I don't remember hearing that individual rights begin at birth in the constitution. Being inside and dependent on something doesn't make you a part of it. For example, being inside and depend on an iron lung doesn't make you part of the machine. And it doesn't take away your rights to be inside and a part of something.
Uh, the numbers don't mean much IF you are the woman who is killed.....minimizing the death of pregnant woman to further your cause??? It is NOT extremely unlikely, the US has a high maternal death rate.... So where does the Constitution take away the right to self defense? One may use self defense BEFORE one is killed DUH, while one is sustaining injuries....you don't have to wait until you are dead to use self defense! """"What you also forget is that if ever the unborn are deemed as persons then they become subject to all the protections and restrictions that any other person must abide by, including 2nd Amendment right of self-defence and the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, under the person at conception ideology the fetus MUST as a separate person gain separate consent to impose pregnancy onto the female, it cannot be assumed that her consent to sexual intercourse is consent to a third party to impose upon her autonomy, and should she refuse that consent then the accumulative injuries she sustains and the sustained time period she would be injured for would be more than enough justification for the use of deadly force, and because the state has a duty to protect all citizens from non-consented injuries it would fall to the state to pay for her abortion. """""""""
It never ceases to amaze me how often this FALLACY is used by those arguing against abortion. Why are the LIVES of those mothers/wives/girlfriends utterly meaningless? It is the SAME callous disregard for human life that you see coming from the gun obsessed who don't care how many innocent people MUST DIE in order for them to keep their military grade firearms. The REALITY is that the USA has the HIGHEST maternal mortality rate in the developed world already. https://www.npr.org/2017/05/12/5280...deaths-in-the-developed-world?t=1532360418246 But you want to make it EVEN HIGHER by making abortion ILLEGAL? What sense does that make to those who are allegedly "pro-life"?
Depending and being a part of something doesn't make you a part of it. If you are depending and a part of an iron lung doesn't make you part of that machine. A parasite in your stomach isn't a part of your body, it is dependent and inside your body but it is an external host.
The 14th Amendment Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Abortion, suicide, and drugs are the same in that the government is telling people what procedures they can't do to their bodies. In the case of abortion the government is telling women they can't do a certain procedure to stop their body from doing something. In the same way the government stop people from taking certain pain meds to stop their body from being in pain. The 9th and 10th amendments ban the federal government from doing things not specifically allowed. But the states could give men forced vasectomies, like in the case of extreme overpopulation. Can you quote the constitution and prove me wrong?
Right, so it's extremely unlikely RvW will be overturned no matter how many Trump appointees are on the court. But then, I didn't start this hysterical thread.
That assumes that the 4th amendment covers abortion covers abortion, since it's unclear to me why it would cover abortion, but not suicide (which is illegal in some localities). Why not just have a constitutional amendment to an abortion to the constitution and end the legal vagueness?
I hate to break it to you, but the US is having a problem with what is constitutional and what is unconstitutional in many areas. People want to ban one freedom, but retain another, when we should care about all of the Constitution. We the people of the United States of America are collectively losing our minds, and therefore our way. Just my opinion.
FoxHastings said: ↑ A fetus IS a body part of a woman, attached just like a heart, liver, kidney....it is part of HER body, not the government's , not yours, not some busybody Anti-Choice misogynist's.. If that's the case then the fetus should be able to be removed at anytime from the woman and set on a shelf to grow on it's own. NO one should be allowed to use another person's body to sustain their life without consent. YOU wouldn't be forced to give blood or your heart to someone who needs one, why should women be forced to give their body to sustain the life of another? YES, it IS part of her body, HER body , no one else's. Like YOU said , it depends on the woman body from which it cannot be separated without dying. Something NO one else is allowed to do. I don't see the Constitution disallowing it.... I don't see the Constitution supporting slavery, taking away a certain groups right to their own bodies, which is what banning abortion is...
MYGAWD! You STILL can't see the difference between forcing women to use their bodies to physically sustain the life of another and making drug use illegal and suicide and speeding and robbing a bank ??? WTF! Do you believe that the government could take away the right of men to their own bodies and give them all vasectomies? I mean where in the constitution does it say they can't.. AND YES, if women's rights to their own bodies are taken away more rights for others will fall by the wayside....seems you enjoy the thought...
FoxHastings said: ↑ But of course there's no need to worry about RvW being overturned because in almost 50 years no one has...and that's because they still have no reason...you need a case, a reason to even approach the SC.....people can't run around screaming, "it's murrrder! "" and expect the court to hear the case. And of course Repubs need RVW to get votes from mentally impaired one issue voters with phony promises of overturning it...... I agree, can't overturn RvW without a reason ...and NO ONE has come up with a reason yet...especially in this thread
The "reason" would be a case or controversy. But you are the one freaking out about Roe v Wade, not me.
Why do you think 'm freaking out over it? That doesn't make sense, I'm sure it won't be overturned....when you have nothing do you just go into fantasy mode? BTW, there hasn't been a case because there has been no reason, no argument, nothing to change the original ruling.
Negatory, see 6A. No, the state will have to prove it wasn't. Actually I doubt their constitutional acumen was anywhere near <Rule 3> yours. By this logic, neither did they have any problem with murder in general, as long as it wasn't perpetrated by gov't agents.
That would hardly be "freaking out"...a term lots of very emotional people use. And I was referring to IF it was overturned..
So according to you the 4th Amendment individual right to privacy does NOT cover your medical records so instead they should be on the PUBLIC RECORD so that anyone and everyone can see if you have ever had STD's or suffer from ED?
It happened in Ireland. A young girl was raped and because she was depressed and wanted an abortion she was locked up in a mental health facility It has already happened in the states https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jan/15/criminalisation-pregnancy-women-study
