1. Prove that abortions are not decreased by restrictions 2. We are very lucky to have myself and others that can interpret the constitution as the founding fathers intended it to be interpreted and want it used as the founding fathers intended it to be used. 3. Last I checked we don't make laws off of majority rule, but based off the constitution. And we certainly do nto make American laws based off the laws of other countries
1. the second amendment does specifically mention the people having rights to bear arms. 2. You and I both know the intention of the 14th amendment had nothing to do with privacy, or abortion. The 14th amendment actually didn't create anything, all it said was all citizens are entitled to equal protection under law. A reconstruction amendment that today is comparable to civil right laws of the 1960's. Basically enforcing all previous amendments and that the constitution should not be biased towards specific groups of people. No new clauses were created either, as the due process clause already existed. 3. Yes SCOTUS created something in the 14th amendment which didn't exist, thus creating something new. SCOTUS constitutionally has no right to create, only to enforce. 4. You can call what I say rubbish all you want, but there is a history on each amendment and the intent of each amendment by the creators of each amendment and how they wanted it to be interpreted. 5. Yes the constitution is a living document, meaning it can be changed, through the amendment clause, however each amendment is not a living amendment, meaning if you want to change a amendment it requires another amendment. This whole interpreting with the time BS is exactly what is destroying the very document that symbolizes this country and rendering it and specifically the amendment clause within it useless.
It doesn't have to, SCOTUS have the ability of Judicial review, so unless you are going to undo EVERY SCOTUS decision from 1803 ( Marbury v. Madison ) then you have no point. The intent does not matter. The fact is that if you take away the females right to choose abortion you infringe the equal protection clause ie. she has the equal right to defend herself, up to and including deadly force, against non consented injury from another person just as you do. That is the reality and consequence of the personhood at conception ideology. Take away that right and you are basically saying that any offspring she has have the right to injure her with impunity. nope they did not, they created nothing, they enforced the Constitutional right to privacy. Yes I can simply because it is rubbish, please provide the evidence of the intent of John Bingham in writing the 14th Amendment and evidence as to how he wanted it interpreted? In fact he is quoted as saying "limitations of the Constitution upon the States in favor of the personal liberty of all of the citizens of Republic black & white [are] soon to become a great question before the people." so your assertion that the 14th Amendment was all about black slaves is wrong, the intent of Bingham was equality for ALL "citizens of the United States". The 14th Amemdment has not been changed, there is no need it has a wide enough scope to cover all of the things required.
Proof that abortions are not decreased by criminalizing (not quite the same as restrictions) exists in the fact that countries where abortions are banned have just as high, sometimes higher, abortion rates as countries where it is legal. LOL, constitutional scholars, even after years of study, disagree on what the founders intended on a number of issues. Laws are made by lawmakers elected by majority rule within the parameters of the constitution. The US Constitution simply limits what government can do. The US Constitution does not limit or even mention abortion. Lawmakers would do well to consider what has worked in other countries, that is not the same thing as basing our laws off of them.
The 14th Amendment does not need to be changed, the court just needs to have a different interpretation of it one that gives equal protections under the law to the unborn.
no problem with that at all, still does not equate to elective abortion been made illegal as you well know (a subject you continue to run away from) . .remember consent and self-defence., very relevant should the 14th ever become relevant to the unborn, as together they over rule the right to life of another person. The simple fact being that no pro-lifer has ever come up with a relevant or logical rebuttal to that argument . .you included.
But you want the unborn to have MORE rights than anyone else...(until it's born, when, if it's female , you want to take away it's rights...)......
1. Judicial Review does nto mean changing the amendment with the times 2. If what you say is true then any restrictions on abortion would be unconstitutional. We both know SCOTUS has always ruled there can be restrictions on abortion. Self Defense does not apply in pregnancy. 3. The enforced nothing, they created something that did not exist as an intent in the 14th amendment. 4. Never once did I say the 14th amendment was all about black slaves. That would be the 13th amendment. I have said the 14th amendment did not create anything new, just enforced that all previous amendments apply to all citizens. My evidence on how the 14th amendment is to be interpreted? Well here you go on what each amendments intent is and futher detail ont he 14th specifically. And BTW more then Bingham were involved in the writing of the 14th amendment http://www.usconstitution.net/constquick.html http://www.constitution.org/col/intent_14th.htm 5. Based on what you are saying about the 14th amendment there was no need to ever have another amendment and never will be as the 14th amendment covers everything. That is the rubbish. It creates nothing. It is an enforcer amendment. The 14th amendment is in fact the amendment that is not needed the constitution already covers every citizen, however the constitution itself was not being enforced, so this amendment was put in to ensure it was. It does not apply today with civil rights laws and equal opportunity laws in place. The 14th amendment didn't create privacy, didn't create liberty, didn't create due process. All these things exist in other amendments prior to the 14th amendment.
1. All you just stated is that different countries ahve different rates of abortion. 2. all they have to do is read history. There are quotes about every amendment and the intent of each. 3. lawmakers are elected by majority, but that doesn't mean they legislate off what the majority wants. The U.S Constitution limits what people and governments can do. The fact that abortion is never mentioned , or hinted at in the Constitution is precisely why the 10th amendment grants states the right to legislate on abortion and the federal government has zero business chiming in on abortion. And precisely why Roe V Wade is an illegal ruling. The 14th amendment has zero to do with abortion.
no amendment was changed. Restrictions are allowed on abortion simply because the unborn are not recognised as persons under the Constitution- specifically the 14th Amendment - ergo it does not apply to them, should that ever change then ALL relevant laws and restrictions apply to the unborn equally as they do to ALL the born, so self-defence and consent laws would equally apply to them just as they do to all other born people. Wrong, they enforced privacy that had already been constitutionally found in the 14th Amendment via previous cases. I know what it says and what the intent was, that has no relevance on how it can be implemented or are you under some illusion that there can be absolutely no interpretation .. if so then you had better start campaigning for the removal of 100's of decisions since 1803, including personal gun ownership and ANY form of privacy, both of which were decided on interpretation. That is of course your opinion, one you are perfectly entitled to have
We know that. We also know that criminalizing abortion without providing additional sex ed and access to birth control does nothing to lower the rate of abortion. And constitutional scholars even considering multiple sources still have questions and disagreements about the meanings. The Tenth Amendment does NOT necessarily give states the right to legislate on abortion. The Tenth Amendment states that rights not enumerated belong to the states OR TO THE PEOPLE. The SC has determined that abortion is one of the rights belonging to the PEOPLE.
See here is the thing............... We do not have your laws or amendments and yet the privacy act stops enacting the legislation we do have on abortion This is why legislating against abortion does not work - it does not work here, it did not work in England and virtually any country that has a 'health and safety' clause
