1. no rights are taken away to include what she does with her body, which isn;t a total right for anybody btw 2. Right, it's not so whjy try to say it is 3. Wrong, it does not take away any rights 4. That's correct. Has nothing to do with wanted, or unwanted, thanks for seeing ym point
Denying a woman a safe legal abortion is taking away a right which women now exercise. That seems fairly simple.
Very few are advocating a total ban on abortion. Saying if you restrict abortion you are taking away the rights of women is the same as saying if you restrict firearms you are taking away the second amendment rights of everyone. BTW the right to abortion is a right created by SCOTUS that doesn't actually exist anywhere in the constitution. SCOTUS doesn't create law last I checked, they only enforce it. Roe V Wade was an illegal ruling
your response speaks for itself. Why do i have to prove a false comment is false? Youhave psoted nothing for me to refute. Meaning you spout all this it seems this seems that, but don't have any evidence to back it up. Basically women aren't oppressed by abortion restrictions. There is no evidence to suggest they are Women aren't enslaved by abortion restrictions- no evidence to suggest they are Abortion laws control more then women- No evidence to suggest otherwise as there is more then just the woman that has to obey abortion laws Danger to the mother is an exception an overwhelming majority of pro-life advocate for- no evidence to suggest the pro-life movement wants women to die to have children. No evidence to suggest pro-life are self rightous bigots tryingt o impose morals on everyone else, who don;t take care of their own lives. if you have any evidence please respond with it
Many are advocating a ban on MOST abortions. That is true IF you interpret the second amendment as giving firearms ownership rights to everyone. That is your opinion, one not shared by those who are knowledgeable. .
That's because MOST abortions are not being done for any reason other than the simple fact that the woman doesn't want it. There can be no liberty possible without LIFE.
1. The ones that kill potentially viable humans (and in rare cases viable) where the mother is not in eminent danger yes. 2. It does, even the founding fathers are quoted as saying so. No other way to interpret it really. 3. It is one that is shared by many that are knowledgeable, to include me. Should be a requirement to learn about our constitution in a non biased environment so everyone knows what is in it, the history behind each amendment and the intention of each amendment.
Ah the declaration of independence, great piece of writing, nothing legally binding in it, unless you interpret the 9th amendment of the constituiton and inalienable rights as being life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Life is taken during an abortion, liberty is restricted by every law we have and happiness is subjective. Do you support a lawless country, where people are free to do whatever they want? If not you support restrictions on liberty Liberty is the freedom to do as one pleases.
Such bans have been tried before and found ineffective. Some do interpret it differently because of the clause "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State." Many experts see nothing wrong with the Roe V. Wade decision, and it is now settled law. Whining that it was incorrect will get you nowhere.
"""""Quote Originally Posted by OKgrannie View Post Many are advocating a ban on MOST abortions.."""""
1. so because it doesn't completely stop a practice, we should just let it go? hmm interesting 2. A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.... what that is saying is that a well regulated militia is necessary to protect the states and that the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. 3. Many experts saw nothing wrong with the Dredd Scott decision either and this whining you speak of that it was incorrect, got it corrected in Brown vs the Board of education and other decisions.
1. The bans didn't work, because they infringed on women's rights. 2. Which doesn't necessarily mean the people have the right to keep and bear arms at all times. 3. I actually agree with your point here, but don't think it would turn out the way you would like.
That's because in all these places the woman just travels across borders to get the abortion somewhere else, and no attempt has been made at all to prevent this from happening. If abortion was treated like the child abuse it is, these bans would be much much more effective.
I could list countless cases of women who abandoned their babies in dumpsters and left them to die. 50 States, 50 Babies, 50 Dumpsters http://www.nytimes.com/1997/06/25/n...-woman-18-with-killing-baby-born-at-prom.html http://www.cbsnews.com/news/utah-woman-dumps-her-day-old-baby-girl-in-trash-can-police-say/ If there are women who kill their babies then, why do you think it would so surprising that there might be women who would choose to kill in the eighth month of pregnancy?
Which, in my opinion, would have been a far better choice for those two girls - but a much better solution would be abolishing the need for parental involvement when minors seek abortion: http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/pu...z/2285-abortion-and-parental-involvement-laws The majority of states – thirty-nine as of December 2013 – currently enforce laws that require a young woman to notify or obtain consent from one or both parents before she can receive abortion care. Yet research has shown that these laws often delay young women’s access, endangering young women’s health and safety, and leaving too many alone and afraid.
Nonsense. They would seek illegal abortions, which means unscrupulous doctors would charge wealthy women as much as they could get away with, and poor women would risk their lives and use a back street abortionist.
"Ineffective" means having NO or LITTLE effect. Abortion bans don't even reduce abortion, all they do is make it more dangerous for women. But in spite of the danger, women keep having them which means that in addition to the death of the zef, you now have the death of the woman to deal with. Aren't we lucky to have you to interpret for us. Perhaps what that is saying is that in order for the country to have a well regulated militia, the people (that is, those who would serve as members of such militia) must have access to arms. A majority wants Roe V. Wade to be preserved. The trend worldwide is toward more abortion freedom.
When abortion was illegal in the USA, women had illegal abortions. Anti-abortion bans will always be ineffective because you can't catch women having them and therefore can't prosecute.
Rubbish, SCOTUS did not create a right regarding abortion, the right was already there under the 14th Amendment .. just as the right to personal gun ownership was found to be part of the 2nd Amendment, even though it is not mentioned at all. SCOTUS did not create any laws regarding abortion, it found the pre-existing anti-abortion laws were unconstitutional.
