Bishop Asks Supreme Court to Recognize Personhood of the Unborn.

[Catsnmeters]

You’re a lunatic or illiterate or an illiterate lunatic.

It does to be a “constitutional right” that can be incorporated against the states.

Just a polite heads up. Your statement in bold is completely wrong. You may want to read into enumerated and unenumerated rights and the 9th amendment.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

Just a polite heads up. Your statement in bold is completely wrong. You may want to read into enumerated and unenumerated rights and the 9th amendment.

No, you’re just an idiot, corrupt, or a corrupt idiot.

Every “right” that the court has made up with this doctrine should be repealed, as it has no basis in the Constitution.

Read the 10th Amendment and stop getting so hung up on a legal truism simply meant to placate, not to create infinite “rights” from wholecloth whenever the robed men say so.

 

[Catsnmeters]

No, you’re just an idiot, corrupt, or a corrupt idiot.

Every “right” that the court has made up with this doctrine should be repealed, as it has no basis in the Constitution.

Read the 10th Amendment and stop getting so hung up on a legal truism simply meant to placate, not to create infinite “rights” from wholecloth whenever the robed men say so.

The tenth amendment only applies to rights that SCOTUS deems not implied or inferred in the bill of rights.

The 9th amendment was spearheaded by James Madison so that the federalists would concede the addition of the bill of rights to the constitution. Don't take my word for it though. Here is what James Madison had to say...

“It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.”

Ninth amendment of the US Constitution -- Unenumerated Rights

Ninth amendment of the US Constitution: Analysis and Interpretation of the Unenumerated Rights

law.justia.com

Despite your childish name calling, I am trying to be patient be patient because I believe it is important for Americans to be familiar with the constitution. Ignorant citizens are easily taken advantage by government laws that slowly erode our rights. I don't want that to happen.

The right to travel, right to marriage and even presumption of innocence plus many others are all unenumerated rights. The 9th amendment protects those rights so states can't revoke them.

Do you want any of those things revoked by a state you live in?

Lastly, use common sense. If abortion was not a constitutional right for most of the last 50 years, then why the heck didn't red states simply legalize it before the end of Roe v Wade? I guess some did but we're subsequently overturned because it was an unenumerated right.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

A fetus is not a kid.

Your opinion.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

It’s a great idea. It’s an IDEAL idea.

Shame the founders didn’t do it, but we can do it with a Constitutional Amendment. And we will.

Just say no to drugs.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If abortion was not a constitutional right for most of the last 50 years, then why the heck didn't red states simply legalize it before the end of Roe v Wade?

Correct.

Or more exactly, the right to privacy is clearly in the Constitution – codified by the Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

And in the context of the right to privacy, it is unlawful for the states to deny women access to abortion.

Moreover, that the courts now refuse to defend the right to privacy with regard to abortion doesn’t mean that right no longer exists – the right to privacy and access to abortion can be recognized and protected by the states via the political process, legislative action, and by amending state constitutions.

Congress is also at liberty to codify the right to privacy and access to abortion in Federal legislation.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

Correct.

Or more exactly, the right to privacy is clearly in the Constitution – codified by the Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

Bullshit. There is no “right to privacy.”

And in the context of the right to privacy, it is unlawful for the states to deny women access to abortion.

Bullshit. See Dobbs. Roe was nonsense.

Moreover, that the courts now refuse to defend the right to privacy with regard to abortion doesn’t mean that right no longer exists

It never existed.

Congress is also at liberty to codify the right to privacy and access to abortion in Federal legislation.

Absolute tyranny and flagrantly unconstitutional. Would get tossed out by the court. See the 10th Amendment.

See Article I, Section 8.

 

[busybee01]

whatever helps you sleep.

Facts are facts. You are the one pretending.

 

[insolent imp]

Facts are facts. You are the one pretending.

I know the definition of alive and dead.

 

[Mashmont]

He is treading on my rights.

My religion is fine with abortion. Why do other religions think pushing their type of theocracy at the expense of my religion acceptable?

They already ripped it away as a constitutional and now want to ban it?

Unreal.

Any so-called religion that allows abortion is not of God.

 

[Mashmont]

The millions of dollars leftwing women spend on prenatal care...if that's just a blob of cells, why would these women do that?
I remember Chelsea Clinton discussing her prenatal care, and the media fawning all over that. Leftwingers treat it like a human life only if they want to keep it. That's where the extreme hypocrisy comes in.

 

[pknopp]

The millions of dollars leftwing women spend on prenatal care...if that's just a blob of cells, why would these women do that?
I remember Chelsea Clinton discussing her prenatal care, and the media fawning all over that. Leftwingers treat it like a human life only if they want to keep it. That's where the extreme hypocrisy comes in.

It also comes in after they are born and people argue against making sure their needs are met after birth also.

 

[Catsnmeters]

Any so-called religion that allows abortion is not of God.

Any religion that doesn't allow a woman rights to her own body is not of God.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Bishop Asks Supreme Court to Recognize Personhood of the Unborn.

Bishop Pfeifer asks Supreme Court to recognize ‘personhood’ of the unborn

U.S. Supreme Court building / Steven Frame/Shutterstock Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Sep 26, 2022 / 12:45 pm (CNA). An emeritus Texas bishop is asking the Supreme Court to explicitly affirm the personhood of the unborn child in the womb.“While th...

www.catholicworldreport.com

“Affirming the fetal personhood is totally in accord with medical science, which over and over in recent years recognizes that there is a new human being in the act of conception — which has always been our biblical belief,” he wrote. “Hence as we move into the future after Roe v. Wade, governments and courts at a national and state level must respect and protect the tiny unborn person made in God’s very image and must never be deprived of life and liberty.”

This is the path we need to take to get abortion banned nationwide. And we have the Supreme Court in place to do it. We have to strike while the iron is hot. This will put an end to the debate, and then we'll see approval of this hideous procedure drop year after year. We'll find the suitable case to present to the court, and hopefully get this ruling. What a happy day it will be when it is decided ALL children's lives matter.

This opens up a whole can of warms I am not sure most people wish to open.

Right now if a 1 year old dies while with the parents there is an investigation to find out why. If this were to become the law of the land this would have to happen for every recorded pregnancy that did not end with a live birth. Every miscarriage would have to be investigated to determine the cause of death.

If this were to become the law of the land then child support would have to begin when the pregnancy is official.

If this were to become the law of the land then pregnant women would be able to claim the baby in the womb as a dependent for tax purposes.

Just to name a few

 

[Mashmont]

It also comes in after they are born and people argue against making sure their needs are met after birth also.

Who isn't making sure children's needs are met after birth? Unless you're talking about Gosnell type abortion doctors.

 

[Mashmont]

This opens up a whole can of warms I am not sure most people wish to open.

Right now if a 1 year old dies while with the parents there is an investigation to find out why. If this were to become the law of the land this would have to happen for every recorded pregnancy that did not end with a live birth. Every miscarriage would have to be investigated to determine the cause of death.

If this were to become the law of the land then child support would have to begin when the pregnancy is official.

If this were to become the law of the land then pregnant women would be able to claim the baby in the womb as a dependent for tax purposes.

Just to name a few

Since a very tiny percentage of deaths are investigated, this shouldn't be an issue unless there is probable cause.

I'm good with child support from conception. Ditto married pregnant women claiming a dependent.

 

[Mashmont]

Any religion that doesn't allow a woman rights to her own body is not of God.

Women don't have the moral right to kill their baby. The baby's right to life obviously comes before a woman's desire for convenience.

 

[pknopp]

Who isn't making sure children's needs are met after birth? Unless you're talking about Gosnell type abortion doctors.

GOP senator considering blocking school meal funding deal over transgender policy fight

 

[Mashmont]

GOP senator considering blocking school meal funding deal over transgender policy fight

Oh, so you think unless kids are wards of the state, they aren't being cared for? See, that's where we differ. I think PARENTS ought to take care of their children.

 

[Catsnmeters]

Women don't have the moral right to kill their baby.

They don't have the moral right (in my opinion) and they don't have the legal right either.

They should, and many still do, have the right to abort a fetus however.

The baby's right to life obviously comes before a woman's desire for convenience.

The fetus you mean...and thanks for your opinion.