Let's get one fact straight about the Constitution

I would agree with you except for one thing.
I find it difficult to compromise two very different and fundamental attitudes to life and death and what they mean, inside one country.
And I find it difficult that laws which reflect these attitudes can change with any changes in the political leanings of state governments. Are you going to change the law each time à state changes majorities?
I feel very uncomfortable that such moral decisions rest on political dogma.

 

Turn the mirror around. Those who want to protect àn unconscious unperson are happy for anyone to walk around sporting the means to kill at will. Offensively or defensively.
Makes no sense.

 

A Deeper anchor requires a constitutional amendment. In some States, that's fairly easy, at the Federal Level it takes very wide agreement.

 

Babies are very conscious persons. They have heartbeats. That makes them living humans. Your own country cuts off abortion on demand at 14 weeks. You must be mad AF at that. Right?

 

Off topic. If you want to discuss that topic, start another thread.

 

A heartbeat does not make consciousness .
Those who hunt would then be murderers.
I am happy with 14 weeks. This ruling relates to far less than that.

 

3/5ths refers to a time when in the south a 'negro' was worth ony 3/5ths of a vote, and it is in the constitution.

Thus, the constitution was racist at the beginning, refuting the comment who said I was saying it 'suddenly became racist' ( which I didn't say).

Now you have the whole conversation.

 

Roe v Wade was one.
And it addressed other constitutional rights of liberty...freedom. The pursuit of happiness.
That à decision about what your country stands for should nor be difficult...as long as it doesn't get bogged down in the specifics.
For example I see capital punishment as contrary to the right to life. How can you punish the taking of one life by the state removal of another? What kind of example is that? Hé can't be a danger to the public while in prison...
From the outside ISTM there is an inconsistency in the value of life in the USA. Now of course each state can define what that is. It is of course possible but IMO it weakens àn important national identity.

 

The fact that we have a tyranny by a minority of republicans in this country has nothing to do with people wanting to come here.

Sure, they'll come here because it's better here than somewhere else, but that doesn't mean we can't improve conditions.

Your implication is nonsense.

 

We don't want to destroy the constitution, that's nonsense. We just want a few amendments. You do know they have been done in the past, and the constitution allows for it being amended. The founders never wanted a static, inflexible document.

 

Considering the constitution alloted blacks (not free persons) to be worth only 3/5 of a vote, and the word 'woman' or 'female' is not in the Constitution (though mentioned in the 19th amendment) one could argue it was originally a racist and misogynistic document.

 

The same people that to have as many weapons and ammunition as possible and don't want people telling them they can't want to dictate how people with wombs manage their own business.

Why are your rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness more special that anybody else's with those same rights?

 

"Woke"does not mean 'awake', it means 'hard left'.

No, during midterms, especially if we have a dem president, dems are notoriously asleep and do not vote. It is the entire reason why republicans have gained so much in state legislatures. Dems seem only to wake up for presidential elections only.

YOu can't claim to be for individual rights and be a Republican. Hell, they just took way a woman's right to an abortion, and now Clarence Thomas wrote, “In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell", which are the cases that granted the right to use contraceptives, repealed sodomy laws, and granted the right for gays to marry. That means Thomas wants cases to be brought to the court where they can repeal those gains by society.

Basically, Republicans want to kill the legal doctrine of the Penumbra right, which is the doctrine which was used to confer those rights, which essentially means they want to kill the right to privacy.

No privacy with republicans.

So, don't lecture me on 'rights'.

 

The courts, long ago, affirmed the doctrine of the Penumbra right, and that right was the right to privacy.

In privacy, it begets all the things we do in private. so, kill privacy, a penumbra right, and all the other rights, such as gay marriage, contraceptives, having sex with the person you love who does not happen to be of the opposite sex, etc. noting that the repealed sodomy laws make any sex act including those by heterosexuals that is not vaginal illegal, and so all these rights are now fair game.

the right to abortion was also the basis for granting a woman the right to an abortion.

It was voted on 7-2 of whom 5 were republicans, it has been upheld in other cases, and has been a precedent for 50 years.

therefore, It can, and did, and did for 50 years. Your point is utterly moot.

The point is, the only salient point was that the court granted the right or 50 years, and now it has taken it way.

That is the salient point, and the polemics do not matter to those to whom the right was conferred and now do not have it, they will not give a damn about all the intellectual bullshit that was used to repeal R v W which puts the right to privacy, fair game.

 

Well, you mean more democracy, right? What sort are you talking about? Are you advocating for pure democracy where every little thing is decided by a 51% majority? Or do you just want to change around the checks and balances between the bodies of representatives?

 

Sure they will. They can choose to have an abortion no matter where they are. They just have to travel to somewhere it's legal to get it done.

 

So nope women STILL won't have a choice in those states.

 

They have lots of choices, no matter where they are. The only thing that has changed is the distance they have to drive.

 

This...

...is not a call for a few amendments.

This is a diatribe declaring the entire constitution as illegitimate; "The constitution was not written by 'We, The People'.It was written by rich white dudes." And what do you want to replace it with? "Democracy, is that idea."

So you are mourning the death of a poorly written opinion by the least democratic branch of our government. I don't think you really mean democracy, because otherwise, we have that right now. Each state can vote on what they want, but you're mad that an oligarchic coterie of unelected judges basically changed their minds to allow democracy.

The contradiction is deep in this one.

 

I was referring to choosing within the country where to live.
I find it hard to believe that an accusation of murder can be justified in one place and not in another. I also find it hard to believe that women have the right to liberty and the pursuit of her happiness in one state and not in another.
These are constitutional fundamental rights.
Of course there is no mention of abortion in the Constitution. It was unknown in the 18th century. The decision to kick it back to States is the free choice of the SC and not directed by that Constitution. That whole argument is not substantiated but is in fact what the SC can and chooses to do to refuse abortions to more women, and hope more States follow suit.
As for democracy, at least 8 States closed their clinics within 12 hours of the announcement. WOW . That was a fast vote across the state.
This isn't democracy. This is party political and religious power games. And women are caught in the middle.
What are you going to do if a state changes majorités? Open the clinics up again for 4 years and then maybe close them again?
IMO this is a NATIONAL issue because it affects ALL women and speak to their individual rights OVER the power of the state.
Those who are concerned about a national state takeover should be worried. The unelected, politically motivated SC has just taken à huge step in imposing its will on the individual.
In reverse, what could you do if it decided that owning guns is illegal because they cause unnecessary murders? If you ran for your gun, the military would squash you like a bug because legally it could.
The whole idea of any legislating interference or control of individual choice is dangerous. Very dangerous.

 

" Democracy" IS mob rule. That's why we are a republic.

 

This situation, for a variety of reasons, is a bad one which leaves us as a nation even more divided than before. That said, all I can say with certainty is that any woman wanting an abortion today can fly or drive to Colorado and and have one for whatever reason she wants, with no restrictions.

Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abort...lorado is legal,a pregnancy can be terminated.

If I had had my way, the Supreme Court would have left this whole abortion thing ALONE, at least until 'scientists' are more convincing than they have been about whether a fetus is actually "alive" or not. But, I have rarely ever had 'my way' in anything about the way this country is governed, so, what the hell....

 

You forgot to say your democracy is at stake.

It's better here than other countries in pretty much every way. Certainly less racist than the racially homogeneous countries you don't want to move to, such as any country in the African continent, South America, Mexico, SE Asia/ME, China, Japan.....

No.

You chose two countries that are whiter than this one, with parallel, and in some ways worse, histories of racism than this one.

Thanks for the belly laugh. It was a good one.

 

Go ahead and report me so they can tell you you're wrong.

It's only "off topic" because it's too on point for your mind to handle.

 

The problem for you is that many women disagree with you.