Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Which, in fact, makes it "constitutional". Doesn't matter if he/she is dead or alive. In our form of government, a decision by the SCOTUS is the final word. It is the very definition of what is in the Constitution.You're right that I did not see that this is in the "clean debate zone".
It does not matter if you or I believe its in the US Constitution. Its the SCOTUS that decides that.
You're certainly free to disagree but that won't change that fundamental fact.
But do you agree that the supreme court has been wrong before? What has that to do with this issue?and that something that people said is a right (the right of local governments to discriminate) can be taken away?What has that to do with this issue?
Threre is no language saying abortion is a right in the entire document, or even medical procedures are a right. That's two separate issues. SCOTUS ruled on the first. If you feel so strongly about it, start a drive to make it an amendment guaranteeing a right to it.Already fought for and won the SCOTUS decision. As long as there are people in our government to value individual freedom and individual responsibility, that decision will not be overturned.
Then you can say "its in the consitution" until then its only in the mind of dead supreme court justices.
As a big supporter of the constitution and the ammendments within it I feel abortion is a states only issue as the power to do anything in this area was not specifically given to the federal govt in the constitution.
In point of fact, you are incorrect.
The fact that the decision came from the Supreme Court of the United States makes it federal. It also makes a Constitutional right in that THAT is the very definition of a decision made by the SCOTUS.
I understand that currently it is federal law and decided. I'm approaching the topic in the spirit of the person who started the thread wanted us to.
Which, in fact, makes it "constitutional". Doesn't matter if he/she is dead or alive. In our form of government, a decision by the SCOTUS is the final word. It is the very definition of what is in the Constitution.But do you agree that the supreme court has been wrong before? What has that to do with this issue?and that something that people said is a right (the right of local governments to discriminate) can be taken away?What has that to do with this issue?
Threre is no language saying abortion is a right in the entire document, or even medical procedures are a right. That's two separate issues. SCOTUS ruled on the first. If you feel so strongly about it, start a drive to make it an amendment guaranteeing a right to it.Already fought for and won the SCOTUS decision. As long as there are people in our government to value individual freedom and individual responsibility, that decision will not be overturned.
Then you can say "its in the consitution" until then its only in the mind of dead supreme court justices.
I disagree in that it certainly wasn't the "final word" when the constitution enforced prohibition.
It's fluid. The founders made it difficult (rightfully so imho) but not impossible to amend. And certainly a supreme court decision can be reversed in court's next session if they choose.
equal protection?
equal protection UNDER THE LAW. As long as the law is equally applied, you have your equal protection.
and does that equal protection apply to all humans within the jurisdiction?
Which, in fact, makes it "constitutional". Doesn't matter if he/she is dead or alive. In our form of government, a decision by the SCOTUS is the final word. It is the very definition of what is in the Constitution.You're right that I did not see that this is in the "clean debate zone".
It does not matter if you or I believe its in the US Constitution. Its the SCOTUS that decides that.
You're certainly free to disagree but that won't change that fundamental fact.
But do you agree that the supreme court has been wrong before? What has that to do with this issue?and that something that people said is a right (the right of local governments to discriminate) can be taken away?What has that to do with this issue?
Threre is no language saying abortion is a right in the entire document, or even medical procedures are a right. That's two separate issues. SCOTUS ruled on the first. If you feel so strongly about it, start a drive to make it an amendment guaranteeing a right to it.Already fought for and won the SCOTUS decision. As long as there are people in our government to value individual freedom and individual responsibility, that decision will not be overturned.
Then you can say "its in the consitution" until then its only in the mind of dead supreme court justices.
Which, in fact, makes it "constitutional". Doesn't matter if he/she is dead or alive. In our form of government, a decision by the SCOTUS is the final word. It is the very definition of what is in the Constitution.But do you agree that the supreme court has been wrong before? What has that to do with this issue?and that something that people said is a right (the right of local governments to discriminate) can be taken away?What has that to do with this issue?
Threre is no language saying abortion is a right in the entire document, or even medical procedures are a right. That's two separate issues. SCOTUS ruled on the first. If you feel so strongly about it, start a drive to make it an amendment guaranteeing a right to it.Already fought for and won the SCOTUS decision. As long as there are people in our government to value individual freedom and individual responsibility, that decision will not be overturned.
Then you can say "its in the consitution" until then its only in the mind of dead supreme court justices.
I would call it supreme courtual, not consitutional, again where does the consitution talk about medical procedures?HUH? Medical procedures? Ya wanna start another thread for this unrelated subject?
It talks about free press, freedom of religion, right to bear arms, who can vote, what congress can and cannot do, it bans slavery, allows localities to ban alcohol, all of these things explicity. It allows for trial by jury, stops searches without warrants, forbids those under 35 from being president, again all explicitly.
Nowhere in the document is the right to an abortion, or a ban on abortion, the document is neutral on it.Thus it should be up to legislatures to determine if things such as abortion are legal or not. The supreme court decided, wrongly, to call it a "right" just like it wrongly called jim crow laws a "right" of a locality.
It wouldn't take an amendment. Just an overturning scotus ruling.Which, in fact, makes it "constitutional". Doesn't matter if he/she is dead or alive. In our form of government, a decision by the SCOTUS is the final word. It is the very definition of what is in the Constitution.
I disagree in that it certainly wasn't the "final word" when the constitution enforced prohibition.
It's fluid. The founders made it difficult (rightfully so imho) but not impossible to amend. And certainly a supreme court decision can be reversed in court's next session if they choose.
Roe v. Wade has been constitutional since 1973. It is now stare decisis. The states can still propose and vote on a Constitutional Amendment....good luck with that passing 38 states.
Regards from Rosie
What about the rights of the as yet unborn? Should we as a society deny the most basic human right because birth has not yet occurred?
What about the rights of the as yet unborn? Should we as a society deny the most basic human right because birth has not yet occurred?
It wouldn't take an amendment. Just an overturning scotus ruling.I disagree in that it certainly wasn't the "final word" when the constitution enforced prohibition.
It's fluid. The founders made it difficult (rightfully so imho) but not impossible to amend. And certainly a supreme court decision can be reversed in court's next session if they choose.
Roe v. Wade has been constitutional since 1973. It is now stare decisis. The states can still propose and vote on a Constitutional Amendment....good luck with that passing 38 states.
Regards from Rosie
That is a worthy discussion provided that the rights of the mother be included in the discussion.
What about the rights of the as yet unborn? Should we as a society deny the most basic human right because birth has not yet occurred?
Which, in fact, makes it "constitutional". Doesn't matter if he/she is dead or alive. In our form of government, a decision by the SCOTUS is the final word. It is the very definition of what is in the Constitution.
I disagree in that it certainly wasn't the "final word" when the constitution enforced prohibition.
It's fluid. The founders made it difficult (rightfully so imho) but not impossible to amend. And certainly a supreme court decision can be reversed in court's next session if they choose.
Roe v. Wade has been constitutional since 1973. It is now stare decisis. The states can still propose and vote on a Constitutional Amendment....good luck with that passing 38 states.
Regards from Rosie
equal protection UNDER THE LAW. As long as the law is equally applied, you have your equal protection.
and does that equal protection apply to all humans within the jurisdiction?
the consitution doesnt use the term human, it uses the term person, and of course, the government can define what a person is, for its own laws.
Which, in fact, makes it "constitutional". Doesn't matter if he/she is dead or alive. In our form of government, a decision by the SCOTUS is the final word. It is the very definition of what is in the Constitution.
I would call it supreme courtual, not consitutional, again where does the consitution talk about medical procedures?HUH? Medical procedures? Ya wanna start another thread for this unrelated subject?
It talks about free press, freedom of religion, right to bear arms, who can vote, what congress can and cannot do, it bans slavery, allows localities to ban alcohol, all of these things explicity. It allows for trial by jury, stops searches without warrants, forbids those under 35 from being president, again all explicitly.
Nowhere in the document is the right to an abortion, or a ban on abortion, the document is neutral on it.Thus it should be up to legislatures to determine if things such as abortion are legal or not. The supreme court decided, wrongly, to call it a "right" just like it wrongly called jim crow laws a "right" of a locality.
See now? That's what is just so cool about the US.
You can hold any opinion you like. Doesn't matter that its factual incorrect.
Actually, my own opinion is that the law should not enter into it at all. I believe its a purely human right, that because we have these big ole brain pans and we're (mostly sentient, we have the inborn human right to have complete and total control over our own bodies. No court in the land and certainly no religion or individual should be able to step in and decide what I can or cannot do with my body. Period. The End.
Guess we'll both just have to take it up with the Supreme Courtual.
... our SCOTUS ruled 'the right of personal privacy includes abortion' and is constitutionally guaranteed....
What about the rights of the as yet unborn? Should we as a society deny the most basic human right because birth has not yet occurred?
luddly, you are entitled to the weight of national opinion, which is about 1/6th of the population.
Step off, lefty.
You can't kill someone else "with your body." That's a poor argument that (thank goodness) no court or legislative body accepts.
Yet you can't spark a doob in the privacy of your crib.
Just doesn't make any fucking sense.
You don't understand. What about the rights of the most definitely living and sentient woman?
It's a case of who has the right to decide. No man has the right to decide. Why? Because at no point in any of the "women should be forced to bear unwanted children" argument has there been a SINGLE mention of paternal responsibility. None. If it takes two, why is only one left literally holding the bag?
So only women can decide. And women know themselves. Do they wish to try to carry an ectopic pregnancy to term? Do they want to raise a child resulting from rape? If you're shot by a criminal, do you not have the bullet removed? Does a woman have the free time & money - and no other kids - so they can focus all of her attention on a baby with multiple serious birth defects? Should a woman be forced to have a baby, then put it up for adoption, knowing that most kids don't get adopted? What if she's on the pill, but the pharma factory fucked up on quality control? (That actually happened in 1982.) And for those that insist on calling it murder - which it isn't - there comes the argument of self-defense.
Which, in fact, makes it "constitutional". Doesn't matter if he/she is dead or alive. In our form of government, a decision by the SCOTUS is the final word. It is the very definition of what is in the Constitution.
I would call it supreme courtual, not consitutional, again where does the consitution talk about medical procedures?HUH? Medical procedures? Ya wanna start another thread for this unrelated subject?
It talks about free press, freedom of religion, right to bear arms, who can vote, what congress can and cannot do, it bans slavery, allows localities to ban alcohol, all of these things explicity. It allows for trial by jury, stops searches without warrants, forbids those under 35 from being president, again all explicitly.
Nowhere in the document is the right to an abortion, or a ban on abortion, the document is neutral on it.Thus it should be up to legislatures to determine if things such as abortion are legal or not. The supreme court decided, wrongly, to call it a "right" just like it wrongly called jim crow laws a "right" of a locality.
See now? That's what is just so cool about the US.
You can hold any opinion you like. Doesn't matter that its factual incorrect.
Actually, my own opinion is that the law should not enter into it at all. I believe its a purely human right, that because we have these big ole brain pans and we're (mostly sentient, we have the inborn human right to have complete and total control over our own bodies. No court in the land and certainly no religion or individual should be able to step in and decide what I can or cannot do with my body. Period. The End.
Guess we'll both just have to take it up with the Supreme Courtual.
luddly, you are entitled to the weight of national opinion, which is about 1/6th of the population.
As near as I can tell, you're saying that one/sixth of the population believes the woman should and does have complete control over her own body. I would ask for proof of that but really, who cares? It would not change my belief.
