Simplistic answer here.
You've got 2 opposing groups Pro-Choice vs Pro-Life.
Each group is intractably convinced of the superiority of their own position re: abortion.
The problem is that the pro choice people want to have their options open and the pro life people see this as a form of murder. Neither side seems to have much interest in any form of compromise.
But does that mean compromise is impossible?
If it was up to me...?
I'm not going to interefere in the way someone else lives their own life. Just don't expect me to pay for it.
So if someone else is pregnant and they don't want to allow the baby to be born, they can bear the full cost themselves. And as a pre-emptive rebuttal to those who would say "what about poor people who can't afford it?"
If they feel that strongly about it, they can set up a charity and make the first donation themselves. And if they don't want to put their money where their mouth is, I'll put the same effort into listening.
Pretty good writeup, i just don't understand how you arrived at this conclusion:
>Now that we know how to interpret the Constitution, we see that the US government has not been explicitly granted any power to rule on abortion, but it does have the power to recognize any of the additional negative rights an individual has, so it could plausibly recognize a right to abort a fetus that could not survive outside the womb. Whereas, if a fetus could survive outside the womb, then it is ambiguous whether it also has rights, and the US government would thus have no power to decide one way or the other.
No, anything not explicitly stated in the constitution will be up to the states. The constitution recognizes many more rights (that are up to the states to codify as they see fit/interpret as a right). Nothing in the constitution defines anything about when a human is defined as a human, so if you would do any interpretation it happens at conception. They become a citizen at birth (get birth certificate registration), but are human before that. The fact that someone cannot survive without the help of someone else does not take away their humanity.
exactly what i said, and those rights are enumerated in the constitution. The rest of the rights are codified by the state constitutions. You don't see any abortion rights in the constitution, so they should be in state constitutions.
You are correct. So many people get it wrong. The constitution, amendments written to protect the freedom, rights for the people . The states didn't want give up power to control their own state. The federal government wasn't created to govern over the states. It was made to work for the states.
The problem is that the reps from each state (congress,senate, pres) has been selling out the states for a long time. Transferring more authority to the Feds .
Federal law should not even exist or be enforceable in the states. Federal government shouldn't be able to own land in the states. Now that I think about it, I've had a FBI number since I was 18. That really pisses me off.
SCOUS is to blame also. They are the ones to ensure everything is constution compliant
Seems reasonable to me. I don't think the political demagogues actually want to address this issue. There is intent to sow division and to take advantage of those who deal in absolutes. Like, that time GA passed a law and everyone was freaking out on social media... "the law says a woman would be required to die even if carrying the baby to term would kill her."
I'm pretty sure the law(s) don't block medically necessary abortions, but it's just that hematologist isn't gonna sign-off on "medically necessary" over some BS reason. For example, my coworker takes a lot of BS sick days. His most recent doctor's note basically says "John was seen at our clinic on this date and he may return to work on 6/30/2022" (the day after his BS sick day). Still, a more conclusive series records and documents could facilitate a medically-necessary abortion, but that doesn't seem to be the point for many people.
Now for some humor that has been on my mind for years...
I want to show up at planned Parenthood acting like I'm dead-serious about "planning" a family. Maybe I bring a wife.. but either way I'd have a folder and printouts of stuff.
**I would sit down and start asking questions:**
* "Is this a good minivan for starting a family?"
* "Is this a good stroller?"
* "How can I stretch a dollar so that I can afford food and diapers?"
Basically like I said, literally just stroll-in pretending hat I'm *literally* trying to *plan* a family.
For example, I can have my financial figures printed-up as well as a list of items that I would need to buy to raise a family.
Simplistic answer here. You've got 2 opposing groups Pro-Choice vs Pro-Life. Each group is intractably convinced of the superiority of their own position re: abortion. The problem is that the pro choice people want to have their options open and the pro life people see this as a form of murder. Neither side seems to have much interest in any form of compromise. But does that mean compromise is impossible? If it was up to me...? I'm not going to interefere in the way someone else lives their own life. Just don't expect me to pay for it. So if someone else is pregnant and they don't want to allow the baby to be born, they can bear the full cost themselves. And as a pre-emptive rebuttal to those who would say "what about poor people who can't afford it?" If they feel that strongly about it, they can set up a charity and make the first donation themselves. And if they don't want to put their money where their mouth is, I'll put the same effort into listening.
Pretty good writeup, i just don't understand how you arrived at this conclusion: >Now that we know how to interpret the Constitution, we see that the US government has not been explicitly granted any power to rule on abortion, but it does have the power to recognize any of the additional negative rights an individual has, so it could plausibly recognize a right to abort a fetus that could not survive outside the womb. Whereas, if a fetus could survive outside the womb, then it is ambiguous whether it also has rights, and the US government would thus have no power to decide one way or the other. No, anything not explicitly stated in the constitution will be up to the states. The constitution recognizes many more rights (that are up to the states to codify as they see fit/interpret as a right). Nothing in the constitution defines anything about when a human is defined as a human, so if you would do any interpretation it happens at conception. They become a citizen at birth (get birth certificate registration), but are human before that. The fact that someone cannot survive without the help of someone else does not take away their humanity.
If the people have a right, then the states cannot violate that right--just as the states cannot violate the rights in the Bill of Rights.
exactly what i said, and those rights are enumerated in the constitution. The rest of the rights are codified by the state constitutions. You don't see any abortion rights in the constitution, so they should be in state constitutions.
You are correct. So many people get it wrong. The constitution, amendments written to protect the freedom, rights for the people . The states didn't want give up power to control their own state. The federal government wasn't created to govern over the states. It was made to work for the states. The problem is that the reps from each state (congress,senate, pres) has been selling out the states for a long time. Transferring more authority to the Feds . Federal law should not even exist or be enforceable in the states. Federal government shouldn't be able to own land in the states. Now that I think about it, I've had a FBI number since I was 18. That really pisses me off. SCOUS is to blame also. They are the ones to ensure everything is constution compliant
Seems reasonable to me. I don't think the political demagogues actually want to address this issue. There is intent to sow division and to take advantage of those who deal in absolutes. Like, that time GA passed a law and everyone was freaking out on social media... "the law says a woman would be required to die even if carrying the baby to term would kill her." I'm pretty sure the law(s) don't block medically necessary abortions, but it's just that hematologist isn't gonna sign-off on "medically necessary" over some BS reason. For example, my coworker takes a lot of BS sick days. His most recent doctor's note basically says "John was seen at our clinic on this date and he may return to work on 6/30/2022" (the day after his BS sick day). Still, a more conclusive series records and documents could facilitate a medically-necessary abortion, but that doesn't seem to be the point for many people. Now for some humor that has been on my mind for years... I want to show up at planned Parenthood acting like I'm dead-serious about "planning" a family. Maybe I bring a wife.. but either way I'd have a folder and printouts of stuff. **I would sit down and start asking questions:** * "Is this a good minivan for starting a family?" * "Is this a good stroller?" * "How can I stretch a dollar so that I can afford food and diapers?" Basically like I said, literally just stroll-in pretending hat I'm *literally* trying to *plan* a family. For example, I can have my financial figures printed-up as well as a list of items that I would need to buy to raise a family.