- Thread starter
- #61
comparing one thing to another is a crutch used by people who can't argue things on the merits.
It's called an "analogy."
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
comparing one thing to another is a crutch used by people who can't argue things on the merits.
One becomes a citizen at birth . For equal protection ( that includes reprisals for violations of a wright to life ) any and all must be born . A state is comprised of and created for citizens . If one is not a citizen or qualify for equal protection by having been born , they can go fuck themselves .Yes, but not in the way most people assume. This decision was defective for many reasons, but its greatest error was creating an unconstitutional basis for federal intervention in state law making under the guise of a newly concocted "right to privacy."
The 9th amendment granting any wrights not enumerated in the constitution to the people ; the tenth amendment follows a secondary granting any wrights not enumerated in the constitution to states and or to the people .Since the U.S. Constitution makes no direct or indirect references to abortion, SCOTUS should expressly overturn Roe v. Wade and affirm that abortion is strictly a matter of state law. If New York wants to promote this practice and Alabama wants to prohibit it, so be it. Let the people of those states determine what their laws should be. If they want to change their laws, there are existing means to do so.
One becomes a citizen at birth . For equal protection ( that includes reprisals for violations of a wright to life ) any and all must be born . A state is comprised of and created for citizens . If one is not a citizen or qualify for equal protection by having been born , they can go fuck themselves .
Do you also apply this "logic" to all non-citizens, or just the unborn?
The wright to privacy is based in that a fetus is without constitutional protections and is the private property of the mother .
The 9th amendment granting any wrights not enumerated in the constitution to the people ; the tenth amendment follows a secondary granting any wrights not enumerated in the constitution to states and or to the people .
Blackmun wrote the majority opinion for Roe V Wade and the entire judgment is surmised in this statement from him , " Logically, of course, a legitimate state interest in this area need not stand or fall on acceptance of the belief that life begins at conception or at some other point prior to live birth. " ; however , none will not find that in the public lexicon from pro-choice institutions , no matter how often it is emphasized .Do you also apply this "logic" to all non-citizens, or just the unborn?
Are you alleging that slaves were not born ?Have you heard of the 13th Amendment?
First the term proscribed means to prohibit ; while you intent appears to be prescribed .You completely misapprehend the entire Constitution: It does not grant rights, since these are inherently possessed by the people. Instead, it defines the structure of the federal government and places limits on its powers. The 9th Amendment prohibits additions to those powers simply because they haven't been specifically proscribed. The 10th Amendment speaks for itself.
There are federalists who support federal control over individual affairs and there are statists who support state control over individual affairs ; thus , pretending that a terms do not exist to describe both is nonsense , especially to those who espouse individualism .What is pathetic is your use of the term "statist," which does not refer to the 50 States, but to centralized (i.e., federal) government. Ironically, by advocating federal control of the abortion issue, you are the statist.
A law wright creates wrights , not rights .P.S. There is no "W" in "right."
Who is forcing someone to have a baby? If you voluntarily have sex, then you should know there are consequences.
IF the father had any rights, he too should share in the consequences, but since he does not, then it's her body, her baby and her problem. IF the father has a say in whether or not a woman has a child and if she does, he provides the home, money and support should the mother not want the child, then the man would have accountability.
That's nice, buddy.... let me know when you get all the deadbeat dads we have out there now before you talk about creating any more.
Poor people could be helped by charities. Again, if someone truly believes in it, they can spend their $$ on it.
The simple fact is this is an issue the Constitution leaves to the States, for whatever issues that creates.
Well, no, it really doesn't... issue was decided 45 years ago with Roe.
One law for the country defeats the purpose of federalism.
Awesome. Federalism is a stupid idea, anyway. No place in the modern world.
The less power the states have, the better.
And your dismissal of the numbers of people who disagree with you just shows you can't back your argument with facts and reason, and have to resort to inflated made up numbers. It's like that stupid gun control report all over again. You lock into some false numbers or narrative and refuse to let it go because it backs up your false version of reality.
Or the numbers I cite are accepted, as opposed to propaganda... otherwise, you get into arguing over 2 million imaginary gun uses to stop crime.
When Abortion was Illegal (and Deadly): Seattle's Maternal Death Toll - Seattle Civil Rights and Labor History Project
If abortion support was 70-30 in states like Alabama, how do the keep electing people who want to ban it?
Centuries of inbreeding?
Realistically, most folks have no idea who they are sending to their state capitals, because usually, these people have very little effect on their lives. Most people couldn't name their state rep on a bet.
Yes, but not in the way most people assume. This decision was defective for many reasons, but its greatest error was creating an unconstitutional basis for federal intervention in state law making under the guise of a newly concocted "right to privacy."
Since the U.S. Constitution makes no direct or indirect references to abortion, SCOTUS should expressly overturn Roe v. Wade and affirm that abortion is strictly a matter of state law. If New York wants to promote this practice and Alabama wants to prohibit it, so be it. Let the people of those states determine what their laws should be. If they want to change their laws, there are existing means to do so.
Actually, the 14th Amendment very clearly protects individual rights over states rights, including the right to terminate a pregnancy. This was it's whole purpose.
What Roe v. Wade did was recognize reality. The abortion laws on the books were unworkable and routinely ignored at the time. Women walked into their doctor's offices, got abortions performed, the Doctor wrote something else down on the chart, everyone went home happy.
The only time the laws were "enforced" was if an inept doctor killed or injured his patients.
What the justices didn't count on was the Evagelicals glomming onto the the issue after Segregation wasn't selling anymore.
Yes, but not in the way most people assume. This decision was defective for many reasons, but its greatest error was creating an unconstitutional basis for federal intervention in state law making under the guise of a newly concocted "right to privacy."
Since the U.S. Constitution makes no direct or indirect references to abortion, SCOTUS should expressly overturn Roe v. Wade and affirm that abortion is strictly a matter of state law. If New York wants to promote this practice and Alabama wants to prohibit it, so be it. Let the people of those states determine what their laws should be. If they want to change their laws, there are existing means to do so.
Actually, the 14th Amendment very clearly protects individual rights over states rights, including the right to terminate a pregnancy. This was it's whole purpose.
What Roe v. Wade did was recognize reality. The abortion laws on the books were unworkable and routinely ignored at the time. Women walked into their doctor's offices, got abortions performed, the Doctor wrote something else down on the chart, everyone went home happy.
The only time the laws were "enforced" was if an inept doctor killed or injured his patients.
What the justices didn't count on was the Evagelicals glomming onto the the issue after Segregation wasn't selling anymore.
Can you to show where the right to terminate a pregnancy is spelled out in the 14th Amendment? It's extremely unlikely that you can. And falling back the the SCOTUS decision in Roe v Wade doesn't apply since it was law made by the court.
I'll wait over here while you try.
You can't give much credibility to a constitutional amendment that was illegally ratified anyway.
Blackmun wrote the supporting majority opinion for roe v wade , what do you believe he meant by the following statement ?Can you to show where the right to terminate a pregnancy is spelled out in the 14th Amendment? It's extremely unlikely that you can. And falling back the the SCOTUS decision in Roe v Wade doesn't apply since it was law made by the court. I'll wait over here while you try.
Your disdain for federalism is just a sign of your need to make everyone conform to your way of living/thinking. It is a clear sign of your narcissism.
Sorry but studies like this are too easy to manipulate to make them give the data a person wants.
Can you to show where the right to terminate a pregnancy is spelled out in the 14th Amendment? It's extremely unlikely that you can. And falling back the the SCOTUS decision in Roe v Wade doesn't apply since it was law made by the court.
I always thought the 'right to privacy' was a bad argument because that right was suspended when the woman accepted semen into her vagina. What is growing inside her is not hers alone. .
It was a bad law, with bad arguments. Even the woman who was 'Roe' in the case later changed her mind.
The terms 'constitutional' and 'unconstitutional' don't have any real meaning any more outside of sloganeering and propaganda, judges decide law on personal whims and political biases these days, not legal precedent and constitutionality, so no need to keep the pretenses.
It was a bad law, with bad arguments. Even the woman who was 'Roe' in the case later changed her mind.
So what? She was a weak minded creature who pretty much did whatever she was told, which is why she needed an abortion to start with.
The terms 'constitutional' and 'unconstitutional' don't have any real meaning any more outside of sloganeering and propaganda, judges decide law on personal whims and political biases these days, not legal precedent and constitutionality, so no need to keep the pretenses.
Or they make rulings based on practicality. The delusion the pro-life side has is that abortions didn't happen before 1973. They happened all the time, all the courts did was change it from an illegal common practice to a legal common practice.
Ah, here we have Joe yet again proving he knows nothing and just parrots stuff, whatever is popular with sociopaths and deviants.
So we should legalize murder and rape as well; making them illegal hasn't stopped them, right?
moron.
Your disdain for federalism is just a sign of your need to make everyone conform to your way of living/thinking. It is a clear sign of your narcissism.
Naw, it's a clear sign of pragmatism.
Why do you think State Governments are so corrupt - a lot more corrupt than the Federal Government?
Because no one is paying that much attention to them.
The last thing you want is to give these Amateurs more power. They generally mess up even the little things we let them control, letting them control something actually important like reproductive rights? No thank you.
Sorry but studies like this are too easy to manipulate to make them give the data a person wants.
Or you can just apply common sense. We have 96,000 medical deaths every year with ALL the safeguards we have in place to protect patients. Now, once you take away quality control, professionalism and any fear of a lawsuit, what do you think happens?
Yup, exactly what is happening in the Philippines, RIGHT NOW. Exactly what happened in America before Roe v. Wade.
You guys aren't going to save one fetus. You'll end up maiming a bunch of women... and I sometimes wonder if that's the point for some of you. Scratch a pro-lifer, find a misogynist.
Me, I don't want to live the live-action version of "A Handmaid's Tale". It was painful enough to read.
You can't give much credibility to a constitutional amendment that was illegally ratified anyway.
Pick and choose your Amendments, eh?
First , i have spent more than a decade arguing that a wright to privacy is not the primary constitutional basis of roe v wade ; thus , not only do i understand your position on abortion but i mock it regularly for its incompleteness .As I said, using Roe v Wade decision was not acceptable. There is no right to privacy, or abortion, spelled out in the 14th Amendment. It is ridiculous to even propose it is so. Had SCOTUS gone the other way in their decision, there would have been a simple remedy had the Court not chosen to make rights were none exist. All that needed to happen after the Court ruling against, is to have the US Congress due it's duty and pass legislation legalizing abortion (which they haven't done to my knowledge).
Now as to your fetus questions. I'm not saying there is any right in the Constitution covering them. So I won't waste time responding to them.
If, by chance, you are placing me in the category in which you blustered along with generalizations, don't - unless or until you understand where I stand on the subject of abortion.