Democrats Lie About Their Abortion Stance After Donald Trump Exposes How Radical They Are.

a reply to: JinMI

Pssst.....that's because it wasn't a right

Nonsense.

SCOTUS can take our privacy from us, but it's in there, still enshrined in the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 8th,14th and 13th Amendments.

1st Amendment:
The Christian Right is violating the First Amendment by banning abortion

Synagogue sues Florida over abortion limits, a possible template for future challenges

A lawsuit filed on June 10 by a synagogue in Florida has challenged plans to limit abortions in the state on the grounds that it would violate religious rights and therefore be unconstitutional. The Jewish faith holds the right to an abortion to be inviolable.

2nd Amendment
8 Women File Lawsuit After Being Refused Abortions in Medical Emergencies

4th Amendment
Physically Intrusive Abortion Restrictions as Fourth Amendment Searches and Seizures

8th Amendment
Forcing rape victims to bear their rapist spawn, or forced to carry a fetus with no brain, or no chance of survival because some "heartbeat law" is cruel and unusual punishment for no crime other than being pregnant.

13th Amendment
Forcing rape victims to bear their rapist spawn or any unwanted pregnancy is slavery.

14th Amendment
When you have states that protect these constitutional rights and other that don't, the Equal Protection Clause is violated.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

*yawn*

I'm not treading over old ground.

Abortion was never a right, never codified, never enshrined.

It rested upon a weak legal argument.

Sorry you can't kill babies willy nilly anymore.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: dandandat2

I hear you.

And I answer back, how come my right to keep and bear arms is being infringed by my government?

Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham has recently stated that no constitutional right is intended to be absolute.

Maybe the Dobbs rulling was an exercise in this fact; a further clarification as to how absolute the 14th amendment's "liberty" guarantee protects a citizen's right to privacy. While it was once assumed to include abortion; that assumption was not absolute and has now been clarified.

This same logic can be used for all other amendments including the first and second.

a reply to: dandandat2

It's a very simple arrangement.

My rights end where yours begin.

So, we then have to go back to what I asked yesterday; when is a fetus a human?

The answers fall into categories and beliefs etc.

Saying someone has the right to privacy for the purpose of harming another isn't how rights work.

a reply to: JinMI

My rights end where yours begin.

Where is that in the Constitution?

So, we then have to go back to what I asked yesterday; when is a fetus a human?

Where does the constitution acknowledge that unborn humans even exist, let alone that they somehow have rights that supersede a born person's rights?

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: dandandat2

It's a very simple arrangement.

My rights end where yours begin.

So, we then have to go back to what I asked yesterday; when is a fetus a human?

The answers fall into categories and beliefs etc.

Saying someone has the right to privacy for the purpose of harming another isn't how rights work.

What if the statment was:

"Someone has the right to privacy for the purpose of harming a fetus"

Could the "right" work in that context?


"My rights end where yours begin. "

The problem with using that argument here is that you are not the fetus ... and so it is hardly your rights that are being trampled on when a woman decides to get an abortion.

Maybe we need to ask the fetus if it feels that it's rights are being infringed upon before it is terminated because its unwanted.

At the end of the day, discussion about "rights" can not escape the unwavering history that the more weak have always enjoyed their "rights" due to the generosity of the more powerful. And since the fetus can not speak up for itself it will always be at the mercy of it's mother.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: JinMI

My rights end where yours begin.

Where is that in the Constitution?

So, we then have to go back to what I asked yesterday; when is a fetus a human?

Where does the constitution acknowledge that unborn humans even exist, let alone that they somehow have rights that supersede a born person's rights?

Unborn humans exist; they don't magically appear. My wife reminds us of this fact from time to time.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Where is that in the Constitution?

In the amendment you keep on spamming as your argument.....

Where does the constitution acknowledge that unborn humans even exist, let alone that they somehow have rights that supersede a born person's rights?

It doesn't, yet abit of critical thinking must be applied here. Are unborn humans anything other than...human?

a reply to: dandandat2

What if the statment was:

"Someone has the right to privacy for the purpose of harming a fetus"

Could the "right" work in that context?

I'm not big on "what ifs."

At the end of the day, discussion about "rights" can not escape the unwavering history that the more weak have always enjoyed their "rights" due to the generosity of the more powerful. And since the fetus can not speak up for itself it will always be at the mercy of it's mother.

Enter the 2nd amendment.......

However in speaking about an unborn child, we have laws protecting them.

originally posted by: dandandat2

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: JinMI

My rights end where yours begin.

Where is that in the Constitution?

So, we then have to go back to what I asked yesterday; when is a fetus a human?

Where does the constitution acknowledge that unborn humans even exist, let alone that they somehow have rights that supersede a born person's rights?

Unborn humans exist; they don't magically appear. My wife reminds us of this fact from time to time.

Some people think the unborn are perfect little spirit angels sent from Heaven, whose souls magically POOF into existence, through God's will, when sperm meets egg....but I digress.

There's lots of things that exist that the Constitution doesn't address. People's kids exist, but the Constitution is silent on parental rights vs government rights around people's kids.

The Founding Fathers couldn't even see far enough into the future to think that slaves could someday become whole people or that women could not only vote, but serve in the military and hold office.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Some people think the unborn are perfect little spirit angels sent from Heaven, whose souls magically POOF into existence, through God's will, when sperm meets egg....but I digress.

...and some people think that by participating in acts that lead to the conception of children have zero repercussions or that there is responsibility around it.

Again, are you saying women do not have autonomy prior to conception?

a reply to: JinMI

Sorry you can't kill babies willy nilly anymore.

You're just baiting vitriol now... that's easy.

'Divergent' arguments aren't.

I wish we freaking laid eggs in clutches and let them do that turtle thing where they try to get to the ocean without getting eaten first. Would kill all this moralizing sh*t.

"Upon point of post-conception cell division a documented soul is issued per divine code 726-8A. From that point on, it's existence is special and must be protected as a personally designated morally significant creature."

The naturalist in me says we are only 20 million years evolved from STILL EATING OUR KIDS, like the hamster things we came from. Lions, monkeys, mice, and pretty much every animal will drop a sickly offspring like it's failed the prenatal downs syndrome test. That's not a rhetorically valid comparison, but it demonstrates some don't take a sanctified approach to developing life.

But humans. So special we're no longer animals. We're such special creatures because our ideas say we are so special. And everybody must adhere to that special designation whether they like it or not sometimes.

Murder? Being a murderer?

That's not really a pejorative when you don't care what someone else's morals call wrong or wrong for you to do. To some, they are invoking their animal privilege to terminate their own unwanted offspring, and in a more humane way than nature would.

That may even extend to ones that go all postpartum and drown their children in the bathtub. It's a crime, but its more animal than people want to accept, and maybe I'm just totally desensitized by life, but I don't think they are 'evil', or driven by anything not replicated a million times over in nature.

And that's not trying to be harsh, or counter-bait, it's just to demonstrate the impassable wall dividing the subjective morality on this topic.

a reply to: JinMI

Again, are you saying women do not have autonomy prior to conception?

No, she doesn't. Not if she can be forced to carry her rapist's spawn. Not if her birth control fails or a condom broke, and she's forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy. Not if she has some health condition but can't get an abortion in her state until she's at death's door.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

No, she doesn't.

No? Ok, lets go through your list.

Not if she can be forced to carry her rapist's spawn.

Is there even one state that doesn't have this exemption? Even ID allows for it.

Not if her birth control fails or a condom broke

Do people not have autonomy to choose their method of birth control? Life is full of risks, sex is certainly one of them.

Not if she has some health condition but can't get an abortion in her state until she's at death's door.

Also included with the rape and incest instances.



Again, your arguments have zero merit.



So, I ask again, do women not have autonomy before they conceive a child?

DoubleTrouble

a reply to: Degradation33

You're just baiting vitriol now... that's easy.

True enough and fair point.

I get that way when arguing against the intellect and honesty of a wasp.



You wish to bring a natural/spiritual aspect in a historical context. Which is fine and fair game and....way more interesting than rights and legality IMO.

To be crystal clear, I'm in the "safe, legal and rare" camp, yet when trying to have reasoned conversations on a very deep and divided subject, I'm pushed further toward my bible thumping friends.

FWIW>

a reply to: JinMI

15 states with new or impending abortion limits have no exceptions for rape, incest

a reply to: Sookiechacha

K...and?

It's up to the states now. You'll need to advocate and convince minds.

You're changing mine for example....further into the pro life camp...

a reply to: JinMI

That's fair. I didn't really want to get into it.

Plus, by the standards of this site, my views of what a woman has the right to choose makes me a High Priestess holding a sword over a newborn baby placed in a center of a pentagram.

Just felt the need to state those views exist for some ideomotor reason.

a reply to: Degradation33

Do we at least agree that women have full bodily autonomy prior to conceiving a child?



I get the nature of the subject. The problem from my perspective is that it was largely solved with safe, legal and rare.