Prediction: Roe v wade will be overturned

[Lursa]

So your reasoning is that abortion SHOULD NOT be an option if a woman CAN AFFORD to care for a kid.

Okay, I'll go with that then

Funny, I gave 2 examples, and there can be many reasons why. So your assumption is incorrect. Please answer my question...give me the same courtesy that you requested.

 

[Indlib]

Didn't you say you taught the Constitution as a teacher?

Then you could know that not all Const rights have to be enumerated in the Const...see the 9th Amendment.

For example, where is your right to 'have' children? Where is your right to have consensual sex?

Well said. The birth of the 9th amendment from James Madison himself...

''It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.''

Ninth Amendment - U.S. Constitution - FindLaw

Ninth Amendment - Unenumerated RightsAmendment Text | Annotations The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or

constitution.findlaw.com

.

 

[Dayton3]

For example, where is your right to 'have' children? Where is your right to have consensual sex?

I've made no claim about either one. If I (or anyone else) had a constitutional "right" to have children, wouldn't the government be obligated to pay for in vitro fertilization for a couple unable to have children? Are you in favor of that?

I bring it up because back in the 1990s a woman sued her insurance company to force it to pay for her in vitro saying she had a right to have children.

As for a "right to sex"? I have no such right. No one does. It isn't a "right" if it requires second party consent.

 

[Dayton3]

Funny, I gave 2 examples, and there can be many reasons why. So your assumption is incorrect. Please answer my question...give me the same courtesy that you requested.

Only if you withdraw your mocking of my teaching background.

 

[Lursa]

Only if you withdraw your mocking of my teaching background.

I will not. It was a simple question without rancor. You posted as if you didnt know. If you did know, then your question was dishonest.

Now you just want to avoid the discussion.

 

[NewfieMom]

Progressive paranoia has no bounds.

Well...we women have been subjected to a lot of control by men over the years. When men are out to control you, thinking that they are out to control you is actually more realistic than paranoid.

 

[Lursa]

I've made no claim about either one. If I (or anyone else) had a constitutional "right" to have children, wouldn't the government be obligated to pay for in vitro fertilization for a couple unable to have children? Are you in favor of that?

Please read better. I wrote that those are comparable examples. Do you understand that now? Do you understand how a right to abortion is recognized Constitutionally the same way those 2 examples are? Yes or no?

And if you'd like to examine them more in depth, I am happy to...please start a thread in the appropriate place.

As for a "right to sex"? I have no such right. No one does. It isn't a "right" if it requires second party consent.

I wrote 'consensual' sex. Please read better.

 

[RetiredUSN]

Well...we women have been subjected to a lot of control by men over the years. When men are out to control you, thinking that they are out to control you is actually more realistic than paranoid.

It's settled law.

The USSC is never going to reverse it and you know it.

 

[VanceMack]

Nah...it will never happen. I dont think a HEALTHY SCOTUS would overturn RvW...but Roberts has no stomach for Constitutional law....he would never even agree to have it brought before the court.

 

[Lursa]

If I (or anyone else) had a constitutional "right" to have children, wouldn't the government be obligated to pay for in vitro fertilization for a couple unable to have children? Are you in favor of that?

I bring it up because back in the 1990s a woman sued her insurance company to force it to pay for her in vitro saying she had a right to have children.

Is the govt required to give you guns under the 2A? No.

Individuals are not forced or compelled to exercise their rights.

Again, you make me question the fact that you taught anything. Do not blame me...look at what you are writing.

 

[Dayton3]

Is the govt required to give you guns under the 2A? No.

Individuals are not forced or compelled to exercise their rights.

Again, you make me question the fact that you taught anything. Do not blame me...look at what you are writing.

No. Of course not. The word "infringe" implies that gaining possession of arms is the obligation of an individual.

 

[Lursa]

No. Of course not. The word "infringe" implies that gaining possession of arms is the obligation of an individual.

So then why did you give me an example that was a complete parallel about the govt being obligated to provide $$ for people to have kids? Individuals are not forced or compelled to exercise their rights.

You are just avoiding the discussion now. Why didnt you answer the question I asked you? I courteously did so when YOU asked:

My answer: Because the women in your state are still protected by the Constitution and state laws dont supersede that.

My question: Why should women in your state be forced to remain pregnant when they cant care for/afford a kid when there is a safer medical procedure as an option?

(I answered your question and then asked my own. That should fulfill your request.)

Reference:

Abortion 14 times safer than pregnancy
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Getting a legal abortion is much safer than giving birth, suggests a new U.S. study published Monday.

Researchers found that women were about 14 times more likely to die during or after giving birth to a live baby than to die from complications of an abortion.

Abortion safer than giving birth: study

Getting a legal abortion is much safer than giving birth, suggests a new U.S. study published Monday.

www.reuters.com

(Dont bother avoiding the discussion by saying, "it's not safe for the unborn!" We all know that We're discussing the law.)

 

[Chomsky]

It isn't in the U.S. Constitution. Not even implied.

Of course it is. It was litigated.

 

[Dayton3]

Of course it is. It was litigated.

And if the Supreme Court changes its mind and takes that right away you will simile say "it was litigated" and "its the accepted law of the land" right?

 

[trixare4kids]

Arkansas Senate Committee Passes Bill Banning Abortions: "It's a Crime Against Humanity" - LifeNews.com

An Arkansas state Senate committee has a passed a bill that would ban killing babies in abortions, calling abortion a “crime against humanity.” Senate Bill 6 is the “Arkansas Unborn Child Protection Act to Abolish Abortion in Arkansas” and a Senate panel approved the measure and cleared it to go...

www.lifenews.com

Setting the table for the conservative majority to overturn Roe v Wade.

maybe now democrats will understand how important the judiciary is but I won’t hold my breath.

Nope. Not a chance...

 

[j brown's body]

It isn't in the U.S. Constitution. Not even implied.

9th amendment? Rights not listed in the Constitution belong to the people, not the government. Wouldn't the right to control one's body fall under that? After all, slavery is outlawed by the 13th amendment.

 

[trixare4kids]

I expect the lunatics in Arkansas to pass something. Now that they have ACB on the bench they don’t even need Roberts to overturn RvW:

All you are doing is spreading fear...

Sad. It's almost like you want the SC to overturn Roe v. Wade so you can blame conservative justices like ACB.
Lursa, early in the thread, explained why RvW will not be overturned... I'd be redundant to repeat it.
Read what she said.

 

[CaughtInThe]

Why is what the government in our state does regarding abortion rights of any concern to rest of the country?

And don't answer this with another question because I already know what it will be. And it's bad debate form.

exactly. that's why people don't talk about stuff that happens in NY, Texas, Florida or California.

 

[Chomsky]

And if the Supreme Court changes its mind and takes that right away you will simile say "it was litigated" and "its the accepted law of the land" right?

Of course I would accept it! Why wouldn't I? I'm an American, and the Constitution is what binds us together! As such, I stand by the Constitution & the institutions she sprang forth - and I respect & abide by the Court.

I'm against abortion in my personal life. I surely won't promote it. But if our American system prescribes it, I accept that and support my fellow Americans' Rights, including the ones I may personally disagree with. I don't impress my Faith or ideologies on my fellow men. Rather, all I ask is they act lawfully - so as to respect each-other & peacefully co-exist.

 

[mrjurrs]

It isn't in the U.S. Constitution. Not even implied.

"On January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court handed down a decision that continues to divide the nation to this day. In Roe v. Wade, the Court ruled that a state law that banned abortions except to save the life of the mother was unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment."

Something doesn't have to be in the Constitution for it to be a part of our lives, political parties for example.

 

[trixare4kids]

I hope you’re right. But the conservatives of today and the conservatives of the 1970s are worlds apart

And that's wrong?
You do realize that views on womens' rights are more relaxed today than fifty years ago?

I think you ignorantly confuse conservatives with the far religious right.

 

[Dayton3]

After all, slavery is outlawed by the 13th amendment.

No it isn't. I suggest you read it again.

 

[Dayton3]

I don't impress my Faith or ideologies on my fellow men. Rather, all I ask is they act lawfully - so as to respect each-other & peacefully co-exist.

Agree to disagree.

 

[Chomsky]

Agree to disagree.

Fair enough. I can respect that, Dayton3. I'm probably a bit more laissez-faire, than many - though. I personally don't care what my fellow American do, as long as it doesn't harm me & mine, or too greatly negatively impact society. The greatest gift we can give a fellow American, is to leave him the hell alone! The pursuit of happiness comes in many different forms . . .

 

[Scrabaholic]

I've made no claim about either one. If I (or anyone else) had a constitutional "right" to have children, wouldn't the government be obligated to pay for in vitro fertilization for a couple unable to have children? Are you in favor of that?

You have a right to keep and bear arms, but the govt. doesn't have to pay for them.