Abortion and the Constitution

[jwoodie]

Setting aside personal preferences, it is clear that the federal government does not have Constitutional authority to regulate abortions. Thus, that power resides with the States. However, the federal does have the authority to define "persons" as referred to in the 14th Amendment. I wonder if this might become an issue in the future. What do you think?

 

[DGS49]

I'm not sure the Congress (or the President) has the power to define "persons" but rest assured they would never be able to do it in connection with abortion.

Keep in mind that under Roe v Wade, once the fetus is arguably viable (I.e., end of the second trimester) it is a person for Constitutional purposes. This is why the Democrats are lying when they claim to want to return to the RvW status. They are much more radical than that.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Imagine sitting down with George Washington, Andrew Jackson, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and John Adams. You must convince them that killing her child is the most important thing a woman will ever do in her life.

 

[DGS49]

When birth control pharmaceuticals (the Pill) became generally available and at reasonable cost, "we" were assured that there would never be any "unwanted pregnancies, or unwanted children" in the future...which means NOW.

Step back and explain to me why any woman is getting pregnant these days when they manifestly do not want to get pregnant. Exclude women in their 40's who didn't think they were fertile anymore, but other than those people (who usually elect to bear the child), why are these women having to turn to abortion?

 

[0311]

You people are all about the Fetus before it is born. After birth you do give two shits it. Send it school when the child can shot to death (one killer of school children is gun violence). You hate the a free school program for that child whose hot mean might at school. Fuck him/her on health. You sure as shit hate idea paying their education as well. You care so much about the FETUS as long as it is NOT BORN.

NOR do YOU or any other person have the right to decide what medical procedures or what medications a Woman under go or use. Telling 12-Year Girl to carry to term a baby that is the product rape and/or incest inhumane.

 

[jwoodie]

You people are all about the Fetus before it is born. After birth you do give two shits it. Send it school when the child can shot to death (one killer of school children is gun violence). You hate the a free school program for that child whose hot mean might at school. Fuck him/her on health. You sure as shit hate idea paying their education as well. You care so much about the FETUS as long as it is NOT BORN.

NOR do YOU or any other person have the right to decide what medical procedures or what medications a Woman under go or use. Telling 12-Year Girl to carry to term a baby that is the product rape and/or incest inhumane.

Have you tried Ex-Lax?

 

[TNHarley]

You people are all about the Fetus before it is born. After birth you do give two shits it. Send it school when the child can shot to death (one killer of school children is gun violence). You hate the a free school program for that child whose hot mean might at school. Fuck him/her on health. You sure as shit hate idea paying their education as well. You care so much about the FETUS as long as it is NOT BORN.

NOR do YOU or any other person have the right to decide what medical procedures or what medications a Woman under go or use. Telling 12-Year Girl to carry to term a baby that is the product rape and/or incest inhumane.

In other words, "you dont want to fetuses to die in the womb, but you also dont want to take care of them their whole life"
Such a radical position, huh? Idiot
Im pro-choice but you just sound stupid.

 

[0311]

Have you tried Ex-Lax?

You ever try not talking out of your ass? YOU have no right to tell Women and Girls what they can do with their bodies.

 

[LeroyDumonde]

You ever try not talking out of your ass? YOU have no right to tell Women and Girls what they can do with their bodies.

Virtually every law tells people what they can and cannot do with their bodies.

 

[PeterPilot]

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be used to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people.

Does a woman have a right to control her own body? Does a man have that same right?

From what source does any government derive power to tell a woman what she must or must not do with her body?

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Fee Press Stupidity And The Covert Abortion Anti-Choice Ruse "

* Abortion Choice Leadership Are Ignorant Imbeciles *

Setting aside personal preferences, it is clear that the federal government does not have Constitutional authority to regulate abortions. Thus, that power resides with the States. However, the federal does have the authority to define "persons" as referred to in the 14th Amendment. I wonder if this might become an issue in the future. What do you think?

In us 14th amendment , congress has defined the enumerated rite of citizenship with a non trivial requirement of live birth to become a citizen of us federate or a us state , and the enumerated rite of equal protection is included .

States do not have the power to abrogate the requirement of becoming a citizen of a us state and equal protection means that states do not have a legitimate interest in providing constitutional rites to any thing which has not been born , which means that abortion is a non enumerated rite .

The us 14th specifies equal protection of persons , and the roe v wade court related that the term person was not specifically defined and if the term person were ever to include the unborn then constitutional protections would apply .

In 2001 under the bush administration , congress defined a person as any born alive at any stage of development in title 1 section 8 of us code .

The dumbfounded dobbs decision ignored all of that and committed sedition and its conspirators should be charged with crime .

The randy pope paul has related an intent to modify the definition of a person to institute the change at the federal level , and such is the basis of the person movement .

An etymology of the term person deconstructs to per , as in countable by census , and son , as in male , that is an antiquated pre-formation reference to a homunculus .

Furthermore , as according to us 14th amendment , any person born or naturalized , implies that as daughters are not sons , then women are not categorically citizens of us republic and are not entitled to vote , else see us 19th amendment .

 

[Monk-Eye]

" What Of Powers To Amend Federal Code That Violate Constitutional Amendments "

* Fee Press Assuring Both Sides Are Ignorant Of The Covert Ruse *

I'm not sure the Congress (or the President) has the power to define "persons" but rest assured they would never be able to do it in connection with abortion.
Keep in mind that under Roe v Wade, once the fetus is arguably viable (I.e., end of the second trimester) it is a person for Constitutional purposes. This is why the Democrats are lying when they claim to want to return to the RvW status. They are much more radical than that.

The " radical " allusion to " abortion on demand " , even in third trimester has to do with developmental anomalies , whether it be the mother or the fetus , while the abortion anti-choice consistently , flagrantly , deceitfully , lies in its depictions at those stages of development as being without cause abortion of a perfectly healthy fetus and pregnancy .

The conclusions of roe v wade were anecdotal with respect to us constitution , in that its intimations more closely relate to without cause abortion , because not all with cause abortions can be addressed within the first and second trimester .

In roe v wade , based on an ability for a fetus to survive an imminent live birth at post natural viability , states were allowed to proscribe abortion , however the " radical " abortion anti-choice trope did not respect its foundation upon the enumerated non trivial requirement of live birth to become a citizen of us federate or us state , and the enumerated rite to equal protection that implicitly requires live birth .

Moreover , the abortion choice leadership continued to pursue the ignorance , incompetence , negligence and baseless assertion for a rite to privacy , while maintaining a general revulsion for us citizenship , which paved the way for abortion anti-choice to revile us citizenship along with them .

The congress may have the power to define persons as including the unborn , but the legislation to amend title 1 section 8 of us code should be held unconstitutional based on a live birth requirement for equal protection , as a constitutional amendment is required to abrogate a live birth requirement for equal protection , however scotus has already demonstrated its intent to commit sedition and malfeasance against us constitution as traitors against us citizens and against us republic .

 

[JohnDB]

Setting aside personal preferences, it is clear that the federal government does not have Constitutional authority to regulate abortions. Thus, that power resides with the States. However, the federal does have the authority to define "persons" as referred to in the 14th Amendment. I wonder if this might become an issue in the future. What do you think?

Well....
We have a three part government.
Each with power and ability to perform their various functions.

The Roe v Wade decision of the Supreme Court was in fact an irresponsible decision in that it made the Judicial Branch of Government behave as if they were the Legislative Branch of government....and without the ability to nuance the law in any fashion. It was nothing more than a "yes/no" law they were able to enact as is any law they make and said "yes" to abortion.

All laws written by the legislative branch can be heavily nuanced. To cover such things as:
1)Pregnant women forced by criminal activity to lose their baby.
2)Snowflake babies.
3)Someone intentionally destroying snowflake babies.
4)Forcing women to become pregnant.
5)Paternal rights to fetuses or embryos.
6)Limits on fetus termination (partial birth, live birth, or third trimester)
7)birth control medications. (Controlled Substances and who may administer them to or perform medical procedures on minor children)
8) selling or use of aborted fetus parts

None of these issues are addressed with court cases which can only say "yes" or "no" to the court cases before them regarding the issues presented....nothing more which is sorely needed surrounding thus issue.

 

[DStar777]

You people are all about the Fetus before it is born. After birth you do(n't) give two shits (about) it. (edited by me for clarity. I'm sure that's what you meant.)

Ok but no one is lobbying to repeal laws against murdering the already born are they? The debate is over whether abortion is murder. Comparing that to whether someone doesn't "give two shits" about an infant or a child is just stupid.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm not sure the Congress (or the President) has the power to define "persons" but rest assured they would never be able to do it in connection with abortion.

Keep in mind that under Roe v Wade, once the fetus is arguably viable (I.e., end of the second trimester) it is a person for Constitutional purposes. This is why the Democrats are lying when they claim to want to return to the RvW status. They are much more radical than that.

The Democrats had neither understood the wording of Roe v Wade or agreed with it for decades.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Traitors Against Us Citizens And Us Republic Constitution Support Sedition Of Dobbs By Scotus "

* Abortion Ant-Choice Too Ignorant To Know Better But Blathers On With Dogma Any Way *

Well....
We have a three part government.
Each with power and ability to perform their various functions.

The Roe v Wade decision of the Supreme Court was in fact an irresponsible decision in that it made the Judicial Branch of Government behave as if they were the Legislative Branch of government....and without the ability to nuance the law in any fashion. It was nothing more than a "yes/no" law they were able to enact as is any law they make and said "yes" to abortion.

The roe v wade court had two options :

1 ) States cannot proscribe abortion as live birth is a requirement for equal protection , thus amend us 14th amendment .

2 ) States can proscribe abortion beginning at post natural viability , effectively concluding that parturition was relative , given an ability for a fetus to survive an imminent live birth .

A state does not have the power to abrogate the enumerated rite for a live birth requirement to become a us citizen of the federate or a state , and a state does not have the ability to abrogate the enumerated rite for equal protection with a us citizen that , by equitable doctrine , implicitly and necessarily requires live birth .

Abortion is a non enumerated rite and states cannot proscribe abortion , because states do not have a legitimate interest and are in violation of the live birth requirement for equal protection with a citizen , in that states are providing equal protection to some thing that has not met the live birth requirement .

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Mental Retardation Of Abortion Choice And Anti-Choice Leadership And Jurisprudence "

* A Us Republic Issue Where Both Abortion Anti-Choice Democrats And Republicans Revile The Us Citizen *

The Democrats had neither understood the wording of Roe v Wade or agreed with it for decades.

This abortion choice republican understood the roe v wade decision . and the " logically , of course , a legitimate state interest . . not .. prior .. to live birth " of blackmun , whom wrote the majority opinion , was obvious .

The abortion choice leadership are arrogant , complacent , dismissive , idiots .

 

[HeyNorm]

You people are all about the Fetus before it is born. After birth you do give two shits it. Send it school when the child can shot to death (one killer of school children is gun violence). You hate the a free school program for that child whose hot mean might at school. Fuck him/her on health. You sure as shit hate idea paying their education as well. You care so much about the FETUS as long as it is NOT BORN.

NOR do YOU or any other person have the right to decide what medical procedures or what medications a Woman under go or use. Telling 12-Year Girl to carry to term a baby that is the product rape and/or incest inhumane.

Because the two subjects are two completely different subjects.

Are you saying an abortion doctor is the equivalent to a school shooter?

Fascinating take on the subject.

 

[task0778]

You people are all about the Fetus before it is born. After birth you do give two shits it. Send it school when the child can shot to death (one killer of school children is gun violence). You hate the a free school program for that child whose hot mean might at school. Fuck him/her on health. You sure as shit hate idea paying their education as well. You care so much about the FETUS as long as it is NOT BORN.

NOR do YOU or any other person have the right to decide what medical procedures or what medications a Woman under go or use. Telling 12-Year Girl to carry to term a baby that is the product rape and/or incest inhumane.

First, the right to life is a separate issue from programs for children after birth. You may disagree and that's fine, but I think the argument that ending a life before birth is okay because that life will be underserved later is illogical. IMHO, the main responsibility for children does not rest with the gov't but instead with the parents and the family. As a society, should we honor and respect each person's right to life or not? Personally, I think the right should exist prior to birth as much as after birth; how is a baby's right to life any different 5 minutes before birth as opposed to 5 minutes after? It seems to me that this is an issue that is not suitable for the federal gov't to decide one way or another, and it falls well outside of the US Constitution's delineation of what the federal gov't's functions are.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Every Pregnancy Is A Perfect Divine Gift From Goad "

* Dictates By Freak Farmer Fanatics Willfully Ignorant Of Their Expectations In Nature *

Exclude women in their 40's who didn't think they were fertile anymore, but other than those people (who usually elect to bear the child), why are these women having to turn to abortion?

It is bewildering as to why the abortion anti-choice cannot address the issue of with cause abortion and as to " why are these women having to turn to abortion ? " , which results from developmental anomalies , as the abortion anti-choice continue to embrace anthropocentric psychosis inspired by the vanity of damned dirty apes .

Given that the arrogance of hue mammon apes begin with an allusion to magnanimity , that of being made in the image of goad , maybe the hue mammon ape can answer whether goad uses the porcelain throne .