On the 40th Anniversary of Roe v Wade

[JakeStarkey]

Answered in #77 above.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

He's not wrong. Can you or the junior high boy over there show me where abortion is a "right"? Please direct me to the legal document which has officially added abortion as a "right" along side of free speech and bearing arms?

Furthermore, what your pal from junior high over there doesn't understand is the the Supreme Court (like all courts) is not empowered to make law from the bench. Period. Laws are made by the legislative branch, and only the legislative branch. The Supreme Court is the judicial branch. While we would expect a junior high student to not be aware of this (thanks to our atrocious liberal education system), one would expect an attorney of all people to know this fact.

i've already linked you to the supreme court decision... and the words of justice blackmun. that is the law of the land.

if you don't understand that, i can't help you.

yes... all the horrible liberal things i learned in law school... the nerve of them to teach us that the purpose of the constitution was ultimately individual liberty.. but not about not having to pay for healthcare... ABOUT NOT HAVING GOVERNMENT INTERFERE IN OUR MOST INTIMATE MORAL DECISIONS.

the horror....

1.) I asked where it was a RIGHT - not a Supreme Court decision (still waiting)

2.) The judicial branch does not make law. How is it that you are incapable of comprehending that very simple fact?

3.) If you're suddenly so for "individual liberty" (which is comical), how can you support the federal government forcing me to purchase health insurance? I guess you don't care about my liberty because I'm an "evil" male, uh? Only women deserve liberty?

4.) If you're suddenly so for "individual liberty" (which is comical), how can you support abortion? Where is the baby's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

5.) Why can't you address my points in an adult debate? Why do you redirect? I ask a fair question (with no personal attacks) about where/when did abortion become a "right" and you talk about a Supreme Court decision (as if a SCOTUS decision somehow makes things "rights" ).

The Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review. The Constitution therefore exists only in the context of its case law:

Various guarantees create zones of privacy. The right of association contained in the penumbra of the First Amendment is one, as we have seen. The Third Amendment, in its prohibition against the quartering of soldiers "in any house" in time of peace without the consent of the owner, is another facet of that privacy. The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." The Fifth Amendment, in its Self-Incrimination Clause, enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender to his detriment. The Ninth Amendment provides: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The Fourth and Fifth Amendments were described in Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 630, as protection against all governmental invasions "of the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life." [*] We recently referred [p485] in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 656, to the Fourth Amendment as creating a "right to privacy, no less important than any other right carefully an particularly reserved to the people." See Beaney, The Constitutional Right to Privacy, 1962 Sup.Ct.Rev. 212; Griswold, The Right to be Let Alone, 55 Nw.U.L.Rev. 216 (1960).

Griswold v. Connecticut

As for the ACA, you only exhibit your ignorance, or the fact you’re a blind partisan hack. No one is ‘forced’ to buy health insurance, you are free to go with no insurance whatsoever. It’s therefore perfectly consistent to support privacy rights and the provisions of the ACA.

Although you have the right to consider embryos and fetuses to be ‘babies,’ in the context of your religious belief or moral perception, you do not have the right to attempt to codify that subjective opinion into secular law.

The essence of the Constitution and its right to privacy is government restriction, where the state is clearly prohibited from interfering with individuals and their private lives, allowing women, their families, and their healthcare providers to make decisions with a woman’s best interests paramount.

 

[P@triot]

The Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review. The Constitution therefore exists only in the context of its case law

One of the most absurd comments in world history. The U.S. Constitution says exactly what it means, and in no capacity was the Supreme Court ever authorized to "determine what it means". The Supreme Court's function is to judge whether a law or issue is legal as it applies to the Constitution - not the Constitution itself. It's the law or issue that they are making a determination on.

As for the ACA, you only exhibit your ignorance, or the fact you’re a blind partisan hack. No one is ‘forced’ to buy health insurance, you are free to go with no insurance whatsoever. It’s therefore perfectly consistent to support privacy rights and the provisions of the ACA.

If I'm held legally accountable through fines, how exactly am I not being forced to purchase health insurance? The AHCA specifically makes carrying health insurance a requirement. Who is the ignorant one here?!?

Although you have the right to consider embryos and fetuses to be ‘babies,’ in the context of your religious belief or moral perception, you do not have the right to attempt to codify that subjective opinion into secular law.

The essence of the Constitution and its right to privacy is government restriction, where the state is clearly prohibited from interfering with individuals and their private lives, allowing women, their families, and their healthcare providers to make decisions with a woman’s best interests paramount.

Just curious here - since technology allows us to view (both hear and see) "embryos" and "fetuses" to confirm the baby's heartbeat, the sex of the baby, and much more, how exactly do you convince yourself it is *not* a human life in there? Furthermore, when not terminated, in the history of mankind has a woman ever given birth to anything other than a human life? Is there even a single instance of a woman giving birth to a Ford F150? A microwave? A giraffe?

And please, don't ever speak about "the essence of the Constitution" when you've never read it, have no clue how your own government works, and actually believe that the Supreme Court decides what the Constitution "means"

 

[thanatos144]

Which amendment again was the right to abort babies?

 

[Noomi]

Which amendment again was the right to abort babies?

Oh I see, we have to have a silly bit of paper to justify abortion, do we?

 

[P@triot]

Which amendment again was the right to abort babies?

Oh I see, we have to have a silly bit of paper to justify abortion, do we?

Unbelievable..... that "silly bit of paper" is the LAW. It is the highest LAW of the United States. You truly are an idiot Aussie Noomi, and this is why you should worry about Australia and let us worry about the U.S.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The idiots here are thanatos and Rottweiler. They simply cannot objectively think.

 

[thanatos144]

Which amendment again was the right to abort babies?

Oh I see, we have to have a silly bit of paper to justify abortion, do we?

That silly paper you evil hag is what made this country the greatest and most free country in the world.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Which amendment again was the right to abort babies?

Oh I see, we have to have a silly bit of paper to justify abortion, do we?

That silly paper you evil hag is what made this country the greatest and most free country in the world.

The Constitution does just that and that it protects us from the totalitarian state under which you and Rottweiler wish to subjugate America.

 

[Noomi]

Which amendment again was the right to abort babies?

Oh I see, we have to have a silly bit of paper to justify abortion, do we?

That silly paper you evil hag is what made this country the greatest and most free country in the world.

Free country? How is your country free when you wish to control the reproductive systems of women? Where is their freedom?

As for greatest country, your healthcare system sucks, your economy sucks, you threaten other countries with military action if they don't comply with your orders, and you blame everything on Obama.

Greatest country? Maybe 50 years ago. Now? Far from it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Which amendment again was the right to abort babies?

There is no right to ‘abort babies,’ as the states determine at what point during gestation an abortion may not be performed. Prior to that a fetus or embryo is not a legal person, and certainly not a ‘baby.’ The Constitution enshrines a right to privacy, where the state may not interfere with decisions the individual alone is entitled to make.

Post #82 indicates where one can find the right to privacy in the Constitution, particularly the Fourth Amendment which ‘explicitly affirms the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures."’

There’s clearly nothing more unreasonable than the state dictating to a woman what she may nor may not do concerning her pregnancy because some perceive an embryo or fetus to be a ‘person.’

 

[thanatos144]

Which amendment again was the right to abort babies?

There is no right to ‘abort babies,’ as the states determine at what point during gestation an abortion may not be performed. Prior to that a fetus or embryo is not a legal person, and certainly not a ‘baby.’ The Constitution enshrines a right to privacy, where the state may not interfere with decisions the individual alone is entitled to make.

Post #82 indicates where one can find the right to privacy in the Constitution, particularly the Fourth Amendment which ‘explicitly affirms the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures."’

There’s clearly nothing more unreasonable than the state dictating to a woman what she may nor may not do concerning her pregnancy because some perceive an embryo or fetus to be a ‘person.’

The 4th amendment said you can kill babies?????

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Failing to see where abortion is mentioned. Hell failing to see where it says the government cant stop you from killing someone.

 

[JakeStarkey]

thanatos, quit acting like a liberal. A strict construction of the Constitution leads a conservative to conclude since it does not forbid abortion that . . . fill in the blanks.

 

[P@triot]

Which amendment again was the right to abort babies?

There is no right to ‘abort babies,’ as the states determine at what point during gestation an abortion may not be performed. Prior to that a fetus or embryo is not a legal person, and certainly not a ‘baby.’ The Constitution enshrines a right to privacy, where the state may not interfere with decisions the individual alone is entitled to make.

Post #82 indicates where one can find the right to privacy in the Constitution, particularly the Fourth Amendment which ‘explicitly affirms the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures."’

There’s clearly nothing more unreasonable than the state dictating to a woman what she may nor may not do concerning her pregnancy because some perceive an embryo or fetus to be a ‘person.’

Just curious, what comes out of a woman in 100% of pregnancies when the baby is not killed (either through abortion or other causes)? None of you ever answer this very simple question. Does an iPad come out? A flat-screen tv? Perhaps you believe a woman gives birth to helicopter's?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Which amendment again was the right to abort babies?

There is no right to ‘abort babies,’ as the states determine at what point during gestation an abortion may not be performed. Prior to that a fetus or embryo is not a legal person, and certainly not a ‘baby.’ The Constitution enshrines a right to privacy, where the state may not interfere with decisions the individual alone is entitled to make.

Post #82 indicates where one can find the right to privacy in the Constitution, particularly the Fourth Amendment which ‘explicitly affirms the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures."’

There’s clearly nothing more unreasonable than the state dictating to a woman what she may nor may not do concerning her pregnancy because some perceive an embryo or fetus to be a ‘person.’

Just curious, what comes out of a woman in 100% of pregnancies when the baby is not killed (either through abortion or other causes)? None of you ever answer this very simple question. Does an iPad come out? A flat-screen tv? Perhaps you believe a woman gives birth to helicopter's?

Once born a child is a legal person, prior to that, not.

Each state determines at what point between conception and birth abortion is allowed or disallowed, provided an undue burden is not manifested.

That the embryo/fetus has the potential for birth is a moral and religious issue or question, not a legal one prior to the point of statutory viability.

You may continue to argue that because an embryo/fetus will eventually become a human, abortion is ‘wrong’ in a religious/moral/philosophical context, but such an argument has no legal relevance.

What you and others on the right fail to understand is that the Constitution addresses limitations on government, prohibiting it from interfering with individual liberty, where the state may not dictate to a woman that she must carry a pregnancy to term, and threaten her with punitive measures should she fail to comply.

You’re welcome to work to end abortion, you simply may not use the power and authority of the state as a tool to realize that goal.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The fact remains that the pregnancy is in the hands of the mother, not others.

 

[P@triot]

There is no right to ‘abort babies,’ as the states determine at what point during gestation an abortion may not be performed. Prior to that a fetus or embryo is not a legal person, and certainly not a ‘baby.’ The Constitution enshrines a right to privacy, where the state may not interfere with decisions the individual alone is entitled to make.

Post #82 indicates where one can find the right to privacy in the Constitution, particularly the Fourth Amendment which ‘explicitly affirms the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures."’

There’s clearly nothing more unreasonable than the state dictating to a woman what she may nor may not do concerning her pregnancy because some perceive an embryo or fetus to be a ‘person.’

Just curious, what comes out of a woman in 100% of pregnancies when the baby is not killed (either through abortion or other causes)? None of you ever answer this very simple question. Does an iPad come out? A flat-screen tv? Perhaps you believe a woman gives birth to helicopter's?

Once born a child is a legal person, prior to that, not.

Each state determines at what point between conception and birth abortion is allowed or disallowed, provided an undue burden is not manifested.

That the embryo/fetus has the potential for birth is a moral and religious issue or question, not a legal one prior to the point of statutory viability.

You may continue to argue that because an embryo/fetus will eventually become a human, abortion is ‘wrong’ in a religious/moral/philosophical context, but such an argument has no legal relevance.

What you and others on the right fail to understand is that the Constitution addresses limitations on government, prohibiting it from interfering with individual liberty, where the state may not dictate to a woman that she must carry a pregnancy to term, and threaten her with punitive measures should she fail to comply.

You’re welcome to work to end abortion, you simply may not use the power and authority of the state as a tool to realize that goal.

Can you tell me where exactly you derive this from? Where is a "legal person" defined and what document defines it at birth? In fact, other than in terms regarding immigration, I've never even hear of a "legal person". So please direct me so I can be enlightened

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Just curious, what comes out of a woman in 100% of pregnancies when the baby is not killed (either through abortion or other causes)? None of you ever answer this very simple question. Does an iPad come out? A flat-screen tv? Perhaps you believe a woman gives birth to helicopter's?

Once born a child is a legal person, prior to that, not.

Each state determines at what point between conception and birth abortion is allowed or disallowed, provided an undue burden is not manifested.

That the embryo/fetus has the potential for birth is a moral and religious issue or question, not a legal one prior to the point of statutory viability.

You may continue to argue that because an embryo/fetus will eventually become a human, abortion is ‘wrong’ in a religious/moral/philosophical context, but such an argument has no legal relevance.

What you and others on the right fail to understand is that the Constitution addresses limitations on government, prohibiting it from interfering with individual liberty, where the state may not dictate to a woman that she must carry a pregnancy to term, and threaten her with punitive measures should she fail to comply.

You’re welcome to work to end abortion, you simply may not use the power and authority of the state as a tool to realize that goal.

Can you tell me where exactly you derive this from? Where is a "legal person" defined and what document defines it at birth? In fact, other than in terms regarding immigration, I've never even hear of a "legal person". So please direct me so I can be enlightened

Legal person refers to a non-human entity that is treated as a person for limited legal purposes--corporations, for example. Legal persons can sue and be sued, own property, and enter into contracts. In most countries, legal persons cannot vote, marry, or hold public office. Most countries also excluse legal persons from holding natural or constitutional rights, such as the freedom of speech.

legal person | LII / Legal Information Institute

Or in the case of abortion referring to an embryo/fetus, where it has rights that are equal to, or outweigh, the privacy rights of the mother.

 

[Mr. H.]

"On the 40th anniversary of Roe v Wade
my true love gave to me...

An IUD in a pear tree..."

 

[P@triot]

Legal person refers to a non-human entity that is treated as a person for limited legal purposes--corporations, for example. Legal persons can sue and be sued, own property, and enter into contracts. In most countries, legal persons cannot vote, marry, or hold public office. Most countries also excluse legal persons from holding natural or constitutional rights, such as the freedom of speech.

legal person | LII / Legal Information Institute

Or in the case of abortion referring to an embryo/fetus, where it has rights that are equal to, or outweigh, the privacy rights of the mother.

Thank you for the link - that is exactly why I was asking. You're using a term that doesn't even apply to defend your position.

A 10 year old cannot sue or be sued. A 10 year old cannot own property. A 10 year old cannot enter into contracts. Therefore, by your definitions, a mother has the right to kill her 10 year old (since it is not a "legal person" like a fetus).

C+ for effort my friend, but F- on actual content and delivery. Unless you're going to support a mother's right to kill her 10 year old child, your opinion - derived from your own definitions - contradicts itself and simply does not hold up.

Care to try again, or are you willing to acknowledge that whether one supports abortion or not, there is in fact a human life in that womb?