Why are pro choicers afraid to fight it out state by state?

FoxHastings said: ↑


CALL it anything you want but :

NOPE the Unborn Victims of Violence Act does NOT make fetuses legal persons.

NO where in the Act does it give fetuses the rights of the born.....try to give a fetus a SSN...or count it in the census...you can't.



, it deems them victims, not persons with rights....try to give a fetus a SSN...or count it in the census...you can't.

BTW, WOMEN have the right to life.

No, noting I said indicated that....and I don't see proof that they were charged with murder. They may have been charged with something else....doesn't really matter anyway because:




........the Unborn Victims of Violence Act does NOT make fetuses legal persons.

NO where in the Act does it give fetuses the rights of the born.....try to give a fetus a SSN...or count it in the census...you can't.



, it deems them victims, not persons with rights....try to give a fetus a SSN...or count it in the census...you can't.

 

I think you got the wrong thread.

This one is about abortion.

 

The abortion ruling was just a prelim to the real zinger in a Court season of epic proportions.

 

Either discuss the topic of the thread or go away.

 

Are you a policeman here?

 

The board has shown preference to people discussing the OP topic in each thread.

If you want to discuss something else, you're free to start a thread.

 

Well ok, the thread is about abortion. Does that mean it is also about the Constitutional concept of states' rights?

 

Amendment IV (1791)
The right of the people to be secure in their persons ...... shall not be violated

 

One out of every four women will have an abortion at some time in their lifetime. Them's the statistics given by Planned Parenthood.

 

That has nothing to do at all with so called "bodily autonomy"

 

And they wouldn't lie?

 

It amazes me, when I see human beings who seem to have no ability-- which is the very essence of your OP's question-- to understand the working of feelings, very similar to their own, if about different things, in others.

It is not that Pro-Choice supporters are, "afraid," to "battle the issue out, on a state by state basis;" it is that they believe a woman's right to choose when to have a child, so when & if to end an unplanned pregnancy, is a fundamental freedom, to which all should be entitled.

To put this in terms, to which you should be able to relate, let me ask you a question that you will interpret, in the same manner that Pro-Life advocates will view your querie: Why are Pro-Gun folks, afraid to battle out that issue, on a state by state basis?

If this does not immediately clarify the situation, it means that you likely have a very serious deficiency, when it comes to the basic concept of understanding that anyone having a different perspective than yourself, is not automatically wrong, in their feelings. Along with that recognition, comes the acknowledgement, of any slightly evolved human being, that others' perspectives should be given the same consideration, as one expects one's own beliefs, to be accorded, by others.

In answer to your flood of argumentative points, as to why gun rights, as you interpret them, are "completely different," from the right to control one's body, I need only say that, if your understanding of the two issues was as obvious to practically EVERYONE, who has "any common sense," then neither of these would really be, "an issue." The Constitution does not specifically state, that all citizens or residents of our country has the God- given right, to have access to any type of "firearm," that exists, and to possess these weapons unconditionally, without any type of requirement (such as certifying that they have not been deprived of this right, by due course of law; or that they are not psychologically too unstable, to be trusted to reasonably exercise this right; or that they possess a minimum competency at using the weapon, so as not to present an undue risk to others' safety; or that they store the weapon, when not carrying it, in such a way that it will not be, for others who come across it-- whether they be a burglar, or a child, in their own home-- too easy to take control of this weapon, for themself, and away from the rightful owner; or even that the state has no right to require that owners of guns, to obtain a license, and/or register their weapon). In every one of these cases, you have "reasoned," your view, from an amendment warranting that-- if you will excuse the inexactness of my layman's understanding-- the federal government should not obstruct the ability of states to have a "well trained militia." Though the meaning of this might be crystal clear in your own mind, that does not prove that the majority of people-- whose views differ from your own, in any respect-- are all wrong, and that your own interpretation, should be the authoritative one, for all.


The same holds true, of your view of the "right," to abortion.

 

But banning abortion means women are not "secure in their persons"...right?

 

Don't be ridiculous.

The "right to keep and bear arms" is SPECIFICALLY in the U.S Constitution.

The "right" to an abortion or even to privacy is NOT written into the Constitution.

Something that is specifically enumerated in the Constitution obviously has priority over something that is (at best) merely implied.

 

""Abortion is illegal"" is not written in the Constitution.

 

You are engaging in semantics.

 

Got a better source ?

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
""Abortion is illegal"" is not written in the Constitution.

No, it's a fact...so I knew you wouldn't recognize it.

BTW, I see you handle my "format" just fine when you want to

 

When you use short concise sentences without too much quoting your format is much easier thank you.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
FoxHastings said: ↑
""Abortion is illegal"" is not written in the Constitution.



No, it's a fact...so I knew you wouldn't recognize it.

BTW, I see you handle my "format" just fine when you want to

I see you still want to avoid the contents of my posts and the topic by derailing into format styles

 

The misnomer is your statement.

 

Always think the worst of women, don't you..

 

Don't be ridiculous.

 

Oh! So you're a Constitutional attorney?

 

Well, is a person who is "secure in their person and effects" in control of their own "person and effects"? Doesn't the 4th Amendment guarantee that the government cannot dictate control over your "person and effects"?