So what do you think the ramifications of it are? It worries me that the precedent is now set.
When I think about how much money they will spend to do this that could be spent making the morning after pill available and known about. Thus eliminating the need for more surgical terminations and in turn making the mandated ultrasound irrelevant, well it just makes my head spin at the stupidity of it. I can't help wondering if it's a beat up lobbied for by the ultrasound providers.
i feel it is an invasion of my privacy and a violation of my right to sovereignty over my own body. yet again it is a medical procedure aimed squarely at woman only. of course, seeings how they are the only ones who can become pregnant.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
So what do you think the ramifications of it are? It worries me that the precedent is now set.
When I think about how much money they will spend to do this that could be spent making the morning after pill available and known about. Thus eliminating the need for more surgical terminations and in turn making the mandated ultrasound irrelevant, well it just makes my head spin at the stupidity of it. I can't help wondering if it's a beat up lobbied for by the ultrasound providers.
more available, yes. known about, no. Most doc's will advise the morning after pill if a woman calls her doc the morning after. It should be available to anyone at a low cost... I don't think it is right now.
you can't take the morning after pill 8 weeks down the line... I don't think doc's prescribe it 2 months after-the-fact. Most women don't know they're preggo until they're 4-5 weeks in. Putting more $ into the MAP would be a waste.
This ultrasound thing might not be a waste if it scares women AND MEN into NOT getting pregnant to begin with.
I want her to defend her claim that abortion is constitutionally protected. It doesn't seem like she knows why she believes that it is.
Simply because the Supreme Court has ruled a particular way does not mean that a precedent is justified. See Plessy v. Ferguson.
Oh, for heaven's sake .... I'm not going to write a paper on Roe v. Wade for your benefit. If you already know, then what are you asking me for? For the record, I'm not wild about the decision and I'd have based it on other reasoning if I'd written it, but I do agree with the outcome so I don't spend a lot of time quibbling with Justice Blackmun. I don't read anything in the Constitution as granting authority to the government to mandate that a woman remain pregnant against her will.
You obviously disagree that it's justified. That's fine, I didn't say that you had to agree. Heaven knows I've disagreed with plenty of Supreme Court decisions. All I said was that, unfortunately for you, it is currently the law of the land. As of today, abortion rights are constitutionally protected. That can't be disputed, so this discussion strikes me as rather silly. The thread topic is very specific, there's no need to endlessly rehash the entire abortion debate from top to bottom.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
I want her to defend her claim that abortion is constitutionally protected. It doesn't seem like she knows why she believes that it is.
Simply because the Supreme Court has ruled a particular way does not mean that a precedent is justified. See Plessy v. Ferguson.
the supreme court has had ample opportunity to overrule roe and they havent. scotus only overturns precedent in exceptional cases. abortion so far hasnt been one of them.
i do hope they overturn it though, if for no other reason that to shut annoyingly self-righteous sob's like you up.
what are your thoughts on adoption? If allllll of these babies weren't aborted, people that can't get pregnant would have the child they always wanted. seems like a perfect agreement. (but most people go to china instead)
I don't have a problem with supporting adoption if a women feels she can reliquish her child and the father also supports this. BUT I would like to see much more support given to all sides in an adoption situation. Because it seems that so many birth mothers, adoptive parents and children need to be more involved with each other over the course of the child's life.
So adoption as it stands at this point needs to be radically overhauled.
I believe that if a child is adopted then the birth mother and father have a responsibility to be available to that child whenever the child requests it.
That's a pretty hard decision to make. To reliquish and then wait for contact that may never come. I believe that the adoptive parents have a responsibility to include the adopted child's true parentage in their upbringing and to support the child in whatever choice they make with regard to contacting their birth parents. I believe that all medical information with a genetic component needs to be made available to the child and the adoptive parents. That any subsequent siblings also need to be made aware of any adopted brother or sister and vice versa.
A lot of what I believe for an adoption situation I also hold for IVF or donor sperm children.
If a person is not correctly informed of all the potential issues with regard to adoption then I believe TOP is the better option.
But I do support adoption as long as the choices of all sides of the situation are well taken into consideration and as many bases can be covered for the welfare primarily of the child and secondarily for the adoptive and birth parents.
As to the adoption of children from other cultures. Well I have some very big concerns about that. But mostly because I'm not really thinking that buying a baby from a poverty stricken family is the way to go. Although I am well aware that this isn't always the case. I would also want to see the adoptive parents make every attempt at maintaining the child's cultural heritage. As well as maintaining contact with the birth parents.
And on that note...I'm stepping back out of this discussion. Just thought I'd put out there that sex is an option, not something you have to do. If you can't raise a kid if you get knocked up...keep your damn pants on altogether. I just don't see the need to kill a POTENTIAL little child. May as well send folks like you off to war to drop bombs in Iraq and blow little kids to smithereens. Same thing I'd say. A child is a fetus in the womb, yes. But I have three kids, and I'm a middle class working father...yes it's hard, but I know that they deserved to be born. I made my choices, and I'm happy with them. I guess if you can murder kids and live with yourself, then go right ahead...but I won't. I can't. And you obviously know nothing of love. You will say you do, and that's why you do it. Abort the kids so they don't have a fucked-up life...sounds like a great excuse. But all in all in reality...learn that everyone deserves a chance to live. Regardless of the stupidass choices their parents make. It's your fault if you fuck and get pregnant...not an unborn POTENTIAL child. And on that note...I won't argue with you anymore. Wasting my time. People like you won't ever understand where I'm coming from. Too busy "being right"...
after eating and breathing, sex is the next most innate human activity. it's not quite as simple as "just dont do it." we're born to do it. it's the most natural, powerful, and primal of human urges. so doing it is not a sin no matter how much your pastor tells you otherwise, nor should it carry a life sentence. abortion is a choice to take responsibility. the only issue is you believe a fetus is alive, and the people on the other side do not. and nobody can claim to be "right" in that debate. both are simply beliefs.
Fair enough. It's not my choice to run your life. I just disagree with you, and I just wanted to express my feelings on the subject as well. I'm obviously a pro-life individual, and I belong to a number of organizations that stand against abortion. You are obviously very pro-choice and I applaud your stand on what you believe. Again, I disagree with you...I cannot stress that enough. But I also believe you are free to your own opinion.
how about joining some organizations that help the women who carry that child to term take care of it? you know, health care for the baby, job security for young single mothers... oh yeah, you dont give a shit about what happens AFTER it's born do you? that would be communism!
Oh, for heaven's sake .... I'm not going to write a paper on Roe v. Wade for your benefit. If you already know, then what are you asking me for? For the record, I'm not wild about the decision and I'd have based it on other reasoning if I'd written it, but I do agree with the outcome so I don't spend a lot of time quibbling with Justice Blackmun. I don't read anything in the Constitution as granting authority to the government to mandate that a woman remain pregnant against her will.
You obviously disagree that it's justified. That's fine, I didn't say that you had to agree. Heaven knows I've disagreed with plenty of Supreme Court decisions. All I said was that, unfortunately for you, it is currently the law of the land. As of today, abortion rights are constitutionally protected. That can't be disputed, so this discussion strikes me as rather silly. The thread topic is very specific, there's no need to endlessly rehash the entire abortion debate from top to bottom.
that's how I feel. What do I call myself?
The law of the land says that a woman can choose. Therefore, I feel pro-choice. On the other hand...
Abortion stops a beating heart. It's a fact.
I don't feel like pushing the issue one way or the other... again, what should I call myself?
after eating and breathing, sex is the next most innate human activity. it's not quite as simple as "just dont do it." we're born to do it. it's the most natural, powerful, and primal of human urges. so doing it is not a sin no matter how much your pastor tells you otherwise, nor should it carry a life sentence. abortion is a choice to take responsibility. the only issue is you believe a fetus is alive, and the people on the other side do not. and nobody can claim to be "right" in that debate. both are simply beliefs.
i believe the embryo/foetus is alive. i also believe it to be human from the moment of conception. and i am prochoice.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
what are your thoughts on adoption? If allllll of these babies weren't aborted, people that can't get pregnant would have the child they always wanted. seems like a perfect agreement. (but most people go to china instead)
the adoption system needs a serious overhaul. it's a mess and so expensive few people can afford it. i've always said, overhaul the adoption system, take serious measures to protect and support young single mothers, and ensure adequate resources for the child, then we'll talk about banning abortion. but until the pro-life crowd can convince me that they are as devoted to that child once it is born as they are while it's in the womb, im sorry but their arguments ring of opportunism to me.
i believe the embryo/foetus is alive. i also believe it to be human from the moment of conception. and i am prochoice.
fair enough. that doesnt really change anything. i dont know anyone who's pro-life that believes a baby is not alive at conception and that was my point. the anti-abortion people think it's murder. plain and simple. that's a valid view and has plenty of merit. but it's still a belief and the other side's arguments are just as valid. so nobody has the upper hand here.
The law of the land says that a woman can choose. Therefore, I feel pro-choice. On the other hand...
Abortion stops a beating heart. It's a fact.
I don't feel like pushing the issue one way or the other... again, what should I call myself?
If you don't want to change the current law of the land, I'd say that makes you pro-choice, even if you would never in a million years choose an abortion for yourself.
On the other hand, I'm not all that comfortable slapping labels on people, so if you can come up with something you like better, or if you have a nuanced view that defies simplified descriptions, that's cool too
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
Oh, for heaven's sake .... I'm not going to write a paper on Roe v. Wade for your benefit. If you already know, then what are you asking me for? For the record, I'm not wild about the decision and I'd have based it on other reasoning if I'd written it, but I do agree with the outcome so I don't spend a lot of time quibbling with Justice Blackmun.
So as long as it serves a purpose you agree with, a Supreme Court decision doesn't have to have any actual constitutional justification?
As of today, abortion rights are constitutionally protected.
It's not the Constitution that is protecting abortion "rights", it's politics. The Constitution means the same thing today that it did before Roe v. Wade.
I don't read anything in the Constitution as granting authority to the government to mandate that a woman remain pregnant against her will.
And there's nothing there that says a woman is allowed to have an abortion. That is why it ought to be left to the states.
In the shadow of the light from a black sun
Frigid statue standing icy blue and numb
Where are the frost giants Ive begged for protection?
I'm freezing
Are you afraid, afraid to die
Don't be afraid, afraid to try
fair enough. that doesnt really change anything. i dont know anyone who's pro-life that believes a baby is not alive at conception and that was my point. the anti-abortion people think it's murder. plain and simple. that's a valid view and has plenty of merit. but it's still a belief and the other side's arguments are just as valid. so nobody has the upper hand here.
oh i know it doesn't. i was sharing my view based on what you said about prolifers believing the embryo/foetus was alive while the other side(of which i am a part) does not. your comment was wrong. or generalised. take your pick.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
after eating and breathing, sex is the next most innate human activity.
No, it's orgasm. For most species, ejaculate is responsible for survival. It's totally possible to orgasm without penetration... it's not THAT hard to say no and still have fun.
No, it's orgasm. For most species, ejaculate is responsible for survival. It's totally possible to orgasm without penetration... it's not THAT hard to say no and still have fun.
perhaps. but it can still feel incomplete without penetration. the vagina is there for a reason.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
the supreme court has had ample opportunity to overrule roe and they havent. scotus only overturns precedent in exceptional cases. abortion so far hasnt been one of them.
It all depends on the make-up of the Court. Just because the justices have been unwilling to be politically incorrect does not mean that Roe was a sound decision.
i do hope they overturn it though, if for no other reason that to shut annoyingly self-righteous sob's like you up.
Is it necessary to call me a self-righteous son of a bitch? What have I done to earn that from you?
In the shadow of the light from a black sun
Frigid statue standing icy blue and numb
Where are the frost giants Ive begged for protection?
I'm freezing
Are you afraid, afraid to die
Don't be afraid, afraid to try
perhaps. but it can still feel incomplete without penetration. the vagina is there for a reason.
Then don't complete it until you're ready to raise a child.
Ride some tongue instead, or use a toy if you just can't control yourself.
In the shadow of the light from a black sun
Frigid statue standing icy blue and numb
Where are the frost giants Ive begged for protection?
I'm freezing
Are you afraid, afraid to die
Don't be afraid, afraid to try
Actually, no. Sperm and eggs will not combine on their own; it takes sexual intercourse for that to happen. The process from conception to birth is automatic.
actually sexual intercourse is not the only way. there's in-vitro. conception to birth is far from automatic there.
DOES ANYBODY WANT TO DISCUSS UNECESSARY STATE MANDATED MEDICAL PROCEDURES AND THE RAMIFICATIONS OF THAT?
it's kind of hard to discuss it without waffling about abortion because it's main purpose is to discourage women from having abortions...by tugging at women's heart strings or making it too expensive to have one. and we all know where abortion debates go...there is no debating..only arguing and name calling.
outside the abortion debate, this could set a bad precedent. it could allow doctors to order many expensive procedures in an attempt to force a patient to follow his treatment course. if a patient is forced to have expensive procedures which may not be covered by insurance, they may have no choice but to opt for the 'suggested' treatment.
actually sexual intercourse is not the only way. there's in-vitro. conception to birth is far from automatic there.
Oh yes, how could I have forgotten about that naturally occurring process?
In the shadow of the light from a black sun
Frigid statue standing icy blue and numb
Where are the frost giants Ive begged for protection?
I'm freezing
Are you afraid, afraid to die
Don't be afraid, afraid to try
So as long as it serves a purpose you agree with, a Supreme Court decision doesn't have to have any actual constitutional justification?
As I said, I'd have based it on different reasoning. I think the 9th Amendment is sufficient and requires fewer mental gymnastics than the 14th, but then again, I didn't attend Harvard Law as Justice Blackmun did. But in the end, I DO think there is constitutional justification.
It's not the Constitution that is protecting abortion "rights", it's politics. The Constitution means the same thing today that it did before Roe v. Wade.
The Constitution means what the last SCOTUS decision says it means. I'm sorry, but that's the way it works.
And there's nothing there that says a woman is allowed to have an abortion. That is why it ought to be left to the states.
That's because the function of the Constitution is not to enumerate the rights of the people (that would make for a ridiculously lengthy document), it's to set limits on the authority of the government. There's no explicit right to life in the Constitution either, but you assume that you have it, don't you?
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
As I said, I'd have based it on different reasoning. I think the 9th Amendment is sufficient
How so?
The Constitution means what the last SCOTUS decision says it means. I'm sorry, but that's the way it works.
No it doesn't. Using that logic, anything could be justified.
That's because the function of the Constitution is not to enumerate the rights of the people (that would make for a ridiculously lengthy document), it's to set limits on the authority of the government. There's no explicit right to life in the Constitution either, but you assume that you have it, don't you?
Every person has the right to live under the Constitution. BUt even if that were not the case, there is no right to abortions in the Constitution, which means this whole issue should be left to the states.
In the shadow of the light from a black sun
Frigid statue standing icy blue and numb
Where are the frost giants Ive begged for protection?
I'm freezing
Are you afraid, afraid to die
Don't be afraid, afraid to try
As I said, I'd have based it on different reasoning. I think the 9th Amendment is sufficient and requires fewer mental gymnastics than the 14th, but then again, I didn't attend Harvard Law as Justice Blackmun did. But in the end, I DO think there is constitutional justification.
ahh yes the legal penumbra of the 9th and 14th amendments.
i really have nothing to add, i just like how law papers use the word penumbra ad nauseum
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
No it doesn't. Using that logic, anything could be justified.
As many things have been. And they were law until the Supremes reversed themselves. As I said, you don't have to agree with the decision. I doubt you agree with Dred Scott either ... I certainly don't, it was an abhorrent decision ... but for many years it was law. That's what the Constitution meant, until the Supreme Court said it didn't mean that any more.
It all depends on the make-up of the Court. Just because the justices have been unwilling to be politically incorrect does not mean that Roe was a sound decision.
Is it necessary to call me a self-righteous son of a bitch? What have I done to earn that from you?
scotus has made a lot of unsound decisions. this is no different from any of them. like i said, hopefully it will stop soon. what you have done is annoyed the bejesus out of me with your elementary school grade-level argument style. your rebuttals to other people's points have about as much meat as a 3rd grader saying "nu-uh!" it's annoying, esp when delivered with that smug self satisfied smirk you evince. but it's cool... i think i remember you quite well, so there's plenty you've said that could be said to have earned that from me.
Comments
i feel it is an invasion of my privacy and a violation of my right to sovereignty over my own body. yet again it is a medical procedure aimed squarely at woman only. of course, seeings how they are the only ones who can become pregnant.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
more available, yes. known about, no. Most doc's will advise the morning after pill if a woman calls her doc the morning after. It should be available to anyone at a low cost... I don't think it is right now.
you can't take the morning after pill 8 weeks down the line... I don't think doc's prescribe it 2 months after-the-fact. Most women don't know they're preggo until they're 4-5 weeks in. Putting more $ into the MAP would be a waste.
This ultrasound thing might not be a waste if it scares women AND MEN into NOT getting pregnant to begin with.
You obviously disagree that it's justified. That's fine, I didn't say that you had to agree. Heaven knows I've disagreed with plenty of Supreme Court decisions. All I said was that, unfortunately for you, it is currently the law of the land. As of today, abortion rights are constitutionally protected. That can't be disputed, so this discussion strikes me as rather silly. The thread topic is very specific, there's no need to endlessly rehash the entire abortion debate from top to bottom.
the supreme court has had ample opportunity to overrule roe and they havent. scotus only overturns precedent in exceptional cases. abortion so far hasnt been one of them.
i do hope they overturn it though, if for no other reason that to shut annoyingly self-righteous sob's like you up.
I don't have a problem with supporting adoption if a women feels she can reliquish her child and the father also supports this. BUT I would like to see much more support given to all sides in an adoption situation. Because it seems that so many birth mothers, adoptive parents and children need to be more involved with each other over the course of the child's life.
So adoption as it stands at this point needs to be radically overhauled.
I believe that if a child is adopted then the birth mother and father have a responsibility to be available to that child whenever the child requests it.
That's a pretty hard decision to make. To reliquish and then wait for contact that may never come. I believe that the adoptive parents have a responsibility to include the adopted child's true parentage in their upbringing and to support the child in whatever choice they make with regard to contacting their birth parents. I believe that all medical information with a genetic component needs to be made available to the child and the adoptive parents. That any subsequent siblings also need to be made aware of any adopted brother or sister and vice versa.
A lot of what I believe for an adoption situation I also hold for IVF or donor sperm children.
If a person is not correctly informed of all the potential issues with regard to adoption then I believe TOP is the better option.
But I do support adoption as long as the choices of all sides of the situation are well taken into consideration and as many bases can be covered for the welfare primarily of the child and secondarily for the adoptive and birth parents.
As to the adoption of children from other cultures. Well I have some very big concerns about that. But mostly because I'm not really thinking that buying a baby from a poverty stricken family is the way to go. Although I am well aware that this isn't always the case. I would also want to see the adoptive parents make every attempt at maintaining the child's cultural heritage. As well as maintaining contact with the birth parents.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
after eating and breathing, sex is the next most innate human activity. it's not quite as simple as "just dont do it." we're born to do it. it's the most natural, powerful, and primal of human urges. so doing it is not a sin no matter how much your pastor tells you otherwise, nor should it carry a life sentence. abortion is a choice to take responsibility. the only issue is you believe a fetus is alive, and the people on the other side do not. and nobody can claim to be "right" in that debate. both are simply beliefs.
men can get pregnant?
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
how about joining some organizations that help the women who carry that child to term take care of it? you know, health care for the baby, job security for young single mothers... oh yeah, you dont give a shit about what happens AFTER it's born do you? that would be communism!
that's how I feel. What do I call myself?
The law of the land says that a woman can choose. Therefore, I feel pro-choice. On the other hand...
Abortion stops a beating heart. It's a fact.
I don't feel like pushing the issue one way or the other... again, what should I call myself?
no but men might think twice about sheathing.
i believe the embryo/foetus is alive. i also believe it to be human from the moment of conception. and i am prochoice.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
the adoption system needs a serious overhaul. it's a mess and so expensive few people can afford it. i've always said, overhaul the adoption system, take serious measures to protect and support young single mothers, and ensure adequate resources for the child, then we'll talk about banning abortion. but until the pro-life crowd can convince me that they are as devoted to that child once it is born as they are while it's in the womb, im sorry but their arguments ring of opportunism to me.
fair enough. that doesnt really change anything. i dont know anyone who's pro-life that believes a baby is not alive at conception and that was my point. the anti-abortion people think it's murder. plain and simple. that's a valid view and has plenty of merit. but it's still a belief and the other side's arguments are just as valid. so nobody has the upper hand here.
On the other hand, I'm not all that comfortable slapping labels on people, so if you can come up with something you like better, or if you have a nuanced view that defies simplified descriptions, that's cool too
So as long as it serves a purpose you agree with, a Supreme Court decision doesn't have to have any actual constitutional justification?
It's not the Constitution that is protecting abortion "rights", it's politics. The Constitution means the same thing today that it did before Roe v. Wade.
And there's nothing there that says a woman is allowed to have an abortion. That is why it ought to be left to the states.
Frigid statue standing icy blue and numb
Where are the frost giants Ive begged for protection?
I'm freezing
Are you afraid, afraid to die
Don't be afraid, afraid to try
oh i know it doesn't. i was sharing my view based on what you said about prolifers believing the embryo/foetus was alive while the other side(of which i am a part) does not. your comment was wrong. or generalised. take your pick.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
No, it's orgasm. For most species, ejaculate is responsible for survival. It's totally possible to orgasm without penetration... it's not THAT hard to say no and still have fun.
perhaps. but it can still feel incomplete without penetration. the vagina is there for a reason.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
It all depends on the make-up of the Court. Just because the justices have been unwilling to be politically incorrect does not mean that Roe was a sound decision.
Is it necessary to call me a self-righteous son of a bitch? What have I done to earn that from you?
Frigid statue standing icy blue and numb
Where are the frost giants Ive begged for protection?
I'm freezing
Are you afraid, afraid to die
Don't be afraid, afraid to try
Then don't complete it until you're ready to raise a child.
Ride some tongue instead, or use a toy if you just can't control yourself.
Frigid statue standing icy blue and numb
Where are the frost giants Ive begged for protection?
I'm freezing
Are you afraid, afraid to die
Don't be afraid, afraid to try
outside the abortion debate, this could set a bad precedent. it could allow doctors to order many expensive procedures in an attempt to force a patient to follow his treatment course. if a patient is forced to have expensive procedures which may not be covered by insurance, they may have no choice but to opt for the 'suggested' treatment.
so much to say here and too decorous to say it.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Oh yes, how could I have forgotten about that naturally occurring process?
Frigid statue standing icy blue and numb
Where are the frost giants Ive begged for protection?
I'm freezing
Are you afraid, afraid to die
Don't be afraid, afraid to try
The Constitution means what the last SCOTUS decision says it means. I'm sorry, but that's the way it works.
That's because the function of the Constitution is not to enumerate the rights of the people (that would make for a ridiculously lengthy document), it's to set limits on the authority of the government. There's no explicit right to life in the Constitution either, but you assume that you have it, don't you?
for BIRTH!
Pleasure is the incentive, the afterthought.
How so?
No it doesn't. Using that logic, anything could be justified.
Every person has the right to live under the Constitution. BUt even if that were not the case, there is no right to abortions in the Constitution, which means this whole issue should be left to the states.
Frigid statue standing icy blue and numb
Where are the frost giants Ive begged for protection?
I'm freezing
Are you afraid, afraid to die
Don't be afraid, afraid to try
neither side ever will.
So what now?
ahh yes the legal penumbra of the 9th and 14th amendments.
i really have nothing to add, i just like how law papers use the word penumbra ad nauseum
As many things have been. And they were law until the Supremes reversed themselves. As I said, you don't have to agree with the decision. I doubt you agree with Dred Scott either ... I certainly don't, it was an abhorrent decision ... but for many years it was law. That's what the Constitution meant, until the Supreme Court said it didn't mean that any more.
Where does it say that?
Or to the people themselves. I see no reason for states to get involved in private medical decisions.
scotus has made a lot of unsound decisions. this is no different from any of them. like i said, hopefully it will stop soon. what you have done is annoyed the bejesus out of me with your elementary school grade-level argument style. your rebuttals to other people's points have about as much meat as a 3rd grader saying "nu-uh!" it's annoying, esp when delivered with that smug self satisfied smirk you evince. but it's cool... i think i remember you quite well, so there's plenty you've said that could be said to have earned that from me.