I am amazed that a group of people who think that it a God given right to carry a gun believe it's not a right to control one's own uterus. Guns be sacred (because it can take life). A woman's own uterus? Hell no. Society gets to control that.
If you honestly think Article IV, section 2 means what you say it does, then that means that every state should have the same gun laws as the most open, gun friendly state. I don't think that's true, and I don't think your view of Article IV, section 2 is correct, otherwise than Roe V Wade is unconstitutional. It allows the states to regulate abortion. How could it do that? Legal in all 50 states and has nothing to do with Roe v Wade. Nice distraction though. You are simply making silly points because your pissed that a some SC decision might get overturned in the far future. Unfortunately, they are silly points. Bored now.
You could very easily take your statement and replace “abortion” with “slavery” and it would still hold true...just sayin’
I am not your son...and consider it an insult to be called your "son"...especially since I am likely older than you but I certainly don't want any connection to you... YES, I intended to instill in people the FEAR of losing the right to their own bodies. If abortion is made illegal what do YOU expect will happen? Every pregnant woman will be forced to gestate and live happily ever after? Like in a CHILD'S fairy tale? Women WILL be enslaved. There is nothing else to call not having a right to their own bodies. If someone else owns their bodies it is slavery.... what would you call it? A woman's proper place? Yes, I can see how limited a person's knowledge is if they use the term "pro-abort" when the issue is women's right to their own body...guess they don't want to come right out and say it...it IS bad PR.
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......
Well, NO.....slavery involved actual born people who should've had rights... and it was wrong to enslave them...abortion does not involve an actual born person with rights (except for the woman..) But slavery has everything to do with taking away people's right to their own bodies, EXACTLY what Anti-Choicers propose to do to women.
Thats the problem with the liberal interpretation. You use your political beliefs to imply meaning into the constitution. Notice how you aren't quoting any passages in the constitution, just talking about how you believe it implies things. I don't believe that is how the law should work. Reading the law shouldn't be like trying to interpret revelations. It should be direct and straightforward. If you want to know the meanings behind the writings read the articles of confederation or the views of the people who wrote it.
So you don't believe women have a right to their own bodies unless it's spelled out in exactly those terms in the Constitution? Then NO one has the right to their own body because it doesn't say those exact words in the Constitution..
Actually the constitution does ban the government from making abortion laws through the 9th and 10th amendments which bars the federal government from making any laws not specifically allowed by the constitution. State governments are allowed to make any laws they please as long as they don't conflict with a rule the constitution made for the states. It used to be that the government had to make a federal amendment to do things like ban alcohol or make an income tax but Lincoln forced states to follow the constitution and FDR appointed judges who used the commerce clause to allow the government to do basically anything. The government has made many laws about people's bodies like drug bans, age restrictions on cigarettes and alcohol, banning suicide, regulating organ donation, and much more. If you want to interpret the constitution strictly then most of federal government goes way, but then you have abortion legal.
No, the fetus is dependent on the woman's body much like a parasite. It has a separate body but depends on hers for resources. I do agree that abortion should be legal but I just don't see the constitution specifically allowing abortion unless you interpret the 9th and 10th amendments like libertarians do.
The 4th Amendment covers the right to privacy. (The right of the people to be secure in their persons...) The government cannot violate individual rights but it can REGULATE those rights. In the RvW decision the SCOTUS determined an absolute right to an abortion in the first trimester, a REGULATED right in the 2nd trimester and a severely CURTAILED right ONLY if there is a THREAT to the life and/or health of the woman carrying the fetus. The abortion issue has been about red states attempting to VIOLATE the SCOTUS ruling to IMPOSE regulations OVER and ABOVE those defined in RvW. In other words states regulating that an abortion clinic MUST meet the same regulatory standards as a surgical hospital is a gross OVERREACH for the nefarious purpose of DENIAL of abortion rights. If you want to get into this please be specific as to regulations that apply to abortions and we can discuss those instead of just generics that are often used to obfuscate the issue.
Factually incorrect! A fetus is part of a woman's body because it is not only INSIDE of her it is also PHYSICALLY ATTACHED to her body. Without that physical attachment the fetus would die. Secondly the Constitution does recognize the status of a fetus by clearly stipulating that individual rights BEGIN AT BIRTH. That is why RvW is written the way it it. In the first trimester the fetus has no rights whatsoever. In the second the STATE is granted LIMITED rights to REGULATE only. It is only in the 3rd trimester that the STATE can protect the fetus but NOT if it is going to threaten the life and/or health of the woman. So the Constitution recognizes that fetus has no rights but it does gradually empower the states with limited ability to regulate.
It is a Federal issue regarding individual privacy rights ergo the states can NOT violate the Federal Constitution.
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 ??? 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..
From a member , Fugazi, who no longer posts: FugaziNew MemberPast Donor The U. S. Constitution contains no express right to privacy. The Bill of Rights, however, reflects the concern of James Madison and other framers for protecting specific aspects of privacy, such as the privacy of beliefs (1st Amendment), privacy of the home against demands that it be used to house soldiers (3rd Amendment), privacy of the person and possessions as against unreasonable searches (4th Amendment), and the 5th Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination, which provides protection for the privacy of personal information. In addition, the Ninth Amendment states that the "enumeration of certain rights" in the Bill of Rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." The meaning of the Ninth Amendment is elusive, but some persons (including Justice Goldberg in his Griswold concurrence) have interpreted the Ninth Amendment as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments. The precedence for a right to privacy exists in the Constitution. The two cases you cited were not the basis of privacy protecting abortion, that decision came from Griswold v Connecticut (1965) with the justifications from Justice Douglas that saw the "penumbras" and "emanations" of various Bill of Rights guarantees as creating "a zone of privacy," to Justice Goldberg's partial reliance on the Ninth Amendment's reference to "other rights retained by the people," to Justice Harlan's decision arguing that the Fourteenth Amendment's liberty clause forbade the state from engaging in conduct (such as search of marital bedrooms for evidence of illicit contraceptives) that was inconsistent with a government based "on the concept of ordered liberty." One question that the Court has wrestled with through its privacy decisions is how strong of an interest states must demonstrate to overcome claims by individuals that they have invaded a protected liberty interest. Earlier decisions such as Griswold and Roe suggested that states must show a compelling interest and narrowly tailored means when they have burdened fundamental privacy rights. As to the two cases you cited I personally think that one is correct and one is not, Meyer v Nebraska in my opinion was wrong, I personally believe that the state has a compelling interest to set a national curriculum for all public schools without any requirement to cater to parents individual desires, parents have the choice then whether to enrol their children into that school or choose an alternative school or method of education. Pierce v Society of Sisters in my opinion was a correct decision, the state should not be telling parents what schools their children should attend. 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. """"""""" Thanks again, Fugazi, miss you!
I think that the 4th amendment was saying that government can't search people or their possessions without probable cause. It doesn't say the government can't make laws about how people treat their bodies. For example, the government can't force a medical procedure on a women to see if she had an abortion without probable cause. If people really have the right to privacy in an abortion then why don't they have an absolute right in their entire pregnancy?
No, my point is that the government has many existing regulations on how people treat their bodies. The government also regulates the drugs people can take without a perscription. I have not heard you oppose these restrictions so why do you oppose abortion restrictions?
About 600 women die of pregancy every year out of 6 million pregnancy. It is extremely unlikely a women will die of childbirth. If a doctor comes to the conclusion that the woman's life is at risk then maybe we can talk about self-defense? Where does the constitution give the absolute right to self-defense by the way? Second Amendment?
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 ??? WTF!
That was EXPLAINED in the RvW ruling. The concept of whose rights, the individual woman or the State, change during the pregnancy! That has NOTHING to do with PRIVACY. It only applies to TIME. In the first trimester, when the MAJORITY of all abortions occur, the government has NO AUTHORITY over the individual woman as far as her body and her choices are concerned. That is 100% PRIVACY!
