Abortion is in the constitution.

Where is the right marry in the constitution?

 

Folks are upset. They know Roe vs Wade will be over turned. It has already be made pretty much void. And now they're going to have to be women held accountable to their actions. Interesting.

 

Well as my post was ignored I suspect it was inconvenient to answer.

 

The country is going to get interesting. But headed in the right direction.

 

What's your point?

 

Whatever Scotus decides. Science can only recommend via Amicus Briefs.

 

And I didn't render an opinion of you, Criticism of an act doesn't equal 'opinion of you'.

NO, you didn't, proof is what you wrote:

The first thing you did was appeal to some unnamed " learned person's" as though this somehow lends more weight to your opinion.

Since they were named, qualifications given, my rebuttal stands unrefuted.

A vacuous declaration is not a valid counter argument. You have to demonstrate your premise in some way, facts, reasoning, etc.

No, your analogy was predicated on something illegal. Since abortion is legal, it doesn't work.

 

You tell me what point you are making by asking the question, and if that point is valid, I'll answer the question.

If you choose to draw erroneous inferences from that quest, I can't help that.

You see, it's a cheap debate trick.

Ask a question with a bogus premise, or a motivated by a veiled point that is invalid, and if the person asked challenges the premise, or asks for the point of the question, and then the questioner yells 'refuses to answer the question....then I'm right, blah blah bla."

In essence, you are playing the angling game.

Unfortunately for you, I'm not a fish.

Cut the crap and tell me what is the point of the question.

Otherwise, I deem this conversation dead due to debate incompetence on your part.

However, I will give you the benefit of the doubt so please tell me what is your point for what seems to be a non-sequitur question.

 

Cons always talk about how children are innocent and and every life is precious. But when that child gets born they do everything they can to make that child suffer for the parents not making enough to support their family.

How many children suffer because Republicans keep gutting food programs? I guess those kids should be thankful they were given the opportunity to experience life in poverty.

 

The Constitution doesn't specifically grant Congress the right to investigate, either.

But, in Marbury v Madison, Scotus explained that that right is penumbra to the constitution.

Therefore, not every right has to be spelled out in the constitution, but if they exist as penumbra rights, which can be ascertained by simple reasoning, then they are constitutional.

Such is the case with abortion, as if falls under constitutional concepts of bodily autonomy, and privacy, and recently argued as liberty, though that right is limited by Roe and Casey in terms of 'viability'.

 

That issue is not a settled one, in law.

Until it is, Roe/Casey, stand as precedent.

 

What 'ideologues who embrace fascism' might that be?

You really should just say what you mean.

 

Liberty is not absolute.

Survival of species trumps liberty on the priority list.

Mandates do not equal making vaccinations illegal if they are refused.

As they are, now, mandates are coercive, yes, but again, survival of species is higher on the list of priorities.

 

Until your premise is codified into law, Roe stands.

 

It is not when 'life' begins that is the question, it is when 'personhood' begins.

When life begins can be ascertained by science. Life begins at inception.

When 'personhood' begins, that's a debate for philosophy, etc. Such would depend on a Scotus ruling.

So far, Roe and Casey establish what it is, it is 'viability'.

 

What people are being exterminated?

 

Fine. Women who have an abortion are no longer eligible for employment. If we are to use your survival argument, abortions result in death 100% of the time while Covid is less than 1%. It doesn't matter how you feel once the government takes control.

 

55 million unborn humans.

 

I'm all for rights. Whether they come from fanciful romanticized notions of 'endowed by our creator' or are granted by the government, matters not to me, as long as the government guarantees those rights, which is to say, the all important practical result.

That, for me, is all that matters, and no, there is no inconsistency.

 

That's your first mistake. He's a sneering idiot.

LIFE.

Fake News, nearly everyone supports First Tri abortions, which where most of the West draws the line on abortion on demand.

The standard before 'viability' was quickening, which the MS standard meets. As the Chief Justice pointed out, viability has nothing to do with "choice". The difference between Quickening and Viability is only 7 weeks, probably not a big enough difference for an unelected Court to overturn an Elected Legislature, especially in the absence of a clear constitutional violation in the product of the Representative Legislation. After all, we are a Constitutional Liberal Democracy, not an unrepresented Aristocracy.

You seem to have a real hatred for Liberty. I think this country will prove frustrating to you. If you live here you should probably move. We are a Free People and we will remain so.

Actually, the Justices asked those making the case against the Legislative product where they should go in the Constitution to find the violation that they claim the Legislative product represents. The answer that was provided to them, rambled about and didn't really tell the Justices where to find the supposed "violation".

The Court cannot legitimately "grant" rights. Roe claimed to "recognise" rights. Both Gorsuch and Roberts asked those that want to strike down the law for some help on how they can save Roe and Casey as well as the product of the Elected Legislature and the team advocating for striking down the product of the Elected Legislature laid eggs. But, I would be surprised if the 3 consequentialists don't find a way to team with Roberts and Gorsuch with a middle ground construction that saves Roe and Casey and the product of the Elected Legislature, which will likely be a tweak of the Viability line for the much more firmly established Quickening line.

More fake news. Returning to the Quickening Standard is perfectly reasonable, only 6 other nations of the world's 192 nations allow abortion on demand until viability. Yes the mother has a right to autonomy, and the baby also has a right to life, this is a matter of striking the right balance between the two rights.

Have you seen how long your post is? Are you sure you are the one who should be pointing fingers about "excessively arguing"?

Republicans are in perfect alignment with the Electorate, we all want it to be Easy to Vote but hard to Cheat. The folks fighting this are the clowns that want to be able to steal elections. We Americans don't like election thieves.

​

The idiot clown who claims to be "the wise Latina with broad life experience" compared the unborn baby to a dead corpse. What kind of an idiot thinks that's an argument that is going to persuade the American People? If I would have tried to guess what the dumbest thing is that she would say, that would have exceeded it.

I doubt it, but, we'll see when the Court renders its decision.

More fake news. The later the abortion, the riskier it is to the mother. "The risk of a mother dying from an abortion increases exponentially between the eighth and 18th week of her pregnancy." Further the Elected Legislature's allows abortion to save the life of the mother.

 

Yes, that was the headline, i didn't mean it literally I explained it in the OP.

Remember, the fact that Congress can investigate, etc. is not in the Constitution but Marbury v Madison established
that such was penumbra to the constitution.

In that light, abortion is constitutional. That was my point.

 

I did a CTRL+F on the U.S. Constitution. The word "abortion" does not exist in the document.

You're welcome.

 

Through Reason - a point made in the early 14th Century by the man who developed the first natural rights doctrine, William of Ockham.

Not at all.

Throughout history, the assertion of our inherent natural rights has always been the necessary first step in the development, establishment and protection of our rights, and those rights don't magically vanish into thin air in the absence of an agency to uphold them or the rise of an agency that violates them.

 

That's because they are either unable or unwilling (or both) to determine the difference between rights and privileges. The person you were addressing is clearly one of them.

 

Until over turned, just like Dread Scott and Plessy vs Ferguson