• 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!

Where in the US Constitution does it mention "abortion" or "marriage"?

Marriage was always licensed and performed by the states. The Feds only established tax policy based on it but they never decided what state policy must be.

When the Feds made so many laws that included marriage status they for all intents or purposes did tell the States what their laws should be. Marriage should be uniform across the Nation, period.
 
I always find it curious when people deny any connection to the founding of the United States, the founding fathers and the Constitution to organized Christian religion and its influence.
The following excerpts are from a work by Mark David Hall, Herbert Hoover Distinguished Professor of Political Science, and Herbert Hoover Distinguished Professor of Political Science at George Fox University. A link to the complete work is included at the end.

Did America have a Christian Founding? This disputed question, far from being only of historical interest, has important implications for how we conceive of the role of religion in the American republic. Mark David Hall begins by considering two popular answers to the query—“Of course not!” and “Absolutely!”—both of which distort the Founders’ views. After showing that Christian ideas were one of the important intellectual influences on the Founders, he discusses three major areas of agreement with respect to religious liberty and church–state relations at the time of the Founding: Religious liberty is a right and must be protected; the national government should not create an established church, and states should have them only if they encourage and assist Christianity; and religion belongs in the public square. In short, while America did not have a Christian Founding in the sense of creating a theocracy, its Founding was deeply shaped by Christian moral truths. More important, it created a regime that was hospitable to Christians, but also to practitioners of other religions.
I believe that this is the most reasonable way to approach the question “Did America have a Christian Founding?” In doing so, it is important to note that nominal Christians might be influenced by Christian ideas, just as it is possible for an orthodox Christian to be influenced by non-Christian ideas. I believe that an excellent case can be made that Christianity had a profound influence on the Founders.[6]
If one is to understand the story of the United States of America, it is important to have a proper appreciation for its Christian colonial roots. By almost any measure, colonists of European descent who settled in the New World were serious Christians whose constitutions, laws, and practices reflected the influence of Christianity. Although some authors refer to this “planting” as a “founding,” such a designation is rare among scholars. Instead, most scholars consider America to have been founded in the late 18th century around one of, or some combination of, two major events: the War for Independence and the creation of America’s constitutional order.

Did America Have a Christian Founding? | The Heritage Foundation
Factually and irrefutably, the founding fathers did not want religion to have any place in our government.

Taken from the 1st Amendment - “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”
 
Right, a medical procedure that ALWAYS results in a death. It's pretty pathetic that you would so cavalierly treat this as to compare it to brushing your teeth. No. I don't worry about people brushing their teeth but I do worry about state sponsored genocide as a convenience to people who can't figure out how to avoid pregnancy.

You haven't said why you care. It has nothing to do with you. If I had a heart transplant it would not affect you. If I had an abortion it would not affect you either.

If I had an abortion, how would it be "state sponsored"? The state wouldn't pay for it. I would.

Why are righties so obsessed with everyone's bedroom habits and wombs? Creepy.
 
When the Feds made so many laws that included marriage status they for all intents or purposes did tell the States what their laws should be. Marriage should be uniform across the Nation, period.

Maybe so but they never told states what to do except when the SC made rulings on interracial marriage and gay marriage.
 
That's a stupid statement. If you think any society can kill off its most vulnerable by the millions and claim to be civilized, then you are sadly mistaken. I don't oppose abortion in all cases but the unfettered, no limits abortion the left wants is little more than legalized murder. Some of the left even tries to justify infanticide. It's sick.

After listening to this endless debate almost 70 years, the U.S. has been sensationalizing the abortion issue up, down, over, under, and side to side the whole time; it's not nearly as much a moral principle as it is a political football used as vote-getter and little else. Until universal birth control is adopted, there will be no solution; politicians want no solution.
 
You haven't said why you care. It has nothing to do with you. If I had a heart transplant it would not affect you. If I had an abortion it would not affect you either.

If I had an abortion, how would it be "state sponsored"? The state wouldn't pay for it. I would.

Why are righties so obsessed with everyone's bedroom habits and wombs? Creepy.

If we can wantonly kill off the unborn, who's next? The elderly? The ill? The deformed? The chronically poor? Is that the society you want? We already saw how that works a couple times last century.
 
If we can wantonly kill off the unborn, who's next? The elderly? The ill? The deformed? The chronically poor? Is that the society you want? We already saw how that works a couple times last century.

Yes, I think that's all about to happen under Trump. He will order the elderly and the deformed killed. It's just like North Korea here now - right?
 
If there was no need to establish a right to abortion then there was no need for Roe. The phony right to privacy they dreamed up was simply used as a broad brush to claim that everything the left wants is somehow a Constitutional right. Any claim that the 4th amendment protects unfettered abortion is the worst sort of shameless legal contortion.

Oh, and please explain how a baby one day before delivery is not a human being. I'm all ears.

:doh That's what SCOTUS is for. Some states made abortion illegal...and it was unConstitutional to do so. That's what SCOTUS did, it examined the Const and clarified a woman's right to abortion. A 7-2 decision by a mostly Conservative bench.

And you can call the unborn whatever you want...who says that the unborn has any rights? That is the question. What authority that Americans are obligated to follow? SCOTUS has examined it more than once. The unborn have no rights and are not persons.

The 'phony' privacy rights protect all Americans in a million ways...remove it for women and it goes away for all of us...I dont think you know what you're talking about there, even tho I have seen that argument and some legal opinion on it. Feel free to explain it for me tho...why is it 'phony?' It protects all our rights to medical, family, marital, reproductive, personal, etc privacy. Do we no longer want to have doctor/patient privilege? And it's supported by the 14th A as well. Which I already posted for you.

If you'd like to see law based on the Const, here you go:

1 U.S. Code SS 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

(a)In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

(b)As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

Decisions concerning the legality of abortion are 'legal' ones :roll: not scientific ones. Science recognizes no value for anything, it's objective.


This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa
 
Abortion is a medical issue, not a political one, so hence would not be mentioned.

True marriage is not mentioned, but the Federal government made it a legal issue by tieing thousands of rules, regulations and laws to marriage.

Totally agree, esp. about marriage.



This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa
 
After listening to this endless debate almost 70 years, the U.S. has been sensationalizing the abortion issue up, down, over, under, and side to side the whole time; it's not nearly as much a moral principle as it is a political football used as vote-getter and little else. Until universal birth control is adopted, there will be no solution; politicians want no solution.

How are you going to force people to use birth control? FWIW, I've never voted based on abortion because I've always considered it a settled issue until the recent moves for uncontrolled late term or even day before delivery abortions. As much as I oppose that, it still isn't a top issue for me when voting.
 
How are you going to force people to use birth control? FWIW, I've never voted based on abortion because I've always considered it a settled issue until the recent moves for uncontrolled late term or even day before delivery abortions. As much as I oppose that, it still isn't a top issue for me when voting.

They never occur. There is no such thing as an elective abortion that late.

If there are, please post the data. Show it.



This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa
 
News flash for you lefties. The Constitution isn’t a “living document” like you guys claim it to be!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The idea that amendments to The Constitution and the unethically used, IMO, court interpretation used to change the meaning of The Constitution tends to make The Constitution a living, changeable document.
 
:doh That's what SCOTUS is for. Some states made abortion illegal...and it was unConstitutional to do so. That's what SCOTUS did, it examined the Const and clarified a woman's right to abortion. A 7-2 decision by a mostly Conservative bench.

And you can call the unborn whatever you want...who says that the unborn has any rights? That is the question. What authority that Americans are obligated to follow? SCOTUS has examined it more than once. The unborn have no rights and are not persons.

The 'phony' privacy rights protect all Americans in a million ways...remove it for women and it goes away for all of us...I dont think you know what you're talking about there, even tho I have seen that argument and some legal opinion on it. Feel free to explain it for me tho...why is it 'phony?' It protects all our rights to medical, family, marital, reproductive, personal, etc privacy. Do we no longer want to have doctor/patient privilege? And it's supported by the 14th A as well. Which I already posted for you.

If you'd like to see law based on the Const, here you go:

1 U.S. Code SS 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute



Decisions concerning the legality of abortion are 'legal' ones :roll: not scientific ones. Science recognizes no value for anything, it's objective.

Any country that says that unborn humans have no rights can hardly claim to be a civilized one. The difference between a baby one day before delivery and one day after is no difference at all. Using legal hairsplitting to justify its killing is on a par with what totalitarian societies might do. We were supposed to be better than that. All people have an unalienable right to LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and that includes people weeks or days from birth. That was the basis for our claim to be starting a whole new type of country that was superior to what came before it.
 
The idea that amendments to The Constitution and the unethically used, IMO, court interpretation used to change the meaning of The Constitution tends to make The Constitution a living, changeable document.

Anything can become changeable if you ascribe to it properties that it never had or was intended to have and give them the force of law.
 
If we can wantonly kill off the unborn, who's next? The elderly? The ill? The deformed? The chronically poor? Is that the society you want? We already saw how that works a couple times last century.

Slippery slope!!!!!! Lol
 
Any country that says that unborn humans have no rights can hardly claim to be a civilized one. The difference between a baby one day before delivery and one day after is no difference at all. Using legal hairsplitting to justify its killing is on a par with what totalitarian societies might do. We were supposed to be better than that. All people have an unalienable right to LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and that includes people weeks or days from birth. That was the basis for our claim to be starting a whole new type of country that was superior to what came before it.

Your opinion is noted.

Any country that would force women to remain pregnant against their will when there is a much safer procedure to end that pregnancy is certainly not civilized. That's my opinion.

Now you see why women have a right to 'choice.' No one else gets to force their opinions on them, on their lives, futures, their ability to uphold their responsibilities and obligations.


This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa
 
They never occur. There is no such thing as an elective abortion that late.

If there are, please post the data. Show it.

I don't think there is any disagreement among the majority of SCOTUS that women have the right to an abortion The question is: Does SCOTUS think women have the right to an unconditional abortion? Chief Justice Roberts would agree with this as evidenced with the most recent ruling on a Georgia case attempting to require abortionists have access to hospitals.
 
They never occur. There is no such thing as an elective abortion that late.

If there are, please post the data. Show it.

Someone has the people convinced of the most amazing things.

We are going to kill the elderly! Women all over the country are aborting their babies the day before the due date! It's anarchy!
 
Re: Where in the US Constitution does it mention "abortion" or "marriage"?

I've read the ENTIRE CONSTITUTION. You read the likes of Howard Zinn. News flash for you, "A People's History of the United States" has been debunked several times.

I've never read him. I simply pointed out you haven't read the constitution, nor do you comprehend constitutional law, case precedent etc.
 
Who's next? Your parent or grandparent with dementia? Who needs them, right?

50 years since roe.



When do you predict these things will happen?


Trump wants a wall. Soon there will be giant walls around every town!!!!!
 
I don't think there is any disagreement among the majority of SCOTUS that women have the right to an abortion The question is: Does SCOTUS think women have the right to an unconditional abortion? Chief Justice Roberts would agree with this as evidenced with the most recent ruling on a Georgia case on tried to demand that abortionists work in hospitals.

Since such abortions (as you quoted) dont occur, there's no need to worry about it. (If you disagree, as I already asked, show the data for the elective abortions that take place that late)

And you bring up an exceptionally hypocritical example, thank you. I'll explain:

Mid-wives performing home births are not required to have the same admitting privileges or requirement. They arent even required to be doctors. And childbirth is by far more dangerous than abortion.

Abortion is 14 times safer than childbirth

Abortion safer than giving birth: study - Reuters

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.

So you can see that the demand for admitting privileges to hospitals or for them to be performed in hospitals is just a bull**** scheme to make abortions harder to get and more expensive. Not only that...all abortions take place at medical clinics, the more dangerous home births take place...at home. With no doctor required. :roll:



This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa
 
Your opinion is noted.

Any country that would force women to remain pregnant against their will when there is a much safer procedure to end that pregnancy is certainly not civilized. That's my opinion.

Now you see why women have a right to 'choice.' No one else gets to force their opinions on them, on their lives, futures, their ability to uphold their responsibilities and obligations.

Having a choice within a reasonable time frame or under certain conditions is one thing. Having unlimited choice is another.
 
That's funny considering that illegal aliens have been found to have Constitutional rights while on our soil. Are the innocent unborn less worthy of protection than illegal aliens who have broken our laws? Is this actually your argument and the one you are using to justify the killing of unborn babies weeks or days from birth? Is this where the "compassionate" left has gone? Or is this where they always were? It seems that's more likely.

So all you have is fake news that there is killing of unborn babies weeks or days from birth. That of course does not happen but it is a convenient lie for the pro choice.
 
Having a choice within a reasonable time frame or under certain conditions is one thing. Having unlimited choice is another.

Scotus decides the limits. Not you
 
Back
Top Bottom