Missouri bill outlawing out-of-state abortion

@sleepyguy said
Because lives are at stake. Because many people believe the unborn have rights that require protection. Because, as SCOTUS seems about to affirm, there is no right to an abortion in the Constitution, nor does the Constitution prohibit citizens of the states from regulating or prohibiting abortion through their elected representatives.

What "many people believe" should never be a relevant question when it comes to infringements on the People's Natural Rights.

As already stated, the Constitution was not a rights creating document (the Framer did not believe there was such a thing) and it specifically warns against assuming the absence of a stated right means said right doesn't exist. Besides that, you've already conceded the right to bodily sovereignty/autonomy does exist. So basically you're pushing for your little version of Gilead (enforced by punitive, penal measures) based on nothing more than your own moral positions. That is an insufficient basis for wiping away a basic, Natural Right which is at the center of virtually all others (moreover in this case bodily sovereignty/autonomy dovetails with basic decisions regarding procreation and child rearing).

@averagejoe1 said
So anything that we 'want ' (the right you speak of, whatever it is) should be just given to me, even though the right is not enumerated in the Constitution? I wonder what Ben Franklin and John Adams and James Madison thought about, when that question came up, after they'd filed the Constitution at the Supreme Court ?
If I say I have a right to something, I can ...[text shortened]... fun reading, you do outdo Jimmm. Jestering is not the same as humor. Maybe comedy, but not humor.

How can you possibly love this country when you can't even understand it?

@averagejoe1 said
So anything that we 'want ' (the right you speak of, whatever it is) should be just given to me, even though the right is not enumerated in the Constitution? I wonder what Ben Franklin and John Adams and James Madison thought about, when that question came up, after they'd filed the Constitution at the Supreme Court ?
If I say I have a right to something, I can ...[text shortened]... fun reading, you do outdo Jimmm. Jestering is not the same as humor. Maybe comedy, but not humor.

Here's what Madison said about it:

"It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration, and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the general government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the 4th resolution."

The "last clause of the 4th resolution" read, in part, "The exceptions here or elsewhere in the constitution, made in favor of particular rights, shall not be so construed as to diminish the just importance of other rights retained by the people;"

https://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1786-1800/madison-speech-proposing-the-bill-of-rights-june-8-1789.php#:~:text=I%20wish%2C%20among%20other%20reasons,charged%20them%20with%20wishing%20the

This eventually became the Ninth Amendment which reads:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

@vivify said
Final question: would you think it was immoral to terminate a pregnancy if it meant saving the mother's life?

Perhaps the grayest area of all. My answer tilts slowly to no, it would not be immoral. I would not be in favor of banning abortions in such cases. I would however admire the choice of a parent sacrificing their life to save a child, and understand the choice as a result of the natural obligation parents have to protect their offspring. Parents sometimes do such things naturally without a second thought, like running into a burning building to save a child, or placing themselves between a child and mortal danger.

@sleepyguy said
Perhaps the grayest area of all. My answer tilts slowly to no, it would not be immoral. I would not be in favor of banning abortions in such cases. I would however admire the choice of a parent sacrificing their life to save a child, and understand the choice as a result of the natural obligation parents have to protect their offspring. Parents sometimes do such things natu ...[text shortened]... ng into a burning building to save a child, or placing themselves between a child and mortal danger.

Better still; think of the selfless sacrifice of James Charles Kopp, who saved thousands or perhaps tens of thousands of "babies" lives. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/an-abortion-performing-doctor-is-murdered

You must admire his choice as well.

@no1marauder said
What "many people believe" should never be a relevant question when it comes to infringements on the People's Natural Rights.

You're still not getting it. The imaginary magic line is erased. The People's Natural Rights extend to the unborn as well.

@no1marauder said
Better still; think of the selfless sacrifice of James Charles Kopp, who saved thousands or perhaps tens of thousands of "babies" lives. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/an-abortion-performing-doctor-is-murdered

You must admire his choice as well.

Understand it? Perhaps. Admire it? No.

I believe in the rule of law. It saves more lives than anything.

A word of advice to anyone looking for an abortion or just family planning counseling: don’t google it. Use another search engine which doesn’t track you.

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/05/25/tech/lawmakers-google-location-data-abortion/index.html

@sleepyguy said
You're still not getting it. The imaginary magic line is erased. The People's Natural Rights extend to the unborn as well.

Where is your imaginary magic line? Conception?

Do you recommend "the unborn" get inheritance rights too? Should abortionists be tried for murder?

Why isn't this a Federal ban on abortion if we're talking about murder?

@sleepyguy said
You're still not getting it. The imaginary magic line is erased. The People's Natural Rights extend to the unborn as well.

I missed this before but it is BS.

Alioto's opinion said it was fine for States to allow abortion right up to birth. So who, all of a sudden decided (against what Nature has) that the unborn have Natural Rights that erase a woman's right to bodily sovereignty?