Wrong. Taking away citizens rights to their own bodies ( banning abortion) is wrong . Laws against murder/rape/speeding DO cut down on murder/rape/speeding. Without laws against murder/rape/speeding we would have chaos, damage to a peaceful society. Without laws against abortion there is no chaos, no damage to a peaceful society. Without laws against abortion women are free to access safe abortions. With laws against abortion women are in danger. With laws against murder/rape/speeding people are less likely to be in danger. Since you had to ignore Post # 68 I will assume no facts will change your mind no matter how wrong you are. Have you tried the topic? : """For everyone who has a daughter, sister or wife or breeding age, as well as any female who is concerned...What will you actually do if RvW gets overturned by the new SCOTUS?"""
ok, w Before Roe v. Wade abortion was legal in a few states and women traveled to those states freely to get an abortion without any legal repercussions, there's no reason to think that it would be any different today.
I asked you two simple questions...Has there ever been a time in our history where "every square inch of the border was monitored by ( insert any group of people you wish) slavering to inspect" for anything before leaving the state, and have women ever been denied the right to travel freely in their country? It appears you forgot to answer those 2 simple questions
There isn't ?? I guess you don't know what Anti-Choicers stand for... Times are different... ..and once again, EVERY AMERICAN citizen should have the same right to their own body no matter what state they are in, they are AMERICAN citizens. NO one should have to travel to another state to have full rights as a citizen...
No , I didn't forget them I just don't see why you think you can ignore my posts and then expect me to answer your asinine questions...… Your total disregard for the fact that making abortion illegal takes away American citizen's right to their own bodies is evident.
Myself, along with other pro lifers simply feel that that unborn child has rights too. The pregnant mothers rights end where the unborn childs rights begin. simple as that. Now its your turn... ya know those 2 very simple questions...
No, there isn't. Son, I've been an active pro life advocate for 20 years, across this entire nation. in fact, right now my wife is halfway across the country at the OSA national event in Indianapolis, along with our 5 children that we've adopted through the pro life ministries that we're involved in. I know EXACTLY what the pro life movement stands for. But since YOU brought it up, and you seem to think that you know more than I do, then go ahead and prove it. answer the two simple questions. Just a little bit of proof to back up your apparent wisdom. I'll be waiting...
Its pretty unclear over whether the constitution gives women the right to kill their fetuses. I do generally support abortion but there is no way in my mind the constitution really addressed that.
Abortion was LEGAL when the Constitution and BoR were signed and ratified. The BoR explicitly protects ALL RIGHTS that were NOT ENUMERATED which would have INCLUDED abortion. So yes, the Constitution and BoR did address abortion rights by including it with all of the rights that were legal yet not specifically enumerated.
Actually the SCOTUS was right. Consider the alternative when it comes to individual rights. Hypothetically should your personal medical records be made public to the entire world? Should everyone be allowed to know about your issues with ED and your prostrate? If the answer is no then the same principles applies when it comes to what is happening inside anyone else. Either an individual has the right to privacy or they don't!
But the difference in abortion is that we are talking about a fetus which is another life not just your body parts. Suicide and drug use are also illegal and also about how you use your own body as well. You are interpreting the right to privacy a little too broadly and should instead look at what exactly the right to privacy is applied to.
We have essentially abandoned this amendment and this started with FDR who appointed Supreme Court justices who stopped interpreting the constitution as banning the government from doing things it didn't give the governments powers to. Think about how the government bans people from using drugs by a perverse interpretation of the commerce clause. The liberal interpretation of the constitution is a mess.
When that "life" only exists, and CAN only exist, INSIDE another person it has NO RIGHTS other than those the person carrying that "life" is willing to grant to it. If you want to go down the path of granting a fetus Constitutional rights you open up another whole can of legal worms that will make a mockery of the Rule of Law. For instance if a pregnant woman is incarcerated for murder then that violates the rights of the fetus that has committed no crime but it is also incarcerated and subjected to sub optimal living conditions that could even result in being born with impairments and/or defects that would otherwise not happen. A lawyer for the fetus would demand that the pregnant woman must be allowed to remain free even if she is a direct threat to herself and others. The net result of that is to place the "life" of the fetus ABOVE the lives of others which flies in the face of the concept of EQUAL rights. The "life" of the fetus DOES depend upon the woman carrying it until viability and to RESTRICT her individual rights is a slippery slope that ends badly for everyone.
Firstly the War on Drugs is NOT a "liberal" "interpretation of the constitution". It is a kneejerk emotional feel good policy started by and perpetuated by do-gooder conservatives. If you want hard evidence of that it is liberal states that are making marijuana legal while conservative states are incarcerating minorities for mere possession. The fundamental principle behind virtually every law and regulation we have is because someone or some corporation took advantage and exploited We the People. Yes, a great many of those laws and regulations are OVERREACH. However they were put in place for a reason and should be modified rather than eliminated. The War of Drugs is gross overreach but it would be foolhardy to scrap it entirely. Changing it to more in line with tobacco and alcohol legislation would go a long war towards making it sane and reasonable. The EPA came about because corporations were dumping toxins all over the environment and quite literally killing people. Should we take away all of those regulations and allow corporations to pollute our air, land and water again?
. ..and you'd be wrong , it doesn't. The fetus has no rights. Women do (no matter what you say) So this is simpler and more important, the fetus rights end where the woman's rights begin. Although that isn't accurate because the fetus never had rights and women already do Oh, no, we're not done yet. Why do you insist the fetus have more rights than the woman it's in and everyone else? The woman has a right to her own body, just like YOU do...why do you think the fetus can override the woman's rights when no one else can? Why do you think a fetus should be able to use another's body to sustain it's life when no one else can ?
Uh, I am no Constitutional expert but shouldn't Americans have the right to their own body protected??? It's not about abortion....it's about EVERYONE, even mere women, having the right to their own body.
Yes, there is, this is a different time, GRAMPS. What, GRAMPAW ? I have been involved in fighting to keep women's right to their bodies for quite a while and when ,in this forum, Anti-Choicers know they have no facts, no points, no defense for their attack on women they go off on a meaningless tangent trying desperately to prove a point.....all to avoid the fact that they have no real reason to take women's rights away from them....but want to anyway..
A fetus IS a body part of a woman, attached just like a heart, liver, kidney....it is part of HER body, not the government's , not yours, not some busybody Anti-Choice misogynist's..
Well then, since you seem to be much wiser than I on this subject, and you seem to understand this "new time" that we are in so well, you should have no problem backing up YOUR claim that "Pro lifers would line every inch of the border slavering to inspect women as they cross" and "Women will no longer be able to travel freely within the country" Maybe a link? A passage from a book? Heck at this point I'll take just about anything. FWIW, "Grampaw", to me, is a compliment. I'm not a Grandfather yet, but my oldest son seems to be settling down with his girlfriend, so hopefully soon!
Remember, we are talking about the constitution here, not about your personal beliefs on what has rights. My argument is that the government is able to ban things like drug use and suicide. The government is also able to regulate how you donate your organs. Since the constitution doesn't stop the government from regulate these things according to the liberal interpretation it logically follows it doesn't stop the government from regulating abortion. Your argument was a right to privacy but didn't point to a specific passage in the constitution mentioning this.
Liberal Supreme Court justices haven't opposed the war on drugs. While liberals support pot legalization I never hear any constitutional arguments or any arguments that all drugs including meth should be legalized. The government has laws against suicide, can stop someone from organ donations, and has age limits on smoking and drinking. The government very much does regulate what people do to their bodies.
Well, does the constitution say it? Even if it says there is a right to self-defense I think its talking about someone attacking you not killing your fetus.
