What if abortion is protected by the constitution

[Verisimilitude]

what a nice argument. so what? its just your opinion. and while I may not disagree with you, the opinion, as such, is worthless on an internet bulletin board.

Condescension and flippant responses do more to keep abortion ‘legal’ in America than anything. Is it just my opinion that human beings are being killed in America’s abortion clinics? Do I need a consensus and a majority of opinion to conclude the rights of the children being killed have not been taken into consideration? Do I need the Pope or God to tell me abortion is wrong?

it would have merit, on the other hand, if you filed a lawsuit to challenge the current state of the law and force someone to respond substantively in a forum where winning and losing have real world consequences.

It has merit to any/every rational thinking person despite my argument is posted here instead of Washinton DC. Amendment 48 in Colorado is like defining water as wet. Instead of continually thinking mans law has priority try excercising your faith instead of divorcing it from your daily life like Biden, Pelosi, Ritter, Richardson, Julieannie, Kerry, Kennedy and so many other Catholics do.

on the other hand, I do disagree about what congress need must do as a precursor for the USSC to rule, but that’s just my opinion.

If Congress doesn’t define it who will? You? The Courts?

Try this as you seem to be too smart for yourself and forget the basics:
youtube.com/watch?v=mEJL2Uuv-oQ

 

[Sean_Boyle]

The Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade that the right to have an abortion is protected by the Constitution. The argument was that because the 4th amendment guaruntees a right to privacy, this right to privacy extends to a right to choose.

Now, if this argument is correct, then wouldn’t it be impossible for any legislator or president to oppose the decision of Roe v. Wade, short of amending the Constitution to modify the 4th amendment?

How exactly is abortion a 4th amendment issue? It is not!

Some individual members of the Supreme Court decided to view a baby in the womb as personal property so the so called “right to privacy” could be used.

Anyone see a problem with that? I do!

 

[Wirraway]

Condescension and flippant responses do more to keep abortion ‘legal’ in America than anything. Is it just my opinion that human beings are being killed in America’s abortion clinics? Do I need a consensus and a majority of opinion to conclude the rights of the children being killed have not been taken into consideration? Do I need the Pope or God to tell me abortion is wrong?

its not flippant or condescending. its a plain statement of fact. your interpretation of the C couched as a legal argument on an internet bulletin board is meaningless. posters who write “the constitution this … the constitution that…” … none of it matters. the only opinons that do matter are those of the federal courts or congress.

It has merit to any/every rational thinking person despite my argument is posted here instead of Washinton DC. …

no one here is saying that abortion isn’t a sin and should be a crime. my point is that your legal argument is meaningless on an internet bulletin board. I urge you to file a lawsuit and test it out, you might have the ultimate winner. why hide your insights under a basket?

If Congress doesn’t define it who will? You? The Courts?

the courts or congress. not me, not you. well, you might, possibly, if you take some real world action instead of lecturing in C law on this forum.

Try this as you seem to be too smart for yourself and forget the basics:
youtube.com/watch?v=mEJLUuv-oQ

I gets it. yuckles 2 U 2.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

That is not true. Abortion is unconstitutional by nature of the act of killing a human being without judicial review. Before SCOTUS could rule as they did Congress had the duty to define the human person and who’s privacy was being violated, and/or when human life begins. I think it more than reasonable to conclude the Founders and any rational thinking person before Roe was unjustly made law knew instinctively that the fetus is a fully independent living human being even though the Founders did not understand science and biology as we do today.

I agree that the framers of the constitution would for all intents and purposes be “pro-life” (in the way we mean the term today).

Problem is, yours (and mine) conjecture is no more valid than those in the pro-choice camp.

HENCE WHY ITS IMPERATIVE TO RID THE CONSTITUTION OF AMBIGUITY CONCERNING THIS TOPIC. Amend it to explicitly state for WHOM the right to life extends.