Do Conservatives agree we have rights not mentioned in the Constitution?

[Truth Detector]

Actually, if you understand the history of the Hippocratic Oath you'd understand that "abortive agents" was an issue long before the Constitution came into effect.

Again, abortion and science, as we know it, is a far cry from anything they had in the past. You're flailing.

Which of the government powers listed for the federal government do you think they would use to ban abortion?

Once again, you are flailing. No one is arguing for banning abortions. This is about whether 9 jurists in the Supreme Court can infer law, or rights, that does not, or never existed.

Either my right to privacy in these cases exists and we can tell them to shove off when they demand our papers, or it does not and this decision is one that they can make.

More flailing. I already gave you the logical argument for why the "privacy" argument is nonsense. See above.

[Truth Detector]

Sighs. You were doing so well.

Yet, you are doing so poorly and once more, looking like a low IQ dumbass.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

The right to privacy can be inferred from the Constitution.

it's directly in the constitution, dummy.

the fourth amendment.

[AProudLefty]

it's directly in the constitution, dummy.

the fourth amendment.

Tell that to Truth Detector.

[domer76]

are you against mandated medical procedures?

Nobody is forcing you to get ANY medical procedure, dumbfuck.

[Damocles]

Again, abortion and science, as we know it, is a far cry from anything they had in the past. You're flailing.



Once again, you are flailing. No one is arguing for banning abortions. This is about whether 9 jurists in the Supreme Court can infer law, or rights, that does not, or never existed.



More flailing. I already gave you the logical argument for why the "privacy" argument is nonsense. See above.

I am not "flailing" I have not given an opinion at all, nor do you know what my opinion is.

I have simply told you what the constitution says. The reality is, abortion was something they understood even when they were writing the constitution. Shoot the Hippocratic Oath existed long before the US was even a place known by the Vikings, and the Oath specifically denied the giving of abortive agents to pregnant women, this tells you that the science of the time certainly had the ability to know what it was... Pretending that humans at that time were too ignorant to understand such things is absurd. Doctors existed, and they knew about these things.

[Truth Detector]

I am not "flailing" I have not given an opinion at all, nor do you know what my opinion is.

I have simply told you what the constitution says. The reality is, abortion was something they understood even when they were writing the constitution. Shoot the Hippocratic Oath existed long before the US was even a place known by the Vikings, and the Oath specifically denied the giving of abortive agents to pregnant women, this tells you that the science of the time certainly had the ability to know what it was... Pretending that humans at that time were too ignorant to understand such things is absurd. Doctors existed, and they knew about these things.

That is your OPINION. Good grief.

[AProudLefty]

I am not "flailing" I have not given an opinion at all, nor do you know what my opinion is.

I have simply told you what the constitution says. The reality is, abortion was something they understood even when they were writing the constitution. Shoot the Hippocratic Oath existed long before the US was even a place known by the Vikings, and the Oath specifically denied the giving of abortive agents to pregnant women, this tells you that the science of the time certainly had the ability to know what it was... Pretending that humans at that time were too ignorant to understand such things is absurd. Doctors existed, and they knew about these things.

Thank you.

This is a snippet.

he document
was adopted in the medieval and renaissance periods, however, and adapted to conform to
Christian ideals that physicians were expected to abide by. In present-day society the oath has
been used in legal trials such as Roe versus Wade, and continues to be used by many pro-life
associations to argue that abortion should not be permitted under any circumstances. It is the
purpose of this essay to examine the oath’s stance on abortion in the context in which it was
written, to reinforce the fact that it largely disagreed with moral and medical standards which
existed prior to the rise of Christianity.

https://qspace.library.queensu.ca/bi...=1&isAllowed=y

[Old Trapper]

Thank you, so you see that R v. W is a situation where we are forced to balance two conflicting rights?

If Roe is overturned on the basis that we do not have the right to privacy, as the Republican lawyers argued, what do you think that will do to that right?

Ill tell you, we will LOSE it!

Did we have that right prior to Roe v Wade? Then too, that right is based on the ruling of the Court in Griswold v Connecticut. And it is so stated in ones right to be "secure" in their own homes, etc. So, the right to "privacy" while not directly mentioned is in the Constitution. You just have to know where to find it.

A better question would be where does the government give one the right to kill a life that person had helped to create? Or is it just the "property" of the "mother"/woman?

[BidenPresident]

Did we have that right prior to Roe v Wade? Then too, that right is based on the ruling of the Court in Griswold v Connecticut. And it is so stated in ones right to be "secure" in their own homes, etc. So, the right to "privacy" while not directly mentioned is in the Constitution. You just have to know where to find it.

A better question would be where does the government give one the right to kill a life it had helped to create.

I do not think 9 political appointments to the Supreme Court should be deciding these issues. I am starting to think the Supreme Court should be eliminated.

[evince]

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness

[evince]

I do not think 9 political appointments to the Supreme Court should be deciding these issues. I am starting to think the Supreme Court should be eliminated.

Increase its size


Then remove the three trump appointed and a corrupt Republican Party voted in

[Damocles]

Increase its size


Then remove the three trump appointed and a corrupt Republican Party voted in

Then the next guy in gets to "increase its size and remove the ones that the corrupt Democrats installed" and all we have is a political see-saw. that's a terrible idea that simply rejects checks and balances and removes one leg of the balance.

[evince]

Then the next guy in gets to "increase its size and remove the ones that the corrupt Democrats installed" and all we have is a political see-saw. that's a terrible idea that simply rejects checks and balances and removes one leg of the balance.

Killing Roe will give us a see saw

[evince]

The Republican Party accepted an election win that the Russians gave them


Then let the Russian whore replace a third of the court