In The United States of America our Rights are enumerated within the Bill of Rights and to my understanding such a Right does not exist.
sort by best latest
MT-Your Right to food was not included in the Const. You have the Right to achieve it, as too, healthcare. Socialism is not in the Const.
And yet, we can agree that letting the weak starve to death is morally wrong. The constitution is one document, incapable of covering every possible topic.
MT-It is the details that matter--why are they weak and do we not have charities specifically for that reason. A self imposed victimhood to pander and exploit the taxpayer is in itself immoral and politically profitable, more immorality.
"why are they weak and do we not have charities specifically for that reason." Do you believe those charities help or are able to help all that need them? off topic from OP but now that it's brought up...
If exploiting the taxpayer is the immoral issue at hand, then you're aiming at the wrong target. Contraceptives are a candle to the inferno that is corporate welfare.
peeples-One liners do not really allow for an intelligent exchange here and I detest merry-go-rounds. Perhaps you can tell me what people you are talking about.
peeples- To breath one one must expend energy--nothing is free unless one believes in fantasies.
Hence the parenthesis. Birth control should be provided no matter the cost, to anyone who wants it, by the government! We are over populated. Unplanned preg. are mostly to poor women. Do you want to support those unplanned children or pay for BC?
Peeples--I have news for you, as I have said before, we are paying for BC, food, housing and abortions. Self control is the best BC and costs nothing but integrity.
Yes, It is not my obligation to pay for a women's sexual pleasure and then be forced to pay to for an abortion because she is promiscuous and irresponsible. Women's sexual delights are best left to self control, not taken from the wallets of others.
Birth control in of itself is not about sexual pleasure. It's about peace of mind for women to be able engage in sex (like men) without getting pregnant. A woman doesn't have to be promiscuous to become pregnant. She could be monogamous.
Peace of mind is not a Right. Using The Dec of Independence as a basis for Rights is absurd. Space limitation does not allow for a proper response.
Certain birth control pills are used to regulate medical conditions (such as PCOS) and are prescribed for the patient's health, not anything to do with her desire for sex.
cjhunsinger, It's almost as absurd as using (the constitution) to determine what medical insurance should cover! LOL!
Dashing-MT-The Constitution does not acknowledge a Right to medication of any kind for any reason, nor does it prescribe such medication.
And yet you're singling out contraception. Perhaps your question should have been "where in the constitution is a right to healthcare" rather than targeting women.
MT-Your Right to healthcare, education, housing, food, work, holiday pay does not exist in the Const, but such rights exist in the UN Dec on Human rights-when did we switch governments? The Const is the Right to achieve, not a right to panhandle.
We don't have to switch governments to acknowledge human decency. And we shouldn't use the constitution as an excuse for a lack of compassion.
MT- Use all the compassion you want you are free to do that. When your defined compassion is mandated on others it is no longer called compassion is it?
In a perfect world, compassion wouldn't have to be mandated. I would move mountains to help family and friends, but probably not for that guy I never met across the country. Does that make him less deserving of help?
"Not taken from the wallets of others". Would you rather pay for welfare or contraception?
moneymindit--In way to many cases I am paying for both, plus an abortion or two.
JA- Your comment is a reasoned response. Government no longer operates at that level. best answer I gave give.
A woman owns her own body and as you noted she would be making that choice. No one else has the right to make a choice for her. Abortion as of today is still legal while running over someone with a car is illegal.
Dashing-A women has no right to demand my money to accommodate her decisions and that is what she is doing.
So you don't use health insurance? If you do, aren't you demanding money from people just the same?
junk--No, not in a free market, but then that no longer exists, absent free market and choice.
So why are you objecting to BC and not all of it is what I am wondering. Why don't you object just the same to anyone demanding money for any healthcare? I don't get your BC obsession.
junk-I object to pretty much all of it. The BC was the topic of focus. Welfare can serve purpose, but now its purpose is to serve the politician.
So you don't have health insurance then?
Where in the Constitution is the Right to drive a car? If one pursues murder as a happiness. Should it be recognized as a Right? And should not the taxpayer provide a weapon?
junk-Morality is not my concern, the Constitution is. You make your own moral judgments, but do not require me to pay for them.
"make your own moral judgments, but do not require me to pay for them..." (unless you are my Boss or President of an organization I attend).
junk--Your point/points are convoluted and you generalize, as I and many other involved here are either Atheistic or agnostic.
If you can find the part in the Constitution that provides healthcare, education or housing, please provide.
The Constitution creates a framework of governance which includes the ability to craft laws and assess their constitutionality via the judicial system. What part of that are you denying?
junk-You seem to be confusing "Right" The Bill of Rights, with legislated law, They are not the same-it is difficult, but stay in there junk.
I'm not confusing anything. I never said anything about BC being a Constitutional right. It is a legislative mandate flowing from Constitutional power and judicially approved. Get over it.
junk- The question was." Where in the Constitution is a women's right to birth control?" I can understand how that could confuse you-Bill of Rights vs legislation. Stay in there junk.
It is an obviously rhetorical question. Why would I answer it. Your using a charlatan to argue against a thing and you know it (or should). Stop being daft. And you can shove your condescension. Grow up.
Hi junk-No, I asked and wrote the question-not rhetorical, but direct. Failure to understand that appears to be yet another failing, let alone the capacity to intelligently respond. Keep trying you were doing so well.
It is clear to everyone and anyone that BC is not in the Constitution, hence the question is obviously rhetorical. The only failing is your ability to man-up to it and your need to insult people without warrant. Like I said, grow up.
junk-That apparently was not clear to you, as you tried to say otherwise. My words were only complimentary and matched yours. Have a good day.