The Constitution does not confer rights to humans. It confers power to the government to act within it's confines.
So, before I continue with my answer to your question, look carefully at this picture. It may convey a very important lesson. One, more important than you may think.
Good! With that under the belt, let's go back to the CONSTITUTION that is supposed to curtail and contain the federal government.
Amendment X surprisingly reads: ALL [FUCKING] RIGHTS RESERVED.
And that is exactly what Roe v Wade contends.
If you want to know more, simply go to searchvoat.co. And use the search option with the check box Voat.co engaged, and greatawakening as the board.
You can choose to look for comments or posts.
I can already hear the self-rightious crowd roar. Sorry guys and girls. *You should read your contracts better. *It says exactly what it says. If you do not like it, you are just as tyrannical as the left you are railing against.
Here is a quote from Oscar Wilde, though commenting concerning a different part of freedom:
I may not agree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to make an ass of yourself.
There is no right to murder another person. A fetus is "another person," because it is genetically distinct from the mother. It is indeed another individual person. If you think you have a right to murder it, then it is impossible to say you do not have a right to infanticide, since the issue at stake is the convenience to the mother. (And we are now seeing stories about cases where the baby is delivered, and the doctor and the mother are supposed to "have a conversation" about what to do next: keep it or conduct infanticide.)
Rape is immaterial to this question. The fetus did not commit the rape. It is an innocent third party. You don't murder innocent persons for the sake of convenience. This is Nazi genocidal thinking.
O yes, there is. It happens everyday. There are two ways in which you can legally end a walking talking human's life:
~1. Self defense.
~2. Jury of 12.
~3. By declaration of war
~4. Clear and Present danger.
~5. Pre-emptive.
~6. When you can get away with it.
Your argument reflect utilitarian arguments. And I do not disagree with you. I have been confronted with the issue from two angles. From a medical perspective and from a convenience perspective. My personal views were and still are irrelevant to the final outcome, as it is not my choice to make but the woman's in question.
Since time immemorial the choice has always been the woman's. Do some research, actual research. And you will see the factual correctness of that statement.
Roe v Wade is a monstrosity. But not for "GRANTING" or legislating something you do not agree with. On the one hand it does recognize the right to choose, as such a choice is not the government's to make, but the woman's by whatever freedom article you want to go. Scotus embedded it within the first semester, as that is also the natural period of uncertainty, and the historical usance.
The monstrosity appears when the Scotus made a pregnant woman into an object of STATE INTEREST, a ward of the STATE. That is putting the relationship between the People and the Government on it's head, as if the product of the creation of the People has more power than the People having created it.
But, do not take my word for it. read the damn ruling yourself for a change.
The next item connected to this drama is how to discard of the aborted. Is it a product? Is it waste? Personally, I find it disgusting what I saw being revealed by Project Veritas. And yes, people find themselves in such situations due to a lack of self-awareness and virtue, and do stupid things, because they are stupid, and kept stupid. The worst part is, many of them remain stupid, because that is what they like to be. It is their virtue to be stupid.
Here is a quote from Oscar Wilde, though commenting concerning a different part of freedom:
I may not agree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to make an ass of yourself.
You are just being sarcastic. None of the items you enumerate are either murder or an excuse for murder. You completely duck the medical and legal fact that the fetus is a separate individual. (There is no point to quibbling over "utilitarian" arguments, when the argument for abortion is only utilitarian. My point is that there can be no utilitarian arguments.)
Since time immemorial, infanticide has been practiced. That rather eliminates "time immemorial" from the status of an authority figure.
If Roe vs. Wade is set aside, we return to the status quo ante, which was for the issue to be determined by the individual states through legislation. Just as the issue of homicide is determined.
You say it is not your choice to make. I would agree, in the sense that It is no one's choice to make, as murder is not an allowable "option." But in a larger sense, the opinions of society at large cannot be dismissed as irrelevant---any more than they would be if you or I or anyone were to walk past an alley and see someone in the act of murdering someone else. Murder is not a "private affair" of the murderer, such that no one else should interfere. Murder is a very individual crime against humanity, and all humanity has an interest in preventing it. Women who want to murder (for convenience or any other motive) are not admirable or honorable people.
The Constitution does not confer rights to humans. It confers power to the government to act within it's confines.
So, before I continue with my answer to your question, look carefully at this picture. It may convey a very important lesson. One, more important than you may think.
https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/asterix/images/a/a0/046.jpg
Good! With that under the belt, let's go back to the CONSTITUTION that is supposed to curtail and contain the federal government.
Amendment X surprisingly reads: ALL [FUCKING] RIGHTS RESERVED.
And that is exactly what Roe v Wade contends.
If you want to know more, simply go to searchvoat.co. And use the search option with the check box Voat.co engaged, and greatawakening as the board.
You can choose to look for comments or posts.
I can already hear the self-rightious crowd roar. Sorry guys and girls. *You should read your contracts better. *It says exactly what it says. If you do not like it, you are just as tyrannical as the left you are railing against.
Here is a quote from Oscar Wilde, though commenting concerning a different part of freedom:
Cheers.
There is no right to murder another person. A fetus is "another person," because it is genetically distinct from the mother. It is indeed another individual person. If you think you have a right to murder it, then it is impossible to say you do not have a right to infanticide, since the issue at stake is the convenience to the mother. (And we are now seeing stories about cases where the baby is delivered, and the doctor and the mother are supposed to "have a conversation" about what to do next: keep it or conduct infanticide.)
Rape is immaterial to this question. The fetus did not commit the rape. It is an innocent third party. You don't murder innocent persons for the sake of convenience. This is Nazi genocidal thinking.
O yes, there is. It happens everyday. There are two ways in which you can legally end a walking talking human's life: ~1. Self defense. ~2. Jury of 12. ~3. By declaration of war ~4. Clear and Present danger. ~5. Pre-emptive. ~6. When you can get away with it.
Your argument reflect utilitarian arguments. And I do not disagree with you. I have been confronted with the issue from two angles. From a medical perspective and from a convenience perspective. My personal views were and still are irrelevant to the final outcome, as it is not my choice to make but the woman's in question.
Since time immemorial the choice has always been the woman's. Do some research, actual research. And you will see the factual correctness of that statement.
Roe v Wade is a monstrosity. But not for "GRANTING" or legislating something you do not agree with. On the one hand it does recognize the right to choose, as such a choice is not the government's to make, but the woman's by whatever freedom article you want to go. Scotus embedded it within the first semester, as that is also the natural period of uncertainty, and the historical usance.
The monstrosity appears when the Scotus made a pregnant woman into an object of STATE INTEREST, a ward of the STATE. That is putting the relationship between the People and the Government on it's head, as if the product of the creation of the People has more power than the People having created it.
But, do not take my word for it. read the damn ruling yourself for a change.
The next item connected to this drama is how to discard of the aborted. Is it a product? Is it waste? Personally, I find it disgusting what I saw being revealed by Project Veritas. And yes, people find themselves in such situations due to a lack of self-awareness and virtue, and do stupid things, because they are stupid, and kept stupid. The worst part is, many of them remain stupid, because that is what they like to be. It is their virtue to be stupid.
Here is a quote from Oscar Wilde, though commenting concerning a different part of freedom:
Cheers.
You are just being sarcastic. None of the items you enumerate are either murder or an excuse for murder. You completely duck the medical and legal fact that the fetus is a separate individual. (There is no point to quibbling over "utilitarian" arguments, when the argument for abortion is only utilitarian. My point is that there can be no utilitarian arguments.)
Since time immemorial, infanticide has been practiced. That rather eliminates "time immemorial" from the status of an authority figure.
If Roe vs. Wade is set aside, we return to the status quo ante, which was for the issue to be determined by the individual states through legislation. Just as the issue of homicide is determined.
You say it is not your choice to make. I would agree, in the sense that It is no one's choice to make, as murder is not an allowable "option." But in a larger sense, the opinions of society at large cannot be dismissed as irrelevant---any more than they would be if you or I or anyone were to walk past an alley and see someone in the act of murdering someone else. Murder is not a "private affair" of the murderer, such that no one else should interfere. Murder is a very individual crime against humanity, and all humanity has an interest in preventing it. Women who want to murder (for convenience or any other motive) are not admirable or honorable people.
Excuse me? Sarcasm? Are you touched in the head?