What rights are in the Constitution that apply strictly to women?

[Lursa]

The constitution accepted the premise of a state like Wyoming and later put this into the constitution.

What's wrong with that as an origin of a legitimate amendment? Dont civil rights movements have to start somewhere? Many states already had Prohibition before it became an amendment.

Please explain.

Why do you ask inane questions all the time?

I dont. Your demonstrated inability to read well inhibits your understanding.

Women's rights carries a message. That men lack rights women have. So who says so? Besides you?

Which rights do men lack that women have?

Women always had the Federal right to vote. But the Feds did not dictate to states. Capice?

Then why did they pass the 19th Amendment?

Congress passes the 19th Amendment, giving women the right to vote - HISTORY

Congress passes the 19th Amendment, giving women the right to vote

The 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, guaranteeing women the right to vote, is passed by Congress and sent to the states for ratification.

Slavery was a right of people at one point But the Constitution expressly banned slavery. Get it?

Not all people :roll:

No I dont 'get it', please explain specifically how you are relating this to women's rights or your OP.

 

[Robertinfremont]

The law in my post=our justice system

meaning there is a specific code of law that addresses your point. So what is that code of law?

 

[Lursa]

If it's your body, then my body is my body. So can I choose to sell off my body parts for big money to those in need of transplants? Say I get $100,000 for a kidney. It's my body I ought to be able to do that, right?

I agree with that. And some transplant organizations are considering it, but there is a federal mandate to be dealt with.

 

[Lursa]

meaning there is a specific code of law that addresses your point. So what is that code of law?

Justice system does not = a specific code of law.

The word 'system' should have been your first clue there.

 

[Integrityrespec]

This video asks some of these important questions.

Women do not call them people's rights, women call them women's rights. At least Democrats do this trick.

So let's study a bit what makes them say women's rights as if women are a species and not merely human beings?

To believe this stuff you have to believe a baby isn't a baby. It isn't a living human being. The liberals have spent half a century working to convince women that a baby isn't a baby and that life isn't life. A few inches of the birth canal, or the difference between normal birth and breech birth can make abortion murder. Somehow it just doesn't add up to a baby not being a baby and a human life ever being less than a human life.

 

[Robertinfremont]

What's wrong with that as an origin of a legitimate amendment? Dont civil rights movements have to start somewhere? Many states already had Prohibition before it became an amendment.

Please explain.

I dont. Your demonstrated inability to read well inhibits your understanding.

Which rights do men lack that women have?



Then why did they pass the 19th Amendment?

Congress passes the 19th Amendment, giving women the right to vote - HISTORY



Slavery was a right of people at one point But the Constitution expressly banned slavery. Get it?

No I dont, please explain specifically how you are relating this to women's rights or your OP.[/QUOTE]

A true Student, no offense intended, knows a lot about the Wyoming law reference womens voting. Were it a federal law no woman could vote, Wyoming would have been blocked in the 1800s of saying they do get to vote. So blaming it all on the feds is flat out wrong.

What states blocked women from voting? I believe this is a myth. Perhaps a local jurisdiction did but surely you will show me the states that banned women from voting.

A prime reason why in the old days, women did not care to vote is their husband did. And he represented the family as a land owner in cases and a frontiersman in others.

Now your attack. Underlined.

Knock this off. Stop attacking posters.

Hint. When the sentence starts as an accusation, or also YOU, watch your words. You think attacks is a good argument.

The 19th was believed needed to message all states then in existance plus new states as formed. I do not say it was a waste, but there must have been places where women did not vote. I suggest mostly in cities.

I related slavery to women's rights because no Democrat to date has shown a law stipulating women do not get to vote. Now, this I do not deny. But some areas seem to me to have actually said to women, you do not get to vote. But we are trying to discuss the whole country and then slavery was very legal. That was also an amendment to the Constitution.

So your task is to round up states banning women voting so we can examine each of them.

 

[Robertinfremont]

To believe this stuff you have to believe a baby isn't a baby. It isn't a living human being. The liberals have spent half a century working to convince women that a baby isn't a baby and that life isn't life. A few inches of the birth canal, or the difference between normal birth and breech birth can make abortion murder. Somehow it just doesn't add up to a baby not being a baby and a human life ever being less than a human life.

I like to offer the story of a young lady I used to post with at AOL when they had good forums and tell her story.

She was lucky to escape the abortionist. She ended up thanking her mom personally when she finally met her. She was so happy she was not litter at the abortion mill.

Today she is a very adult woman who has to be close to 40 by now. she works for a major news network and has graduated years ago from a major TX university. I believe by this time she has a family given she got married to a college sweetheart. She used to tell us fine stories of how ner mom saved her life and she was adopted to very nice new parents.

If these people could chat with those who lived, they might sing a different tune.

They Are Real: Meet Born-Alive Abortion Survivors | Human Defense

Everyone ^^^^^^^^^^^here was once just a fetus. What abortionists use to deny they are actually on the way to personhood.,

 

[Robertinfremont]

Justice system does not = a specific code of law.

The word 'system' should have been your first clue there.

Why didn't you simply admit you have no clue and leave it there?

What you want to do is excuse you being very very vague.

 

[Lursa]

No I dont, please explain specifically how you are relating this to women's rights or your OP.

A true Student, no offense intended, knows a lot about the Wyoming law reference womens voting. Were it a federal law no woman could vote, Wyoming would have been blocked in the 1800s of saying they do get to vote. So blaming it all on the feds is flat out wrong.

What states blocked women from voting? I believe this is a myth. Perhaps a local jurisdiction did but surely you will show me the states that banned women from voting.

A prime reason why in the old days, women did not care to vote is their husband did. And he represented the family as a land owner in cases and a frontiersman in others.

I never said otherwise. :roll: Where did I? Quote it.

I didnt say women were prevented at the federal level. I posted the actual amendment preamble. :roll:

Now your attack. Underlined.

Knock this off. Stop attacking posters.

LOL Consider my response above and you will see the 'underlined' is perfectly reasonable.

The 19th was believed needed to message all states then in existance plus new states as formed. I do not say it was a waste, but there must have been places where women did not vote. I suggest mostly in cities.

Still have no idea what your point is here with the 19th.

I related slavery to women's rights because no Democrat to date has shown a law stipulating women do not get to vote. Now, this I do not deny. But some areas seem to me to have actually said to women, you do not get to vote. But we are trying to discuss the whole country and then slavery was very legal. That was also an amendment to the Constitution.

I have never heard of such a thing nor have any idea what point you are trying to make.

So your task is to round up states banning women voting so we can examine each of them.

??? Why would I do that? I never claimed or even implied...er, any of that. None of your post makes any sense.

 

[Lursa]

Why didn't you simply admit you have no clue and leave it there?

What you want to do is excuse you being very very vague.

I understand that you were unable to 'score points' off of my post.

Oh well, accept it and move on...if you have any argument to make.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

Then why was Roe needed at all? Seems per you, it is in the Constitution.

Read about a lot of other court cases in which the ruling was "what the plaintiff wanted is constitutional" to understand how the justice system works for individuaal citizens like her.

It was ADDED due to states thinking they got to make up their own laws. This is what Abraham Lincoln has done to this nation. Created a nation that does not care about the child in utero.

The 14th Amendment overturned the Dred Scott ruling to grant African-Americans, regardless of which state they live in, full U.S. citizenship snd equal rights under the law. Remember what this country was going through in the 1860s. It was all about black people's human rights and giving them full representation in Congress.(after legally calling each slave 3/5 of a person). It was obviously not a time period for worrying about the difference between fetuses and babies. So your comments are unfair to Abraham Lincoln.

14th Amendment

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.

I was going to post this, so you proved my point.

1. There you go: this is precisely why embryos and fetuses will never have any legal rights. Imagine the consequences of removing the word born.
2. Obviously pregnan girls and women are U.S. citizens while embryos and fetuses are not. So constitutionally, only the mom has the right to life.

 

[Robertinfremont]

I understand that you were unable to 'score points' off of my post.

Oh well, accept it and move on...if you have any argument to make.

You try to weasel out every time. When you talk, support it. If you refuse as you now do, just keep your face shut.

 

[Robertinfremont]

Read about a lot of other court cases in which the ruling was "what the plaintiff wanted is constitutional" to understand how the justice system works for individuaal citizens like her.



The 14th Amendment overturned the Dred Scott ruling to grant African-Americans, regardless of which state they live in, full U.S. citizenship snd equal rights under the law. Remember what this country was going through in the 1860s. It was all about black people's human rights and giving them full representation in Congress.(after legally calling each slave 3/5 of a person). It was obviously not a time period for worrying about the difference between fetuses and babies. So your comments are unfair to Abraham Lincoln.



I was going to post this, so you proved my point.

1. There you go: this is precisely why embryos and fetuses will never have any legal rights. Imagine the consequences of removing the word born.
2. Obviously pregnan girls and women are U.S. citizens while embryos and fetuses are not. So constitutionally, only the mom has the right to life.

Please take this in context, I have years of legal training to my credit. Both in college and other courses.

So I get legal jargon fine. I am used to using case law when it comes to many types of matters.

I think born is the crippling term. Perhaps this time the SC can rule on that.

But to Abe and his war. His war had nothing to do with slaves. He brought that illegal order up well into the war. And said at first his war was not over slavery.

Abes order was not valid. OF course the Congress solved it making up a new amendment.

Also you are confusing the 13th and the 14th amendment. It was the 13th that banned slavery.

And Abe played no role in the 14th. He was dead.

 

[Robertinfremont]

I never said otherwise. :roll: Where did I? Quote it.

I didnt say women were prevented at the federal level. I posted the actual amendment preamble. :roll:


LOL Consider my response above and you will see the 'underlined' is perfectly reasonable.




Still have no idea what your point is here with the 19th.




I have never heard of such a thing nor have any idea what point you are trying to make.



??? Why would I do that? I never claimed or even implied...er, any of that. None of your post makes any sense.

You are fond of blaming me for things I never said. I only comment when I read one of your comments and figure you simply mean to trash posters.

 

[Lursa]

You try to weasel out every time. When you talk, support it. If you refuse as you now do, just keep your face shut.

Your post made no sense...you were unable to connect the dots to even what your OP described. If you disagree...then reply to my responses directly.

And you never answered *my* question, which I asked first and was directly related to your OP: what rights to women have that men do not?

Care to try?

Which Constitutional rights are exclusive to women only? You seem to be making an assumption, can you please be more specific?

 

[Lursa]

You are fond of blaming me for things I never said. I only comment when I read one of your comments and figure you simply mean to trash posters.

I directly responded to each of your 'points.' And you just played the 'victim' card instead of addressing each of my responses.

Because you cant. If you could, you would...you took lots of times inventing whatever argument you tried to present...and which failed to make sense.

Noted. Anyone can read it.

 

[Robertinfremont]

I directly responded to each of your 'points.' And you just played the 'victim' card instead of addressing each of my responses.

Because you cant. If you could, you would...you took lots of times inventing whatever argument you tried to present...and which failed to make sense.

Noted. Anyone can read it.

Again you are the victim.

 

[Lursa]

Again you are the victim.

Again you dont discuss, but divert. You continue to fail, in your own OP.

I'm perfectly ready to discuss any actual discussion you can provide to my responses. I'm not interested in your 'feelings' of rejection driving you to divert.

 

[Robertinfremont]

Again you dont discuss, but divert. You continue to fail, in your own OP.

I'm perfectly ready to discuss any actual discussion you can provide to my responses. I'm not interested in your 'feelings' of rejection driving you to divert.

You poor victim.

 

[Lursa]

You poor victim.

Nothing like proving me right :mrgreen:

Again you dont discuss, but divert. You continue to fail, in your own OP.

I'm perfectly ready to discuss any actual discussion you can provide to my responses. I'm not interested in your 'feelings' of rejection driving you to divert.

 

[roguenuke]

To believe this stuff you have to believe a baby isn't a baby. It isn't a living human being. The liberals have spent half a century working to convince women that a baby isn't a baby and that life isn't life. A few inches of the birth canal, or the difference between normal birth and breech birth can make abortion murder. Somehow it just doesn't add up to a baby not being a baby and a human life ever being less than a human life.

Abortions don't happen during birth. Abortion happens prior to birth (almost all prior to viability).

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

 

[roguenuke]

Please take this in context, I have years of legal training to my credit. Both in college and other courses.

So I get legal jargon fine. I am used to using case law when it comes to many types of matters.

I think born is the crippling term. Perhaps this time the SC can rule on that.

But to Abe and his war. His war had nothing to do with slaves. He brought that illegal order up well into the war. And said at first his war was not over slavery.

Abes order was not valid. OF course the Congress solved it making up a new amendment.

Also you are confusing the 13th and the 14th amendment. It was the 13th that banned slavery.

And Abe played no role in the 14th. He was dead.

Nowhere in the Constitution are unborn rights protected at all. Only born people are protected under the Constitution. You would have to show otherwise for such an argument to stand.

Even on the argument regarding the necessity of the 19th Amendment, without it, even if women had been allowed to vote before it (I'd like to see some evidence of this happening, especially in federal elections), women would not have been protected by the SCOTUS, the federal government if their district, state, whoever was allowing them to vote suddenly shifted opinions and voted to not allow them to vote.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

 

[Patriotic Voter]

There is absolutely no reason for anyone to ever think abortion must be explicit in the U.S. Constitution to be legal or that the SCOTUS made up anything on January 22, 1973. You all know the extremely obvious facts because they were all explained as clearly as possible many times.

 

[Scrabaholic]

We are discussing the Const. and rights and in the US they are legally considered male.

I don't care. The fact is that no biological male will ever get pregnant (unless science finds a way to put a uterus in them).

 

[Scrabaholic]

If it's your body, then my body is my body. So can I choose to sell off my body parts for big money to those in need of transplants? Say I get $100,000 for a kidney. It's my body I ought to be able to do that, right?

Yep, you should be able to do that.