> "Choosing not to exercise a right does not mean you can take the right away from those who choose to."
The Supreme Court begs to differ on something so simple as a woman and her own eggs. Can't have it both ways. Having more guns than people while taking away people's right to vote, or right to basic health services etc, is a recipe for disaster.
This is disingenuous. There isn't a constitutionally enumerated right to an abortion, so the tenth amendment relegates this decision to the states. There is a constitutionally enumerate right to keep and bear arms.
Also worth noting the counter argument is that the fetus and the mother may have competing interest. The controversy and lack of guidance in the constitution means democratic process within the states may not be the worst way to go about this.
"Along with decisions relating to marriage, contraception, education, and family relationships, the decision as to whether to terminate a pregnancy is fundamental to a woman’s “personal liberty.” .... that the right to terminate a
pregnancy is a “fundamental right.” ... The Court elaborated that abortion “involves the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy” and is “central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.” ... and is “too intimate and personal for the State to insist [upon]” ... “the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear
or beget a child.” [0]
Pretty categorical.
Again, can't have it both ways. The constitution did not define what "arms" were. The "competing interest" here is for all the lives lost in mass shootings with modern assault weapons.
Again there is no enumerated right to terminate a pregnancy. This is complete fabrication.
An AR-15 (I have no idea what an "assault weapon" is but I assume you include it) is clearly "arms." There's no ambiguity. Outlawing murder is constitutionally sound, outlawing arms is not. Inanimate objects do not commit murder.
> The "competing interest"
Abortion is literally the act of removing or terminating the fetus. Owning arms is not the act of murdering people in a mass shooting. You present a false and frankly poorly constructed false equivalence.
>Again, can't have it both ways.
The constitution literally set it up so we could have it "both ways." Enumerated rights subject to a much more difficult to alter process (such as the right to keep and bear arms). Then, tenth amendment allows issues like abortion to be delegated to the democratic process of the states. If you're looking for a boogeyman here, look no further than the electorate of your state.
ALL weapons of war are arms and inanimate objects.
> "both ways"
If half the US call abortion murder, and the other half treat it as a female health issue, then it's no longer "United" states. That's my point. It's a divided nation and armed to the teeth. Good luck with that.
> If half the US call abortion murder, and the other half treat it as a female health issue, then it's no longer "United" states.
At what point in US history was every state in complete and utter unity with every other state on every topic? Seems to me you have given the perfect example of the logic behind why individual states get to democratically determine their own laws.
The Supreme Court begs to differ on something so simple as a woman and her own eggs. Can't have it both ways. Having more guns than people while taking away people's right to vote, or right to basic health services etc, is a recipe for disaster.