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.
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.
And the ramifications for future state mandates?
I worry because I see other examples of the state breaching the confidentiality of a person's medical records and decreeing mandates that directly breach a person's sovereignty over their own bodies.
One case that springs to mind is the woman here who had her medical records seized by a member of parliament, who was also involved in legal action to prevent the woman from a late term TOP of a severely disabled pregnancy.
"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."--14th Amendment
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
"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."--14th Amendment
funny how just a minute ago you were telling hippiemom the 14th amendment didnt apply to this argument. anyway, this says the state cannot deny you life without due process. 1) there's no consensus that a fetus is a life. 2) assuming that, this still has to do with governmental proceedings and is a prohibition on the government executing citizens arbitrarily, without due process. it has nothing to do with citizen on citizen encroachments. it's a check on government, not an enumeration of people's rights. we have civil and criminal codes for regulating individual citizens' actions against each other. so this "right to life" you're pulling for has no more weight than hippiemom's arguing privileges or immunities applies to private medical decisions the state is not allowed to regulate. sadly for you, scotus saw it her way. suck it up.
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 agree that some women are well informed about the morning after pill and they are able to procure it and take it under their doctor's supervision. But it has come to my attention on many occassions now that many women, younger women in particular, do not know that the morning after pill is available to them immediately following unprotected intercourse. Given the abortion rate it would appear that many don't know about that it is an option available to them. I would like to see the morning after pill be given more prominance. I would like to see more women aware, that should they find themselves in a situation after intercourse where they suspect that it is possible they may become pregnant that instead of worrying about it for weeks afterwards they should immediately procur it from a medical practitioner. I really think we need to support that option fully.
I don't agree that most women don't know they are pregnant. If this is statistically indicated then I think more education is required to help women become better in tune with their bodies. What I'm saying is that in order to lower the abortion rate, education would help women to go immediately to their doctor if they have unprotected sex and have the morning after pill and at that time they can also discuss their birth control options for the future.
If the thought of actual surgery, the removal of a potential life and the emotional upheaval of making the decision to abort is not enough to "scare" people into having safe sex, then why would you think that an ultrasound would? And I wouldn't advocate "scaring" people in their reproductive options anyway. This imo is part of the problem. Don't be trying to scare people, educate, educate, educate. And provided the services that they require, not those that they don't, should they find themselves contemplating TOP.
A choice to terminate the pregnancy within first months or this....
3/26/07 - Minnesota
Infant's body found in Treasure Island Casino Marina
The body of an infant was pulled from the waters of a marina at Treasure Island Casino on Monday.
According to the Goodhue County Sheriff, an employee of the casino called the Sheriff's office just before 1 p.m. on Monday saying they'd found the body of an infant floating in the water.
The body has been taken to Regina Medical Center in Hastings for an autopsy.
Investigator Scott McNurlin said this is the third infant found in the waters of Goodhue County in eight years.
Authorities will have more information on this sad discovery on Tuesday.
"Speak your mind even if your voice shakes" ~ M Kuhn
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!
Hmm...seems to me that that conversation was simple debate between myself and ms. frances.....I don't believe I asked you. You already jumped my shit on one occasion, simply for speaking my thoughts. How about this...I'll do what I do, you do what you do...believe what you like, but get off my shit for speaking my mind and my beliefs. Who are you to question what organizations I belong to and what causes I support? Ms. Frances and I came to terms that we'd just agree to disagree.....why are you so quick to be completely belligerent and try to cause argument? Why not save that for a debate with someone who really matters and try to make a difference based on your beliefs? I said what I wanted to say. I'll leave it at that. I'm not here to argue with you like a teenage kid, and I won't.
I'M NOT A SLAVE TO A GOD THAT DOESN'T EXIST.
I'M NOT A SLAVE TO A WORLD THAT DOESN'T GIVE A SHIT.
"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."--14th Amendment
So the state can take your life as long as due process is followed. Rather flimsy, I'd say. Your right to due process is more protected.
And now, to backtrack a bit, a couple of questions you've skipped over:
Should the legislature have the power to demand that you surrender one of your constitutionally protected rights in order to exercise another?
From where did you derive the idea that any organism containing human DNA is sacred and must be protected at all costs?
And a couple of new ones:
What do you think is the role of the Supreme Court, if not to interpret the Constitution?
Do you think that the Constitution was meant to provide an exhaustive list of the rights of the people, to clearly define the role of government, or some other purpose?
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
funny how just a minute ago you were telling hippiemom the 14th amendment didnt apply to this argument.
I did? Show me.
anyway, this says the state cannot deny you life without due process.
Whoops, ya got me. But none of you have addressed the issue that it should go to the states, not the Supreme Court.
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
Whoops, ya got me. But none of you have addressed the issue that it should go to the states, not the Supreme Court.
way to cut out the part of my response that addressed that. if private medical decisions are considered among the privileges of private citizens, the state has no right to pass laws interfering with that... ie, banning medical procedures they dont like. i dont necessarily agree, but such is the way of life... im not in charge of this country yet, unfortunately for us all. like i said, id prefer it were a state by state thing, so you and your comrades would stop bitching about the poor feti and maybe start talking about real important issues.
Hmm...seems to me that that conversation was simple debate between myself and ms. frances.....I don't believe I asked you. You already jumped my shit on one occasion, simply for speaking my thoughts. How about this...I'll do what I do, you do what you do...believe what you like, but get off my shit for speaking my mind and my beliefs. Who are you to question what organizations I belong to and what causes I support? Ms. Frances and I came to terms that we'd just agree to disagree.....why are you so quick to be completely belligerent and try to cause argument? Why not save that for a debate with someone who really matters and try to make a difference based on your beliefs? I said what I wanted to say. I'll leave it at that. I'm not here to argue with you like a teenage kid, and I won't.
becos i find the double standards of the pro-life movement incredibly disgusting at times and as morally repugnant as you find abortion... so, like you, i expressed my views on it, albeit in a sarcastic manner. i didnt tell you what to do, i asked you why you didnt do something else in an effort to see just how far your convictions go.
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.
Thanks toof! So do you see it as breach of your civil liberties?
And if they have managed to mandate for it in SC do you know how it was ruled in favor of? I guess I'm wondering about your constitution here.
Because if the constitution can be interpreted to mandate for it in SC what's to stop the same principle being applied to other states? And for other procedures? And for different motivations? Or lobby groups?
Perhaps SS might know more about the legalities. It just worries me because I can see all kinds of things happening because of it. Like medications being withheld for patients who do not wish to be subjected to diagnostic procedures mandated by the government. I think the ramifications of this decision are huge. Here for instance, you cannot register with the Multiple Sclerosis Society unless you provide them with the answers to a government requested survey. The government is collecting this information in order to provide funding for the organization. It's all questions about personal information, about your marital status, your highest education level, your income, things like that. If you do not agree to give this information to the MS Society then you cannot register with them and avail yourself of any of their services. Why should a sick person have to barter with their confidentiality in order to access services? All this information is available on the government census anyway, so why is it necessary for the purposes of funding? This is a benign example I know and possibly not quite the same as government mandated ultrasound, but it also has far reaching ramifications and is just as open to abuse by lobby groups, pharmaceutical companies, the government and other power hungry money hungry unscrupulous types.
A choice to terminate the pregnancy within first months or this....
3/26/07 - Minnesota
Infant's body found in Treasure Island Casino Marina
The body of an infant was pulled from the waters of a marina at Treasure Island Casino on Monday.
According to the Goodhue County Sheriff, an employee of the casino called the Sheriff's office just before 1 p.m. on Monday saying they'd found the body of an infant floating in the water.
The body has been taken to Regina Medical Center in Hastings for an autopsy.
Investigator Scott McNurlin said this is the third infant found in the waters of Goodhue County in eight years.
Authorities will have more information on this sad discovery on Tuesday.
That is so sad bookmuse. You have to wonder if post natal depression has come into play here. But I agree, an abortion would be a much more humane option.
becos i find the double standards of the pro-life movement incredibly disgusting at times and as morally repugnant as you find abortion... so, like you, i expressed my views on it, albeit in a sarcastic manner. i didnt tell you what to do, i asked you why you didnt do something else in an effort to see just how far your convictions go.
Well, I can say that that makes sense in a way. I do agree we ALL should do more to speak on and educate ourselves on things of importance such as this...but again, I do believe in my heart of hearts that abortion is wrong. I'm not going to get to the core of it all and dissect it like you. I'll leave the argument to you. But I will say that the organizations I belong to and work with do great work in their field. Do I think that pro-life activists have double-standard themselves? Yes, indeed I do. But don't we all in ways? Look, I don't agree with everything all pro-life activists say. I have my own beliefs, and plain and simple...I DO NOT SUPPORT ABORTION OR DEATH OF FETUS. What's your choice is your choice, friend. And what's mine is mine. I will continue to stand by my beliefs and stand against abortion...whether or not you agree. And I'm sure you'll do the same with your beliefs. Freedom of speech, my friend.
I'M NOT A SLAVE TO A GOD THAT DOESN'T EXIST.
I'M NOT A SLAVE TO A WORLD THAT DOESN'T GIVE A SHIT.
if private medical decisions are considered among the privileges of private citizens, the state has no right to pass laws interfering with that
Based on what?
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
i dont even know what question you're asking. if you're asking what i base the contention that private medical decisions fall under the privileges mentioned in the clause, then i dont know becos it's not my contention. it's simply a plausible argument, but one i never put much thought into it becos on the scale of Important Things this country needs to be talking about, it's up there with gay marriage and the dreaded evolution in schools (all of which, of course, are way ahead of trivial matters like war, poverty, infant mortality, etc). but it's been accepted by the court and i dont much care to fight for it one way or the other.
So, in other words, states do have the right to pass those kinds of laws.
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
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
Should the legislature have the power to demand that you surrender one of your constitutionally protected rights in order to exercise another?
No, but I don't see how this question is relevant. Anti-abortion laws do not infringe on Constitutional rights.
From where did you derive the idea that any organism containing human DNA is sacred and must be protected at all costs?
What the fuck is "any organism containing human DNA?"
I have said that human life begins at conception, and that that life is sacred and must be protected.
What do you think is the role of the Supreme Court, if not to interpret the Constitution?
I didn't say that its role was not to interpret the Constitution.
Do you think that the Constitution was meant to provide an exhaustive list of the rights of the people, to clearly define the role of government, or some other purpose?
No. It got the big ones out of the way, and left the rest of the decisions 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
i wouldn't say that's its sole primary use, cause let's face it thousands of women every day give birth without ulitising their vaginas.
and far from pleasure being an afterthought i imagine it serves the purpose of making sure that humans continue to have sex, the primary purpose of which is to procreate. incentive and afterthought are not the same thing.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
i wouldn't say that's its sole primary use, cause let's face it thousands of women every day give birth without ulitising their vaginas.
and far from pleasure being an afterthought i imagine it serves the purpose of making sure that humans continue to have sex, the primary purpose of which is to procreate. incentive and afterthought are not the same thing.
Well mine will never be used for birth. So I may as well utilize it for other things.
I didn't say that its role was not to interpret the Constitution.
You've been arguing round and round over whether or not abortion rights are constitutionally protected. I say that they are, because the Supreme Court says that they are. You have said they are not, so how do you reconcile that with the role of the court? If they don't decide what's constitutionally protected, who does? You?
No. It got the big ones out of the way, and left the rest of the decisions to the states.
That wasn't a yes or no question. And why do you continually choose to focus on the states and ignore the phrase "or to the people"? Why is a private medical decision an issue for a state government to decide?
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
I base that on my belief that all human beings deserve a chance at life.
ALL life is not sacred, we destroy life constantly. What makes a sperm and an egg different?
I have not called sperm and eggs sacred.
You've been arguing round and round over whether or not abortion rights are constitutionally protected. I say that they are, because the Supreme Court says that they are. You have said they are not, so how do you reconcile that with the role of the court? If they don't decide what's constitutionally protected, who does? You?
There is a right way and a wrong way to interpret the Constitution, and not all interpretations are equally valid. It is possible for the Supreme Court to decide that something is constitutional or unconstitutional when in fact it is not.
That wasn't a yes or no question.
The Constitution's purpose is to define and limit Federal power.
And why do you continually choose to focus on the states and ignore the phrase "or to the people"?
"The states" and "the people" are essentially the same thing. The people exercise those reserved powers through voting.
Why is a private medical decision an issue for a state government to decide?
If it involves another human being, it isn't private.
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
All this is none of my business but I just wanted to add a few things (I didn't read the 28 pages so I might be repeating a few things!) :
first of all people did not wait for roe vs wade to have abortions. The ways to stop a pregnancy before the end are known and have been used for a long long looong time. And most of them are in fact dangerous for the "mother". In fact, in most countries, legalising abortions isn't only a political move but a public health one as well as the abortion becomes a medical procedure. Face it, having illegal abortions won't stop them they'll just be that much more dangerous.
The law that is discussed is, in my point of view, quite stupid. An abortion shouldn't be taken lightly true, but do it through education not morbid symbolism. Give the tools to your daughters to understand that abortion isn't a birth control method but a last option when the rest failed.
a developing embryo/ foetus can not grow or survive independently of its mother. it gives nothing back in return for this nourishment. in this way, yes, it is parasitic. .
Neither can a two year old. Can we kill those off too?
So, in other words, states do have the right to pass those kinds of laws.
pass what kind of laws? i dont even know what you're talking about. did you ever master reading comprehension skills in grade school? do i have to explain it to you?
we're covering privileges and immunities tomorrow in constitutional law. ill tell you exactly what you're allowed to do. then ask you kindly to stop pretending you're some sort of intellectual heavyweight.
Comments
where is the right to life in the constitution?
And the ramifications for future state mandates?
I worry because I see other examples of the state breaching the confidentiality of a person's medical records and decreeing mandates that directly breach a person's sovereignty over their own bodies.
One case that springs to mind is the woman here who had her medical records seized by a member of parliament, who was also involved in legal action to prevent the woman from a late term TOP of a severely disabled pregnancy.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
"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."--14th Amendment
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
funny how just a minute ago you were telling hippiemom the 14th amendment didnt apply to this argument. anyway, this says the state cannot deny you life without due process. 1) there's no consensus that a fetus is a life. 2) assuming that, this still has to do with governmental proceedings and is a prohibition on the government executing citizens arbitrarily, without due process. it has nothing to do with citizen on citizen encroachments. it's a check on government, not an enumeration of people's rights. we have civil and criminal codes for regulating individual citizens' actions against each other. so this "right to life" you're pulling for has no more weight than hippiemom's arguing privileges or immunities applies to private medical decisions the state is not allowed to regulate. sadly for you, scotus saw it her way. suck it up.
I agree that some women are well informed about the morning after pill and they are able to procure it and take it under their doctor's supervision. But it has come to my attention on many occassions now that many women, younger women in particular, do not know that the morning after pill is available to them immediately following unprotected intercourse. Given the abortion rate it would appear that many don't know about that it is an option available to them. I would like to see the morning after pill be given more prominance. I would like to see more women aware, that should they find themselves in a situation after intercourse where they suspect that it is possible they may become pregnant that instead of worrying about it for weeks afterwards they should immediately procur it from a medical practitioner. I really think we need to support that option fully.
I don't agree that most women don't know they are pregnant. If this is statistically indicated then I think more education is required to help women become better in tune with their bodies. What I'm saying is that in order to lower the abortion rate, education would help women to go immediately to their doctor if they have unprotected sex and have the morning after pill and at that time they can also discuss their birth control options for the future.
If the thought of actual surgery, the removal of a potential life and the emotional upheaval of making the decision to abort is not enough to "scare" people into having safe sex, then why would you think that an ultrasound would? And I wouldn't advocate "scaring" people in their reproductive options anyway. This imo is part of the problem. Don't be trying to scare people, educate, educate, educate. And provided the services that they require, not those that they don't, should they find themselves contemplating TOP.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
A choice to terminate the pregnancy within first months or this....
3/26/07 - Minnesota
Infant's body found in Treasure Island Casino Marina
The body of an infant was pulled from the waters of a marina at Treasure Island Casino on Monday.
According to the Goodhue County Sheriff, an employee of the casino called the Sheriff's office just before 1 p.m. on Monday saying they'd found the body of an infant floating in the water.
The body has been taken to Regina Medical Center in Hastings for an autopsy.
Investigator Scott McNurlin said this is the third infant found in the waters of Goodhue County in eight years.
Authorities will have more information on this sad discovery on Tuesday.
I completely agree with this, and said as much in the mandatory vaccination thread.
Hmm...seems to me that that conversation was simple debate between myself and ms. frances.....I don't believe I asked you. You already jumped my shit on one occasion, simply for speaking my thoughts. How about this...I'll do what I do, you do what you do...believe what you like, but get off my shit for speaking my mind and my beliefs. Who are you to question what organizations I belong to and what causes I support? Ms. Frances and I came to terms that we'd just agree to disagree.....why are you so quick to be completely belligerent and try to cause argument? Why not save that for a debate with someone who really matters and try to make a difference based on your beliefs? I said what I wanted to say. I'll leave it at that. I'm not here to argue with you like a teenage kid, and I won't.
I'M NOT A SLAVE TO A WORLD THAT DOESN'T GIVE A SHIT.
And now, to backtrack a bit, a couple of questions you've skipped over:
Should the legislature have the power to demand that you surrender one of your constitutionally protected rights in order to exercise another?
From where did you derive the idea that any organism containing human DNA is sacred and must be protected at all costs?
And a couple of new ones:
What do you think is the role of the Supreme Court, if not to interpret the Constitution?
Do you think that the Constitution was meant to provide an exhaustive list of the rights of the people, to clearly define the role of government, or some other purpose?
I did? Show me.
Whoops, ya got me. But none of you have addressed the issue that it should go to the states, not the Supreme Court.
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
way to cut out the part of my response that addressed that. if private medical decisions are considered among the privileges of private citizens, the state has no right to pass laws interfering with that... ie, banning medical procedures they dont like. i dont necessarily agree, but such is the way of life... im not in charge of this country yet, unfortunately for us all. like i said, id prefer it were a state by state thing, so you and your comrades would stop bitching about the poor feti and maybe start talking about real important issues.
becos i find the double standards of the pro-life movement incredibly disgusting at times and as morally repugnant as you find abortion... so, like you, i expressed my views on it, albeit in a sarcastic manner. i didnt tell you what to do, i asked you why you didnt do something else in an effort to see just how far your convictions go.
Thanks toof!
And if they have managed to mandate for it in SC do you know how it was ruled in favor of? I guess I'm wondering about your constitution here.
Because if the constitution can be interpreted to mandate for it in SC what's to stop the same principle being applied to other states? And for other procedures? And for different motivations? Or lobby groups?
Perhaps SS might know more about the legalities. It just worries me because I can see all kinds of things happening because of it. Like medications being withheld for patients who do not wish to be subjected to diagnostic procedures mandated by the government. I think the ramifications of this decision are huge. Here for instance, you cannot register with the Multiple Sclerosis Society unless you provide them with the answers to a government requested survey. The government is collecting this information in order to provide funding for the organization. It's all questions about personal information, about your marital status, your highest education level, your income, things like that. If you do not agree to give this information to the MS Society then you cannot register with them and avail yourself of any of their services. Why should a sick person have to barter with their confidentiality in order to access services? All this information is available on the government census anyway, so why is it necessary for the purposes of funding? This is a benign example I know and possibly not quite the same as government mandated ultrasound, but it also has far reaching ramifications and is just as open to abuse by lobby groups, pharmaceutical companies, the government and other power hungry money hungry unscrupulous types.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
That is so sad bookmuse. You have to wonder if post natal depression has come into play here. But I agree, an abortion would be a much more humane option.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
Well, I can say that that makes sense in a way. I do agree we ALL should do more to speak on and educate ourselves on things of importance such as this...but again, I do believe in my heart of hearts that abortion is wrong. I'm not going to get to the core of it all and dissect it like you. I'll leave the argument to you. But I will say that the organizations I belong to and work with do great work in their field. Do I think that pro-life activists have double-standard themselves? Yes, indeed I do. But don't we all in ways? Look, I don't agree with everything all pro-life activists say. I have my own beliefs, and plain and simple...I DO NOT SUPPORT ABORTION OR DEATH OF FETUS. What's your choice is your choice, friend. And what's mine is mine. I will continue to stand by my beliefs and stand against abortion...whether or not you agree. And I'm sure you'll do the same with your beliefs. Freedom of speech, my friend.
I'M NOT A SLAVE TO A WORLD THAT DOESN'T GIVE A SHIT.
Based on what?
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
i dont even know what question you're asking. if you're asking what i base the contention that private medical decisions fall under the privileges mentioned in the clause, then i dont know becos it's not my contention. it's simply a plausible argument, but one i never put much thought into it becos on the scale of Important Things this country needs to be talking about, it's up there with gay marriage and the dreaded evolution in schools (all of which, of course, are way ahead of trivial matters like war, poverty, infant mortality, etc). but it's been accepted by the court and i dont much care to fight for it one way or the other.
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
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
Constitutionally, they have the prerogative.
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
No, but I don't see how this question is relevant. Anti-abortion laws do not infringe on Constitutional rights.
What the fuck is "any organism containing human DNA?"
I have said that human life begins at conception, and that that life is sacred and must be protected.
I didn't say that its role was not to interpret the Constitution.
No. It got the big ones out of the way, and left the rest of the decisions 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
i wouldn't say that's its sole primary use, cause let's face it thousands of women every day give birth without ulitising their vaginas.
and far from pleasure being an afterthought i imagine it serves the purpose of making sure that humans continue to have sex, the primary purpose of which is to procreate. incentive and afterthought are not the same thing.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
What does that mean?
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
Well mine will never be used for birth. So I may as well utilize it for other things.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
On what do you base the belief that it's sacred? ALL life is not sacred, we destroy life constantly. What makes a sperm and an egg different?
You've been arguing round and round over whether or not abortion rights are constitutionally protected. I say that they are, because the Supreme Court says that they are. You have said they are not, so how do you reconcile that with the role of the court? If they don't decide what's constitutionally protected, who does? You?
That wasn't a yes or no question. And why do you continually choose to focus on the states and ignore the phrase "or to the people"? Why is a private medical decision an issue for a state government to decide?
Then what was?
I base that on my belief that all human beings deserve a chance at life.
I have not called sperm and eggs sacred.
There is a right way and a wrong way to interpret the Constitution, and not all interpretations are equally valid. It is possible for the Supreme Court to decide that something is constitutional or unconstitutional when in fact it is not.
The Constitution's purpose is to define and limit Federal power.
"The states" and "the people" are essentially the same thing. The people exercise those reserved powers through voting.
If it involves another human being, it isn't private.
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
first of all people did not wait for roe vs wade to have abortions. The ways to stop a pregnancy before the end are known and have been used for a long long looong time. And most of them are in fact dangerous for the "mother". In fact, in most countries, legalising abortions isn't only a political move but a public health one as well as the abortion becomes a medical procedure. Face it, having illegal abortions won't stop them they'll just be that much more dangerous.
The law that is discussed is, in my point of view, quite stupid. An abortion shouldn't be taken lightly true, but do it through education not morbid symbolism. Give the tools to your daughters to understand that abortion isn't a birth control method but a last option when the rest failed.
Neither can a two year old. Can we kill those off too?
pass what kind of laws? i dont even know what you're talking about. did you ever master reading comprehension skills in grade school? do i have to explain it to you?
we're covering privileges and immunities tomorrow in constitutional law. ill tell you exactly what you're allowed to do. then ask you kindly to stop pretending you're some sort of intellectual heavyweight.