Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Obviously, yes. It's an issue of morality where not everyone agrees. Just like alcohol. Just like capital punishment. Just like the legal age of marriage. Many have pointed out that the world is a much better place with legal abortion. Perhaps. So let it be determined by the already existing lawmaking bodies that are actually elected for the people and by the people. Why was the Supreme Court ever involved in the matter??
But the bigger point I'm trying to make is that the Supreme Court is quite routinely grabbing greater and greater authority for itself. If they can create ironclad laws based on mere implication in the Constitution, then their authority is unlimited -- and the Supreme Court was never designated to be all-powerful in the Constitution so this is a big problem. An all powerful Supreme Court -- the one branch of government composed of unelected lifelong members? Sounds like a very bad idea to me. If you're pro-choice then you're unlikely to get what I'm saying in light of abortion because you're too heavily invested in your own personal bias. But forget about abortion for a moment. What happens when they create more legislation out of thin air again? What if they take action -- based purely on made up implication -- that seriously upsets you and conflicts with our own worldview and set of values? What if it has a direct and negative impact on your life and your family? What then?
What I'm really trying to say is that the Supreme Court shouldn't be allowed to make crap up whenever they want. They should be limited to what the Constitution actually says.
You are EXACTLY correct.
And...
"What happens when they create more legislation out of thin air again?"
They just did that when they idiotically stripped women of their 14th Amendment right to equal protection in this latest ruling.
Ambulatory surgery centers have to meet minimum medical and facilities standards, but abortion centers that perform surgical procedures on women don't? Who the hell thinks that's a good idea? What's next? Men get state-legislated minimum wage but women don't? And that goes for every single state-legislated requirement. Men get the benefit of and protected by them, but SCOTUS has now legally established that women don't.
I hope you know that women used to have absolutely no rights back when Amendments 1-10 were written. We did not have the right to vote, or really anything other than as baby machines during this time period. We were not "We the People" so naturally our rights were not spelled out. Just like minority rights for African-Americans and other minorities were not spelled out here either. Please consider that if you try to make this point again.
The rights of women, blacks, Chinese and other Asian groups, Native Americans and many others have been routinely crapped on throughout the history of the United States. Heck, there have even been some episodes of white-on-white ugliness with Jews, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. (All three are multi-racial obviously, but all are predominantly white.) There's a lot to be ashamed of in our history. To our credit, our history contains far less bigotry and misogyny than any other nation in the history of the world that I know of.
I would agree with John and Abigail Adams on the issue of women's rights. They should have given the right to vote and full rights under the law to women from the beginning. Unfortunately, there wasn't enough support for it when the Constitution was penned.
And while that is all fine and good, it has nothing to do with whether abortion is a Constitutional issue. The right to vote was correct via Constitutional Amendment by the state and federal legislatures. But the right to abortion was done by judicial decree -- and that is my primary objection to it.
Quote:
First did you agree with the views of Justice Goldberg, Warren & Brennan that I quoted? That will set the background for my argument against your point.
It's a gigantic thread. Please requote it or specify which post it's in. But nobody has actually established that abortion should have ever been a Supreme Court issue.
The 9th Amendment reads as follows: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." In modern English, "We haven't covered everything folks. There are other human rights that exist that we undoubtedly forgot to include in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights." In Roe vs Wade, the Supreme Court used the 9th as a blank check to create a new human right as they saw fit and used the 4th and 14th to protect this newly created right. But how did they have any business creating reproductive rights out of thin air to begin with? The bigger issue that scares me is that they used the 9th as a blank check. This effectively grants the the Supreme Court unlimited power based entirely upon inference. Odds are, you're fine with it as long as you agree with the Supreme Court's action. But what if they do something you strongly disagree with?? What then?
"What happens when they create more legislation out of thin air again?"
They just did that when they idiotically stripped women of their 14th Amendment right to equal protection in this latest ruling.
Ambulatory surgery centers have to meet minimum medical and facilities standards, but abortion centers that perform surgical procedures on women don't? Who the hell thinks that's a good idea? What's next? Men get state-legislated minimum wage but women don't? And that goes for every single state-legislated requirement. Men get the benefit of and protected by them, but SCOTUS has now legally established that women don't.
I do find it quite upsetting that abortion clinics do not have to uphold high standards of sanitation, etc. That's precisely how the clinic in Pennsylvania spread STD's to so many of it's patients. If they were held to the same standards as any other hospital, that would have never happened.
The primary argument in favor of abortion rights has long been that women would seek out illegal unsanitary "chop shops" to get an abortion. There isn't sufficient protection preventing today's legal abortion clinics from being almost as bad and eventually worse.
Too bad the Supreme Court does not consider the rights of the unborn. They are the only innocents in this entire mess and they need help more than anyone. They sure as hell are not getting any help from their mother obviously.
There are 400,000 children in the foster care system this very moment. 100,000 of them are available for adoption. Many of them have special needs, either physical or mental, or emotional from the trauma of being born to a family unable to care for the child before the child is eventually removed from custody. Each year, more than 20,000 age out of the system with no support system. Less than 6% go on to college and more than half end up homeless or in jail within 18 months. How many have you helped?
We can't take of the living, breathing children we have in this country RIGHT NOW. Excuse me if I don't see a late induced period, as all abortions before 9 weeks are, as in any way equivalent to a fully formed human being. 66 percent of legal abortions occur within the first eight weeks of gestation, and 92 percent are performed within the first 13 weeks. We need to be encouraging women to seek help SOONER rather than later, when abortion becomes an invasive process.
The rights of women, blacks, Chinese and other Asian groups, Native Americans and many others have been routinely crapped on throughout the history of the United States. Heck, there have even been some episodes of white-on-white ugliness with Jews, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. (All three are multi-racial obviously, but all are predominantly white.) There's a lot to be ashamed of in our history. To our credit, our history contains far less bigotry and misogyny than any other nation in the history of the world that I know of.
I would agree with John and Abigail Adams on the issue of women's rights. They should have given the right to vote and full rights under the law to women from the beginning. Unfortunately, there wasn't enough support for it when the Constitution was penned.
And while that is all fine and good, it has nothing to do with whether abortion is a Constitutional issue. The right to vote was correct via Constitutional Amendment by the state and federal legislatures. But the right to abortion was done by judicial decree -- and that is my primary objection to it.
It's a gigantic thread. Please requote it or specify which post it's in. But nobody has actually established that abortion should have ever been a Supreme Court issue.
The 9th Amendment reads as follows: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." In modern English, "We haven't covered everything folks. There are other human rights that exist that we undoubtedly forgot to include in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights." In Roe vs Wade, the Supreme Court used the 9th as a blank check to create a new human right as they saw fit and used the 4th and 14th to protect this newly created right. But how did they have any business creating reproductive rights out of thin air to begin with? The bigger issue that scares me is that they used the 9th as a blank check. This effectively grants the the Supreme Court unlimited power based entirely upon inference. Odds are, you're fine with it as long as you agree with the Supreme Court's action. But what if they do something you strongly disagree with?? What then?
Simple. There are ways to amend the Constitution. So amend it. A view with very high support should be easily implemented.
Or you could try electing strongly right wing Presidents for 20 or 25 years. That would allow the appointment of enough rightist justices to redirect the interpretation of the Constitution.
Don't have high support? Tough. Guess you will have to live with it.
Too bad the Supreme Court does not consider the rights of the unborn. They are the only innocents in this entire mess and they need help more than anyone. They sure as hell are not getting any help from their mother obviously.
Then you should do your part, step up to the plate and offer to adopt a baby if the woman will forgo an abortion and carry it to term.
They are unborn. To you, for whatever reason, they might exist as persons. You might romanticize about them, and project all sorts of fantasies about who they will be one day. You might rely on religious dogma to justify your opinion. But in the end, they don't exist outside the womb, and when the vast majority of abortions occur, they don't have personalities, they don't have feelings, they don't have brain development to support the argument that they are persons.
Actually, my opinion is scientific. Our doctors are the ones who have justified the political left's persuasion that the unborn child is not a child at all. Makes it so much easier doesn't it?
These are the doctors who cannot cure a simple virus. These are the doctors who cannot repair the most simple of human anatomy. The inner ear is a perfect example. They have no clue. The heart? Sure they can replace valves but they really don't know what makes it work or it's relationship with the brain. The brain, which is beyond any science.
And the same doctors who possibly may have sentenced the human race to much earlier deaths because of their over prescribing of antibiotics which has ushered in new strains of bacteria that we have NO antibiotics for.
These useful idiots are the ones telling you that unborn child is not a human being.
What is it like to be you, is it like being drunk all the time?
I do find it quite upsetting that abortion clinics do not have to uphold high standards of sanitation, etc. That's precisely how the clinic in Pennsylvania spread STD's to so many of it's patients. If they were held to the same standards as any other hospital, that would have never happened.
Exactly. And they're not even hospital standards. They're outpatientambulatory surgerycenter standards. And they should apply to ALL and not exclude women, specifically.
Quote:
The primary argument in favor of abortion rights has long been that women would seek out illegal unsanitary "chop shops" to get an abortion. There isn't sufficient protection preventing today's legal abortion clinics from being almost as bad and eventually worse.
That is exactly correct. And SCOTUS just set any progress in establishing higher and EQUAL medical and health care standards for women seeking abortion back to the pre- Roe v. Wade days.
How hard is using birth control (instead of killing babies) to understand. I just don't get it! How lazy, irresponsible, and selfish can these women be?!
There are 400,000 children in the foster care system this very moment. 100,000 of them are available for adoption. Many of them have special needs, either physical or mental, or emotional from the trauma of being born to a family unable to care for the child before the child is eventually removed from custody. Each year, more than 20,000 age out of the system with no support system. Less than 6% go on to college and more than half end up homeless or in jail within 18 months. How many have you helped?
We can't take of the living, breathing children we have in this country RIGHT NOW. Excuse me if I don't see a late induced period, as all abortions before 9 weeks are, as in any way equivalent to a fully formed human being. 66 percent of legal abortions occur within the first eight weeks of gestation, and 92 percent are performed within the first 13 weeks. We need to be encouraging women to seek help SOONER rather than later, when abortion becomes an invasive process.
Sounds to me like a good time to up the ante on education for young people about the ramifications for having unprotected sex.
And motivate them by ending all welfare programs.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
