• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Neither the 5th or 14th amendment mentions anything about women's rights ...[W:869]

dolphinocean

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2009
Messages
4,138
Reaction score
807
Location
Volunteer State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
This is a continuation of debate from the Breaking News section. I move it here per moderator warning as the discussion is moving towards more into the abortion debate. In that thread my post with various debaters starts from here:


http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...form-abortions-w-425-a-35.html#post1065889443


Unless women rights contained in the 5th and 14th Amendment are dismantled and women are no longer protected under those Bill of Right Amendments Roe v Wade won't be overturned. It would take a Constitutional Amendment to do that. That's NOT going to happen. Consequently, the Federal government can't create or enact anti-abortion laws because they are unconstitutional.
Neither the 5th nor the 14th amendment contains anything about "women's rights" let alone the phantom right to abortion or privacy.

However, in the context of human affair of this nation, both the 5th and the 14th amendment do talk about "life", which specifically prohibit the depriving of life. The Declaration of Independence firmly declares that the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God who entitles us the self-evident truth of certain unalienable Rights, "that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Notice that Life is listed first and foremost.

Now, isn't a prenatal life growing in a human mother's womb a Life from human procreation in human event? Of course it is.

So, how can you dismiss the procreated Life of its unalienable Right to Life as clearly and specifically mentioned in the Declaration of Independence? How can you deprave of its Life as specifically prohibited by the 5th and 14th amendments where they state: "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" and "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law", respectively?

No, you people steadfast refuse to see what are clearly mentioned in the founding documents and contained in the Constitution. Instead you people chose to deny the self-evident truth that the Declaration of Independence clearly revealed. In its stead you people twisted the Constitution and invented rights that are not there and call it "women's rights" in order to legitimize the violation of human life. But out of thin air did the Roe v Wade court set the faux rights in a synthetic stone for you and your proabortion cohort to salivate upon and to embrace in order that you people can slaughter innocent human lives with impunity to your heart's content and be falsely comforted by it's "legality".

The Oklahoma antiabortion bill was just a revisiting of the antiabortion laws that exist in various States before Roe v Wade ruled them unconstitutional. But, it is sad that in this day and age, what is right is deemed wrong and what is wrong is deemed right; where good is turned into evil and evil good. Clearly, the antiabortion law that criminalizes the act of murder of human beings in the womb truly conforms to the spirit of the Declaration of Independence and upholds the Constitution of our nation. It also acknowledges the self-evident truth of human life in the womb that is confirmed through the science of human embryology.

What is unconstitutional is the legislating from the bench by a bunch of unelected black robes nincompoops against the will of the People and against the Constitution by depriving the human life of its life without due process of the law. Yet, no truth can get in the way of the proabortion activists and their supporters. For they don't want the truth. They want innocent blood to be taken as sacrifice for their bottomless lust that nothing inconvenient can get in their way of carnal pleasure.
 

dolphinocean

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2009
Messages
4,138
Reaction score
807
Location
Volunteer State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
You should take some remedial civics classes.

Again, if you could understand what you read you would know that it is about the government, a limitation being placed on the power of government.

Try reading the one that was written by the founding father of this nation.
Nothing wrong with my civic literacy. Nothing wrong also with my reading skill either. It's not like I have to twist and turn the founding documents like you proabortion folks do to contort the DOI and the Constitution out of shape and then invent something out of thin air to come up with a self-serving interpretation. The DOI and the Constitution are very clear about unalienable Right to Life in the context of addressing human event.

Yes, you're correct that the Constitution is about the government, in your words - "a limitation being placed on the power of government." That includes a limitation on government the power to deprive any person of life without due process.

Prior to Roe v Wade many states have antiabortion laws to protect life. It was the SC judges of Roe v Wade that violated the Constitution by usurping the power of the State in legislating from the bench that deprive millions of prenatal human beings of their lives without due process.
 

Removable Mind

Irremovable Intelligence
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 25, 2011
Messages
25,803
Reaction score
20,577
Location
Austin, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
This is a continuation of debate from the Breaking News section. I move it here per moderator warning as the discussion is moving towards more into the abortion debate. In that thread my post with various debaters starts from here:


http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...form-abortions-w-425-a-35.html#post1065889443



Neither the 5th nor the 14th amendment contains anything about "women's rights" let alone the phantom right to abortion or privacy.

However, in the context of human affair of this nation, both the 5th and the 14th amendment do talk about "life", which specifically prohibit the depriving of life. The Declaration of Independence firmly declares that the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God who entitles us the self-evident truth of certain unalienable Rights, "that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Notice that Life is listed first and foremost.

Now, isn't a prenatal life growing in a human mother's womb a Life from human procreation in human event? Of course it is.

So, how can you dismiss the procreated Life of its unalienable Right to Life as clearly and specifically mentioned in the Declaration of Independence? How can you deprave of its Life as specifically prohibited by the 5th and 14th amendments where they state: "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" and "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law", respectively?

No, you people steadfast refuse to see what are clearly mentioned in the founding documents and contained in the Constitution. Instead you people chose to deny the self-evident truth that the Declaration of Independence clearly revealed. In its stead you people twisted the Constitution and invented rights that are not there and call it "women's rights" in order to legitimize the violation of human life. But out of thin air did the Roe v Wade court set the faux rights in a synthetic stone for you and your proabortion cohort to salivate upon and to embrace in order that you people can slaughter innocent human lives with impunity to your heart's content and be falsely comforted by it's "legality".

The Oklahoma antiabortion bill was just a revisiting of the antiabortion laws that exist in various States before Roe v Wade ruled them unconstitutional. But, it is sad that in this day and age, what is right is deemed wrong and what is wrong is deemed right; where good is turned into evil and evil good. Clearly, the antiabortion law that criminalizes the act of murder of human beings in the womb truly conforms to the spirit of the Declaration of Independence and upholds the Constitution of our nation. It also acknowledges the self-evident truth of human life in the womb that is confirmed through the science of human embryology.

What is unconstitutional is the legislating from the bench by a bunch of unelected black robes nincompoops against the will of the People and against the Constitution by depriving the human life of its life without due process of the law. Yet, no truth can get in the way of the proabortion activists and their supporters. For they don't want the truth. They want innocent blood to be taken as sacrifice for their bottomless lust that nothing inconvenient can get in their way of carnal pleasure.

Your ignorance on the Constitutional relationship to women's right to abort is something you choose to live with. Despite the provisions within those Amendments being so easy to explain how they do allow for women's right to abort, I'm not going to waste my time explaining it to you.
 

dolphinocean

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2009
Messages
4,138
Reaction score
807
Location
Volunteer State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The right to privacy is a well established fact, predating the abortion issue, so your lacking civics skill is showing again.

...

That would be a valid argument if the Constitution recognized fetuses and if the government were performing abortions. As it is, it is little more than another argument made out of ignorance.

That of the pregnant woman, not the fetus. Some stated allowed abortion and it was not a constitutional issue.

Yea, yea, yea...
No need to be concerned about my civic and reading literacy. Your accusation is without substance, merely a deflection of your own lacking.

The right to privacy is nowhere to be found at the founding documents: not in the DOI nor the Constitution. Neither is the right to abortion. They're all carved out of thin air by the elected judges of the SC.

Norma McCorvey, the litigant in Roe v Wade, didn't even have an abortion. She was advised to lie and make a false claim of rape. At that time Texas state law allows abortion in case of rape. But then the rape idea came much later after the fact. As such, there was no police report on file to support her false claim. The only illegal abortion chopshop was shut down by police. So, she couldn't get an illegal abortion either. If she did that would be in violation of Texas' antiabortion law. Before she was used as a pawn by proabortion activists in filing the bogus lawsuit against the State of Texas, the government had no idea who McCorvey was let alone violating her privacy.

So, right here the judicial opinion about the so-called "violation of her right to privacy" is fictitious.

Even if I grant you the right to privacy, it does not supersede the power and duty of the government to uphold state statutory law to pursue criminals who commit crimes. The 4th amendment specifically allows the government the power to conduct reasonable searches and seizures upon probable cause and issuance of warrants from a judge. Prior to Roe, abortion was crime like any other crimes, such as murder, robbery and illegal drug crimes, etc.. Therefore, by authority of the 4th amendment, the State has every right and power to conduct reasonable searches and seizures with probable cause and warrant. That's how State investigators go after criminals (such as drug lords, crime rings that counterfeit money, child abuse, child pornography, etc) who commit criminal offenses in the privacy of their homes and businesses.

So, we see again the use of right to privacy is so bogus and without merit.

Furthermore, nobody whines about violation of right to privacy when authority conducts drug bust or raid on homes suspected of operating illegal drug operations, does it? Often times the SWAT team busted wrong houses in botched raids and innocent homeowners ended up being shot to death or died as a result of heart attack. Such thing did happen but yet nobody files lawsuit to have the drug law SC ruled it unconstitutional and make illegal drug operation legal.

McCorvey's home or person wasn't even violated. So, we see yet again the phoniness in the right of privacy to justify a criminal offense and turn it into legal operation by judicial fiat.

Cont...
 

dolphinocean

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2009
Messages
4,138
Reaction score
807
Location
Volunteer State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Now, where's your conclusive evidence for the claim that the Constitution does not recognize fetuses in terms of Right to Life? Before the DOI dwells into the unalienable rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness, it started out with the following, saying: "When in the Course of human events ..."


Do you know what is "human events"?


Isn't human reproduction to beget another human being a human event? Of course it is. So are human fetuses in the course of fetal development. In every stage of development, it is a Life - a human life, i.e a human being. So, when the DOI talks about unalienable Right to Life in terms of the course of human event, it includes every stage of Life from conception to adulthood.


You claim that the State antiabortion laws prior to Roe v Wade decision was enacted to protect pregnant women and not the fetus. Now, who are you trying to fool here? You may fool your gullible proabortion folks but not me or others who defend life.


The US antiabortion statutes can be traced back to 1820s. They were based off the British common law to which the British antiabortion statute was enacted in 1803. At that time the science of modern embryology was still in its early infancy. So, the law-makers, in order to be certain, arbitrarily decided to outlaw abortion by the sign of fetal movement which they called "quickening".


So, my questions to you are: do pregnant women do the "quickening" act herself after a long period of passive existence? What thing or who did the antiabortion law trying to protect the "quickening" pregnant women from?


Now, consider the comment of James Wilson, a framer of US Constitution. With regards to the antiabortion common law he states:


"With consistency, beautiful and undeviating, human life, from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law. In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb.26 By the law, life is protected not only from immediate destruction, but from every degree of actual violence, and, in some cases, from every degree of danger."


Of the Natural Rights of Individuals | Teaching American History


Clearly, when he talked about "By the law, life is protected not only from immediate destruction ..." he was talking about prenatal human life in the womb. And he called it "the infant ... in the womb". Pregnant women aren't infants are they? The certainly aren't infants stirring in the womb.


See how you are very good and adept in twisting things upside down so glaringly.
 
Last edited:

dolphinocean

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2009
Messages
4,138
Reaction score
807
Location
Volunteer State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The Roe v Wade ruling is NOT unconstitutional, no matter how much you think it is.
Yes, it is. Roe v Wade ruling is unconstitutional. I've laid it out for you and also to prometus. Go read my points to him above. You have presented nothing of substance except to throw out empty statements of denial. Why don't you point to me where in the Constitution do you find the mention of "women's right to privacy" or "right to abortion"?

Better yet, find me where in the Constitution did the Roe judges get their judicial rulings the following rules that limit the State power:

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. Pp. 163, 164.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. Pp. 163, 164.

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Pp. 163-164; 164-165.

- See more at: ROE v. WADE | FindLaw

Or like I said, they were carved out of thin air by the activist judges of SC.
 
Last edited:

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
16,126
Reaction score
21,195
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
This is a continuation of debate from the Breaking News section. I move it here per moderator warning as the discussion is moving towards more into the abortion debate. In that thread my post with various debaters starts from here:


http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...form-abortions-w-425-a-35.html#post1065889443



Neither the 5th nor the 14th amendment contains anything about "women's rights" let alone the phantom right to abortion or privacy.

However, in the context of human affair of this nation, both the 5th and the 14th amendment do talk about "life", which specifically prohibit the depriving of life. The Declaration of Independence firmly declares that the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God who entitles us the self-evident truth of certain unalienable Rights, "that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Notice that Life is listed first and foremost.

Now, isn't a prenatal life growing in a human mother's womb a Life from human procreation in human event? Of course it is.

So, how can you dismiss the procreated Life of its unalienable Right to Life as clearly and specifically mentioned in the Declaration of Independence? How can you deprave of its Life as specifically prohibited by the 5th and 14th amendments where they state: "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" and "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law", respectively?

No, you people steadfast refuse to see what are clearly mentioned in the founding documents and contained in the Constitution. Instead you people chose to deny the self-evident truth that the Declaration of Independence clearly revealed. In its stead you people twisted the Constitution and invented rights that are not there and call it "women's rights" in order to legitimize the violation of human life. But out of thin air did the Roe v Wade court set the faux rights in a synthetic stone for you and your proabortion cohort to salivate upon and to embrace in order that you people can slaughter innocent human lives with impunity to your heart's content and be falsely comforted by it's "legality".

The Oklahoma antiabortion bill was just a revisiting of the antiabortion laws that exist in various States before Roe v Wade ruled them unconstitutional. But, it is sad that in this day and age, what is right is deemed wrong and what is wrong is deemed right; where good is turned into evil and evil good. Clearly, the antiabortion law that criminalizes the act of murder of human beings in the womb truly conforms to the spirit of the Declaration of Independence and upholds the Constitution of our nation. It also acknowledges the self-evident truth of human life in the womb that is confirmed through the science of human embryology.

What is unconstitutional is the legislating from the bench by a bunch of unelected black robes nincompoops against the will of the People and against the Constitution by depriving the human life of its life without due process of the law. Yet, no truth can get in the way of the proabortion activists and their supporters. For they don't want the truth. They want innocent blood to be taken as sacrifice for their bottomless lust that nothing inconvenient can get in their way of carnal pleasure.

If you are going to quote something, make sure you quote it properly:

No person shall be...deprived of life, liberty, or property
5th Amendment;

All persons born...are citizens of the United States...No State shall...deprive any person of life...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws...
14th Amendment.

As has been pointed out to Anti-abortionists over and over without getting through :2brickwal , the problem is determining when a developing zygote has attained PERSONHOOD. Clearly this is NOT at the moment of conception for all sorts of reasons you simply refuse to accept or understand.

However, as Persons and Citizens the Constitution has much to say about Women's Rights.
 
Last edited:

dolphinocean

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2009
Messages
4,138
Reaction score
807
Location
Volunteer State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Your ignorance on the Constitutional relationship to women's right to abort is something you choose to live with. Despite the provisions within those Amendments being so easy to explain how they do allow for women's right to abort, I'm not going to waste my time explaining it to you.
There's nothing in the Constitution about women's right to abort. Don't you think it's high time to be intellectually honest for a change? Straight face lie ain't gonna work no more.
 

dolphinocean

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2009
Messages
4,138
Reaction score
807
Location
Volunteer State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
If you are going to quote something, make sure you quote it properly:

5th Amendment;

14th Amendment.

As has been pointed out to Anti-abortionists over and over without getting through :2brickwal , the problem is determining when a developing zygote has attained PERSONHOOD. Clearly this is NOT at the moment of conception for all sorts of reasons you simply refuse to accept or understand.

However, as Persons and Citizens the Constitution has much to say about Women's Rights.

"PERSONHOOD" is a proabortion invention created out of thin air. Where's your scientific evidence of it? None of course. Just smokes and screen. Citizenship is about citizenship, nothing more. Stop your twist on things not there.
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
16,126
Reaction score
21,195
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
"PERSONHOOD" is a proabortion invention created out of thin air. Where's your scientific evidence of it? None of course. Just smokes and screen. Citizenship is about citizenship, nothing more. Stop your twist on things not there.

I hate repeating myself so I'll try to find some links. Here you go:

The argument will always revolve around two issues:

1. At what point is a fetus rightly considered a human being (personhood) with inherent rights, and

2. If the argument is at conception, how to explain all those natural miscarriages that occur in the vast majority (up to 75%) of all pregnancies?

IMO telling someone that once they are pregnant the developing organism has all the inherent rights of a fully developed human being is unreasonable and illogical.

And:

As always, this question revolves around the issue of when a group of developing cells stop being just that and turn into what we believe to be a Human Being...
 
Last edited:

Bodhisattva

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
98,245
Reaction score
20,843
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
"PERSONHOOD" is a proabortion invention created out of thin air. Where's your scientific evidence of it? None of course. Just smokes and screen. Citizenship is about citizenship, nothing more. Stop your twist on things not there.

Personhood is a legal concept, not a biological one.
 

dolphinocean

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2009
Messages
4,138
Reaction score
807
Location
Volunteer State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Personhood is a legal concept, not a biological one.
Nonsense. It was invented by proabortion movement during the time of Roe v Wade from hijacking the ordinary term "person" and repackage it as smoke screen to fool the gullible.
 

Bodhisattva

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
98,245
Reaction score
20,843
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Nonsense. It was invented by proabortion movement during the time of Roe v Wade from hijacking the ordinary term "person" and repackage it as smoke screen to fool the gullible.

Regardless of how you think it started... it is a legal term now, not a biological one.
 

Bodhisattva

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
98,245
Reaction score
20,843
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
It's a convenient and self-serving invention.

How does that make it invalid?



People want to define what it is to be a person. Being born is one of the qualifications that most people agree with. It is even in the Constitution.

You don't like it. Got it.

You don't really have a valid counter-argument. Got it.

You are emotionally driven. Got it.

Anything else?
 

matchlight

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 25, 2014
Messages
9,869
Reaction score
3,495
Location
Los Angeles area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Your ignorance on the Constitutional relationship to women's right to abort is something you choose to live with. Despite the provisions within those Amendments being so easy to explain how they do allow for women's right to abort, I'm not going to waste my time explaining it to you.

No doubt I'm just as ignorant of the Constitution as everyone else here, compared with you. If it's so easy to explain how the Constitution guarantees a right to abortion, it's strange that the Court never did it in Roe v. Wade. Maybe the justices were like you, and just didn't want to waste their time explaining it to us of the hoi polloi.
 

Lursa

Tenacious
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
80,442
Reaction score
45,091
Location
Outside Seattle
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Why do they have to specify women's rights? Are privacy and due process and our other rights specified as men's rights? No.
 

Lursa

Tenacious
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
80,442
Reaction score
45,091
Location
Outside Seattle
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
There's nothing in the Constitution about women's right to abort. Don't you think it's high time to be intellectually honest for a change? Straight face lie ain't gonna work no more.

That's correct. But what IS in the Constitution is "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The Ninth Amendment.

You fail again.
 

Removable Mind

Irremovable Intelligence
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 25, 2011
Messages
25,803
Reaction score
20,577
Location
Austin, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
No doubt I'm just as ignorant of the Constitution as everyone else here, compared with you. If it's so easy to explain how the Constitution guarantees a right to abortion, it's strange that the Court never did it in Roe v. Wade. Maybe the justices were like you, and just didn't want to waste their time explaining it to us of the hoi polloi.

14th Amendment Substantive Due Process is not your friend. And the 5th Amendment which gives us the right to privacy regarding information is also not your friend. Ignore the fact that while "right to privacy" isn't directly written in the Constitution, it has been declared by numerous Justices as being inherent in the Constitution, and the loss of such would impact several other Amendments - which would collapse the Constitution itself. Right to privacy was established years before the Roe v Wade decision.

The Supreme Court was very clear in 1973 as to why the above Amendments protected women's right to abort. And yes, I can break it down as to how these Amendments do what the Justices have stated in Roe v Wade. I've done it a bunch of times. but ...meh, not in the mood now.

Oh, most people don't know that Roe v Wade as a class action suit. Also doctors in Texas joined together and filed a suit to protect themselves as well. And their suit wasn't just about abortion. It was about the right to have patient/medical provider privacy.
 

dolphinocean

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2009
Messages
4,138
Reaction score
807
Location
Volunteer State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
14th Amendment Substantive Due Process is not your friend. And the 5th Amendment which gives us the right to privacy regarding information is also not your friend. Ignore the fact that while "right to privacy" isn't directly written in the Constitution, it has been declared by numerous Justices as being inherent in the Constitution, and the loss of such would impact several other Amendments - which would collapse the Constitution itself. Right to privacy was established years before the Roe v Wade decision.

The Supreme Court was very clear in 1973 as to why the above Amendments protected women's right to abort. And yes, I can break it down as to how these Amendments do what the Justices have stated in Roe v Wade. I've done it a bunch of times. but ...meh, not in the mood now.

Oh, most people don't know that Roe v Wade as a class action suit. Also doctors in Texas joined together and filed a suit to protect themselves as well. And their suit wasn't just about abortion. It was about the right to have patient/medical provider privacy.
Justices are sworn to uphold the Constitution and not inventing stuffs and redefining the Constitution to suit their activist agenda. There's absolutely nothing in the Constitution about women's rights, privacy or abortion. However, the 5th and 14th amendment clearly prohibit depriving life without due process. Clearly, Roe v Wade violated the Constitution by depriving prenatal life of its life without due process.
 

dolphinocean

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2009
Messages
4,138
Reaction score
807
Location
Volunteer State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
That's correct. But what IS in the Constitution is "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The Ninth Amendment.

You fail again.
The 9th amendment does not intend to mean whatever not enumerated tantamounts to everything goes. That would open the flood gate for criminals to proclaim that their commission of crimes as rights retained by the people. Rape, robbery, murder , etc would then be legitimately claimed as rights by criminals. Remember, before Roe v Wade usurps the State power in striking down state antiabortion statute, abortion was a crime.
 

dolphinocean

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2009
Messages
4,138
Reaction score
807
Location
Volunteer State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Why do they have to specify women's rights? Are privacy and due process and our other rights specified as men's rights? No.
I don't know. Why don't you ask Removal Mind why he specify "women's rights" and claimed they are contained in the 5th and 14th amendment (see post #1 & his post above)? He isn't the only one that made that kind of false claim. You and others from the proabortion camp often do that too.

Are privacy and due process and our other rights specified as men's rights? Of course not. But, men cannot claim the right to privacy when they commit crimes in their privacy and then get the SC to make legal their criminal offenses nationwide. Only women can when it comes to the crime of abortion.
 

dolphinocean

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2009
Messages
4,138
Reaction score
807
Location
Volunteer State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
How does that make it invalid?



People want to define what it is to be a person. Being born is one of the qualifications that most people agree with. It is even in the Constitution.

You don't like it. Got it.

You don't really have a valid counter-argument. Got it.

You are emotionally driven. Got it.

Anything else?
You're clearly wrong. The term "personhood" is not in the Constitution. Neither the concept of it. You might as well invent the term "boogeymanhood" and insist it's a valid term for legal purpose. So, please desist in spreading the lie already.
 
Top Bottom