Do you want Row V Wade overturned? (dollar, school, carry)
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.
Where in the Constitution does it state that the "right to privacy" is an unalienable right?
The ninth amendment states "“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed
to deny or disparage others retained by the people” which basically means just because it isn't in the constitution doesn't mean it isn't a right. Particularly this applies to privacy. Your entire right to privacy as a citizen in the US stems from the 9th amendment and the interpretation that people have the right to privacy. The right to make PRIVATE decisions regarding reproduction, sex, etc.
Conversely why do you think the states have the right to determine what medical procedures any citizen can make?
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,623,335 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by tipsywicket
Really, so how did we get from creating the stone wheel to creating virtual reality.
Our resources are not finite as long as there are brilliant minds that are discovering and/or creating new kinds of resources or new ways to harness and use resources sustainably.
Poverty will always exist. That is a given, because there will always be those who are incapable of caring for themselves and there will always be those who choose not to care for themselves, but as long as there is opportunity to succeed, and there are people who want to succeed, then the goal should be finding opportunity and making it available. Nothing will ever eradicate poverty. NOTHING!
It's also people who want to work but no one will hire them, either because no slots are available, or the Catch 22 of not enough experience.
You can't always blame the poor for being poor, but you can avoid making it even harder on them. If someone barely makes enough money to care for there self, there is a snowball's chance in hell that they will also be able to fund a child's upbringing. Kids cost a LOT of money
But even though I'm conservative I wouldn't change it. I think it is wrong and immoral. Seems like an easy way out and it is a living thing growing. But I just feel that a lot more kids will be brought into this world with parents not wanting them and that's not going to good.
I agree. Though I am personally against abortion, I think it is is personal decision, and I know there are circumstances in which it is warranted. If I decided to have one, I would not want to be barred from doing so.
The reality is that is exactly where we were in the 1960's, you already know that will be the case if we overturn Roe v Wade. But even if we never had an abortion again in this country where would you put a few hundred thousand unwanted children, Social services? A teenage girl having a child in many cases is doomed to a life of poverty and public assistance.
There are more forms of effective birth control today than in the 1960's. There is more availability of affordable travel if you have to go to another state. It is a fact that there was more support for teenage girls in the 1960's in the form of homes for unwed mothers that provided medical care and physical support until the birth of the child. Yes, adoption was usually the expected outcome, but this is not 1960 and the return of this issue to where it belongs is not going to cause the nation to revert to the 1960's. That is just a tactic used by the pro-abortion advocates to foment fear and anger in their ranks.
It's also people who want to work but no one will hire them, either because no slots are available, or the Catch 22 of not enough experience.
You can't always blame the poor for being poor, but you can avoid making it even harder on them. If someone barely makes enough money to care for there self, there is a snowball's chance in hell that they will also be able to fund a child's upbringing. Kids cost a LOT of money
Which is why it is important to create OPPORTUNITY! Yes children cost a lot of money, they also contribute a lot of money to society. That's how this thing works. Back in the dark old ages, before people thought it was great to kill their unborn, they had as many children as possible so that they had labor to work their farms and feed the family and maybe have someone to care for them in their old age. That cycle was continuous until this very day. Except modern society has decided that life is too hard or expensive to take care of the children you create and would rather shove the elderly into old folks homes that cost $10K a month...
There are jobs available for anyone who wants one. No there are not the jobs available that everyone believes they deserve, but no one in this country will die of starvation in the street if they really want to work, because there are charities that will assist them to get on their feet, or back on their feet and there is living proof of that all around us.
The ninth amendment states "“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed
to deny or disparage others retained by the people” which basically means just because it isn't in the constitution doesn't mean it isn't a right. Particularly this applies to privacy. Your entire right to privacy as a citizen in the US stems from the 9th amendment and the interpretation that people have the right to privacy. The right to make PRIVATE decisions regarding reproduction, sex, etc.
Conversely why do you think the states have the right to determine what medical procedures any citizen can make?
So you have to make up the right out of whole cloth. There is no unalienable right to privacy in the Constitution, therefore there is no "right to privacy" and even if it did exist, how does the "right to privacy" translate into the "right to end another human life if it is inconvenient"?
Again, interpretation by an activist court of 9 unelected individuals does not show where the Constitution states that "the right to privacy" is an unalienable right....unlike the Declaration which states clearly that the right to LIFE, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness ARE UNALIENABLE rights, God given and cannot be taken away by the government.
There are more forms of effective birth control today than in the 1960's. There is more availability of affordable travel if you have to go to another state. It is a fact that there was more support for teenage girls in the 1960's in the form of homes for unwed mothers that provided medical care and physical support until the birth of the child. Yes, adoption was usually the expected outcome, but this is not 1960 and the return of this issue to where it belongs is not going to cause the nation to revert to the 1960's. That is just a tactic used by the pro-abortion advocates to foment fear and anger in their ranks.
Except if you define life as occurring at fertilization, which your earlier post suggests you do, than most of the "effective" forms of birth control become ILLEGAL.
Most hormonal forms of birth control, and IUDs have a secondary action of preventing implantation of fertilized eggs. If you think life begins at fertilization, then you must consider anything that prevents pregnancy after fertilization as murder.
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.
