Abortion: What is wrong with letting the States decide?

[OohPooPahDoo]

They have a right to be secure unless a court decides they do not, which is similar to a legislature making a law banning a certain action.

No it isn't.

Both are examples of due process.

The 4th amendment covers your right to privacy from unwarranted government intervention. Again, where does it say "you cant ban abortion." If you want that amend the consitituion to say that.

The 9th amendment clearly states the Constitution does not need to specifically enumerate a right for it to exist.

But is also doesnt say that anything not listed is automatically a right.

and just saying "no it isnt" does not make a compelling argument. Try harder.

We have the Courts to resolve such disputes.

Oh look, they already have in Roe v Wade!

 

[martybegan]

The Founders, BTW, apparently did NOT think abortion should be a crime. The first anti-abortion laws in the U.S. didn't show up until 1820's - and even those only prohibited it after the 4th month.

The founders also probably thought bleeding was a good way to cure certain illnesses.

Whether or not abortion should be allowed in a free society isn't a medical question.

You missed the point. You brought up the fact the founders were not concerned about abortion as a reason it should not be a legislative issue in current times. I refuted that logical correlation by stating a medical procedure, thought just fine by the founders, which is now known to be useless.

Thus your reasoning fails.

 

[martybegan]

No it isn't.


The 9th amendment clearly states the Constitution does not need to specifically enumerate a right for it to exist.

But is also doesnt say that anything not listed is automatically a right.

and just saying "no it isnt" does not make a compelling argument. Try harder.

We have the Courts to resolve such disputes.

Oh look, they already have in Roe v Wade!

Just like they resolved the Dred Scott case, and Plessy v. Furegeson... and a bunch of other overturned decsions.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The founders also probably thought bleeding was a good way to cure certain illnesses.

Whether or not abortion should be allowed in a free society isn't a medical question.

You missed the point. You brought up the fact the founders were not concerned about abortion as a reason it should not be a legislative issue in current times. I refuted that logical correlation by stating a medical procedure, thought just fine by the founders, which is now known to be useless.

Thus your reasoning fails.

You didn't refute anything. Your statement doesn't even make sense.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

But is also doesnt say that anything not listed is automatically a right.

and just saying "no it isnt" does not make a compelling argument. Try harder.

We have the Courts to resolve such disputes.

Oh look, they already have in Roe v Wade!

Just like they resolved the Dred Scott case, and Plessy v. Furegeson... and a bunch of other overturned decsions.

Sorry but Dred Scott was never overturned by the court.

 

[martybegan]

We have the Courts to resolve such disputes.

Oh look, they already have in Roe v Wade!

Just like they resolved the Dred Scott case, and Plessy v. Furegeson... and a bunch of other overturned decsions.

Sorry but Dred Scott was never overturned by the court.

No, it was overturned by the 13th amendment, which if they get enough support would be a way for the anti abortion rights side to get rid of Roe v. Wade.

 

[Ravi]

The founders also probably thought bleeding was a good way to cure certain illnesses.

Whether or not abortion should be allowed in a free society isn't a medical question.

You missed the point. You brought up the fact the founders were not concerned about abortion as a reason it should not be a legislative issue in current times. I refuted that logical correlation by stating a medical procedure, thought just fine by the founders, which is now known to be useless.

Thus your reasoning fails.

um....the founders didn't concern themselves with interfering in medical decisions.

 

[martybegan]

Whether or not abortion should be allowed in a free society isn't a medical question.

You missed the point. You brought up the fact the founders were not concerned about abortion as a reason it should not be a legislative issue in current times. I refuted that logical correlation by stating a medical procedure, thought just fine by the founders, which is now known to be useless.

Thus your reasoning fails.

um....the founders didn't concern themselves with interfering in medical decisions.

They also didnt interfere with flight regulations. Considering medical science was in its infancy at the time, and the only way to fly in the late 1700's was via hot air balloon we can excuse them from not considering these topics to be included in the consitution.

 

[Ravi]

You missed the point. You brought up the fact the founders were not concerned about abortion as a reason it should not be a legislative issue in current times. I refuted that logical correlation by stating a medical procedure, thought just fine by the founders, which is now known to be useless.

Thus your reasoning fails.

um....the founders didn't concern themselves with interfering in medical decisions.

They also didnt interfere with flight regulations. Considering medical science was in its infancy at the time, and the only way to fly in the late 1700's was via hot air balloon we can excuse them from not considering these topics to be included in the consitution.

Abortion was legal at the time so your analogy is pretty silly.

 

[Anti]

Susan B. Anthony was also against abortion.

Matilda Joslyn Gage wrote in 1868, "I hesitate not to assert that most of this crime of child murder, abortion, infanticide, lies at the door of the male sex..."

 

[JakeStarkey]

Because SCOTUS opined women have the right to abortion under certain conditions, and the states cannot violate those conditions.

Why does abortion need to be a Federal issue, especially since it is not addressed in the Constitution? Why not let individual States decide where to draw the line, just like they do for almost all other laws? For example, States widely differ on whether the murder of a pregnant woman constitutes double homicide. Why should abortion be any different?

 

[martybegan]

um....the founders didn't concern themselves with interfering in medical decisions.

They also didnt interfere with flight regulations. Considering medical science was in its infancy at the time, and the only way to fly in the late 1700's was via hot air balloon we can excuse them from not considering these topics to be included in the consitution.

Abortion was legal at the time so your analogy is pretty silly.

Acutally it was regulated in some colonies, but it depended on "quickening"

Abortion in early America. [Women Health. 1979] - PubMed - NCBI