HOV lanes are now toll lanes.

[B][/B]I agree.
But, beliefs, decisions, and opinions are not law. If they were, the Supreme Court could not overturn them.

In my opinion, the fact that abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution is a damn good reason.

There are many amendments to the Constitution, not just the first.

See the ninth, it is very short: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

In other words, we the people have more rights than just those previously enumerated. We retain ALL rights unless they are limited by law. This is how the Constitution works and it is how all laws should work. We do not live in a country where the people have to petition a benevolent government for their rights, we are supposed to be living in a country where the people enjoy all rights except those restricted by law.

So the question isn't, "Where in the Constitution is the right to an abortion specifically granted?" The question is, "Where in the Constitution or State Law is the right to abortion specifically denied?" Then, of course, the courts get to decide of such a law violates the Constitution.

At one time there were laws prohibiting abortion. The Supreme Court decided they violated the Constitution (particularly the 14th Amendment if I remember correctly). This was considered settled for quite some time until the current Court had a chance to make their mark.

It will be interesting to see whether the States enact laws or an argument is made against forced child bearing under the 9th, 13th, and 14th amendments.

It is interesting that some argue that this belongs in the hands of the States. I have suggested before that the States have performed poorly in the past in regards to civil rights and human rights. The 13th, 14th, 15th, and 19th amendments all feel as though they were written to deal with the way States have handled these types of rights.

middle ground?
 

I find it interesting that no middle ground has been discussed , its a human being when the egg is fertilized and has right or not until birth, I hope I have further clouded the issue

.....just a related side question...

Are HOV lanes still useful in the current days of remote work?

You write: “At one time there were laws prohibiting abortion.” In fact, during the colonial period, the legality of abortion varied from colony to colony and reflected the attitude of the European country which controlled the specific colony. The Constitution is intentionally silent on the issue to let the colonies (now States) make their own laws. Attempts to retroactively broaden constitutional language to achieve a political agenda, while ignoring the reality of the intent at the time, is blatantly dishonest.

See my comments on the 9, 13, 14, 15, and 19 amendments and then talk to me about broadening the constitution or letting states decide.

I’ve explained all I can on this subject - moving on to roundabouts and dog poop.

My response in #88 stands, there is no specific language in any of your references regarding changing the accepted status quo which existed for about 200 years.

Law is full of such conflicts. The whole abortion issue is full of conflicts. First amendment outlaws a state religion. Claiming the fetus has a soul is thus in violation of the first amendment. I think it is the 13th amendment that says you cannot own a human thus a fetus does not belong to the state. That leaves the man and the woman responsible to choose or not choose an abortion. I deliberately avoided the term father and mother, that is far more of a commitment than the horizontal polka.

HOV lanes are bs anyway, toll bypasses another way so suck money. Not like there getting enough on gallon of gas. Toll roads are welfare career jobs programs. There should be law after so many years they can’t collect fees.

Okay, so you are fine with no more coffee creamer? I mean it is not mentioned either.

Then you are okay with no AR15s?

Just saying…

Another productive day on TOTV. :1rotfl:

Interesting argument. If you murder a pregnant woman the murder of the unborn fetus/baby brings separate charges and penalties as if it is a separate human life so perhaps the stance is not as far out there as one might think. If death is pronounced at the stop of heart beat then why wouldn't life begin with a heart beat and if there are two hearts beating in a car...

I love that term.... educated beyond their intelligence

I like my coffee black and AR15s are covered under the 2nd Amendment.

Before the Constitution came into being, various abortion laws existed in the Colonies. Obviously, the Founders made the decision to let the laws stand. Or, do you think they simply forgot to address the issue in the Constitution?
The Supreme Court, in its recent decision, returned the authority to the States where it existed for about 200 years before Roe vs Wade.

Grasping at straws are we?

AR-15s are what are known as "arms" and are specifically mentioned...

As to your "coffee creamer" example... Really?

No, Ar-15s are not mentioned in the Constitution, which was my point, you can't have it both ways. We have a right to privacy - oh, wait, that is not mentioned either.

Abortion law at the time of the signing was that it was none of the governments business until after quickening - in general. However, slave owners were 100% opposed to any abortion laws relating to slaves, since breeding with slaves was a popular recreation that led to more stock.

REALLY!
Unlike abortion, the Constitution, in the 2nd Amendment, specifically protects the right to keep and bear ‘arms’. It’s not referring to body parts.

arms
/ärmz/
1. weapons and ammunition; armaments.

The AR15 is a weapon, more specifically a rifle.

Okay, then you can have 2 muzzle loaders, since that was the definition of ARMS when the Constitution was written. Or, if you prefer, we can go the other way, since Nukes are not mentioned and certainly fall under the category of "arms" we can all legally own Nukes and not pesky regulations can prevent that.

Or we can go the other way, constitution doesn't say anything about cancer surgery - that is removing a bunch of deformed human cells which if not removed can kill you, same can be said of some embryos.

IMO Been going to hell for long time. and guess what, it’s going to get worse IMO. But, lucky for me I won’t see the destruction.

Daughter is an attorney, SIL is an attorney - they will never want for work. Stupid people and lack of thinking with regard to long term ramifications of decisions will keep them busy until they retire. Keeps the hour meter rolling.

I am not trying to be argumentative, but I can't tell if you think the SCOTUS was wrong or the woman in the HOV Lane.

No Right" is absolute , maybe I am wrong but I don't think many people would think private ownership of nuclear weapons should be allowed, likewise should abortion be available right up to birth ??

This also means that the unborn fetus, as a legal "person" should be considered a dependent for tax purposes. And as a dependent, a woman on welfare should be getting extra child credits while she's still pregnant. And food stamps (since it's per dependent, and not per capacity of digestive system). Health care too - social programs should be extended to the unborn, if the unborn is required to be legally considered a "person."

You made my point. All these posts stating 2nd amendment is absolute, must not have thought through what that means, I was pointing that out with a touch of sarcasm - nukes.

And I am sure there are some people that would agree parents should have the RIGHT to abort a fetus up to 18 years old when they kick them out of the house or abort them if they won't leave.

Even the President of the Southern Baptist Convention was in favor of permitting abortions up to quickening, then SBC started getting money from the GOP and guess what they changed their position, to life begins at conception and no abortions can be tolerated. It is all politics.

Wrong, once again...

Citizens had cannons, gun ships, AND automatic/semiautomatic weapons...

But, if you want to play silly word games, the 2A now only applies to town criers, quill and ink and set type printing, No TV, radio or internet...

:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

You mean like the free pre-natal care that is readily available?

Where are all of these "absolute" posts?

Just quit while you're behind...

I'd post a list of people who have "changed" their position on abortion, but it would result in another "vacation"...

I think you have to give due respect to both sides , people have deeply held concerns, ethics, politicians on the other hand never stop doing the political calculus as to what is best for their political future

I agree with you.

My brother is a retired Southern Baptist minister with a PhD in Theology (Thd). We have “interesting discussions”. But, he knows I respect true Christians.

However, I have no respect for those cafeteria Christian’s that want to convert our government into a theocracy, and don’t fool yourself into thinking that can’t happen. There are a lot of well connected people working diligently to make that happen.

I know you are not trying to be argumentative, I think you are genuinely curious what my thoughts are. Honestly, I don’t have an opinion on either nor do I really care. My point is that in these crazy times we live in the attorney always win no matter the outcome.

Well here's the thing:

I respect any woman who chooses not to have an abortion if they get pregnant. They have that right to make that choice to carry their pregnancy.

If you are against abortion, then don't have one. I will respect your choice.

If you are against donating a kidney, then don't donate one. I will respect your choice.

If you are against being host to a medical experiment, where you won't know if it will kill you in 9 months or not, I will respect your choice not to allow your body to be used in such a manner.

Now it's your turn to respect my choice.

If I'm 15 and get date-raped by my 16-year-old boyfriend because he never learned that "no means no" and get pregnant, I will have an abortion. You don't have the right to tell me I can't.

If my sister needs my kidney and both of mine are healthy, I will donate mine. You don't have the right to tell me I can't.

If I want to help medical science improve on vaccines by allowing a pharmaceutical company to use me as a host for their new formula, then I will. And you have no right to tell me I can't.

I respect your choices, you respect mine. Abortion shouldn't be a legal matter at all. It shouldn't be "permitted" and it shouldn't be "prohibited." It is a medical procedure, and a private matter between the patient and physician. No one should be forced to host a growth in their body against their will, male or female.

Yeah, it does seem that the only real winner in any court case is the lawyer. It seems we need a major reset, but I am afraid that will just result in things getting worse. I wish I had a suggestion for a fix America.

Best post so far on this thread.

Politician and political parties follow their supporters /constituents are influenced by their interests and has been demonstrated can be bought. The idea that a political party is buying support of a group has the tail waging the dog. Religious groups exist do to their common adherence to a moral code so you think that this group's morality, leadership ,rank and file was bought and paid for? What ever the financial interchange is/was I think that would strain cause and effect

First, numerous studies, show that politicians in Congress do not do what is in their constituents best interest. One study from Harvard I believe about 10 (15?) years ago, showed that Congress voted directly against the interest of their constituents around 85% of the time. And of the 15% of the time they did vote in their constituents interest it was because big money didn't care about the issues 90% of that time.

Congress, until about 10 years ago, could not care less what WE want, they voted over and over for their money bag over lords while spewing nonsense about doing what WE want. The GOP climbed in bed with the religious when their researchers showed their base was dwindling and would soon be insignificant. That decision turned into catching a tiger by the tail, and now "they" are pushing a Theocracy agenda onto the GOP and the GOP seems to not know how to tame the Tiger. Listen to some of the "ministers" (you know those that always have their hands out of TV) and how it is time to "take back" their government etc.

You may find it hard to believe, but not everybody is an atheist.

You just can't stop with the political posts...