The Kansas State Constitution does NOT guarantee a right to abortion.

Text Drivers are Killers said:
HAHAHA. The covid vaccines are bioweapons, you moron. Of course i have a right to resist that.
Click to expand...

The alt right: trump invented the vaccines single handed.
Sane people: Actually, the vaccines were almost entirely developed in foreign countries, and trump had little to do with them.
The alt right: And vaccines are bioweapons meant to kill everyone.
Sane people: [With sarcasm] Yes, trump invented them single handed.
 
Earl said:
It’s pretty harmful to the unborn child who gets its head crushed.
Click to expand...

Most abortions today are drug induced. A woman makes the decision about an abortion, the public doesn't decide if they want to get smallpox.
 
LurchAddams said:
It's an extra right they require, due to their ability to give life. It's like saying, "It's not fair just to clear the air for birds and airplanes, the skies should be clear for humans as well, even though they can't fly. It's not fair for humans to have less rights than birds or planes."
Click to expand...

I didn't say it wasn't fair, just saying that those who claim women have less rights than men are wrong. Everybody has the same constitutional rights.

The Constitution does not provide the right to an abortion, so states should not have laws making it illegal.
 
Port Tack said:
Any man who gets pregnant would have that right. Stupid point.
Click to expand...

Agree. I was responding (reversing) the comment that the '"my body my choice" argument means that if you say abortion must be legal, then you must say no to the vax mandates." One has nothing to do with the other.
 
Earl said:
No, it’s a child with a separate heart, lungs, brain and DNA.

If it’s not a living, unborn child, how can you murder it with an abortion?
Click to expand...

If it is a child than a woman could leave it outside a fire station and walk away without fear of being prosecuted.
 
Port Tack said:
If the democrat is control of the house and senate they will codify a woman's right and the supreme court can go suck an egg.
Click to expand...

Wrong. The 10A says abortion is a state issue. If federal congress legalizes abortion, the SC will strike it down.
The states can legalize abortion. That's what the SC just said. THINK
 
Flash said:
I didn't say it wasn't fair, just saying that those who claim women have less rights than men are wrong. Everybody has the same constitutional rights.

The Constitution does not provide the right to an abortion, so states should not have laws making it illegal.
Click to expand...

Um, well, some state constitutions DO provide the right to abortion. The whole deal with the Kansas vote was the anti-abortion nuts were trying to amend the Kansas state constitution and remove it.
 
LurchAddams said:
Um, well, some state constitutions DO provide the right to abortion. The whole deal with the Kansas vote was the anti-abortion nuts were trying to amend the Kansas state constitution and remove it.
Click to expand...

You are lying. The KS constitution does not guarantee right to abortion. If you insist it does, quote that section of the constitution.

The judges just made it up as the federal SC did 50 years ago in roe v wade.
 
LurchAddams said:
Um, well, some state constitutions DO provide the right to abortion. The whole deal with the Kansas vote was the anti-abortion nuts were trying to amend the Kansas state constitution and remove it.
Click to expand...

The Kansas constitution was like Roe v. Wade. There was no right to abortion or right to privacy, but the court stretched the interpretation of the words to create one. The Kansas constitution mentioned the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" to include a woman's right to make decisions on these issues.

While I favor keeping abortion legal, I do not favor stretching the meaning of words to obtain a desired goal. The right to "liberty" and the "pursuit of happiness" can be interpreted to include anything. If it can be used to get something I favor it can also be used to get something I oppose. The right to life in the Kansas constitution could be interpreted to prohibit abortion.

If the voters of Kansas do not want to restrict abortion, let them elect a legislature that keeps it legal. The same Kansas court that ruled the state constitution protects abortion could reverse that decision (like Roe).
 
Text Drivers are Killers said:
You are lying. The KS constitution does not guarantee right to abortion. If you insist it does, quote that section of the constitution.

The judges just made it up as the federal SC did 50 years ago in roe v wade.
Click to expand...

I give more credibility to an amoeba's opinion than yours, traitorous twumptard.
 
Flash said:
The Kansas constitution was like Roe v. Wade. There was no right to abortion or right to privacy, but the court stretched the interpretation of the words to create one. The Kansas constitution mentioned the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" to include a woman's right to make decisions on these issues.

While I favor keeping abortion legal, I do not favor stretching the meaning of words to obtain a desired goal. The right to "liberty" and the "pursuit of happiness" can be interpreted to include anything. If it can be used to get something I favor it can also be used to get something I oppose. The right to life in the Kansas constitution could be interpreted to prohibit abortion.

If the voters of Kansas do not want to restrict abortion, let them elect a legislature that keeps it legal. The same Kansas court that ruled the state constitution protects abortion could reverse that decision (like Roe).
Click to expand...

No. The whole deal with what SCOTUS did was doing something most people oppose. If you're in the minority and you do that, like SCOTUS did, it's fascism. The majority of Americans want abortion to remain safe, legal, and rare. There are several moral arguments for it.

I know your and others' responses are now going to be: "Well what if the majority of Americans decide they want to reinstate slavery or <insert strawman thing here>. Well.. there is no moral argument FOR slavery. That's the difference between what you're claiming and what's real.
 
Flash said:
The Kansas constitution was like Roe v. Wade. There was no right to abortion or right to privacy, but the court stretched the interpretation of the words to create one. The Kansas constitution mentioned the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" to include a woman's right to make decisions on these issues.

While I favor keeping abortion legal, I do not favor stretching the meaning of words to obtain a desired goal. The right to "liberty" and the "pursuit of happiness" can be interpreted to include anything. If it can be used to get something I favor it can also be used to get something I oppose. The right to life in the Kansas constitution could be interpreted to prohibit abortion.

If the voters of Kansas do not want to restrict abortion, let them elect a legislature that keeps it legal. The same Kansas court that ruled the state constitution protects abortion could reverse that decision (like Roe).
Click to expand...

Yes indeed. Courts have simply given themselves the power to write laws and then they call it an interpretation!!
 
LurchAddams said:
No. The whole deal with what SCOTUS did was doing something most people oppose. If you're in the minority and you do that, like SCOTUS did, it's fascism. The majority of Americans want abortion to remain safe, legal, and rare. There are several moral arguments for it.

I know your and others' responses are now going to be: "Well what if the majority of Americans decide they want to reinstate slavery or <insert strawman thing here>. Well.. there is no moral argument FOR slavery. That's the difference between what you're claiming and what's real.
Click to expand...

The courts are supposed to make decisions based on federal law and the Constitution. Making a moral argument for something is a political decision to determine if we want the law to allow or prohibit abortion.

It is not the job of the court to determine whether abortion is a good policy or moral but whether the Constitution allows government to regulate it. Generally, criminal law is a function reserved to the states and states determined abortion law until 1973. The court found (invented according to its critics) a right to privacy in the Constitution that they said protects the right of a woman and her doctor to decide on abortion. Many believed that was stretching the law to get the results they wanted.

The fact that most people opposed Dobbs is irrelevant. Public opinion is not supposed to determine legal decisions. If a majority want abortion to remain legal, then most states will follow the will of the voters and keep it legal.

As I said earlier, if we can stretch the meaning of the Constitution to invent rights it does not contain, the other side can do the same thing. We should not confuse rights from freedoms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top