WHat are you talking about. Please explain.
I don't. You make a false claim that I do, because you believe that the life within a pregnant woman should be protected by government from conception. Such a concept ignores the pregnant woman's rights.
The woman has no right to kill the life of another within her. The child a woman carries is her child, yes. It is not her. She has a duty to bring that child to term. And yes the law can say she has that duty. Without duties, rights devolve into mere license. Duties are a burden that we ought to undertake happily though at times perhaps with difficulty. Just as we have a duty to defend the Constitution and its principles the principal of which is the right to life.
You would prefer that the Supreme Court define what are rights and what are not and not the people. I think it servile and unrepublican so to defer. Of course, there are some rights that are clearly articulated in the Bill of Rights. However, the rest must be left to the states and the people themselves as articulated by the 9th and 10th amendments. I am not one who thinks that the 14th has overturned these. If it be so (which seems to be the case in practice), the 14th ought to be overturned --- of course that concedes that it was ever ratified in the first place :)
I don't. You make a false claim that I do, because you believe that the life within a pregnant woman should be protected by government from conception. Such a concept ignores the pregnant woman's rights.
In our system, neither judges nor legislators get to to say when life begins and when the right to life begins. That function is best left to juries at murder trials.
WHat are you talking about. Please explain.
You have to learn to follow overall context in debate. -- Cherry picking remarks from our dialog and asking for 'meaning' is what's confusing you.
______________________________________
The woman has no right to kill the life of another within her. The child a woman carries is her child, yes. It is not her.
At conception, and for 2 or 3 months after, a womans Constitutional rights trump those of the life developing within her.
She has a duty to bring that child to term. And yes the law can say she has that duty.
Nope, our Constitutional law, -[see the 10th & 14th Amendments]-, says that the governments only have powers as delegated. -- Your imagined 'duty' is not an enumerated lawful power.
Without duties, rights devolve into mere license. Duties are a burden that we ought to undertake happily though at times perhaps with difficulty.
You're preaching that unless newly pregnant women follow your version of 'duty', they are being licentious. - Preach what you like, but keep it out of our law.
Just as we have a duty to defend the Constitution and its principles the principal of which is the right to life.
The Constitution defends the rights of ALL, even newly pregnant women.
At conception, and for 2 or 3 months after, a womans Constitutional rights trump those of the life developing within her.
You would prefer that the Supreme Court define what are rights and what are not and not the people.
We 'defined' our Constitutional rights long ago. You want to redefine them by decreeing that early term abortion is murder. Let a jury decide that issue, in the american way.
I think it servile and unrepublican so to defer.
Hype.
Of course, there are some rights that are clearly articulated in the Bill of Rights. However, the rest must be left to the states and the people themselves as articulated by the 9th and 10th amendments.
You've misread the intent of those Amendments. States do not have the power to decide what our unenumerated rights shall be. They can only reasonably regulate individual behavior using due process of Constitutional law. Prohibitions & decrees are not due process.
I am not one who thinks that the 14th has overturned these. If it be so (which seems to be the case in practice), the 14th ought to be overturned --- of course that concedes that it was ever ratified in the first place.
There you have it. You want to overturn a clear Constitutional principle. -- We have unenumerated rights to life, liberty, and property, that no level of our governments have ever been empowered to infringe upon.
You're willing to do all this just to control early term abortion? -- You still can accuse others of being "unrepublican"?