You quote from the language in the Bill of Rights while arguing it is the Constitution you are referring to. I am confused..~~Exactly what part of the Constitution are you referring to that Jefferson changed the word property to the pursuit of happiness????

“We hold these t***hs to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness; .”

So then if it is the Constitution you are addressing is it under this Amendment you are correcting Joy, who is using “property”???

AMENDMENT V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the M*****a, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.~~

Or perhaps this Amendment ??

AMENDMENT XIV
SECTION 1
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The comment about our founding fathers was simply observation of their brilliance and how we would be lucky to have them now as well.

No one forced her to get pregnant (unless she was raped). It was her choice. Each of our choices have effects. One effect of having unprotected sex is the risk of pregnancy. Another is STDs. No one would consider that someone who had an STD through unprotected sex was not responsible for their actions. Imagine someone claiming they had no responsibility for getting an STD. It just happened and they have no intention of changing their behavior. But they want the taxpayers to pay for the consequences. And what about when the pregnancy comes to term? Is it considered forcing a woman to provide care for her baby and not leave him to die? How UNFAIR to force her to be a mother when she doesn't want to be! If she doesn't want to care for the child who is still dependent on the mother outside the womb as he was inside, the law requires she be held responsible for the child's care up until the child can legally care for himself or until she purposely and legally turn over care and custody to another.

So the father need not be notified their minor child is making a life altering (and life ending) decision. Is the mother or guardian consulted? Children are not considered competent to make other major life altering decisions, or even less important decisions like driving until they are of an age deemed responsible by law.

My views do not waver. In some posts I point out the current laws, their contradictions to the US Constitution. In others I simply resent my views. But to make it clear: here are my views.

1) A woman should (and does) have the right to choose whether she will become a mother. This choice is made twice. Once when she chooses to open the door to pregnancy, and again when she chooses to keep or give up the custody of the child.

2) Both the man and woman are responsible for the child THEY both chose to begin by their actions.

3) If infanticide (whether before or after a breath is drawn) is to be allowed, taxpayers should not all be responsible for paying for it.

Now to another view I have not so far expressed. The argument is often made that if Roe v Wade was not in place, women would use back street methods to k**l their child with a high risk of harm or death to the mother and therefor we should allow legal safe(er) methods of k*****g. So if that is a valid argument, why not extend it to those giving birth and k*****g the newborn? To prevent mothers who don't want a baby from wrapping the newborn in garbage bags and throwing them in the trash; should we provide clean, safe (for the mother) disposal points to discard unwanted babies? And what about other unwanted relatives who are dependent on relatives?

Durango fire I showed you the other day is out!! Now flooding from the rains ... Gosh dang weather here... it, heyyyyyy, would rather it be flooding than fire...

The 416 continues to rage on, now in its 6 weeks with thousand of precious trees gone.. 22,000 acreas...Makes me crazy!!! Oh hushhhhhh, I heard your agreement!!!!!

You can bet I did sign up to replant when they get to that point!! Told you I must have been a druid in another life..

Your prayers working!!! Thank You ever so much..

https://kdvr.com/2018/07/17/flooding-mudslides-force-evacuations-close-highway-near-durango/amp/