Broader Issues Highlighted by the Latest Abortion Decision

[Wandering Monk]

Taking a broader view of American history, it seems that Americans do not have a real handle on the question of 'Whose rights are protected by the United States Constitution." I will ask you to cite and post the specific clause of the Constitution to support your position.

 

[Altfish]

Taking a broader view of American history, it seems that Americans do not have a real handle on the question of 'Whose rights are protected by the United States Constitution." I will ask you to cite and post the specific clause of the Constitution to support your position.

The problem with the US currently is that everything is political.
The GOP have decided to ban abortion but not fund the child when born. So the unborn child has rights, the mother doesn't and the born child doesn't have right of free health care

 

[Valjean]

The OP needs to define "the unborn." Is a zygote an unborn? a blastula? a fœtus?
How are "rights" defined; are they natural/God given, or strictly a product of law?

The problem with the US currently is that everything is political.

Everything was always political. The problem is that the political has become entangled with the religious, as opposed to the practical.

The GOP have decided to ban abortion but not fund the child when born. So the unborn child has rights, the mother doesn't and the born child doesn't have right of free health care

This is a major problem. Banning abortion would have huge social and economic ramifications, and I see no plans proposed to deal with them.

 

[Nakosis]

Taking a broader view of American history, it seems that Americans do not have a real handle on the question of 'Whose rights are protected by the United States Constitution." I will ask you to cite and post the specific clause of the Constitution to support your position.

It covers all citizens, resident and visitors in the US territories.

 

[Wandering Monk]

It covers all citizens, resident and visitors in the US territories.

So in the OP I asked for specific citations from the Constitution be posted when answering. What is your citation?

 

[Estro Felino]

The problem with the US currently is that everything is political.
The GOP have decided to ban abortion but not fund the child when born. So the unborn child has rights, the mother doesn't and the born child doesn't have right of free health care

I was thinking precisely of that. Because in a free healthcare country, the State does dissuade people from smoking by saying that smoking is bad for your health, basically because it is the State that entirely pays for lung cancer cures.
Same as for abortions. The State tries to dissuade women not for religious reasons, but because it assures women that it will pay for the delivery, and the cures for the child, who will be given for adoption.

 

[Fool]

Taking a broader view of American history, it seems that Americans do not have a real handle on the question of 'Whose rights are protected by the United States Constitution." I will ask you to cite and post the specific clause of the Constitution to support your position.

the constitution is based on each individual as part of the collective. the constitution doesn't recognize an unborn child as a citizen. they aren't counted in the census. they're are no legal documents giving them any autonomous rights.

 

[Wandering Monk]

the constitution is based on each individual as part of the collective. the constitution doesn't recognize an unborn child as a citizen. they aren't counted in the census. they're are no legal documents giving them any autonomous rights.

SCOTUS said that Blacks had no Constitutional protection in the Dred Scott decision. On what Constitutional basis would a person oppose slavery prior to the 13th Amendment?

 

[Nakosis]

So in the OP I asked for specific citations from the Constitution be posted when answering. What is your citation?

It is actually part of the BoR 14th amendment, section 1

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Protection for any person within it's jurisdiction.

 

[Fool]

SCOTUS said that Blacks had no Constitutional protection in the Dred Scott decision. On what Constitutional basis would a person oppose slavery prior to the 13th Amendment?

you can't profit from what you can't exploit. the constitution doesn't say anything about excluded races either. judges aren't incapable of being conniving and liars. the law should be about love and nondiscriminatory. it shoudn't be about manipulation. and we already know they were other races living in the us when the revolution occurred. so that is basic bs

 

[Shadow Wolf]

There's something that says something like "all are created equal and endowed by certain unalienable rights." Why not strive to keep going and actually achieve that?

 

[GardenLady]

There's something that says something like "all are created equal and endowed by certain unalienable rights."

The Declaration of Independence has no force of law. A nice ideal, but not a legal protection.

 

[Valjean]

It covers all citizens, resident and visitors in the US territories.

"Rights" are an attribute of personhood, regardless of race, religion, national origin or species.

 

[Nakosis]

"Rights" are an attribute of personhood, regardless of race, religion, national origin or species.

They are nothing if there is no enforcement for them.
You need people willing to fight for/enforce them.
Even then there is no guarantee someone else won't come along capable of enforcing a different set of rights.

 

[Valjean]

They are nothing if there is no enforcement for them.
You need people willing to fight for/enforce them.
Even then there is no guarantee someone else won't come along capable of enforcing a different set of rights.

There is only one set of natural rights. A government may prevent you from exercising them, but it cannot repeal them, any more than it can decree that the Sun should rise in the West

 

[Revoltingest]

There is only one set of natural rights.

Oh, really?
I'll wager there's some diversity & disagreement.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The Declaration of Independence has no force of law. A nice ideal, but not a legal protection.

It is still, nevertheless, an American ideal, and one that is worth living up to.

 

[fantome profane]

Oh, really?
I'll wager there's some diversity & disagreement.

Because some people will be wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh, really?
I'll wager there's some diversity & disagreement.

I don't know about that. I told my housemate that there is only one set of natural rights:

Mine.

She agreed she also said that there was only one set of natural rights she said:

"Mine"

Too.

 

[Revoltingest]

Because some people will be wrong.

Which ones?