The Left Needs to Take Back the Constitution

[Cordelier]

Apparently, since this issue has been a matter of State law pre-Roe and pre-Casey, and the current SCOTUS has overturned both decisions, then the power to decide the LAW in regards to this issue per the 10th Amendment would rightly revert to State legislatures. Not the individual.

This has been pointed out to you several times. It is now a matter of Constitutional law.

So stop asserting it is an individual right and start organizing to change State laws.

As I have already said, the right to privacy does not allow one to do harm to another just because it is done "in private." Your only reply is to deny the rights of the unborn, asserting they should not have any simply because (per normal human biology) it is occurring inside a woman. That remains the issue, and that like any other protection from harm provided by law for any other "person" can be legislated.

Ahhhh.... so now we come to the "Shut up and take it... it's already decided" argument.

Yes, I know the Supreme Court has decided the issue... I just happen to disagree with the decision, and I think I have a compelling argument to make against it. If you don't feel able to respond to those arguments, then don't feel compelled to do so.

I put this out to you straight, though... when it comes to a legal conflict between a woman's right to privacy and her fetus' right to be carried to term, there's no conflict at all.... the mother is a person and has rights; her fetus is not - and cannot - be held to be a person, and therefore cannot possess any rights on their own merits. Whatever rights it does possess can only be derived from its mother. So that argument is a legal non-starter right out of the gate. Sure, I agree there's a moral and spiritual argument to be made for the fetus - just not a legal one. We all have a 1st Amendment right to our own moral and spiritual beliefs.

The other conflict is on the issue of judicial review - the power of the State vs. the rights of the mother. Does the State have the power to dictate to a woman what happens in her own uterus? Yes, it does... but the extent of that power is limited by how much power we are willing to give the woman. Does she have a right to privacy? If you answer "Yes" to that, well, then the power of the State to legislate to overrule her rights becomes limited to laws that pass strict scutiny. But if you answer "No", and no such right exists, then the State's laws only need to pass the much less restrictive rational basis test.

So, that's the first argument there - let's call it the 9th Amendment argument. Sure, the Court ruled that the individual right to an abortion doesn't exist. But why not? Why isn't it covered under the right to privacy? Does the right to privacy itself exist anymore? Or are we all now at the mercy of Big Brother? And even if you don't think there's a Constitutional right to privacy... what exactly is the criteria for recognition of a 9th Amendment right? Shouldn't Justice Alito have given us some concrete guidance there and demonstrated why privacy falls short? These are all questions I have.

Secondly - and let's call this the 10th Amendment argument - even if you decide that there is no underlying right to privacy, why does it necessarily follow that the power to decide belongs to the State? The 10th Amendment specifically gives reserved powers to the States OR to the people. One or the other. Not both. So if an issue as personal and intimate as whether or not to carry a fetus to term doesn't properly belong with the people - on an individual basis - then what issue could ever conceivably be delegated to the people rather than the State under the terms of the 10th Amendment?

 

[Captain Adverse]

Ahhhh.... so now we come to the "Shut up and take it... it's already decided" argument.

Non-sequitur.

As for the rest of your post, clearly you ignored the many options remaining in favor of your typical red herrings, and other unreasonable arguments.

There are several actions your side of this issue can take.

1, Work to change/modify State laws, State Constitutions, and even the U.S. Constitution if you have enough support.

2, RELOCATE to a State where the law already conforms to your views.

3. Emigrate if you dislike how things are in the USA.

 

[Cordelier]

Non-sequitur.

As for the rest of your post, clearly you ignored the many options remaining in favor of your typical ad hominins, emotional appeals, and other unreasonable arguments.

There are several actions your side of this issue can take.

1, Work to change/modify State laws, State Constitutions, and even the U.S. Constitution if you have enough support.

2, RELOCATE to a State where the law already conforms to your views.

3. Emigrate if you dislike how things are in the USA.

You're not even attempting to address my post. Just more "shut up and take it".

 

[weaver2]

You post like a member of the SS.

@Glitch: He is right. How are your words: "Leftists are indeed mentally-deranged sub-human pieces of shit, but "filth" is faster to type." any different than Hitler's words:

"Religion is ridiculed, ethics and morality represented as outmoded, ...... in his vileness he becomes so gigantic that no one need be surprised if among our people the personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew.....by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord [p. 60]."

 

[Captain Adverse]

You're not even attempting to address my post. Just more "shut up and take it".

Pay attention!

I have already addressed all of your arguments earlier in this thread:

Post #125 Page 5, Posts #126, #134, and #140 Page 6, and Posts #160 and #164 on Page 7.

You just keep repeating the same arguments over and over as if by mere repetition you assume you've won the point.

I will repeat this for the last time. Even the decisions in Roe and Casey held that at some point within that pregnancy the State may have an interest in preserving the life of the unborn.

So even in the old rulings on abortion, the alleged "right" was not considered absolute.

 

[weaver2]

There are several actions your side of this issue can take.

1, Work to change/modify State laws, State Constitutions, and even the U.S. Constitution if you have enough support.

Conservatives, busy little wasps that they are, have been loading up legislatures with bills specifically to curtail the Democratic vote. Most disturbing of all conservative states are electing or appointing very conservative secretaries of state that have indicated that since the position is in charge of voting and vote counting they are willing to change the counts to favor Trump candidates.

So yes voting is a way to make change, but only in fair elections.

2, RELOCATE to a State where the law already conforms to your views
3. Emigrate if you dislike how things are in the USA.

So the theme here is if you don't like the dishonesty of conservatives the solution is to leave so the conservatives have the country to themselves not to stand and fight for a decent and fair America.

 

[Cordelier]

Pay attention!

I have already addressed all of your arguments earlier in this thread:

Post #125 Page 5,

Post #125 Page 5:

In the case of abortion, it is more than just the idea of such "domain." It strikes at the very nature of human existence.

We all started this way, and so many people completely ignore this fact, parsing when the "thing" is and is not "human" enough to be protected.

I am not one who forbids abortion per se, I am one who wishes it limited to the first trimester and after that ONLY if the develping child could not survive, OR the mother would suffer death or serious physical harm by carrying to term.

But I do NOT believe abortion is an absolute right up to and until the "cord is cut."

Meanwhile, I also believe it is something that the LEGISLATURES of each State should decide.

Why would you not agree, do you not believe in our "Democracy?"

Regardless of how you interpret the individual right, this post doesn't address the 10th Amendment argument. Reserved powers belong to the States OR to the people. If something as personal and intimate as deciding whether or not to carry a fetus to term doesn't properly lie with "the people", what reserved powers could ever do so?

Why do you not believe in personal freedom over one's own body?

 

[Cordelier]

Pay attention!

I have already addressed all of your arguments earlier in this thread:

.....Posts #126, Page 6....,

Post #126, Page 6

Once again you are presuming too much and projecting such views onto me.

I argue that the developing baby (you can call it whatever terms you want to in order to deny it's humanity, but I will not do so) has the right to life too. At least at some point it it's growth within the womb. It is not a "nothing" up to and until it is actually "born."

Moral/spiritual argument. Not a legal argument.

 

[Cordelier]

Pay attention!

I have already addressed all of your arguments earlier in this thread:

#134, Page 6

Post #134, Page 6:

Really? Then who "speaks" for the "squashing of individual rights" of the unborn?

Again, the argument of YOUR side seems to be that until a baby is "born" it is nothing more than a parasite on the mother at best, and at worst a disposable kind of cellular growth equivalent to a cancer. In either case, free to be cut out and disposed of as long as it is still inside the womb.

I do not agree.

Moral/spiritual argument, not a legal one. There is no constitutional basis for asserting a fetus has a right to life.

 

[Cordelier]

Pay attention!

I have already addressed all of your arguments earlier in this thread:

#140 Page 6,

Post #140, Page 6

I do not agree. This the dispute. Thus, I will continue to argue for, and defend the right to life of the defenseless.

Again, moral/spiritual argument, not a legal one. Remind me again, who is making the same argument over and over again?

I'm not even going to bother posting the rest of them... it's just more of the same. As you say, "by mere repetition you assume you've won the point."

Nobody cares what your moral/spiritual values are. They are between you and your Creator. Just the same as anyone else's are.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Post #125 Page 5:

Regardless of how you interpret the individual right, this post doesn't address the 10th Amendment argument. Reserved powers belong to the States OR to the people. If something as personal and intimate as deciding whether or not to carry a fetus to term doesn't properly lie with "the people", what reserved powers could ever do so?

Why do you not believe in personal freedom over one's own body?

Post #126, Page 6

Moral/spiritual argument. Not a legal argument.

Post #134, Page 6:

Moral/spiritual argument, not a legal one. There is no constitutional basis for asserting a fetus has a right to life.

Post #140, Page 6

Again, moral/spiritual argument, not a legal one. Remind me again, who is making the same argument over and over again?

I'm not even going to bother posting the rest of them... it's just more of the same. As you say, "by mere repetition you assume you've won the point."

Nobody cares what your moral/spiritual values are. They are between you and your Creator. Just the same as anyone else's are.

There is no "10th Amendment argument" in support of your "individual right" position. Why?

Because the SCOTUS has declared that the power to decide rests with the State Legislatures in that same decision that overruled Roe and Casey. THAT is now the legal "Constitutional interpretation" even if you seek to apply the 10th Amendment. Your "individual right" argument denied. Legal argument requirement met.

As for your declaring the rest "moral and spiritual" you are again wrong. The "right to privacy" you keep asserting does not allow anyone to commit any harms on anyone else based on any such argument. Thus, my point about that is not ""moral/spiritual," but rather legal, as would I argue if you thought killing, maiming, or otherwise harming anyone else done in "privacy" would make it both a "legal" and a "proper" exercise of any such right.

YOU are the one asserting a right which grants you the power to declare an unborn human baby nothing more than a cancer, a parasite, or an intruder on your body. To be excised at will.

THOSE are the real "emotional and moral" arguments.

 

[Plasmaball]

“Five cells” is a human (legally) if a duly elected state government says it is.

Uh huh...if that's how you need to punt then have at it.

5 cells isn't a human being and you all know it.

 

[Plasmaball]

Actually, it does. It is called the Tenth Amendment. Try reading it and get a clue. Your ignorance is astounding, but expected.

The tenth only works when you feel like it. See graham's push for a national abortion ban.

You all need to stop playing this game where you have no principles beyond wanting control

 

[Linc]

… impossible to do with this 6-3 ussc …

 

[Cordelier]

There is no "10th Amendment argument" in support of your "individual right" position. Why?

Because the SCOTUS has declared that the power to decide rests with the State Legislatures in that same decision that overruled Roe and Casey. THAT is now the legal "Constitutional interpretation" even if you seek to apply the 10th Amendment. Your "individual right" argument denied. Legal argument requirement met.

As for your declaring the rest "moral and spiritual" you are again wrong. The "right to privacy" you keep asserting does not allow anyone to commit any harms on anyone else based on any such argument. Thus, my point about that is not ""moral/spiritual," but rather legal, as would I argue if you thought killing, maiming, or otherwise harming anyone else done in "privacy" would make it both a "legal" and a "proper" exercise of any such right.

YOU are the one asserting a right which grants you the power to declare an unborn human baby nothing more than a cancer, a parasite, or an intruder on your body. To be excised at will.

THOSE are the real "emotional and moral" arguments.

Again, let's go to the text:

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Reserved powers go to the States respectively, or to the people. One OR the other. What reserved powers can you list that go the people rather than the State? Don't you think there ought to be some? One?
I figure if there's ever a case to be made for one such existing reserved power that ought to go to the people rather than the State, it ought to be the power to decide what happens to one's own body.
Why am I incorrect in that belief? And if, indeed, I am incorrect... then doesn't that render the last four words of the last amendment of the Bill of Rights essentially meaningless?

 

[Linc]

Actually, it does. It is called the Tenth Amendment. Try reading it and get a clue. Your ignorance is astounding, but expected.

The bloody 10th amendment, in conjunction with the 2nd, caused the civil war.
I can see why you’re a fan, @Glitch and @Fishking

 

[Plasmaball]

Yes, your attempts of sophistry is the same as any others. Here are facts that you cannot deny:

1. Those five cells are alive, and they exist in the world, so they have being. That makes it a living being.
2. Those cells compose the entirety of a human at that point in development, so it is a human being.
3. The life cycle of every human being starts at conception.
4. Those cells have never resulted in the birth of a different animal, which solidifies that it is, indeed, a human.

All of this means is that at conception it is a living human being. You will not be able to refute any points stated here, so what you will do is talk around the points, instead of addressing them directly. What will likely be the case is you will attempt to shift the conversation to personhood status, which is not a scientific debate, but a philosophical debate. This means your position is of no more weight than anyone else's. However, I have on my side the history of what happens when we "de-person" a various groups and it's never been good.

No it doesn't make them living. It has the potential to become a human.

That's it. You can dress it up however you want, I seriously don't care. 5 cells isn't a human being.

I don't need to divert to anything fish. I'm not you. I answer things directly because in the end it really doesn't matter.

A group of cells has the potential to become human life. A woman's body naturally aborts these on a mass scale. You can't stop nature. Nature doesn't give a crap about your feelings.

On yourside? No your side makes up about 8 to 18% depending on the polls.

Your side..lol get the **** out of here like somehow people are taking a 3 week old zygote and tossing them off buildings or lining them up for gas chambers.

What a ****ing weak as shit " I'm ****ing righteous " ****ing bullshit. People like you are the true danger with your absolutism and has zero place in America.

People in that 8 to 18% are psychos and have zero business making law.


Lol I don't play by your rules.

 

[weaver2]

......... The "right to privacy" you keep asserting does not allow anyone to commit any harms on anyone else based on any such argument. Thus, my point about that is not ""moral/spiritual," but rather legal, as would I argue if you thought killing, maiming, or otherwise harming anyone else done in "privacy" would make it both a "legal" and a "proper" exercise of any such right. YOU are the one asserting a right which grants you the power to declare an unborn human baby nothing more than a cancer, a parasite, or an intruder on your body. To be excised at will.

All abortions are done because the pregnancy is unplanned and unwanted (exceptions for medical and rape). If conservatives are going to claim all fetuses have the right not to be harmed (aborted) , then it is reasonable to discuss why conservatives are OK when the unwanted child significantly harms the family it is born into.

There are peer reviewed studies showing that an unwanted child in a family that doesn't have the resources to emotionally or financially support a child damages not only the family members but also damages the child to the point where they are a social problem.

When a pregnancy is unplanned and unwanted and the mother and her family say they cannot support a child so that it grows up in a stable and secure home and becomes a contributing member of society it is fair to say that fetus will cause a great deal of harm to many people and abortion when it is a non-sentient, non-feeling, non-aware embryo is the greater morality than preservation of that fetus.

Immorality is insisting that a child be born even though it will cause harm.

 

[Captain Adverse]

All abortions are done because the pregnancy is unplanned and unwanted (exceptions for medical and rape).

Whose responsibility is that (barring "exceptions" for medical and rape)? There are so many ways to prevent unwanted pregnancies before they can occur, that "barring exceptions for medical and rape," the fault lies clearly with the persons engaging in the act.

If conservatives...

Stop the "labeling." If you MUST use one, then use the one I clearly state in my ID box: "Classical Liberal."

...are going to claim all fetuses have the right not to be harmed (aborted)...

I never said that. You really need to study what I have actually said.

...then it is reasonable to discuss why conservatives are OK when the unwanted child significantly harms the family it is born into. There are peer reviewed studies showing that an unwanted child in a family that doesn't have the resources to emotionally or financially support a child damages not only the family members but also damages the child to the point where they are a social problem.
When a pregnancy is unplanned and unwanted and the mother and her family say they cannot support a child so that it grows up in a stable and secure home and becomes a contributing member of society it is fair to say that fetus will cause a great deal of harm to many people

All of that is a multiverse of different issues of speculation offered as justification. That is not the issue, because if a child is born "unwanted" we have systems in place to take responsibility for a truly unwanted child. So play that deck of cards elsewhere.

and abortion when it is a non-sentient, non-feeling, non-aware embryo is the greater morality than preservation of that fetus.

Now that's a "moral argument" as asserted by another member. It is also something that I am not arguing about as I am on record as agreeing with law that allows for an abortion in the first 15 weeks when what you assert is likely the case. This is something that the SCOTUS decision allows for enactment at the STATE legislative level.

So, as I've told others, simply act to compel State Legislatures to pass such law. That is within the "10th Amendment" arena which is why SCOTUS "kicked it back" to YOUR State Legislature.

Immorality is insisting that a child be born even though it will cause harm.

That is a matter of opinion. IMO the immorality is the taking of a life merely due to feeling "inconvenienced," when we have entire systems and methodologies in place to pass an unwanted child to someone who would want it.

 

[Hamish Howl]

Dobbs is more honest that Roe ever was. It also has nothing to do with religious or cultural beliefs. The Supreme Court does not have the constitutional authority to acknowledge an unenumerated right.

Therefore, the feds can wiretap you without a warrant.

 

[Hamish Howl]

I'm surprised you are able to respond at all, given your obvious lack of education. Shouldn't you be pretending to read another picture book or posting yet another meme?

lol

 

[Fishking]

You know what I meant. Get back to me when you can have a serious and thoughtful discussion without tryIng to change the meanings of my words.
Until then, it’s still just five cells. So what?

I know what you meant and I know that what you meant fails even under it's own standard, which I demonstrated.

 

[Fishking]

Double down on your lie about me. And psychological projection to boot.

It's not a lie, it's holding you to your own reasoning, and then you ran.

 

[Fishking]

No it doesn't make them living. It has the potential to become a human.

Uhhh...it's most definitely living. Are you positing that at some random point in gestation non-living matter spontaneously pops out a living baby? That's nuts.

That's it. You can dress it up however you want, I seriously don't care. 5 cells isn't a human being.

I don't need to divert to anything fish. I'm not you. I answer things directly because in the end it really doesn't matter.

A group of cells has the potential to become human life. A woman's body naturally aborts these on a mass scale. You can't stop nature. Nature doesn't give a crap about your feelings.

You're "that's it" is crazy town, thinking that non-living matter can grow cells and divide while dead/non-living.

On yourside? No your side makes up about 8 to 18% depending on the polls.

Leaning on a popularity contest demonstrates just how weak your position is.

Your side..lol get the **** out of here like somehow people are taking a 3 week old zygote and tossing them off buildings or lining them up for gas chambers.

What a ****ing weak as shit " I'm ****ing righteous " ****ing bullshit. People like you are the true danger with your absolutism and has zero place in America.

People in that 8 to 18% are psychos and have zero business making law.
Lol I don't play by your rules.

You're repeating yourself and what you're repeating is ****ing stupid.

 

[mrjurrs]

Apparently whatever the SCOTUS says that it does. What it doesn’t mean is that the SCOTUS can make laws or supply (additional) text to tthe 9A via majority opinions.

Who is the final arbiter of what is constitutional? The SCOTUS. Almost two generations ago SCOTUS determined there was a Constitutional right that had not previously been enumerated. Since then that right has been affirmed based on Roe and additional case law,

"In Griswold, the Supreme Court found a right to privacy, derived from penumbras of other explicitly stated constitutional protections. The Court used the personal protections expressly stated in the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments to find that there is an implied right to privacy in the Constitution. The Court found that when one takes the penumbras together, the Constitution creates a “zone of privacy.” The right to privacy established in Griswold was then narrowly used to find a right to privacy for married couples, regarding the right to purchase contraceptives."

What does the 9th mean if it doesn't mean this?