Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Ohio DESTROYS Reproductive Rights" video.

Ok, what rights were destroyed? And please cite the constitution.
1
Erik Dumas Rights are listed in the constitution. Abortion is not a right.
1
Erik Dumas Rights in this country are listed in the constitution. Abortion is not one of those rights, period. The Roe vs Wade ruling was incorrect. But, the SC also ruled wrongly on Kelo vs City of New London. So considering how the SC has been wrong at times, you can't just say that Roe vs Wade makes abortion a right just because the SC says so.
1
Erik Dumas You have a privilege to drive and you can have that taken away. That privilege is determined by the state who has the right, via the 10th amendment, to make such laws. That is the difference. The government can very well change the law so you are not allowed to drive anymore for whatever reason. Something as simple as closing down a road is all they have to do. So no, you do not have a right to drive, you have a privilege. Roe vs Wade was an incorrect ruling. Nothing in the constitution says abortion is a right, period. Kelo vs City of New London shows that the SC has ruled incorrectly before, thus what they say is not always correct. Rights are listed in the constitution.
1
Erik Dumas A right in the US is protected by the constitution. You don't have a right to drive. The government can deny you of that and the SC does not even have to get involved. Now if the state government tried to deny you a right, say the 2nd amendment, they have to have a great reason such as you committed murder. But with that you also have other rights taken away and it is done on an equal level and with extreme cases. But state governments can ban driving easily and with no action by the SC. "But that's my point, the government would first have to change the law. They cannot simply revoke my ability to drive on a whim." To amend the constitution it takes a lot of actions and when it is done it covers the entire country. That is the difference. "But that doesn't eliminate my right to drive, it simply eliminates my right to drive on that particular road. And once again, the judicial branch could very well determine that the state (or local government) did not actually have the power to eliminate my right by closing the road, and force them to reopen it." The SC will never do that as that is strictly a state issue. "You are entitled to that opinion, however your opinion has absolutely no bearing on what the law actually says." Which is a problem because we need to follow the constitution. Nothing in the constitution says abortion is a right. That is why is should remain a state law like murder is a state law. ". Legal does not equal correct." I agree with that and see that as a problem. To me it is scary how the fate of our country comes down to a simple majority of 9 people. "Just ask any legal expert. They'll tell you that that is absolutely not the way rights work." I have and they have worded it differently.
1
Erik Dumas Yes, due process is a right. But the government can take actions to prevent you from driving such as closing down roads or even creating a high tax on gas. They have round about ways. That is the difference. A federal government can't block a sign as that will go against the 1st amendment. They can close down roads. It is similar to search and seizure and DUI checkpoints. They are allowed because you are on public roads. That is your privilege. They can stop you in that case. You don't have a right to drive, you have a privilege. Just like education, you have no right to it and no state has to offer you it. Roe vs Wade should have been left up to the states. Nothing in the Constitution is about abortion. On murder with the exception of number 6 the others deal a lot with constitutional rights and foreign affairs, similar to treason. For example, killing an elected official can be seen as treason. Killing on a ship deals with that as in water what state has jurisdiction is fuzzy. Murder by mail is there because the federal government controls the post office. That is where the difference lies. I feel that rulings done by the SC should be altered. Now I could be wrong here and I could look it up (I have a copy of the constitution in my desk next to me), but no where does it say the SC ruling has to be a majority. To me is should be unanimous. In that case Roe vs Wade would not have passed. The fact that the fate of the country comes down to 9 people is a problem. But in the end driving is a privilege, not a right. The DUI checkpoint is what I discussed about with a lawyer. You have a right to privacy but on public roads you have the privilege of driving on there thus certain actions can be done to ensure safety. Because that goes to the next point of if people are so concerned about safety, why not ban driving or put breathalyzers in people's cars? A constitutional right is a hard standard, laws are flexible in that sense.
1
Erik Dumas" Just as long as those actions do not in any way infringe on constitutional rights" I agree, I have been saying that the entire time. You have no right to drive, that is a privilege. ". For instance, they can't stop individuals based purely on their race, and they cannot search your vehicle without probable cause or a warrant." I agree on race, that is the 14th amendment. On searching the car not so much. Again, you are on public roads so they can search your vehicle with limits. In my state it was within arm's reach of the driver. So front and back seat but not a third row of seats. Not the trunk or glove compartment. "Are you just going to ignore the fact that the Supreme Court ruled the way they did precisely because they felt that outlawing abortion would go against the privacy rights outlined in the 14th Amendment?" And they misinterpreted the 14th amendment. You have a right to privacy, but not a right to an abortion. I have no clue how you can read the 14th amendment and say abortion has to be legal based on how it is written. "You're fine with the federal government setting legal precedent due to fuzzy wording of the Constitution when it comes to murder" It is not fuzzy wording, Some of those forms of murder dealt treason. Killing an elected official is just that. Others deal with international situations. I don't agree with all of them, but killing on a ship in water where no state has jurisdictions is a federal issue at that point. "You are free to disagree with that law, but don't go making absurd claims that the Roe v. Wade decision was in any way illegal. You disagreeing with something doesn't make it illegal" Based on what was written in the constitution it was an incorrect ruling. How can one make a conclusion the SC did by the wording of the 14th amendment is beyond me. "If that were the case, a hell of a lot of Supreme Court decisions would not have passed." Which is not a bad thing. " How much do you want to bet that there are quite a few in that list you agree with?" Doubtful, I am really strict when it comes to the constitution. Also, with a unanimous decision it will be partisan. Right now SC justices vote on party lines. " A privilege is a type of right " Not really. Rights in this country are listed in the constitution. They are protected and can only be changed by amendment the constitution which takes a federal effort.
1
Erik Dumas Actually I am very knowledgeable on constitutional law since I have to pass a test on it for my job. Yes, your definition of a "right" is very broad. We have protected rights that are listed in the constitution. You are pointing at laws. Now yes, due process is a right, but you don't have a right to drive. Your privilege to drive is protected by due process. Big difference. "The 14th Amendment requires that laws be reasonably justifiable." Define "reasonable". That is a very broad word which is why that word is not in the 14th amendment. The constitution is the standard, it is not meant to be broad. "Correct. Adults between the ages of 18 and 21 no longer have the right to smoke tobacco in California. I didn't say that no laws could ever be passed that restrict rights. What I said was that such laws need to justify themselves by demonstrating that they protect more important rights" But where is the due process? Now you are running away from that. A state just took rights away from citizens according to you without due process. Or, maybe the reality is that they changed a law. Those individuals no longer have the privilege to smoke. "That's weird, because I'm pretty sure lots of people (most people, in fact) already did." And they are incorrect. "Why not indeed! I think they should be (at least most recreational drugs). That would be consistent with the privacy rights established in the 14th Amendment." The reason why is because the 14th amendment does not cover abortion like it does not cover drugs. The 14th amendment, by how section 1 is written, prevents states from treating US citizens differently in any way. That is how I interpret it. For example, in Brown vs Board a state could not deny a certain race education but offer it to others. You want to talk about privacy I agree that is covered in the 14th amendment under " No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" But that's it. There is nothing about making abortion illegal or legal. You want to extend on privacy, if I were to kill my wife in the privacy of my own home, what isn't that legal? I have a right to privacy. But yet murder is illegal. Honestly, as a lawyer told me you can have sex with little boys if you want as long as you don't get caught. That is privacy. You an have an abortion and as long as you don't get caught you are fine. But whether or not it is illegal is a state issue. Just like having sex with little boys is. I can do it, without proper cause the government can't search my home. But if I get caught it is illegal. The act of having an abortion would be determined to be illegal or legal as you don't have a right to that. You have a right to privacy.
1
Erik Dumas Actually I passed with a 93%. You have a privilege to drive and as I showed you the government can find a way to prevent that even without due process much like they change smoking laws. Your interpretation of the 14th amendment is incorrect. When the 14th amendment says privileges they mean what is protected for them in the constitution, like privacy. Again, abortion being illegal or legal can not be interpret from that, period. "Because you would be, by definition, depriving your wife of her right to life" And you are depriving those cells from living. By definition they are a living thing. Also, you have a right to life, you are not guaranteed it. Just like you have a right to free speech but not guaranteed it if a radio station does not allow you to play an ad. Or you have a right to bear arms but you are not given one. " What? That same logic could be applied to any crime. Just because you haven't been caught yet doesn't make the act you committed legal. It just means you haven't been caught yet. That lawyer is an idiot and should frankly be disbarred for giving out that kind of "legal advice."" Well, just like you enjoy making up definitions for what a right is and is wrong you are also wrong here. He is a very successful lawyer and is correct here. Having sex with little boys is illegal, but as long as you don't get caught you can do it. That is the key point there. You have privacy in your own home and the government can't spy on your or invade your privacy without probably cause. So someone can do that as long as they want as long as they caught. When they do they were caught committing a crime and will be arrested. The same is for abortion. You have a right to privacy, a state can't deny that via the 14th amendment since you are a US citizen. If you get caught doing an abortion and it is illegal according to that state then you will be arrested. But you have to be caught. " Yes, everyone automatically has a right to privacy (though, that does not mean they are incapable of forfeiting that right through their actions in instances where protecting that right to privacy would necessitate not protecting someone else's fundamental rights), which is why making abortions (prior to viability) illegal is unconstitutional" Ok, and having sex with little boys is legal than along with killing dogs, doing drugs, beating your wife and other things as long as it is private. That is your entire argument. My argument is that you have a right to privacy in that the government can't get into doctor's records. So if you have an abortion the doctor does not have to say. That is privacy. Abortion can still be illegal, but if you don't get caught then so be it. Same with killing your wife. "Since no one else's right are being threatened, the State has no authority to interfere" What about the father? Why does he have to pay for child support? He has a right to his property and a right to privacy. Why does he not get a say considering how half of that child is his. Seems like again the law is not consistent. " Like I said earlier, rights are worthless if the government isn't given the power to protect those rights" They do, abortion is not one of those rights. " The Constitutional interpretation you suggest would essentially gut the federal government's ability to protect rights listed in the Constitution" Nope, because they are clearly listed. You do not have a right to an abortion. That will have to be written in the constitution to make it a right. It is clear you don't study constitutional law.
1
Erik Dumas I understand the constitution. I am question if you do. "If knowledge of constitutional law and legal precedent is a requirement, then you have demonstrated that you are woefully inadequate." I find a lot of irony in that statement. "They can, but they can't just do it for whatever reason they want. The Supreme Court reserves the right to overturn any state or federal laws they deem to be unconstitutional." A state can change a law if they want as long as it does not violate the constitution. You have to understand if state banned driving they will piss off a lot of voters. They do not need a reason. " Obviously it can. I'm doing that right now. The Supreme Court did that back in 1973, and they have continued to interpret it that way." Then why have states, let the federal government set all the laws. "And how much privacy can you truly say a person has if the government is able to arbitrarily stick it's nose in their personal medical business? Seriously, if the state has the authority to outlaw this medical procedure (which harms no one), what other medical procedures can they outlaw? How is that not an egregious infringement of personal liberties?" A state can outlaw medical procedures like it can outlaw certain drugs. It does not mean you can't do them. All it means is you have privacy and the state cannot access your medical records without a warrant. Just like I can shoot up a bunch of heroin tonight. As long as I do not get caught I am fine. The government cannot invade my private life. If abortion is illegal in a state you can still perform it, just do not get caught like that lawyer told me. But according to you he should be disbarred. This relates to if evidence is obtained without a warrant it cannot be used in court because that person's private life was violated. "And living thing does not equal person. If it did, we would have to give plants and animals the same fundamental rights human beings get. Are you advocating for that?" And that is one of the issues of abortion. Personally I do not care. I care about the standard in how laws are set. Whether or not abortion is illegal or not does not matter to me. But it is a legit argument that fetus is potentially a living human being so killing it is murder. I am not saying I agree, I am saying that is a legit argument. "As far as the government is concerned, I am. That's why it's illegal for someone to come along and murder me." Then why isn't all murder federal law? Why do we not give homeless people homes to lower the chance of them dying? Why do we not give out food to everyone? How far are you going to take this "right to life"? "Let's not muddy the waters with yet another constitutional topic you don't fully understand." Again, an ironic statement. Forget a private company, why not a government radio company? We do have PBS. Why do we not have those so I am guaranteed my right to speech? Why am I not given a gun? "In short, the situation you describe is not an example of the government limiting free speech. At all." I agree, but why don't we have public stations that allows everyone to have free speech? "How does any of what you've said justify making the invasion of privacy by the state necessary inherently necessary in making abortions illegal?" In this entire argument you are talking about privacy. Do you even know what privacy means? Privacy does not mean having an abortion. You an make abortion illegal and still have privacy. For some reason you are equating privacy to abortion which makes zero sense. A state can make abortion illegal and still respect your privacy. You do not have a right to an abortion, you have a right to privacy. "You idiot, if abortions were made illegal, doctors wouldn't be legally able to perform an abortion." I know. But you have the right to privacy. Just like I can do drugs in my apartment and the government can't just invade my apartment. That is the point. Privacy does not equal abortion. I find it ironic you call me an idiot when you do not know the definition of basic words. "What about the father? What does the father have to do with the discussion of abortion? Unless this is a very special father, the fetus will not be residing in his body." Biologically, half of that child is his. So the father should play a role. Seems like science is also not a strong point for you. "It's very consistent in this matter. A fetus is not a person." But potentially could be. "Privacy is a fundamental right protected by the federal constitution." I agree. Abortion isn't though. "This horseshit again? Abortion is a private medical procedure, which does not effect any person but the person choosing to get an abortion." The father loses a child. So I disagree. But I agree, it is a private medical procedures and the government does not have the right to access it. You brought up someone ratting on the doctor. They can arrest that doctor, but can't get into the medical history of his patients. That is the key there. "If you're arguments so far are any indication, all you are is some idiot with a copy of the Constitution in his desk and a tendency to completely ignore the bits of it you don't like." And this is ironic because according to you privacy=abortion. Think about that before you talk about definitions. But oh, I forgot. You seem to think a certain lawyer should be disbarred. I feel you are no more than some fool who thinks they know everything but don't. You only cited one court case, Roe vs Wade so you are no better off. Open a dictionary and look up the definitions of Privacy and Abortion
1
Erik Dumas Assisted suicide is a private medical procedure but is illegal in a lot of states.
1
Erik Dumas You are saying you have a right to life. Then what isn't murder illegal as one federal law? Or what about self defense? Self defense laws vary by state. To me self defense is you protecting your right or the right of others. But people debate stand your ground laws. Assisted suicide has been brought to court. The fact is, like abortion, you do not have a right to it. That is why abortion is not a right, period. You have a right to privacy, not to an abortion.
1
Erik Dumas Yeah, government. How about you read the entire 14th amendment.
1
Erik Dumas It says states. I am glad you are seeing your flaws. Your debate is getting weaker which is why I am not wasting much time here. I do have my PhD dissertation to work on in the end. Overall, you are equating privacy to abortion. And you said a lawyer should be disbarred when you clearly never studied law at all. Think about that.
1
Erik Dumas If a state makes murder legal that state is not the one doing the killing, individuals are. Just like you have freedom of speech but private businesses are denying your speech. Same thing. You really need to study the constitution and know what certain words mean.
1
Erik Dumas And abortion is not a right. Case close.
1
Erik Dumas If Roe vs Wade was so strong then out of all of these lawyers and judges they would have used it in assisted suicides and drugs in making them legal. They did not. Roe vs Wade was an incorrect ruling by a select group of justices just like Kelo vs City of New London was. Abortion is not a right, period. Privacy is, abortion isn't.
1
Erik Dumas It is a great argument. Why don't you have privacy rights to do drugs? Because being allowed to do drugs is not a right......or is it? You have the right to pursue happiness. Fact is that you do not have a right to an abortion. You have privacy rights. If I were to do drugs in the privacy of my own home I will be fine as long as I do not get caught. The government cannot invade my privacy. If they were to catch me doing drugs I would be arrested. A drug dealer has privacy rights as well, but I could rat out my dealer. That is the same if abortion is illegal. Medical records are private but someone can snitch on a doctor performing abortions. And the doctor can snitch on the patients who did them. In the end they took the risk breaking the law. They did it privately and the government cannot invade people's privacy. But if you break the law you took the risk. You do not have a constitutional right to an abortion, period.
1
Erik Dumas You are going to have to understand words. Abortion is not listed anywhere in the constitution thus it is not a protected right, period.
1
Erik Dumas I should I read what you wrote? At this point you have proven to be incompetent in constitutional law. You know some things but not enough. It is similar to a biologist teaching physics. They know some things but not enough to really fully understand what they are talking about. The 4th amendment protects privacy. Yes, privacy is not listed in the constitution, but you are protected from search and seizure. That is protecting privacy. Nothing in the constitution alludes that abortion is a right.
1
Erik Dumas And what is a part of your property? Medical records are included in that.
1
Erik Dumas Then why isn't assisted suicide legal or drugs? It comes back to that. I know that the 9th amendment reads and I support it. But constitutional rights were design, originally, to give the citizens power over the government. That is what the 9th amendment did. No way would the founding fathers would have developed the entire constitution to limit the federal government and then allow it to have power on one amendment shortly after.
1
Erik Dumas Because they are not listed in the constitution like abortion is not listed either.
1
Erik Dumas You are misinterpreting the 9th amendment. The entire constitution were limitations on the federal government. The founding fathers would never just place one line in there doing away with all of that. Before the 14th amendment there were no real restrictions on the states so it were to prevent the states from taking away rights that were protected by the constitution. Abortion was not one of those rights.
1
Erik Dumas You are misinterpreting the 9th amendment. The entire constitution was design to place strict limitations on the government. Your interpretation did not happen until 1962 in a court case where one judge said that "For a period of a century and a half, no serious suggestion was ever made that the Ninth Amendment, enacted to protect state powers against federal invasion, could be used as a weapon of federal power to prevent state legislatures from passing laws they consider appropriate to govern local affairs." So you are saying that in one line the entire constitution is crap?
1