Should every fetus have a right to life?

[Removable Mind]

Oh...absolutely my opinion, but bias in the court is very real, and shows in nearly every decision.
We almost always know the outcome and who voted which way...liberal and conservative.

Roe v Wade was a....wait for it....wait for it...wait for it...A CONSERVATIVE MAJORITY!

 

[Meister]

Roe v Wade was a....wait for it....wait for it...wait for it...A CONSERVATIVE MAJORITY!

So??? It doesn't change my premise.

 

[Peter King]

Oh...absolutely my opinion, but bias in the court is very real, and shows in nearly every decision.
We almost always know the outcome and who voted which way...liberal and conservative.

But the extraordinary thing was that this ruling was made by a court that was conservative rather than liberal. And not by a small margin, 7-2 is a comfortable majority IMHO.

 

[Removable Mind]

So??? It doesn't change my premise.

Not trying to change your premise or opinion. I'm just allowing you to see how wrong you are in your assumption about supreme court ruling on Roe v Wade.

 

[The Baron]

The idea of natural rights that Thomas Jefferson based the DOI on came from John Locke.

John Locke said " all men are born equally free" and hold certain " natural rights"...


The Supreme Court agrees that our right to life in the USA begins upon birth.

So you are saying that the Supreme Court is always right?

If that is what you are saying then I am quite certain a first-time debater would utterly destroy your position.

 

[Meister]

Not trying to change your premise or opinion. I'm just allowing you to see how wrong you are in your assumption about supreme court ruling on Roe v Wade.

The Supreme Court gave their opinion just like I gave mine, RM. The difference is that they're in a position to make law on their opinions.

 

[OKgrannie]

The Supreme Court gave their opinion just like I gave mine, RM. The difference is that they're in a position to make law on their opinions.

The difference is that the SC's opinion is based on the Constitution, precedence, law, history, and reason, and your opinion can be based on emotion or anything at all.

 

[Meister]

The difference is that the SC's opinion is based on the Constitution, precedence, law, history, and reason, and your opinion can be based on emotion or anything at all.

Show me where in the constitution where it says abortion is legal, gram....if not, then it boils down to an opinion.
Law? History? Reason? Boils down to opinions. Get over it

 

[OKgrannie]

Show me where in the constitution where it says abortion is legal, gram....if not, then it boils down to an opinion.
Law? History? Reason? Boils down to opinions. Get over it

Show me where in the constitution where it says abortion is ILLEGAL. Certainly the founders had to know that abortion was happening, so if it was important to them to stop it, they surely would have said so. OTOH, the SC has found that the right to privacy is expressed, even though in a round-about way, in the constitution. Sure the whole thing boils down to opinion. And some opinions are more valuable than others. Unless you're the pregnant woman, your opinion just isn't that valuable.

 

[Removable Mind]

The Supreme Court gave their opinion just like I gave mine, RM. The difference is that they're in a position to make law on their opinions.

That is a hilarious comparison...seriously. How much judicial experience do you have? You do realize the difference between "judicial review and opinion"? Obviously not.

 

[Removable Mind]

Show me where in the constitution where it says abortion is legal, gram....if not, then it boils down to an opinion.
Law? History? Reason? Boils down to opinions. Get over it

I'm starting to get embarrassed for you. Your knowledge about how our Judicial Branch is substantially lacking.

I'm gonna help you out:

Most don't even know what "Right to Privacy" is derived from:

"Section I: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; *nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;* nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Note above...the clause in asterisks (*) is the Due Process Clause.

In 1971, the Roe v. Wade case challenged abortion laws of the time that restricted the act to cases that endangered the mother's life. The 1973 ruling of the Supreme Court was in favor of Roe, stating that such anti-abortion laws violated the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.

The Due Process Clause reads that no state will "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

In terms of Roe v. Wade, the relevant aspect of the clause centers on two concepts: liberty and privacy:

Women have the Constitutional rights to "equal protection", "due process", and "right to privacy".

1) Liberty: the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges

2) Privacy: freedom from unauthorized intrusion

The relationship between a woman and her medical provider is private...by law. That includes tests, diagnosis, treatments, and LEGAL MEDICAL PROCEDURES. The information generated between a woman and her medical provider isn't privy to the public, government, nor religions. Government can access statistical data on non-personal information and publish such. If it weren't for these statistics being published, pro-life advocates wouldn't have ANY information to use to make their arguments.

 

[Northern Light]

No, absolutely not. Not before homeless people, the mentally ill, war veterans, the disabled, etc... you know, people who actually have lived and contributed something to society, but fell through the cracks.

Abortion is an incredibly complex issue and its ethics ride entirely on individual circumstances.

 

[Meister]

I'm starting to get embarrassed for you. Your knowledge about how our Judicial Branch is substantially lacking.

I'm gonna help you out:

Most don't even know what "Right to Privacy" is derived from:

"Section I: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; *nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;* nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Note above...the clause in asterisks (*) is the Due Process Clause.

In 1971, the Roe v. Wade case challenged abortion laws of the time that restricted the act to cases that endangered the mother's life. The 1973 ruling of the Supreme Court was in favor of Roe, stating that such anti-abortion laws violated the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.

The Due Process Clause reads that no state will "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

In terms of Roe v. Wade, the relevant aspect of the clause centers on two concepts: liberty and privacy:

Women have the Constitutional rights to "equal protection", "due process", and "right to privacy".

1) Liberty: the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges

2) Privacy: freedom from unauthorized intrusion

The relationship between a woman and her medical provider is private...by law. That includes tests, diagnosis, treatments, and LEGAL MEDICAL PROCEDURES. The information generated between a woman and her medical provider isn't privy to the public, government, nor religions. Government can access statistical data on non-personal information and publish such. If it weren't for these statistics being published, pro-life advocates wouldn't have ANY information to use to make their arguments.

Good opinion. Mine disagrees, and I believe that a 'fetus' has a right to life except under extending circumstances.
Still....just the opinions of 9 human beings with an opinion, which wasn't 9-0. (I'm sure you are embarrassed for the 2 dissenting justices, also)
I feel embarrassed for you and your calloused view of the life of an unborn child. So I guess you can go pound sand

 

[Meister]

Show me where in the constitution where it says abortion is ILLEGAL. Certainly the founders had to know that abortion was happening, so if it was important to them to stop it, they surely would have said so. OTOH, the SC has found that the right to privacy is expressed, even though in a round-about way, in the constitution. Sure the whole thing boils down to opinion. And some opinions are more valuable than others. Unless you're the pregnant woman, your opinion just isn't that valuable.

You are the one who brought up the Constitution, Gram.

 

[prometeus]

I asked a question.

You asked a stupid question because you failed to grasp what you read. I didn’t make a statement. As such, I’ll pose your own question back to you:

I’m very disappointed to hear that.

I was hoping for anguished or suffering, but at any rate deal with it it is not going away.

Are you sure?

Yes I am sure and revisionist attempts do not change that reality.

Go ask someone like Putin or some idiot Islamic despot why they won’t protect people’s natural rights.

That is because they at least know that they do not exist.

I really don’t give a crap nor does it change the fact that our natural rights are God-given and not given by the Constitution / Bill of Rights.

Like you I do not give a crap about your delusion, I prefer reality.

These documents only protect our rights…they do not establish them.

I did not say that the documents give rights, but thanks for proving that you lack reading comprehension.

 

[Removable Mind]

Good opinion. Mine disagrees, and I believe that a 'fetus' has a right to life except under extending circumstances.
Still....just the opinions of 9 human beings with an opinion, which wasn't 9-0. (I'm sure you are embarrassed for the 2 dissenting justices, also)
I feel embarrassed for you and your calloused view of the life of an unborn child. So I guess you can go pound sand

ITS NOT OPINION! I GAVE YOU FACTS! What are you, 12 years old?

If you can't understand how I government works AND WHY....please get some professional tutoring.

Do you realize that over the past 40 years CONGRESS HAS HAD THE POWER to create an Amendment to include the unborn as "person or citizen"? If that happens, the S.C.'s rulings related to reproduction would be dead.

 

[Removable Mind]

So you are saying that the Supreme Court is always right?

If that is what you are saying then I am quite certain a first-time debater would utterly destroy your position.

But yet, you'll be the first to claim the upcoming revisit and overturn of ObamaCare is a S.C. righting a wrong. Over half of the population will disagree.

It is impossible to suggest or claim the S.C. is always right...or wrong. The S.C. isn't going to please everybody...EVER.

Judicial Review vs Judicial Activism is in question at this date. Activism has become the predominate role of the S.C. because Congress is full of clowns who can't effectively do their jobs. Wait, let me revise that to dumbass clowns. IMHO, the more the S.C. engages an activists role, the it's credibility is damaged across both parties.

 

[Meister]

ITS NOT OPINION! I GAVE YOU FACTS! What are you, 12 years old?

If you can't understand how I government works AND WHY....please get some professional tutoring.

Do you realize that over the past 40 years CONGRESS HAS HAD THE POWER to create an Amendment to include the unborn as "person or citizen"? If that happens, the S.C.'s rulings related to reproduction would be dead.

Dude, try not to get your Victoria Secret panties in a bunch....it's just a messageboard.
I've said all along that IT IS my opinion. I also stated that it was the SC's opinion, also.....
It's not that the SC ever legislated from the bench, huh?
No matter how much you stomp your feet or insult another poster...the justices are biased....there is no doubt about that.

 

[Removable Mind]

Dude, try not to get your Victoria Secret panties in a bunch....it's just a messageboard.
I've said all along that IT IS my opinion. I also stated that it was the SC's opinion, also.....
It's not that the SC ever legislated from the bench, huh?
No matter how much you stomp your feet or insult another poster...the justices are biased....there is no doubt about that.

Again your imagination is in full swing. According to you, every decision ever made by the S.C. a comedy.

Do you know the difference between Judicial Review and Judicial Activism? When Congress fails to do it's job....YES...the S.C. will do it for them. Your gripe is with Congress for failing to do it's job because elected officials sees "personhood for the unborn" for what it is. "Political Suicide"! It would also create social chaos.

A non-viable unborn...is human life...no doubt. But it's simply not so special that it is equal to, or superior to, a BORN human life.

I'm not stomping my feet. Your opinion isn't congruent to reality. The S.C. didn't pull the RvW decision out of their ass.

 

[Meister]

Again your imagination is in full swing. According to you, every decision ever made by the S.C. a comedy.

Do you know the difference between Judicial Review and Judicial Activism? When Congress fails to do it's job....YES...the S.C. will do it for them. Your gripe is with Congress for failing to do it's job because elected officials sees "personhood for the unborn" for what it is. "Political Suicide"! It would also create social chaos.

A non-viable unborn...is human life...no doubt. But it's simply not so special that it is equal to, or superior to, a BORN human life.

I'm not stomping my feet. Your opinion isn't congruent to reality. The S.C. didn't pull the RvW decision out of their ass.

With this issue.....how could 2 justices dissent? It's so cut and dry, right?

 

[Scrabaholic]

You are the one who brought up the Constitution, Gram.

Her name isn't "Gram"....I highly doubt she is 16 oz of marijuana.

 

[The Baron]

But yet, you'll be the first to claim the upcoming revisit and overturn of ObamaCare is a S.C. righting a wrong. Over half of the population will disagree.

It is impossible to suggest or claim the S.C. is always right...or wrong. The S.C. isn't going to please everybody...EVER.

...whatever...

Judicial Review vs Judicial Activism is in question at this date. Activism has become the predominate role of the S.C. because Congress is full of clowns who can't effectively do their jobs. Wait, let me revise that to dumbass clowns. IMHO, the more the S.C. engages an activists role, the it's credibility is damaged across both parties.

Congratulations!

You finally said something intelligent.

 

[Meister]

Her name isn't "Gram"....I highly doubt she is 16 oz of marijuana.

Granny-Grandma-Gram.....you figure it out.
16 oz of maryjane-hemp-mother nature-pot, doesn't equal a gram

0.0352739619=Oz FYI

 

[Removable Mind]

With this issue.....how could 2 justices dissent? It's so cut and dry, right?

If you were being honest, it wouldn't matter if there were 51 Justices and 5 dissented.

Would you have agreed with RvW decision if all 9 came to the decision it did in 1973? No, you wouldn't.

 

[Removable Mind]

You are the one who brought up the Constitution, Gram.

And you are the one who has a problem with our form of government and the Constitution.