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

[FutureIncoming]

Yeah, you haven't stop blathering nonsense all day and all night.

YOUR MERE CLAIM (of "blathering nonsense") IS WORTHLESS WITHOUT EVIDENCE

Why stop now, right? Oh, so ... you want me to prove a negative, again?

FALSE. REFER TO MSG #431: If not-A then yes-B. Since you claimed I was dishonest, I want you to prove I am something other than honest (one possibility in that category is "liar", but perhaps you are talking about some other possibility).

 

[FutureIncoming]

So, everybody just has to go by your mere declaration your make from thin air? What nonsense!

I DID NOT MAKE UP THE FACTS ABOUT BRAIN-DEAD ADULTS AND HYDATIDIFORM MOLES. And Logic cares nothing about whoever-it-is that does the Logic (such as notice that the facts about hydatidiform moles and brain-dead adults provide Objectively Verifiable Proof that the word "human" doesn't always mean "human-being/person").

It is also a fact that there is often a delay between the introduction of some new word or usage, and the entry of that into the dictionary. For example, here are some words added in 2015 to the Oxford English Dictionary. How many of them have you known about for years?

Therefore I have not spouted nonsense, and your mere claim remains unproved/worthless blather.

 

[Aberration]

Neither the 5th or 14th amendment mentions anything about women's rights ...

When you arrived in this discussion you apparently missed some things mentioned previously. In that message is a presentation of a Law that was passed by the Congress, having the full authority of the Constitution to pass that Law. Therefore, that Law qualifies as "per the Constitution" in the sense that I was talking about in the message you quoted. Note that when dolphinocean replied in #405 to the same message, he knew what I meant, and so didn't make the request you made in #404.

I saw that law. You never claimed there was a law that said the unborn had no rights, so I didn't ask you to link to a law. I asked you to quote the Constitution. Since you claimed that the Constitution says the unborn have no rights.

So back it up. Quote the Constitution. It shouldn't be hard considering how many times you have stated it as fact.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[ellesdee]

.

Except what they literally wrote doesn't mention the unborn. So you have contradicted yourself.

Yea, I realized that afterwards, so at best, perhaps an individual state might try to write into its own constitution that all those conceived within that state are citizens of that state and thereby ban abortion by giving the unborn state constitutional rights, making abortion effectively a state issue. However, how do you prove the unborn was conceived in that state? There would need to be witnesses. If conception occurs out of state, may the couple still abort the pregnancy within that state?

It would be interesting to see how something like that would play out.

 

[dolphinocean]

Baloney.
Ultrasound was not available when I was pregnant with my first 2 children and had my 2 miscarriages before my 3 rd child . I suspected I was pregnant before my first my first missed period and knew I was pregnant before my 2ed missed period. It does take an ultrasound for a woman to recognize the signs of pregnancy.

You are deluding yourself if you think that.

And access to abortion care is a human right.

Funny, you people can make argument both ways or however ways you want to suit your cup of tea. I remember years ago you or some of you here had been arguing that women might not know they were pregnant during the early stages. Then, recently you are telling me "quickening" occurs at around four months and now you're saying you suspect you were pregnant before your first missed period. WOW!


Nevertheless, in the 17th or 18th century women of that time had no way of confirming that they were pregnant. They couldn't just go out to search around the neighborhood to find some illegal apothecary to obtain poisonous potion that could very well had killed them.


Remember, in those times women weren't so liberal and promiscuous as modern women. That didn't even happen until the late 50s and during the 60s. There weren't many career women either and most were reserved, domesticated and home bound. Society back then was more structured as to gender role and social standing. Sex education were unheard of and discussion about sex and reproduction were either considered a taboo or a subject to be avoided.

Teen sex, sex outside the marriage and single parenthood of our time weren't a social norm back then Women for the most part weren't socially active to know where to begin their searches. In general, the attitude towards the subject of sex or even abortion issue was more of a prudish nature. Of course, there was no computer, no internal and certainly no google searches to obtain some secret mail order.

But, most important of all, during that period of history and even for a long time afterward towards the mid-20th century of our time, family values and having many children were considered a blessing. In those days, infant mortality rate was very high and having more children meant more chance of having children surviving to adulthood to help out in the family business or farming. So, those few who had unwanted pregnancy due to adultery or illicit sex or slavery would be few and far in between.


So, you are the one who is deluding yourself to think women of that time was very much like ours. As such, abortion was illegal for the most part in many States and a few States had the stipulation of "quickening" as that was the usual point where women became sure of their pregnancy. So, for those who were desperate enough to cover up their pregnancy, it would be the time that would compel them to act desperately. Remember, there was no such thing as surgical abortion as we have in the modern walk-in clinics. What was available to them was illegal apothecary that only could be located secretly by word of mouth.


Abortion is not a "care" in any way, shape or form. It's murder, plain and simple when you take off the veneer that makes it looks kosher. So, please stop spewing your nonsense about it being a human right. It's murder, cold blooded murder, plain and simple.

 

[dolphinocean]

And I have listed why several Constitutional amendment including the 5th and the 14th amendments support right to privacy regarding family including child rearing and procreation , including the use of contraception and legal elective abortion before viability ( which coincidently was right about the same time period as common law deemed quickening to be ).

Here are the Constitutional Rights regarding right to privacy.



Right to Privacy: Constitutional Rights & Privacy Laws

No, you have not listed why several Constitutional amendment including the 5th and the 14th amendments support right to privacy. What you have is posting a bunch of opinions written by a self-serving proabortion editor. His opinion is not Constitution, neither are a bunch of judicial opinions that have no consitutional basis whatsoever but entirely carved out of thin air.

There is absolutely no "right to privacy" found anywhere in the Constitution. Nor can it be inferred in any way, shape or form to justify the commission of crime in privacy or to deprive another human being of its life.

Let me repeat, there is no "right to privacy" found anywhere in the Constitution. Even so, "right to privacy" does not preclude State duty to uphold State Criminal Statutes, including antiabortion statute, to obtain warrant from a judge with probable cause, conduct reasonable searches and seizure of property, and to bring charges against a criminal suspect to a trial according to the due process of the law.

Remember, abortion was a crime long before Roe v Wade decision and had been a criminal offence since before the founding of out nation. The seven unelected judges of the Roe Court unilaterally done away with the centuries old antiabortion law with a stroke of a pen by judicial fiat and unconstitutional judicial "legislation" that empowers one group of human beings to deprive the lives of another innocent and defenseless human beings.

These black robed seven judges are murderous criminals in my eyes -- I've been wanting to say that for a long, long time. And you proabortion people have in your hands directly or indirectly shed innocent bloods of 56,662,169 Abortions in America Since Roe vs. Wade in 1973 and still counting.

Yet, proabortion zealots are calling for more. When is enough is enough?

 

[dolphinocean]

BBC - Ethics - Abortion: Historical attitudes to abortion

That BBC article you cited and quoted isn't quite complete. Though the "science" at the time of human history was in the dark ages, ancient temple inscriptions and other ancient writings disclose intensely opposition to abortion in the Greco-Roman world, as the following article I'm posting and quoting has noted. It also noted that abortion was banned in the Persian Empire also and the condemnation was traced back all the way back to the 12th century BC by by Assyrians, Hittites, early Hindus, Buddhists .

http://www.endroe.org/media/8670/horanbalchhead2.pdf

A. ANCIENT AND MEDIEVAL ATTITUDES

BLACKMUN’S RECOUNTING of the history of abortion began with
ancient attitudes and the Hippocratic oath. Relying exclusively for
both areas on the dated work of historian Ludwig Edelstein, he
concluded that the ancient Greeks and Romans had resorted to
abortion with great frequency and that it had met with
widespread approbation.22 Conversely, Martin Arbagi
demonstrates that temple inscriptions and other ancient writings
disclose considerable opposition to abortion in the Greco-Roman
world. Opposition spread and intensified from earlier to later
ancient times—a tendency which manifested itself long before
Christianity had any influence.23

Apart from remarking that the Persian Empire banned
abortion, Justice Blackmun’s survey of the ancient world was
limited to Greece and Rome. Yet, it is significant that abortion
was condemned in the twelfth century B.C. by Assyrians, Hittites,
early Hindus, Buddhists of India, and Indian law. There is some
evidence that the ancient Egyptians took a similar attitude. Most
of this information was available in the epical work of Eugene
Quay, which Blackmun cited but failed to incorporate into his
opinion.24

Justice Blackmun recognized that the oath of Hippocrates, composed in ancient Greece, forbade the practice of abortion. Apparently, in view of the longstanding honor paid to the Hippocratic oath, Blackmun felt the need to diminish its importance. In fact, he brought this question up sua sponte, because, “Although the Oath is not mentioned in any of the principal briefs in this case or in [the companion case of] Doe v.
Bolton... , it represents the apex of the development of strict
ethical concepts in medicine, and its influence endures to this
day.”25 Citing Edelstein, Blackmun argued that the oath, rather
than establishing significant pre-Christian opposition to
abortion, was merely the manifesto of an idiosyncratic and
unrepresentative sect of Pythagoreans. However, as noted in
Professor Arbagi’s chapter, the oath’s condemnation is not out of
step with ancient attitudes.26 Harold Brown makes a further
point:

The unspoken implication of the Court’s argument seems to be
that the Hippocratic Oath need not be taken seriously as an
expression of medical Roe v. Wade 63 ethics because, at the outset, it was the view of a minority ... and later, when it came to enjoy majority acceptance, this only took place because the majority by that time had embraced Christianity.

Edelstein’s conclusion is somewhat different... In all countries, in
all epochs, in which monotheism, in its purely religious or its more
secularized form, was the accepted creed, the Hippocratic Oath
was applauded as the embodiment of truth. Not only the Jews and
the Christians, but the Arabs, the medieval doctors, men of the
Renaissance, scholars of the enlightenment and scientists of the
nineteenth century embraced the ideals of the oath.27

​

Now, with the modern medical technology of 3-D, 4-D ultrasound and research findings in genomic and human embryology, there is absolutely no doubt any longer that an individual human life of a newly procreated human being comes into being at conception.

Yet, you, Minnie and others continue to hold on to the 17th and 18th standard of pre-modern science of "quickening" as though it's a precious gem for your proabortion cause. OK then, are you willing to support State enactment of antiabortion legislation to ban abortion after "quickening" has occurred? In modern scientific knowledge, the fetal heart starts beating at 4 weeks and first motor movement can be observed at 6 weeks after conception. Are you and Minnie willing to accept State antiabortion legislation that bans abortion after 4 weeks or 6 weeks from conception? Heck, we can't even get State antiabortion legislation to pass for ban against abortion after 20 weeks gestation or 18 weeks from conception due to fetal pain.

 

[dolphinocean]

^^^

WOW. are those cascades of posts supposed to be the revenge of the nerds after a all night bouts of defeat after defeats? Like I said before, you have a lot to say in so many words but nothing really of substance nor coherent but a series of long ramblings and blathering. What you are demonstrating is the saying: an empty vessel makes the most noise.

 

[Aberration]

Yea, I realized that afterwards, so at best, perhaps an individual state might try to write into its own constitution that all those conceived within that state are citizens of that state and thereby ban abortion by giving the unborn state constitutional rights, making abortion effectively a state issue. However, how do you prove the unborn was conceived in that state? There would need to be witnesses. If conception occurs out of state, may the couple still abort the pregnancy within that state?

It would be interesting to see how something like that would play out.

While I wouldn't agree, at least the States doing so is more proper. I don't think where conception would matter but where you try to get an abortion.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[dolphinocean]

While I wouldn't agree, at least the States doing so is more proper. I don't think where conception would matter but where you try to get an abortion.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

They are trying very hard to twist everything in the Constitution just so they can make a colossal spurious and absurd argument to confuse and conquer. That's all they can do and will do at all cost instead of acknowledging their errors.

The Constitution is never about conception or birth as means to determining personhood or right to life. Such concept was completely alien to the thinking of our founding fathers. The DOI clearly preludes to unalienable right to life. Life as used in the DOI and the Constitution is not subject to a certain defined stages of human development. In fact, James Wilson clearly clarifies for us that Life means from commencing to close and he calls the life in the womb as "infant stirring in the womb". Abortion was illegal even before the founding of our nation until seven unelected judges strike it down against the will of the people from time immemorial. The 5th and 14th amendment very clearly prohibit the government from depriving life without due process. The life here includes life from commencing to close. So, why should states do anything further to change its State Constitution? It makes no sense. That's what these proabortion folks want us to engage in their insanity. And sadly some people, even the politicians bought into their shenanigans.

 

[prometeus]

Nonsense.

Yes, to you everything that does not line up with your ignorant narrative, lies and misrepresentations is nonsense. Just more proof of the uneducated approach you have.

Before quickening most don't even know they are pregnant.

How do you come up with such moronic assertions?

 

[prometeus]

They are trying very hard to twist everything in the Constitution just so they can make a colossal spurious and absurd argument to confuse and conquer.

There is no need to conquer. Abortion IS legal and it is becoming legal in places where it was not. Civilization, intellect and human rights advance despite the efforts of the ignorants, the uneducated, the primitive thinkers and the control freaks. You and your ilk will always remain on the outside grinding your teeth and moaning.

 

[Removable Mind]

Well...the message of yours that I quoted specified "innocent lives". I suppose one could argue about the definition of "innocent". For example, when the Hebrews invaded Canaan, the natives were innocent of Hebrew religious teachings, and yet those teachings declared those natives to be guilty of various things, for which genocide of the natives was the "sentence" passed....

Gezzzzzzzz, FI, I was trying for a simple answer regarding "liberty doesn't kill innocent persons comment". Based on what what's his name said...he was wrong on various levels. Even the simplest of answers would have debunked his claim.

But thanks for the history lesson. I hope what's his name reads it.

 

[Removable Mind]

That is not a very complete or accurate statement of what the Supreme Court has said about the constitutional source of an implied constitutional right to personal privacy. The justices have never reached a lasting consensus about where this mysterious right is located in the Constitution, and some, like Justice Thomas, are unable to locate any such right anywhere in the Constitution. As the Court noted in Roe v. Wade,

In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right [to personal privacy] in the First Amendment, Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U. S. 557, 564 (1969); in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1, 8-9 (1968), Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347, 350 (1967), Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616 (1886), see Olmstead v. United States, 277 U. S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting); in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. at 484-485; in the Ninth Amendment, id. at 486 (Goldberg, J., concurring); or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, see Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390, 399 (1923). (emphasis added) 410 U.S. 113, 152 (1973).


The Court in Meyer and Roe associated the implied right to privacy with the liberty guaranteed as part of due process, but in the other decisions listed it did not. And I don't think the word "liberty", as used in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendments, has a meaning nearly as broad and vague as what you suggest, or as the majority said it did in Meyer and Roe (or, for that matter, in Obergefell.)

In his dissenting opinion in Obergefell, Justice Thomas discussed the historical meaning of due process, from the time of Magna Carta through 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. He presents compelling evidence that the liberty a person might not be deprived of without due process of law had throughout those centuries been, and still was in 1868, chiefly understood to mean physical liberty. The concern was about persons being seized or detained by agents of government without fair legal process--being informed of the charges against you, given a hearing, and so on.

Ya know, without writing walls of text regarding the origin of "right to privacy"...."liberty" really gets down to the nut-cut.

Thanks

 

[Removable Mind]

You have been a dishonest liar too long. I dont think I have ever listened to an episode of Rush. Nor could that be inferred from anything I have ever posted. It is quite simply thoughtless. Brain dead. If you cant think of reasons that have killed more people, that is simply because you are a pompous and uneducated ideologue. Unless you wish me to believe Communism was fighting for Liberty?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Ahhhhhhhh...

Your comment was wrong.

Thanks.

 

[dolphinocean]

There is no need to conquer. Abortion IS legal and it is becoming legal in places where it was not. Civilization, intellect and human rights advance despite the efforts of the ignorants, the uneducated, the primitive thinkers and the control freaks. You and your ilk will always remain on the outside grinding your teeth and moaning.

Abortion is never legal despite Roe v Wade ruling. The old State antiabortion statutes are still sitting in the dust on the shelves somewhere. They had never been repealed. What merely happens is that a small group of 7 unelected justices of the Roe Court usurped the Constitution and State rights by striking them down against the will of the people. States across the nations would not challenge the SC but simply capitulated, effectively resulting in the decriminalization of abortion by an unconstitutional judicial mandate.


Talk about ignorants, uneducated, primitive thinkers and the control freaks. I don't expect a proabortion fighter to be the bastion of justice, fairness and truth. Who will be always remaining on the outside grinding their teeth and moaning remains to be seen.

 

[dolphinocean]

Yes, to you everything that does not line up with your ignorant narrative, lies and misrepresentations is nonsense. Just more proof of the uneducated approach you have.

How do you come up with such moronic assertions?

Not so if you care to read all my posts without a preconceived and bias mind. It's not a moronic assertion to say that before quickening most don't even know they are pregnant. Some might suspect something. Without a pregnancy test then, suspicions would not be enough to compel women of that time to seek out poisonous potions that might end up killing them instead.

 

[minnie616]

Funny, you people can make argument both ways or however ways you want to suit your cup of tea. I remember years ago you or some of you here had been arguing that women might not know they were pregnant during the early stages. Then, recently you are telling me "quickening" occurs at around four months and now you're saying you suspect you were pregnant before your first missed period. WOW!


Nevertheless, in the 17th or 18th century women of that time had no way of confirming that they were pregnant. They couldn't just go out to search around the neighborhood to find some illegal apothecary to obtain poisonous potion that could very well had killed them.
....

...In those days, infant mortality rate was very high and having more children meant more chance of having children surviving to adulthood to help out in the family business or farming.
...

Yes, having more children meant that more children die during infantry and childhood.
It also caused women to die younger.

Some women don't know right away they are pregnant because they have irregular periods which can be caused by PCOS or other reasons.
Most women know by their 2ed month but a very few might not.

Morning sickness or missed periods and other syntoms pretty much confirms it for most women.
So if they chose not to continue a pregnancy they used certain herbs some of which were poionious or they would insert long handled sharp instruments to abort the pregnancy or any other number of abortion techniques that were handed down woman to woman or the that Midwifes would reccomend.

 

[dolphinocean]

Having more children ment having more children die during infantry and childhood.

Some women don't know right away because they have irregular periods which can be caused by PCOS or other reasons.
Most women know by their 2ed month but a very few might not.

Morning sickness or missed periods and other syntoms pretty much confirms it for most women.
So if they chose not to continue a pregnancy they used certain herbs some of which were poionious or they would insert long handled sharp instruments to abort the pregnancy or any other number of abortion techniques that were handed down woman to woman or the that Midwifes would reccomend.

They might suspect they are pregnant. They didn't have a sure scientific way of confirming it. So, you think they would just go find an illegal apothecary to concoct up some poisonous herb that would end up killing them whether they were actually pregnant or not? How could they insert long handled sharp instruments to abort the pregnancy if perchance they weren't actually pregnant and ended up perforating themselves by cutting up the wrong tissues? Or do you think the most prudent and safe bet is to wait till they could actually feel the kicking a few times to be certain?

 

[minnie616]

No, you have not listed why several Constitutional amendment including the 5th and the 14th amendments support right to privacy. What you have is posting a bunch of opinions written by a self-serving proabortion editor. His opinion is not Constitution, neither are a bunch of judicial opinions that have no consitutional basis whatsoever but entirely carved out of thin air.

There is absolutely no "right to privacy" found anywhere in the Constitution. Nor can it be inferred in any way, shape or form to justify the commission of crime in privacy or to deprive another human being of its life.

Let me repeat, there is no "right to privacy" found anywhere in the Constitution. Even so, "right to privacy" does not preclude State duty to uphold State Criminal Statutes, including antiabortion statute, to obtain warrant from a judge with probable cause, conduct reasonable searches and seizure of property, and to bring charges against a criminal suspect to a trial according to the due process of the law.

Remember, abortion was a crime long before Roe v Wade decision and had been a criminal offence since before the founding of out nation. The seven unelected judges of the Roe Court unilaterally done away with the centuries old antiabortion law with a stroke of a pen by judicial fiat and unconstitutional judicial "legislation" that empowers one group of human beings to deprive the lives of another innocent and defenseless human beings.

These black robed seven judges are murderous criminals in my eyes -- I've been wanting to say that for a long, long time. And you proabortion people have in your hands directly or indirectly shed innocent bloods of 56,662,169 Abortions in America Since Roe vs. Wade in 1973 and still counting.

Yet, proabortion zealots are calling for more. When is enough is enough?

Ahhh but there is a right to privacy and that right to privacy includes abortion.

Without right to privacy our medical records would open to anyone who wanted access to them.
Without right to privacy there would not be any private schools , nor home schooling.
Without right to privacy no one could plead the 5th.
Without right to privacy there would be no religious liberty.
Without right to privacy the government could seize your home and or your property without just cause.

 

[minnie616]

They might suspect they are pregnant. They didn't have a sure scientific way of confirming it. So, you think they would just go find an illegal apothecary to concoct up some poisonous herb that would end up killing them whether they were actually pregnant or not? How could they insert long handled sharp instruments to abort the pregnancy if perchance they weren't actually pregnant and ended up perforating themselves by cutting up the wrong tissues? Or do you think the most prudent and safe bet is to wait till they could actually feel the kicking a few times to be certain?

Yes, that is exactly what they did, most aborted before quickening.

UNTIL the last third of the nineteenth century, when it was criminalized state by state across the land, abortion was legal before "quickening" (approximately the fourth month of pregnancy). Colonial home medical guides gave recipes for "bringing on the menses" with herbs that could be grown in one's garden or easily found in the woods.

By the mid eighteenth century commercial preparations were so widely available that they had inspired their own euphemism ("taking the trade"). Unfortunately, these drugs were often fatal. The first statutes regulating abortion, passed in the 1820s and 1830s, were actually poison-control laws: the sale of commercial abortifacients was banned, but abortion per se was not. The laws made little difference.

By the 1840s the abortion business -- including the sale of illegal drugs, which were widely advertised in the popular press -- was booming. The most famous practitioner, Madame Restell, openly provided abortion services for thirty-five years, with offices in New York, Boston, and Philadelphia and traveling salespeople touting her "Female Monthly Pills."


In one of the many curious twists that mark the history of abortion, the campaign to criminalize it was waged by the same professional group that, a century later, would play an important role in legalization: physicians.

The American Medical Association's crusade against abortion was partly a professional move, to establish the supremacy of "regular" physicians over midwives and homeopaths.
More broadly, anti-abortion sentiment was connected to nativism, anti-Catholicism, and, as it is today, anti-feminism.

Immigration, especially by Catholics and nonwhites, was increasing, while birth rates among white native-born Protestants were declining.

(Unlike the typical abortion patient of today, that of the nineteenth century was a middle- or upper-class white married woman.)

Abortion in American History - The Atlantic

 

[dolphinocean]

Ahhh but there is a right to privacy and that right to privacy includes abortion.

Without right to privacy our medical records would open to anyone who wanted access to them.
Without right to privacy there would not private schools , nor home schooling.
Without right to privacy no one could plead the 5th.
Without right to privacy there would be no religious liberty.
Without right to privacy the government could seize your home and or your property without just cause.

There is no right to privacy in the Constitution. Privacy to medical records, school stuffs, etc stems from Federal and State legislations. Congress and States Congress have the power to legislate laws that does not deprive life without due process.

The "right to privacy" that the Roe Court carved out of thin air and falsely attributed it to the Constitution to invent another phantom right, i.e. "right to abortion", does deprive life without due process. Therefore, the phantom rights carved out by Roe Court are unconstitutional and criminal.

Pleading the 5th or religious liberty and whatnots aren't rights to privacy issues, please stop your obscene stretching beyond recognition.

 

[dolphinocean]

Yes, that is exactly what they did, most aborted before quickening.

No, they would not take that fatal chance. Early stage suspicion alone would not be a compelling reason. Most women would actually deny it even if they felt the quickening at first time. It's like being told you have terminal cancer. You wont accept it or believe it at the beginning until you have sought a more confirming medical opinion from a second or third medical sources.

 

[minnie616]

There is no right to privacy in the Constitution. Privacy to medical records, school stuffs, etc stems from Federal and State legislations. Congress and States Congress have the power to legislate laws that does not deprive life without due process.

The "right to privacy" that the Roe Court carved out of thin air and falsely attributed it to the Constitution to invent another phantom right, i.e. "right to abortion", does deprive life without due process. Therefore, the phantom rights carved out by Roe Court are unconstitutional and criminal.

Pleading the 5th or religious liberty and whatnots aren't rights to privacy issues, please stop your obscene stretching beyond recognition.

The rights to privacy I posted are Supreme Court decisions that founded in our Bill of Rights and Constitutional amendments.

 

[dolphinocean]

The rights to privacy I posted are Supreme Court decisions that founded in our Bill of Rights and Constitutional amendments.

Those you posted were rights to privacy. Those are something else you people twisted out of shape severely.