him.

Justice who told Susan Collins that Roe was ‘settled law’ looks ready to allow abortion limits
https://bangordailynews.com/2021/12...ks-ready-to-allow-abortion-limits-n6hjn1me0n/

 

Don't you find it hypocritical that ideologues who embrace fascism ,,, appropriate the word "liberty" as something they make believe they care about? I mean you are the same people who justify denying freedom of speech to those with whom you disagree and don't give a second thought to unleashing Federal mandates to inject people with some dangerous swill with questionable efficacy against their will.

 

How refreshing to see the sudden interest in liberty. It seems like only yesterday we were discussing vaccinations and forcing people to choose between consuming a pharma product or becoming unemployed.

If you support government control over our bodies on one issue, you support it for all.

 

........................................................................................................................................................................
The Declaration Of Independence:.. the one word stands out to me

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are
allowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are
Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness

Life ≠ abortion....

......................................................................................................................................................................

United States Constitution declare that governments cannot deprive any person of "life, liberty, or property" without due process of law.

Life ≠ abortion....
....................................................................................................................................................................

 

In all sincerity, the OP is a long winded word salad that adds nothing to the debate that has raged for decades. There are not any new fundamental concepts introduced.

Rape is not legal because of the concept of the assailant having "Liberty, privacy, and bodily autonomy". Rather it is illegal because the assailants "liberty, privacy, and bodily autonomy" is superseded by the victims right to the same.

When it comes to abortion, the only legitimate argument is when does life begin, which is a concept that the Constitution was never designed or intended to settle. If life begins after birth, then the womans right to "liberty, privacy, and bodily autonomy" prevails in regards to aborting that non person. If life begins at some point prior to birth, then the right to "liberty, privacy, and bodily autonomy" of that unborn person prevails after the point at which it is determined that life begins.

The Constitution is not empowered nor intended to make that determination. That would require legislative means to make that decision. To call Roe V Wade judicial overreach is an extreme understatement.

FWIW, I am pro abortion. I believe it should be legal at least until the point that the fetus could be viable outside the womb, but that determination should be decided by each individual state which would still enable all women to get an abortion if they so desired. The notion of this being a Constitutional argument is nonsensical.

The notion of this being about "choice" is unmitigated B.S. That is nothing more than a marketing scheme for selling the pro abortion position.

 

Desperate post.

This is a non-winnable argument and if you heard some of the arguments presented in the proceedings, it’s impossible to settle which rights are more important, the mother or the fetus. You have to side with one at expense other. Who wins?

let the voters decide. See, supreme court doesn’t get to determine this for all of us, they are not elected officials. You let the states decide, by elected officials representing us. Some states can choose to abort (california), some not (texas).

this is what it’s all about. The constitution DOESN’T settle this, nowhere does it say mother has more rights and it terms of women’s rights, what if unborn child is female?

 

If you want the Liberty line to mean that, you'll need to revive Lochner. Thomas made some noises in that direction during oral argument in the most recent case.

https://reason.com/2021/12/02/the-l...TIezHFRRHH0qhf1CdyYUM0T1qA-9Iwyr3kOz6kF_S2_D4

But its ok, Lochner is a good case and gets a bad rap mostly from people who don't take a deeper look and don't know all its progeny cases. Like Barack Obama.

https://reason.com/2011/09/14/lochner-isnt-a-dirty-word/

 

because the Liberty to exterminate people isn't a Liberty

 

Did you know that some of our founders were atheists? And yet they accepted the language that was used. That "high minded language" as you put it. Do you know why? Because they believed that there had to be some things that the government should not be allowed to touch if we were to have a free society because they are so fundamental towards that aim. And in order to accomplish that then there had to be some type of expression of that.

Now, what's really ironic here is that you just argued against yourself. You argued for Rights in your OP. Agreeing with the people you quoted who was arguing for abortion. So I've got to ask you. Are Rights so fundamental that they are inherent? IE: The Constitution just affirms the Rights you already had. Or are they just "high minded language"? IE: The Constitution bestows Rights. Because if it just bestows Rights and they are not fundamental then your OP has no case. Something bestowed, can be taken away or applied selectively.

 

Ya I have seen Democrats bastardize the constitution and it always starts with this satirical phrase..

Of course Larwence O'Donnell can be substituted with Madcow, Joe&Hoe, The View and any 100 "Don't no jack crap about the constitution" MSNBCNN and Hollywoodenheads..

Thank God we have Justices to sort thru this

 

I bet that stung a lil

 

Be careful, stirring the pot just might make that happen As for your learned person, he isn't doing a very good job, you better pray Roberts doesn't break

 

The right of a woman to an abortion has always been protected by the Bill of Rights since the Constitution was ratified and well before Roe v Wade. Rights are derived from property and without property there are no rights. The most basic piece of property we are all born with is our own body and therefore all rights are inherent to our body from the day we are born.

The Bill of Rights enumerates and protects specific rights in the first 8 Amendments. And the 9th Amendment protects ALL other unspecified rights. The text is plain English.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

 

lol.. "unnatural"... what's natural is for women to commonly die in childbirth. Before modern medicine and birth control, the lifetime risk of dying in childbirth for women was about 4%. It's very much a medical issue for the woman. Pregnancy is not a trivial thing at all.

Well... Most controversial things are about balancing one persons liberty against another. The real crux of the issue is when personhood begins. That is, when does a fetus become a person deserving of rights (i.e. life) to be weighed against those of the mother, who has a right to privacy and bodily autonomy? Are you following SCOTUS, are they talking about when personhood begins, or are they going on and on about irrelevant legalistic crap as usual?

 

where in the constitution does it does it state unborn child have no rights? you say right of woman, what is unborn child is female?

what you claim is in constitution isn't, because it were, this wouldn't be such a complex and harshly debated issue by people much smarter than you; i.e., the justices.

Nowhere in constitution does it make it clear that unborn child is not a living human being and has no rights.... When you bring up women's rights, doesn't;t work either as unborn child can be female.

IMO, constitution isn't clear on this, otherwise would be settled w/o debate. This is why it should be left to the voters and states. If voters want abortion, they can have it, like in california. If they don't want it, then they can decide. It is how you all want to take this off the hands of voters and have the supreme court (unelected officials) decide.

 

Abortion is not in the Constitution, i.e, it is not mentioned anywhere in the COTUS, therefore abortion can be argued from the standpoint of the Constitution, as it has always been argued.

Full disclosure, I am "pro-choice", but despite my own moral, philosophical and legal arguments in support of abortion, I recognize the shaky moral, philosophical and legal/constitutional ground abortion and Roe v. Wade stand on.

Furthermore, despite all the science surrounding the question of where we should draw the line of viability, which is what the SCOTUS is confronted with in the MS case, ultimately this boils down to a philosophical argument over when does our inherent right to life begin? Despite the fact that I am "pro-choice", I believe that this right begins at conception, but as is the case with war and the death penalty, we have legalized murder in the case of abortion. Furthermore, as was the case with slavery, which was not mentioned explicitly in the original draft of the Constitution either, what we deem legal and constitutional either violates the fundamental, inherent natural rights our Constitution upholds, or conflicts with other rights the Constitution upholds. This might explain why both sides can appeal to the Constitution and our inherent natural rights to support their positions, and it's probably why this argument will never truly be resolved. It might also explain why some people can accept the cold hard reality that sometimes we have to make a choice between whose rights we are going to uphold and whose rights we are going to deny. The sad fact of the matter is that this is one of those cases where everyone doesn't get to win - there is always going to be a loser.

 

agreed. This is an unwinnable debate in terms of who's life is more important, where life begins, one right can only win at expense of the other. The constitution doesn't resolve this and why i think it should be left to the voters. I actually believe every state should have reasonable laws, like allow abortions after rape and when mother's life is at risk but disallow abortions for parents who just don't feel like being parents. Since constitution is not clear on this matter, voters should be left to decide, state by state.