I got your 'it's not in the constitution' right here

YOu've expressed your opinion, which my counter argument exposes as not being mindful of the inflexibility of your rather clinical text. You appear to be making assumptions about how things should be done, when in fact, they are doing it that way, but that way is inclusive of interpretation, because avoiding interpretation is humanly impossible. See, 'review' and 'interpret' are essentially two sides of the same coin, but of course, that wouldn't occur to a textualist like yourself. That would be like asking a dog to be a cat. .

The reality is never so simple, but to fellows like you, you apparently live in a black and white world and everything is clear cut.

No, it's not.

Your parents history is irrelevant.

Your MLK quote is relevant, it shows that 'legal' isn't so cut and dry. By the light of that quote, you should have known your premise is wrong.

 

Laws aren't created by courts. The absurdity of this statement is beyond ludicrous.

 

Which means basically nothing. Keep trying.

Nope, I'm saying this issues you're spouting AREN'T

Nope, you're still the problem. Clinging to the same straws over and over.

And yet the decision indicate they are.

Again, your mindless opinions are of minuscule importance.
[quotTDS]
Since a fetus is not a person, that's like saying when I dropped an egg and it smashed, it didn't turn out well for the egg. BFD. [/quote]One of the stupidest comparisons I've ever seen. You're better than this crap.

You get one vote.

And Dred Scott was a precedent - until it wasn't.

You have zero knowledge of what ANY Republican knows.

PS: you got a reference for those 17 challenges?

 

The baby is the who faces death at the whim of the mother.

 

Democrat straight down the line.

 

Shoulder even follow the constitution any more:

 

You are contradicting yourself and no it isn't impossible, especially when in SCOTUS' case it means perverting the Constitution by actually amending it and creating (case) law out of thin air.

 

That doesn't change the fact that it's the woman's body and that body does not belong to the state. Her fetus is part of her body until it isn't, period, end of story. I'm not in favor of abortion but not I or anyone else has the right to decide what anyone can or can't do with their own body. Those who believe they have that right believe in slavery. Those who believe the state has that power believe in authoritarianism.

 

Wrong. I supported Ron Paul and would have voted for him if he was a candidate. The MSM did everything in their power to marginalize him. What else is new?

 

The gov decides what drugs you cannot put in your body

 

My apologies then.

 

Where there is life, then also death. The unborn are alive. They face death at the whim of the mother. It's the baby's body.

 

I'm sure you thought that sounded good when you typed it.

 

No, not period, end of story.

When you do something you know can lead to certain consequences, it doesn't mean you're free from those consequences.

You can't drink a quart of vodka and not consent to getting drunk.

A child is as dependent on it's mother at month 6 of it's development as it is a post-birth 6 month old. The only difference is where it is when you decide to kill it, and it's a little more developed physically.

Again, let me put forth the fact that 95% of abortion in this country is due to people choosing to not use birth control consistently, or at all.

That is freedom to choose. Freedom to choose does not mean you can kill a human being because of the consequences of your decisions.

If the state were forcibly impregnating women and forcing them to have a child, you'd have a point. They aren't.

They got pregnant because they chose to engage in an act known to cause pregnancy, and they also chose to do little or nothing to prevent it.

 

Cancel

 

The constitution clearly gives the Supreme Court jurisdiction over law. They’re are not making law by overturning roe v Wade, not sure how you think that. They didn’t write any law banning abortion. They ruled that laws written by states to do so are constitutional being the constitution does not give the federal government power to restrict this from the states.

 

And that must mean that women in certain states do not have the same rights as women in other states. Does that wash?

 

Government does many things that violate the Constitution. So are you saying because they do that it validates everything they do that's unconstitutional?

 

Correct but that changes nothing I posted.

Like when they are raped? You are generalizing, pretending every case is the same as above. In any case it changes nothing I posted either way. Bodily autonomy is still bodily autonomy and the property and all inherent rights that come with it inviolate and not the property of others or the state.

 

Except it does. That's why you're not allowed to kill your 6 month newborn either.

Here comes the "what about rape and other things that make up less than 1% of all abortions" argument.

I haven't looked at all the bills, but I know many of them have a rape clause. I don't think any of them ban things like day after pills which solves that particular dilemma.

No one is taking away bodily autonomy. Being free to do what you want with your body doesn't mean you get to kill an unborn child any more than you have the bodily right to refuse to use your body to care for your newborn. "Bodily" rights are taken away every day from due process: going to prison for commission of a crime, for example.

Prison controls everything you can do with your body, after all.

Again, 95% of abortions are people who don't bother to use contraception.

That's not an ipso facto conclusion that murdering your unborn child is ok.

 

The fetus doesn't exist without the woman and is part of the woman until it isn't and as such it's the woman's body, her property and all inherent rights that come with it until it isn't.

 

Which is exactly what the SCOTUS did by overturning Roe. Abortion was never a constitutional right.

Thats because its not in the constitution.

 

Lot of words for not saying a thing.

 

A 6 month old newborn is not part of the mother. You are not stating a valid analogy.

I am not going to go around in circles with this line of discussion. I stated my case, end of story.

 

That's exactly the above. Use a dictionary if you didn't understand what I posted.