The idea that abortion should be left up to the states is a stupid arbitrary position republicans embrace purely for political reasons

[pknopp]

So you could also make the same point about any new drug before it is fully tested or assisted suicide or dozens of other things

Absolutely and I did. BTW, I'm pro-life but I believe things need discussed honestly.

 

[Auld Phart]

A right to privacy is though.

A right to privacy is though.

privacy=abortion?

you have an interesting dictionary

 

[pknopp]

privacy=abortion?

you have an interesting dictionary

I made no argument as to what I believed. I simply stated the argument. Are you saying there is no such right?

 

[Death-Ninja]

is there something in the constitution that makes this known? No of course not. Republicans in office are simply conveniently embracing this idea to soften their stances post Roe being overturned. They are such cowards. They will say anything to help their chances in an election. How does anyone justify voting them? They don’t have any actual principles.

Hell, as much as I am pro-choice, I at least give credit to Graham and Pence for having a genuine principled stance on issue before an election. The rest of them though? Spineless, international embarrassments.

You're not "pro-choice," you are a baby killer!

 

[Auld Phart]

I made no argument as to what I believed. I simply stated the argument. Are you saying there is no such right?

Right to privacy?

of course.

Right to abortion?

Not listed

 

[Ralph Norton]

Does this mean you support the 1st or 2nd amendments not being federally protected?

As I said, read the 10th Amendment.
If you did, you might not ask any more ridiculous questions.

 

[martybegan]

A right to privacy is though.

The "right to privacy" is made up to basically mean "abortion"

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

is there something in the constitution that makes this known? No of course not. Republicans in office are simply conveniently embracing this idea to soften their stances post Roe being overturned. They are such cowards. They will say anything to help their chances in an election. How does anyone justify voting them? They don’t have any actual principles.

Hell, as much as I am pro-choice, I at least give credit to Graham and Pence for having a genuine principled stance on issue before an election. The rest of them though? Spineless, international embarrassments.

I like living in a state where abortion is illegal.

If you want to live in a state where the streets run with the blood of American children, that's up to you.

You don't get to tell my state how to govern itself.

 

[pknopp]

The "right to privacy" is made up to basically mean "abortion"

If you say so.

There is clearly a right to privacy. There is clearly a right there where it comes to medical issues in most cases. The issue is a conflict of rights. Does your right to privacy trump the right to life.

 

[Darkwind]

there is no sense in a union of states if all the states are the same

If all the states are the same, then there is simply no union. Just a Fascist central authority.

 

[martybegan]

If you say so.

There is clearly a right to privacy. There is clearly a right there where it comes to medical issues in most cases. The issue is a conflict of rights. Does your right to privacy trump the right to life.

The issue is creating a right out of thin air then being surprised when the air is taken out of it.

 

[Darkwind]

If you say so.

There is clearly a right to privacy. There is clearly a right there where it comes to medical issues in most cases. The issue is a conflict of rights. Does your right to privacy trump the right to life.

Does your privacy entitle you to kill? Can your privacy, as a parent, entitle you to beat your children or kill others?

The argument for privacy is an argument for competing rights. It is the State's (note, this means the state, not the Federal Government) responsibility to do the least harm when rights conflict. In this case, not being able to kill your child, born or preborn, along with the right to rape, maiming, torture, or otherwise abuse of children/people is the least harmful intervention of government. As such, privacy is tertiary.

In the end, the right to privacy is dependent upon what you want to do with the privacy. If your privacy harms no other person, then yes; the government has no business being in yours.

 

[Billy000]

You're not "pro-choice," you are a baby killer!

You’d suddenly become pro choice if you got a fling or non serious girlfriend pregnant. We both know it’s true.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Does this mean you support the 1st or 2nd amendments not being federally protected?

The first and second amendments are in the Constitution. Abortion is not. Even Ruth Bader Ginsberg thought the Roe decision was bad. It should always have been left up to the states.

 

[pknopp]

The issue is creating a right out of thin air then being surprised when the air is taken out of it.

The right to privacy was not created out of thin air.

 

[martybegan]

The right to privacy was not created out of thin air.

That it applied to abortion was, and where is the term "privacy" in the Constitution itself?

 

[pknopp]

Does your privacy entitle you to kill? Can your privacy, as a parent, entitle you to beat your children or kill others?

The argument for privacy is an argument for competing rights. It is the State's (note, this means the state, not the Federal Government) responsibility to do the least harm when rights conflict. In this case, not being able to kill your child, born or preborn, along with the right to rape, maiming, torture, or otherwise abuse of children/people is the least harmful intervention of government. As such, privacy is tertiary.

In the end, the right to privacy is dependent upon what you want to do with the privacy. If your privacy harms no other person, then yes; the government has no business being in yours.

I said it becomes a conflict of rights. Some argue there is nothing to protect while others believe there is.

 

[pknopp]

That it applied to abortion was, and where is the term "privacy" in the Constitution itself?

Wiretapping is not expressly written into the Constitution either. Yet we have the right to not have our lines wiretapped without a warrant.

 

[JustAGuy1]

The argument comes out of thin air. Who decides what is federally protected and what isn’t?

Too funny. The "Right" to abortion came out of thin air.

 

[martybegan]

Wiretapping is not expressly written into the Constitution either. Yet we have the right to not have our lines wiretapped without a warrant.

That's due to the 4th amendment, as courts have decided consistently that they count as a search. It's a specific interpretation of modern technological issues with the warrant requirements under the 4th.

that is a far shorter step than making up some right to privacy in general.