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

There is no better source. Do you think you have one?

 

I can read.

 

LOL!!!!! The jury is out on that.

 

Planned Parenthood is a crappy source...lol

 

Are you?

 

This is, proportionally, far more of your argument, than you included of mine, in your own quote. With my phone's vertical display (columnular presentation), my post, you are answering, is 43 lines long; you quoted just 1. Not that quoting an entire post is always necessary, if that post speaks of various ideas, especially if one idea is not contingent upon others. But this one line, is really not a fair representation of the argument which you are addressing (mine). Nevertheless, I will play fair, with you-- here is the rest of your post:

And here is the refutation of your contention:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment#:~:text=The Second Amendment of the,, shall not be infringed."

[Snip]

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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."

Such language has created considerable debate regarding the Amendment's intended scope. On the one hand, some believe that the Amendment's phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" creates an individual constitutional right to possess firearms. Under this "individual right theory," the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional. On the other hand, some scholars point to the prefatory language "a well regulated Militia" to argue that the Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state's right to self-defense. Scholars call this theory "the collective rights theory." A collective rights theory of the Second Amendment asserts that citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right.

[End]

In other words, you are presenting only ONE THEORY of the case, in which there are two, equally valid, theories. The fact that you, personally, do not give any credence to the collective rights theory of the 2nd A., does not mean that the matter has been clearly settled, in law.

Interestingly, even the one single, short sentence, of that Amendment, you do not quote, without significant "infringement."

 

Sure it does.

 

why do anti-choicers want a nanny government to decide, why do they not want women to decide for themselves?

 

yep, the right wants a nanny government where no citizen has the freedom to choose anything for themselves

 

If that is your best argument, I do not think I need add anything more to the Cornell Law explanation, I have already posted.

Oh! But Dayton3, is contradicting the prestigious legal scholars-- how could one know, among such equal authorities, which one to believe?

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
But banning abortion means women are not "secure in their persons"...right?

So banning abortion is against the 4th Amendment? I am not arguing ....but if a person has the right to be "secure in their persons" then isn't banning abortion against the Constitution?

 

Isn't it obvious? Make slaves of women and you have control...oh, and there's that misogyny issue, too

 

Women are making the wrong decision.
You might as well ask "why doesn't the government allow people to commit suicide?"

Some decisions are simply wrong and always will be (or nearly always).

 

nope, not the same at all, forcing a rape victim to have her rapists baby should be a felony and they should have to register with the sex offender registry

 

Why? (note that I'm NOT an advocate of forcing a rape victim to do so but I wouldn't go as far as you go).

 

because it's like raping them a second time

 

How so? I don't see that. And I have some close personal connections to women who have suffered sexual assault.

 

many can't stand the thought of growing a rapists baby within them - that is their choice

 

You heard Roe was overturned, right?

 

My guess is this will hit the courts soon.

 

It should have already, under Article 4, Section 2.

 

They don't understand, and probably didn't even try to understand, the basic medical facts. If they understood that the pre-conscious fetus is not a person, they would know that the only party with an interest in the question is the woman. There is a basic right to privacy implied in many parts of the constitution. Given the embryo/early fetus is not a person, the only relevant right is the right to privacy. States can't make laws that violate basic rights, such as privacy. SCOTUS ruled the way they ruled because they are conservative hacks, the most recent of which lied to get confirmed.

 

The USSC ruled otherwise.
Your opinion to the contrary does not matter.

 

Oh please. We're not in a courtroom. Argue the merits. Should I have just shut down every anti-abortion comment prior to the most recent ruling by pointing to Roe V Wade? Why even discuss anything if you just point to what the law says today as opposed to last year? Everybody knows SCOTUS gets things wrong, whether you're pro-choice or pro-life.

 

There's an authority that makes decisions like this, and they have.
You can have whatever opinion you want, but it doesn't mean anything, and wont change anything.
As such, there's no need to discuss it.

Ok...
-The right to an abortion is not unlimited.
-The right to an abortion is not absolute.
-States have the power to regulate, restrict, limit, and even prohibit abortions.
Have at it.