Good for you to admit your group isn't making headway....and "desperation" is calling it "child sacrifice".....how silly!
Ya, you did here :"" I'm just watching our ever more perverse culture and the enlightened elites trying mightily to hang on to the worship ritual of child sacrifice""
Banning abortion destroys WOMEN''s rights....and fetuses have NO rights...if they did they would certainly infringe on the woman's rights and that is why they don't have any....
The Supreme Court has already decided abortion is not a legal right under federal law. It's a state issue and states are already acting, so fight it out there and see how you do. That's where considering it legal issue gets you? You're at the mercy of legislators. Good luck.
FoxHastings said: ↑ Banning abortion destroys WOMEN''s rights....and fetuses have NO rights...if they did they would certainly infringe on the woman's rights and that is why they don't have any.... I don't know...there shouldn't be....
FoxHastings said: ↑ Banning abortion destroys WOMEN''s rights....and fetuses have NO rights...if they did they would certainly infringe on the woman's rights and that is why they don't have any.... Yes, Republican legislators who need votes from religious freaks who want bigger government ...but only if it doesn't affect THEIR rights....if it affects other's rights they are all for it.....that's two-faced and Anti-American.... Why don't you address something that was in my post that you quoted like : "".if they did they would certainly infringe on the woman's rights and that is why they don't have any....""""
You are the one lacking the knowledge. An abortion is the ending of a pregnancy with the removal of the ZEF. This can occur naturally, known as both natural abortion and more colloquially as miscarriage. There is of course also the medical abortion which is what the fuss is typically about. The thing is the process of abortion does not depend up whether the ZEF is alive or dead. Typically if a ZEF dies then a natural abortion occurs, known as a missed miscarriage which can occur in up to 5% of pregnancies, which means not rare, but not uncommon either. In such a case a medical abortion is necessary in order to get the dead offspring out of the mother. Abortions are also necessary for ectopic pregnancies. In such a case, its outright surgery to take the offspring out. Sadly, we've not advanced enough to be able to get such a ZEF implanted into the womb.
Sadly for your argument, these things are highly subjective. The whole argument over abortion is a prime example of such.
Well, it's you who is basing your argument on legality. We have agreed to be governed by a representative democracy and guess what, religious freaks vote too. If abortion laws don't go the way you want them to go and abortion is made illegal or severely restricted on what basis do you claim you have a "right" to abortion?
An offspring in utero is not yet a child (that stage comes later) and is indeed human. But it is not yet a human being or a person. The death penalty is also a homicide, and the ultimate in premeditated murder. Are you one of those hypocritical types that supports the death penalty while calling abortion murder, or are you are least consistent on that aspect? First it does make logical sense, but you just don't like the premise from which that logic arises. Secondly, no that law does not recognize any kind of rights for the unborn. It provides for the bearer of the offspring who is wanting to keep it, and imposes penalties for those who would take that decision away from the woman. Just as there are those who would defend the horrific and barbaric practice of forcing a woman to remain pregnant even when her life is at stake, such as with ectopic pregnancies. The same bodily autonomy right that if a man is having his bodily autonomy violated and that if that violation cannot be stopped without killing the violator, then that death is within the victim's rights. Exactly! It is a separate lifeform that is using the woman's bodily resources. And since they are her bodily resources, then she has the right to provide or withdraw her consent for the use of those bodily resources, just as all the rest of us do. Ditto.
Since not fully developed is not the basis by which the right to the abortion is argued upon, all you have here is a red herring, and the end of the ability for abortion opponents to claim anything about development stages.
We're dealing with the law here, specifically the Ninth Amendment. Many fetuses never survive. No fetus is named in any legal document as having a "right to life". I challenge you to prove me wrong on that point. What is moral about bringing an unwanted child into this world with no support? Nothing.
If the rights are unenumerated, then they have to be decided by the courts as to what they are. Otherwise, we can claim everything is a right. And that is simply not true. Which is one of the reasons why I argue that bodily autonomy is the basis by which, at this time at least, abortion is constitutionally protected, based upon the 4th, not the 9th.
This description covers also both a human cancer tumor and a brain dead human body kept alive by machines only. Both possess life, and both are human by their DNA. And of course both are innocent in the manner that you are using the word. I'll ask you the same question I asked Whaler; Do you hold the death penalty to be murder and unconstitutional, or are you a hypocrite?
What happens if an individual is unable to raise the $ to go to court to assert a right? Does it therefore not exist? No, it still exists, but the priests in black, as political as any other branch, have simply buried or avoided an unpopular right. As you already know I'm sure, Madison and others have noted that an exhaustive listing of the rights of man is impossible. At least the Common Law courts acknowledged that they were "discovering" rights and principles previously unenumerated. I don't see how bodily autonomy fits in with the Fourth, but am happy to hear you explain it. As long as the right is recognized intellectually, I don't much care how the reasoning goes.
If you want to use that logic, then Brown vs BOE legislated as well, not to mention several other decisions. While I have always been of the opinion that Roe was decided on the wrong basis, I disagree that it legislated anything. Recognizing an unenumerated right and stating that it cannot be violated is not legislating.
No, I don't support the death penalty. Though there are a few circumstances under which either abortion or the death penalty I would not consider them immoral.
You're starting to sound like a "cafeteria Catholic", picking and choosing which laws (dogma and theology) you agree with and like against those you find distasteful. I would say that makes you normal, because most people pick and choose. The letter of the law gives death, the spirit of the law gives life, said St. Paul.
Of course, but we've seen that across history such as when Plessy v Ferguson was decided. Then later Brown v BOE recognized the violation of rights. Or we could point to any number of things. Lawrence v Texas or Obergefell v Hodges would be examples of rights previously being avoided or ignored. But what makes something a right? Do I have a right to a plural marriage on a legal level? I mean, it's not secret here that I already have one on a religious/social level. But is it my right to have that legally recognized? Why or why not? What makes it a right or not a right? The 4th states "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,..." which can easily be seen as applying to the ability to do with your own body as you wish. Personally I hold that includes, as Washington state has concluded, the ability to end one's own life. Forcing one to do other than they wish with their body would be an unreasonable seizure of that person's body. It's this principle that prevents the state from being able to take one's blood or other bodily resources to save another's life. And naturally that spills over into the ability of a woman to end a pregnancy. Now, I do state it like that specifically, because if ever we develop our medical art to the point where the offspring can be removed from the woman's body with equal or less bodily trauma than an abortion, then abortion itself could be gotten rid of as long as the results of ending the use of the woman's bodily resources was maintained, and with no additional bodily trauma.
It clearly falls under states jurisdiction. Otherwise the constitution would be construed to uphold a variety of "rights". The right to housing, the right to employment, the right to funds.
Fair enough. You are rare in holding that position. You and I may not agree on the topic overall, but I can respect a consistent logic
Perhaps, I’m no constitutional lawyer, but the phrase retained by the people may be the most important. That in my opinion means the right to smoke or not, drink or not, to have or not an abortion, that decision belongs to the people, not the federal government. The 10th amendment follows the 9th. The powers not delegated to the United States (Federal Government) by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. Taken together, which the framers intended, the federal government has no power or can make no laws in respect to alcohol, hence the prohibition amendments, the 18th and the 21st amendments, tobacco and abortion. Those are left to the states or the people. When referring to the people, the constitution is referring to the states also. Such the wording of the 10, reserved to the states respectively or to the people. If one goes by plain English, only the states or the people govern alcohol, tobacco and abortion. Not the federal government. Does this mean any federal tax on alcohol and tobacco are unconstitutional? Maybe to probably? The way I read these amendments, remember I’m no constitutional lawyer, so I’m taking what they stay in plain English. Is the federal government can’t say yea or nay to making abortion legal or illegal. Only the states and or the people can do that. Of course, I don’t speak lawyerese, so I may be all wet.
