• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

]W:#325]Alito's Abortion Ruling Overturning Roe Is an Insult to the 9th Amendment

Lursa

Implacable
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
95,714
Reaction score
54,116
Location
Outside Seattle
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Actually, I provided you with a scientific perspective that arrived at the same definition I did, and I'm fluent in the English language and the fact that there are applicable synonyms in this case. Yes, I've checked out the issue from a variety of perspectives as well, although I wasn't quite 10 y/o when R v W was decided, there's been a little water under the bridge since then. I've already articulated it sufficiently, if you truly were open minded, you would accept that.

How many times do you have to deny that the discussion isnt about biological classification but legal classification: status and recognition of rights. Do you think the courts dont know it's Homo sapiens? The US Code I provided even said so.

If you want to use the scientific definition you provided...remember this: science doesnt recognize rights for ANY species...including humans. So even your source denies them rights.

This isn't ONLY about the woman's health et al, but also the person growing inside her when she's pregnant, I'm not saying abortion should be outlawed completely, but rather it should not be entirely unfettered. So only women can get pregnant and that's not fair, well I have news for you, life in general isn't always fair, never has been and likely never will be, that's called reality.

You want to keep using science as your argument and then you write "It's not fair?" :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:

Cool, life isnt fair...and the woman is equal to men in her rights and the unborn have none. No one said it's fair...but the govt is obligated to protect women's lives and rights under the Const and it has no such obligations to do so for the unborn. So...it's not fair 🤷
 

Lursa

Implacable
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
95,714
Reaction score
54,116
Location
Outside Seattle
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Lawyers and politicians do not get to define such things, they consult relevant personnel. Just because it has yet to be properly litigated does not negate its validity.

Prove it hasnt been 'properly litigated.' For over 200 years, there hasnt been a federal law or federal court decision that recognized rights for the unborn.

So are you lying about it not being 'properly litigated?'
 

Paul191145

U.S. Army retired
Joined
Jul 5, 2022
Messages
299
Reaction score
64
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
If you want to use the scientific definition you provided...remember this: science doesnt recognize rights for ANY species...including humans. So even your source denies them rights.
You just keep ignoring the point I already made, my premise is about what should be/a case to be made, and it is entirely rational and logical, yet you continue to focus purely on the courts. FYI, in many court cases, for clarification and specificity, SME's are called upon to testify in their field of expertise.
 

Paul191145

U.S. Army retired
Joined
Jul 5, 2022
Messages
299
Reaction score
64
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
You have nothing to teach and can't address the points made, much less refute them.
If ever there were an assumption based in abject ignorance, this is it.
 

Gordy327

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 5, 2022
Messages
5,811
Reaction score
3,463
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
If ever there were an assumption based in abject ignorance, this is it.
No assumption, but fact. Your inability to address the points or questions Lursa and I posed only demonstrates that, further reinforced by your snark responses.
You just keep ignoring the point I already made,
She has not ignored your points. She addressed them. Your points are just weak.
my premise is about what should be/a case to be made, and it is entirely rational and logical, yet you continue to focus purely on the courts.
What should be is merely your opinion. We've presented legal facts.
 

Lursa

Implacable
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
95,714
Reaction score
54,116
Location
Outside Seattle
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
You just keep ignoring the point I already made, my premise is about what should be/a case to be made, and it is entirely rational and logical, yet you continue to focus purely on the courts. FYI, in many court cases, for clarification and specificity, SME's are called upon to testify in their field of expertise.

it's not remotely logical or rational. And the US Code made it clear they had considered biologist and medical SME opinion. As did th RvW decision.

Yes, if you want to ban or restrict abortion, you need LAW :rolleyes:

Born and unborn cannot have equal rights...one's rights would supersede the other's rights. If the (imagined) unborn's rights superseded women's, we would no longer be equal with men and we'd be back to being 2nd class citizens again.

Did you, 'logically or rationally' think any of this thru, past your 'feelings'? :rolleyes: If you disagree, please explain, how women and the unborn can be treated equally under the law. Not with your feelings or opinion but with legal foundation, such has been provided to you with cited law, prcedent, court decisions, etc.
 

Gordy327

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 5, 2022
Messages
5,811
Reaction score
3,463
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
If the (imagined) unborn's rights superseded women's, we would no longer be equal with men and we'd be back to being 2nd class citizens again.
I think that is what some are hoping for. Dominance over a woman's choices and the unborn is a convenient excuse.
Did you, 'logically or rationally' think any of this thru, past your 'feelings'? :rolleyes: If you disagree, please explain, how women and the unborn can be treated equally under the law. Not with your feelings or opinion but with legal foundation, such has been provided to you with cited law, prcedent, court decisions, etc.
I have found that anti-abortionists mainly argue using feelings and appeal to emotions. How often have we heard "Abortion is murder" or "it's baby killing," ect..?
 

Paul191145

U.S. Army retired
Joined
Jul 5, 2022
Messages
299
Reaction score
64
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
No assumption, but fact. Your inability to address the points or questions Lursa and I posed only demonstrates that, further reinforced by your snark responses.

She has not ignored your points. She addressed them. Your points are just weak.

What should be is merely your opinion. We've presented legal facts.
If that's what you want to believe.
 

Paul191145

U.S. Army retired
Joined
Jul 5, 2022
Messages
299
Reaction score
64
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
it's not remotely logical or rational. And the US Code made it clear they had considered biologist and medical SME opinion. As did th RvW decision.

Yes, if you want to ban or restrict abortion, you need LAW :rolleyes:

Born and unborn cannot have equal rights...one's rights would supersede the other's rights. If the (imagined) unborn's rights superseded women's, we would no longer be equal with men and we'd be back to being 2nd class citizens again.

Did you, 'logically or rationally' think any of this thru, past your 'feelings'? :rolleyes: If you disagree, please explain, how women and the unborn can be treated equally under the law. Not with your feelings or opinion but with legal foundation, such has been provided to you with cited law, prcedent, court decisions, etc.
Wow, nice job of confusing my point due to your already firmly held beliefs, obviously you're not capable of thinking beyond such things.
 

Paul191145

U.S. Army retired
Joined
Jul 5, 2022
Messages
299
Reaction score
64
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
No belief. Just fact.

Clearly you think your beliefs/opinions trump actual law and facts!
I don't think you understand what a "fact" actually is. As for the premise I presented, it has nothing to do with feelings, but rather scientific analysis and Constitutional quotes, apparently you're incapable of discerning the difference.
 

Lursa

Implacable
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
95,714
Reaction score
54,116
Location
Outside Seattle
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Wow, nice job of confusing my point due to your already firmly held beliefs, obviously you're not capable of thinking beyond such things.

My "beliefs" on this issue, my position, are based on facts and morality and the law and my personal value on the lives involved.

I value the unborn but I value all born people more. I didnt see you even attempt to directly address what I wrote in post 433.

This is a debate...please directly address my arguments in post 433...can you do so?
 

Paul191145

U.S. Army retired
Joined
Jul 5, 2022
Messages
299
Reaction score
64
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
it's not remotely logical or rational. And the US Code made it clear they had considered biologist and medical SME opinion. As did th RvW decision.

Yes, if you want to ban or restrict abortion, you need LAW :rolleyes:

Born and unborn cannot have equal rights...one's rights would supersede the other's rights. If the (imagined) unborn's rights superseded women's, we would no longer be equal with men and we'd be back to being 2nd class citizens again.

Did you, 'logically or rationally' think any of this thru, past your 'feelings'? :rolleyes: If you disagree, please explain, how women and the unborn can be treated equally under the law. Not with your feelings or opinion but with legal foundation, such has been provided to you with cited law, prcedent, court decisions, etc.

No one person's rights supersede anyone else's. There is no logical reason why the unborn should be denied the right to life due to a whim or inconvenience.
I have no idea why you keep commenting on my "feelings", I have addressed scientific analysis and the Constitution, interpretation may be what you'd like to address instead.
How does the biological ability to bring life into the world, or ending said life make anyone a 2nd class citizen exactly? If you can't accept the logical premise I presented, that's your problem, but stop deflecting.
 

mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 13, 2010
Messages
22,604
Reaction score
4,274
Location
DC Metro
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
There are most certainly Constitutional rights that are not in the Constitution the framers made that perfectly clear. Virtually all our rights are NOT included in the bill of rights and saying otherwise is 17th century thinking that the framers denied with the 9th amendment which is EQUALLY as clear as the 10th. Additional rights can be inferred from other rights which is how the right to privacy was determined. Once granted they can never be deprived since by definition a Constitutional right is bestowed on the people not Federal or State Govts.
The idea that an infered right can never be deprived ignores the Constitutional ammendment process and decades of precedence, such as the never ending attempt to limit the 1st and 2nd ammendments.
 

Gordy327

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 5, 2022
Messages
5,811
Reaction score
3,463
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I don't think you understand what a "fact" actually is.
It's what you seem to lack.
As for the premise I presented, it has nothing to do with feelings, but rather scientific analysis and Constitutional quotes, apparently you're incapable of discerning the difference.
In other words, your own opinions.
No one person's rights supersede anyone else's.
It is impossible to grant rights to both the unborn and the woman equally.
There is no logical reason why the unborn should be denied the right to life due to a whim or inconvenience.
Where is it stated the unborn has a "right to life?" Cite the law!
How does the biological ability to bring life into the world, or ending said life make anyone a 2nd class citizen exactly?
Because if a pregnant woman is denied her bodily autonomy and choice to end a pregnancy, her individual rights is being devalued in favor of the unborn. Like I said, it's impossible to have equal rights for both the woman and unborn.
 

iguanaman

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 16, 2011
Messages
60,446
Reaction score
23,307
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
The idea that an infered right can never be deprived ignores the Constitutional ammendment process and decades of precedence, such as the never ending attempt to limit the 1st and 2nd ammendments.
Interpretations of the amendments can change but taking away a Constitutional right simply because it is not in the Constitution like Alito did is in violation of the 9th amendment like I said. Talk about slippery slopes...
 

mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 13, 2010
Messages
22,604
Reaction score
4,274
Location
DC Metro
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Interpretations of the amendments can change but taking away a Constitutional right simply because it is not in the Constitution like Alito did is in violation of the 9th amendment like I said. Talk about slippery slopes...
Like taking away the right to drink alcohol?
 

Lursa

Implacable
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
95,714
Reaction score
54,116
Location
Outside Seattle
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
No one person's rights supersede anyone else's.

I asked how that could be done...legally, practically. You just basically wrote 'na huh' with no argument.

There is no logical reason why the unborn should be denied the right to life due to a whim or inconvenience.

A woman's entire life, health, ability to provide for her family, keep her job, uphold her commitments and obligations to others are not 'whims or inconveniences'. Or do you consider those same things in your life as 'whims and inconveniences?' Yes or no?

I have no idea why you keep commenting on my "feelings", I have addressed scientific analysis and the Constitution, interpretation may be what you'd like to address instead.

And I've explained that the scientific definitions dont matter because science is not the authority on rights or anything legal. Please tell me, what species does "science" recognized rights for and source it. If not, you are wrong.

The justice system has defined only BORN Homo sapiens as human beings or persons. The US Code acknowledged they were addressing Homo sapiens AFTER birth. Were you able to understand that? Yes or no?


Now tell me why we 'should' recognize rights for the unborn? Because again...altho you dont seem to understand this either, you cannot treat born and unborn equally under the law. Answer that above (red) and maybe you'll figure it out.

How does the biological ability to bring life into the world, or ending said life make anyone a 2nd class citizen exactly?

If you violate her rights to due process, bodily autonomy (4th Amendment right to security of the person) and force her to remain pregnant without her consent (that violates the 13th Amendment) in order to recognize those same rights for the unborn, then she is no longer equal to men or the unborn. She is once again a 2nd class citizen.

If their rights to life are equal...which do you save if only one or the other can be saved? And please explain your answer without adding or changing it. It happens in real life.

If you can't accept the logical premise I presented, that's your problem, but stop deflecting.

You havent done so yet. You cant manage to separate the scientific classification of organisms and designation of legal status and rights.
 

Paul191145

U.S. Army retired
Joined
Jul 5, 2022
Messages
299
Reaction score
64
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
It's what you seem to lack.

In other words, your own opinions.

It is impossible to grant rights to both the unborn and the woman equally.

Where is it stated the unborn has a "right to life?" Cite the law!

Because if a pregnant woman is denied her bodily autonomy and choice to end a pregnancy, her individual rights is being devalued in favor of the unborn. Like I said, it's impossible to have equal rights for both the woman and unborn.
LOL
 

Paul191145

U.S. Army retired
Joined
Jul 5, 2022
Messages
299
Reaction score
64
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I asked how that could be done...legally, practically. You just basically wrote 'na huh' with no argument.
It was done prior to RvW.

A woman's entire life, health, ability to provide for her family, keep her job, uphold her commitments and obligations to others are not 'whims or inconveniences'. Or do you consider those same things in your life as 'whims and inconveniences?' Yes or no?
An awful lot of women have put their children's health and lives before their own, my own grandmother chose to die giving birth to my mother in 1942.
Now tell me why we 'should' recognize rights for the unborn? Because again...altho you dont seem to understand this either, you cannot treat born and unborn equally under the law. Answer that above (red) and maybe you'll figure it out.
Once again, I refer you to the 5th amendment.
If you violate her rights to due process, bodily autonomy (4th Amendment right to security of the person) and force her to remain pregnant without her consent (that violates the 13th Amendment) in order to recognize those same rights for the unborn, then she is no longer equal to men or the unborn. She is once again a 2nd class citizen.

If their rights to life are equal...which do you save if only one or the other can be saved? And please explain your answer without adding or changing it. It happens in real life.
All this does is deny the rights of the child growing in the woman. Don't want this problem, there are plenty of ways to not get pregnant in the first place.
You havent done so yet. You cant manage to separate the scientific classification of organisms and designation of legal status and rights.
Yes I have, and I've stated that dual pronged premise multiple times, you simply don't like it.
 

Gordy327

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 5, 2022
Messages
5,811
Reaction score
3,463
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
That proves you have no valid rebuttal to offer.
It was done prior to RvW.
How did that work out?
An awful lot of women have put their children's health and lives before their own, my own grandmother chose to die giving birth to my mother in 1942.
That's their choice, is it not? Why should they be forced to?
Once again, I refer you to the 5th amendment.
Once again, refer to the 14th Amendment and 1 US Code ss 8.
All this does is deny the rights of the child growing in the woman.
What rights do the unborn have? Specify these rights and where they are enumerated and textualized in law!
Don't want this problem, there are plenty of ways to not get pregnant in the first place.
There are also ways to end a pregnancy too.
 
Top Bottom