Justice Thomas is getting to the crux of Roe v. Wade's fallacy. There is no such constitutional right. You can't find any language in the Constitution to support it.
Anyone who has read the transcript and pleadings of Roe v. Wade comes away dumbfounded that this new constitutional right was created by the Court. Listening to the recordings of the case is even more insane. It was the worst set of arguments - by both sides - that I've ever heard. In the absence of competent lawyering, the Court created its own new constitutional right out of thin air.
Thomas is saying the important stuff out loud and there are enough Justices on the Court who should care about such things. Praying hard that we can put an end to this horrific crime.
The enumeration of rights in the Constitution is not manifold, hence the 9th amendment. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The line of argumentation above leads to the Constitution becoming a bestower of rights, however its true roll is a protector of certain rights. Certain rights are so important that the framers decided to enumerate their protection, others thought enumeration would lead exactly to this line of argument... if it's not enumerated, it's not a right. I think Thomas stating that "liberty" may be the right in question is where the 9th amendment is leaning. (I'm actually surprised he asked the question the way he did. I think maybe he just wanted to know what the lawyer would say).
It's not the argument we should want to make anyway. The argument is simple: is the fetus a living human being and when do you count it? The lawyer is arguing 15 weeks is too early, and viability is the cut off. Most pro-lifers argue conception is a good cut off, while liberals argue birth is a good one. The court had to declare Blacks to be human beings worthy of human rights at some point. It's done the same for disabled persons. It completely has the authority to declare a human gamete a human life with human rights.
Yes! And all of our natural rights extend to all life, including the unborn child alive in the womb. Therefor any argument a pregnant woman makes about her life, her body, is naturally the same argument for the unborn child. The only difference is, the unborn can't argue their decision to live when the woman argues for it to die. Therefor, it is up to society to try and protect the weak, the innocent, and the vulnerable from being killed.
Roe v. Wade is ripe for a Constitutional challenge for multiple reasons.
But, chief among my concerns is that is is bad Constitutional Law. The reasoning is completely flawed.
Read the transcript, and the decision. There is no mention of the fetus. It is written strictly from the POV the mother's right to terminate. This right was created - out of thin air - under the 4th amendment right to privacy (and guaranteed by the 14A). IIRC, the Court reasoned that a "medical procedure was a private matter, and the 4A provides a right to privacy, so abortion is protected under the 4A."
With that logic, you could argue that a vaccine is a private matter - and your getting one, or not getting one, is protected under the same auspices. But, I digress...
Another problem with Roe v. Wade is the time in which it was written. Remember the era: it was a time of little/no birth control and condoms were either by prescription or banned. In this atmosphere, I could see a legal argument for needing abortion as a means for contraception - even though I do not agree with it.
Today, you can trip and fall over the amount of contraceptive devices and pills we have at our disposal. Everything is on demand - and nothing is withheld. Given that, you likely became pregnant because you were incredibly careless or you intended to get pregnant. (Side note: Never indulge people who come to you with "What about rape?!" because that is emotion driven nonsense that is used to blur the issue and win moral superiority. The amount of rapes that lead to pregnancies is exceedingly low. It shouldn't be used as one of the primary justifications for abortion.)
So, you had every pill and device available to you (including a morning after pill) and you somehow got around to wanting an abortion 3+ months into your pregnancy. You treated "your bodily autonomy and right to choose" as you would cleaning out your gutters. You kept putting it off, and didn't get around to it until it was too late. You were inept, incompetent, and completely reckless. Society doesn't have to sacrifice it's morals and values to appease people who care very little for their bodies and the consequences of their actions.
Lastly: the viability of the fetus is a major concern. In the 1970s, there was likely little done to show the viability of a fetus at Day X in the pregnancy. Today, we have untold amounts of data showing the viability of a fetus at very early stages of the pregnancy. If a fetus is viable outside the womb, then that fetus is a life which must be afforded rights.
I don't think there are constitutional rights. We have natural rights. The constitution sets forth a set of protections of those natural rights. At least that's the way I understand it. And I certainly hope that's the correct view. We don't want the government granting us rights as that means they can take them away.
That is indeed the correct way to say it. We have rights as a matter of natural law. The Bill of Rights just recognizes some which the US government cannot trample upon.
I think that's correct. And the term I've seen used is codified. So the second amendment codifies the right to bear arms. This doesn't mean the second amendment gives us the right to bear arms. That right is a natural right. It just mentions that right specifically (codifies) when pointing out the "protection" the second amendment is supposed to provide.
...the right to bear arms must not be infringed...
So the second amendment protection is about not infringing on our natural right to bear arms. If you look at the first amendment you'll notice the same type of language. It doesn't say we have the right to free speech, it says something like "... congress shall pass no law which abridges the right to free speech or assembly...". Probably didn't get that one quite right but hopefully close enough.
I also find it a bit interesting the terms they decided on back them. Notice they say "the right to bear arms" not "the right to arms". One might be able to argue that if the second amendment said "the right to arms" then that would mean the government (ie tax payers) would be responsible to arm any citizen that didn't have the means to arm themself.
A ways back, when Charlie Rangel when in congress, he was working on some law "to recognize a person's right to a home". This got me very worried as I assume the dems were trying to have the tax payers provide homes for people.
Exactly. She cites the 1st and 2nd amendments to make her point on "bodily integrity", when you know this little shit is out there ree-ing for more social media censorship, more gun control, and vax mandates.
Lefties: well you see, when a woman gets an abortion, it only affects HER, because a clump of cells has no rights, BUT when a woman spreads infectious diseases, her actions affect other people!
Me: so... you expect ME, and everyone else, to get every vaccine ever “recommended” by the CDC, simply because theoretically someone else couldn’t get vaccinated because reasons?
Lefties: yes, if even ONE person has a compromised immune system, then 100 others must get every vaccine
Me: but vaccines cause immune compromise. Im not going to risk ruining my own good health with vaccine quackery, just because someone else already ruined their good health with vaccine quackery.
According the the vaccine cult logic, theres no health problem that cant be solved with more vaccines
Also apparently a woman has zero right Nor ability to decline having sex in the first place.
Even though in today's complete clown world there are some psychopaths running around telling men and women that they need to literally get signed written consent documents before sex.
But apparently a woman STILL - despite some pushing for her to get WRITTEN CONSENT PAPERS BEFORE SEX - she STILL does NOT have the right to choose to not have sex in the first place.
Is that clear for everyone?
She can't chose to not have sex, but she can force you to sign a paper consenting to sex with her.
But she CAN and SHOULD have the right to murder her baby / fetus / clump of cells, because reasons.
Because we all know that sex is not how you make babies right?
Frankly we haven't spoken much especially lately, but have always had a weird relationship, due in part to my parents nuclear disaster of a marriage.
She's probably very pro-mandate too & I believe my wife told me she's seen my sister post stuff to social media like "you deserve to die if you don't get the shot" and BS like that.
Needless to say, her opinions are causing a lot of problems in the family... 🙄🤦🏻🥺😡
Sounds like a self solving problem to me. How many more booster shots you think her cardiovascular system can take? You should start an open death pool on her, bet 200 for a cardiac issue requiring hospitalization or medical treatment for the year of 2022.
Ugh, yeah I dunno I'm gonna do that for my own sister, no matter how bit a bitch she's being.
She already had a miscarriage earlier this year, and AFTER she got vaxx'd.
Haven't really talked with her much (obviously) so I don't know how much time elapsed between her getting the covid shot + the miscarriage, but I don't believe in coincidences....
She's my sister; I don't wish any harm upon her, nor anyone else.
Except for the evil communist demons perpetrating these crimes against humanity upon us....
Take out a life insurance policy on her. Start giving her 25 bucks a month for a 100k payout. From her point of view, it’s free money because you are a conspiracy theorist. You can use it to help pay for her funeral.
Sure she would have to sign some stuff and designate you as the beneficiary. But it takes no time at all, especially for younger people, the insurance companies would love to take your money. Slip her a hundred bucks for her trouble.
It’s a win win. She gets 100 bucks for signing on a dotted line, you get 100k when she dies of ADE or pulmonary embolism. The premium is gonna be super cheap, 20-30 bucks a month.
I'm pretty sure that the drafters of the constitution would hang probably 95%+ of all of congress, the courts, and anyone that they could find in the executive.. because who even knows whats going on there. And then everyone in every three-letter agency.
Word salad and muh feels is not an answer to 'where is this right enumerated you speak of?'
If they saw Aliens, and had the concept of explosive weaponry of great magnitude and terrible power explained to them, the 'nuke it from orbit' strategy would meet with their approval.
Not to mention all the corrupt, treasonous people at the state level. It’s overwhelming when you think about how infiltrated our political and judicial system really is at every single level. 🤯
If we ever get the ability to bring the Founders to the present day, I could easily imagine them looking at what our government became and screaming "WHAT DID YOU DO?!?!"
Thomas Jefferson would smack Nancy Pelosi with a Copy of the Constitution and say "I wrote the damn thing. Don't tell me there is a right to an abortion!"
Imagine Lt. Col. Vindman suing himself in order to declare himself King of America. That's Marbury v.Madison. The case that started all the nonsense and lead to McCullough v Maryland where Marshall said oh yes it is necessary for a private bank to be tasked with Congress' mandated duties. And this is the ruling that led to the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 to be passed without a Constitutional amendment, yet is totally and abhorring unconstitutional.
If the "right of a woman to control her body" argument wins, then the vaccine mandates are finished. We'd still be a moloch worshipping hell for children though.
The constitution does NOT provide the right to kill another human being. Life begins at conception. God gives life. God says, "Thou shalt not kill". Overturn Roe vs Wade and stop all this killing.
A better argument is that we don’t know when life starts, officially or technically, so how can we possibly determine when it’s appropriate to kill an unborn child? If no one agrees on when life starts, then you start it at the earliest possible point out of safety, and so you’re not a child butcher.
Precisely, the correct word to be used is murder not kill. This is why the cities of refuge were named to allow for the the accidental killing of another, and it also protected those related to the one accidentally killed, so they did not become guilty by murdering the slayer for the sake of revenge. Num35:9-34
They had great questions about the foundation of the supposed "right to abortion." It's very clear to me that they'll rule there is no right to abortion per-se. Indeed, they've never rule that women have a "right to abortion."
Just like the old "gay sex" case. A guy was charged with sodomy and claimed he had a right to have gay sex. He lost. Later another guy was charged with sodomy and he claimed he had a right to privacy. He said that the government can't come busting into people's bedrooms, snooping around their drawers, etc. He won.
Everyone has rights to privacy and I would also say reproductive autonomy. No one has a right to stop me from having kids. However, the court hasn't dealt with this "how do we handle substantive privacy rights" issue very well.
I would say the government should be able to ban sodomy and abortion, etc. but should also be barred from prosecuting it unless people voluntarily admit to doing it, or post pictures online, etc. Maybe states should be allowed to ban direct-to-consumer advertisements for dildos, porn, contraceptives, etc. However, how not authority to prevent stores from selling these products, or to prevent manufacturers from advertising to retailers. Doctors should be allowed to conduct abortions is a safe environment, but shouldn't be allowed to advertise it... because then they're admitting to conspiring to commit abortion.
Which... is how homosexuality and abortion have always been treated. It's private. It shouldn't be socially approved, etc. However, it's also not something the government should have the power to get too involved with.
Very convenient for them to start saying after passing laws allowing full-term abortion. Viability was never the metric until Clarence Thomas looked like he was going to bitch smack them back to 1776.
It was the original metric used when Roe v Wade was ruled. Apparently they went through the data to find the point where a premature birth would have a chance of actually living, ergo viability.
In my observance it seems that a lot of people justify abortion by saying by making others think that a huge number of abortions are done because of rape, incest, birth defects, and so on.
Basically they want you to believe that; if a baby was not conceived under some perfectly magical circumstances, and if any "defects" - however you measure and define that! - are detected, then you are justified in destroying that innocent life.
When you apply even kindergarten level logic to this topic it is simultaneously revolting, sad, disgusting and pathetic how patently absurd are all of the justifications for murdering babies.
The "what about rape" argument is how the Left wins all of its arguments. It reduces it down into the most emotion-driven nonsense. You wouldn't force a woman to carry her rapists baby, would you?
The Left writes soap operas with everything:
You aren't vaccinated? You don't want to die on a ventilator, do you?
You want innocent Mexican mothers and children to be denied a chance of life and opportunity in America? You want them to die in Mexico at the hands of a cartel?
You want young black men to be incarcerated forever just for carrying a joint?
I try to look at this issue as holistically as I can, in that beyond the basic morality (or lack of), how it will impact American society, human behaviors and practical implications of a ruling change.
I've read the Constitution many times. I'm not in the legal field, but in my opinion, there's nothing in the Constitution inferred or otherwise that makes abortion a "right". I'm sure I'll get no disagreements on that here.
I'm a Federalist at heart and ideally the subject of abortion is something that each individual state should be in control of. It has no business being a federal issue (along with many, many other things).
What I'm getting at in an extremely round about way is that if Roe vs Wade is overturned, I hope people are ready to not only do some serious contemplation, but to help as well. If your state outlaws abortion, it doesn't make the problem go away. For every white feminist commie that proudly tells social media about how wonderful her latest abortion was, there's some 16 year old girl who has been told by her family that if she doesn't get rid of that baby inside of her, she's out on the street.
Scenarios like the latter are how a really nasty black market fills the void. A whole host of things will need to be done by charitable people to figure out solutions for these dumb kids that ideally keeps them from having unwanted pregnancies in the first place.
Is murder being illegal a state issue as well? Maybe Chicago could just legalize murder and drop its crime rate to become one of the areas with the least crime in the country?
This is what i'm referring to when I say that I'm looking at this holistically. There's the morality and then there's the pragmatic reality. I understand your perspective, but it's a moral perspective, not a pragmatic one. If Roe V Wade is overturned, we can't just say "great, let's make it illegal and eff anyone that tries to get an abortion".
We can and we should just make it illegal. People still committing murder isn't an excuse to not make murder illegal. The same goes for murdering unborn children.
In fact, it's expected. If something isn't a crime and people do it, once you make it a crime the rate of people committing that crime goes up. Though the point is that, in the beginning, some people will now not do it, thus reducing the rate at which it happens overall. As time goes on and people are raised understanding that it's a crime and immoral thing to do, it should drop off even more to where it's a much, much smaller issue than it used to be. There are always people who will do bad things and/or break the law, that doesn't mean you just say "fuck it" and toss all the laws out. The point of laws isn't only to prevent people from doing something bad, it's also to punish the people who inevitably do.
Also, you didn't answer my question; Is murder being illegal a state issue as well?
You don't seem to understand. I'm not disagreeing with your moral stance.
But self-righteousness and ignoring the problem is neither helpful nor moral. It doesn't help the problem that will inevitably still exist and it doesn't make you a good person.
Banning murder is a good thing. Banning abortion is a good thing. You don't not ban murder/abortion because there will be issues, you ban it and then work out the issues after. Anything else is itself immoral.
If we never made any changes without first ensuring that everything regarding the situation was perfect society would be completely stagnant. Not only because everyone would give up when they realize it'll never be perfect, but also because we're basing change on an unrealistic expectation of perfection that isn't possible nor attainable.
Bob, you do understand that everything in my original comment is predicated on the idea that there are states that are going to make abortion illegal if Roe V Wade is overturned, right? Right?
Please re-read my post carefully. At no point did I ever say we shouldn't make abortion illegal.
The problem doesn't go away anyways, because the arguments for conditional abortions will never cease to be argued.
I'm 99% against abortion, but I think it is wrong to force a rape victim to carry the rapist's child. And I wouldn't ever want to make the decision on my life or my child's life, and if the baby threatens the mother's life, maybe we should allow a C-section or induced labor earlier in an attempt to save both lives?
There will still be suffering because of abortion until the end of time, because we are a corrupted society. We worship sex, and until having dangerous, unprotected sex with numerous partners becomes "uncool", we'll always have these issues, unfortunately.
for an abortion , it is induced labor. The mother must be dilated enough to pass the baby. C-section idk. you’re opening up a big risk for infection and death. Also what about teenagers and children. I think a C-section would be too hard on pre-teen or teen.
SCOTUS needs to go one step further than allowing the Mississippi law and make all abortions from day 1 first degree murder for both the doctor and the mother.
The focus of this argument in the wrong place. There are two bodies involved in this situation. All you here about is the woman's body. Let's talk about the other body. Does it not have any rights?
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" - Sorry, that's too vague, doesn't mean we can't pass laws making guns illegal.
"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" - Clearly the writer's intent was to allow pregnant women to murder their unborn babies up to and sometimes after birth.
right now the only "good" news relatively speaking is that the massive trend of infertility rates among people of child bearing age at least means some decrease in the abortion rate.
The 10th amendment says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
So either some individual state has the power to control a woman's fertility, OR "the people" retain the right to control their own fertility.
An analog to Thomas' argument would be: "since there is no explicit constitutional right allowing you to trim your toenails, the government can prohibit you from trimming your toenails".
Completely lost in this is the concept of any PRIVATE or individual realm whatsoever. Remember that the state-fertility-control battle began in the bedroom, over contraceptives, including condoms and diaphragms.
Roe really stole the spotlight of the era and times. In the 60s/70s, contraceptive devices were banned by many states - and condoms were by prescription.
That said, the times have changed, and we should not be looking to abortion as a cure-all. You can easily get contraception.
Lastly, your analogy isn't apt. The 10th Amendment says whatever isn't reserved belongs to the states (or the people.) States can impose laws banning certain activities. However, those laws cannot ban Constitutional rights. So, they can ban gambling - but they cannot ban religious services. In your example, a State would need to create a law that bans nail cutting. If it did, I do not think there is a mechanism to say that is unconstitutional. After all, many states banned tattooing.
I know I'm on the minority but I'll say it again: Roe v. Wade got it right by making the line viability. Bodily autonomy is a right. It doesn't have to be specifically named in the Constitution to be so--the Bill of Rights itself states that. We all agree that we have bodily autonomy and the right to bodily privacy when it comes to the vaccines, but we can't see it applies here, up to a point, as well?
I'm sorry. I just can't get behind the way some of you think about this. Viability is a reasonable line to draw in the sand for both sides. It doesn't make either side happy, but it placates us enough to keep us from going to war over it. That's the nature of compromise. Nobody is happy, but everyone is just a little less angry. That gets the job done. I'm anti-abortion--I don't think anybody should ever get one--but I still think Roe v. Wade was an inspired ruling and I for one hope it stands.
I agree with the viability line - because that line will only get brighter as the years pass. One day, medicine and science may arrive at "viability begins at Day 10 of pregnancy" - which will absolutely shelve the "right to an abortion" beyond that day.
Some satanic Negro politician somewhere in the eastern United States actually wanted to impose a law like this as well – I believe he proposed mandatory sterilization's for people after the age of 40 and / or after the birth of their third child. 🤬💀👿👹👺💀
China is actually allowing up to 3 children now and nobody is buying it. Young people are used to their freedom and privileges and don't want to bother with kids.
Same; wife & I are older parents & doing just fine.
I look at my kids as motivation to remain younger, longer; to take better care of myself (which I have made major life changes the past few years specifically because of my kids), to have a written goal to live a lot longer (130 years old), etc.
I'm in my 40's & feel better than at any prior time in my life!
Getting older absolutely does NOT have to mean declining / decomposing....
Justice Thomas is getting to the crux of Roe v. Wade's fallacy. There is no such constitutional right. You can't find any language in the Constitution to support it.
Anyone who has read the transcript and pleadings of Roe v. Wade comes away dumbfounded that this new constitutional right was created by the Court. Listening to the recordings of the case is even more insane. It was the worst set of arguments - by both sides - that I've ever heard. In the absence of competent lawyering, the Court created its own new constitutional right out of thin air.
Thomas is saying the important stuff out loud and there are enough Justices on the Court who should care about such things. Praying hard that we can put an end to this horrific crime.
The enumeration of rights in the Constitution is not manifold, hence the 9th amendment. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The line of argumentation above leads to the Constitution becoming a bestower of rights, however its true roll is a protector of certain rights. Certain rights are so important that the framers decided to enumerate their protection, others thought enumeration would lead exactly to this line of argument... if it's not enumerated, it's not a right. I think Thomas stating that "liberty" may be the right in question is where the 9th amendment is leaning. (I'm actually surprised he asked the question the way he did. I think maybe he just wanted to know what the lawyer would say).
It's not the argument we should want to make anyway. The argument is simple: is the fetus a living human being and when do you count it? The lawyer is arguing 15 weeks is too early, and viability is the cut off. Most pro-lifers argue conception is a good cut off, while liberals argue birth is a good one. The court had to declare Blacks to be human beings worthy of human rights at some point. It's done the same for disabled persons. It completely has the authority to declare a human gamete a human life with human rights.
Yes! And all of our natural rights extend to all life, including the unborn child alive in the womb. Therefor any argument a pregnant woman makes about her life, her body, is naturally the same argument for the unborn child. The only difference is, the unborn can't argue their decision to live when the woman argues for it to die. Therefor, it is up to society to try and protect the weak, the innocent, and the vulnerable from being killed.
Roe v. Wade is ripe for a Constitutional challenge for multiple reasons. But, chief among my concerns is that is is bad Constitutional Law. The reasoning is completely flawed.
Read the transcript, and the decision. There is no mention of the fetus. It is written strictly from the POV the mother's right to terminate. This right was created - out of thin air - under the 4th amendment right to privacy (and guaranteed by the 14A). IIRC, the Court reasoned that a "medical procedure was a private matter, and the 4A provides a right to privacy, so abortion is protected under the 4A."
With that logic, you could argue that a vaccine is a private matter - and your getting one, or not getting one, is protected under the same auspices. But, I digress...
Another problem with Roe v. Wade is the time in which it was written. Remember the era: it was a time of little/no birth control and condoms were either by prescription or banned. In this atmosphere, I could see a legal argument for needing abortion as a means for contraception - even though I do not agree with it.
Today, you can trip and fall over the amount of contraceptive devices and pills we have at our disposal. Everything is on demand - and nothing is withheld. Given that, you likely became pregnant because you were incredibly careless or you intended to get pregnant. (Side note: Never indulge people who come to you with "What about rape?!" because that is emotion driven nonsense that is used to blur the issue and win moral superiority. The amount of rapes that lead to pregnancies is exceedingly low. It shouldn't be used as one of the primary justifications for abortion.)
So, you had every pill and device available to you (including a morning after pill) and you somehow got around to wanting an abortion 3+ months into your pregnancy. You treated "your bodily autonomy and right to choose" as you would cleaning out your gutters. You kept putting it off, and didn't get around to it until it was too late. You were inept, incompetent, and completely reckless. Society doesn't have to sacrifice it's morals and values to appease people who care very little for their bodies and the consequences of their actions.
Lastly: the viability of the fetus is a major concern. In the 1970s, there was likely little done to show the viability of a fetus at Day X in the pregnancy. Today, we have untold amounts of data showing the viability of a fetus at very early stages of the pregnancy. If a fetus is viable outside the womb, then that fetus is a life which must be afforded rights.
Very good post, thanks.
I don't think there are constitutional rights. We have natural rights. The constitution sets forth a set of protections of those natural rights. At least that's the way I understand it. And I certainly hope that's the correct view. We don't want the government granting us rights as that means they can take them away.
That is indeed the correct way to say it. We have rights as a matter of natural law. The Bill of Rights just recognizes some which the US government cannot trample upon.
I think that's correct. And the term I've seen used is codified. So the second amendment codifies the right to bear arms. This doesn't mean the second amendment gives us the right to bear arms. That right is a natural right. It just mentions that right specifically (codifies) when pointing out the "protection" the second amendment is supposed to provide.
So the second amendment protection is about not infringing on our natural right to bear arms. If you look at the first amendment you'll notice the same type of language. It doesn't say we have the right to free speech, it says something like "... congress shall pass no law which abridges the right to free speech or assembly...". Probably didn't get that one quite right but hopefully close enough.
I also find it a bit interesting the terms they decided on back them. Notice they say "the right to bear arms" not "the right to arms". One might be able to argue that if the second amendment said "the right to arms" then that would mean the government (ie tax payers) would be responsible to arm any citizen that didn't have the means to arm themself.
A ways back, when Charlie Rangel when in congress, he was working on some law "to recognize a person's right to a home". This got me very worried as I assume the dems were trying to have the tax payers provide homes for people.
"The right of a woman to bodily integrity... To control what happens to her own body"
So a woman has this right when she wants an abortion, but that right disappears when she doesn't want a vax?
Exactly. She cites the 1st and 2nd amendments to make her point on "bodily integrity", when you know this little shit is out there ree-ing for more social media censorship, more gun control, and vax mandates.
Convenient as you need it...
Lefties: well you see, when a woman gets an abortion, it only affects HER, because a clump of cells has no rights, BUT when a woman spreads infectious diseases, her actions affect other people!
Me: so... you expect ME, and everyone else, to get every vaccine ever “recommended” by the CDC, simply because theoretically someone else couldn’t get vaccinated because reasons?
Lefties: yes, if even ONE person has a compromised immune system, then 100 others must get every vaccine
Me: but vaccines cause immune compromise. Im not going to risk ruining my own good health with vaccine quackery, just because someone else already ruined their good health with vaccine quackery.
According the the vaccine cult logic, theres no health problem that cant be solved with more vaccines
Also apparently a woman has zero right Nor ability to decline having sex in the first place.
Even though in today's complete clown world there are some psychopaths running around telling men and women that they need to literally get signed written consent documents before sex.
But apparently a woman STILL - despite some pushing for her to get WRITTEN CONSENT PAPERS BEFORE SEX - she STILL does NOT have the right to choose to not have sex in the first place.
Is that clear for everyone?
She can't chose to not have sex, but she can force you to sign a paper consenting to sex with her.
But she CAN and SHOULD have the right to murder her baby / fetus / clump of cells, because reasons.
Because we all know that sex is not how you make babies right?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=n7V0FDsB2Ow
My sister is pro-murder and also very pro-vaxx.
Frankly we haven't spoken much especially lately, but have always had a weird relationship, due in part to my parents nuclear disaster of a marriage.
She's probably very pro-mandate too & I believe my wife told me she's seen my sister post stuff to social media like "you deserve to die if you don't get the shot" and BS like that.
Needless to say, her opinions are causing a lot of problems in the family... 🙄🤦🏻🥺😡
Sounds like a self solving problem to me. How many more booster shots you think her cardiovascular system can take? You should start an open death pool on her, bet 200 for a cardiac issue requiring hospitalization or medical treatment for the year of 2022.
She should have no problem taking that bet.
Ugh, yeah I dunno I'm gonna do that for my own sister, no matter how bit a bitch she's being.
She already had a miscarriage earlier this year, and AFTER she got vaxx'd.
Haven't really talked with her much (obviously) so I don't know how much time elapsed between her getting the covid shot + the miscarriage, but I don't believe in coincidences....
She's my sister; I don't wish any harm upon her, nor anyone else.
Except for the evil communist demons perpetrating these crimes against humanity upon us....
Take out a life insurance policy on her. Start giving her 25 bucks a month for a 100k payout. From her point of view, it’s free money because you are a conspiracy theorist. You can use it to help pay for her funeral.
Could I do that? Take out a life ins policy on my adult sister?
Wouldn't I have to get her consent / sign some forms or something?
Sure she would have to sign some stuff and designate you as the beneficiary. But it takes no time at all, especially for younger people, the insurance companies would love to take your money. Slip her a hundred bucks for her trouble.
It’s a win win. She gets 100 bucks for signing on a dotted line, you get 100k when she dies of ADE or pulmonary embolism. The premium is gonna be super cheap, 20-30 bucks a month.
Free money
Refer to 10th Amendment, please.
Also reminder that the Constitution / BOR in general placed limits on THE GOVERNMENT, NOT We The People.
I know you know that, but....bears repeating, esp. in today's clown world....
our current scotus is filled with folks who eat children sadly and offer theirs for gamesplay ... right roberts???
Of course, they had to find someone as bad as Scalia was good when he 'mysteriously' passed away.
Scalia may have been great in terms of his jurisprudence, but he was no angel... Plenty of skeletons there.
AMEN - the power of Prayer is strong !
I'm pretty sure that the drafters of the constitution would hang probably 95%+ of all of congress, the courts, and anyone that they could find in the executive.. because who even knows whats going on there. And then everyone in every three-letter agency.
Word salad and muh feels is not an answer to 'where is this right enumerated you speak of?'
Wrong.
99.99% of them.
Our founding fathers are horribly disappointed in us and frankly I'm not sure if we even deserve the freedoms they won for us in blood.
I accept that correction.
If they saw Aliens, and had the concept of explosive weaponry of great magnitude and terrible power explained to them, the 'nuke it from orbit' strategy would meet with their approval.
Absolutely!
Not to mention all the corrupt, treasonous people at the state level. It’s overwhelming when you think about how infiltrated our political and judicial system really is at every single level. 🤯
If we ever get the ability to bring the Founders to the present day, I could easily imagine them looking at what our government became and screaming "WHAT DID YOU DO?!?!"
Thomas Jefferson would smack Nancy Pelosi with a Copy of the Constitution and say "I wrote the damn thing. Don't tell me there is a right to an abortion!"
It all started with cocksucker John Marshall.
Imagine Lt. Col. Vindman suing himself in order to declare himself King of America. That's Marbury v.Madison. The case that started all the nonsense and lead to McCullough v Maryland where Marshall said oh yes it is necessary for a private bank to be tasked with Congress' mandated duties. And this is the ruling that led to the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 to be passed without a Constitutional amendment, yet is totally and abhorring unconstitutional.
If the "right of a woman to control her body" argument wins, then the vaccine mandates are finished. We'd still be a moloch worshipping hell for children though.
The constitution does NOT provide the right to kill another human being. Life begins at conception. God gives life. God says, "Thou shalt not kill". Overturn Roe vs Wade and stop all this killing.
Did you listen to the audio clip above? I blew my mind that she actually said the phrase "fetal life" 🤯
Yes, I did watch it - very sick! Everyone knows that life begins at conception. Life is life. God will have the final say on this matter.
A better argument is that we don’t know when life starts, officially or technically, so how can we possibly determine when it’s appropriate to kill an unborn child? If no one agrees on when life starts, then you start it at the earliest possible point out of safety, and so you’re not a child butcher.
He said do not MURDER. Huge difference between “killing” and murder.
That's exactly right! Killing can be self-defense, accidental....
Precisely, the correct word to be used is murder not kill. This is why the cities of refuge were named to allow for the the accidental killing of another, and it also protected those related to the one accidentally killed, so they did not become guilty by murdering the slayer for the sake of revenge. Num35:9-34
They had great questions about the foundation of the supposed "right to abortion." It's very clear to me that they'll rule there is no right to abortion per-se. Indeed, they've never rule that women have a "right to abortion."
Just like the old "gay sex" case. A guy was charged with sodomy and claimed he had a right to have gay sex. He lost. Later another guy was charged with sodomy and he claimed he had a right to privacy. He said that the government can't come busting into people's bedrooms, snooping around their drawers, etc. He won.
Everyone has rights to privacy and I would also say reproductive autonomy. No one has a right to stop me from having kids. However, the court hasn't dealt with this "how do we handle substantive privacy rights" issue very well.
I would say the government should be able to ban sodomy and abortion, etc. but should also be barred from prosecuting it unless people voluntarily admit to doing it, or post pictures online, etc. Maybe states should be allowed to ban direct-to-consumer advertisements for dildos, porn, contraceptives, etc. However, how not authority to prevent stores from selling these products, or to prevent manufacturers from advertising to retailers. Doctors should be allowed to conduct abortions is a safe environment, but shouldn't be allowed to advertise it... because then they're admitting to conspiring to commit abortion.
Which... is how homosexuality and abortion have always been treated. It's private. It shouldn't be socially approved, etc. However, it's also not something the government should have the power to get too involved with.
I love it... She admits there is no right to an abortion in the Constitution at the end. Case closed.
Why is “Viability” a metric?
Very convenient for them to start saying after passing laws allowing full-term abortion. Viability was never the metric until Clarence Thomas looked like he was going to bitch smack them back to 1776.
It was the original metric used when Roe v Wade was ruled. Apparently they went through the data to find the point where a premature birth would have a chance of actually living, ergo viability.
In my observance it seems that a lot of people justify abortion by saying by making others think that a huge number of abortions are done because of rape, incest, birth defects, and so on.
Basically they want you to believe that; if a baby was not conceived under some perfectly magical circumstances, and if any "defects" - however you measure and define that! - are detected, then you are justified in destroying that innocent life.
When you apply even kindergarten level logic to this topic it is simultaneously revolting, sad, disgusting and pathetic how patently absurd are all of the justifications for murdering babies.
The "what about rape" argument is how the Left wins all of its arguments. It reduces it down into the most emotion-driven nonsense. You wouldn't force a woman to carry her rapists baby, would you?
The Left writes soap operas with everything:
A bullshit metric, IMO. A 6 month old baby is not viable without its mother (or a suitable analogue).
Very interesting clip, excellent post OP.
I try to look at this issue as holistically as I can, in that beyond the basic morality (or lack of), how it will impact American society, human behaviors and practical implications of a ruling change.
I've read the Constitution many times. I'm not in the legal field, but in my opinion, there's nothing in the Constitution inferred or otherwise that makes abortion a "right". I'm sure I'll get no disagreements on that here.
I'm a Federalist at heart and ideally the subject of abortion is something that each individual state should be in control of. It has no business being a federal issue (along with many, many other things).
What I'm getting at in an extremely round about way is that if Roe vs Wade is overturned, I hope people are ready to not only do some serious contemplation, but to help as well. If your state outlaws abortion, it doesn't make the problem go away. For every white feminist commie that proudly tells social media about how wonderful her latest abortion was, there's some 16 year old girl who has been told by her family that if she doesn't get rid of that baby inside of her, she's out on the street.
Scenarios like the latter are how a really nasty black market fills the void. A whole host of things will need to be done by charitable people to figure out solutions for these dumb kids that ideally keeps them from having unwanted pregnancies in the first place.
Absolutely!
This is where crisis pregnancy centers and true churches need to shine their lights!
like planned parenthood
Is murder being illegal a state issue as well? Maybe Chicago could just legalize murder and drop its crime rate to become one of the areas with the least crime in the country?
This is what i'm referring to when I say that I'm looking at this holistically. There's the morality and then there's the pragmatic reality. I understand your perspective, but it's a moral perspective, not a pragmatic one. If Roe V Wade is overturned, we can't just say "great, let's make it illegal and eff anyone that tries to get an abortion".
That's not a moral nor Christian outlook.
We can and we should just make it illegal. People still committing murder isn't an excuse to not make murder illegal. The same goes for murdering unborn children.
In fact, it's expected. If something isn't a crime and people do it, once you make it a crime the rate of people committing that crime goes up. Though the point is that, in the beginning, some people will now not do it, thus reducing the rate at which it happens overall. As time goes on and people are raised understanding that it's a crime and immoral thing to do, it should drop off even more to where it's a much, much smaller issue than it used to be. There are always people who will do bad things and/or break the law, that doesn't mean you just say "fuck it" and toss all the laws out. The point of laws isn't only to prevent people from doing something bad, it's also to punish the people who inevitably do.
Also, you didn't answer my question; Is murder being illegal a state issue as well?
You don't seem to understand. I'm not disagreeing with your moral stance.
But self-righteousness and ignoring the problem is neither helpful nor moral. It doesn't help the problem that will inevitably still exist and it doesn't make you a good person.
Banning murder is a good thing. Banning abortion is a good thing. You don't not ban murder/abortion because there will be issues, you ban it and then work out the issues after. Anything else is itself immoral.
If we never made any changes without first ensuring that everything regarding the situation was perfect society would be completely stagnant. Not only because everyone would give up when they realize it'll never be perfect, but also because we're basing change on an unrealistic expectation of perfection that isn't possible nor attainable.
Bob, you do understand that everything in my original comment is predicated on the idea that there are states that are going to make abortion illegal if Roe V Wade is overturned, right? Right?
Please re-read my post carefully. At no point did I ever say we shouldn't make abortion illegal.
The problem doesn't go away anyways, because the arguments for conditional abortions will never cease to be argued.
I'm 99% against abortion, but I think it is wrong to force a rape victim to carry the rapist's child. And I wouldn't ever want to make the decision on my life or my child's life, and if the baby threatens the mother's life, maybe we should allow a C-section or induced labor earlier in an attempt to save both lives?
There will still be suffering because of abortion until the end of time, because we are a corrupted society. We worship sex, and until having dangerous, unprotected sex with numerous partners becomes "uncool", we'll always have these issues, unfortunately.
for an abortion , it is induced labor. The mother must be dilated enough to pass the baby. C-section idk. you’re opening up a big risk for infection and death. Also what about teenagers and children. I think a C-section would be too hard on pre-teen or teen.
This meme is the end all be all of this topic
https://files.catbox.moe/48ghkk.jpeg
SCOTUS needs to go one step further than allowing the Mississippi law and make all abortions from day 1 first degree murder for both the doctor and the mother.
The focus of this argument in the wrong place. There are two bodies involved in this situation. All you here about is the woman's body. Let's talk about the other body. Does it not have any rights?
There is no right to murder babies. Full stop.
Please Lord...save these innocent children from this evil. 🙏❤️💯
Love seeing all the pro-life comments on Twitter. Made my morning to see so many people call abortion murder, because thats what it is!
Leftists:
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" - Sorry, that's too vague, doesn't mean we can't pass laws making guns illegal.
"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" - Clearly the writer's intent was to allow pregnant women to murder their unborn babies up to and sometimes after birth.
The Bill of Rights is a set of Restrictions on the Gov. that can not be violated. There is no 'right' in the Bill of Rights to Murder (abortion).
right now the only "good" news relatively speaking is that the massive trend of infertility rates among people of child bearing age at least means some decrease in the abortion rate.
The Spartans at least waited until the woman gave birth before throwing the retarded children off a cliff for draining resources.
There is NO right for an abortion. You are infringing on the rights of another individual in utero IMHO.
Sorry, but this is the wrong way to look at it.
The 10th amendment says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
So either some individual state has the power to control a woman's fertility, OR "the people" retain the right to control their own fertility.
An analog to Thomas' argument would be: "since there is no explicit constitutional right allowing you to trim your toenails, the government can prohibit you from trimming your toenails".
Completely lost in this is the concept of any PRIVATE or individual realm whatsoever. Remember that the state-fertility-control battle began in the bedroom, over contraceptives, including condoms and diaphragms.
Roe really stole the spotlight of the era and times. In the 60s/70s, contraceptive devices were banned by many states - and condoms were by prescription.
That said, the times have changed, and we should not be looking to abortion as a cure-all. You can easily get contraception.
Lastly, your analogy isn't apt. The 10th Amendment says whatever isn't reserved belongs to the states (or the people.) States can impose laws banning certain activities. However, those laws cannot ban Constitutional rights. So, they can ban gambling - but they cannot ban religious services. In your example, a State would need to create a law that bans nail cutting. If it did, I do not think there is a mechanism to say that is unconstitutional. After all, many states banned tattooing.
I know I'm on the minority but I'll say it again: Roe v. Wade got it right by making the line viability. Bodily autonomy is a right. It doesn't have to be specifically named in the Constitution to be so--the Bill of Rights itself states that. We all agree that we have bodily autonomy and the right to bodily privacy when it comes to the vaccines, but we can't see it applies here, up to a point, as well?
I'm sorry. I just can't get behind the way some of you think about this. Viability is a reasonable line to draw in the sand for both sides. It doesn't make either side happy, but it placates us enough to keep us from going to war over it. That's the nature of compromise. Nobody is happy, but everyone is just a little less angry. That gets the job done. I'm anti-abortion--I don't think anybody should ever get one--but I still think Roe v. Wade was an inspired ruling and I for one hope it stands.
I agree with the viability line - because that line will only get brighter as the years pass. One day, medicine and science may arrive at "viability begins at Day 10 of pregnancy" - which will absolutely shelve the "right to an abortion" beyond that day.
Amen.
I mean why not?
China has their one child per family law right?
Some satanic Negro politician somewhere in the eastern United States actually wanted to impose a law like this as well – I believe he proposed mandatory sterilization's for people after the age of 40 and / or after the birth of their third child. 🤬💀👿👹👺💀
China is actually allowing up to 3 children now and nobody is buying it. Young people are used to their freedom and privileges and don't want to bother with kids.
Damn that idea straight to Hell! I had two children after 40. They were perfectly fine, except for some minor issues.
Same; wife & I are older parents & doing just fine.
I look at my kids as motivation to remain younger, longer; to take better care of myself (which I have made major life changes the past few years specifically because of my kids), to have a written goal to live a lot longer (130 years old), etc.
I'm in my 40's & feel better than at any prior time in my life!
Getting older absolutely does NOT have to mean declining / decomposing....
Oh God, forbid!