- Joined
- Dec 22, 2009
- Messages
- 4,138
- Reaction score
- 807
- Location
- Volunteer State
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Neither the 5th nor the 14th amendment contains anything about "women's rights" let alone the phantom right to abortion or privacy.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.
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.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.
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.
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 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...
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"?The Roe v Wade ruling is NOT unconstitutional, no matter how much you think it is.
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.
5th Amendment;No person shall be...deprived of life, liberty, or property
14th 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...
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.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.
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.
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.
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...
"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.
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.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.
It's not no matter how many times you repeat it. It's a sham legal term at best.Regardless of how you think it started... it is a legal term now, not a biological one.
It's not no matter how many times you repeat it. It's a sham legal term at best.
It's a convenient and self-serving invention.Why is it not a valid term?
It's a convenient and self-serving invention.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.Why do they have to specify women's rights? Are privacy and due process and our other rights specified as men's rights? No.
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.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?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?