You obviously don't believe women have a right to an abortion with all the barriers you want to place in their way. There are abortion laws, once the fetus is viable abortion is illegal unless to save the life/health of the woman and/or fetus. You want a waiting period? Why...so abortions are later and later so you can call them illegal??? A sin tax? It's not a sin. WTH is an abortion free zone?? A park where abortions aren't allowed??? - - - Updated - - - Then why did YOU bring up the comparison ?
He's actually a very liberal conservative, I think. I would not expect to see him make any kind of priority of pro-life, anti-abortion policies. His focus is elsewhere, on the economy and health care, things that are urgent and should actually benefit people. I'd be very disappointed and surprised if he tried to overturn Roe v Wade or otherwise push a pro-life agenda.
It's entirely Constitutional. The left has given us plenty of precedent, after all. Clearly these are NOT barriers to getting an abortion. You can still get an abortion, these are just common sense measures to protect the public.
There is a fundamental flaw in the position that "once the baby has started moving, folks start viewing the child as a human being" (not that your observation is wrong - but it is wrong for folks to assume that movement means the fetus is developed enough to begin person-hood). If person-hood is all about movement, then Terri Schiavo must have still been a person when they removed her feeding tube (but we know that was not the case because the autopsy revealed that her cerebrum was too damaged to process a meaningful thought). Terri Schiavo is proof that the primitive brain stem can perform more complex actions than just jerking back from a hot stove. Her brain stem moved her body well enough to convince some observers that she was really recognizing people and responding to people. That is the same mistake folks make when they believe fetal movements are evidence of thought. I have yet to find an aspect of person-hood that depends on the body as anything except a life-support system for the mind. There is no reason to believe person-hood begins when the heart starts beating, or the legs start stretching, or the nose forms. Person-hood cannot begin until the mind has been activated, and that cannot happen until the cerebrum is functional enough to process sensation. If Trump is really serious about improving the economy and reducing federal expenses, you might find that he looks at the balance sheets and realizes that an abortion would only cost the government about $500 but denying a woman an abortion (especially if she is living below the poverty line) would cost the government thousands of dollars... he might insist on subsidizing abortions.
The U. S. Constitution contains no express right to privacy. The Bill of Rights, however, reflects the concern of James Madison and other framers for protecting specific aspects of privacy, such as the privacy of beliefs (1st Amendment), privacy of the home against demands that it be used to house soldiers (3rd Amendment), privacy of the person and possessions as against unreasonable searches (4th Amendment), and the 5th Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination, which provides protection for the privacy of personal information. In addition, the Ninth Amendment states that the "enumeration of certain rights" in the Bill of Rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." The meaning of the Ninth Amendment is elusive, but some persons (including Justice Goldberg in his Griswold concurrence) have interpreted the Ninth Amendment as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments. The precedence for a right to privacy exists in the Constitution. The two cases you cited were not the basis of privacy protecting abortion, that decision came from Griswold v Connecticut (1965) with the justifications from Justice Douglas that saw the "penumbras" and "emanations" of various Bill of Rights guarantees as creating "a zone of privacy," to Justice Goldberg's partial reliance on the Ninth Amendment's reference to "other rights retained by the people," to Justice Harlan's decision arguing that the Fourteenth Amendment's liberty clause forbade the state from engaging in conduct (such as search of marital bedrooms for evidence of illicit contraceptives) that was inconsistent with a government based "on the concept of ordered liberty." One question that the Court has wrestled with through its privacy decisions is how strong of an interest states must demonstrate to overcome claims by individuals that they have invaded a protected liberty interest. Earlier decisions such as Griswold and Roe suggested that states must show a compelling interest and narrowly tailored means when they have burdened fundamental privacy rights. As to the two cases you cited I personally think that one is correct and one is not, Meyer v Nebraska in my opinion was wrong, I personally believe that the state has a compelling interest to set a national curriculum for all public schools without any requirement to cater to parents individual desires, parents have the choice then whether to enrol their children into that school or choose an alternative school or method of education. Pierce v Society of Sisters in my opinion was a correct decision, the state should not be telling parents what schools their children should attend. What you also forget is that if ever the unborn are deemed as persons then they become subject to all the protections and restrictions that any other person must abide by, including 2nd Amendment right of self-defence and the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, under the person at conception ideology the fetus MUST as a separate person gain separate consent to impose pregnancy onto the female, it cannot be assumed that her consent to sexual intercourse is consent to a third party to impose upon her autonomy, and should she refuse that consent then the accumulative injuries she sustains and the sustained time period she would be injured for would be more than enough justification for the use of deadly force, and because the state has a duty to protect all citizens from non-consented injuries it would fall to the state to pay for her abortion.
Please try to use your brain. If A follows B, it is not necessarily true that B follows A. Basic logic. The "right to privacy" is derived from the education freedom rulings in 1923 and 1925, if you believe the "right to privacy" then you must believe its foundation (the 1923 and 1925 rulings). If you reject the 1923 and 1925 rulings, then you must reject everything derived from them including the "right to privacy". But the rulings derived from the 1923 & 1925 rulings can be rejected (due to faulty logic, political manipulation, etc) without rejecting the 1923 & 1925 rulings. If you believe in the "right to privacy", then you must allow the local community to determine the local school curriculum. For example, if the local community wants to teach Genesis, or Darwin, or neither, then you must allow it if you allow a "right to privacy".
The right to privacy existed in the Constitution before those cases. privacy of beliefs (1st Amendment) privacy of the home against demands that it be used to house soldiers (3rd Amendment) privacy of the person and possessions as against unreasonable searches (4th Amendment) privilege against self-incrimination, which provides protection for the privacy of personal information.(5th Amendment)
No there's plenty of precedent for it. Remember, rights aren't absolute lefties. You've been saying it for years, after all.
Protect the public from what? Having legal medical procedures? I'll add those questions to the others you CAN'T ANSWER: You want a waiting period? Why...so abortions are later and later so you can call them illegal??? A sin tax? It's not a sin. WTH is an abortion free zone?? A park where abortions aren't allowed???
Yes I think (I hope) that we would be able to stop the government from establishing that level of control over our personal lives. I do believe society is not perfect, so some changes are necessary (I'll reserve my judgement on Trump until I see what he actually tries to do). I believe in personal freedom (which can be limited when it conflicts with the personal freedom of others). I believe it is wrong for society (or the government) to interfere a woman's choice in the matter until you can prove that the zygote/embryo/fetus has an active mind. Based on the latest science I have seen, the cerebrum cannot possibly be activated until sometime after the onset of global neuronal integration (which begins about 4-6 weeks before birth) and the brain is not awakened until blood chemistry and oxygen levels change during the birth process.
I certainly support the right to privacy in that respect. My children have been home-schooled until they were old enough for college. So we are in agreement that the government does not have the right to dictate what my children should learn, nor does it have the right to force my daughter to carry an unwanted pregnancy.
Your position here suggests that you don't really care about the aborted fetus as much as you care about declaring the woman to be a sinner, and keeping track of her (in a registry) so you can discriminate against her in some way in the future. ALL of that infringes on her right to get an abortion (by impeding and intimidating). How exactly does it affect your life if the lady down the street from you goes to a clinic downtown today and gets an abortion?
Please show me in the constitution where it says abortions are an individual right. - - - Updated - - - Why not? Gun owners are held to the same standards. What's wrong with a little equality?
Then you must be very surprised that he "chose" Pence as Vice-President. His "focus" is on padding his own pocketbook, reducing or eliminating regulations that interfere with his freedom to do business as he chooses, consolidating his power so that he can continue to pad his pocketbook, and that means cozying up to Putin. Trump does not really care about abortion, but the people who elected him do, Pence will proceed posthaste to limit and interfere with abortion as much as he can possibly push through. Their choices for the SC will be judges who have demonstrated their loyalty to pro-life positions.
Why try to make it so personal? Trump understands business and is pro-business, but that doesn't mean he is out to enrich himself the way you claim. It's to help the national economy as a whole. As for Pence, I've no doubt he was chosen for many reasons that go well beyond his stance on abortion.
The public school rulings don't have anything to do with privacy, they're "public" after all. The ruling that supports privacy for abortion rights is Griswold vs. Connecticut. We also have a First Amendment right to freedom of religion which requires a separation of church and state to exist. Public schools cannot teach Genesis without violating the First Amendment. Public schools cannot be forbidden to teach Darwin without violating the First Amendment.
Trump doesn't understand business that well, or there would not be 4-6 bankruptcies in his history. He is pro-business, but that doesn't mean he is good at it. He has no interest in the national economy as a whole except in how it affects him. He is a narcissist after all. Yes, Pence was chosen for reasons beyond abortion, but probably pretty much limited to right wing causes. He was chosen to enhance the ticket and it did for the religious right.
I wonder how well you understand business if you think these bankruptcies are really such a problem. Trump is a businessman, and successful enough at it, no matter what spin people want to put on his past performance. But, is he a narcissist? I wouldn't doubt it.
Nice try to get away from answering those awkward INCONVENIENT questions.......... Quote Originally Posted by FoxHastings View Post Protect the public from what? Having legal medical procedures? I'll add those questions to the others you CAN'T ANSWER: You want a waiting period? Why...so abortions are later and later so you can call them illegal??? A sin tax? It's not a sin. WTH is an abortion free zone?? A park where abortions aren't allowed??? - - - Updated - - - Oh, his noodle went limp on quite a few things......fun to watch Trumpers flail around denying it when it's been in the news....
Nothing in the Bill of Rights says you have a right to an abortion. Rights have limits you know. All we need is some common sense regulation.
There aren't 4-6 bankruptcies in his history. During the collapse of all the casinos in Atlantic Beach, he had 4 of them enter Chapter 11 reorganization. That is not a bankruptcy, as the businesses stayed open and the employees kept their jobs. He COULD have bankrupted them, it would have been cleaner and easier for him to do so, but he kept the businesses running by installing a managing panel of investors.
Yup, rights have limits...a fetus's rights stop where the woman's begins Yup, rights have restrictions, you can't use another's body to sustain your life...a fetus can't use another person to sustain it's life... Nice try to get away from answering those awkward INCONVENIENT questions.......... Quote Originally Posted by FoxHastings View Post Protect the public from what? Having legal medical procedures? I'll add those questions to the others you CAN'T ANSWER: You want a waiting period? Why...so abortions are later and later so you can call them illegal??? A sin tax? It's not a sin. WTH is an abortion free zone?? A park where abortions aren't allowed???
