Was The Constitution Meant To Be Protected By Our Leaders, Or Changed?

[Acebird]

But this is all irrelevant to the fact that since abortion is not mentioned anywhere in the constitution, the 10th amendment clearly says it is the jurisdiction of the states and the individuals.

Yes and life liberty and justice were mentioned but not adhered to.  Don't loose sight that the constitution is just words either used or not used.

[Kathyp]

Don't understand the question.  If you don't support the children you have you get sterilized so you don't have anymore.

This was something the leftists of the 20s and 30s loved.  They did it.  Turns out, the law does not support it.  It is worth noting that this is the entire premise for the founding of Planned Parenthood by the followers of Sanger.  Keep the poor and those not white from having more kids.

Yes, women forced into marriage can end up loving their spouse.  But it doesn't start out that way.  Forcing a woman to have a child can work out too but not usually.  Even adoption has its problems.  A child will at some point wonder why they were not wanted.

So proactively kill the child so that bad things don't happen. 
Or a child will recognize that they were loved enough to be brought into the world and taken by a family that wanted them and could provide for them.

Your argument seems to be that unless parents pass some kind of good parenting threshold determined by the government they should not be allowed to have kids.  Pretty sure that's been tried also.

Yes and life liberty and justice were mentioned but not adhered to.  Don't loose sight that the constitution is just words either used or not used.

That's in the Declaration of Independence.  It was a statement of complaint and intent.  Has it taken a while to enact many of the things that make this possible?  Yes.  Is protecting the unborn part of it?  I think so.  It would be that "life" part. 
With the Constitution we have the mechanism to correct in our law. 

[Acebird]

Keep the poor and those not white from having more kids.

Nothing in my suggestion leaves out white people.  Everything that you suggest does.  Abortions will never be denied to those with means.

Yes, women forced into marriage can end up loving their spouse.  But it doesn't start out that way.  Forcing a woman to have a child can work out too but not usually.  Even adoption has its problems.  A child will at some point wonder why they were not wanted.

So proactively kill the child so that bad things don't happen. 

Your not killing a child.

Your argument seems to be that unless parents pass some kind of good parenting threshold determined by the government they should not be allowed to have kids.

No such suggestion.  That is your twist on words.

That's in the Declaration of Independence.  It was a statement of complaint and intent.  Has it taken a while to enact many of the things that make this possible?  Yes.  Is protecting the unborn part of it?  I think so.  It would be that "life" part. 
With the Constitution we have the mechanism to correct in our law.

In our constitution the life part doesn't exist until born.  Citizenship does not occur until you are born in this country and full citizenship occurs at age 18.  This is where conservatives are confused.  They believe the unborn have rights and then when the baby is born the rights fritter away over time.  Listen to their arguments on the right "we are going to support the mother, we are going to give the mother all the medical support she needs, all the counseling, all the assistance."  And then what?  Complete silence.  Support the unborn and trash the child from there on. Yeah that is American that is what we stand for.

[Kathyp]

Nothing in my suggestion leaves out white people.  Everything that you suggest does.  Abortions will never be denied to those with means

That has always been true.  I was talking about the abortion industry.  It is a multi-billion dollar industry.

Your not killing a child.

Can you tell me when it becomes a child?

No such suggestion.  That is your twist on words.

If I misinterpreted what you wrote, maybe you can clarify? 

In our constitution the life part doesn't exist until born.  Citizenship does not occur until you are born in this country and full citizenship occurs at age 18.  This is where conservatives are confused.  They believe the unborn have rights and then when the baby is born the rights fritter away over time.  Listen to their arguments on the right "we are going to support the mother, we are going to give the mother all the medical support she needs, all the counseling, all the assistance."  And then what?  Complete silence.  Support the unborn and trash the child from there on. Yeah that is American that is what we stand for.

I guess I am not sure of your point here.  I know of no leftists who have adopted babies.  I know of several conservatives who also happen to be Christians, who have.  Planned Parenthood, which is an abortion mill, has gotten federal dollars for many years, but only recently has that money going to pregnancy resource centers.  Many states fund them and so does a lot of charity money and volunteer time.

 These are just examples because rarely do I see leftists putting their money and time where their mouth is and a comprehensive list would take all day.
  I'd have a lot more respect for leftist positions if they did something beyond scream in the streets and then go home.  That whole "work for what you want" thing seems to have been a concept lost to them.

[gww]

kathy

Can you tell me when it becomes a child?

This is part of the point of the discussion.  Some christens take the phrase from the bible of when god is talking about a profit, where he says I knew you before you were conceived to mean person at conception.  Jewish faith says the soul inters the body at about 20 weeks.  The catholic faith has been discussed.  Some do not believe in god and science mentions when a child can survive out of the body.  All probably have true belief and so privacy becomes a bit of a thing if you live in a country that the constitution guarantees freedom of religion and no state sponsored religion.  Throw in the fact that before legal abortion, young pregnant girls were willing to go to back alleys and allow people to abuse them to the point of dyeing killing the baby and the child leaving parents to decide that losing a child might be bad but losing both was worse.  None of this also addresses all the nuance that can come up during pregnancies' that leave only bad decisions for a family to make.  Since it is impossible to make a rule that does not also cause harm by the rule, it comes down to who gets to decide and I find it funny that those who claim the gov. has too much reach in every faucet of our personal life to want them to put their fingers in this.
Cheers
gww

[Michael Bush]

>In our constitution the life part doesn't exist until born.

There is no such definition in the Constitution.  It doesn't say other than the original said you became eligible to vote for federal offices at 21 and that has now been changed to 18.  You still can't run for President until you're Everything else is left of to the states.  The age of majority is still really 21 because almost every state has laws that you can't drink until then.  In Nebraska you can't drink until you're 21 but you are considered emancipated from your parents at 19 without their consent.  All of these kinds of things have always been up to the States.  You still can't be President of the US until you're 35.  So that's when you really have ALL your rights...

[Kathyp]

This is part of the point of the discussion.  Some christens take the phrase from the bible of when god is talking about a profit, where he says I knew you before you were conceived to mean person at conception.  Jewish faith says the soul inters the body at about 20 weeks.  The catholic faith has been discussed.  Some do not believe in god and science mentions when a child can survive out of the body.  All probably have true belief and so privacy becomes a bit of a thing if you live in a country that the constitution guarantees freedom of religion and no state sponsored religion.  Throw in the fact that before legal abortion, young pregnant girls were willing to go to back alleys and allow people to abuse them to the point of dyeing killing the baby and the child leaving parents to decide that losing a child might be bad but losing both was worse.  None of this also addresses all the nuance that can come up during pregnancies' that leave only bad decisions for a family to make.  Since it is impossible to make a rule that does not also cause harm by the rule, it comes down to who gets to decide and I find it funny that those who claim the gov. has too much reach in every faucet of our personal life to want them to put their fingers in this.
Cheers

Not all of us have formed our opinion on abortion due to religious beliefs.  Since I have explained my change on this before, I won't do it again.

The argument about government in our lives is primarily against the federal government.  Putting power in the hands of the states and the people IS constitutional.  My state has done so many things that I hate, but I understand that this is the will of the majority of the people in the state.  Abortion in my state will be available up to the day of birth, no questions asked.  I can accept that, work to change it, or leave.  That's how this democracy thing works. 

This is a legal issue rather than a religious question.  Abortion is not banned.  The rules governing abortion are now given back to the people.

[gww]

Kathy
  If you take the position that the babies life can be more important then the mothers life due to the babies potential, what would stop a rule being made by the state that you have to give up one of your kidneys due to the potential life you might save with the government deciding the import based on religion or whatever other reason they decide is more important.  You tell me what in the constitution makes the two above different as far as states getting to decide.

The whole point of indelible rights is that no government, state or federal, can make laws that violate them.
Cheers
gww

[Kathyp]

If you take the position that the babies life can be more important then the mothers life due to the babies potential, what would stop a rule being made by the state that you have to give up one of your kidneys due to the potential life you might save with the government deciding the import based on religion or whatever other reason they decide is more important.  You tell me what in the constitution makes the two above different as far as states getting to decide

When a woman is pregnant she is sharing her body with a life.  Her kidney is not shared.  My position is that if you are going to make the line viability and the age of viability changes with science, you can't make a moral claim by cutting it off at a moving target.  How can you say that what was not a life yesterday, is a life today?

We have endless choices in birth control that we did not have in the 70s.  We also had a compromise that most people were willing to make with abortion being in the 1st trimester.  If you read Roe, that was what it said.  1st trimester, with rare exceptions beyond that.  This case came to the SCOTUS because 1st trimester was not good enough for the leftists.  It is not good enough in my state.

Consider this:  If the SCOTUS had not ruled on Roe as it did, this would have been settled in states 50 years ago.
 The arguments for and against would have happened in certain states, but not nationwide.  RBG recognized the mistake they made in ruling the way they did for this reason.   The Roe ruling made this a continual national debate.  Now we are back to where we should have been. 

[gww]

There will be much more litigation now on unanswered questions then there was before cause some was settled and it was only the middle being litigated.  This is not a step forward to less.  We are not where we should have been cause a right has been stripped for the first time by a court that only has a right to rule on all this by a previous ruling giving their selves that right using reasoning that is also not in the constitution. 
Cheers
gww

[Kathyp]

There will be much more litigation now on unanswered questions then there was before cause some was settled and it was only the middle being litigated.  This is not a step forward to less.  We are not where we should have been cause a right has been stripped for the first time by a court that only has a right to rule on all this by a previous ruling giving their selves that right using reasoning that is also not in the constitution.

This court is bringing us back to the Constitution.  There was no right to abortion.  The Constitution does not address abortion thus it belongs to the states.  They do have the right to rule on it.  It was brought to them by someone who thought 15 weeks was not enough time to decide on a pregnancy.  15 weeks is into the 2nd trimester.  It is because the left is pushing the anytime for any reason abortions that this became a SCOTUS case in the first place.

If you read Roe, it said 1st trimester with rare exceptions for 2nd trimester.  That has been ignored by state after state.  The left did this to themselves and the court had every right to hear and rule on what was bad law in the first place.  Bad law is bad law.  Doesn't matter if it's about abortion, slavery, separate but equal, or making people prove they ought to have what is a right in the first place. 

[salvo]

Hi Folks,
[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/justice-scalia-constitution-is-not-a-living-organism

Sal