Is there a right to abortion, and if so, where does the right come from?

Not at all. People are free to lie to themselves and others and hide behind their euphemisms. Calling bullshit on that isn't opposing individual freedom, it's exercising individual freedom.

And I know why both sides do it and I think it's lame. I have more respect for the people who are open and honest about who and what they are and are capable of making a moral and intellectual argument in support of their position. I recognize that both sides have valid moral and intellectual arguments and I'm capable of respecting the people on both sides

By all means, show me what in the Opening Post led you to believe that. I'm genuinely curious what part of my openly expressed support of a woman's right to self-proprietorship you don't understand.

I never said it was an endorsement and why is that?

Because it is a red herring. It doesn't matter if you endorse the choice or not, what matters is that you endorse the legality of abortion that enables people to make that choice in the first place.

LOL - Nice knot you've tied yourself into.

 

It most certainly does, and it is entertaining watching you try to be pro-abortion and anti-abortion at the same time.

 

Yes the DoI is explicit and I have explained over and over the proper use of the word "man" as a generic which has existed throughout the language. This continued into the writing of the Constitution


...
The records of the convention show that gender neutrality was the dominant assumption from its early days. The Virginia Plan, the outline used to kick off the debates, was gender-neutral. Judge William Paterson’s competing New Jersey Plan followed his state’s basic law by referring to participants in public affairs as “citizens,” “inhabitants,” and “persons.” Only once in the New Jersey Plan did “man” or “men” appear, and that was in the phrase “body of men” to describe a presumably armed band of men defying federal law.

From the beginning, moreover, the framers accepted that representation in the lower house of the national legislature would be based on state population or wealth, rather than according to the number of males, as in states such as New Hampshire and New York.

Later in the convention, the framers did consider some gender qualifications—only to reject them. For example, in late July and early August 1787, a Committee of Detail fashioned the convention’s resolutions into a first draft of the Constitution. Committee member James Wilson suggested that electors be limited to “freemen,” as in his own state of Pennsylvania. And his colleague Edmund Randolph’s initial outline listed “manhood” as a possible suffrage qualification.

But the committee rejected both proposals as “not justified by the [convention’s] resolutions.” When the committee draft emerged, it avoided the singular word “man” and referred to the president as a “person.”

In the interim, though, some gender specificity crept in. The Committee of Detail draft described the national legislature as consisting of “two separate and distinct Bodies of Men.” It also granted the president the title of “His Excellency,” with no provision for any “Her Excellency.” And later in the convention, Pierce Butler of South Carolina proposed, and the convention adopted, a clause with a one-time appearance of the phrase “He or She.” Of course, such a phrase might suggest that where the Constitution employed only “he” (as everywhere else in the document), it meant only males.

Later in the convention, however, the delegates dropped “He or She,” thereby clarifying that “he” encompassed persons of both sexes. The convention also delegated final drafting to a Committee of Style. Committee member Gouverneur Morris did most of the actual writing. With respect to gender, he followed the New Jersey model. The final version of the Constitution made the following changes from earlier drafts and resolutions:

• It omitted the phrase “Bodies of Men” in describing the national legislature.
• It avoided all use of “man” and “men.”
• It employed only gender-neutral terms such as “person,” “citizen,” “inhabitant,” and titles such as “officer” and “elector.”
• It deleted the power of Congress to override state laws on voter qualifications, thereby fully empowering states to enfranchise women for federal as well as state elections.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/the-l...inated-against-women_3633792.html?slsuccess=1


but again you are free to claim it does not apply to women, I am happy to let you defend that ground.

 

No need to a baby in the womb is already a person and as with all persons are endowed at their creation with the right to life. Why do you claim only citizens of the United States have a right to life?

 

No it isn't alway's threatened to some degree and defending your life with lethal force requires that threat to be IMMINENT.

And when you ask the more detailed questions about abortion instead of the false totally legal or totally illegal the results shift against abortion.

"When abortion support drops: The further into the pregnancy, with AP/NORC finding 61% believe abortion should be legal during the first trimester, but only 34% in the second trimester and 19% in the third, and an April Wall Street Journal poll finding more Americans approve of 15-week abortion bans than disapprove."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alison...y-set-to-overturn-roe-v-wade/?sh=2a2e28d57ac1

"Even though Americans are solidly against overturning Roe, a majority would also like to see abortion restricted in various ways. In a separate question, respondents were asked which of six choices comes closest to their view of abortion policy.

In all, 61% said they were in favor of a combination of limitations that included allowing abortion in just the first three months of a pregnancy (23%); only in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the woman (29%); or only to save the life of the woman (9%)."
https://www.npr.org/2019/06/07/7301...bortion-legal-but-they-also-want-restrictions

 

It states our founding principles and our rights as human beings, the Constitution protects those and us from the government.

 

So how can I be pro either one since I don't care which one a woman chooses?

 

It was our declaration to england that we are independant from them, not a govt document.

 

Defending your life against another person. Fetus =/= person.

Not really. This is quite clear...

That's likely why Roe v. Wade enjoys the political support it does.

The FFs quite obviously were not thinking about the fetus as a person. If you want to take away women's rights in favor of the fetus, have the integrity to pass an constitutional amendment.

 

So, by your way of thinking, more than half of Americans are okay with killing people.

Why are you making up positions for me?

I both support snd recognize the 14th that says the state shall not deprive any person...

 

Why are you making up position for me which are in contradiction with my stated ones. You are attempting to define human being, person, by citizenship using the 14th not me. The SCOTUS has long held that "nor shall any State deprive any person of life" applies to everyone not just citizens and a STATE must treat all when it comes to the state denying a person their life or property without going to court and in the case of your life a jury of your peers agreeing to a capital charge. What does this have to do with abortion and the fact that the human being, the human life begins at it's creation and we are endowed with certain inalienable rights primarily that right to life because all others depend on you being alive.

 

Person = an individual human being = a fetus = a baby they are not mutually exclusive terms why do you keep claiming they are?

And defending your life by using lethal force against and human being requires an IMMINENT threat to it so you fail on all fronts.

"When abortion support drops: The further into the pregnancy, with AP/NORC finding 61% believe abortion should be legal during the first trimester, but only 34% in the second trimester and 19% in the third, and an April Wall Street Journal poll finding more Americans approve of 15-week abortion bans than disapprove."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alison...y-set-to-overturn-roe-v-wade/?sh=2a2e28d57ac1

"Even though Americans are solidly against overturning Roe, a majority would also like to see abortion restricted in various ways. In a separate question, respondents were asked which of six choices comes closest to their view of abortion policy.

In all, 61% said they were in favor of a combination of limitations that included allowing abortion in just the first three months of a pregnancy (23%); only in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the woman (29%); or only to save the life of the woman (9%)."
https://www.npr.org/2019/06/07/7301...bortion-legal-but-they-also-want-restrictions

 

Yes issued by vote of the Continental Congress establishing the principles on which the United States would be based. A government document on display in our National Archives



"The Declaration of Independence, written in 1776, announces a complete break with Britain and expresses the ideals on which the United States was founded: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
https://museum.archives.gov/founding-documents

 

Nope, it was STILL just our declaration to England that we are independent from them, not a govt document.

 

"Quinnipiac Poll: What is the top issue facing the country today?
Republicans - Inflation
Independents - Inflation
Democrats - Abortion"

https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3846

November is the beginning of the Great Restoration.

Pro-choicers' testimony at House abortion hearing went as well as you'd expect

 

And then the government ignores both.

If there's anything that can be said about the Roberts Court it's that it has consistently failed to do what the DOI states our government was instituted to do - secure our rights.

 

I can state right here I have been completely disappointed in Roberts who I believed would be a far more strict constitutionalist. He exposed himself with the Obamacare decision. It will be interesting to see where he stands here.

 

And established us and created by the government of those United States, the Continental Congress. I cited you the Archives of the United States, your flawed unsupported opinion does not trump them.

 

Roberts' appointment to the SCOTUS and Chief Justice was George W. Bush's greatest mistake in my opinion, and we're going to be forced to live with that mistake for many more years.

I laugh when people call him a "conservative"...

I think we both know where he stands here, and it's where he has always stood - behind the legacy that narcissist has always sought to establish for himself.

He easily ranks amongst the worst Chief Justices in American history...

 

When Obama publicly berated the Court at the SOTU after Citizens United, Roberts changed from a textualist to a consequentialist.

States have the power to regulate abortion as long as it is consistent with the rational basis test. The person challenging the law (not the government) must prove either:

• The government has no legitimate interest in the law or policy; or
• There is no reasonable, rational link between that interest and the challenged law.

Trafalgar: Americans largely support some reasonable abortion restrictions

​

Do Americans support Chuck Schumer’s radical abortion-federalizing bill once they know all the particulars?

Do Americans "support positions from Democrat candidates such as Tim Ryan in Ohio, who" refuses to support any restriction at all on abortion?

The answer to both questions is "only 12% do."

"Only 14% would accept the most absolutist position on the other side, no abortion at all, except to save the life of the birthing person."

​

"Only 19% of Democrats polled agreed with the Schumer/Ryan position that there should be no legal impediment to abortion at any stage of pregnancy, although only around 18% thought it should be illegal except in cases of rape, incest, or a threat to the physical life of the mother. Another 18% of Democrats want it limited to either the first trimester or the appearance of the heartbeat. Finally, a separate group of 45.3% of Democrats want it only legal in the first and second trimesters, with no partial-birth abortions allowed."

"the position seized by Democrats in the wake of the Dobbs leak is particularly extreme. For a party already running pell-mell into midterm disaster, Democrats are flapping their gums when they should be opening their ears — and a compliant media that keeps them in an ideological bubble hasn’t helped matters."

They Democrat "leaders" don't listen because they don't give a damn what anyone else thinks. They think that they should be able to dictate what we say think and feel and prohibit any challenge of those delivered views as "disinformation" banned by Mary Poppins.

 

And it will take a reversal of RvW to accomplish that. THAT is what the Republicans should be running on, finally empowering the PEOPLE to make the critical and societal decision on whether a mother should have the unrestricted right to kill her baby before it is born as the pro-abortion is fighting tooth and nail for. Will they allow for a civil respectful discussion of that now, I doubt it.

 

...

 

Correct. But one can still be against abortion. But there's no reason it can't be legal. It's not a politicians choice to take away.

It's about letting people be free to make their own life choices without gov't dictation.

 

I've always wondered why we keep track of DOB, date of birth and birthdays.

Why don't we keep track of date of conception?

 

I included no violence, slander or hatred.
Your over dramatic reply is what stirs up any of the above.
Nor did I mention the GRT.
For some reason you included it before you went off on a tirade about your government in general and some favourite personal target in particular.
Your post is unanswerable by any thoughtful person.