7 to 1 scotus says no to abortion restrictions

they just hate anyone who they can get social power over.


step on the weak to raise your self high.



its called sociopathy
 
Read Row v. Wade, its a great lesson in balance of those two rights.

restricting and reducing one right to provide for a limited right in another arena is hardly a balance between two rights. compromise does nothing but reduce an individuals freedom and places them further under governmental power.
 
restricting and reducing one right to provide for a limited right in another arena is hardly a balance between two rights. compromise does nothing but reduce an individuals freedom and places them further under governmental power.

The unenumerated right to basic freedom from unreasonable government intrusion into our personal medical decisions is not a limited right and is as important as the Governments legal authority to provide for the health and welfare of the people.

Its a balance between a right of the people to be free and a duty of the government to provide for health and safety.
 
The unenumerated right to basic freedom from unreasonable government intrusion into our personal medical decisions is not a limited right

this is absolutely impossible, based purely upon your stance of 'no right is absolute'. so maybe you should rethink your view on constitutional rights.
 
this is absolutely impossible, based purely upon your stance of 'no right is absolute'. so maybe you should rethink your view on constitutional rights.

I see your point. Its absolute in that it is a right, it is only limited when it conflicts with another absolute right.

I know that sounds like it is a fallacy because neither is absolute if its limited. The limits are a fiction the Courts create when confronted with the conflict of absolutes, because there is no other way to deal with such a situation.
 
I see your point. Its absolute in that it is a right, it is only limited when it conflicts with another absolute right.

I know that sounds like it is a fallacy because neither is absolute if its limited. The limits are a fiction the Courts create when confronted with the conflict of absolutes, because there is no other way to deal with such a situation.

you have repeatedly said that NO RIGHT IS ABSOLUTE! now, you're just tap dancing around your own trap of words. how can 'limits' be fiction if they are enforced upon individuals who are exercising said rights? how can absolutes conflict with other absolutes?
 
you have repeatedly said that NO RIGHT IS ABSOLUTE! now, you're just tap dancing around your own trap of words. how can 'limits' be fiction if they are enforced upon individuals who are exercising said rights? how can absolutes conflict with other absolutes?

If I have an absolute right to freedom from government intervention in my health care choices, and my fetus has an absolute right to life, and I want an abortion.... don't those rights collide?
 
If I have an absolute right to freedom from government intervention in my health care choices, and my fetus has an absolute right to life, and I want an abortion.... don't those rights collide?

you're making an argument that doesn't exist with me. try something different, like a right that says 'shall not be infringed'
 
If I have an absolute right to practice my religion, and my kid has an absolute right to life...

If my religion says he cant have life saving medical treatment but he will die without it what happens?
 
If I have an absolute right to freedom from government intervention in my health care choices, and my fetus has an absolute right to life, and I want an abortion.... don't those rights collide?


Except it has been long established that you don't have an absolute right to freedom from government intervention in your healthcare choices does it? Guess what? If you are Medicaid, you don't get to have you choice. You get what the government pays for. You aren't allowed to sell a kidney for profit. That is a healthcare choice with your body and you aren't allowed to make it. The government forces you to wear a helmet to protect your health.

Our government was designed to protect "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Life being the critical component.
 
If I have an absolute right to practice my religion, and my kid has an absolute right to life...

If my religion says he cant have life saving medical treatment but he will die without it what happens?


You are creating straw man arguments. Nobody has an absolute right to practice your religion. Why do you make shit up?
 
Back
Top