If you are a person of the Christian faith, one of the tenants (??) of our faith is free will.
WRONG. Some other religion, perhaps.
One of the tenants (?? tenets, perhaps??) of our democracy is that we have a separation of church and state
WRONG - not in the Constitution, at least not the way you think
under no circumstances are we supposed to be imposing our faith on other people. And I think this is an example of that effort
WRONG again - not killing someone doesn't impose a particular religious faith on anyone
You going to let her get away with the Dem talking point "our democracy"?
Seriously, lately I'm pretty sure there's a coordinated effort to push that phrase.
Gillibrand: Anti-abortion laws 'against Christian faith'
"If you are a person of the Christian faith, one of the tenants of our faith is free will. One of the tenants of our democracy is that we have a separation of church and state, and under no circumstances are we supposed to be imposing our faith on other people. And I think this is an example of that effort,"
Gillibrand:
under no circumstances are we supposed to be imposing our faith on other people.
Gillibrand, who is Catholic, said the Hyde Amendment, which bans federal funding for abortion, should be abolished, reproductive healthcare should be guaranteed in every state, and the Supreme Court’s ruling that legalized abortion nationwide should be written into law.
Thou shall not kill
Thou shall not lie
"Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., said she views abortion laws as being "against Christian faith" on Thursday."
Regardless of what one's views may be on the abortion issue, this gal ain't very smart. And... comin' from me, that's sayin' a lot !
This seems to be something Democrats are prone to, just like Pelosi, Waters and many others, Gillibrand entered the Twilight Zone and then took One Step Beyond.
Error 404 (Not Found)!!1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbUEfmw2ZGE#)
Roberts will not go against abortion. I suspect he is a eugenics supporter, as is all who believe in abortion, even unknowingly. And I do not trust Kavanaugh either to be against abortion.
Thou shall not kill
Thou shall not lie
"If you are a person of the Christian faith, one of the tenants of our faith is free will. One of the tenants of our democracy is that we have a separation of church and state, and under no circumstances are we supposed to be imposing our faith on other people. And I think this is an example of that effort," Gillibrand said.
I don't want a justice who will be against abortion. I want a justice who will simply follow the Constitution and not legislate from the bench.
I don't want a justice who will be against abortion. I want a justice who will simply follow the Constitution and not legislate from the bench.
Legislation requires the action of legislators, not courts. What's that you say - there's no stomach to lock up few million women each year for murder? Then try the route of persuasion rather than conversion and don't enlist the Courts to do your dirty work for you.
Why is that, when the liberals levered the courts to begin with? Good for the goose is good for the gander.
Because for 40 years now women have relied on the Constitution's protection of their liberty.
If that liberty is to be denied, it must not be done by the Court, but by the action of the Peoples' elected representatives.
Amend the Constitution if you believe a woman's liberty can be trumped by her fetus.
But to overturn Roe now, after 40 years of women relying on the liberty it protects, would be the height of "legislating from the bench".
The inhibition of such action lies behind the concept of "stare decisis".
Yes, there are occasional Court decisions that do not match the political mood of the nation.
And if Roe is not one of them, the solution is to amend the Constitution to provide that a fetus has the same Constitutional rights and protections as a born citizen.
Then you can declare first trimester abortion to be murder and lock up a few million women per year.
Legislation requires the action of legislators, not courts.
What's that you say - there's no stomach to lock up few million women each year for murder?
Then try the route of persuasion rather than conversion and don't enlist the Courts to do your dirty work for you.
If that liberty is to be denied, it must not be done by the Court, but by the action of the Peoples' elected representatives.
Because for 40 years now women have relied on the Constitution's protection of their liberty.
If you are unwilling to follow the Constitution now, what difference will it make to add another Amendment?
A similar argument was made in favor of keeping segregation in 1954. I also seem to remember hearing George Wallace say something like "Abortion today, abortion tomorrow, abortion forever!" while clinging to a 40+ year so-called 'right'.
Another Catholic politician that is in serious need of being excommunicated.
There is not one word in the Constitution that provides rights in any way, shape or form to a pre-viable fetus.
The woman's liberty is the only thing at stake
and the Tenth Amendment does not give the states the right to deny rights guaranteed by the Federal Constitution.
If you don't like that, then amend the Constitution to provide that a first trimester fetus has the rights of a born citizen.
You won't do that, of course, and instead demand the Court do your dirty work for you.
Roe didn't deny a woman's liberty, it is confirmed such liberty is protected under the Federal Constitution.
The pre-viable fetus?
You better exercise your powers of persuasion, because it has no legal rights vis a vis the mother.
It is the woman's responsibility, and no one else's.
What I'd like to see a Democrat say is yes, abortion may be legal, but it is morally wrong. Bill Clinton came closest, when he declared that abortion should be safe, legal and rare.@Jazzhead
What happened to the rare part? The procedure is practically celebrated these days by the Dems, who seek to fund it, encourage it, and ensure that even those who survive it can be conveniently disposed of. There is a principled position that concedes a woman's liberty, but urges that she do the right thing.
That is what is missing from the Dems' current rhetoric, and it is why they are morally bankrupt.
If I had to choose a “dumbest†Democrat running for president today I guess I’d confer that distinction on Kirsten Gillibrand. After all, she’s been groomed by the best.More at Michelle Obama's Mirror (http://www.michellesmirror.com/2019/05/the-arc-of-history-bends-towards-dumb.html#.XOKsHdh7nIV)
(https://s.newsweek.com/sites/www.newsweek.com/files/styles/embed_tablet/public/2017/11/17/hillary-clinton-kristen-gillibrand.jpg)
“OK, got it: before 5:00 pm always have your staff serve the booze in teapots.â€
But what has she done to claim that distinction? Well, this:Quote“If you are a person of the Christian faith, one of the tenets of our faith is free will. One of the tenets of our democracy is that we have a separation of church and state, and under no circumstances are we supposed to be imposing our faith on other people. And I think this is an example of that effort.â€Such is the nature of “logical†thought today. I don’t know if Kirsten actually believes what she argued - especially since she is a politician which means pandering is her primary skill set - but I doubt she can point to the bible passage that says it’s a tenet of Christianity to kill unborn children. Anymore than she or anyone else can point to the passage in the U.S. Constitution that purportedly confers the same “right.†You only find such things in the New Postmodern Bible and the Living Constitution. ...
Thou. Shalt. NOT. Kill.
But to overturn Roe now, after 40 years of women relying on the liberty it protects, would be the height of "legislating from the bench". The inhibition of such action lies behind the concept of "stare decisis".
his $15,000 a year, 28-year-old law clerk (George Frampton Jr.) wrote the history for Roe v. Wade and I couldn’t believe it,†Browder exclaims. “I was stunned!â€
While Blackmun’s writing lacked flair, his young clerk, Frampton, was an excellent writer. He had been managing editor of the Harvard Law Review prior to his graduation in 1969. Frampton volunteered to stay in Washington during the summer of 1972 to help Blackmun research and draft opinions. The two talked by phone almost every day, Browder discovered.
Frampton had stumbled upon a highly persuasive book, Abortion, written by Larry Lader. It was a “masterpiece of propaganda,†according to Browder. Lader’s “story was laced with poisonous half truth, limited truth, and truth out of context.â€
“When Blackmun accepted Larry Lader, a mere magazine writer, as a reliable authority on history, philosophy, and theology, he became a blind man following a blind guide,†Browder notes in her book.
“Lader set himself up as an authority on centuries of abortion legal history and also on two millennia of Catholic teachings about abortion – and Blackmun and his clerk fell for the ruse.â€
Lader’s Abortion book was cited at least seven times in the final Roe decision. The other major influence on the historical underpinnings of the decision were papers written by Cyril Chesnut Means Jr., a National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) attorney who falsified abortion legal history.
Much of the bogus abortion history in Lader’s acerbic book was invented by Means. Villanova University law-history professor Joseph Dellapenna analyzed the historic errors in Roe v. Wade in a 1,283 page tome, Dispelling the Myths of Abortion History:
“Means propounded two hitherto unsuspected historical ‘facts’: First, that abortion was not criminal in England or America before the nineteenth century; and second, that abortion was criminalized during the nineteenth century solely to protect the life or health of mothers, and not to protect the lives or health of unborn children. Regardless of how many times these claims are repeated, however, they are not facts; they are myths,†Dellapenna noted.
Many statistics in Lader’s book and later in NARAL’s press releases were completely made up. “Knowing that if a true poll were taken we would be soundly defeated, we simply fabricated the results of fictional polls,†in one instance saying that 60% of Americans favored abortion, Dr. Bernard Nathanson revealed. Nathanson was a co-founder of NARAL and performed 60,000 abortions until the invention of the ultrasound turned him against the procedure.
Lader and Nathanson also fabricated the number of illegal abortions done annually in the U.S. Although the actual figure was about 100,000, Nathanson said, “The figure we gave to the media repeatedly (and the figure in Lader’s book) was one million.â€
They also lied about the number of women dying each year from illegal abortions. While the real number was about 200, the number they fed to the media was 10,000. The false narrative was spread by a willing news media and never questioned.
Lader’s Abortion book was cited at least seven times in the final Roe decision.
Well too many people are getting that wrong.
The best translation is "Thou shall not murder"
The correct translation is "Thou shall not unlawfully kill".
Now I know you'll ignore all of this evidence because nothing will deter you from your support of the murdering infants as some kind of mythical "right".
But the only real lies that have ever been told...come from the left and leftists like you that there is some kind of sacrosanct "right" to kill unborn babies enshrined in our Constitution.
That's a lie counselor. A bald faced lie and you know it. You're just too chickensh*t to admit it.
There is no hierarchy of individual rights based on whether the right is specifically addressed in the Constitution (free speech) or was found to be under the Constitution's protection by a SCOTUS majority (privacy, individual RKBA). To infer that there is such a hierarchy, or that your gun right is sacrosanct but your daughter's choice right is not, is a lie.
In terms of the legal effect of a decision by the Supreme Court, you're correct.
In terms of the legitimacy of a decision, I think you're wrong.
I don't doubt that some pro-choicers are intellectually dishonest, the same way some pro-lifers and 2A advocates are.
But it is not a "lie" to state that Roe v. Wade, and the decisions prior to that which found a right of personal privacy that, for example, stops a state from banning the use of contraceptives, represent the enshrinement in the Constitution of protection against the denial of these individual liberties by the State.
Until Roe is overturned, the choice right is as much a part of the Constitution as the individual gun right. And until Heller is overturned, the individual gun right is as much a part of the Constitution as the choice right.
There is no hierarchy of individual rights based on whether the right is specifically addressed in the Constitution (free speech) or was found to be under the Constitution's protection by a SCOTUS majority (privacy, individual RKBA). To infer that there is such a hierarchy, or that your gun right is sacrosanct but your daughter's choice right is not, is a lie.
40-plus years of right and left screaming at each other about individual liberties and fetuses make tragically clear that the SCOTUS finding rights in the Constitution is not the ideal way to convey legitimacy to such rights in our representative Republic.
And then there's the 'right to abortion' which was never found in the Constitution but instead invented out of thin air.
Not thin air. It is an aspect of a woman's natural, inalienable right as a human being.
Not thin air. It is an aspect of a woman's natural, inalienable right as a human being.The child growing within her is a human being, not a duck or a pencil, a ham sandwich or anything other than a very young human being, with a beating heart, organs, and a brain - but for some reason that child has no natural, inalienable rights. Just a bit disingenuous.
... Just a bit disingenuous.
The child growing within her is a human being, not a duck or a pencil, a ham sandwich or anything other than a very young human being, with a beating heart, organs, and a brain - but for some reason that child has no natural, inalienable rights. Just a bit disingenuous.
Yeah. Thin air. Her natural right ended when she spread her legs apart.
Why should it? Before it is viable, it is literally part of the mother's body, unable to survive on its own. It is within the mother's dominion and is the mother's responsibility. Not the State's.
Sexist, patriarchal bullcrap.
Sexist, patriarchal bullcrap.
Sexist, patriarchal bullcrap.
Not sexist at all. No more so than a man being made responsible (forced by the state) for the exact same action.
"Patriarchal"? Because women are too stupid to understand what having sex means? Or, they're too weak to say "no"? What the hell are you saying here?
Sexist, patriarchal bullcrap.
Why should it? Before it is viable, it is literally part of the mother's body, unable to survive on its own. It is within the mother's dominion and is the mother's responsibility. Not the State's."It" is literally a separate human being living within his or her mother's body.
"It" is literally a separate human being living within his or her mother's body.
Not thin air. It is an aspect of a woman's natural, inalienable right as a human being.
@Jazzhead, where'd you go?
Hmmmm...I don't see him
(http://www.sott.net/image/292/medium/clinton_binoculars.jpg)
"It" is literally a separate human being living within his or her mother's body.
@Jazzhead, where'd you go?
A distinct and unique hoomin bean, unlike any other hoomin bean in the entire history of hoomin beanity.
An extraordinary and precious thing.
It is indeed an extraordinary and precious thing. Which is why it must be the mother's choice, because above all else a baby needs a mother's love.
Above all else the baby needs life.
No, not separate. Yes, living within its mother's body, but unable to survive otherwise. It is indeed the mother's responsibility, not the State's.
If the mother so chooses. Not the State.
For the umpteenth time: It is a noble thing to try to persuade and support a woman to do the right thing. Typically, a woman who seeks to abort is in a desperate situation, with no easy options. But while persuasion is good, enlisting the State to deny a woman's autonomy is a denial of her most basic liberty.
Let abortion be safe, legal and RARE.
If the mother so chooses. Not the State.
For the umpteenth time: It is a noble thing to try to persuade and support a woman to do the right thing. Typically, a woman who seeks to abort is in a desperate situation, with no easy options. But while persuasion is good, enlisting the State to deny a woman's autonomy is a denial of her most basic liberty.
Let abortion be safe, legal and RARE.
@Jazzhead
Let's focus on Pennsylvania Commonwealth law for a moment. According to Commonwealth statute (https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/LI/consCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&ttl=18&div=0&chpt=26), crimes against an unborn child include first, second, and third degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, and aggravated assault. As someone working in the legal profession, can you explain to the rest of us how it is that your Commonwealth has the power and authority to regulate such crimes against an unborn child inside a mother's body? And how do you reconcile that legal fact with your contention that the state has no rights here?
Let abortion be safe, legal and RARE.
:seeya:
QuoteQuote from: Jazzhead on May 20, 2019, 03:23:45 PM
Sexist, patriarchal bullcrap.
"Patriarchal"? Because women are too stupid to understand what having sex means? Or, they're too weak to say "no"? What the hell are you saying here?
I've explained this many times. The fetus's rights are against third parties
The mother is a third party. If a pregnant mother shoots herself in the stomach, she can be charged with murder under Pennsylvania Commonwealth law. So again, can you explain to the rest of us how it is that your Commonwealth has the power and authority to regulate such crimes against an unborn child inside a mother's body?
This is a legal question. I am asking you for the legal basis for which Pennsylvania is able to regulate this.
I just did.
You pulled something out of thin air about how the fetus only has protection against third parties, and that these protections are derived from the rights of the mother.
That's correct. A pre-viable fetus has no legal rights vis a vis its mother.
At least you admit that you pulled it out of thin air.
At least you admit that you pulled it out of thin air.
Nonliability.--Nothing in this chapter shall impose criminal liability:
(1) For acts committed during any abortion or attempted abortion, whether lawful or unlawful,in which the pregnant woman cooperated or consented.
(2) For the consensual or good faith performance of medical practice, including medicalprocedures, diagnostic testing or therapeutic treatment, the use of an intrauterinedevice or birth control pill to inhibit or prevent ovulation, fertilization or theimplantation of a fertilized ovum within the uterus.
(3) Upon the pregnant woman in regard to crimes against her unborn child.
Read the PA statute you linked to (Section 2608(a)(3)):
The statute is aimed at third parties, not the fetus' mother. Just like I said.
You still are not answering the question. Again, can you explain to the rest of us how it is that your Commonwealth has the power and authority to regulate such crimes against an unborn child inside a mother's body?
I already did.
You most definitely did not. You cited Pennsylvania law that specifically holds a mother to be non-liable when it comes to murder and assault against "her unborn child". But you continue to ignore the question as to what gives Pennsylvania the right to determine its own laws in this matter.
It is indeed an extraordinary and precious thing. Which is why it must be the mother's choice, because above all else a baby needs a mother's love.
I addressed the law YOU cited, and pointed out that your statement about the law's application to the mother was false.
You are correct. Pennsylvania law does indeed declare a mother non-liable when it comes to murder and assault against "her unborn child". The law expresses the will of the people of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania regarding liability for the injury or death of an unborn child. In other words, Pennsylvania has the right to decide for itself whether or not a mother could be held liable, and Pennsylvania exercised that right. And most importantly of all, you have just acknowledged that right by citing the very law that Pennsylvania enacted.
So I will ask yet again. Can you explain to the rest of us how it is that your Commonwealth has the power and authority to regulate such crimes against an unborn child inside a mother's body?
Yet again I repeat - a pre-viable fetus has no legal rights vis a vis its mother.
The PA law confirms that.
The fact that it defines certain crimes committed by third parties against a mother which also happen to harm her fetus do not convey legal rights upon the fetus.
The crimes are not committed "against the unborn child"
they are committed against the mother and the fetus she is carrying.
This is getting boring, Hoodat.
Democrats Warn That Defunding Planned Parenthood Will Reduce Access To Essential Campaign Donationslink (https://babylonbee.com/news/democrats-warn-that-defunding-planned-parenthood-will-reduce-access-to-essential-campaign-donations)
May 22nd, 2018
WASHINGTON, D.C.—The Republican proposal to withdraw Title X federal funding from Planned Parenthood could cause a dangerous drop in the abortion provider’s campaign contributions to liberal political candidates, Democratic leaders sternly cautioned during a press conference earlier today.
“Planned Parenthood does much more than perform abortions,†House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi told reporters. “They provide crucial services to marginalized Democrat candidates, like spending over $30 million to support pro-abortion candidates in the upcoming midterm elections.â€
“If we do not prop up Planned Parenthood with taxpayer dollars,†she continued, “where will Democratic candidates go for the vital health care services Planned Parenthood is known for, like their $2000-per-plate fundraising dinners and slick political advertising campaigns?â€
“This is a human rights issue,†she added somberly. ...
Hoodat - YOU are the one who cited Pennsylvania law and then lied about what it said. I pointed out the language in the law that says clearly that the fetus has no legal rights vis a vis the mother.
And so what I've been saying all along is correct, no matter how much you squirm.
Nice try, @Jazzhead, but your "no legal rights vis a vis the mother" argument was offered four days before the Pennsylvania statute was posted. In other words, your entire "no legal rights" contention was pulled out of thin air, just as I stated. But once the Pennsylvania statute was posted you foolishly used it as the basis for your earlier claim. And by doing so, you affirmed the right and exercise of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to set its own laws in regard acts "against the unborn child". In other words, your entire 'Constitutionality of Roe' argument has been complete and total bullsh!t this entire time. So enjoy your Pennsylvania law. It is your entitled right as a citizen of Pennsylvania to vote for a legislature that enacts laws such as this. But also know that it is my right as a citizen of the State of Georgia to do the same. And as your legislature specifically and explicitly holds the mother non-liable for said injury or death of her unborn child, my legislature will specifically and explicitly lay out its own laws in this regard with due process under the Constitution of the United States of America, God bless it.
When all is said and done, we are Pennsylvanians or Alabamans, but we are primarily Americans, endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights. And among these is the right to protect ourselves. For you and me, that includes the right to protect ourselves from predators, and to choose to own a gun to do so. For a woman, that includes the right to protect herself regarding when and how to exercise the greatest gift God gave her - to bear, love and raise a child.
I understand the purpose of the Tenth Amendment, @Hoodat. I also understand its limitations. Let's take the twin issues of abortion and guns. In each case, the Constitution protects an individual right from deniia by the State.
When you start your argument off with a false premise, the rest is just wasted text. There simply is no Constitutional protection for abortion. But you knew that already.
The Supreme Court says there is, and for over 40 years women have relied on that protection. Sorry, but that's reality.
the Constitution protects an individual right from deniia by the State.
A state can (under its authority retained under the Tenth Amendment) ban late term abortions
But it cannot ban abortion at six weeks
. . . since the woman will have had no effective ability to exercise her choice.
The relationship of the States to the federal Constitution is clear. The States have a wide latitude to enact laws their elected representatives want, but they cannot go so far as to deny INDIVIDUAL rights guaranteed and protected by the federal Constitution.
When all is said and done, we are Pennsylvanians or Alabamans, but we are primarily Americans, endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights. And among these is the right to protect ourselves. For you and me, that includes the right to protect ourselves from predators, and to choose to own a gun to do so. For a woman, that includes the right to protect herself regarding when and how to exercise the greatest gift God gave her - to bear, love and raise a child.
You may disagree with a woman who concludes at age 18 that she is unprepared financially or emotionally to bear a child without a partner, and who prefers to bear, love and raise her child when she is 25 and married.
But it is her inalienable right to make that choice for herself
and not have it dictated by your morality or the State's morality as imposed by its elected representatives.
Your State has power, but not that much power. As conservatives, this is fundamental to the notion of government as limited and primarily intended to protect and secure our individual rights.
This would indicate that abortion is not the Constitutional right that you make it out to be if States are allowed to ban it at all. Which is why I prefer to go by what the Constitution actually says instead of making things up to suit your own vain imaginations.
Where in the Constitution can I find this "six weeks" caveat?
Legal argument aside for a moment. THIS is the most heinous, despicable, and downright demonic aspect of your entire argument - that the right of a woman to destroy her unborn child is an inalienable right given to her by God Almighty, the Creator of all life.
It is her inalienable right to decide whether she will allow a potential father to inseminate her by inviting and allowing him access to her womb. And with that right, there comes responsibility.I don't disagree with the sentiment that the parties to a sexual relationship exercise responsibility . An unintended pregnancy is just that - unintended. And, far too often, when an unintended pregnancy occurs, the man heads for the hills, leaving the "problem" -and the burden - with the woman. But again - it is not the State that gets to decide.
Wait just a damn minute here. The one here trying to impose his morality on the rest of us is YOU. Keep in mind that my entire argument has been based on what the Constitution says. I am the one willing to abide by the rules my society sets though their legislative representatives. Contrast that with you who demands that "abortion must remain legal" - the Constitution be damned. You are the one demanding that your will be imposed on Georgia, while not once have I ever said the same for Pennsylvania or any other State. Morality? Not once have I crammed secular humanist bullsh!t down anyone's throat under the guise of 'separation of church and state'. And NEVER have I falsely claimed something to be a right enumerated in the Constitution.
As for the State imposing a moral code, you are perfectly content with Pennsylvania imposing a moral code that explicitly absolves a mother from any criminal charges while intentionally inflicting harm against her unborn child. Not only are you content with it, you actually cite that law as the basis for a woman's right to destroy her unborn child. Yet at the same time, you wish to deny my State that same right to enact its own moral code for my benefit. It's OK when your moral code is being imposed. But short of that, it suddenly becomes a Constitutional crisis? Bah!
In other words, Georgia does not have the same power that Pennsylvania does since Georgia may do something that you don't agree with. In other words, individual rights are OK only as long as Jazzhead says so.
The Supreme Court says there is, and for over 40 years women have relied on that protection. Sorry, but that's reality.
The Supreme Court also at one time said separate but equal was legal...and so was rounding up American citizens and putting them in detention camps.
You have this very misguided belief that the courts are never wrong in their rulings (as long as they rule for your favorite pet Liberal beliefs that is) and that just isn't the case.
As I've pointed out (and you ignored)...their whole ruling on Roe was based on lies in a book and facts made up out of thin air.
There is no Constitutional right to abortion on demand.
There is no Constitutional right to abortion. There is a Constitutional right to choose abortion. It doesn't last forever (hence, a state can ban late-term abortions), . . .
. . . but it must be able to be exercised in a meaningful way.
You can't. It is my opinion that banning abortion before a woman even knows for sure she is pregnant effectively denies her right to CHOOSE abortion.
I don't disagree with the sentiment that the parties to a sexual relationship exercise responsibility. An unintended pregnancy is just that - unintended.
And, far too often, when an unintended pregnancy occurs, the man heads for the hills, leaving the "problem" -and the burden - with the woman.
The right is part of the Constitution by reason of the majority decision of the SCOTUS.
Your individual gun right is also part of the Constitution for the same reason.
And those rights constrain the actions of the States under the Tenth Amendment.
I am demanding nothing more and nothing less than that your gun right
Individual rights matter - and should to anyone who calls themselves a conservative.
A right that has a time limit? This should be interesting. Can you please pinpoint exactly where this "right to choose abortion" - a right that "doesn't last forever" - can be found in the Constitution?
It must be? Must? Based on what? And what is "in a meaningful way" defined? Seriously. Show me where in the Constitution it says this.
Let me help you out here, Jazzhead. The term "Constitutional" is not synonymous with the term "Jazzhead's opinion". When using the term "Constitutional", it means that it is backed up with the actual wording in the Constitution. But when you use the term "Constitutional", you mean it to mean that it is backed up by your opinion only with zero reference to the Constitution itself.
(https://i.imgflip.com/31qw1k.jpg)
Vehicular homicide was unintended when someone chose to drive intoxicated. Bankrupting Enron was unintended when someone chose to cook the books. The deaths of eleven oil workers was unintended when someone chose to ignore standard safety procedures on the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig. The loss of the Challenger space shuttle was unintended when NASA managers chose to ignore the warnings of their engineers. In real life, there are consequences to choices. And as bad as the consequences of these choices may have been, none tried to make it right by destroying an unborn baby.
It is Roe that caused this. Because abortion is now considered 'birth control' - it is no longer a man's concern. Because abortion lets men off the hook. Because if a man gets a woman pregnant, all he has to do is pressure her and wear her down until she does his bidding for him and absolves him of 18 years of child support. Abortion is for the man - not for the woman. It always has been.
As for your 'head to the hills' nonsense, here is what happened in the first ten years after Roe:
- Out of wedlock births doubled
- The number of abortions doubled
- Promiscuity of teen-age girls tripled
You are obviously confused here. The term 'Part of the Constitution' is not the same thing as 'a majority decision of SCOTUS'. A majority decision of the Supreme Court also ruled that slaves remained slaves even in States that outlawed slavery, just like your opinion on legal abortion. A majority decision of SCOTUS also ruled that it was perfectly OK to deny rights to one race over another in direct contradiction to the equal protection clause of Amendment XIV. A majority decision of SCOTUS ruled that capital punishment was unconstitutional even though the Bill of Rights directly addresses capital crimes. In every one of these cases, their decision directly contradicted the wording of the Constitution itself. So no, just because the Supreme Court says it does not mean that the Constitution also says it. Not even close.
Unlike your so-called abortion right, my individual gun right actually can be found in the Constitution. (See: the Right of the people to keep and bear arms)
I have never said otherwise. But the problem for you here is that there is no abortion right in the Constitution. And you know there isn't. Which means that there is no such constraint when it comes to the States. And the fact that you yourself resorted to Pennsylvania law on this very same matter affirms the position that States do indeed have this right.
Uh, no. You are demanding that my State be bound solely by your opinion. I would never demand that burden be placed on yours. I wholeheartedly believe that Pennsylvania is free to choose its own abortion laws, marriage laws, etc., within the confines of the US Constitution. Yet you do not believe the same for Georgia. So no, your demands are nothing like mine.
Even my right to petition my State and join with my fellow citizens of society to promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity? Because I know full well that you do not believe in that type of liberty. You do not trust the people of Georgia, California, or Louisiana to formulate their own laws as a direct reflection of those societies, but insist ... - no, you DEMAND - that they accept your opinion (at the point of a gun, with all the backing of federal judiciary fiat) which you conveniently re-label as "Constitutional".
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
-T. Jefferson-
There is not one word in the Constitution that provides rights in any way, shape or form to a pre-viable fetus. The woman's liberty is the only thing at stake, and the Tenth Amendment does not give the states the right to deny rights guaranteed by the Federal Constitution.The Constitution doesn't provide rights. It enumerates some (as amended) and provides for the protection of those Rights (and even others not listed) from Governmental interference.
If you don't like that, then amend the Constitution to provide that a first trimester fetus has the rights of a born citizen. You won't do that, of course, and instead demand the Court do your dirty work for you.