The Ninth Amendment was an attempt to ensure that the Bill of Rights was not seen as granting to the people of the United States only those specific rights it addressed. Its the very same language you find in contractual agreements stating rights not listed doesn't mean they don't exist. Every legal or constitutional scholar knows it was introduced because future generations might argue that, because a certain right was not listed in the Bill of Rights, it did not exist So how do you magically interpret The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. To mean abortions? That would mean I have a right to open heart surgery. Or a right to have transgender surgery. Abortion is not a right. You don't have a right to get an abortion any more than having a right to get a face lift. It is an elective surgery. You don't get to interpret (of certain rights) to mean what ever is convenient for you at the time. Doesn't work that way. If that were the case, you could interpret it to mean millions of laws on the books need not exist. Did you think only you get to decide what it means? Abortion was never a guaranteed right. If it was, why can abortion centers deny giving you an abortion if you can't pay for it? You are confused as to what a (Right) means. Anything that is a right, you are provided for free. It cost nothing. You have a right to an attorney and if you can't afford one, one will be provided for you You have a right to remain silent You have a right to free speech You have a right to bear arms You have a right to freedom of religion You have a right of trial by jury If an abortion was a right, you could walk into any center or hospital and demand they give you one. Yet even after the Roe decision you couldn't do that. And don't start with certain government free abortion clinics. That doesn't count. If you can't demand every facility give you an abortion, its not a right.
Not sure who you're talking about. On covid, I was in favor of giving people choices when we were faced with taking steps to prevent our hospitals from being overrun with covid patients. Measures included restricting physical contacts, testing, PPE and vaccinations. Those who wished to avoid taking vaccines would be faced with some additional restrictions on physical contacts and more testing. Many of us took our chances with the vaccines to do our part in cutting transmission. In my case, I also wore superior PPE... P100 respirator There is an element of the public who wanted to make no personal sacrifice (no vaccine, no PPE, no restriction on contacts) and were seemingly willing to let hospitals be overrun with covid. As I said, I wasn't in favor of making people get vaccinated, but I would have people take other steps to avoid spreading covid. Some employment would be denied to unvaccinated persons. Those of us in the public don't have the right to avoid unvaccinated police, for example. Our military readiness would be impacted by unvaccinated personnel, too. The vaccines were more effective at cutting transmission of earlier variants than Omicron. In short, I was not in favor of government making people take vaccines. I said so on this forum. You seem to have made a number of incorrect assumptions about my positions. I wouldn't have made people take vaccines, but I also wouldn't have allowed public servants, teachers, medical personnel, etc. to do as they damn well please (no PPE, no vaccine, unrestricted personal contacts) and subject the rest of us to greater risk. Your personal attack on me is a bit over the top.
You have a right to contract with someone for open heart surgery, but not abortion—thanks to your birds-of-a-feather religious ideologues on the Supreme Court.
Is that what you were commanded to claim by your lefty media? There is no abortion ban. But you keep running on that hamster wheel. It only shows your lack of knowledge on the subject. Has nothing to do with religion. Abortion isn't a right.
So, taking weapons of which of felons, gang members, the mentally ill and advanced dementia patients not having firearms would render me a "petty gun grabber?" I would allow felons convicted on nonviolent crimes to possess firearms. No. No. The starting point is the potential for harm to individuals. Stooping to personal attacks? My party? I'm not a Democrat. I supported Biden—the first Democrat I ever supported—only because you nominated a criminal. How about you not making up positions for me? What's clear is you continue making up positions for me. The Five Idiot Justices clearly intend to allow legislators to turn half of Americans into second class citizens by turning even human embryos into persons. They have brought law itself into disrepute. Lies and drivel. How about you answering my question: So, taking weapons of which of felons, gang members, the mentally ill and advanced dementia patients not having firearms would render me a "petty gun grabber?"
Did you fall on your head? SCOTUS is allowing legislators to turn half of all Americans into second class citizens. Being able to contract for an abortion should be a right. You've managed to stack SCOTUS with religious types who have seen fit into allowing legislators to take away women's rights.
I don't know how to make my position more clear—violence against pro-life and pro-choice groups is wrong.
See, that was only as hard as getting you to include violence against pro life, which frankly, you weren't concerned with at the beginning of the conversation. Shame? Unlikely.
Didn't make any incorrect assumption .. and you were not personally attacked. Your position is an absurdity and rancid contradiction. Your claim that threatening someone's Job - Livilihood - ability to support family, is not force, - is vile denial .. of the most tyrannical kind.. Same kind vile arguments on the other side .. claiming restricting abortion doesn't produce hardship cause "They can go to another State" You then desperately try to deflect by moving the goalposts -- we are not talking about PPE/ Personal Contacts -- talking about forced vaccination.. then you double down on your -- taking someone's job away is not force mantra. So by your logic .. A Law banning abortion in the US would not be forcing a woman to carry child to term .. and last - Fallacious Utilitarianism - greater risk of harm is not a valid legal argument to begin with "Utilitarianism" .. but in this case, your claim of greater risk of harm by not taking the jab is false .. so is not even a valid Utilitarian argument. "Fallacious Utilitarianism"
Ridiculous, nothing but exaggerations and leftist idiotic talking points with no bearing on reality It still is and always has been. More ridiculous exaggeration How do you stack a court that has the same amount of justices? Just an FYI since it seems to be out of your reach, Democrats are the ones responsible for allowing a 51 confirmation vote. If you knew anything about government you would have known that already. Now all you have is whining about something way out of your league. All the SCOTUS did was allow the states and voters to govern what they want. But that doesn't work out for the left because more and more people are leaving the lefts idiotic ideology. Which is why the left is so pissed. They want the government to tell them what they should do and not leave it to the voters. Pretty sad the left is so consumed with government control, but everyone now knows why
Not "some doctors" the published and used college textbooks, the science and even the pro-child side. As you have shown you have nothing to refute the science. Yes I educated you in the biology of how two gametes create a new human individual. "Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism.... At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun.... The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life." [Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943]
Judges don't turn unborn humans into anything they are what they are unborn human beings. You don't have to be a citizen to have a right to life we are created with that right to life FULLY outside and definitions by some judge or government official. And why do you stereotype all women into you your little place on the shelve as being pro-abortion and they all want to be able to kill their unborn babies? That's a pretty sexist bigoted statement to post. There's lots of pro-life women in this country women are not some homogenous group you seem to want to force them all into. So unless you have had an abortion you are a second class citizen? Should we ask any women running for high office if they have had an abortion since if you haven't your are a second class citizen?
No you didn't - every child learns that two gametes create an individual human zygote .. Where your education dropped the ball is your claim that this single human cell is a baby. "Doctors" -- ?? who cares .. aside from the fact that Doctors are not Subject Domain Experts .. Even if they were .. they must support their claims .. which you don't seem to understand - making your claim of higher education .. suspect. Case in point -- this may well be by a doctor .. or scientist .. but it does not support your claim .. all it does is describe what an Embryo is . and even gets that wrong .. being dated 1976 .. as we tend not to refer to the zygote as an Embryo anymore as the two are not the same. but how is your claim that the zygote is a human supported by the citation below ? 1) doesn't claim that the zygote is a human .. states that the zygote is a new life a and while a human life .. the life of a single human cell and good for it .. but that does not mean it is a human. What the frick is the problem here .. why do you not understand basic english .. no claim that the zygote is a human is made - how can you not understand this ? 2) if it had made such a claim .. although it didn't .. it would then need to be supported with some kind of "WHY" statement. .. what part of this do you not understand ? Regardless of what kind of biology or college education you claim to have .. you don't understand the basics .. don't know what an argument is .. have issues with understanding the english language. and certainly have no skills in biology or science in general .. no understanding of scientific method and a complete fail in basic logic. ]
Bans Off Our Bodies | Rightfully Ours (plannedparenthoodaction.org) I found a website any of you might be interested in. I saw this on TV. It would be worth it.
You said I favored mandatory vaccinations. You made up a position for me and then berated me for it. Doesn't seem you have backed down from your claim. Excuse me? Since when is a government job the only way to make a living? My having to take a covid test if I was still teaching and chose not to get vaccinated is not even close to a parallel of forcing a woman to continue a pregnancy. I'm desperate? Really? I said I was opposed to forcing people to take the covid vaccination. Nonsense. I said I'm not in favor of forcing people to get vaccinated. That said, I might consider making it a requirement for, say, caring for chemo patients.
Good that you are not in favor of forced vax .. good that you do not support the Biden Fauci Trudeau tyranical clown show. Then you turn around and say that you are for forced vaccinations .. for those caring for chemo patients .. after crying up an down that you were not for forced vaccinations... Threatening folks livilihood .. "can just find another job" .. is forced vaccination .. trying to claim otherwise is vile self deception.
You just don't like having to confront the reality of what SCOTUS is allowing legislators to do. Double talk. Woman are being denied an opportunity to contract for abortion services in Oklahoma. I'm in favor of getting rid of the filibuster rule on everything. I taught American history, "something way out of your league." Social liberals have won over the public on rights for minorities. We no longer persecute homosexuals, for example. So, you want to do away with constitutional rights?
Your muddled thought processes are manifest. The fetus is not a person and should not be considered as having rights superseding those of a pregnant woman. Your claim I said all women are pro-abortion is absurd considering, for instance, we had Amy Phony Barrett lying to get in a position to stab women in the back. What a dumb comment. Followed up by another one.
Like giving the vote back to the people. Yeah, thats terrible lol Really? Prove it Then you can stop complaining as to how your own party is responsible for confirming justices with 51 votes now And you should stay there as you know nothing about HCPCs And we are glad you no longer persecute homosexuals. Greatest move since you had to give up your slaves Since you don't know the difference between government control and constitutional rights (which by the way forces the government to abide by the people) I would say you need more education on American History
So much for constitutional rights. Should we put gun rights to a vote? Get a clue. You can't make a legal contract for an illegal activity. https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/2-302 Do you have so little personal integrity you would continue writing that Democrats are my party? Liars for Jesus: "A crisis pregnancy center(CPC), sometimes called a pregnancy resource center (PRC), is a type of nonprofit organization established to persuade pregnant women against having an abortion. In addition, CPCs generally provide peer counseling related to pregnancy and childbirth, and may also offer other non-medical services such as financial assistance, childrearing resources, and adoption referrals. CPCs that qualify as medical clinics may also provide pregnancy testing, sonograms, and other services. However, CPCs have frequently been found to disseminate false medical information about the supposed physical and mental health risks of abortion, and sometimes about the effectiveness of condoms and the prevention of sexually transmitted infections. CPCs are typically run by Christians who adhere to a strictly socially conservative viewpoint, and they often operate in affiliation with one of three non-profit organizations: Care Net, Heartbeat International, and Birthright International. As of 2017, there were approximately 2,300 CPCs in the United States, as compared with 808 abortion clinics. Hundreds more CPCs operate outside of the U.S., including Canada, Latin America, Africa and Europe. These CPCs often are operated or financially supported by the same American organizations, and use similar tactics as the CPCs in the United States. During the Presidency of George W. Bush (2001–2009) CPCs received tens of millions of dollars in federal grants. As of 2015, more than half of the U.S. states helped to fund crisis pregnancy centers either directly and/or through the sale of Choose Life license plates. Legal and legislative action regarding CPCs has generally attempted to curb deceptive advertising, targeting those that imply that they offer abortion services by requiring centers to disclose that they do not offer certain services or possess certain qualifications. In 1993, the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) was formed to provide legal advice to CPCs in the U.S." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_pregnancy_center I persecuted homosexuals? Exodus 20:16. Of course, you're be suicidal if you actually believe. Your post is nothing more than mocking entertainment for morons who think it's cute.
The unborn life in the womb is a HUMAN BEING, created with the self evident truth of it's right to life. I have the science and our founding principles you have nothing. Glad you agree not all women are pro-abortion. Stop posting statements insinuating they are now.
Your utter disrespect and disregard for women is clear. Note: Amy Phony Barrett ———————> Women This is not honest debating.
