• 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"?

So is her voice. Sit down.

That's not a comprehensible response.


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
 
Yeah, but they’re NOT SUPPOSED to be activists, but interpreters. For example, I’m a heterosexual, and even I don’t have a “Constitutional right” to marriage. Whatever is NOT in the US Constitution is left up to the states. I’m even willing to admit the Patriot Act was unconstitutional.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Where did you get this claim? I dare you to name one heterosexual unmarried couple that has been denied a secular civil marriage license in the past 100 years because they were white, conservative, christian or otherwise?

Heterosexuals certainly do have the right to marry the consenting adult in a legal marriage officiated by a judge, Elvis impersonator, or justice of the peace. You however do not have the right to a religious matrimony ceremony because nobody else does either.
 
Last edited:
Please tell us where these women all are who sit around pregnant for 40 weeks and then decide the day before their due dates that they want to terminate the pregnancy and have the baby be born dead.

But if we did that we would have the wonderful stretch marks and other reminders of pregnancy to show off our liberal pro-abortion choice..........


s/. obviously.
 
But if we did that we would have the wonderful stretch marks and other reminders of pregnancy to show off our liberal pro-abortion choice..........


s/. obviously.

Ah yes. I forgot about the glorious stretchmarks. By 40 weeks they were really beautiful!

But.....abortion at 40 weeks! Every woman wants one. Because the joys of being pregnant.....every woman who doesn't want the baby wants to keep the morning sickness, gas, pain, stretch marks, all of that going because it was so fun!
 
Ah yes. I forgot about the glorious stretchmarks. By 40 weeks they were really beautiful!

But.....abortion at 40 weeks! Every woman wants one. Because the joys of being pregnant.....every woman who doesn't want the baby wants to keep the morning sickness, gas, pain, stretch marks, all of that going because it was so fun!

Don't forget heartburn that can start a bonfire, the inability to sleep, walking like a Weeble, being unable to see your feet or dress yourself, and the need to pee like a racehorse every 5 minutes.

I wonder if these conservative dipsticks know how many women are induced at 36 weeks or so because of medical conditions such a diabetes or other pregnancy induced problems?
 
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.

Mandatory birth control is far into the future, but it's coming; a few catastrophic global food/water/air shortages due to massive overpopulation will either end us, or push pregnancy rationing in one form or another. Human overpopulation has already resulted in the extinction and devastation of most of the wildlife on the planet, and eventually it will be us we make extinct without changing the course we are currently on.

On a few occasions in the past it seemed like the abortion issue was finally put to bed, but it keeps coming back when some group or people (like politicians or the 'religious') paints mental pictures of inhuman cruelty for their own benefit, exposure, and/or votes. Abortion is like a car accient; everyone has to look - and that equates to exposure, even if it does not specifically garner votes.
 
A fetus is not yet alive until it can survive outside of the uterus and do so without heroic medical intervention. That is why there is a limit on elective abortion is currently at 22-24 weeks +/- because at that point the fetus becomes viable.

You cannot kill what isn't alive, despite what you claim that the bible says. Jesus was not anti-abortion.









Your opinions on abortion only apply to you and cannot be forced on others. If you dont liker abortion then dont have one but you cannot and do not have the right to make the medical decisions for other people, who are alive and in independent people. I'll give a Fig Newton what a man think about abortion when they are in labor and 10cm dilated.

A fetus is not alive until it can survive outside the womb?:doh Really? Guess all that kicking is imaginary as well as the need to provide it nourishment. Oh, and the beating heart. That claim pretty much invalidates whatever else you're going to say.
 
A fetus is not alive until it can survive outside the womb?:doh Really? Guess all that kicking is imaginary as well as the need to provide it nourishment. Oh, and the beating heart. That claim pretty much invalidates whatever else you're going to say.

Legally it is not a person with any rights until it is separate from the body of the mother. The fetus is a biological parasite that is wholly dependent on the mother's body for survival until that point.

Where did Jesus ever mention abortion?

"For, behold, the days are coming, in which they shall say, Blessed are the barren, and the womb that never bare, and the paps which never gave suck."--Luke 23:29

2 Kings 8:12 dash their children, and rip up their women with child.
 
Legally it is not a person with any rights until it is separate from the body of the mother. The fetus is a biological parasite that is wholly dependent on the mother's body for survival until that point.

Where did Jesus ever mention abortion?

You said a fetus is not alive. That is a monumentally absurd claim. Who's talking about Jesus? Did I mention Jesus anywhere?
 
You said a fetus is not alive. That is a monumentally absurd claim. Who's talking about Jesus? Did I mention Jesus anywhere?

The fetus is not alive and not yet a person. Cancer cells and viruses are just as alive, so do you want to also claim that they are people too?


What is the basis for your opposition to Roe v. Wade if it isn't based on religious belief?

Who has ever been forced to get an abortion against their will?
 
The fetus is not alive and not yet a person. Cancer cells and viruses are just as alive, so do you want to also claim that they are people too?


What is the basis for your opposition to Roe v. Wade if it isn't based on religious belief?

Who has ever been forced to get an abortion against their will?

Thing is one of the more bizarre posts I've seen in quite awhile. Let me guess, you claim to believe in science. Well, biology is part of science. The fetus is alive. Going off and talking about cancer and viruses shows that you are lost in the weeds.

My opposition to Roe is twofold. First, the Constitution is silent on this issue, period. Therefore, it must be left to the states to regulate or not as they desire. Secondly, a nation is a reflection of what it values and if we do not value life and cannot afford some protection to the weakest among us, then we don't deserve to succeed as a nation.
 
Thing is one of the more bizarre posts I've seen in quite awhile. Let me guess, you claim to believe in science. Well, biology is part of science. The fetus is alive. Going off and talking about cancer and viruses shows that you are lost in the weeds.

My opposition to Roe is twofold. First, the Constitution is silent on this issue, period. Therefore, it must be left to the states to regulate or not as they desire. Secondly, a nation is a reflection of what it values and if we do not value life and cannot afford some protection to the weakest among us, then we don't deserve to succeed as a nation.

Virus and cancer cells are also alive.

The fact that the Constitution is silent on the subject means that it is a right of the person and not to be banned by the state. The various states did rule on abortion on their own but the SCOTUS decided that the issue was ripe for a single national decision when they ruled in Roe (state of Texas) and used the inherent right of privacy as a reason. Abortion was known in the 1790s when the Articles of Confederation existed and the Constitution was written and there was no reason for it to be banned then so why should it be banned now. You seem, to ignore the very core concept of personal freedom is that that we have the right to act as we choose and not to ack permission because your idea turns that idea on its heads and tries to argue that we only have the rights that the government permits us. I hate fascists.

Conservatives ignore the real physical needs of that baby once it is born because you claim that it is the mothers responsibility to provide for it and it was her choice to get pregnant so the obvious hypocrisy of your moralizing is well understood by all

The US Constiution is also silent on computers and the Internet so you need to get off pof it because by your own idea what you are doing is unconstitutional.
 
Last edited:
Virus and cancer cells are also alive.

The fact that the Constitution is silent on the subject means that it is a right of the person and not to be banned by the state. The various states did rule on abortion on their own but the SCOTUS decided that the issue was ripe for a single national decision when they ruled in Roe (state of Texas) and used the inherent right of privacy as a reason. Abortion was known in the 1790s when the Articles of Confederation existed and the Constitution was written and there was no reason for it to be banned then so why should it be banned now. You seem, to ignore the very core concept of personal freedom is that that we have the right to act as we choose and not to ack permission because your idea turns that idea on its heads and tries to argue that we only have the rights that the government permits us. I hate fascists.

The US Constiution is also silent on computers and the Internet so you need to get off pof it because by your own idea what you are doing is unconstitutional.

Also alive? So, a fetus is alive now? You need to make up your mind. No, it's not mentioned in the Constitution because the Constitution lays out the responsibilities of the Federal government and they are limited. Anything not so mentioned is reserved to the states to decide per the 10th amendment. Also, I'm not calling for bans on all abortions. I haven't said that anywhere.

Your other claim is also specious. You have a right up to the point that the state decides it has a compelling interest to keep you from doing something. That's why robbery, assault, arson and murder are illegal. The state's job is to keep an orderly society and protect its citizens. Just because you don't consider the unborn to be human doesn't relieve the state of its respnsibilites.
 
Last edited:
Also alive? So, a fetus is alive now? You need to make up your mind. No, it's not mentioned in the Constitution because the Constitution lays out the responsibilities of the Federal government and they are limited. Anything not so mentioned is reserved to the states to decide per the 10th amendment. Also, I'm not calling for bans on all abortions. I haven't said that anywhere.

Your other claim is also specious. You have a right up to the point that the state decides it has a compelling interest to keep you from doing something. That's why robbery, assault, arson and murder are illegal. The state's job is to keep an orderly society and protect its citizens. Just because you don't consider the unborn to be human doesn't relieve the state of its respnsibilites.

And yet a right to abortion is protected under the 9th Amendment, just like a right to consensual sex and a right to have kids.

OTOH, while you are correct about the 10th, nothing a state proposes as law may violate the Constitution, its protections support the ultimate laws of the land. state law cannot overrule it.

And when states create laws that attempt to end or restrict abortion, they violate other rights that the Const. protects for women (for everyone). For example, every single 'heartbeat' law or law attempting to criminalize abortion (several states in 2018-2019) has been overturned or has been challenged and is waiting for federal court and is on hold. Not a single one has been enacted. They were found unconstitutional.

And RvW discussed many of the rights that would be violated (but not all.) They chose a line of precedents to follow and it will be upheld as long as those precedents are. The current justices, including recent additions, have even stated so.



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

If you read the Constitution it allows for the AMENDMENT PROCESS. The Founding Fathers intended that. Judges are supposed to INTERPRET the law, NOT MAKE the law. An activist judge makes laws that aren’t even existing laws, or in the Constitution! A Constitutional judge says what the Constitution actually says. Geez, learn a little about the Founding Fathers and not from sources like Howard Zinn or similar!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm tired of schooling you on basic concepts of civics.

1.) Every decision by the SCOTUS does make new law by the very act of interpretation of a previously grey area. If they weren't to make new laws then there would be no need for the SCOTUS to exist because any law clerk could read the document and make a yes or no decision if that idea existed. That is not what the Constitutional framers had in mind when they wrote Article 3 of the US Constitution. Your idea would negate the very idea of constitutional law.

2.) If the SCOTUS was to act as you claim then you better get out your Ouija board and go back and tell Jefferson, Madison, Adams, and Hamilton that John Marshall was wrong when he made the Marbury v. Madison decision that set the precedent for judicial review because there is nothing in that Constitution for that decision so Marshall took it upon himself to interpret that Constitution when he ruled that Marbury was to be given the judicial commission that Madison had denied. Your idea would turn 220 years of US constitutional law on its head.

Scalia claimed to be a constitutional literalist but he was the expected hypocrite because he threw that idea out the window and across the block when it suited him and he wanted to further his conservative views. Where in the US Constitution does the idea exist that supports Citizens United vs. FEC? The US Constitutional is a limitation on the power of the government and how it is to be operated. It was not and never was intended to be a verbatim listing of the rights of the people. The idea that we have 50 states and there would be 50 different interpretations of that law would render the country ungovernable. It was that very reason why the Articles of Confederation were scrapped and the US Constitution was written because the AoC gave more power top the state and less to the federal government but in the decade that they existed it because very obvious that the idea would not and n did not work effectively for a growing country.

This quote of Marshall didnt come from Howard Zinn.
Marshall wrote:

It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is.
— Marbury, 5 U.S. at 177
 
Back
Top Bottom