Does a woman have a right...

[code1211]

How amusing that you so openly set standards for others that you then do not follow yourself.

In your post # 69

Yet in this post you make your own interpretation.

In turn can you show where in the constitution the right to life is a guaranteed unalienable right? Because execution of criminals still does happen in america. Or liberty and then explain prisons. And just how and where in the constitution is pursuit of happiness written. After all you demand the word abortion be written in the constitution for it to be a right so fair is fair show me the words pursuit of happiness in the constitution.

You are not giving an argument against abortion by misinterpreting the constitution to suite yourself. You are just demonstrating your own hypocrisy of setting one standard for yourself and another for anyone else.

I didn't present an argument against Abortion at all. I merely presented a question. Does one person have the right to erase the rights of another without due process?

Everything else you wrote on the topic is on you.

Regarding whether or not abortion is guaranteed in the Constitution, of course it is not. The Constitution is a document that sets the framework of government and then limits the power of government. In so doing, the Constitution grants rights to the various staes and to the people.

When miscreants do their mischief, they are removed temporarily or permanently from the society. I cannot enjoy my RIGHT to pursue happiness if you are burning down my house and killing my family. In that case, you gotta go.

Again, where does the Constitution assert a positive right defined with specificity like Abortion or anything else?

 

[Lursa]

In the society of the USA, we hold these truths to be self evident: That all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. That among these rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

This is THE foundational doctrine of our United States Culture.

The Constitution codifies the existence of these rights.

In the case of abortion, assuming an endowing creator exists to endow rights, for a woman to exercise her option to have an abortion, the right to life endowed by the creator to the unborn child is erased.

Does a person have a right to erase the divinely endowed rights of another at a personal caprice for personal advantage when the other thereby becomes a blameless victim?

There is no divine anything. Not under the law.

Rights are a man-made concept. And our Constitution recognizes no rights for the unborn.

 

[code1211]

The unborn have no rights

They have no rights legally unless the mother says they do. Scott Peterson was charged with and convicted of double homicide when he killed his pregnant wife.

In our schizophrenic legal code, the unborn is both a tissue mass and an individual. The only deciding factor is whether or not the mother says the tissue mass is a person or that the person is tissue mass.

If the mother asks for an abortion, the unborn is a tissue mass. If the mother says the tissue mass is an unborn person and another individual causes injury to that unborn person, there is legal consequence for the one doing the injury.

You seem to have missed the words in my post that said: "...assuming an endowing creator exists to endow rights...". Jefferson said that these rights were self evident. Are you dismissing Jefferson and the Declaration in one sweeping gesture.?

If that is the case as Jefferson seems to have believed and included in the Declaration, then the creator presumably endows at the point of creation, not legal identity. An all powerful Creator is probably not overly concerned with man made laws.

 

[Scrabaholic]

No one should be given public assistance.

What about the disabled?

 

[code1211]

My argument does not depend on the word being used in the constitution

Yours does.

Actually, your argument DOES depend on that.

The Constitution sets up the framework of Government and then limits the powers of that Government.

The specificity in the words of the Constitution are to restrict government, not endorse particular actions.

By conjuring a "right" to abortion, the court did something ridiculous.

 

[CFI302]

What about the disabled?

No one. Maybe you didn't understand it the first time.

If you personally see a need, you should personally meet that need with your money. I won't tell you who you should or shouldn't help. I'll do the same if I personally see a need. All I ask is you return the favor and not think it's your place to determine on my behalf who I should help. Deal?

The problem with you bleeding hearts is when you don't like the choices other makes on this issue, you think it's OK to have the government force it from them so you can feel better about yourselves believing you have compassion because you claimed to care.

 

[CFI302]

Actually, your argument DOES depend on that.

The Constitution sets up the framework of Government and then limits the powers of that Government.

The specificity in the words of the Constitution are to restrict government, not endorse particular actions.

By conjuring a "right" to abortion, the court did something ridiculous.

Absolutely. It's not the government's place to grant rights.

 

[Logician Man]

No one. Maybe you didn't understand it the first time.

If you personally see a need, you should personally meet that need with your money. I won't tell you who you should or shouldn't help. I'll do the same if I personally see a need. All I ask is you return the favor and not think it's your place to determine on my behalf who I should help. Deal?

The problem with you bleeding hearts is when you don't like the choices other makes on this issue, you think it's OK to have the government force it from them so you can feel better about yourselves believing you have compassion because you claimed to care.

:rwbdonkey:spank:

 

[Lursa]

Absolutely. It's not the government's place to grant rights.

The govt recognizes rights.

If not the govt...who then?

 

[soylentgreen]

I didn't present an argument against Abortion at all. I merely presented a question. Does one person have the right to erase the rights of another without due process?

Everything else you wrote on the topic is on you.

Regarding whether or not abortion is guaranteed in the Constitution, of course it is not. The Constitution is a document that sets the framework of government and then limits the power of government. In so doing, the Constitution grants rights to the various staes and to the people.

When miscreants do their mischief, they are removed temporarily or permanently from the society. I cannot enjoy my RIGHT to pursue happiness if you are burning down my house and killing my family. In that case, you gotta go.

Again, where does the Constitution assert a positive right defined with specificity like Abortion or anything else?

Stop displaying your hypocrisy and tell us where in the constitution any of those so called unalienable rights are mentioned. You are using the constitution as a self serving argument rather than showing an understanding of how it works,

 

[CFI302]

The govt recognizes rights.

If not the govt...who then?

That you think the government grants you rights prove you know nothing of history and are a very weak person.

 

[Lursa]

That you think the government grants you rights prove you know nothing of history and are a very weak person.

Actually, here you are again, using the incorrect wording. A sign of the uneducated, the ignorant.

You didnt even notice that I *changed* the word :doh

So...how about answering the question?

 

[CFI302]

Actually, here you are again, using the incorrect wording. A sign of the uneducated, the ignorant.

You didnt even notice that I *changed* the word :doh

So...how about answering the question?

Changing something is a sign of weakness. I bet you've had your share of abortion, baby killer. You should be ashamed and I hope you mentally suffer because of it.

 

[Lursa]

Changing something is a sign of weakness. I bet you've had your share of abortion, baby killer. You should be ashamed and I hope you mentally suffer because of it.

I never wrote "granted". I responded to the post and corrected the word someone else used. :doh

And once again...you cannot answer the question.

 

[Logician Man]

Changing something is a sign of weakness. I bet you've had your share of abortion, baby killer. You should be ashamed and I hope you mentally suffer because of it.

///// I hope you mentally suffer ///// <----- more of those 'very Conservative' values on display. :roll:

 

[Wayne Jr]

In the society of the USA, we hold these truths to be self evident: That all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. That among these rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.?

We can prove that those 3 rights are, in fact, alienable. This means the founding fathers were wrong. The Constitution is wrong.

We have those rights as legal rights, not natural rights, because legal rights are the only kind of rights that exist at all.

 

[CFI302]

///// I hope you mentally suffer ///// <----- more of those 'very Conservative' values on display. :roll:

Why shouldn't someone that killed the very life their choice created because they're personally irresponsible suffer consequences?

I guess thinking it's OK to take the life of an unborn child someone created because it's inconvenient to the creator is one of those "Independent' values on display.

 

[CFI302]

I never wrote "granted". I responded to the post and corrected the word someone else used. :doh

And once again...you cannot answer the question.

I answer the question. Perhaps you should spread your legs for whomever is willing to do you. That appears to be the only thing you're good at.

 

[wellwisher]

Think of it this way, this is how abortion can be considered a right in Canada. The Supreme Court ruled that women have a right to security of person and part of that is being able to seek out abortion, therefore the government cannot place unreasonable restrictions on access to abortion. That is my understanding anyways.

To answer the OP, I guess technically yes.

In the USA, we have the right to bear arms or own guns. The right to own guns does not mean that the government has to use tax dollars to buy anyone a gun, who cannot afford one and/or who simply chooses to own a gun. The gun owner has to act like an adult, earn money and buy their own. There is no tax dollars involved. The litmus test of the right to bear arms is not the dependency of a child, but rather the right assume there is an adult in the room.

The right to bear arms is in the Constitution and is therefore a higher right than the right to abortion which is not a direct amendment. In spite of that, guns can be regulated in terms of age, it can be regulated in terms of a required background check to make sure the person is psychologically fit. NY state is also trying to impose taxes and the requirement of extra insurance all at the expense of the person with the right to own a gun.

The same schema for a main right should apply to abortion which is a lessor right. A right makes an option available to a person. But like gun ownership, a right requires personal accountability, jumping through hoops, and paying your tab. If abortion gets a more lax deal, than gun owners should sue, since the term right is being perverted for them. Or the courts needs to make a level playing field for abortion that mimics the procedures and responsibilities of gun ownership.

Women are no longer the fragile sex that needs accommodation. The abortion seeking women need to man up, like the gun owning women. Gun owning women show that women are capable of the tougher standards expected of men. The accommodation of the weaker sex syndrome is having a negative impact. This is regressive.

Say we decided to make the right to own a gun modeled on current abortion procedures. Children will be taught about guns in elementary school as part of civics. Children can also get free guns without parent approval. Any poor inner city person who wants a gun, but cannot afford one, will have one given to them. These will have the same high standards as the rich gun owner. If one spouse does not want a gun but the other does, the gun wanter always wins. Will using the abortion right procedure, make things better for all? Or will it make a problem even worse?

 

[Scrabaholic]

No one. Maybe you didn't understand it the first time.

If you personally see a need, you should personally meet that need with your money. I won't tell you who you should or shouldn't help. I'll do the same if I personally see a need. All I ask is you return the favor and not think it's your place to determine on my behalf who I should help. Deal?

The problem with you bleeding hearts is when you don't like the choices other makes on this issue, you think it's OK to have the government force it from them so you can feel better about yourselves believing you have compassion because you claimed to care.

I am far from a bleeding heart, but I do believe that we need to support those who can't work. That's called compassion.

 

[CFI302]

I am far from a bleeding heart, but I do believe that we need to support those who can't work. That's called compassion.

That's why you're a bleeding heart. You claim to care, call it compassion, then support others being force to do with THEIR money what you think should be done. You believe compassion comes from saying you care then thinking other people should be required to do it your way.

 

[Carjosse]

In the USA, we have the right to bear arms or own guns. The right to own guns does not mean that the government has to use tax dollars to buy anyone a gun, who cannot afford one and/or who simply chooses to own a gun. The gun owner has to act like an adult, earn money and buy their own. There is no tax dollars involved. The litmus test of the right to bear arms is not the dependency of a child, but rather the right assume there is an adult in the room.

The right to bear arms is in the Constitution and is therefore a higher right than the right to abortion which is not a direct amendment. In spite of that, guns can be regulated in terms of age, it can be regulated in terms of a required background check to make sure the person is psychologically fit. NY state is also trying to impose taxes and the requirement of extra insurance all at the expense of the person with the right to own a gun.

The same schema for a main right should apply to abortion which is a lessor right. A right makes an option available to a person. But like gun ownership, a right requires personal accountability, jumping through hoops, and paying your tab. If abortion gets a more lax deal, than gun owners should sue, since the term right is being perverted for them. Or the courts needs to make a level playing field for abortion that mimics the procedures and responsibilities of gun ownership.

Women are no longer the fragile sex that needs accommodation. The abortion seeking women need to man up, like the gun owning women. Gun owning women show that women are capable of the tougher standards expected of men. The accommodation of the weaker sex syndrome is having a negative impact. This is regressive.

Say we decided to make the right to own a gun modeled on current abortion procedures. Children will be taught about guns in elementary school as part of civics. Children can also get free guns without parent approval. Any poor inner city person who wants a gun, but cannot afford one, will have one given to them. These will have the same high standards as the rich gun owner. If one spouse does not want a gun but the other does, the gun wanter always wins. Will using the abortion right procedure, make things better for all? Or will it make a problem even worse?

You missed a major part of my post, UNREASONABLE restrictions. The government may still implement reasonable restrictions upon said right. Things like background checks, waiting periods, etc. are seen as reasonable restrictions.

Abortion in Canada is covered by provincial health plans because it is a medical procedure like any other.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Why shouldn't someone that killed the very life their choice created because they're personally irresponsible suffer consequences?

I guess thinking it's OK to take the life of an unborn child someone created because it's inconvenient to the creator is one of those "Independent' values on display.

What makes you think Lursa has had an abortion? Not that it's okay to wish harm on people who have aborted....

 

[Scrabaholic]

That's why you're a bleeding heart. You claim to care, call it compassion, then support others being force to do with THEIR money what you think should be done. You believe compassion comes from saying you care then thinking other people should be required to do it your way.

I said I am far from a bleeding heart. Please do read the posts before responding to them.

 

[maquiscat]

The difference would be that the actions you refer to will cause harm to others. Where as a decision made about abortion is one that concerns only the pregnant woman.
Abortion is a medical procedure, not as you suggest an impulsive and stupid thing to do by associating it with your examples.
Only anti abortionists make abortion a rights issue. It is not. It is a medical issue. The right that should be discussed is the right to self determination. One that anti abortionist will not discuss because they reserve that right for themselves and deny it to others.

The problem with your argument is that I am not an antiabortionist. For that matter, the issue at hand, while using abortion as the example, is not limited to abortion.

But that aside for the moment, let's look at another thing. Trepanning is, or was, a medical procedure. Assuming I can find a doctor who would do it, do I have a right to that procedure? I'm pretty such it would be considered illegal, although I wouldn't know where to look to be sure. Is it a rights issue or a medical issue? There are people out there now saying that there is gay conversion therapy available, yet some states have banned it. Don't people have a right to undergo such therapy if they want it? Is it a rights issue or a medical issue? I am making an assumption for such to be done by a consenting adult, not forced upon them by a parent, a separate issue altogether.

Also please cite where I have suggested that abortion is a stupid and impulsive thing to do. That is purely in your head.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk