Most Americans want Roe v Wade to stand
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
From NBC news:
Most Americans support Roe v Wade, the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion rights, a new survey shows. The Kaiser Family Foundation poll of 1,492 Americans found that 67 percent support the ruling that legalized abortion rights for the whole country, while 29 percent would like the Supreme Court to overturn it. It's a big question now with the pending resignation of Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. Kennedy has provided the "swing vote" supporting Roe v Wade in legal challenges to the decision. Republicans who control the White House, Senate and the House say they would like to see a new appointee to the court who would vote to overturn the ruling.
Kaiser interviewed 1,492 adults by telephone for the poll, which was conducted before Kennedy announced he would resign. The margin of error is 3 percent either way but Kaiser says the group it interviewed is representative of the nation as a whole. When divided by party affiliation, about 53 percent of Republicans said they would like to see Roe v Wade overturned. But 81 percent of Democrats and 73 percent of independents said they would not want to see the 1973 court decision reversed. In Roe v Wade, the Supreme Court ruled 7-3 that the right to privacy extended to a woman's right to have an abortion. It gave states some leeway to regulate abortions, but not to ban the procedures outright.
People opposing the right to abortion have fought the ruling ever since, bringing challenge after challenge to try to find a way to overturn the decision. States have also sought to reduce access to abortions by regulating clinics, limit who can get the procedure under what circumstances, and by refusing to fund clinics that provide abortions. Congress has ensured that federal funds may not be used to directly provide any abortions. The Kaiser survey found that 42 percent of voters say they would be more likely to vote for a candidate who supports access to abortion service, while 29 percent said they would be more likely to vote for a candidate who would restrict access. About a quarter said that abortion questions would not influence their vote.
Tags
Who is online
79 visitors
Abortion is not likely to be overturned. To do so would set a dangerous precedent. It's more likely individual states will attempt to restrict abortion rights and access, with less possibility of the SCOTUS overturning such attempts. Regardless, abortion is a woman's right and personal decision regarding her body and health. Nobody should have any say whether a woman chooses to abort or not, much less deny her that right.
I hope you're right.
I'm a fairly weak proponent of choice. I personally wouldn't have an abortion unless pregnancy endangered my life, or the fetus was badly malformed.
But today's "pro-lifers" often don't even want to allow for that, and some have even attempted to criminalize miscarriages. Give them an inch, and they'll take a mile, and claim the moral high ground along the way. For that reason, I am pro-choice.
The key point is, that would be your choice, and no one else's. Neither should you be denied that choice in any way, shape, or form.
This is true. It's a rather sick obsession.
This is the inevitable consequence of "personhood at fertilization". If the zygote is a person, then any action that endangers the zygote is a criminal action. If a pregnant woman does anything that might provoke a miscarriage... and if subsequently there is a miscarriage... then the woman must be investigated at the least for criminal negligence, possibly for manslaughter (death without intention).
If the woman does anything strenuous... if she does anything vigorous... if she leaves her bed... she may be charged with putting a person's life in danger.
I repeat: if "personhood begins at fertilization", it is inescapable that the woman's responsibility for the life of that person is engaged, constantly and totally, until birth.
That's why I qualified my statement with an "often".
I know.
And the number of things a woman might do before she even knows she's pregnant that hypothetically could harm the fetus is pretty large.
Had a glass of wine at dinner before that late period? Took too hot a bath? Didn't get enough folic acid? Took an Advil for a headache? Fell off a bike? Any of those and more could be concluded to have caused a miscarriage, whether they did or not, and whether the woman knew she was pregnant at the time or not.
So... What do we conclude?
That any woman who is sexually active must presume herself to be pregnant, and behave accordingly. Abstain from all those infanticidal activities...
It might be argued that sexual activity is incompatible with professional activity.
I conclude that "fetal personhood" laws should be repealed where they exist. Ostensibly, they were written in order to enable harsher punishment of those who injured pregnant women to the point of miscarriage. But predictably, they were instead used to prosecute women who didn't "toe the line".
cheers
removed for context
It may not be as few as you think. Certain states have tried (and fortunately failed) to restrict abortion to the detection of a heartbeat, grant personhood status, criminalize abortion and/or miscarriage, or otherwise restrict and/or circumvent abortion laws and rights since Roe was settled. Such mindsets is nothing new.
Stay KKKLassy.
Absolutely. Although, I am not certain where such laws actually exist. Attempts at personhood have as far as I know always been struck down. But such laws do nothing but relegate a woman to a second class citizen status.
It can also be argued that abstaining from sexual activity is just plain unreasonable and unrealistic.
Abstinence is also unhealthy, both mentally and physically.
Humans are innately sexual creatures and not having sex causes problems.
Nor do I.
4th amendment: Right of people to be secure in their person
13th amendment: prohibits involuntary servitude
Depends what your definition of health includes. If it is just physical then you are correct, if you include mental then less correct, if you include emotional again less, economic health again less, etc. We all have different views on the matter, but the only one that matters is the woman getting the procedure, it's her body and her choice.
It's a right based on the Constitution, as the SCOTUS deemed. Why should rights be unnecessarily restricted?
Immaterial. It's also about a woman's rights and autonomy. Besides, considering the myriad of possible health complications associated with pregnancy, a woman's health should be a major concern.
I respectfully disagree....Not your body, not your business..... just sayin. I'm not a fan of abortion after 13 weeks, but again, not my business.
That is the only thing here that I agree with.
I fail to understand what polls have to do with Constitutional law. Suppose 90% were against it? Would that effect it's Constitutional standing? The fact is Roe v Wade had no Constitutional standing. It was a weak decision. Even supporters recognize that fact. You can take solace in the fact that it is extremely unlikely that it will be overturned. The GOP can take solace in the fact that the very idea it might be overturned will turn out pro life voters.
Little to nothing. Although, it can be an indicator or predictor of how the general public will react to certain legal rulings.
Probably not. Although, it might affect future legislation regarding the issue if applicable.
The SCOTUS disagrees. Subsequent rulings to Roe only reinforced that.
Everyone should take solace in that individual rights are preserved.
Somehow, I don't think pro-life voters are that indifferent or silent on the issue.
What it can be is an indicator of how States will go in things left to the States.
Although, it might affect future legislation regarding the issue if applicable.
Not when it comes to precedent established by a 40+ year old Supreme Court ruling
The SCOTUS disagrees.
And they were wrong -As wrong as the "Dred Scott decision" was! There was nothing and I mean NOTHING in the Constitution concerning abortion. Therefore, it should have been left to the States. As I said before, it is very likely that it will remain the law of the land, but at least admit it was an act of Judicial activism.
Everyone should take solace in that individual rights are preserved.
Unfortunately, "everyone" dosen't agree with you. That must seem like an odd concept, dosen't it?
Somehow, I don't think pro-life voters are that indifferent or silent on the issue.
I would venture to say they are probably just like gun rights voters - single issue voters.
Which does not bode well. History has shown some states can be idiots.
Any state attempt to restrict abortion rights, short of outright prohibiting it, may not receive sufficient challenge or contrary rulings to those attempts.
Merely your opinion.
I agree, Dred Scott was wrong.
Oh, so you think somethin must be explicitly stated in the constitution to be legally valid or applicable?
For the most part, it was. until someone realized in infringed on a woman's rights.
Hopefully so.
Nope. It was an action of constitutional interpretation, as is the function of the SCOTUS. Whether it was "activism" or not is largely irrelevant!
This very article you seeded shows otherwise. Don't the polls show most in favor of the right to an abortion. It was the same way with the Obergefell vs Hodges decision. Weren't the states moving to allow same-sex marriage? Hadn't the Federal government always left marriage to the states? If the Court simply held their water for a minute we would have had the acceptance of same sex marriage in all 50 states.
Any state attempt to restrict abortion rights, short of outright prohibiting it, may not receive sufficient challenge or contrary rulings to those attempts.
Remember the Supremacy Clause?
Merely your opinion.
As well as many others, including legal experts
I agree, Dred Scott was wrong.
So, we both agree the Court can be wrong?
Oh, so you think somethin must be explicitly stated in the constitution to be legally valid or applicable?
You bet!
For the most part, it was. until someone realized in infringed on a woman's rights.
Ah, yes, that someone would be activist progressive judges
It was an action of constitutional interpretation
Nope, Judicial legislation
The thing about polls is, they only reflect a certain viewpoint at a certain point in time. A month or year from now, a similar poll may show different results. And don't underestimate a state's ability to be an idiot.
Many were. many were not. There were frequent legal challenges to individual state restrictions on SSM.
No! Not since Loving v. Virginia.
What about it? States do not have the authority to override the federal government.
I never said the court couldn't be wrong.
Good thing the court are not as narrow focused. Otherwise, we could have ended up as a theocracy or not have fair trials, ect..
Judges who recognized and respected women's rights. it seems that you do not.
Tomato, toma-toe.
History has shown that things left up to the states generally does not go well.
Agreed.
Most Americans want Roe v Wade to stand
Most Americans are sensible, and Roe is a sensible compromise.
The problem, of course, is that what most Americans want is of no importance in America today.
"The problem, of course, is that what most Americans want is of no importance in America today."
I know what you mean, right? Most Americans want a secure border and the right to defend themselves too.
Actually, most Americans know that Trump’s border paranoia is nonsense. But Trump keeps pushing it... because... what most Americans want is unimportant to him...
If most Americans thought illegal immigration was nonsense Trump wouldn't have made the border wall his signature issue and defunding ICE wouldn't be a fringe position.
You're joking, right?
Which part do you think is a joke?
Your "logic"!
Yup!
Hilarious!
I agree with all of the above and the right to birthcontrol and abortion
You realize that means they didn't agree with the separation policy in the first place, yes?
Like I said.
I think you'd find that very few "leftists" want totally open borders. Compassionate enforcement of borders, yes. Separation of children from their parents, with the costs that go along with that (paid to for-profit groups, of course) - that's not compassionate, and it is costly.
Please amuse us by telling us who this is, and what makes them "Commie".
Trump's claims of border issues are based on the inherent xenophobia/racism of his voting demographic, just as his claim of the threat to America posed by Muslims and your supposed inability to defend yourself.
Immigrants didn't take your jobs and those jobs aren't coming back if they put children and families in cages. The middle-class jobs of unskilled Americans were taken by robots, and they will laugh at you when they aquire improved AI technology
So every country that wants a border and control over who comes is racist and xenophobic? That must make Mexico and its immigration policy downright fascist. Or is it that when the left has no argument it just tosses accusations around?
As well as Canada and Australia and most other countries in the world.
So you admit to either not knowing the definition of "communism", or using it dishonestly as an insult. No surprise there either way.
Nope, It's a matter of what the Constitution says and many of us will fight to defend it
The Roe decision was decided on the inherent right to privacy from government interference in our most intimate decisions. That right to privacy is the basis of the 4th Amendment. Do you want to repeal the protections of the 4th Amendment from government intrusion when you overturn Roe v. Wade?
Show me "the right of privacy" !!!!!!!!
The Constitution implicitly grants a right to privacy in multiple amendments and has been determined and supported as such by the SCOTUS in multiple cases. Are you suggesting we don't have or should not have a right to privacy?
So I should be able to access your medical records, then?
The 4th Amendment's mandate that the government must get a warrant issued by an impartial judge to search our property is based on our inherent right to privacy from government interference.
It is the ultimate act of irony for you to desire to attack a basic constitutional concept of personal freedom and then somehow you want to declare yourself a patriot for doing so.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Again - from the text - show me the right of privacy!!!!!
E.A " Right to Life " precede all other right, and rightly so without Life one can not expect OR have any other rights!
That amendment is the legal description of our right to privacy despite that the idea is not mentioned verbatim.
Is this argument your statement of forfeiture of your right to privacy? Why do you seek to give the government the power to interfere in your private life? You cannot possibly call someone a statist after you have made this argument.
E.A Until the next " Amendment " or when it is shown that it was an invalid amendment!
Logically a fetus has no rights and cannot have rights because it cannot speak to tell others what it wants. The fact that any right to that you give a fetus takes away rights from the mother, despite the fact that the fetus is a biological parasite that would die without the mother. She would become a second-class person in her own body, even as a victim of rape.
There is no cogent argument for repealing Roe' that does not depend on religious belief.
E.A That Caps it all, Many Thanks I let all those that are " Mute " where by medical reasons or otherwise, respond to that malarkey!
E.A So then it is KNOWN that it is " Alive " again Many Thanks that SCREAMS for the Living Being!!!
E.A so " Rape " is a Greater crime then " Murder " what an interesting magical world some reside in!
And why " Murder " someone not Involved IN that Rape?
Or is one life greater then another, who defines that?
The 4th Amendment could not exist without it. The right to privacy is a basic concept of personal freedom.
That is illogical because abortion is not murder due to the fact that a fetus isn't yet a person with full rights.
the 4th also protects gun rights
Oh please DO give us your argument that the 4th Amendment is invalid.
I can assume that all of the people who say that the 4th is invalid or that we do not have an inherent right to privacy support the USA PATRIOT ACT, the NSA and the warrantless wiretaps of all their electronic devices. The only way that you can defend against those wiretaps is by asserting that we do have a right to privacy from government intrusion. It is utterly insane to claim that we do not have inherent rights or to voluntarily relinquish rights that they apparently didn't know that they had, especially when men never have an abortion.
Textualism is a position of ignorance and submission.
Why?
I don't particularly want to see Roe overturned and definitely want to see some guarantees and exceptions if and when the new SCOTUS decides something about abortion.
That said, the left has pushed so far on other issues that even people who aren't pro lifers have had to prioritize and pick their fights and main issues. The whole abortion issue is much lower on my list than it was before.
E.A care to discuss why it SHOULD be of a higher priority?
It seems like it is to everyone else. I just don't see how a theoretical belief on the exact second life begins takes precedence over issues everyone can see with their own eyes.
E.A " Theoretical "? So you think that all medical Documents about Life are " theoretical " and Sciences that have " theory " are to be discarded?
Makes it hard if you like some positions of each side
In my opinion, any woman who wants Roe vs Wade overruled has to either be mindless, or else wants to be a slave. I wouldn't think that any female member of NT would be either so ignorant or so twisted, although I'm sure there are some around. I'd put them in the same category as the kind of women who are attracted to and want to marry incarcerated murderers or rapists - like the one who married Charles Manson.
It is not most women who argue abut abortion here on NT, and the government, it is mostly men. Why they seem to think that they have the right to control women's wombs would be laughable if it wasn't so pathetic. It seems that some men are still trying to keep women as Chattel that men can have control over every aspect of their lives, even those they are not in any way related to.
Is their manhood that really that delicate?
Agreed.
I'm surprised at you. You can't accept a dissenting view on abortion?
I might have, until I toured the closed to the public ward on the top floor of the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto and saw the monsters they were caring for.
The Issue is more then about " Abortion rights " they have to do with genetics, and what type of genetics are passed on to future generations, and therefore the viability of humanity as a whole!
The Ova that each female has, are set on the time of fertilization, the number is fixed, and the " best are ripened and ovulated first " so then, the longer the delay, the weaker the progeny, and that continues down the line to extinction.
The other point that is often overlooked is the Sperm, and how a vital role it plays one the above mentioned march of events, it is the Sperm that sets the " personality of the Ova " and interesting discovery of that was published only a little while ago, that I am sure most would find it as " amazing reading "
So in Short Sperm and Ova, of the Parents effect the generation yet to come, so selfish choices Now, have a very long lasting implications for generation to come, with NO reversibility in the horizon!
Roe Vs Wade is not about the past or the Present but the Future or lack thereof!
Let's hear it for teen pregnancy! Woohooo!
EA wants teens to get pregnant so now they have to find a way to hide their stretch marks when they change clothes for gym class. How exactly do you design a prom dress so you can nurse your baby at the same time?
The idea of statatory rape, because a teen girl cannot give consent under the age of 14 in most states, should be obvious.
Little wonder then that IVF is skyrocketing, along with the Costs, but what some might not know and are not told, is that IVF means a weaker future generation, and future females that will also need IVF, so we have the Domino effect, and add to that is the Medical complication that are also " part of the parcel " of bad choices made by parents long in the past!
Why is it that society, while claiming to be so " communicative " in actual fact talks very little about the things that really mater, and yet spends HUGE amount of time is so called " Communication Forums ".
Is Talking " communication " why do I think No, it is not, is Hearing , listening, far from it, are we all just becoming " white noise " seems to be the case! and Roe Vs Wade, is a long past, that has left a Huge Chasm, not only in the Gender issues but also in the Medical, now and in times to come!
Oh, good grief. A woman not wanting to conceive a child using the very first ovum that she releases will not lead to weaker future generations, unless many more women than now put off pregnancy for decades.
It leads to a mother who is physically, financially, and emotionally prepared to be a mother, and more likely coupled with a man who is ready to be a father.
Tween girls are ovulating sooner and sooner because of an improved diet and increased amount of growth hormones in our food, so who wants elementary schools girls getting pregnant because of some outrageous and unproven genetic nonsense?
EA
I am agreeing with you. I'm very sorry if you felt it was otherwise.
No, I was also expressing agreement. EA is advocating for young motherhood, with no regard for the maturity or stability of the mother.
I wonder if he thinks older women should have abortions, as he seems so concerned about older women conceiving?
My mind is filled with bizarre forms of both sarcasm and satire at this point because of the absolute idiocy of some of these arguments. If tweens are now encouraged to get pregnant then does that mean that MTV's "16 and Pregnant" would become the After School Specials of my youth? I don't even want to guess what would be the topics of Schoolhouse Rock.
Move over, Sally Ride, Dian Fossey, and Sandra Day O'Connor. We have a whole new crop of role models!
I was waiting for someone to pull out the Sanger card. It shows they have no valid argument left and are desperate. It also shows a lack of understanding about Margaret Sanger or the times and conditions she lived and worked in.
Interesting that you seem to be intentionally glossing over the FACT that more than half of IVF is because of MALE infertility.
How are these alleged 'bad choices made by parents long in the past' calculated? If they exist, what remedy do you propose for those who live today?
BTFW, just for shits and giggles, please explain HOW IVF is related to Roe v Wade. I'll get the mustard.
IVF, is not just about Pregnancy, it is also about mental health and psychological well being.
There are volumes and tomes and plethora of articles littering libraries and the internet about that issue, and it is getting worse as we speak!
The Female Body, like the Male and all living forms, is in large part controlled by chemistry by gene clocks that have been set in times long past.
That is so strong, in that the Brain itself is a " slave " to those chemical changes and they in turn, are " slaves " to the " body clock " no one can delay it or reset it, speed it up, or slow it down " those that says different are only selling " illusions "!
Roe Vs Wade is not a Law, it is far more, it is a social issue, that has Huge ramification!
Many Articles have been written about the need for Females that Crave to have a child but for one reason or another can not, and how their hormonal drive can/is so strong that serious metal and medical issue ensue, from that inability.
Many are forced to spend a small fortune and other a huge fortune trying to correct, that " natural craving " while we have those that are pushing females to a direction that makes it worse as they age!
Woman in their fifties are now giving birth, to children that in only a few years they would not have the stamina to do the very basics for them, so the question is what type of " future generations " will those children propagate?
Roe Vs Wade has created more then " Abortion rights " it has created a plethora of social, economic and mental issues that would take generation IF they can be corrected, I fear some can not be repaired!
AFAIC, Repeal of Roe vs Wade = open season on dominionists.
Abortion: 6 Impacts on the Economy
By Jerry Shaw | Thursday, 16 April 2015 02:15 PM
Here are six impacts abortion has had on the economy:
1. Having babies stimulates the economy. Parents buy items from diapers to college textbooks for people who later produce goods by working at jobs. Fewer babies mean fewer products are made and sold.
Vote Now: Do You Support Tougher Regulations on Abortion Clinics?
2. A baby born today is an American worker in the future, which means contributions to the overall economy. Infants grow up to not only work but also pay taxes. Fewer people mean fewer tax contributions. The Canada Free Press describes legalized abortion as a "financial holocaust" to the U.S.
Since abortion was legalized, the financial impact of those Americans not working or contributing to society could have cost as much as $27 trillion in lost tax revenue.
Does it or does it move costs somewhere else? Moves money that would have been spent on discretionary purchases or savings to baby costs. Which adds more to economy?
Maternity leave is a cost to business.
Childbirth is a major healthcare cost for a healthy baby, much more if there are problems
Good post.
It's "amusing" to see what happens when a banal sentence is actually examined. So much BS gets posted without challenge...
It is a long term view.
So why don't we give amnesty to the 11 million undocumented people living on the fringes of society? More people mean more tax contributions, right?
Does the same apply to babies produced from pregnancies women are forced to carry to term?
Ok.
Then perhaps you can urge EA to answer the same question. Apparently, just having bodies stimulates the economy. Never mind the costs to society. I would argue that adult or teen immigrants might cost less than babies, as we do not have to pay to physically raise them from infancy to adulthood, and may not even have to pay much toward job training, depending on their level of education.
I can relieve you of that emotional burden because you are not paying for voluntary abortions with your tax dollars. The government does not fund abortions except in the case of rape, incest or the life of the mother is in danger.
Kathleen meant she doesn't want to pay for illegal immigrants. She is pro-choice.
Our constitutional rights apply to immigrants as well as indigent citizens, with the exception of the 2nd. An abortion is cheaper than the social safety net, so its also pragmatically cheaper. It's also cheaper than the cost of giving birth in a hospital.
Because we are a very interdependent society that child becomes a fiscal ward of the state, with the expected attendant costs for the next 18+ years, even after the medical costs of a live birth. A $1000 abortion is much cheaper and pragmatically preferable.
THis is why we need to make all birth control forms free and encourage their regular use, especially in those people who might feel social conservative sanction because of premarital sex, those people in school or those people who cannot afford or don't want children.
I've known people who used contraception-- yet the woman got pregnant. (In one case the condom broke...).
That's a double-edged sword. More babies only means more economic allocation to caring for them when they become seniors. We see that in this country today with the aging baby boomer generation.
That only works if population growth is more or less level. Eventually, population growth, especially if large, will have negative effects.
Yup. It's already hard in my area to find a room in a decent nursing home. If your kids are unwilling or unable to take care of you at home, you're cast on the mercy of what is proving to be a fairly merciless state.
That's the other thing, not only is caring for aging adults an economical drain, it may also be a burden on the children of those elderly, especially if they cannot afford nursing or facility care or services. Having more babies isn't going to fix that. it will only exacerbate it later on.
Also, those adult children caring for their aged parents may be having health issues of their own. By the time my grandparents needed a lot of help, several of my aunts and uncles were dealing with heart disease, cancer, and orthopedic surgeries, themselves. If women have children really young, as EA recommends, then by the time their parents are elderly, those women will have quite a few years on them, themselves, and may not be physically able to provide care.
Which only exacerbates the problems for both and places a greater strain on them and the healthcare system.
3. However, a study of banned abortions in Romania beginning in the 1960s had mixed results. Children born right after the family planning ban had better schooling and more success in the workplace, according to the Columbia University study. But the ban significantly affected the growth of poorer families where children had worse educational and job market achievements.
4. Pro-life proponents note that of the 50 plus million Americans lost to abortion, many of them could have made significant contributions to the quality of people's lives. For example, many of those not born could have made advances in medicine, science, business and the arts, according to the Illinois Review.
Sure, they could have.
Or they could have been the next Hitler.
Or gang bangers.
It's very likely, though, considering they'd have been born to women not prepared to raise them (as evidence by the fact that those women had abortions) that they'd have grown up always dependent on the state, undereducated, underrepresented, and unemployed or underemployed.
Funny how those "could have beens" always forget the bad that generally goes along with the good.
Strange, too that these people who are so upset by abortions don't care at all about the ten-times-greater carnage of zygotes that don't implant. If "personhood begins at fertilization" then each zygote that doesn't implant is a "dead baby".
The indifference of the anti-abortion people to the ten-times-greater "non-implantation bloodbath" demonstrates clearly that it isn't really the "babies" that matter. It's all about control over women - putting them where they belong: Kinder, Küche, Kirche.
pencils have erasers to correct mistakes
when you consider marriages because of unwanted pregnancies and cost of child support it is also control over men
True.
I know a woman who conceived both of her children while on the Pill. My own brother was a "pleasant surprise". The unexpected happens. Some couples are able to raise those children. Some aren't.
No it's about valuing human life instead of rationalizing away that life and calling that baby a parasite
Ten times more "babies" die from non-implantation than from abortion... but the "save the babies" folks don't give a damn.
Do you campaign for research budgets to find ways to ensure that every fertilized egg implants? If not, anything you say about abortion and babies is hollow. Contrived.
You cannot ignore ten times more dead babies and be taken seriously.
A "parasite" is an apt description. What about the value of the woman herself or her rights, includi9ng her autonomy and self-determination? Do those things not have value?
No, they don't! A fetus in the early stage of gestation does not resemble a late third trimester fetus. That's pro-life propaganda and ignorance and/or lying.
don't care what they look like, just that they solve the problem
Birth control isn't 100% effective, even if they take precautions.
Where do you get off making life decisions for others? I demand the equal right to make your critical life decisions!
Mostly that. But, for those who do not choose to think for themselves and simply adhere to their political and religious wolves in sheep's clothing, that is what they will believe.
Where do you get off thinking that your beliefs get to decide a woman's medical decisions, instead of only her own? Are women just 3/5s of a person in your patriarchal world?
no, it's all about control of women and their sexual activities, it's all about using women as breeding mares because they made the choice to commit sexual acts with men. It's ironic that you are upset over this since you are religious and your God causes many more abortions per year than humans do, yet you aren't upset with your God - you are only upset with humans who have control over their own bodies.
Handmaid's Tale here we come,
Right back where we started from,
(400 or 500 years ago)
Yep, where men dominated women and the world. Where women were nothing but chattel and treated like manure. Her body belonged to men and she had no choice in the matter but to obey or die.
Thankfully, that is not how Native Americans lived. Women were highly respected and revered. And is still that way to this day.
A purely emotional argument based on a plastic doll.
The formal title is a appeal to emotion logical fallacy.
I'd say both.
Right, and we should listen to pro-life bias, why?
Why? Pro-lifers tend to have a bias in favor of their views.
A lot of thumpers seem to be fearful that their omnipotent supreme being will somehow end up in the medical waste bag after his next 14 year old vessel is scorned and turned away from her born again church, when she claims immaculate conception.
These people are not pro-life. That is logical fallacy because the proper title of their position is forced birth since their concern for the fetus ends at the beginning of the 4th trimester when it becomes a living, breathing child with physical needs.
5. A disproportionate amount of minorities have abortions compared to whites. "The abortion rate for black women is almost five times that for white women," stated Susan Cohen in 2008 in the Guttmacher Policy Review. The black population size in America has remained almost unchanged since abortion was legalized compared to significant growth in other minority populations.
6. A declining birth rate puts a heavier burden on the young to support the old, according to pro-life advocates. China's one birth per family policy implemented in 1979 now has its government struggling with fewer and fewer young workers to support an aging population, according to LifeNews.com. America's similar decline in the birth rate threatens to lead to the same issues.
So? Are minorities being forced to have an abortion? Or are they choosing to do so?
Again, a biased source. An increasing birth rate will also put a heavier burden on the younger population as eventually, there will be a disproportionate elderly population to care for. That's what we see now, both here and in China. Unchecked population growth is inherently unsustainable.
Then why have open borders?
Ask the politicians. I certainly don't agree with open borders.
Zero to little growth. That's the best way to make optimal use of existing resources and sustainability. Large population growth is not only unsustainable, it can also be detrimental.
We have never had open borders. Conservatives want to claim that any criticism of Trump's draconian immigration policy as open borders because that binary response is easy to criticise anyone who is not a xenophobic Trump supporter as being unpatriotic.
Overpopulation is the real problem, I've said that many times
more than 74% of the US is uninhabited (lower 48) 93.9% overall including Alaska
Destroying the myth of overpopulation
Overview of Land Use in the United States- The U.S. has 2.3 billion acres of land. However, 375 million acres are in Alaska and not suitable for agricultural production. The land area of the lower 48 states is approximately 1.9 billion acres.
To put things in perspective, keep in mind that California is 103 million acres, Montana 94 million acres, Oregon 60 million acres and Maine 20 million acres.
Developed Land- Despite all the hand wringing over sprawl and urbanization, only 66 million acres are considered developed lands. This amounts to 3 percent of the land area in the U.S., yet this small land base is home to 75 percent of the population. In general, urban lands are nearly useless for biodiversity preservation. Furthermore, urbanized lands, once converted, usually do not shift to another use.
Rural Residential Land- This category comprises nearly all sprawl and subdivisions along with farmhouses scattered across the country The total acreage for rural residential is 73 million acres. Of this total, 44 million acres are lots of 10 or more acres.
Developed and rural residential make up 139 million acres, or 6.1 percent of total land area in the U.S. This amount of land is not insignificant until you consider that we planted more than 80 million acres of feeder corn and another 75 million acres of soybeans (95 percent of which are consumed by livestock, not tofu eaters) last year alone. These two crops affect more of the land area of the U.S. than all the urbanization, rural residential, highways, railroads, commercial centers, malls, industrial parks and golf courses combined.
Cropland- About 349 million acres in the U.S. are planted for crops. This is the equivalent of about four states the size of Montana. Four crops -- feeder corn (80 million acres), soybeans (75 million acres), alfalfa hay (61 million acres) and wheat (62 million acres) -- make up 80 percent of total crop acreage. All but wheat are primarily used to feed livestock.
The amount of land used to produce all vegetables in the U.S. is less than 3 million acres.
why do you want more and more people?
most of Alaska is a frozen wasteland. A good portion of the southwest US is a desert. Those are hardly inhabitable habitats.
There's no myth. We see overpopulation in many urban areas around the world today. With nearly 8 billion people in the world and rising, it's only going to get worse and spread over time. Perhaps you do not understand what overpopulation means. At what point would you consider the planet overpopulated?
Not to mention the difficulties finding fresh, clean water in some areas.
Indeed. Pollution becomes a serious issue in overcrowded/populated areas.
I live in the Southwest Desert. We grow fruits and vegetables.. there are farms and ranches all around us.
I'd consider possible over population at over 50 billion
Currently approx 38% of the world's population lives in 2 countries, China and India. The US ranks 3rd and yet 80% of our population lives in less than 2% of our land area.
The changing technologies for growing including vertical gardens, aquaponics, hydroponics are changing our sustainability
Saltwater conversion like is done in Israel can transform the ability of nations to have sufficient fresh water
leftists have been on this overpopulation doomsday scenario for many decades. It remains a canard
As long as there are sufficient sources of water to supply farms and ranches, it's possible. But as the population grows, water sources and needs becomes more strained.
That's absurd. We already have problems feeding, housing, and medically caring for the nearly 8 billion there already are. Theoretically, if population growth continues, then we could eventually reach 50 billion people. What then?
And look at how overpopulated they are. And you want the rest of the world to be like that?
And we still have issues with meeting the basic needs of some of that population.
Technology helps. But it only prolongs the inevitable. It's also partly why we have such a large population and growth.
I'm all for desalinization. But Israel is a much smaller country and conversion is more efficient and better suited for it's proportionately smaller population. It's also a costly process which might hinder its utilization as a water source.
No, it remains a reality, especially mathematically speaking.
The American southwest is operating on net negative water supply and could easily become uninhabitable in under 20 years unless something changes.
how long have preachers had us waiting for the second coming?
Almost 2000 years now.
The stars are the solution. Honestly that should be taking up half of our federal budget.
I could support that
If we can't sustain ecological balance on Earth, then why would we do it elsewhere?
What Americans want no longer matters. What the majority of Americans believe no longer matters. It is now just a Republican dictatorship one party rule and unless the real majority votes in indisputable numbers say goodbye to freedom
Attention all Libertarians, Independents and other political parties hoping for getting ahead or ever seeing something beyond a 2 party system.
Republicans are squeezing Democrats and shutting them out due to extreme partisanship and they are the only other major party.
If you think any other views besides the views of Democrats or Republicans will be heard, sorry but no. It is nothing but one party rule, power madness for only one point of view and everyone, I mean everyone will be shut out of the democratic process of being heard.
None of these Republicans will even hold town halls to meet their own constituent voters so what chance does anyone have?
The article posts a one sided liberal view of abortion that does not reflect Gallup and other objective polling sources
We combined data from the 2013-2017 surveys and found that almost half of Americans see abortion as morally wrong, with only 20% saying it should be totally illegal.
https://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/214331/abortion-americans-discern-immoral-illegal.aspx?g_source=link_NEWSV9&g_medium=TOPIC&g_campaign=item_&g_content=On%2520Abortion%2c%2520Americans%2520Discern%2520Between%2520Immoral%2520and%2520Illegal
Luv,
Please report correctly:
On Abortion, Americans Discern Between Immoral and Illegal
standing corrected
However, nothing changes the fact that abortion is murder and murder is always morally wrong and should be illegal.
God kills lots of babies via miscarriage.
God has sovereignty over all life as creator. He knows the future of each one and you don't
Furthermore, most miscarriages were not made by God. miscarriages like other corruptions in us and all creation are the result of the cumulative effects of sin on this creation.
disease is not from God. malformation is not from God. Mutations are not from God. these all come from our fallen and corrupted earth and mankind
So he created everything, but doesn't want credit for the bad shit.
Or maybe you're engaging in some mental gymnastics.
Yeah, it's gymnastics.
Call it what it is, bull shit!
Only in your opinion and you're forgetting the free will thing
Perhaps surprisingly we agree on the above statement, although for differing reasons
In other words, is completely amoral and not a being worth following.
Is god omnipotent? Is god omniscient? If the answer is yes to both then he is ultimately responsible for every single bad thing (miscarriages etc) that has ever happened. And if no to either, then why call it god?
The sin your god created and allowed to happen?
If he is the creator then yes it is.
See above.
see above.
And who allowed us to fall, be corrupted, and whatever the fuck else? Yeah, your god is a total dick. Honestly worse than most people.
What about the plagues he inflicted on Egypt? Boils and death of firstborn are diseases
what about God killing the firstborn of Egypt or everybody but Noah and his family?
Are you recognizing that your position on abortion is religiously inspired?
If so, can you cite a verse which explicitly assimilates a zygote to a baby? Or does God speak to you?
God didn't create the world corrupt. He created a perfect world. It became corrupted because of the sin of mankind, NOT God.
How do you know this? Did you read it in a book? Did someone tell you this? You make grand claims as if factual yet your source of information are unsubstantiated claims by other human beings (mostly ancient ones).
What nonsense. God gets what God wants, right? Everything that happens is because God allows it to happen (or wills it to happen). Either God is omnipotent and omniscient or God is not. Pick a story and then try to stay logically consistent.
God gets what God wants. God is in control. If God did not want disease there would be no disease.
Per God's rules. God makes the rules, God sets the consequences.
One cannot hold God as omniscient and omnipotent and then claim that what happens is not His will. Unless one tosses aside basic logic and just make religious platitudes that are collectively irrational.
All mankind deserved death because of their unholy ways. God spared Noah and his family because he was a preacher of righteousness.
Noah also warned mankind but they refused (even as many do today) to repent and turn from their sins.
Jesus proclaimed when He was on the earth that there will be another time like the time of Noah and it's coming
As to Egypt
Why would God slay the firstborn of the Egyptians?
CLAIM: Why are the people of Egypt held responsible for the actions of Pharaoh? Isn’t this cruel and unusual? They didn’t disobey God. Why would they be held responsible?
RESPONSE: A number of responses can be made:
First, the Egyptians were far from innocent . Pharaoh had murdered all of the infant Hebrew boys by drowning them in the Nile River (Ex. 1:22). Egypt had grown rich by enslaving the Jewish people for 400 years (Gen. 15:13). While Pharaoh carried out this plot, the Egyptian people benefited from his decision to enslave the Jews. Now, the Egyptian people were being held culpable for standing idly by, while this was happening. God had promised to curse those who cursed Israel (Gen. 12:3). If God did not act, he would have been reneging on his promise to Abraham.
Second, while Pharaoh killed every Hebrew infant boy, God only judged the firstborn of Egypt . God’s judgment was mild in comparison to Pharaoh’s judgment. Moreover, the text never states that Pharaoh’s edict (to kill the Hebrew infants) was ever rescinded. It’s possible that the Pharaoh was currently killing the Hebrew boys at the time of the plagues.
hird, some Egyptians escaped from judgment with the Hebrews . Exodus 9:20-21 demonstrates that some of Pharaoh’s own advisors were spared from judgment, during the plague of hail. Exodus 12:38 states that a “mixed multitude” of people escaped Pharaoh along with the Israelites. If these escaping Egyptian households were struck, it isn’t likely that they would flee along with the Israelites. Moreover, even the instructions for the Passover meal mentions the “alien,” who decides to participate in the Passover supper (Ex. 12:19). Therefore, when the text says that “all” of the Egyptian households were struck with a plague (Ex. 12:29), this no doubt refers to those unbelieving households. [1]
Fourth, the tenth plague was last on the list, because it was a last resort . Pharaoh had been warned by God for nine straight plagues. God had given Pharaoh multiple opportunities to change his mind and avoid judgment. Pharaoh, on the other hand, did not give the Jews any “ways out,” when he killed the Hebrew boys. While God waited patiently and gave many chances for repentance, Pharaoh gave none.
Fifth, the firstborn sons of Egypt were below the age of accountability . Isaiah writes that there is an age before a child is able to “know to refuse the evil and choose the good” (Is. 7:16 NASB). The children of Israel were not held responsible for the sins of their parents during the Wandering, because they had “no knowledge of good or evil” (Deut. 1:39 NASB). David said he would go to be with his infant baby, who had died (2 Sam. 12:23). David believed in an afterlife, and he thought that he was going to be with God after death (Ps. 16:10-11), and the New Testament authors claim that he is in heaven, too (Rom. 4:6-8). This demonstrates that his infant must be in heaven. In addition, Jesus implies that little children will be in heaven (Mk. 10:14; Mt. 18:3; 19:14). Because God judged the children of Egypt, he would have brought them immediately into his presence in heaven, because they are below the age of accountability.
Sixth, God has certain moral rights over human life that we don’t . As the author and creator of life, God has a unique right over all human life. Philosopher Richard Swinburne writes, “God as the author of our being would have rights over us that we do not have over our fellow humans.” [2] To illustrate this, a parent has certain rights over their own children, which they do not have over other children (e.g. discipline). Since God is the creator and sustainer of all people, he decides how long we get to live (Ps. 139:16). God takes everyone’s life at some point. It’s called death . We acknowledge this, when a surgeon is bringing someone back to life. We say that he is “Playing God.” God allows everyone to die; the question is – when? We live everyday –not as a right –but by the mercy of God. When God took the lives of the firstborn in Egypt, he was acting on prerogatives that rightly belong to him. In fact, these Egyptian boys probably died in their sleep (“Now it came about at midnight …” Ex. 12:29). Of course, the Hebrew infants were given no such mercy, drowning in the Nile River (Ex. 1:22).
He allowed it, which is the same thing.
Even innocent babies?
Those still in the womb?
It's evil to call a baby evil, IMO.
Your god is said to have done some pretty evil things, and not recognizing that requires one to suspend either one's critical thinking skills or one's moral compass. I choose to abandon neither.
That is all I am saying. Pick one and stick with it. Livefree is the most perfect example of why I simply dismiss religion all together, they have no actual foundation for their belief structure. It changes based upon what the want it to be at any given moment, and I simply cannot respect such a thing.
there is that thing they call original sin, they say we are born with it
Which would mean that god created us that way. Sin included.
They don't believe half of what they say, themselves, when it's followed to it's logical conclusion. It's not even all that long a trip before they start to say "Wait a second, that's not what God meant, or what Moses (or Paul, or whoever) meant when he put pen to paper (papyrus, parchment, or what have you)."
That is false. There is no original sin. The problem is bad translation from the original source, the Torah. God's only punishment for what Eve did was give her pain in child birth and sent them out of Eden.
It absurd isn't it? I mean, if a deity is that fucking sloppy, then why in the hell follow it? I have seen people with below average IQs act with more logic than the biblical god.
You think it's morally wrong. Other faiths do not. Your faith can't dictate to everyone else's. It can only dictate to you.
It always seemed to me that the "original sin" was Eve's curiosity, although I guess Lilith was a bit of a handful for a patriarchal people creating a god myth.
Regardless, God supposedly made both Lilith and Eve, as sinful (I prefer assertive and curious) humans. If God is omnipotent, his creations can't be any better than he creates them to be.
Are you suggesting that god made women inherently superior? If so then I resent such a statement, but will have a very hard time arguing against it (a wife and 2 daughters, I have to be careful with my words) lol. Seriously though from a biological perspective females are significantly more valuable than males. Hence why a species viability is measured in the number of reproducing females ( and by that standard humans were almost extinct 70,000 years ago, only roughly 1,000 reproducing females).
Very well said. Some here seem to think that only their own religious beliefs should prevail above everyone else's, and is the only one that is acceptable. And in that the frame of mind, they condemn or belittle those whose beliefs do not agree with their own.
There is no such things as only one religion, and no one way to worship that religion. The Creator belongs to everyone, not just those who think they are the only ones He cares about.
No. But from a biological perspective, you're right. There used to be a very practical reason for "women and children first". It was a better way to ensure the survival of a community. It wasn't all about chivalry.
Wow, aren't you privy to some special information. Except like every other person on earth, that is only your opinion or belief. So please stop forcing your interpretation of 'god's' most inermost thoughts on the world. Just stop, please, we all have our own moral tenets to follow and don't appreciate being overruled by joe schmoe.
Indeed. Hence why women and children were taken as slaves way back when and men were killed. Biologically, we are expendable. Honestly, from a biological standpoint our entire purpose is to defend the females and the next generation with our lives, little else. Aside from fucking that is.
Well, you also contribute DNA, and too low a population count of either gender is biologically precarious.
Rest assured, though, guys, the world is a better place with you. We need your genetic diversity, but we enjoy your company
Hah, I mentioned the fucking aspect. But I mean, it is rumored that Genghis Kahn fathered like 40,000 children. That is one man, 40,000 women. It doesn't take many of us to maintain a species lol. Genetic diversity is important, but you all can get that with a few dozen of us. As an aside, I do like to think of myself as being decent company
I wasn't sure if you meant the DNA, the company, or both
Aren't they the same thing?
Can be.
Conversation is nice, too, though. With intelligent men, of course.
That's not a fact! That's at best, flat out wrong and an ignorant understanding of the law and at worst, a lie! Abortion is not considered murder, no matter how much you think otherwise. Restricting individual rights for no good reason, like abortion, is morally wrong.
That's nice. Prove it! Because medical science vastly disagrees with most of those assertions!
All that means is god screwed up and created faulty humans. And then he blames those humans for his own screw-ups. Why anyone would worship an incompetent ogre like that is beyond me.
I wonder how much got mixed up in translation, some by error and some on purpose
You didn't answer the first time around, so I'll repeat:
Of course you can cite verses about other topics and then twist them into pretzels in an effort to link them to abortion... but all that "accomplishes" is to demonstrate that the Bible is in fact silent on the topic.
It's rather mind boggling how some theists are so quick to give god praise and credit for everything good or positive, but otherwise give him none of the blame or a free pass for the bad/negative things. Is that not the definition of "zealous?"
Or just in the handing down of oral traditions.
But yeah, we've certainly seen the supposed word of God twisted to suit the purposes of those doing the twisting. Mary Magdalene was vilified as a prostitute for centuries by the Catholic Church.
Or of "willfully obtuse".
That too.
“We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes.”
― Gene Roddenberry
I guess that takes me out of the conversation. lol
Nah. Conversation with you is a pleasure. Your wife is a lucky woman in that respect. Obviously, I can't speak to the other
tornadoes and earthquakes and floods are due to the sin of mankind ? how does sin create disease - could you explain the process to everyone ?
ah, so you'll excuse your God for acts that you condemn humans for because you feel your God has sovereignty - well the moments before you kill someone, you actually have sovereignty over their life and know their future.
miscarriages are made by God since God made humans (by your belief) who have the miscarriages unless you can tell everyone what the specific corruptions are that women have committed that makes them have miscarriages.
these are all from God since you stated God is the "creator" which means your God created everything including evil, disease, mutations, sin etc, since none of it would have existed without being created first by your God.
Evidence Unseen © 2018. All Rights Reserved.
Posting copywritten material without attributing it is VERBOTEN on this site.
I've seen many people on this site and others forget to include their source; I've even done it. It took me less than a minute to find this one. Here you go:
Re: the phrase All Rights Reserved ... times have changed ...
Exactly WHERE do you think I got the copywrite information?
HOW long it takes you or I to find the source is IRRELEVANT.
It is a COC violation and for SOME reason there is not availability of the flagging function on may of the comments in this seed and NO Mod was available to report the infraction to.
Your posting of the link does not LEGALLY mitigate the fact that the original copied and pasted posting is unattributed.
So instead of nicely telling the poster that s/he forgot to include a link (and including it yourself), your real purpose was to get the poster in trouble with our mods. Nice!
Yeah
It's ironic that you recognize that it WOULD cause an issue with the mods but YOUR only comment is to try to diss ME for pointing it out the issue. The reason it is against the CoC to post a verbatim copy and paste from a Copywritten source is a COPYWRITE infringement, which BTFW, is ILLEGAL.
The poster isn't the one who 'gets in trouble'. It's the OWNER of the site that it's posted on. The fines are NOTHING to scoff at.
Again, including it myself does NOT mitigate the infringement. The only way to do that as far as I know is to delete the post, allow the poster to post it PROPERLY and HOPE that the holder of the Copywrite doesn't file a complaint.
Secondly, the poster didn't post the comment as a 'block quote' which infers to me that there was an attempt to mislead the reader to believe that the content was original. That type of misleading post doesn't warrant a 'nice' reply.
Why Would God Slay The Firstborn Of The Egyptians?
I dunno...maybe it because She (God) is anti-Semitic?
I do, because whether or not my wife has a baby is nobody else's fucking business.
There you go.
Too many around here seem to feel that my wife's womb is their property, when in fact it belongs to no one but her.
I think it belongs to her. I think my dried up one belongs to me, LOL.
Ah, yes, we seem to have concluded what is morally right. It's all about a woman having the right to do what she wants with her body - PERIOD! If it's not in the Constitution, we simply write it in! Ah, the progressive mind! No wonder we are at the point of no return in this country. I really hope that the GOP holds the House and gains a SUPER majority in the Senate! Maybe they will leave the country. Canada has plenty of wide open spaces, a beautiful country.
Here is where it is in the Constitution
4th amendment: Right of people to be secure in their person
13th amendment: prohibits involuntary servitude
Oh you are going to recite that activist Court's abstract reasoning?
Here's reason (a real example) for you:
It's called the 5th Amendment - no person can “be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.”
The unborn babies should have been protected under that
So if a court rules in a way you disagree, it's activist? That reasoning is established legal precedent.
The Constitution applies to the already born, not the unborn. Giving constitutional rights to the unborn would only result in the rights of the already born woman to be limited or deprived. How is that constitutional? After all, who in their right mind thinks a zygote should have rights?
Yep, that is just you. Maybe a few others too.
The mother, a real live person, has the liberty to not be pregnant. Same as she has right to cut her hair, get a tattoo, have a tumor or growth removed.
The energy and fluid the being consumed and space taken up belong to her only
So the 5th amendment also supports right of abortion
BTW, unborn babies is an oxymoron .
No it is not!
what is it then?
Yes, it is! At birth, it's a baby. Before birth, it's a fetus. It's strange that simple fact needs to be explained.
So if a court rules in a way you disagree, it's activist? That reasoning is established legal precedent.
To this day, the Court can't show where abortion rights came from in the Constitution
The Constitution applies to the already born, not the unborn.
Says who? The 5th amendment says "no person". I say the unborn child is a person. Prove me wrong. Define when life begins
Actually, they did in the Roe ruling.
The courts.
The courts say differently.
Prove yourself right first. By your reasoning, I can say a tumor is a person too.
When life begins is irrelevant to the issue of abortion. Life and person are two separate things. If you're going to argue from a "life" standpoint, then that's like saying one shouldn't take antibiotics for an infection because a bacteria is "life." Or a tumor is "life." The reason why some pro-lifer arguments fail is because they put too much emphasis on "life." Not only is it logically indefensible, it is also an obvious attempt at an appeal to emotion.
Which is why neither you nor Raven can show me the "right to privacy"
The courts.
Nope, that Court ignored the unborn completely
The courts say differently.
As they did with Dred Scott?
Prove yourself right first. By your reasoning, I can say a tumor is a person too.
By my reasoning nobody has defined when life begins...Do you disagree?
When life begins is irrelevant to the issue of abortion.
It is absolutely essential. It would constitute the "person" covered in the 5th Amendment
It's implied by the 4th and 14th Amendments.
As they should. Because the case involved the rights of the woman in question.
I agreed with you that Dred was a bad decision.
If it's not defined (or even if it is), then how is it relevant to abortion laws and rights?
As I said, the constitution applied to the already born. It's illogical and unfeasible to apply it to the unborn, and for obvious reasons too.
HaHaHa! Yup just like Yul Brynner's hair line was implied!
As they should. Because the case involved the rights of the woman in question.
That's bad law. One set of rights should'nt infringe on another's rights. Sounds like progressive law
I agreed with you that Dred was a bad decision.
And again, it demonstrates that the Court is not infallible. You don't seem to want to go that far?
If it's not defined (or even if it is), then how is it relevant to abortion laws and rights?
Because if it isn't defined we should Err on the side of life, should we not?
As I said, the constitution applied to the already born. It's illogical and unfeasible to apply it to the unborn, and for obvious reasons too.
Even your Roe Court never made such an argument. They simply ignored the unborn. That is one of the major problems with the decision
You don't seem to realize the SCOTUS understood and recognized the implication, and ruled to that effect.
That's your opinion.
That's exactly what you're advocating for if the unborn were granted rights: infringe on the rights of the woman.
What do you mean? I never said the court wasn't infallible. But they're not wrong with the Roe or subsequent abortion rulings.
By that "logic," women should be allowed to have abortions. After all, pregnancy carries many potential complications, including life threatening ones. Therefore, we should err on the side of the life on the woman and allow her to have an abortion.
The Roe case recognized the rights of the woman and established the initial time frame for when abortions were permissible. The case was not about "unborn rights," of which does not legally exist.
I say they are not a person until they are outside, breathing on their own and the cord is cut. Prove me wrong
That's the point! It can't be proven either way. So we Err on the side that the unborn is not alive?
We accept the mother's decision
Whether it's "alive" or not is not the issue. It's when it becomes viable that is pertinent.
Why? because she is able to speak?
Wow! Thanks for the honesty
You're welcome. I always try to be honest, even if bluntly so.
Isn't that enough? Does a woman not have or deserve rights?
You didn't understand that? Let me make it plain - In other words rights only go to those who can speak for themselves?
That so their conscience is at ease and they can sleep at night.
Evidently
Rights go to those who are born. No more, no less.
What do you mean? I sleep just fine.
Your arguemnts are completely irrational and emotional based.
How can a fetus possibly have rights when they cannot tell others what they want? People in a coma or on life support have power of attorney, a DNR or a living will to tell others of their medical choices.
cause she is real and alive
How can a fetus have rights when it cannot speak to tell others what its belief is? The fact that any rights given to the fetus must be taken from the mother is oblivious to you.
I'm afraid a birthday dosen't define when life begins. How about a heart beat?
Life doesn't define when an abortion is permissible or not. Neither does a heartbeat define life. it seems you want make up your own definition of "life."
If it can't be determined when life begins we shouldn't be performing abortions. That's the moral argument. The fact that nobody can show the constitutional predicate to the decision is the legal argument.
I leave this one to the reader.
Good night
Correct. This can be heard in a human fetus at 6 weeks. Deniers will also ridicule fetal EEGs that measure an unborn baby's brain activity. The fetus' brain starts regulating the heart around 17 weeks.
As far as I know, most forms of animal life cannot successfully function/survive for very long without a brain and heart.
E.A Does Life come from something " dead " Is the OVUM living or is it dead?
A living ovum doesn't really help your argument. If we let the deaths of ova and sperm become illegal, we're gonna be locking up every woman after every period, and a lot of teen boys on the regular.
E.A so then you accept that the OVUM is living, is Sperm living?
Shocking how easy it is for you to usurp the rights of the woman for your own personal philosophy, imposing your belief system on all women, disregarding their circumstances or feelings. Jesus, you give zero fucks about living, breathing children, right here! Or do only legal American children count? Trying to understand this leap from 'rights and freedom' to taking a woman's right to make her own damn health decisions, fretting about how much this life matters, when that same concern is NOT shown once outside the uterus. Should i mention how your party also wants to make it harder and more expensive for contraception? They always start with the assumption that any pregnancy is some mistake or fault of the woman too (slut shaming is often part of the conversation). Most of the men don't even understand female reproductive physiology! Stop trying to use a christian sharia type of excuse to keep controlling women.
E.A So you see every fertilized EGG the same as one that has NOT be fertilized?
Many in the Husbandry industries would like to hear from those with similar thoughts
Legally life begins at birth when the fetus is a child independent of the mother. The bible says in Genesis 2.7 that you are a person when you breathe air.
E.A Only till that " legal definition " is changed!
Yes. That does not grant them rights, though. Every cell in my body is alive. I'm not legally required to keep them all until they're dead, though. I've had my wisdom teeth and a tumor, both containing living cells, removed at my own discretion. They were contained within my body, and they were alive, and now they're not.
Does this mean that if I buy Kotex or OB tampons that I am admitting to murder? Will Rite-Aid and Walgreens have lawyers on staff to defend us?
Almost 1/2 of fertilized eggs do not implant so there are going to need a lot of new prison cells for the many murderers that this ignorant law would create.
I can only think of sarcasm at this point.
What is your new definition of life that can be scientifically and legally defended?
E.A So Progress at last.
Living Ova Living Sperm = Living Foetus!
So the Disagreement now seems to be the " right to termination " is that right?
E.A See ::
19.4.15 Eagle Averro replied to sandy-2021492 @19.4.12 a minute ago
E.A So Progress at last.
Living Ova Living Sperm = Living Foetus!
So the Disagreement now seems to be the " right to termination " is that right?
You can have a heartbeat and still be brain dead.
Pretty much. By EA's reasoning, every period and every male masturbation session is murder.
Every Sperm Is Sacred!
Pssst! You just showed your hand. By comparing human reproduction to animal husbandry, you pretty much told us all that you see women as broodmares.
Now I'll let you in on a little secret: we already knew that.
I guess only eunuchs will oversee the jailed population.
Morality is subjective and cannot be legislated. As I already said, life is irrelevant to the abortion issue. It's about legal rights. And the SCOTUS itself has already interpreted the constitution with regards to abortion, as is their responsibility.
If a single sperm is wasted, god gets irate. LOL
(deleted)
No comment..........
DNA, which determines a transgendered person's biological physical gender doesn't conclusively determine that same person's gender identity.
An ovum and sperm combined makes a zygote. Not a fetus.
What baby? There is no baby in an abortion or before birth. So your argument not only fails on that point alone, it's also an obvious appeal to emotion.
Some people seem to have different ideas as to what constitutes "life." Some think it's at conception. Others seem to think it's when there's a heartbeat detected. Some put too much emphasis on "life." That's one reason why "life" is irrelevant to the abortion issue or rights. Neither is it the measure by which abortion is permissible or not.
Neither the heart or brain is significantly developed at 6 weeks. Even a single cardiac cell can "beat" when subjected to an electric signal. But a heartbeat is not and should not be the determining factor for "life." After all, brain dead people are considered dead even if they still have a heartbeat.
That's what I thought it says
do you think you should be able to change it?
Classic Monty Python. Lol
But a birthday is something legal, 21 of them and you can legally buy a beer, 18 of them and you can vote and 63 of them you can collect Social Security. Only on your birth certificate it is shown as the exact minute.
You can not prove the exact minute the egg and sperm did their thing so it is not a legal time. This is needed because exact time is needed for voting. Before midnight of the correct date and not eligible to vote after midnight OK to vote. Live births give exact time to put on birth certificate. Exact time of heartbeat can't be proved either.
That shoots down both heartbeat and union of sperm and and egg as the start of life.
I wanted to post it earlier, but my son was hogging my computer, and posting from my phone or tablet is a pain. I've had that song stuck in my head since EA started up about ova.
Nope.
But I still shed an ova (or two, maybe, as fraternal twins run in my family) every single month that could. Does that ova have a right to develop just because it's alive? Do sperm that aren't ejaculated into a vagina have that right?
No.
Life doesn't convey the right to continued life, especially when that continued life comes at the cost of an already-living and sentient being.
I wish that I was intelligent enough to state the idea so clearly.
You are, and I believe you have. Everything you've written here has been coherent, well-reasoned, and insightful.
My writing ability has always been a weak point for me. I write something that I think sounds reasonable and intelligent at the time. I then I look back on the same paragraph 2-3 days and wonder why I did not edit it and improve it.
I feel like an idiot 75% of the time. I often wonder how I have managed to survive this long without doing something incredibly stupid that proved to be fatal.
Oh, I do that all the time, too. And there are plenty of days when the idea I want to express is there in my brain, but I just can't get it onto the screen.
And I know we've never met in person, but I've NEVER known you to be an idiot.
Most of the time I have 5 different ideas running through my head. I learned many years ago that I can often think clearer and solve a problem not by working harder but my taking a break, walking away and doing something mindless like cooking, cleaning or working in the garden where I often get Eureka moments.
I feel like my sarcasm has become a crutch and I am trying to do better. I learned long ago that I could get laughs with my sarcasm and even since that day in high school I have been more public with the sarcasm, occasionally to the detriment of logical thought.
I figure things out on the treadmill. I really should get on that thing more often
My primary language is sarcasm, and it's something I have to work at, too. My whole family is sarcastic to some degree, so it's just how I grew up communicating. My son has had a sarcastic mouth on him since he was a toddler, and it gets him in trouble sometimes. It's just not suitable for all situations, more's the pity.
FWIW, I don't think stupid people do satire or sarcasm well. My favorite author is Jane Austen, and she was a mistress of satire, sometimes gentle and sometimes not.
I have a treadmill but I hate it because I get bored very quickly starting at the wall, a book or a tablet. I'd rather go outside to walk instead of spending 30 minutes on a treadmill or stationary bike.
I have learned to keep my sarcasm under control in person but I end up just looking at the person like a lost puppy, smiling and walk away shaking my head. I have a few epic one-liners that are definitely not PC. My closest friends get to enjoy them but I wouldn't dare mention them in public. Most people think that I am shy and shocking polite because it is a safe response.
I read a book about 25 years ago that was akin to Thelma and Louise after a bad divorce, but I didn't write the author's name down. I have tried to track the book down so I could read anything else she wrote. John Gierach is incredibly funny if you like fly fishing.
I'd rather be outside, too, but it's too damn hot here right now to walk very far, even in the mornings. I take my dog for walks, but when he starts laying down in shady spots and resisting me when I try to get him to move, we head home and stop at the creek to cool down (my avatar). Lately, we haven't been getting very far.
When I use my treadmill, I read an e-book on my tablet, and that occupies my mind enough for a while.
Most of my friends get my sense of humor, but I tend to tone it down at work because some patients might take offense. Not all of them, of course, and I'm pretty good at telling which ones I can joke with and which ones I can't, and how much.
I am also not a hot weather person. I would much rather be cold than hot. I'm probably about 2+ hours north of you and its still +75° at midnight.
I used to walk at night bit likely I get up at 5:00 and do my 2.5 to 3 miles then. Its disappointing to me that I can walk for 3+ miles and still burn less than 400 calories. That doesn't seem to be fair.
I don't mind hot weather so much, but I have my limits, and the heat index is in triple digits this weekend. And the dog's limits are even shorter than mine. I'm not a morning person, and I don't like walking near my house until it's light out, anyway, because I live in the sticks and we have bears around.
Bears would certainly be a deterrent to early morning walks. All I ever have to deal with are dogs, skunks, raccoons, bunnies making more bunnies, the occasional deer or catcalls from truck drivers when I have to cross the state highway.
The last time I saw a bear was about 15 years ago when I was hiking on the Appalachian trail in NC. I also saw a bobcat on that trip.
Don't feel bad about that calorie burn. Three miles an hour is average. Do that 4 or 5 times a week. Plus lots of planks. (just kidding)
One came in on my front porch last summer, I think. Maybe the summer before. I didn't even hear it, but the dog did, and went nuts. I went to the door and saw a huge furry butt headed down the porch steps. The neighbors feed stray cats on their deck, and have attracted bears that have become way too comfortable around humans.
So, no walks when bears are likely to be around.
I have a pedometer app on my phone and the past 3 weeks I have walked more than 15 miles per week.
I was depressed the first time I walked after downloading that app. I got home, took a shower and looked at my phone. I was going to have a cup of Greek yogurt because I thought that I had earned it. Once I saw how little I had burned, I put it back in the fridge and poured another glass of cold water from the pitcher.
Great. Now I have that song stuck in my head. Thanks a lot. Lol
When you wake up hearing it in the middle of the night - you're welcome :D
Walk whenever you want but make lots of noise.
I make noise, but over the last few years, the bears have just been too close for comfort, and not scared of people. My neighbor was spray-painting a craft project in her front yard last year, looked up, and saw a bear watching her from about 30 feet away, just across her driveway. The one most people have seen lately (I haven't seen him, except in pics) is one that's obviously sick, so I don't want to test how he'll react.
I was getting ready to go to bed a few minutes ago but apparently one of the local stray cats had a real estate dispute with Pepe' LePew because the entire neighborhood smells like skunk.
Try this link, it might give you ideas on how to search for the book...
Quite an angry rant there, lib50. Too bad it didn't address the fetal scientific facts I presented in comment 19.4.4 .
That may be worse than a bear encounter.
The smell dissipated by about 3:00 am. I had to clean the filters on the AC unit to get them oder free this morning so it must have been a very juicy skunk.
Ah-- so that's why the French call it La Petite Mort!
What galls me the most about all of this is people just can't mind their own fucking business.
People have no right or need to stick their noses into other peoples very personal decisions.
In my observations, the holier than thou people tend to have more skeletons in their closet.
Birth control isn't 100% effective, even if they take precautions.
Where do you get off making life decisions for others? I demand the equal right to make your critical life decisions!
I Eagle Averro, Like to state that I have enjoyed, participation on this seed.
But regretfully " All good things come to an end "
So till next time and the next seed.
" I'll be Back!!"
And we enjoyed having you EA!
Most people might support a constitutional right to free cookies. The question isn’t what rights people want to have but what rights they actually have under the constitution. If the right doesn’t exist under the constitution, then it should be left to the states.
It’s not the Court’s function to stick it’s finger in the air, figure out which way the political wind is blowing, and then make up some right that doesn’t exist just because people or judges think it’s a good idea. This kind of legislating from the bench is politicizing the court, eroding the separation of powers, and turning judicial appotments into a circus where the objective becomes to force the nominee into saying that he will base his legal opinion on political views.
If states got to decide who has rights and who doesn't, me may have very well continued to have slavery or bans against interracial or Same sex marriage. There's a reason why such things are not left to the states and why Federal and SCOTUS judicial review is necessary. The SCOTUS reviews the Constitution to determine what rights exist or how its applied. It seems you think individual states should be allowed to restrict individual rights or freedoms?
Your view seems disconnected from the constitutional framework. The federal government was created by the states (colonies) and it was intended to have limited control. Each state intended to maintain its individual sovereignty, ceding only specific authority to the federal government. In order to make the answer to your question clear, the constitution was amended by adding a 10th amendment stating that any authority not specifically delegated to the federal government is retained by the states. Therefore, states have an unequivocal right to govern within each state’s borders and that includes the right to determine who can do what. So yes, individual states are allowed to restrict individual rights and freedoms and they do it every day.
The reason for the Civil War centered around state sovereignty. There was never any real question that the southern states could, as a mattress of state sovereignty, maintain slavery. But it was clear to the south that the north would undermine that right so they walked out of the union (no, I’m not saying slavery was morally right). That triggered the Civil War which, in turn, ended slavery. War ended slavery, not the SCOTUS, and the constitution was amended to ensure that states couldn’t effectively re-enslave people. If you want a constitutional right, then the way to do it is to amend the constitution to include it rather than invent a right under the guise of interpreting the constitution. If a court invents rights like a federal or state legislature, then it becomes a political body and the result is the current circus surrounding judicial nominations.
The 13th and 14th amendments were specifically enacted to give blacks equal status. Prohibiting interracial marriage is inconsistent with the purpose of the amendment so SCOTUS had solid grounds for its decision.
Abortion has no solid constitutional foundation and is a classic example of the judiciary making up a right as though it were the legislature and then imposing it on everyone else. Same sex marriage is another one because marriage was always subject to state law. No part of the constitution was ever contemplated to create a right of same sex marriage when the union would be based on a sexual act that was illegal in every state. Because neither right is addressed in the constitution at all, it should have been left to the states.
Supreme Court justices are appointed for life so they can be free of political pressure and make sound legal decisions. If the court is using that to basically enshrine their personal views on social issues, then we will create an unstable legal system where subsequent courts will feel much freer to undo what prior courts have done.
that all changed after the civil war, all States lost most power then
They can't if it conflicts with the Constitution or relevant SCOTUS rulings.
The Constitution can also be interpreted by the SCOTUS to determine if certain rights are inherent or implied. Laws which prohibit or restrict certain rights can be challenged through due process, advancing up through the courts and to the SCOTUS, which has final say on the matter. Rights aren't created, but they are inferred or assumed to exist and the SCOTUS can make that determination.
Just as it had solid ground for its decision regarding privacy and abortion.
Wrong!! What you fail to understand is that anything is allowed or permissible unless there is a law against it. If there is, then those laws can be challenged in the courts through due process. Laws against interracial/same sex marriage and abortion were challenged and deemed unconstitutional and overturned by the SCOTUS, thereby making those things permissible and an inherently recognized right. So no new rights were created. It almost seems as if you oppose more rights being recognized or granted to people.
That statement begs the question.
Its not inherent or implied simply because you think the right should exist. There is no reference in the constitution at all, inherent or otherwise, to a right to privacy and certainly not to abortion. If we were talking about inherent rights, then a child’s right to live is at least as inherent as the mother’s right to kill it. But it’s not a constitutional right at all and should have been to the states to handle.
No it's not. The whole purpose of the 13th and 14th amendment was to ensure that former slaves had the same freedom as everyone else. That included the right to marry without regard to race. The drafters of those amendments would likely have fallen on the floor laughing if asked whether that also includes the right of men to marry each other since no one would have ever contemplated anything so ridiculous.
You’re confused. Rights can be created by legislatures or by amending the constitution but not courts. Of course you can do anything unless it’s prohibited by law and anything that’s prohibited can be challenged as unconstitutional. However, it’s not unconstitutional just because you don’t like the law. I’ve already explained the difference between abortion and interracial/same sex marriage so there’s no need to repeat it. Suffice it to say (again) that any right created on the whim of a court to promote its personal view of a social issue can be undone by a subsequent court just as easily. And it can yo yo back and forth until the court realizes that it should stop acting like a legislature and act like a court.
Legal abortion is based on the right to privacy from government interference in our personal lives.
A state cannot ban what the government allows. Marriage is subject to state law because LGBT couples have to abide by the same laws as heterosexuals. The ruling on LGBT marriage is legally idential to the ruling on interracial marriage, being that marriage is a right for all people. If you want to prohibit LGBT marriage then you would also ban interracial marriage. The state of Virginia and a few others also banned interracial marriage, usually for the same conservative religious beliefs that were used to defend DOMA laws.
Judicial review, especially by the SCOTUS, makes that determination.
There is no right to kill a child.
And that's where you're wrong.
The 13th prohibits slavery. That was a natural response after the Civil War.
As you can see, when left to the states, "rights" is not always recognized. That's why we have judicial review of laws when the recognition or application of rights comes into question or challenge.
See previous statement. The Founding fathers knew they could not account for every possible social change or issue. hence, the courts step in to address them.
Speak for yourself.
Again, the courts are not creating rights. it recognized rights that are already there or otherwise being denied. Such issues cannot even be addressed by the court until it reaches them through due process. Then the courts act as the arbitrators in the determination of the existence of rights or the constitutionality of prohibiting them.
Whether I like a law or not is irrelevant. It's what the court says that matters.
There is no difference. They are both rights of which there were laws against and the SCOTUS had to intervene through due process.
Never in the entire history of the court has a right been rescinded once granted or recognized. To do so would set a very dangerous precedent.
Except the court is acting like a court: it reviews legal matters and determines the outcome based on its interpretation of the constitution.
If a right doesn't obviously exist in the US Constitution then it is up for the Supreme Court to rule on if the various state level decisions are mixed. The constitutionally defined role of the Supreme Court is constitutional interpretation.
You were supposed to learn this concept is your high school civics requirement.
Your understanding is flawed. When courts at the state level differ on constitutional interpretation, then the Supreme Court resolves the dispute but that doesn’t remotely mean that the Supreme Court can simply make up a right as part of its review. If the right doesn’t actually exist under the constitution, then the court should say so and each state’s legislatures would then be free to permit or deny the activity as it sees fit.
In any event, creating rights is within the exclusive perview of the legislature and when the court creates rights as if it were a legislature, then it is not performing its constitutional role.
The court doesn't make up any right. The court determines if states laws prohibiting certain rights are constitutional or not.
The court can interpret the constitution to determine if a right actually does exist or not.
The legislature (local, state, or federal) creates laws. The courts determine if those laws are constitutional or not.
There as many as five different methods of constitutional interpretation that you are unaware of existing because you seem to be an originalist who believes that only black letter law is relevant, until you want to make something up for a ruling that you cant support with originalism. Antonin Scalia was famous for that conduct, despite his claim of being a strict originalist.
You appear to either be ignorant of or oppose the most basic concept of personal freedom that says that we have the right to act unless there is a compelling reason to limit that activity
The Supreme Court is not creating any new rights. It is merely saying that the previous ban of that action was unconstitutional because that right to act always existed. Nobody has previously asked the question.
Let's get down to the nitty-gritty. What is the compelling state interest to prohibit either LGBT marriage equality or abortion?
The article says that there are five sources that have guided interpretation not five methods. The first three are routinely used, the last two are not. I would be closer to what Bork was talking about and I think, over time, he’s been proven right. The court has been making up law as though it were a legislature and, in doing so, has politicized itself. Bork cautioned about it and Scalia did too. But, by all means, keep it up. As each subsequent president appoints more judges likely to be ideologically reliable, the court will cease to be an unbiased arbiter.
And you appear to lack even the most basic understanding of (among other things) a balance of powers, state sovereignty, and judicial limits. Obviously, you have the right to do something unless somebody says you can’t. However, when somebody says you can’t, it doesn’t mean they acted unconstitutionally just because you can’t do what you want. So under your naive view of the law, if you think you think you should be able to do something, then a good judge will bend the law or make it up to give you what you want. And to me, that judge by definition is awful.
I am well aware of the concept of the balance of power.
State sovereignty is ultimately a myth because when push comes to shove the power of the federal government is almost always superior. We could not be a cohesive nation if it was otherwise.
What is the legal reasoning for that denial of action? There must be a legally valid and compelling reason to say no to any action by the citizens. The right to do as we want is the basis of personal freedom. Like the legal concept that we are innocent until proven guilty, we likewise have a right to act unless there is a compelling reason to say no.
Given that the 10th amendment says that all power not specifically delegated to the federal government is reserved to the states, the question is what in the constitution prohibits a state from refusing to permit abortion or gay marriage? Answer: nothing. Your view was that we can do anything that’s not prohibited. So can States.
The 10th amendment doesn't automatically overrule the previous 9. That 10th Amendment concept could be used to invalidate almost every SCOTUS decision is your idea was permitted and would violate the Supremacy Clause in Article 6, Clause 2. The states or cities are prevented from trampling on the inherent rights of the citizens because that would be tyranny. The legal protections of the US Constitution apply to all levels of the government. You should refresh yourself with the Incorporation Doctrine of the 14th Amendment.
Your obvious authoritarian views notwithstanding, the states cannot prohibit any action because it is not a black letter law. Once again, what is the compelling state interest to ban either LGBT marriage or abortion?
Try again, but with facts.
That’s total nonsense. State sovereignty has always been recognized and we operate just fine.
The Bill of Rights is the first 10 amendments to the constitution. They have been called a clarification of the limits in federal power and, in case you didn’t get it after the first nine, the 10th one says that all rights not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states. So applying your analogy to the states, they can do whatever they want unless there’s something in the constitution that says they can’t. The court is making up limits on state rights by fiat. That’s ok I guess if you don’t mind a subsequent court undoing it the same way.
The Supremacy Clause says otherwise,
The balance of power shifted even more towards the federal government after the Civil War.
The Supreme Court cannot review and overrule any previous decision without a constitutionally valid reason to revisit that decision. Legally it is known as being ripe.
Of course it doesn’t overrule the precious nine nor does it invalidate anything. It says exactly what it means. Unless there is something in the constitution prohibiting it, then the state can do whatever it wants.
Compelling state interests is only an issue if a state is impacting a right and has no bearing at all if the right doesn’t exist in the first place.
Read it again, this time understanding that your opinion is not a fact.
So why was the federal mandated 55 mph speed legal?
The Suoremacy Clause is only in play if state and federal law are in conflict and the federal government had constitutional authority to take action. Otherwise, state sovereignty is completely unaffected.
State sovereignty is the same.
Not so. If the Supreme Court grants certiorari, then the matter is ripe for review. Although a court doesn’t usually overturn its precedent, it can do so any time it feels like it. Which is the problem with legislating from the bench. What one court can do, another can undo.
The protections of the federal constitution apply to all citizens in every state so the individual states cannot trample of what the federal government allows. We are not limited to what is purely black letter law because the Constitution was never intended to be an absolute listing of our rights. It is a statement of ideas and the limitations of the government so as to protect the freedom of the people. The internet is not listed as a right in the Constitution, so get off the 'net.
We have a right to do as we choose unless their is a compelling reason to prohibit that action, but you want to turn that idea on its head as suggest that unless we are permitted to act via black letter law that action its illegal. You are an authortarian that opposes personal freedom.
Don't project your lack of knowledge on me.
Because they’re either interstate and/or federally funded. Otherwise the state can do whatever it wants.
It wasn't mandated. It was a condition of receiving federal highway funds.
No, it’s not just a collection of ideas or suggestions. If a particular state power is not limited by the constitution or delegated to the federal government, then the state can do whatever it wants.
You first,
A state has the right to do as it wants unless something says that it can’t. If I’m an authoritarian for simply acknowledging that reality, then you are a contrarian for ignoring it.
same thing, they just used withholding money to have their way
What is the compelling state interest of the individual states to support denying LGBT people equal marriage rights or prohibiting abortion? Our constitutional rights and freedoms are not limited by state borders. How are you harmed in any way by LGBT marriage equality or abortion?
Your belief that we only have the enumerated rights in the Constitution or the proceeding Bill Of Rights would have made that document obsolete by the time of the Civil War. The idea that we have the right to act until you can prove that there is a compelling state reason to prohibit that activity seems to be very insutling to your authoritarian beliefs. Freedom means that we don't have to ask permission from either the state or the majoirty. The fact that we have guaranteed equal rights means that the majority cannot decide what rights that the minority enjoys, especially via the citizen's ballot box
The state can pass almost any law they can get sufficient signatures for, but the federal courts will step up and squash it as unconstitutional when it becomes effective.
Those who have religious objections need to wait until the judgement day you say is coming and let your God decide if abortion is bad. until then it is none of your business.
The 10 Amendment (copied from Wikipedia)
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people
Notice last part "or to the people"
Because the uterus is only in my body.
Your argument is obviously emotional in nature. You should try to avoid that in your reply.
Can the government make you provide bone marrow tissue, if you don't want to? NO!