Those who are absolute Zeffy. - - - Updated - - - I'm glad you agree that there is no Amendment that says you can get an abortion. So we can just have states decide. Thanks.
Was that supposed to be an answer to "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?"
Not even close. It does not state a person has "privacy" of beliefs, it states that the government cannot impose beliefs on people - very different issues. The same with the rest. Total fail.
Different subjects. One is your childs education, the other is your childs right to be considered a human being and to even exist.
One is my child's education and the other is my child's right to deal with an unwanted pregnancy without interference from other persons or religious organizations who want to govern us. Many of my ancestors left Europe to get away from people like that (and a few were already here - and, by the way, practicing abortion before the Europeans arrived).
Please don't claim that bankruptcy shows how smart he is. Bankruptcy may be the best choice after "mistakes" drive a business to that point, but a good businessman would not have bankruptcy in his history. As for his success, bankruptcies aside, didn't you read those multiple articles claiming that would be even richer today had he simply invested his inheritance in the stock market? Then there are also all those questionable practices which saved him a lot of money, such as stiffing the people working for him, hiring illegals, etc. Of course, he's a narcissist and that's why he doesn't give a damn about anyone but himself.
You seem to have me confused with a gun control advocate. I only object to guns when they are used improperly, so it seems we both agree that the little old lady has no right to object to your AR15 or the abortion clinic downtown.
Well, when they stop attacking my specifically recognized rights, I'll stop attacking what they think is an inferred right.
That suggests that you don't really care about the unborn after all... you are just using the issue for leverage to get what you want regarding gun control. I agree that the government should keep out of both issues for the most part (until public safety is at risk), and I can appreciate that it is frustrating when you see a group of people who want all kinds of controls on one issue, but none on another issue. I suggest, however, that clamoring for more governmental controls on one issue is not the way to convince the government that they should reduce their controls. It sends public officials the wrong message.
This abortion "right to privacy" is derived from the 9th Amendment via Griswold, and the 14th Amendment. Griswold is a real stretch and is at odds with the rest of the Bill of Rights, it is not a solid piece of legal reasoning. The reasoning to the 14th goes through the education cases. The questionable "right to privacy" completely avoids the real issue of the status of the unborn baby. - - - Updated - - - You once again assume the status of the unborn baby has been resolved. It has not, and until it has your above argument is worthless.
Chapter 11 reorganization IS a bankruptcy. Sure at least some of the employees kept their jobs, but the people the business owed were left holding the short end of the stick. It's a legal way of stealing. An honorable man would pay those debts. While Politifact agrees with you to a degree, it also says there is usually some degree of poor judgment and that Trump is not the victim. For FOUR bankruptcies, there simply can be no doubt that poor judgment was involved and we need not applaud Trump for his business sense. Neither should we trust him to make good business decisions for our country. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ep/21/carly-fiorina/trumps-four-bankruptcies/ "However, the source of the financial problems varies from case to case," he said. "Sometimes it is the result of circumstances beyond the control of the business. Sometime it caused by poor judgment. More frequently, it is a combination."
Then I'd suggest you look into the casino industry in Atlantic City and educate yourself, Trump's wasn't the only casino having problems. And no, the persons owed debt were not left holding the short end of the stick, as they were put in charge of the committee running the business. He could have just written those businesses off. He didn't. The man has billions it wouldn't have hurt him that much. What he did was much more difficult and honorable than just closing them down, but think what you will.
Oh my reasons are not as obvious as you might think, but I'm going to push it from all angles. Either rights are rights, or they are not. People fight for the concept, or they are just picking sides based on what they want. That is not the point of the Constitution. You support the Constitution, or you're just using it to get what you want.
It has been resolved by science that the process of global neuronal integration begins about 4-6 weeks before actual birth, and that the environment changes on or about the moment of birth to provide the oxygen and changes in blood chemistry to allow the cerebrum to function. Science leaves no room for the pretense that the mind could be active before actual birth. Reference: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-does-consciousness-arise/ Do you have any scientific basis for a belief that the mind could possibly be active before that last month of gestation?
I grew up believing the Constitution guaranteed the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to every citizen of the United States. Since citizenship begins at birth (or naturalization), that has always excluded the unborn.
Trump cannot overturn RvW......Even the SCOTUS will never do so because of the neverending court cases it would be faced with. Then you would also have the massive government intrusion into female genitalia required for enforcement of required abortion laws, though Trump could become the new chief (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) grabber. The very idea is nothing but a Republican ploy for Christian votes.
Funny how the Anti-Choicers think : "Trumps in, he tells the Supreme Court what to do, they do it because he's king, and abortion stops"""......how can they be so dumb on so many points? Easy, they supported Trump.
My real intent is as always to get those opposed to abortion to think seriously about what they are insisting happens - making it illegal. Usually they do not really want that they just want it to go away and will not accept that the only way to do that is to improve contraception or ban sex for most of humanity
There is no precedent for it ... I see what you are attempting to do but all you are doing is creating a false equivalence fallacy.
No I'm afraid not. If one right can be regulated by individual states, than a right that is only inferred from the Constitution can certainly be.
All of them protect a form of privacy, so no fail at all ... if you disagree I suggest you inform the Cornell University Law School they are wrong - https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/privacy Or ask find law to edit their pages - http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment1/annotation19.html Furthermore it's strange that you support stopping the government imposing beliefs onto people yet you advocate exactly that by wanting abortion restrictions, which is forcing beliefs onto people.
Yes it is, 2nd Amendment restrictions do not meet the undue burden test, whereas abortion restrictions do.
The status of the unborn is irrelevant, all it does is move the debate from privacy to self-defence and equal protection.
I think that there needs to be a country set up, to take in all the disaffected Liberals, & illegal immigrants to America. The 14th. Remains intact, & we get another country in the world... You know, like Liberia. It could take part of So. Cal...
