Abortion: US Constitutionally Protected?

[conservative621]

I would like to post this very thread to challenge ANYONE who thinks the constitution of the United States protects a woman’s right to choose an abortion.

In my opinion, if you have a god thought but are too afraid of sharing it, you’re easily a coward. You want to know about justice? Post your comment and we’ll see how just your rationale really is.

 

[johnnykins]

I would like to post this very thread to challenge ANYONE who thinks the constitution of the United States protects a woman’s right to choose an abortion.

In my opinion, if you have a god thought but are too afraid of sharing it, you’re easily a coward. You want to know about justice? Post your comment and we’ll see how just your rationale really is.

Lemme guess - you’re one of those people who claim you don’t have to pay income taxes and that Secession is OK, and the Bill of Rights has not been applied to the States through the XIV Amendment.

Just don’t need any more off-the-wall “constitutional” arguments, IMHO.

 

[frankadams]

It’s not a well-grounded argument constitutionally. Even honest abortion supporters with a legal background will admit as much.

You may have noticed the changing strategy during the Roberts and Alito hearings. Instead of questions about the constitutional basis for the “right to privacy,” the questions focused largely on the concept of “precedent.” It is almost like the pro-aborts are saying, “Yeah, we know it is constitutionally dubious, but it has been around so long, you should just accept it.”

 

[ribozyme]

“Because there are limits to our liberties, at least I hope and pray that there are, because those liberal freaks go too far.”

Same might as well apply to abortion and flag burning.

 

[vern_humphrey]

At one time, slavery was “constitutionally protected.” At one time, “separate but equal” schools were “constitutionally protected.”

In both cases, this was by egregious and false rulings by the Supreme Court. Fortunately, both rulings were eventually dismissed.

The “right to an abortion” was found in “emanating from the penumbra of the 14 Amendment.” Here is Section 1 of the 14th Amendment:

Amendment XIV

Section 1.
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.

(My emphasis)

And here is the 5th Amendment:

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

(Again, my emphasis)

Roe vs Wade is what you get when the President appoints, and the Senate confirms, Supreme Court justices who cannot read or speak English.

 

[Andruschak]

I would like to post this very thread to challenge ANYONE who thinks the constitution of the United States protects a woman’s right to choose an abortion.

In my opinion, if you have a god thought but are too afraid of sharing it, you’re easily a coward. You want to know about justice? Post your comment and we’ll see how just your rationale really is.

Perhaps you might want to dig into our past history and find out how late it was that abortion became a crime, thanks to the AMA who wanted to drive midwives out of business. I am not supporting abortion, but I am supporting looking into the background of the laws. :tsktsk:

 

[rwoehmke]

Every one except the strict constitutionalist would probably submit that the constitution is a living document and apparently like some of our Catholic doctrines or dogmas tend to develop further understandings to meet the needs of the times. Certainly the words themselves do not change, but obviously the understanding grows to fit all circumstances.

The First amendment, for example, was an anti-establishment clause and has now become a separation of state and religion clause, a process that did not occur overnight.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Every one except the strict constitutionalist would probably submit that the constitution is a living document and apparently like some of our Catholic doctrines or dogmas tend to develop further understandings to meet the needs of the times. Certainly the words themselves do not change, but obviously the understanding grows to fit all circumstances.

The First amendment, for example, was an anti-establishment clause and has now become a separation of state and religion clause, a process that did not occur overnight.

“Living Document” is code for, “Regardless of what it says, the Constitution means whatever the people in power want it to mean.”

Which is the same thing as “We don’t have a Constitution. We make it up as we go.”

 

[Ani_Ibi]

“Living Document” is code for, “Regardless of what it says, the Constitution means whatever the people in power want it to mean.”

Which is the same thing as “We don’t have a Constitution. We make it up as we go.”

Do folks not understand how dangerous this is? We are having the same problem in Canada. Our Constitution is only a coupla decades old, but no matter. (Actually the BNA Act is centuries old and served as constitutional law, but whatever.)

In Canada, I would say that MOST folks do not know what our Constitution says and care even less. They honestly believe that the Constitution does not apply to them. This is how tyrannies spring up. By folks not owning and defending their democratic RIGHTS.

So I bottom line it with folks who spend a lot of time complaining about social injustice. I ask them if they know what our Constitution says. When they say no, then I say that for all intents and purposes they have no rights.

Because unless you are willing to step up and defend the rights for which brave men and women sacrificed their lives, then you have no rights. Then I say, if you will not learn your rights, if you will not defend your rights, and you have no rights, then stop using up valuable air to complain about things you will not personally change.

If you’re not part of the solution, then you’re part of the problem.

If every Canadian knew our Constitution then we would not be in nearly as much trouble at every level as we are.

One thing that did impress me about Americans is that most seemed to know their Constitution regardless of their economic or social position.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

rwoehmke:

Every one except the strict constitutionalist would probably submit that the constitution is a living document and apparently like some of our Catholic doctrines or dogmas tend to develop further understandings to meet the needs of the times.

Emphasis mine. Oh puleeze. Developing understandings does not equate to CHANGING THE NATURE OF or OUTRIGHT DENYING THE VALIDITY OF.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

vern humphrey:

…Roe vs Wade is what you get when the President appoints, and the Senate confirms, Supreme Court justices who cannot read or speak English.

… but are fluent in Jabberwocky.

 

[bengal_fan]

“Living Document” is code for, “Regardless of what it says, the Constitution means whatever the people in power want it to mean.”

Which is the same thing as “We don’t have a Constitution. We make it up as we go.”

sounds like you believe in sola constitutiona.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Do folks not understand how dangerous this is?

Too many Americans look at the Constitution the way they look at taxation – someone else had to pay.

 

[conservative621]

Lemme guess - you’re one of those people who claim you don’t have to pay income taxes and that Secession is OK, and the Bill of Rights has not been applied to the States through the XIV Amendment.

Just don’t need any more off-the-wall “constitutional” arguments, IMHO.

Johnnykins, don’t try and place anything that may or may not be false. Let me tell you something; this website and the meaning of its membership is to explore the opinions of many people, whether they be Catholic or not. Don’t try and place ant ridiculous fabrications upon me when you don’t even know who I am, how old I am, or anything else about me. And, yes, we do need to argue about constitution proportionality because the US Justice Dept. is in a state of confusion at this point and let me tell you, if we don’t resolve it, we’ll be facing many problems.

Oh, you did not even answer my SIMPLE question, so are you just expressing your cowardice or moronic ways by avoiding the question? ANSWER THE DAMN QUESTION, AND THEN WE’LL TALK AGAIN. If I get another reply like the one you just sent me, I won’t even take the time to respond.

 

[conservative621]

Perhaps you might want to dig into our past history and find out how late it was that abortion became a crime, thanks to the AMA who wanted to drive midwives out of business. I am not supporting abortion, but I am supporting looking into the background of the laws. :tsktsk:

I respect what you’re saying, but regardless of the history of its legality, it was MADE legal in the late 1970’s in the United States with its savior, Roe v Wade. I’m debating this and a woman’s “choice,” not abortion’s entire history.

 

[conservative621]

At one time, slavery was “constitutionally protected.” At one time, “separate but equal” schools were “constitutionally protected.”

In both cases, this was by egregious and false rulings by the Supreme Court. Fortunately, both rulings were eventually dismissed.

The “right to an abortion” was found in “emanating from the penumbra of the 14 Amendment.” Here is Section 1 of the 14th Amendment:

(My emphasis)

And here is the 5th Amendment:

(Again, my emphasis)

Roe vs Wade is what you get when the President appoints, and the Senate confirms, Supreme Court justices who cannot read or speak English.

Love it and couldn’t agree with you more. Obviously, Blackmum was a central figure in this case and it severely degraded the true right to life, a human’s “choice.”

 

[Newbie2]

I respect what you’re saying, but regardless of the history of its legality, it was MADE legal in the late 1970’s in the United States with its savior, Roe v Wade. I’m debating this and a woman’s “choice,” not abortion’s entire history.

Am I wrong, or did RvW simply (but significantly) leave the legality of abortion up to the states, not rule on the constutionality or unconstutionality of abortion?

 

[rwoehmke]

Emphasis mine. Oh puleeze. Developing understandings does not equate to CHANGING THE NATURE OF or OUTRIGHT DENYING THE VALIDITY OF.

Never said that. Also my bad. Separation of Church and State does not derive from the first amendment, but from the disestablishment clause in the constitution…

 

[vern_humphrey]

Am I wrong, or did RvW simply (but significantly) leave the legality of abortion up to the states, not rule on the constutionality or unconstutionality of abortion?

Roe v Wade severely restricted the power of the states to limit abortion. Since then, courts have fairly consistently interpreted it to mean “abortion on demand, including partial birth abortion.” Many state laws restricting this unholy slaughter have been struck down.

So in the “so what” category, we have to reply, “Roe v Wade” made unlimited abortion constitutional and prevented the states from restricting, let alone preventing it."

 

[johnnykins]

Johnnykins, don’t try and place anything that may or may not be false. Let me tell you something; this website and the meaning of its membership is to explore the opinions of many people, whether they be Catholic or not. Don’t try and place ant ridiculous fabrications upon me when you don’t even know who I am, how old I am, or anything else about me. And, yes, we do need to argue about constitution proportionality because the US Justice Dept. is in a state of confusion at this point and let me tell you, if we don’t resolve it, we’ll be facing many problems.

Oh, you did not even answer my SIMPLE question, so are you just expressing your cowardice or moronic ways by avoiding the question? ANSWER THE DAMN QUESTION, AND THEN WE’LL TALK AGAIN. If I get another reply like the one you just sent me, I won’t even take the time to respond.

Ahh reason!! Such a beatific attitude!! I take it your last sentence is a promise. I trust you will keep to your promises.

BTW your position as phrased is silly.

I would like to post this very thread to challenge ANYONE who thinks the constitution of the United States protects a woman’s right to choose an abortion.

Marbury is still unchallenged and Roe has certainly said abortion is a constitutional right. QED

However, if you had posited that Roe is flawed and should be reversed - or even that Marbury should be reversed - there might be an issue to discuss. Unfortunately you didn’t. So you have your answer and have left unexplored what you probably wanted to discuss. But you didn’t. That often accompanies bizarre rages.