NationStates Jolt Archive

Take a gander (http://nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Scotus-Abortion.html?ei=5094&en=de6b9f4d4aa7b2d6&hp=&ex=1140584400&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print). The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will consider the constitutionality of banning a type of late-term abortion, teeing up a contentious issue for a new-look court already in a state of flux over privacy rights.

The Bush administration has pressed the high court to reinstate the federal law, passed in 2003 but never put in effect because it was struck down by judges in California, Nebraska and New York.

The outcome will likely rest with the two men that President Bush has recently installed on the court. Justices had been split 5-4 in 2000 in striking down a state law, barring what critics call partial birth abortion because it lacked an exception to protect the health of the mother.

But Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who was the tie-breaking vote, retired late last month and was replaced by Samuel Alito. Abortion had been a major focus in the fight over Alito's nomination because justices serve for life and he will surely help shape the court on abortion and other issues for the next generation.

There are two glaring problems with this law as it stands. First, there's no health exception, so this procedure--which is only done when the woman carrying the fetus is in danger or when the fetus is not viable--would then become illegal, and doctors would have the choice between going to jail or saving their patients' lives.

Secondly, the language of the law is so vague that it could conceivably outlaw all abortions, regardless of when they happen in the pregnancy. When the law was passed in 1998, abortion providers stopped providing them overnight in order to protect themselves (http://crlp.org/rfn_98_05.html). The federal court stepped in and stopped enforcement of the law.

So anti-abortion folks, here's the case for you. Did you get your money's worth when you got Bush elected and got him to dump Miers for Alito? I hope to God you didn't.

And by the way, all you so-called pro-choice Bush voters, this is largely your fault, if it gets overturned and abortions become illegal in this country.

Unfortunately, I think Pro-Death is going to win out. Alito seems like he leans left.

Unfortunately, I think Pro-Death is going to win out. Alito seems like he leans left.

Man, American politics are crazy.

Unfortunately, I think Pro-Death is going to win out. Alito seems like he leans left.
Riiiiiiiiiiight. What brand of crack is that, because I want to send some to my ex-wife?

Riiiiiiiiiiight.
Well if we're going to start calling names...:rolleyes:
Personally, I think the whole thing is stupid. It's unfortunate that we legalised abortion in the first place, but now is no time to overturn it. Abortion is a part of society now, and people have a right to it, even if it's wrong.

Unfortunately, I think Pro-Death is going to win out. Alito seems like he leans left.
can I buy drugs from you?

Well if we're going to start calling names...:rolleyes:

"Right" is an adjective, not a name.

"Right" is an adjective, not a name.
In this case it was more like one of those "back away slowly because the person has no concept of reality" things than an adjective.

Remember people this is a controversial topic so lets try to keep it civil. To help acomplish this point I've brought a visual aid

http://www.found.org.uk/resource/hhfh/deadpool.jpg

For those who don't get this its sacrasm.

Unfortunately, I think Pro-Death is going to win out. Alito seems like he leans left.
Compared to the rest of the Supreme Court, and the Administration that is in place right now, Alito is left.

Take a gander (http://nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Scotus-Abortion.html?ei=5094&en=de6b9f4d4aa7b2d6&hp=&ex=1140584400&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print).

There are two glaring problems with this law as it stands. First, there's no health exception, so this procedure--which is only done when the woman carrying the fetus is in danger or when the fetus is not viable--would then become illegal, and doctors would have the choice between going to jail or saving their patients' lives.

Secondly, the language of the law is so vague that it could conceivably outlaw all abortions, regardless of when they happen in the pregnancy. When the law was passed in 1998, abortion providers stopped providing them overnight in order to protect themselves (http://crlp.org/rfn_98_05.html). The federal court stepped in and stopped enforcement of the law.

So anti-abortion folks, here's the case for you. Did you get your money's worth when you got Bush elected and got him to dump Miers for Alito? I hope to God you didn't.

And by the way, all you so-called pro-choice Bush voters, this is largely your fault, if it gets overturned and abortions become illegal in this country.

Are you certain these are the only times this procedure is done? I was under the impression it was also being used in the same way early-term abortions are, and not simply for these reasons.

I am pro-choice, but I do think it should be done early, and should not simply be used as a form of birth control because one doesn't want to be bothered to use something to prevent pregnancy.

Economic Associates, just how long have you been holding on to that graphic, waiting to use it?

And is there any chance you could size it down just a touch? :D

Compared to the rest of the Supreme Court, and the Administration that is in place right now, Alito is left.
compared to the administration, I may be willing to accept. Compared to where the court was, no. And by no means is Alito, judged on his own, left.
He's here.
Moderate is here.
<-----left is waaaaay over there

Are you certain these are the only times this procedure is done? I was under the impression it was also being used in the same way early-term abortions are, and not simply for these reasons.

I am pro-choice, but I do think it should be done early, and should not simply be used as a form of birth control because one doesn't want to be bothered to use something to prevent pregnancy.
almost every late term abortion is done for medical reasons. Reason? Why would you carry a baby to term (give up drinking, smoking, enjoy the swollen feet, mood swings, hormone imbalance, morning sickness, etc) only to not have the child?

i have developed such a strong and irrational hatred of the republican control of government that i long for them to get a big time come-uppance.

the preference would be for alito to turn out to be a flaming liberal who makes oconnor look like an ultraconservative. the "oops" factor would warm the cockles of my heart.

my other hope is that this stacking of the supreme court causes such a backlash in middle america that the republicans lose control of both houses and have no hope of retaining the whitehouse. but that would mean a loss of abortion rights (and many others before its all over) and that would be a very high price to pay for ruining the republican party.

Economic Associates, just how long have you been holding on to that graphic, waiting to use it?

And is there any chance you could size it down just a touch? :D

I actually just found the thing online a few days ago but I have been itching to use it. I'm horrible with anything involving pictures so you'd be better off asking someone else to size it down.

I doubt you could outlaw abortion now its one of those freedoms that once given can't be taken away (not that I would want it too)

Are you certain these are the only times this procedure is done? I was under the impression it was also being used in the same way early-term abortions are, and not simply for these reasons.

I am pro-choice, but I do think it should be done early, and should not simply be used as a form of birth control because one doesn't want to be bothered to use something to prevent pregnancy.Yeah, I'm certain that the invented term partial-birth abortion and the procedure it refers to is used only in those circumstances--it's a late term abortion which is not only rare, it is able to be regulated under Roe as long as there's a health exception. No doctor with any sense of ethical responsibility would abort a viable fetus unless the mother's life was in danger and that was the only way to save her.

The problem with the law, as the second link in the OP notes, is that partial-birth abortion is not defined, but a child is--as "a human being from the time of fertilization until birth." Never mind that makes about as much scientific sense as legally defining pi as 4--that's the legal term used in the law and would be the controlling definition if this case is overturned.

May I say yet again how glad I am that I don't live in America.

*waves goodbye as liberty is slowly engulfed by moralising theocracy*

May I say yet again how glad I am that I don't live in America.

*waves goodbye as liberty is slowly engulfed by moralising theocracy*
You know, it's unseemly to gloat. :)

almost every late term abortion is done for medical reasons. Reason? Why would you carry a baby to term (give up drinking, smoking, enjoy the swollen feet, mood swings, hormone imbalance, morning sickness, etc) only to not have the child?

A little off-topic, but these are not necessarily done when carrying a baby to term.

I doubt you could outlaw abortion now its one of those freedoms that once given can't be taken away (not that I would want it too)

If the Supreme Court overturns Roe v Wade, the issue would simple revert to the states - which is where it should have been decided in the first place.

If the Supreme Court overturns Roe v Wade, the issue would simple revert to the states - which is where it should have been decided in the first place.
Hold on a second--if that's the case, then why wasn't this case, the partial-abortion ban, overturned on a state's rights basis? There's no basis for that belief.

Don't worry, Nazz, the anti-life people might win out afterall.

See, its easy to do that bullshit, over-dramatization of another's beliefs.

Now, would you like to have an actual adult discussion on the topic, or do you and the others want to have a political circle jerk over how superior liberals/conservatives are to the other team?

Don't worry, Nazz, the anti-life people might win out afterall.

See, its easy to do that bullshit, over-dramatization of another's beliefs.

Now, would you like to have an actual adult discussion on the topic, or do you and the others want to have a political circle jerk over how superior liberals/conservatives are to the other team?
I'm not overdramatizing anything here. The law is shitty, and anti-abortion people are about to find out if they got what they paid for in Roberts and Alito. What--you don't like me calling them anti-abortion instead of their preferred nomenclature? Tough shit--they're not pro-life. They're anti-abortion, and the two are not synonymous.

There is no risk to the woman once she's birthed the child. Smashing the kid's skull in after-the-fact is not necessary.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't matters decided before the state that get appealed have the chance of reaching the highest court in the land, and, if so, of becoming the law of the land?

And isn't retrospective activism, of the sort of quashing down "inappropriate" decisions such as Roe v Wade, just as activist as that which made abortion a legal act? Or are those judges, the retrospective activist ones, just slothful, indolent gits?

Abortions have been practised for centuries, by one means or another, and even if Roe v. Wade is overturned, will continue to be practised. I would rather the procedure be performed in a hospital by a competent individual rather than by whomever, wherever.

Hold on a second--if that's the case, then why wasn't this case, the partial-abortion ban, overturned on a state's rights basis? There's no basis for that belief.

Because for now, Roe is the law of the land so all issues having to do w/ abortion are addressed on the Federal level. RvW is built on the argument that the US Constitution provides for a right to privacy, which it does not. Therefore, it should actually be an issue handed down to the states.

RvW will ultimately be overturned. Bush will have at least one more pick for the SCOTUS. Stevens is 89 and has said he wants to retire under a Republican and Ginsburg is very ill (cancer, iirc).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't matters decided before the state that get appealed have the chance of reaching the highest court in the land, and, if so, of becoming the law of the land?

And isn't retrospective activism, of the sort of quashing down "inappropriate" decisions such as Roe v Wade, just as activist as that which made abortion a legal act? Or are those judges, the retrospective activist ones, just slothful, indolent gits?

Abortions have been practised for centuries, by one means or another, and even if Roe v. Wade is overturned, will continue to be practised. I would rather the procedure be performed in a hospital by a competent individual rather than by whomever, wherever.
Absolutely correct

Because for now, Roe is the law of the land so all issues having to do w/ abortion are addressed on the Federal level. RvW is built on the argument that the US Constitution provides for a right to privacy, which it does not. Therefore, it should actually be an issue handed down to the states.
Would you care to explain yourself?

What of the inalienable rights of life, liberty and happiness expressed within the Declaration of Independence referred to in the preamble of the Constitution?

What of the inalienable rights of life, liberty and happiness expressed within the Declaration of Independence referred to in the preamble of the Constitution?

Sorry, what?

I'm not overdramatizing anything here. The law is shitty, and anti-abortion people are about to find out if they got what they paid for in Roberts and Alito. What--you don't like me calling them anti-abortion instead of their preferred nomenclature? Tough shit--they're not pro-life. They're anti-abortion, and the two are not synonymous.

They are no more at odds with their chosen title than pro-choice.

And why is it that they are anti-choice?

What of the inalienable rights of life, liberty and happiness expressed within the Declaration of Independence referred to in the preamble of the Constitution?
life: the quality that distinguishes a vital and living thing from a dead body
liberty: the power to do as one pleases
and the pursuit of
happiness:a state of well-being and contentment

Nope. Nothing to do with privacy.

Would you care to explain yourself?

Please find the right to privacy in the Constitution. It's not there. That's what abortion is based on. Therefore it's bad law and should be overturned.

Please find the right to privacy in the Constitution. It's not there.

9th amendment.

thanks for playing, we have a lovely parting gift for you

That's what abortion is based on.
Prove that.

Please find the right to privacy in the Constitution. It's not there. That's what abortion is based on. Therefore it's bad law and should be overturned.

The constitution calls for the establishment of a "supreme court" to interpret the constitution. And they say the constitution gives it's citizens a right to privacy.

Tough shit--they're not pro-life. They're anti-abortion, and the two are not synonymous.

this is especially obvious when it comes to issues like banning a procedure whose only real use is to protect life

They are no more at odds with their chosen title than pro-choice.

And why is it that they are anti-choice?
They are "anti-choice" because they deny women the right to choose whther or not to have an abortion. It's no better than calling someone who is pro-abortion "pro-death" because they are destroying fetuses.

I am pro choice not because I necessarily agree with and would have an abortion, but because I highly object to a government, any government legislating what I do with and to my body. And yes I am pro voluntary euthanasia too..

For all the men who are pro-life.. how would you feel if the government suddenly passed a law making circumcision MANDATORY??? This may seem way off the abortion debate, but really it isn't.. the center of pro-choice is a woman's right to choose.. so what if a man's right to choose the very same thing was taken away? Or what if a government passed a law saying all unwed men over 40 had to be sterilized?

My point is that this sets very dangerous precidents... and to me education of both the pros and cons of getting an abortion and alternatives make way more sense than legislating it and our bodies.

Just a different way of looking at this.:headbang:

There is no risk to the woman once she's birthed the child. Smashing the kid's skull in after-the-fact is not necessary.

This is factually incorrect. In a late-term abortion, the body of the fetus is extracted through the woman's vagina far enough to allow the doctor to insert a pair of scissors into the neck of the fetus, at which point the doctor then cuts the spinal cord of the fetus. Then the head of the fetus is somehow crushed or squeezed, and only then is the fetus removed from the woman's body.

I apologise for the graphic description, but I wanted to make sure we all understood what we are discussing.

On a personal note, I must agree with randomlittleisland with respect to being glad that I do not live in the USA.

9th amendment.

thanks for playing, we have a lovely parting gift for you

Amendment IX.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The ones covered in the Constitution. Privacy is not.

So I refer you to Amendment X...

Please find the right to privacy in the Constitution. It's not there. That's what abortion is based on. Therefore it's bad law and should be overturned.
Find me the right to self determination, the right to vote, the right to travel freely, the right to an education, the right to self integrity, reproductive rights in the constitution.

Just because it is not expressly stated does not mean it isn't there.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

thanks for playing. Next.

Amendment IX.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The ones covered in the Constitution. Privacy is not.

So I refer you to Amendment X...

i'm a little confused as to the problem. do you know what "construed", "deny", "disparage", and "retained" mean? are you having problems with "shall not be"? what?

Man, American politics are crazy.
ALL politics is crazy. :headbang:

Prove that.

Wikipedia:

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)[1], was a landmark United States Supreme Court case establishing that most laws against abortion violate a constitutional right to privacy, overturning all state laws outlawing or restricting abortion. It is one of the most controversial decisions in U.S. Supreme Court history.

this is especially obvious when it comes to issues like banning a procedure whose only real use is to protect life


Uh-huh. So, killing the child actually saves the life. While, I agree that there are many instances where carrying the pregnancy to full term is sometimes fatal to the mother (which is the only time I agree with abortion), you can't honestly believe thats the only time abortion is chosen.

Uh-huh. So, killing the child actually saves the life. While, I agree that there are many instances where carrying the pregnancy to full term is sometimes fatal to the mother (which is the only time I agree with abortion), you can't honestly believe thats the only time abortion is chosen.
he's talking about late term abortion. voluntary abortions are carried out almost entirely within the first trimester.

i'm a little confused as to the problem. do you know what "construed", "deny", "disparage", and "retained" mean? are you having problems with "shall not be"? what?

The way you're interpreting it gives the Federal gov't almost limitless power and completely voids the 10th Amendment. The 9th is nothing more than a reaffirmation of the of the Bill of Rights.

Uh-huh. So, killing the child actually saves the life. While, I agree that there are many instances where carrying the pregnancy to full term is sometimes fatal to the mother (which is the only time I agree with abortion), you can't honestly believe thats the only time abortion is chosen.

Abortions don't kill children, read a book once in a while. It kills a peice of fleshy garbage that will one day become a child assuming nothing goes wrong. I've spewed miniture versions of that all over the place in my lifetime and not blinked an eye. You wanna come and save those "children"?

Also this shit about people being "too lazy" to use birth control so they get abortions is such bullshit. Abortions are not free and not free of danger. People don't say "oh I'll just get an abortion later". They keep people's lives from being ruined with the expenses of an unwanted child with no father. Instead these people finish out their early lives and have a child when they can support them and give them the life they deserve. I see nothing wrong with that.

ah-HAH! Found it!

Here is The Cat-Tribes full list of rights not spelled out in the constitution:
Second, here are just a few examples of Constitutional rights that are not "spelled out" in the Constitution but that are taken for granted by US citizens:
the right to vote, subject only to reasonable restrictions to prevent fraud

the right to cast a ballot in equal weight to those of other citizens

the right to a presumption of innocence and to demand proof beyond a reasonable doubt before being convicted of a crime

the right to travel within the United States

the right to marry or not to marry

the right to make one's own choice about having children

the right to have children at all

the right to direct the education of one's children as long as one meets certain minimum standards set by the state (i.e., to be able to send children to private schools or to teach them at home)

the right to custody of one's children

the right to choose and follow a profession

right to bodily integrity

list taken from http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8724529&postcount=79

The way you're interpreting it gives the Federal gov't almost limitless power and completely voids the 10th Amendment. The 9th is nothing more than a reaffirmation of the of the Bill of Rights.

yeah, i still can't tell where the problem lies. shit it's nearly looking like you don't quite grasp the concept of "others retained by the people", but that's too insane to contemplate. how 'bout this, you tell me what the 9th says in your own words and we go from there.

They keep people's lives from being ruined with the expenses of an unwanted child with no father. Instead these people finish out their early lives and have a child when they can support them and give them the life they deserve. I see nothing wrong with that.
That's a sterotype. You could also say that many mothers who undergo abortion are traumatized. It does nothing to make your argument more valid.

They are "anti-choice" because they deny women the right to choose whther or not to have an abortion. It's no better than calling someone who is pro-abortion "pro-death" because they are destroying fetuses.


See, I believe that life begins at conception, so I see at as protecting the child's life.

And I don't actually use the term "anti-life", I just wanted to point out how rediculous and biased The Nazz is.

The way you're interpreting it gives the Federal gov't almost limitless power and completely voids the 10th Amendment. The 9th is nothing more than a reaffirmation of the of the Bill of Rights.
actually, the 9th amendment states that just because a right isn't specifically outlined in the document doesn't give congress the right to take these rights already held by the population away.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment09/

See, I believe that life begins at conception, so I see at as protecting the child's life.

And I don't actually use the term "anti-life", I just wanted to point out how rediculous and biased The Nazz is.

Would you care to back up your assertion that life begins at conception?

yeah, i still can't tell where the problem lies. shit it's nearly looking like you don't quite grasp the concept of "others retained by the people", but that's too insane to contemplate. how 'bout this, you tell me what the 9th says in your own words and we go from there.

Wikipedia:

t has been considered that the 9th Amendment was put in place as a notice to the Congress that they were still a body constrained by a set of enumerated powers, and to the Federal Courts to ensure that the Congress did not forget.

In recent times, it has been argued that the Ninth Amendment, particularly when read in conjunction with the Tenth Amendment, emphasizes that the Bill of Rights is not a grant of rights from the government to the people. Indeed, if the Declaration of Independence is a guide, the Framers did not understand rights as being conferred by governments or legal documents, but arising ex deo, independently of the laws of man. Instead, it is argued that the Ninth Amendment is an enumeration of some of the most important powers not granted by the people to the Federal government (it is important to keep at the forefront of one's mind, when discussing the history of the bill of rights, that it applied only to the Federal government prior to the Fourteenth Amendment; see Barron v. Baltimore), and that the Ninth Amendment should be interpreted as addressing Federalist fears that enumerating rights might lead some to conclude that only those rights listed can be protected, just as the Tenth Amendment addresses anti-Federalist fears that the general government would swallow the states.

Another interpretation holds that the Ninth Amendment recognizes that certain natural rights are retained by the people and cannot be abridged by any government. This interpretation argues that the Ninth Amendment, in conjunction with the Fourteenth Amendment, permits the judiciary to strike down state laws which abridge certain rights. The difficulty with this interpretation is that, because the Ninth Amendment does not specify which rights it protects, and since almost any law that has any practical effect will limit someone's freedom of action, which they might term a "right" - such a power would create an almost unlimited ability of the Federal Judiciary to strike down laws that a given judge or group of judges disliked.

See, I believe that life begins at conception, so I see at as protecting the child's life.

And I don't actually use the term "anti-life", I just wanted to point out how rediculous and biased The Nazz is.

Do you mean conception (the moment the fertilised egg becomes implanted in the uterine wall) or fertilisation (the moment the sperm enters the egg)?

Abortions don't kill children, read a book once in a while.

Ahhh, when you can't actually make an argument, just accuse the other person of ignorance. Politcal Bullshitting 101.

It kills a peice of fleshy garbage that will one day become a child assuming nothing goes wrong.

Same can be said of an infant. When axactly is it a human being?

I've spewed miniture versions of that all over the place in my lifetime and not blinked an eye. You wanna come and save those "children"?

You're gonna have to elaborate on that.

Also this shit about people being "too lazy" to use birth control so they get abortions is such bullshit. Abortions are not free and not free of danger. People don't say "oh I'll just get an abortion later".

I never said that. I am sure tha majority of women who go through the procedure went through a great deal of pain and soul searching to reach that desiscion. I just don't agree with it.

They keep people's lives from being ruined with the expenses of an unwanted child with no father. Instead these people finish out their early lives and have a child when they can support them and give them the life they deserve. I see nothing wrong with that.


You may not realize it, but you are putting a price tag on life when yo usay things like that.

Yeah, I'm certain that the invented term partial-birth abortion and the procedure it refers to is used only in those circumstances--it's a late term abortion which is not only rare, it is able to be regulated under Roe as long as there's a health exception. No doctor with any sense of ethical responsibility would abort a viable fetus unless the mother's life was in danger and that was the only way to save her.

There are other reasons - which vary state to state. The last study I read on dilation and extraction and the lesser known procedure often used earlier - dilation and evacuation - listed the reasons for the procedures. Some were complications of pregnancy. A few were dead fetuses. A significant percentage were done for defects in the fetus - chromosomal generally. Most state laws allow for any gross chromosomal defect - including Down's Syndrome. They also often allow for physical defects - such as hydrocephalus (which, in severe cases, would render the mother incapable of giving birth naturally and would leave the fetus no chance to live) and cleft palate.


There is no risk to the woman once she's birthed the child. Smashing the kid's skull in after-the-fact is not necessary.

What does this have to do with the price of eggs in China?

I'm just going to sit on the side and watch. I personally think abortion is inherently evil, but I don't pretend to be righteous enough to tell people what they can and can't do. I know for a fact some people think I'm evil, so who's to say which of us is right? But I personally don't feel that my opinion on the matter is going to change the law, so I'm just staying the fuck out of it.

But I will tell you what pisses me off to no end! Pro-Life and Pro-Choice. That is utter bullshit. This debate isn't about choosing or living. It is about ABORTION! You are either For Abortion or Against Abortion.

If you use the term Pro-Life, then the other side is Anti-Life, which isn't true. If you use the term Pro-Choice, the the other side is Anti-Choice, which isn't true.

People need to fucking man up and say what they mean instead of dressing shit up with nicey nice terms. I'm NOT Pro-Life. I'm Anti-Abortion. I can admit that.

Do you mean conception (the moment the fertilised egg becomes implanted in the uterine wall) or fertilisation (the moment the sperm enters the egg)?


Conception. Once the fertilized is in the uterine wall, its destined to be human. Granted, something may happen and the child may die, but then, you may die tomorrow. I certainly don't think that needs to be rushed.

That's a sterotype. You could also say that many mothers who undergo abortion are traumatized. It does nothing to make your argument more valid.

Stereotype? I don't see what you mean by that.

It is a valid reason for an abortion besides a health risk and thus yes it makes my argument for abortion more valid.

You could ask the patients if they are traumatized before you said that. I can easlily assert abortions often halt the developement of an unwanted child because that is what they are often for.

Wikipedia

yes yes. so which words do you not understand?

What does this have to do with the price of eggs in China?

Why do you think they call it partial birth abortion?

Why do you think they call it partial birth abortion?

nobody but the clueless does that. there ain't no such thing.

I'm just going to sit on the side and watch. I personally think abortion is inherently evil, but I don't pretend to be righteous enough to tell people what they can and can't do. I know for a fact some people think I'm evil, so who's to say which of us is right? But I personally don't feel that my opinion on the matter is going to change the law, so I'm just staying the fuck out of it. *points* WITCH! HE'S A WITCH I TELL YOU!;)

But I will tell you what pisses me off to no end! Pro-Life and Pro-Choice. That is utter bullshit. This debate isn't about choosing or living. It is about ABORTION! You are either For Abortion or Against Abortion.

If you use the term Pro-Life, then the other side is Anti-Life, which isn't true. If you use the term Pro-Choice, the the other side is Anti-Choice, which isn't true.
but...but...but, if we call an argument what it is, then how are we supposed to ridicule the other on a completely basisless point, and call them baby killers and facists (respectively)

See, I believe that life begins at conception, so I see at as protecting the child's life.

And I don't actually use the term "anti-life", I just wanted to point out how rediculous and biased The Nazz is.

In truth, the term "anti-choice" is much more descriptive of the actual political position of "pro-life" than "anti-life" is of the "pro-choice" croud. Pro-choice does not, in any way, imply an agreement with abortion - or even a belief that it is a morally correct choice. A pro-choice person simply thinks that the woman should have the choice - plain and simple. It is completely possible for a person to be both pro-choice, and pro-life or anti-abortion, as it were.

A "pro-life" person is opposed to the legal choice. They wish to make the decision for someone else - indeed, for all women. That is the basis of the political movement.


But I will tell you what pisses me off to no end! Pro-Life and Pro-Choice. That is utter bullshit. This debate isn't about choosing or living. It is about ABORTION! You are either For Abortion or Against Abortion.

This is patently incorrect. I am against abortion, but stil pro-choice, as are many people.. Thus, the "for or against abortion" descriptor quite obviously does not work.

If you use the term Pro-Life, then the other side is Anti-Life, which isn't true. If you use the term Pro-Choice, the the other side is Anti-Choice, which isn't true.

When it comes right down to it, the latter is absolutely true. Those who wish to make all abortion illegal are opposed to the choice being there for women who might make a decision they don't agree with. Thus, they are anti-choice.

Conception. Once the fertilized is in the uterine wall, its destined to be human. Granted, something may happen and the child may die, but then, you may die tomorrow. I certainly don't think that needs to be rushed.

Considering that many (I believe the number may be as high as 1 in 3) pregnancies spontaneously terminate themselves within the first trimester, I do not believe they are destined to be anything.

Why do you think they call it partial birth abortion?

Because they needed to make up a big bad evil sounding name.

The actual procedure is referred to as dilation and extraction. Birth never takes place, although the uterine wall does get partially dilated for the procedure.

Why do you think they call it partial birth abortion?
its only called partial birth abortion by people who have no knowledge of the procedure. I'll see if I can find a decent description that isn't too graphic

here we go...http://www.meadowbrookclinic.com/de1.htm

Considering that many (I believe the number may be as high as 1 in 3) pregnancies spontaneously terminate themselves within the first trimester, I do not believe they are destined to be anything.

Is that in the US or worldwide? And what about all the people that die young of cancer, heart disease, and a list of other things? Can we just kill them before something else does?

Ahhh, when you can't actually make an argument, just accuse the other person of ignorance. Politcal Bullshitting 101.

??? Pick up a textbook and read about fetal development. I didn't know I had to conduct a seminar. You think people in a church or scientists should decide when a fetus can feel pain think function ect ect?


Same can be said of an infant. When axactly is it a human being?

Interesting question. Obviously tough to define so we use science as I was referring to above. Since there is a seperation of Church and state the soul should not be considered in matters of Law and thus science is all we have. As far as that goes there is nothing wrong with early abortion.


You're gonna have to elaborate on that.

Sperm. Ejaculation. Either from masterbation or during protected or unprotected sex with birth control. Wasted possibilites. That is what I was saying.


I never said that. I am sure tha majority of women who go through the procedure went through a great deal of pain and soul searching to reach that desiscion. I just don't agree with it.

Never said you did that wasn't a direct response to you.



You may not realize it, but you are putting a price tag on life when yo usay things like that.
Price tag? I am avoiding suffering on the part of the parent and child. If you must halt a pregnancy before there is an inkling of a scientific human to provide a better life for a child and the parent at a later time that is not monetary price it is a moral one. But in any case you don't need to believe that, it is the choice that is important. Whether you think it would be worse for the child and parent after birth or not it isn't your decision.

I am quite certain there are some women who don't realize how painful an abortion is, and have Medicaid to pay for it, so don't bother to use birth control. I admit that is probably not very common. I am sure, however, that there are plenty of women/girls out there who are simply irresponsible, and don't bother to use measures to prevent pregnancy, because they aren't thinking of the consequences.

I support a woman's right to get an abortion, but I also think people need to be much more responsible and prevent them rather than terminate them.

I just did some research on partial-birth abortion, or D&X. It is only supposed to be used in cases of severe injury or death to the mother, or deformity, etc. in the infant. However, there are some doctors who do it merely because the mother doesn't want her baby. These are the cases I disagree with. If you don't want to have a baby, you should be able to come to that conclusion before a D&X becomes necessary.

Uh-huh. So, killing the child actually saves the life. While, I agree that there are many instances where carrying the pregnancy to full term is sometimes fatal to the mother (which is the only time I agree with abortion), you can't honestly believe thats the only time abortion is chosen.

This thread is about late term abortions, let's stay on topic. There are other threads about abortion in general if you'd like to debate there. The correct term for this procedure is D&X procedures, an abbreviation of dilate and extract, or Intact D&E, or Intrauterine Cranial Decompression procedures. Most times it comes to the choice of having a hysterotomy or this procedure. It's a very hard procedure to have done, most doctors stay as far away from it as possible. Here are the most common reasons the procedure is done:
the fetus is dead.
The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would place the woman's life in severe danger.
The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would grievously damage the woman's health and/or disable her.
The fetus is so malformed that it can never gain consciousness and will die shortly after birth. Many which fall into this category have developed a very severe form of hydrocephalus (where the head fills with fluid to up to 50cm in diameter).

The only elective reason doctors (good doctors, I'm sure there are shady ones out there) will do this procedure is on women who are suicidally depressed.

Am I saying that a woman couldn't find a dishonest doctor, no. I am saying that it would be very difficult to find a doctor to preform this at all. Most states have a survivablity percentage that a woman must meet before she can have it done. In some states it's 10% or less; one state even states that if a woman has a 2% chance of surviving the birth (even if she will be brain dead afterwards) then that is an acceptable risk.
It's a hard enough thing for a woman to go through without the government telling them your dead fetus is worth more than you are. Almost all women who have to go through this planned the pregnancy with their spouce and where looking forward to meeting thier child. It's a disaster for a couple to find out that can either have a hysterotomy or d&x.

Here's an informative site if you'd like to learn more:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_pba1.htm

There are other good sites, if you look under the correct terminology. There's all sorts of propoganda also, which ever term you use. D&X save a lot of lives, banning them would be more detrimental than most people realize.

In truth, the term "anti-choice" is much more descriptive of the actual political position of "pro-life" than "anti-life" is of the "pro-choice" croud. Pro-choice does not, in any way, imply an agreement with abortion - or even a belief that it is a morally correct choice. A pro-choice person simply thinks that the woman should have the choice - plain and simple. It is completely possible for a person to be both pro-choice, and pro-life or anti-abortion, as it were.

A "pro-life" person is opposed to the legal choice. They wish to make the decision for someone else - indeed, for all women. That is the basis of the political movement.


Not true. The founding principal is that the fetus is a human being, so it shouldn't be murdered. The way you put it, it sounds like people that don't agree with abortion are control freaks.

And you know that the man that came up with the term "pro-choice" has admitted its just and ad slogan, right?

snip

Like I said, if the mother's life is in danger should the pregnancy be brought to term, I support abortion.

When it comes right down to it, the latter is absolutely true. Those who wish to make all abortion illegal are opposed to the choice being there for women who might make a decision they don't agree with. Thus, they are anti-choice.

Actually, they are pro-choice as well. They are pro their choice to decide what you should or shouldn't do with your body.

i have developed such a strong and irrational hatred of the republican control of government that i long for them to get a big time come-uppance.

the preference would be for alito to turn out to be a flaming liberal who makes oconnor look like an ultraconservative. the "oops" factor would warm the cockles of my heart.

my other hope is that this stacking of the supreme court causes such a backlash in middle america that the republicans lose control of both houses and have no hope of retaining the whitehouse. but that would mean a loss of abortion rights (and many others before its all over) and that would be a very high price to pay for ruining the republican party.

you're right, that is pretty irrational. ;)

Not true. The founding principal is that the fetus is a human being, so it shouldn't be murdered. The way you put it, it sounds like people that don't agree with abortion are control freaks.

And you know that the man that came up with the term "pro-choice" has admitted its just and ad slogan, right?

It isn't murder as:

1. It's legal.
2. The fetus isn't yet alive when most abortions are performed.

Is that in the US or worldwide? And what about all the people that die young of cancer, heart disease, and a list of other things? Can we just kill them before something else does?

I don't know if my estimate is even correct, let alone whether it is global or confined to the USA. It doe not seem to have anything to do with whether or not the implanted egg is going to survive the full term of pregnancy. As to your second and third questions, I think those people are not destined to become human beings, as they already are human beings.

I am quite certain there are some women who don't realize how painful an abortion is, and have Medicaid to pay for it, so don't bother to use birth control. I admit that is probably not very common. I am sure, however, that there are plenty of women/girls out there who are simply irresponsible, and don't bother to use measures to prevent pregnancy, because they aren't thinking of the consequences.

I support a woman's right to get an abortion, but I also think people need to be much more responsible and prevent them rather than terminate them.


...no one wants to go to a clinic and have a medical procedure they know nothing about because they have "Medicaid". You seem to be "quite certain" about some pretty foolish things. Has it ever happened that way? Probably. But not enough to warrent any change in abortion laws.

As for careless girls there is a reletively easy way to avoid that. Actually educate them about and provide them with birth control. Oh wait we can't because some rich old man says it makes him uncomfortable when young people have sex. Lets just pretend that they aren't doing it and get them to sign a pledge of abstinance. STDs? Don't worry about that your not having sex right? Kids never lie.

??? Pick up a textbook and read about fetal development. I didn't know I had to conduct a seminar. You think people in a church or scientists should decide when a fetus can feel pain think function ect ect?

Pick up a book is an insult.


Interesting question. Obviously tough to define so we use science as I was referring to above. Since there is a seperation of Church and state the soul should not be considered in matters of Law and thus science is all we have. As far as that goes there is nothing wrong with early abortion.

And where is it written when life begins? And there are atheists that believe in the soul. Its not just a religious creation.


Sperm. Ejaculation. Either from masterbation or during protected or unprotected sex with birth control. Wasted possibilites. That is what I was saying.


Those aren't fertilized eggs embedded in a uterine wall, are they?


Price tag? I am avoiding suffering on the part of the parent and child. If you must halt a pregnancy before there is an inkling of a scientific human to provide a better life for a child and the parent at a later time that is not monetary price it is a moral one.

You are deciding when a life is not worth living, before one of the effected party can voice an opinion.

But in any case you don't need to believe that, it is the choice that is important. Whether you think it would be worse for the child and parent after birth or not it isn't your decision.

But isn't it society's role to protect the lives as well as the rights of its members?

Not true. The founding principal is that the fetus is a human being,

Making that decision for the woman in question - even though it has little to no objective back - thus taking her own moral choice away from her.

so it shouldn't be murdered.

Overly emotive language that cannot be applied. First of all, for it to be murder, it would have to be illegal, as murder is illegal killing. Second of all, the person doing it would have to agree with your subjective definition, because murder necessitates intent to kill a human being.

The way you put it, it sounds like people that don't agree with abortion are control freaks.

No, I have no problem with people who don't agree with abortion. I don't agree with it myself. I have a problem with those who try to force their moral views on others - who try to control others, and "control freaks" is probably the best way to describe them.

And you know that the man that came up with the term "pro-choice" has admitted its just and ad slogan, right?

For him, perhaps. It accurately describes my viewpoint, however.

Take a gander (http://nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Scotus-Abortion.html?ei=5094&en=de6b9f4d4aa7b2d6&hp=&ex=1140584400&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print).

There are two glaring problems with this law as it stands. First, there's no health exception, so this procedure--which is only done when the woman carrying the fetus is in danger or when the fetus is not viable--would then become illegal, and doctors would have the choice between going to jail or saving their patients' lives.

Secondly, the language of the law is so vague that it could conceivably outlaw all abortions, regardless of when they happen in the pregnancy. When the law was passed in 1998, abortion providers stopped providing them overnight in order to protect themselves (http://crlp.org/rfn_98_05.html). The federal court stepped in and stopped enforcement of the law.

So anti-abortion folks, here's the case for you. Did you get your money's worth when you got Bush elected and got him to dump Miers for Alito? I hope to God you didn't.

And by the way, all you so-called pro-choice Bush voters, this is largely your fault, if it gets overturned and abortions become illegal in this country.

i don't want to get too involved in this, but for the sake of courtesy, you ought to refer to the other side as Pro Life.

Would you like it if the Pro Choice crowd were labelled as Pro Murder?

It isn't murder as:

1. It's legal.

So is the death penalty. I'm not wild about that either.


2. The fetus isn't yet alive when most abortions are performed.

Then when is it? And why?

The founding principal is that the fetus is a human being, so it shouldn't be murdered.

except, of course, in the case of the various exceptions such people are willing to grant. like in the case of incest or rape or health risks to the woman, etc. which actually shows that that isn't their founding principal at all.

This is patently incorrect. I am against abortion, but stil pro-choice, as are many people.. Thus, the "for or against abortion" descriptor quite obviously does not work.
Do you think people should be allowed to kill others if that is what they "choose"? The blanket statement of being "pro-choice is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. You can't throw it out for abortion and choose to go against it for other things. Should people be able to "choose" to dump their waste in a river?



When it comes right down to it, the latter is absolutely true. Those who wish to make all abortion illegal are opposed to the choice being there for women who might make a decision they don't agree with. Thus, they are anti-choice.
Not true. I am against abortion 100% and I don't think it's right. It's a matter of killing a life to me. I could care less what people "choose"

What your doing it ad-homonym against those you disagree with. I doubt most people are against abortion just to fuck with pregnant women.

I don't know if my estimate is even correct, let alone whether it is global or confined to the USA. It doe not seem to have anything to do with whether or not the implanted egg is going to survive the full term of pregnancy. As to your second and third questions, I think those people are not destined to become human beings, as they already are human beings.

At what point are they human?

Overly emotive language that cannot be applied. First of all, for it to be murder, it would have to be illegal, as murder is illegal killing. Second of all, the person doing it would have to agree with your subjective definition, because murder necessitates intent to kill a human being.

that's a nice rationalization... if i go and kill somebody, is it murder solely because it's illegal?

a person is alive and is human, right?

a fetus may not be able to breathe on its own, but it very much is human life. treating it as a non-entity will not change the fact that is is human life.

killing it without provocation -- like when you kill a person without provocation -- is murder.

that said, i'm not against a woman's right to choose, because... if abortion were illegal, women would still have them. Only, it'd be a lot less safe.

and there are, of course, abortion decisions i can agree with --- those being (mainly) aborting a life begotten of rape/incest or an abortion commenced to save the mother's life.

abortions that make me nearly sick are those made when the woman clearly knew what she was doing when she had unprotected sex... then decided to kill the fetus/embryo because she didn't feel like taking responsibility for what she too part in creating. Abortion for the sake of convenience... that one gets to me. My choice is more important than its life!

i don't want to get too involved in this, but for the sake of courtesy, you ought to refer to the other side as Pro Life.

Would you like it if the Pro Choice crowd were labelled as Pro Murder?

Yes, I would love it actually. It would show complete disregard for science and law in favor of a whim someone "felt strongly" about. Oh wait thats what it is about anyways. I get pissy when people try to tell my mother, sister and possible wives that they must do something because they thought about the alternative while sitting around their dinner table and decided they thought it was icky. Or they can't comprehend science so they insist it is murder.

So is the death penalty. I'm not wild about that either.

I'm violently opposed to the death penalty but I accept that it isn't murder.

Then when is it? And why?

It is alive when it becomes conscious, this is signalled by the brain becoming active and being able to send neural signals. This state isn't achieved until late in the pregnancy.

Yes, I would love it actually. It would show complete disregard for science and law in favor of a whim someone "felt strongly" about. Oh wait thats what it is about anyways. I get pissy when people try to tell my mother, sister and possible wives that they must do something because they thought about the alternative while sitting around their dinner table and decided they thought it was icky. Or they can't comprehend science so they insist it is murder.

...better still is convincing yourself that it isn't murder... makes the decision easier, i suppose.

human life?

check

killing it?

check

murder

I'm violently opposed to the death penalty but I accept that it isn't murder.



It is alive when it becomes conscious, this is signalled by the brain becoming active and being able to send neural signals. This state isn't achieved until late in the pregnancy.

i thought the following was true:

growth = life


;) (devil's advocate)

i don't want to get too involved in this, but for the sake of courtesy, you ought to refer to the other side as Pro Life.

"Pro-life" doesn't accurately describe the political viewpoint, as one can be both pro-choice and pro-life/anti-abortion.

Would you like it if the Pro Choice crowd were labelled as Pro Murder?

Of course not, but it would be a much less accurate portrayal, now wouldn't it, especially since, even if you consider abortion murder (which makes no logical sense as that would mean that anyone and everyone carrying it out would have to agree with your assessment - giving them intent), many - maybe even most - pro-choice persons are not pro-abortion, so the name wouldn't follow.


Do you think people should be allowed to kill others if that is what they "choose"?

Nope. But then again, I can objectively demonstrate that another human person is being harmed in that case.

The blanket statement of being "pro-choice is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

I didn't make a blanket statement. I was, in fact, incredibly clear that I was talking about a political position which refers to the issue of abortion.

What your doing it ad-homonym against those you disagree with.

I think you may need to look up ad hominem. I have not insulted anyone, nor have I brought up anything about them that is irrelevant to debate, nor have I discounted anyone's arguments because of something irrelevant to debate.

Not true. I am against abortion 100% and I don't think it's right. It's a matter of killing a life to me. I could care less what people "choose"

If you wish to make abortion illegal, then you wish to remove that choice. You obviously do care what people choose, or you wouldn't be trying to make the decision for them.

I doubt most people are against abortion just to fuck with pregnant women.

I didn't say they were. But those who wish to make their anti-abortion stance into law absolutely do want to "fuck with pregnant women". They want to have control over the bodies of pregnant women.

Note that there is a difference between being against abortion and wishing to make abortion illegal. The former applies to my own viewpoints, while the latter does not.

Making that decision for the woman in question - even though it has little to no objective back - thus taking her own moral choice away from her.

Someone's choice is being denied.


Overly emotive language that cannot be applied.

Its a technical term.

First of all, for it to be murder, it would have to be illegal, as murder is illegal killing.

Murder is the unprovoked killing of another person.

Second of all, the person doing it would have to agree with your subjective definition, because murder necessitates intent to kill a human being.

No. Its not subjective. Hitler thought the Jews weren't human. does that mean he isn't responsible for murder?

I know, overly dramatic. Its the first thing to come to mind.



No, I have no problem with people who don't agree with abortion. I don't agree with it myself. I have a problem with those who try to force their moral views on others - who try to control others, and "control freaks" is probably the best way to describe them.

You mean like how the Civil Rights movement forced the morality of one group on the other?

i don't want to get too involved in this, but for the sake of courtesy, you ought to refer to the other side as Pro Life.

"Pro-life" doesn't accurately describe the political viewpoint, as one can be both pro-choice and pro-life/anti-abortion.

Would you like it if the Pro Choice crowd were labelled as Pro Murder?

Of course not, but it would be a much less accurate portrayal, now wouldn't it, especially since, even if you consider abortion murder (which makes no logical sense as that would mean that anyone and everyone carrying it out would have to agree with your assessment - giving them intent), many - maybe even most - pro-choice persons are not pro-abortion, so the name wouldn't follow.


Do you think people should be allowed to kill others if that is what they "choose"?

Nope. But then again, I can objectively demonstrate that another human person is being harmed in that case.

The blanket statement of being "pro-choice is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

I didn't make a blanket statement. I was, in fact, incredibly clear that I was talking about a political position which refers to the issue of abortion.

Not true. I am against abortion 100% and I don't think it's right. It's a matter of killing a life to me. I could care less what people "choose"

If you wish to make abortion illegal, then you wish to remove that choice. You obviously do care what people choose, or you wouldn't be trying to make the decision for them.

What your doing it ad-homonym against those you disagree with.

I think you may need to look up ad hominem. I have not insulted anyone, nor have I brought up anything about them that is irrelevant to debate, nor have I discounted anyone's arguments because of something irrelevant to debate.

I doubt most people are against abortion just to fuck with pregnant women.

I didn't say they were. But those who wish to make their anti-abortion stance into law absolutely do want to "fuck with pregnant women". They want to have control over the bodies of pregnant women.

Note that there is a difference between being against abortion and wishing to make abortion illegal. The former applies to my own viewpoints, while the latter does not.

abortions that make me nearly sick are those made when the woman clearly knew what she was doing when she had unprotected sex... then decided to kill the fetus/embryo because she didn't feel like taking responsibility for what she too part in creating. Abortion for the sake of convenience... that one gets to me. My choice is more important than its life!

And the number of those are vastly over-stated by the pro-life lobby. 60% of abortions are carried out on women who were using birth control, factor in abortions for medical reasons and factor in changes of circumstance. Now you'll see that only a tiny fraction of abortions are carried out for this reason.

except, of course, in the case of the various exceptions such people are willing to grant. like in the case of incest or rape or health risks to the woman, etc. which actually shows that that isn't their founding principal at all.

Actually, rape and incest are shaky. I don't think the child should be punished because the father is scum.

To save the life of the other.....well that speaks for itself.

Pick up a book is an insult.
It was meant to be an insult. Notice after I defined which book I was talking about (science textbook) you made no mention of it. Sorry, sometimes I insult people who deny all fact and assert that it is somehow wrong that this foolishness is not forced on others.


And where is it written when life begins? And there are atheists that believe in the soul. Its not just a religious creation.

The above mentioned textbook will answer that exact question. I can see that you have still not read one. Sorry, I'll use the term spiritual. Either one does not belong in law.


Those aren't fertilized eggs embedded in a uterine wall, are they?

Nope, and no more human than an early fetus. You can read about that as well if you like.


You are deciding when a life is not worth living, before one of the effected party can voice an opinion.

Who the father?....oh wait you are again ignoring all factual evidence in favor of your own made up bullshit and pretending the early fetus is a "party".


But isn't it society's role to protect the lives as well as the rights of its members?
Sure is. "Lives" is the key word. I probably don't need to say this again but read a goddamn book before you reply to me again and I have to post the same answer to every point you make. :headbang:

dempublicants, when does a person not abort her child without intent? when is it forced on her?

dempublicants, when does a person not abort her child without intent? when is it forced on her?

that's a nice rationalization... if i go and kill somebody, is it murder solely because it's illegal?

Nope, but if it wasn't illegal, it wouldn't be murder.

a person is alive and is human, right?

Those would certainly be part of the requirements, yes.

a fetus may not be able to breathe on its own, but it very much is human life. treating it as a non-entity will not change the fact that is is human life.

Define human life. Do so in such a way that an embryo is human life, but an organ is not. Do not use a fallacious argument from potential.

Someone's choice is being denied.

Yup, the woman who is pregnant.

Its a technical term.

Not the way you are using it.

Murder is the unprovoked killing of another person.

In that case, if someone hits me, and I shoot them 10 times in the head, that isn't murder?

No. Its not subjective. Hitler thought the Jews weren't human. does that mean he isn't responsible for murder?

The Jews could be objectively demonstrated to be human persons, just as the rest of the Germans.

Can you provide an objective definition of human person that includes and embryo but does not include an organ?

You mean like how the Civil Rights movement forced the morality of one group on the other?

No. The civil rights movement didn't do anything at all. One is still perfectly free to think that [insert ethnicity here] are all stupid, inferior, etc., etc., etc. All the civil rights movement did is make sure that one person could not use their "moral" views to harm another.


i thought the following was true:

growth = life

Incorrect, at least if we are talking about a biological definition. Mountains grow. Are they alive?

And the number of those are vastly over-stated by the pro-life lobby. 60% of abortions are carried out on women who were using birth control, factor in abortions for medical reasons and factor in changes of circumstance. Now you'll see that only a tiny fraction of abortions are carried out for this reason.

that's good news. danke!

against abortion, for killing babies :cool: (http://theworstpageintheuniverse.com/images/regressive_bs.jpg)
:D

Petulant whining

See, this is what got me pissed in the first place. "You don't agree with me, so you are stupid". I've said it many times in politcal debate threads, and few people seem to care. Oh, well.

Up until this post, I've been nice and tried to keep it civilized. Now, I'm just ignoring you.

Incorrect, at least if we are talking about a biological definition. Mountains grow. Are they alive?

mountains do not have cells made of living human flesh...

dempublicants, when does a person not abort her child without intent? when is it forced on her?

In China, but I suppose that is beside the point.

To be murder, the person would have to have the intent to kill another human person. You won't find many people who have abortions who think that an embryo is a human person. Thus, they have no intent to kill a human person.

See, this is what got me pissed in the first place. "You don't agree with me, so you are stupid". I've said it many times in politcal debate threads, and few people seem to care. Oh, well.

Up until this post, I've been nice and tried to keep it civilized. Now, I'm just ignoring you.

don't worry about it, we'll find out who was right at judgment.

hehe

mountains do not have cells made of living human flesh...
some do >_>
<_<

*points to Mont Blanc* It's alive, I swear >_>.

See, this is what got me pissed in the first place. "You don't agree with me, so you are stupid". I've said it many times in politcal debate threads, and few people seem to care. Oh, well.

Up until this post, I've been nice and tried to keep it civilized. Now, I'm just ignoring you.

Ignorant != stupid. The person you are replying to implied that you are ignorant of science, not that you are stupid.


mountains do not have cells made of living human flesh...

Irrelevant. You said "growth=life". By such a definition, *anything* that grows is life.

Are you ammending your definition to be "anything that grows which has cells made of living human flesh?" That doesn't really make sense. Let's say it is, "Anything that grows which has cells run by human DNA." Ok then, that means that my heart is a living person. The cells in culture in the lab behind me are living persons.

mur·der : Pronunciation Key (mûrdr)
n.

1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

I'm not sure why this is so hard for "pro-life" people to grasp...

Why can't people seem to understand what I'm saying? I'm not saying most abortions are performed on women who were irresponsible or too lazy to use birth control. I'm saying those are not good excuses for abortions. I also didn't say there were many who did it because Medicaid would pay for it, etc. I said I'm sure there have been such cases.

What I'm simply trying to say here, is abortion should be used for medical reasons. I even think a woman should have the right to terminate her pregnancy because *oops* she got pregnant due to failed birth control or even a moment of weakness or bad judgement. But mostly, I am saying that people need to be responsible.

By all means, educate the children!!!! Teach them about birth contol and responsibility. The teen pregnancy rate is simply sickening. I wish abortions weren't necessary, but this isn't a perfect world. If I ever found myself in a situation where abortion seemed my best course, I sure as hell wouldn't want someone telling me I couldn't do it. It's my body!

A baby is technically a parasite in a woman's body. Her body could reject it on its own as it would any other foreign object growing inside her. I basically feel that until it is able to survive outside the womb on its own, it is part of her body. That would be until approximately the 6th or 7th month, give or take. I think that should be plenty of time to make the decision. If it is after that, and she decides she doesn't want it, then give it up for adoption.

Actually, rape and incest are shaky. I don't think the child should be punished because the father is scum.

but you do admit that these exceptions are quite commonly held, right?

To save the life of the other.....well that speaks for itself.

yeah, but people are also willing in some cases to make exceptions for the mere health of the woman too - when the abortion prevents severe but non-life threatening health risks.

I don't get why people always want to draw a line on when you can and can not get an abortion. I think it's crazy to call a fetus inhuman untill it grows to be X cm long, or has such and such features. A baby is a baby. I am neither for nor against abortion, but I think that compromising on what is consitered a blob of cells and what is a human is a big waste of time. It's either going to be legal, or illegal.

Just my two cents worth.

yes yes. so which words do you not understand?

Okay... Let me simply ask you this then. Would a ruling against Roe v Wade truly deny the people "the right" to privacy and thus "the right" to have an abortion? No, because it would then go to the states under Amendment X. This is an anti-federalist restriction.

i thought the following was true:

growth = life


;) (devil's advocate)

There are many more criteria than that:

Movement
Reproduction
Sensitivity
Growth
Respiration
Excretion
and another one beginning with N (possibly nutrition).

In the early stages of pregnancy a fetus can only be said to be growing (as respiration and excretion are performed by the mother. When brain activity begins then I agree that it is alive and should not be aborted without a very good reason.

that's good news. danke!

No problem. :)

Abortions don't kill children, read a book once in a while. It kills a peice of fleshy garbage that will one day become a child assuming nothing goes wrong. I've spewed miniture versions of that all over the place in my lifetime and not blinked an eye. You wanna come and save those "children"?


http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/VL/GG/meiosis.html

Damn it. I don’t want a bunch of unwanted children growing up and stealing my stuff!

When will the anti-choicers realize that abortion is good for everybody?

Originally Posted by dictionary.com
mur·der : Pronunciation Key (mûrdr)
n.

1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.


I'm not sure why this is so hard for "pro-life" people to grasp...


So if murder isn't illegal, it's not wrong If I randomly go kill people ?

Abortion may not be murder as it is defined, but the law is by no means a definition of what is "right" and what is "wrong."

So if murder isn't illegal it's not wrong If I randomly go kill people ?

Wrong, yes. Murder, no.

Okay... Let me simply ask you this then. Would a ruling against Roe v Wade truly deny the people "the right" to privacy and thus "the right" to have an abortion? No, because it would then go to the states under Amendment X. This is an anti-federalist restriction.

under ye olde current system, the states do not get to decide on the exercise of federally protected rights (like privacy) except in so far as they wish to offer it more and better protection. states do not have rights.

can we get back to the point, viz me making fun of your lack of knowledge of the existence of the 9th amendment.

Unfortunately, I think Pro-Death is going to win out. Alito seems like he leans left.


Man, you've really got to quit taking that stuff. It is messing with your head.
We do not live in Bizarro world.

under ye olde current system, the states do not get to decide on the exercise of federally protected rights (like privacy) except in so far as they wish to offer it more and better protection. states do not have rights.

can we get back to the point, viz me making fun of your lack of knowledge of the existence of the 9th amendment.

The 10th Amendment means nothing to you! The power to define, apply or enforce a right of privacy is "reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Okay... Let me simply ask you this then. Would a ruling against Roe v Wade truly deny the people "the right" to privacy and thus "the right" to have an abortion? No, because it would then go to the states under Amendment X. This is an anti-federalist restriction.

It would not necessarily go to the states. Congress could pass a law.

You don't seem to understand the point of Amendment XIV. It changed the balance of federalism in that it took some decisions out of the hands of state legislatures and put them in the hands of federal courts. Your view of the world is almost 150 years out of date.

The 10th Amendment means nothing to you! The power to define, apply or enforce a right of privacy is "reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

that's not what the 10th says. especially not once the 14th got involved.

but yes, you are right, it means nothing to me. i think the constitution isn't a particularly good system of goverment and i seek to have it replaced.

The 10th Amendment means nothing to you! The power to define, apply or enforce a right of privacy is "reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

You ignore: (1) the 9th Amendment, (2) the original intend of the Founders in passing the 9th Amendment, (3) the 14th Amendment, (4) the original intent of the 14th Amendment, (5) over 100 years of SCOTUS opinions regarding the 9th and 14th Amendment, and (6) the entire history of the US regarding the 10th Amendment.

Apparently, constitutional law in general means nothing to you!

EDIT: You like to ignore the bolded part when you claim the 10th amendment is pro-states rights. There are rights reserved to the people which the states cannot infringe upon.

It would not necessarily go to the states. Congress could pass a law.

You don't seem to understand the point of Amendment XIV. It changed the balance of federalism in that it took some decisions out of the hands of state legislatures and put them in the hands of federal courts. Your view of the world is almost 150 years out of date.Unfortunately, that's also the view Justices Scalia and Thomas take when they've got cases they want to apply that view to. (To be fair, Thomas is more consistent in his application than Scalia is--Scalia's a dishonest hack.)

Unfortunately, that's also the view Justices Scalia and Thomas take when they've got cases they want to apply that view to. (To be fair, Thomas is more consistent in his application than Scalia is--Scalia's a dishonest hack.)

Scalia is simply an ideologue. An activist with a political agenda.

Thomas simply thinks he is living in the early 1800s and there iis no such thing as stare decisis.

So if murder isn't illegal, it's not wrong If I randomly go kill people ?

Abortion may not be murder as it is defined, but the law is by no means a definition of what is "right" and what is "wrong."

At what point did I say 'illegal' means 'wrong', and 'legal' means 'right'? I didn't. My point was that using the term 'murder' in abortions is incorrect.

Murder is illegal by its very definition.

I don't really know what you're trying to say.

abortions that make me nearly sick are those made when the woman clearly knew what she was doing when she had unprotected sex... then decided to kill the fetus/embryo because she didn't feel like taking responsibility for what she too part in creating. Abortion for the sake of convenience... that one gets to me. My choice is more important than its life!

One half of all women in the US will have an abortion during their lifetime.

They are not all fools or evil.

Your paternalistic misogyny aside, you have no evidence that women use abortion merely as a "convenient" bith control option. The evidence is to the contrary. Women are people. Rational people.

You get so caught up with the rights of a clump of cells that you ignore the rights and dignity of an undeniably real, living, human person with rights.

You ignore: (1) the 9th Amendment, (2) the original intend of the Founders in passing the 9th Amendment, (3) the 14th Amendment, (4) the original intent of the 14th Amendment, (5) over 100 years of SCOTUS opinions regarding the 9th and 14th Amendment, and (6) the entire history of the US regarding the 10th Amendment.

Apparently, constitutional law in general means nothing to you!

EDIT: You like to ignore the bolded part when you claim the 10th amendment is pro-states rights. There are rights reserved to the people which the states cannot infringe upon.

The people originally thought themselves to be New Yorkers, Pennsylvanians, Virginians, et cetera. They voiced their will through the state. That's the original meaning.

As for the 14th, various rights have been incorporated and have been left unincorporated by the SCOTUS, and the SCOTUS can reverse itself.

One half of all women in the US will have an abortion during their lifetime.

They are not all fools or evil.

Your paternalistic misogyny aside, you have no evidence that women use abortion merely as a "convenient" bith control option. The evidence is to the contrary. Women are people. Rational people.

You get so caught up with the rights of a clump of cells that you ignore the rights and dignity of an undeniably real, living, human person with rights.

Everything that lives is a "clump of cells." Some clumps are larger and louder than others.

When does life begin?

Answer: it never ends until death. Two live cells come together to create a new being. Life never stops during the process. If they are two cat cells, then you get a new cat. If they are two dog cells, then you get a new dog. If they are two frog cells, then you get a new frog. If they are two human cells, then you get a new human.

That is biological fact. Life begets life, like begets like. And so it has gone since the beginning.

And of course, that new being is genetically different from the being carrying it in her womb. They are individuals. The mother is not the child, and the child is not the mother. Otherwise there would never be an Rh problem. And that is why people think of it as miraculous. Two separate beings, two separate blood supplies, one growing inside the other. Respiration and growth , cell division and differentiation, separate organs, separate brain.

Is a pregnant woman said to have four eyes? Four hands? Four legs? If she has a male child in her womb, do we say that she has a penis?

Individuals. When does the right of one individual supercede the right of the other individual to live? That is the question.

For the pro-life/anti-choice, both individuals have equal rights.

For the pro-choice/anti-life, one has more rights than the other.

Like saying a black person's vote is worth 4/5 of a white person's vote.

A choice is always made. Whose life comes first?

Pro-life is so-called because we choose innocent life over convenience.

Anecdotal evidence I have. Did some searches, hard to find unbiased information. But I have known women who used abortion as birth control. And bad things happened to them as a result. Psychological harm, spiritual harm, physical harm. Crying and nightmares. Drinking to excess. A dead look in the eyes after the fourth or fifth abortion.

All abortions do not take place in hospitals, as some have implied or stated. Many take place in clinics. I knew a woman who had hers in a clinic. She won a malpractice suit against them. Once they had her on the table, an intern handled the procedure, rather than the doctor. And while digging around for the fetus, he punctured her womb, pulled through a piece of her intestine, and sewed it up, inside her womb. She ended up with a colostomy bag.

What about the studies that show increased likelihood of cancer in women who have had abortions? Or increased likelihood of mental problems?

Someone here said abortions are good for everyone. Yeah, right...:gundge:

The people originally thought themselves to be New Yorkers, Pennsylvanians, Virginians, et cetera. They voiced their will through the state. That's the original meaning.

As for the 14th, various rights have been incorporated and have been left unincorporated by the SCOTUS, and the SCOTUS can reverse itself.

Are you of the opinion that any of this is good arguments?

Everything that lives is a "clump of cells." Some clumps are larger and louder than others.

When does life begin?

As your own argument makes clear, every that lives is alive. Plants are. Animals are.

Life isn't sufficient grounds for a right to life.

Individuals. When does the right of one individual supercede the right of the other individual to live? That is the question.

For the pro-life/anti-choice, both individuals have equal rights.

For the pro-choice/anti-life, one has more rights than the other.

Like saying a black person's vote is worth 4/5 of a white person's vote.

A choice is always made. Whose life comes first?

Pro-life is so-called because we choose innocent life over convenience.

Um. You contradict yourself. For the anti-choice crowd, the unborn life has more rights than the mother. If they had equal rights, she would retain the right to control over her own body.

All abortions do not take place in hospitals, as some have implied or stated. Many take place in clinics. I knew a woman who had hers in a clinic. She won a malpractice suit against them. Once they had her on the table, an intern handled the procedure, rather than the doctor. And while digging around for the fetus, he punctured her womb, pulled through a piece of her intestine, and sewed it up, inside her womb. She ended up with a colostomy bag.

As you say, this was not an abortion: it was malpractice. Are you also against heart surgery because malpractice sometimes happens?

What about the studies that show increased likelihood of cancer in women who have had abortions? Or increased likelihood of mental problems?

What about such alleged studies? The evidence is overwhelming that these assertions are untrue. There is no significant increased risk of cancer from abortion. The consensus of studies show that abortion decreases the likelihood of mental problems.

Of course, the US Surgeon General, the American Medical Association, and the American Psychological Association could be wrong about these things. We could also just be imagining this conversation.

The people originally thought themselves to be New Yorkers, Pennsylvanians, Virginians, et cetera. They voiced their will through the state. That's the original meaning.

As for the 14th, various rights have been incorporated and have been left unincorporated by the SCOTUS, and the SCOTUS can reverse itself.
Too bad original intent is irrelevant to a modern world.

Now you've done it. Many more abortion threads will follow. DAMN YOU!!!!:mp5: :mp5:

from:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r104:16:./temp/~r104kRvKeX:e0:

(Edit: search link timed out.
Go here to do your own search if you wish:
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/r104query.html)


"This procedure is generally beginning at 20 weeks (4 1/2 months) in pregnacy, and `routinely' at least 24 weeks (5 1/2 months). It has often used much later--even into the ninth month. The Los Angeles Times accurately and succinctly described this abortion method in a June 16, 1995 news story: The procedure requires a physician to extract a fetus, feet first, from the womb and through the birth canal until all but its head is exposed. Then the tips of surgical scissors are thrust into the base of the fetus' skull, and a suction catheter is inserted through the opening and the brain is removed.

In 1992, Dr. Martin Haskell of Dayton, Ohio, wrote a paper that described in detail, step-by-step, how to preform the procedure. [`Dilation and Extraction for Late Second Trimester Abortion.'] Dr. Haskell is a family practitioner who has performed over 1,000 such procedures in his walk-in abortion clinics. Anyone who is seriously seeking the truth behind the conflicting claims regarding partial -birth abortions would do well to start by reading Dr. Haskell's paper, and the transcripts of the explanatory interviews that Dr. Haskell gave in 1993 to two medical publications, American Medical News (the official AMA newspaper) and Cincinnati Medicine. [All are available from NRLC.]

Here is how Dr. Haskell explained a key part of the abortion method: With a lower [fetal] extremity in the vagina, the surgeon uses his fingers to deliver the opposite lower extremity, then the torso, the shoulders and upper extremities. The skull lodges at the internal cervical os[the opening to the uterus]. Usually there is not enough dilation for it to pass through. The fetus is oriented dorsum or spineup. At this point, the right-handed surgeon slides the fingers of the left hand along the back of the fetus and `hooks the shoulders of the fetus with the index and ring fingers (palm down) * * * [T]he surgeon takes a pair of blunt curved Metzenbaum
scissors in the right hand. He carefully advances the tip, curved down, along the spine and under his middle finger until he feels it contact the base of the skull under the tip of his middle finger * * * [T]he surgeon then forces the scissors into the base of the skull or into the foramen magnum. Having safely entered the skull, he spreads the scissors to enlarge the opening. The surgeon removes the scissors and introduces a suction catheter into this hole and evacuates the skull contents.' [`Dilation and Extraction for Late Second Trimester abortion,' pages 30-31.]

Dr. Haskell also wrote that he `routinely performs this procedure on all patients 20 through 24 weeks LMP [i.e., from 4 1/2 to 5 1/2 months after the last menstrual period] with certain exceptions,' these `exceptions' involving complicating factors such as being more than 20 pounds overweight. Dr. Haskell also wrote that he used the procedure through 26 weeks [six months] `on selected patients.' [p.28] He added, `Among its advantages are that it is a quick, surgical outpatient method that can be performed on a scheduled basis under local anesthesia.' (p. 33)."

and

"At least one partial-bi rth abortion specialist, the late Dr. James McMahon, regularly performed the procedure even after 26 weeks--even into the ninth month. In 1995, Dr. McMahon submitted to the House Judiciary Constitution Subcommittee a graph and explanation that explicitly showed that he aborted healthy (`not flawed') babies even in the third trimester (after 26 weeks of pregnancy). Dr. McMahon's own graph showed, for example, that at 29 or 30 weeks, one-fourth of the aborted babies had no `flaw' however slight. Underneath the graph, Dr. McMahon offered this explanation: After 26 weeks, those pregnancies that are not flawed are still non-elective. They are interrupted because of maternal risk, rape, incest, psychiatric or pediatric indications. [chart and caption reproduced in June 15 hearing record, page 109] "

Why hasn't anyone brought up that outlawing abortion causes crime rates to skyrocket (10-30 years down the road)?

Now you've done it. Many more abortion threads will follow. DAMN YOU!!!!:mp5: :mp5:
yeah, like there wouldn't have been otherwise.

Why hasn't anyone brought up that outlawing abortion causes crime rates to skyrocket (10-30 years down the road)?
because those studies are not particularly strong (atleast the ones I've seen)

from:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r104:16:./temp/~r104kRvKeX:e0:


Linky no work.

EDIT:

There is no such thing as "partial-birth abortion." The term was invented by anti-abortion groups. It is not used medically and has no clear medical corollary. Even “dilation and extraction” or “intact dilation and evacuation,” which are often assumed to be medical corollaries, have very few published medical references. Among copious other problems, the lack of a clear meaning of "partial-birth abortion" means that any ban may apply to a myriad of other procedures and seriously infringe reproductive rights. In fact, professional medical organizations have opposed bans on "partial birth abortion" because such bans could be applied to a wide-range of safe and common procedures performed throughout pregnancies. The (now predominately conservative) U.S. Supreme Court has already (and many other courts have) overturned bans on "partial-birth abortion" based, in large part, on this ambiguity in such legislation, which would restrict a woman's right to choose prior to fetal viability.

Here are some sources of information about so-called "partial birth abortion":
http://www.aclu.org/interactive/0503a/acluMythAbortion.html
http://www.prochoice.org/pubs_research/publications/downloads/public_policy/stenberg_amicus.pdf
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=99-830
http://www.msmagazine.com/summer2004/womanandherdoctor.asp

http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/VL/GG/meiosis.html

Does this have a point?

See, this is what got me pissed in the first place. "You don't agree with me, so you are stupid". I've said it many times in politcal debate threads, and few people seem to care. Oh, well.

Up until this post, I've been nice and tried to keep it civilized. Now, I'm just ignoring you.

Where did you get "Petulant whining" from. I did not write that. I would appreciate it if you didn't make up shit and post it as a quote from me.

Also as Dempublicents1 so graciously demonstrated there is a difference between ignorance and stupidity. Unfortunately as your "I'm just ignoring you" post so aptly conveys you choose to be ignorant willingly. I would probably consider that to be a form of stupidity. Luckily there are a whole lot of people like you out there so you won't feel lonely while you stand in the way of everyone else with your eyes closed.

[1] Everything that lives is a "clump of cells." Some clumps are larger and louder than others.

[2] When does life begin?

Answer: it never ends until death. Two live cells come together to create a new being. Life never stops during the process. If they are two cat cells, then you get a new cat. If they are two dog cells, then you get a new dog. If they are two frog cells, then you get a new frog. If they are two human cells, then you get a new human.

That is biological fact. Life begets life, like begets like. And so it has gone since the beginning.

And of course, that new being is genetically different from the being carrying it in her womb. They are individuals. The mother is not the child, and the child is not the mother. Otherwise there would never be an Rh problem. And that is why people think of it as miraculous. Two separate beings, two separate blood supplies, one growing inside the other. Respiration and growth , cell division and differentiation, separate organs, separate brain.

Is a pregnant woman said to have four eyes? Four hands? Four legs? If she has a male child in her womb, do we say that she has a penis?

[3] Individuals. When does the right of one individual supercede the right of the other individual to live? That is the question.

For the pro-life/anti-choice, both individuals have equal rights.

For the pro-choice/anti-life, one has more rights than the other.

Like saying a black person's vote is worth 4/5 of a white person's vote.

A choice is always made. Whose life comes first?

Pro-life is so-called because we choose innocent life over convenience.

Anecdotal evidence I have. [4] Did some searches, hard to find unbiased information. But I have known women who used abortion as birth control. And bad things happened to them as a result. Psychological harm, spiritual harm, physical harm. Crying and nightmares. Drinking to excess. A dead look in the eyes after the fourth or fifth abortion.

All abortions do not take place in hospitals, as some have implied or stated. Many take place in clinics. I knew a woman who had hers in a clinic. She won a malpractice suit against them. Once they had her on the table, an intern handled the procedure, rather than the doctor. And while digging around for the fetus, he punctured her womb, pulled through a piece of her intestine, and sewed it up, inside her womb. She ended up with a colostomy bag.

What about the studies that show increased likelihood of cancer in women who have had abortions? Or increased likelihood of mental problems?

Someone here said abortions are good for everyone. Yeah, right...:gundge:
1. I'll start by wholeheartedly accepting your first statement which is undeniably true, as anyone who owns a television can attest.

2. That statement is not an answer to that question. You asked when life begins and then you state when it does not end. This is a non sequitor, pretty much like the rest of your post, which has little to do with the issue of this thread.

3. All right, let's think about that. We are presupposing two parties here -- the woman and the fetus (I don't agree that the fetus counts as a party, but I'll go with it for the sake of making this point). I notice that you specifically identify one party's interest as being the right to life, but you don't characterize the other party's interest at all. Since we are discussing late term abortions, the majority of which are performed because of immediate, serious, even life-threatening medical dangers to the woman, doesn't the woman also have a right to life interest at stake? Why is her life worth less than the presumed other person's?

4. And so you didn't. There is not one statement in your post that is not a talking point promoted by organized anti-abortion activist groups. It is 100% propaganda. In my opinion, this makes it meaningless. It doesn't even tell me what you really think. It just tells me what some demogogues think.

The only part of your post that seems to open up a chance for some real dialogue is item [3] which focuses on the issue of conflicting rights. If you are willing to answer my question about it and give us your thoughts on conflicting rights in regards to late term abortions, then we might have a decent discussion. But talking points help nobody.

You know one of the big arguements about abortion is wheter or not the fetus is a person and if they have the right to life. But there is also another arguement that grants that a fetus has the right to life but still believes that abortions are permissable. This comes from an essay written by a philosopher named Judith Jarvis Thomson in 1971. Its alittle old but I think it still has a good point.

You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you--we never would have permitted it if we had known. But still they, did it, and the violinist now is plugged into you. To unplug you would kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you." Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years? Or longer still? What if the director of the hospital says, "Tough luck, I agree, but you've now got to stay in bed, with the violinist plugged into you, for the rest of your life. Because remeber this. All persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person's right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body. So you cannot ever be unplugged from him."

The arguement itself is one that states that just because a person has the right to life they do not have the right to claim your body. So say for instance if my kidneys fail I can't make a claim to your kidneys because I have a right to life. Its an interesting arguement that for some reason seems to be overlooked in the debate.

This might be interesting, except that abortion is not the end-all, be-all issue that the world turns upon.

This might be interesting, except that abortion is not the end-all, be-all issue that the world turns upon.Not for you perhaps, but for a woman who needs one, this very well could be the end-all, be-all issue the world turns on.

Not for you perhaps, but for a woman who needs one, this very well could be the end-all, be-all issue the world turns on.
This should serve to demonstrate why the fed should get out of the abortion business. But it needs to go all the way and both ways. Overturn Roe vs. Wade and turn the decisions over to the states.

I personally think abortions should only happen when the woman is either in danger or would not be able to take care of the child. It's worse to have a kid and not properly care for it then to abort it in my mind.

Also to those wanting abortion illegal, if you are against abortion DON'T HAVE ONE! You should not pass judgement and no law should be passed saying something moral like abortion. Now people will probably go oh it's murder, murder is illegal in the bible should we get rid of that law? :P No you dipsticks! That is common sense but if a child is little more than a lump of cells and does not even have a heartbeat or a properly functioning brain then it is the parents decision whether it lives, NOT YOURS!

This might be interesting, except that abortion is not the end-all, be-all issue that the world turns upon.
well, really, is there a single issue ever that is the "end-all, be-all" issue?

This should serve to demonstrate why the fed should get out of the abortion business. But it needs to go all the way and both ways. Overturn Roe vs. Wade and turn the decisions over to the states.
Why does any level of government have to be involved in it? Why can't it be turned over to the women and the doctors? Why should abortion be any more regulated than any other procedure or treatment associated with pregnancy/fertility?

well, really, is there a single issue ever that is the "end-all, be-all" issue?
Of course not. It was hyperbole. But that's what makes these conversations fun.

I don't subscribe to the idea that abortion is a right that is protected by the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. So the court would be wiser not to hear the case. On the other hand, overturning the McCain-Feingold Incumbent Protection Act is violating rights protected by the Constitution and should be considered at the earliest opportunity.

Why does any level of government have to be involved in it? Why can't it be turned over to the women and the doctors? Why should abortion be any more regulated than any other procedure or treatment associated with pregnancy/fertility?
You've kind of answered your own question, haven't you? Because it needs to be regulated, as are other procedures involving medical practice.

Why does any level of government have to be involved in it? Why can't it be turned over to the women and the doctors? Why should abortion be any more regulated than any other procedure or treatment associated with pregnancy/fertility?

i agree and thats the basis behind pro choice, pro life is just "we are christian, we dont use protection... and so abstain from sex!"

Of course not. It was hyperbole. But that's what makes these conversations fun.

I don't subscribe to the idea that abortion is a right that is protected by the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. So the court would be wiser not to hear the case. On the other hand, overturning the McCain-Feingold Incumbent Protection Act is violating rights protected by the Constitution and should be considered at the earliest opportunity.
well, the other half of hyperbole is people not getting it. And therein lies the fun!;)

I don't think abortion is protected, I think choice is tho.so *shrug*

So anti-abortion folks, here's the case for you. Did you get your money's worth when you got Bush elected and got him to dump Miers for Alito? I hope to God you didn't.

*blinks*...*blinks again* Why do you assume that if someone backed Alito they were anti-abortion. As to what I think will happen, he'll probably strike down the federal law specifically because it is too vague as well as the fact that it is not the federal governments business to get involved. I could be wrong of course, but he does not strike me as a person who would hold up an unconstitutional law just because he doesn't like what it is outlawing.

*blinks*...*blinks again* Why do you assume that if someone backed Alito they were anti-abortion. As to what I think will happen, he'll probably strike down the federal law specifically because it is too vague as well as the fact that it is not the federal governments business to get involved. I could be wrong of course, but he does not strike me as a person who would hold up an unconstitutional law just because he doesn't like what it is outlawing.
he didn't say everyone who supported alito was anti-abortion...he directed it at people who were anti-abortion and backed alito. Big difference.

Everything that lives is a "clump of cells." Some clumps are larger and louder than others.

Someone else asked you to do this, and you still haven't: Define life in a way that includes a fetus but does not include an organ. A response (from anyone) would be interesting.


Individuals. When does the right of one individual supercede the right of the other individual to live? That is the question.

Okay, say you give birth to conjoined twins. One, however, is much weaker than the other and will most likely die, taking the other with it. Do you kill one to save the other, or do you let them both die? Should they have "equal rights" to live?

Like saying a black person's vote is worth 4/5 of a white person's vote.

I think the figure was actually 3/5 in the original law; just a historical note.

All abortions do not take place in hospitals, as some have implied or stated. Many take place in clinics. I knew a woman who had hers in a clinic. She won a malpractice suit against them. Once they had her on the table, an intern handled the procedure, rather than the doctor. And while digging around for the fetus, he punctured her womb, pulled through a piece of her intestine, and sewed it up, inside her womb. She ended up with a colostomy bag.

Hey, how about if you get your way and abortion is illegal? Guess where it happens then?

Either in dank unsanitized illegal facilities with quack doctors and high fatality rates, or by the woman herself in a desperate attempt to get rid of her fetus. Telegram me if you really want to know the exact way in which women performed self-abortions before they were illegal; I don't want to bring up graphic descriptions on a public forum, but if you are female I guarantee a cringe.

So would you rather have safe abortions or unsafe abortions? Whose life are you placing first now?

This should serve to demonstrate why the fed should get out of the abortion business. But it needs to go all the way and both ways. Overturn Roe vs. Wade and turn the decisions over to the states.
Actually, it serves to illustrate why the federal government ought to set a national standard and tell the states to stop fucking with a woman's right to choose.

abortion will either happen in a sterile hospital with proper medical equipment or...
in a back alley with a coat hanger or...
falling down the stairs,
to discuss abortion we must first set out wether we are for or against euthanesia

abortion will either happen in a sterile hospital with proper medical equipment or...
in a back alley with a coat hanger or...
falling down the stairs,
to discuss abortion we must first set out wether we are for or against euthanesia
why does one have to be decided before the other one? I mean, yes they are a bit related, but not so much so that one must be decided before the other...

unless you're implying that euthanasia is a more important issue, in which case I need to work on reading comprehension.

what im trying to say (sorry for the lack of clarity, im tired)
well in a weird sort of way pro life argument is based on anti euthanesia,
"its god's will for the woman to be impregnated, she must have the baby, otherwise its murder"
whereas pro choice say that the baby will have a horrible life and will become an unwanted burden,
so eutanesia is a broad topic, and abortion is a subheading

This should serve to demonstrate why the fed should get out of the abortion business. But it needs to go all the way and both ways. Overturn Roe vs. Wade and turn the decisions over to the states.

Yay! Repeal the 14th Amendment! :rolleyes:

Remember people this is a controversial topic so lets try to keep it civil. To help acomplish this point I've brought a visual aid

http://www.found.org.uk/resource/hhfh/deadpool.jpg

For those who don't get this its sacrasm.

I would probably envy Deadpool if I was reading Captain America as a kid.

Hehe, Deadpool is shoving his meat down the woman's throat.

*runs away laughing and falling over*

Overturning Roe v Wade would be the biggest can of worms since Iraq for another reason:

Illegal abortion would become the brand new cash cow organized (and disorganized) crime can start milking. And there's always going to be a mess when organized crime starts getting involved in anything.

Simply put, overturning Roe v Wade would become Prohibition II.

Leave the LAW to the legislature

Leave the CONSTITUTION to the Supreme Court.

Leave the LAW to the legislature

Leave the CONSTITUTION to the Supreme Court.

Is this supposed to mean anything?

Of course not. It was hyperbole. But that's what makes these conversations fun.

I don't subscribe to the idea that abortion is a right that is protected by the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. So the court would be wiser not to hear the case. On the other hand, overturning the McCain-Feingold Incumbent Protection Act is violating rights protected by the Constitution and should be considered at the earliest opportunity.

Care to explain to the class why free speech can't be infringed by the states, but bodily integrity can be?

Overturning Roe v Wade would be the biggest can of worms since Iraq for another reason:


I imagine if that happened, the democrats would gain the house, senate, and whitehouse as quickly as the election cycle allowed.

I imagine if that happened, the democrats would gain the house, senate, and whitehouse as quickly as the election cycle allowed.

And unless they decide to reverse Prohibition II (which is unlikely with the handpicked Supreme Court. I mean, even the historical Supreme Court had the foresight to overturn Dred Scott) then organized crime will have that much more money and influence- and thus become an even bigger problem- thanks to Legislated Morality.

Are you certain these are the only times this procedure is done? I was under the impression it was also being used in the same way early-term abortions are, and not simply for these reasons.

I am pro-choice, but I do think it should be done early, and should not simply be used as a form of birth control because one doesn't want to be bothered to use something to prevent pregnancy.

Ya know, if more Pro-Choice folks were like you, I'd have no problem with the Pro-Choice movement. I am personally against abortion, I believe life begins at conception, though I also understand not everyone believes the same. However, I too was under the impression that Late Term ("Partial Birth") Abortions were done for much the same reasons as Early Term, IE, as an After-The-Fact Contraceptive.

By the way, I do get hate E-mails from the Pro-Choice folks on another forum, because they think I'm absolutely satanic, being a woman and against abortion. Yeah, my life would have been easier if I had gotten that abortion at 14, but I like my life the way it is, and I like the Twins exactly the way they are.

And unless they decide to reverse Prohibition II (which is unlikely with the handpicked Supreme Court. I mean, even the historical Supreme Court had the foresight to overturn Dred Scott) then organized crime will have that much more money and influence- and thus become an even bigger problem- thanks to Legislated Morality.

Well overturning Roe v. Wade wouldn't mean that the Supreme Court could enforce a "right to life" policy. And I would imagine that they would be elected on the basis that they would ensure abortion rights through the legislature.

And I can't imagine that the States like New York, would ever criminalize abortion.

Well overturning Roe v. Wade wouldn't mean that the Supreme Court could enforce a "right to life" policy. And I would imagine that they would be elected on the basis that they would ensure abortion rights through the legislature.

And I can't imagine that the States like New York, would ever criminalize abortion.

Supreme Court Justices are for life or (early) retirement. Short of them getting tired or getting dead what you see now is what the country is stuck with for a very long long time.

If anyone in New York's state and local government (or any other state for that matter) have the foresight in this event, they would keep abortions legal in order to prevent it becoming the new crime cash cow.

Of course this would likely result in Canadian style field trips to Abortion Legal States from ones where they're banned.

The distinct pattern of these trips would look a lot like the Underground Railroad.

:D

I feel largely the same way Ashmoria does. When Bush first came into office I didn't like him but other than that I was a perfectly normal 12-year-old.

Over the past 5 1/2 years exposure to his stupidity and the stupidity of those who elected him twice has turned me into a 17-year-old with an irrational hatred for most Republicans and conservatives. :headbang: :mp5:

Right now I think the best way to settle it is for all the blue states to secede from the union and form a country called "Those Few of the United States of America that Retain the Values They Were Founded On."

Abortion clinics should have armed guards who open up with AT-4s when the right-to-life pickets get too close. There is a difference between freedom of speech and harassing people with your morals. Life does not begin at conception, and what a woman does with her body is her business and her business alone. I'm not saying you should be thrilled if your wife/girlfriend has an abortion without consulting you (I know I wouldn't be) but the clump of cells turns into a baby inside the mother's body, so she is really the only person with a right to make the decision.

As for requiring parental involvement when a girl under 18 has an abortion, TO HELL WITH THAT!!!!!!!!!!! In states with the sense not to do that, the reason is to protect sexually active daughters of psychotic right-wing dumbasses. And don't get me started on the morons who want to outlaw birth control pills and set a minimum age to buy condoms.

I mean, really, the Republicans can't be trusted in power at all. Colin Powell and John McCain are just too smart for that party. Both of them should become independents. The way Bush and his legions of neo-con idiots are undermining it, the US will collapse under the weight of their f-ups before 2010 if the democrats don't sweep the midterm elections and the 2008 Presidential. God help us if another Republican gets into the White House in 2008. Being run by Bush or anyone as incompetent as him will do (and is already doing) as much if not more damage to us than the terrorists and imaginary WMDs could ever hope to.

And by the way, all you so-called pro-choice Bush voters, this is largely your fault, if it gets overturned and abortions become illegal in this country.

*sigh* :rolleyes:

Since I am fervantly pro-Life myself I rather hope you are correct and that all you anti-Lifers see your beloved Babykiller Industry go down in flames. :) But don't you think it might be nice *to see how things turn out* before you scream at your fellow pro-"choice" people lest you find yourself on the receiving end of there "You owe us an apology, fool!" upon finding yourself proven wrong? Just a thought! :p

Here's another thing for you to consider. When did babykilling become such a cult with you that you became unable to understand that even your fellow pro-"Choice"ers might consider certain other things such as national security more important than lining the pockets of the abortionists? More things going on in the world than the Life/Anti-Life arguement and you may want to keep that in mind before you flame your allies. Like it or not, that is only more likely to make them glad they rejected you than than bum them out that they didn't.

Hmmmm! @_@

On 2nd thought, go ahead and flame them and see where it gets you. :)

Just go ahead and do it! :D :D :D

I won't mind at all. Honest! ;)

*sigh* :rolleyes:
I'll see your :rolleyes: and raise you two :fluffle: :fluffle:

Since I am fervantly pro-Life myself I rather hope you are correct and that all you anti-Lifers see your beloved Babykiller Industry go down in flames. :) But don't you think it might be nice *to see how things turn out* before you scream at your fellow pro-"choice" people lest you find yourself on the receiving end of there "You owe us an apology, fool!" upon finding yourself proven wrong? Just a thought! :p
Whoa whoa whoa. Lets stop with the rampant appeals to emotions here and clear something up. First when we refer to abortion we are talking about a procedure that deals with embryos/fetuses here. Very few if any abortions are partial birth any more and those are generally for extreme situations where a mother's life is in danger. So tone down the whole baby killing thing. Secondly as long as women want to get abortions they will, so saying lets step back to wait really won't happen. And you also only like the whole stepping back idea because it benefits the pro life side by practically entering in your solution to the problem until we can sort this thing out, which I might add with the way things are going isn't going to happen any time soon. If we were to say okay lets step back and take a hands off approach to the procedure and let mothers keep having abortions while we figure this out you wouldn't be happy and guess what thats what is going on now.

Here's another thing for you to consider. When did babykilling become such a cult with you that you became unable to understand that even your fellow pro-"Choice"ers might consider certain other things such as national security more important than lining the pockets of the abortionists? More things going on in the world than the Life/Anti-Life arguement and you may want to keep that in mind before you flame your allies. Like it or not, that is only more likely to make them glad they rejected you than than bum them out that they didn't.
Wow this has nothing to do with the debate. Unless the forums suddenly become a battle ground between Fiddlebottoms, and Goofball1/2/3 I don't think anyone is going to need allies.

Hmmmm! @_@

On 2nd thought, go ahead and flame them and see where it gets you. :)

Just go ahead and do it!

I won't mind at all. Honest! ;)
Pro life and a masochist....don't see that too often.:rolleyes:

Yeah, there are a lot of national security issues going on right now, such as the hunt for Saddam's imaginary WMD's, and you Republican morons caused most of them.

In fact, it was also you who brought abortion back up to the supreme court, specifically to distract people from the way you're f-ing up the war, and give you yet another false excuse to call us antipatriots: when we respond to it, you accuse us of ingnoring national security.

Just be glad your friend Bush, not me, is the one sitting in the Oval Office with both Congress and the Supreme Court in his back pocket.

If I had my way the troops would be home, the wounded and families of the fallen compensated (or as close as you can come, which isn't very close in this case) and the bible thumpers would all be on crosses instead of waving them at me.

I'll see your :rolleyes: and raise you two :fluffle: :fluffle:


Whoa whoa whoa. Lets stop with the rampant appeals to emotions here and clear something up. First when we refer to abortion we are talking about a procedure that deals with embryos/fetuses here.

Fetus is nothing more than the Latin word for "Baby" so calling a baby a fetus really doesn't get you off the hook. :D



Wow this has nothing to do with the debate. Unless the forums suddenly become a battle ground between Fiddlebottoms, and Goofball1/2/3 I don't think anyone is going to need allies.

Here's a newsflash: There *is* a world beyond nationstates. I appreciate that some liberals here might not know that. :)


Pro life and a masochist....don't see that too often.:rolleyes:

You don't get it, do you? :D :D :D

That's OK. One attempt at educating you and yours is all you bakas get today. :p

Ja ne! ^_~

Granted, I haven't read all 13 pages of this thread.

But, it seems some of you aren't aware of this simple fact:

Roe v. Wade did not "legalize" abortion--it was already legal in numerous states. What Roe v. Wade did was make the criminalization of abortion illegal.

Even if the Supreme Court ruled in the most inconceivably negative way, all that would happen is that it would return to the way it used to be--individual State legislatures, under their State Police Powers, would again be given the right to decide if their state would allow abortions to take place.

That's all.

Fetus is nothing more than the Latin word for "Baby" so calling a baby a fetus really doesn't get you off the hook. :D
Actually I don't believe your correct on that.

Middle English, from Latin ftus, offspring. See dh(i)- in Indo-European Roots-Dictonary.com

or even more complex from wiki

Fetus, in Latin, literally means "filled with young, pregnant, breeding, with young and/or a bringing forth, bearing, hatching, producing".-wiki

and finally here is something from Merriam-Webster online

Etymology: Middle English, from Latin, act of bearing young, offspring; akin to Latin fetus newly delivered, fruitful -- more at FEMININE

Hmmm I don't seem to see the word baby anywhere in those...:rolleyes:

Here's a newsflash: There *is* a world beyond nationstates. I appreciate that some liberals here might not know that. :)
NEWSFLASH I'm not a liberal. So lets stop the generalizations and try to keep the thread on topic.

You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you--we never would have permitted it if we had known. But still they, did it, and the violinist now is plugged into you. To unplug you would kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you." Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years? Or longer still? What if the director of the hospital says, "Tough luck, I agree, but you've now got to stay in bed, with the violinist plugged into you, for the rest of your life. Because remeber this. All persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person's right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body. So you cannot ever be unplugged from him."

Dammit! That's it! I'm officially anti-violinist!

Those bastards!

You've kind of answered your own question, haven't you? Because it needs to be regulated, as are other procedures involving medical practice.
We don't need special laws telling women they are *allowed* to get pregnant or get fertility treatments so they can get pregnant, and we don't need special laws telling men and/or women that they are *allowed* to use birth control to avoid pregnancy or even to get themselves sterilized so they'll never get pregnant. We also don't need special laws to tell women who give birth that they are *allowed* to either keep the child or give it up to someone else.

So why do we need special laws *allowing or disallowing* abortion decisions?

Care to explain to the class why free speech can't be infringed by the states, but bodily integrity can be?
Sure. I can't regurgitate an unlimited number of opinions in my favor, but that's not what matters, anyway. Courts have been wrong before and they'll be wrong again. I'm a 'first principles' kind of guy. That works in physics and it would work in law, too, if common sense was admissible.

Enough of that. The 14th and 9th amendments are the most often cited when talking about the 'right' to an abortion. I'm a little confused about that, as the 14th amendment was only adopted to show the South that the Abolitionists meant business. The amendment was intended only to guarantee that slaves held the rights that other citizens enjoyed. As it turns out, it was a hack that was badly planned and had many unforseen consequences. It certainly lacks the clarity of the first ten amendments. In fact, it wasn't until the mid 1960s that this amendment was used to create a 'right' to privacy.

The ninth amendment, on the other hand, is quite clear. It elegantly allows that there are rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution. My opinion is that the 'right' to an abortion is not one of those unnamed rights.

You wanted a contrast with the IPA, right? The Constitution, as amended, gives no federal power to regulate abortion. Or any other medical treatment, for that matter. That is clearly delegated to the states under the 10th amendment, and there it should stay. The Campaign Finance Act clearly limits free speech rights given in the First amendment. Thus it isn't a proper function of the federal government. Like Roe, the IPA should be overturned and returned to the states as a right that has been reserved for their action.

Sure. I can't regurgitate an unlimited number of opinions in my favor, but that's not what matters, anyway. Courts have been wrong before and they'll be wrong again. I'm a 'first principles' kind of guy. That works in physics and it would work in law, too, if common sense was admissible.

Enough of that. The 14th and 9th amendments are the most often cited when talking about the 'right' to an abortion. I'm a little confused about that, as the 14th amendment was only adopted to show the South that the Abolitionists meant business. The amendment was intended only to guarantee that slaves held the rights that other citizens enjoyed. As it turns out, it was a hack that was badly planned and had many unforseen consequences. It certainly lacks the clarity of the first ten amendments. In fact, it wasn't until the mid 1960s that this amendment was used to create a 'right' to privacy.

The ninth amendment, on the other hand, is quite clear. It elegantly allows that there are rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution. My opinion is that the 'right' to an abortion is not one of those unnamed rights.

You wanted a contrast with the IPA, right? The Constitution, as amended, gives no federal power to regulate abortion. Or any other medical treatment, for that matter. That is clearly delegated to the states under the 10th amendment, and there it should stay. The Campaign Finance Act clearly limits free speech rights given in the First amendment. Thus it isn't a proper function of the federal government. Like Roe, the IPA should be overturned and returned to the states as a right that has been reserved for their action.

I like you.

What was the first line in the constitution again?

Sure. I can't regurgitate an unlimited number of opinions in my favor, but that's not what matters, anyway. Courts have been wrong before and they'll be wrong again. I'm a 'first principles' kind of guy. That works in physics and it would work in law, too, if common sense was admissible.

Enough of that. The 14th and 9th amendments are the most often cited when talking about the 'right' to an abortion. I'm a little confused about that, as the 14th amendment was only adopted to show the South that the Abolitionists meant business. The amendment was intended only to guarantee that slaves held the rights that other citizens enjoyed. As it turns out, it was a hack that was badly planned and had many unforseen consequences. It certainly lacks the clarity of the first ten amendments. In fact, it wasn't until the mid 1960s that this amendment was used to create a 'right' to privacy.

The ninth amendment, on the other hand, is quite clear. It elegantly allows that there are rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution. My opinion is that the 'right' to an abortion is not one of those unnamed rights.

You wanted a contrast with the IPA, right? The Constitution, as amended, gives no federal power to regulate abortion. Or any other medical treatment, for that matter. That is clearly delegated to the states under the 10th amendment, and there it should stay. The Campaign Finance Act clearly limits free speech rights given in the First amendment. Thus it isn't a proper function of the federal government. Like Roe, the IPA should be overturned and returned to the states as a right that has been reserved for their action.

What gives you the right to make decisions for another adult?

What gives you the right to make decisions for another adult?
Huh? I don't recall stating an opinion about the propriety of abortion, one way or another.

What was the first line in the constitution again?

My US History is a bit rusty, but I believe it goes something like this:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this contitution for the United States of America."

Huh? I don't recall stating an opinion about the propriety of abortion, one way or another.
But you want government (the states) to dictate the legality of abortion -- that's whether or not a woman can get an abortion, not just regulations for safety. That's arguing in favor of allowing the government to control decisions over how a woman's body gets used. Are you assuming that every state will keep abortion legal? Or even that every state will at least keep exceptions to protect the lives/health of women? That would make you naive, especially since the late term abortion ban currently before the court is controversial because it contains no exception to protect the life/health of the woman. Are you saying it should be part of states' rights to decide to withhold life-saving medical procedures from a segment of the population identified by gender?

Just a brief note to everyone who keeps claiming that overturning roe will send the issue back to the states--You're wrong, and the subject of this thread shows you why, but you're so tied into your notion that you aren't seeing it.

This case deals with a federal abortion ban. Defenders of the ban say that it only deals with one particular type of abortion (not true--it is terribly vague), but that doesn't remove the fact that this is a federal abortion ban. If this law is upheld, there won't be any going back to the states because it will have been admitted by the Supreme Court of the US that the federal government has the power to make this a federal law and to regulate it as it so desires. If you're legitimately a state's rights supporter, you have to oppose this law.

I am not a state's rights advocate--I oppose this law on other, more moral grounds.

The ninth amendment, on the other hand, is quite clear. It elegantly allows that there are rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution. My opinion is that the 'right' to an abortion is not one of those unnamed rights.

i think you have to be right. the sort of abortion procedures we have today werent dreamt of when the bill of rights was written. women didnt even know for sure that they were pregnant until 3 or 4 months into pregnancy when they could be certain of feeling the fetus moving. that there might some day be a procedure that could safely interrupt pregnancy before a woman misses a second period was unimaginable.

what the 9th ammendment does cover in my opinion is the right to privacy and the right to have the government leave you the hell alone unless there is some compelling reason to have them messing in your life.

the supreme court ruling in roevwade reflects the right to privacy. when the state has no reasonable way to know a woman is pregnant, its none of the states business. as a pregnancy is more and more public, the state has more business getting involved. the later in a pregnancy you go, the more laws the states can pass regulating not just your right to abortion but your responsibility to behave in ways that protect the health of the growing fetus.

think about it for a minute. imagine that its ruled that the fertilized egg is a full blown human being with all the rights of personhood plus the right to comandeer its mothers body for a full term of gestation. ok? how do we know what woman is pregnant and what woman isnt? what if that woman going into the bar is 2 weeks pregnant? what if her drinking damages her "baby"? do we need to have state urination stations so that before a woman can buy an alcoholic drink she must pass a test ensuring that she isnt pregnant? do we disallow women from smoking or eating badly just in case she might be carrying a new person inside her?

where would you draw the line at "enough is enough! a woman has a right to live her own damned life without the state sticking its fingers up her vagina to check for babies every other day!"

i have developed such a strong and irrational hatred of the republican control of government that i long for them to get a big time come-uppance.

the preference would be for alito to turn out to be a flaming liberal who makes oconnor look like an ultraconservative. the "oops" factor would warm the cockles of my heart.

my other hope is that this stacking of the supreme court causes such a backlash in middle america that the republicans lose control of both houses and have no hope of retaining the whitehouse. but that would mean a loss of abortion rights (and many others before its all over) and that would be a very high price to pay for ruining the republican party.
Republicans suck, I agree, but if you really want to have that argument, start a new thread.

Sure. I can't regurgitate an unlimited number of opinions in my favor, but that's not what matters, anyway. Courts have been wrong before and they'll be wrong again. I'm a 'first principles' kind of guy. That works in physics and it would work in law, too, if common sense was admissible.

Enough of that. The 14th and 9th amendments are the most often cited when talking about the 'right' to an abortion. I'm a little confused about that, as the 14th amendment was only adopted to show the South that the Abolitionists meant business. The amendment was intended only to guarantee that slaves held the rights that other citizens enjoyed. As it turns out, it was a hack that was badly planned and had many unforseen consequences. It certainly lacks the clarity of the first ten amendments. In fact, it wasn't until the mid 1960s that this amendment was used to create a 'right' to privacy.

The ninth amendment, on the other hand, is quite clear. It elegantly allows that there are rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution. My opinion is that the 'right' to an abortion is not one of those unnamed rights.

You wanted a contrast with the IPA, right? The Constitution, as amended, gives no federal power to regulate abortion. Or any other medical treatment, for that matter. That is clearly delegated to the states under the 10th amendment, and there it should stay. The Campaign Finance Act clearly limits free speech rights given in the First amendment. Thus it isn't a proper function of the federal government. Like Roe, the IPA should be overturned and returned to the states as a right that has been reserved for their action.

The clarity of the first 10, huh? Yep. No debate has ever been had about any of those. They are clear and never need clarification. Of course in the real world...

Roe v. Wade does not regulate abortion. It finds the right to privacy to be a right retained by the people and thus a right that cannot be taken away by legislation.

Just out curiosity what other medical procedures are you advocating that patients not be allowed to choose to undergo or not undergo? Can the government force you to give up a kidney to save a life?

Can the government fingerprint and dna test everyone in the country? There's no right to privacy so I don't see why not? Can they force people to disclose their sexual practices? I mean, there's no right to privacy. It was made up by the Supreme Court. Or do you only deny the right to privacy in this select instance?

There is no right to an abortion and no caselaw cites it. There is the right to decide which medical procedures you undergo. The right to control one's body. The right to privacy. They infer a right to the medical procedure called an abortion.

Women should have the right to have abortions. If it is taken, the results would be bad. Is it worse to abort a child, or resent and not love a child because you were forced to bring him/her into the world?

i think you have to be right. the sort of abortion procedures we have today werent dreamt of when the bill of rights was written. women didnt even know for sure that they were pregnant until 3 or 4 months into pregnancy when they could be certain of feeling the fetus moving. that there might some day be a procedure that could safely interrupt pregnancy before a woman misses a second period was unimaginable.

what the 9th ammendment does cover in my opinion is the right to privacy and the right to have the government leave you the hell alone unless there is some compelling reason to have them messing in your life.

the supreme court ruling in roevwade reflects the right to privacy. when the state has no reasonable way to know a woman is pregnant, its none of the states business. as a pregnancy is more and more public, the state has more business getting involved. the later in a pregnancy you go, the more laws the states can pass regulating not just your right to abortion but your responsibility to behave in ways that protect the health of the growing fetus.

think about it for a minute. imagine that its ruled that the fertilized egg is a full blown human being with all the rights of personhood plus the right to comandeer its mothers body for a full term of gestation. ok? how do we know what woman is pregnant and what woman isnt? what if that woman going into the bar is 2 weeks pregnant? what if her drinking damages her "baby"? do we need to have state urination stations so that before a woman can buy an alcoholic drink she must pass a test ensuring that she isnt pregnant? do we disallow women from smoking or eating badly just in case she might be carrying a new person inside her?

where would you draw the line at "enough is enough! a woman has a right to live her own damned life without the state sticking its fingers up her vagina to check for babies every other day!"

Some excellent points.

Some excellent points.
we seem to be on the same page with this one. there has to be some limit on the states right to interfere with your life.

i think you have to be right. the sort of abortion procedures we have today werent dreamt of when the bill of rights was written. women didnt even know for sure that they were pregnant until 3 or 4 months into pregnancy when they could be certain of feeling the fetus moving. that there might some day be a procedure that could safely interrupt pregnancy before a woman misses a second period was unimaginable.

what the 9th ammendment does cover in my opinion is the right to privacy and the right to have the government leave you the hell alone unless there is some compelling reason to have them messing in your life.

the supreme court ruling in roevwade reflects the right to privacy. when the state has no reasonable way to know a woman is pregnant, its none of the states business. as a pregnancy is more and more public, the state has more business getting involved. the later in a pregnancy you go, the more laws the states can pass regulating not just your right to abortion but your responsibility to behave in ways that protect the health of the growing fetus.

think about it for a minute. imagine that its ruled that the fertilized egg is a full blown human being with all the rights of personhood plus the right to comandeer its mothers body for a full term of gestation. ok? how do we know what woman is pregnant and what woman isnt? what if that woman going into the bar is 2 weeks pregnant? what if her drinking damages her "baby"? do we need to have state urination stations so that before a woman can buy an alcoholic drink she must pass a test ensuring that she isnt pregnant? do we disallow women from smoking or eating badly just in case she might be carrying a new person inside her?

where would you draw the line at "enough is enough! a woman has a right to live her own damned life without the state sticking its fingers up her vagina to check for babies every other day!"
This is going to veer off in another direction for a while. Maybe there is an existing right to privacy. But, the 'right' to privacy is not universally recognized by law. We make exceptions for 'hate' crimes, where the thoughts and emotions of the perpetrator are weighed when evaluating whether he is guilty of a basic crime or whether he is guilty of 'hating' the victim while commiting the crime. This is really silly, but it does start us thinking about whether a person can be committing a crime with just a thought. I mean, if it aggravates the crime, why can't it be a crime in and of itself?

Certainly my favorite yardstick, common sense, tells us that our thoughts and emotions are not for public consumption unless we say so. Which brings us back to abortion. My argument is that a right to privacy does exist, but it is not extended to abortion. Any procedure that requires the services of a doctor, nurses, hospital, insurance company, and possibly a government agency or two isn't private in the commonly used sense of the word. So again, I'll say that the Constitution, as amended, doesn't provide any federal protection for abortions. Return the power to the states.

we seem to be on the same page with this one. there has to be some limit on the states right to interfere with your life.

Some people fail to see that allowing the federal government to protect your rights is not the same as making that right federal. The only way to make a right federal is to create laws abridging it on the federal level. It's clear that the federal government not only does, but needs to, protect the rights of the individual in these types of circumstances. The only argument that can be legitimately made is that this right was TAKEN AWAY from the states. And I'd like to see a defense of such a thing mounted.

This is going to veer off in another direction for a while. Maybe there is an existing right to privacy. But, the 'right' to privacy is not universally recognized by law. We make exceptions for 'hate' crimes, where the thoughts and emotions of the perpetrator are weighed when evaluating whether he is guilty of a basic crime or whether he is guilty of 'hating' the victim while commiting the crime. This is really silly, but it does start us thinking about whether a person can be committing a crime with just a thought. I mean, if it aggravates the crime, why can't it be a crime in and of itself?

It is universally recognized by law. BY the same argument, why don't you say we don't universally recognize physical liberty because people get put in jail. You are talking about analyzing the actions or property of someone in order to gain evidence for a crime, but the scope of such things is VERY NARROW and requires substantial evidence of a crime involving the person who is being tried PRIOR to such abridgement. What evidence is there of a crime prior to these types of abridgements?

Certainly my favorite yardstick, common sense, tells us that our thoughts and emotions are not for public consumption unless we say so. Which brings us back to abortion. My argument is that a right to privacy does exist, but it is not extended to abortion. Any procedure that requires the services of a doctor, nurses, hospital, insurance company, and possibly a government agency or two isn't private in the commonly used sense of the word. So again, I'll say that the Constitution, as amended, doesn't provide any federal protection for abortions.
There is no protection for abortions. There is a protection for choosing medical procedures. Again, this is something that is universally accepted by anti-choicers unless the medical procedure is abortion. I have the right to refuse treatment to save my life. I have the right to refuse blood transfusions. I have a right to get breast implants, etc. The right to privacy that infers that I get the right to choose medical procedures is only question in this specific instance by anti-choicers. No coincidence there.

Return the power to the states.

Let's be clear here, you're not taking the power away from the federal government and giving it to the states. You are taking the power away from women and giving it to the states. There is no federalization of the decision to abort. There is only court cases recognizing that women hold the right to decide about these procedures and NOT the states.

Considering that Judges Roberts and Alito are not activist judges, but determine the merits of their cases strictly on precedent, I doubt Roe vs. Wade will be overturned anytime soon. Roe vs. Wade is the law of the land and will be for the forseeable future. Please quit your whining.

:rolleyes:

Let's be clear here, you're not taking the power away from the federal government and giving it to the states. You are taking the power away from women and giving it to the states. There is no federalization of the decision to abort. There is only court cases recognizing that women hold the right to decide about these procedures and NOT the states.
The way I see it is that the overturning of Roe vs. Wade, would remove any federal protection of a non-existent right. An abortion is not a private matter, as is a thought or an emotion. Thus any regulation that may or may not be needed lies with the state governments. To address the original issue, a federal ban on any abortion is not proper for the same reasons.

Someone asked a question way back and I've about as much as I can to answer it. It's my opinion and I think I have some rational reasons to hold it. If you want to have the last word, take it and consider yourself victorious. I was happy to have the opportunity to put a little more substance in my opinion.

Ya know, if more Pro-Choice folks were like you, I'd have no problem with the Pro-Choice movement.

I have yet to meet a pro-choice person who didn't share those same basic sentiments. Abortion, if used for elective reasons should be early (hence the reason that most pro-choicers don't have a problem with more regulation later in pregnancy). Birth control should be used by someone who does not wish to become pregnant (and her partner) to prevent pregnancy in the first place. You won't find many who disagree with these things.

I am personally against abortion, I believe life begins at conception, though I also understand not everyone believes the same. However, I too was under the impression that Late Term ("Partial Birth") Abortions were done for much the same reasons as Early Term, IE, as an After-The-Fact Contraceptive.

And you would be incorrect (on both the general use of abortion and on the use of D&X).

The way I see it is that the overturning of Roe vs. Wade, would remove any federal protection of a non-existent right. An abortion is not a private matter, as is a thought or an emotion. Thus any regulation that may or may not be needed lies with the state governments. To address the original issue, a federal ban on any abortion is not proper for the same reasons.

Someone asked a question way back and I've about as much as I can to answer it. It's my opinion and I think I have some rational reasons to hold it. If you want to have the last word, take it and consider yourself victorious. I was happy to have the opportunity to put a little more substance in my opinion.

Your medical decisions are not private matters? And here I thought that there was doctor/patient privelege. Are you overturning that or do you only advocate taking away the right to privacy when it's a medical procedure that only women get?

You fail to understand what private means if you think it only applies to thoughts or emotions.

Since you've put everything out there already, could you point me to the posts where I'll find the answers to my questions, because I don't see them?

I'm pro-choice for the most part on everything. I have a lot of problems with abortion morally, but at the same time it is something that is so intensely private that it's very difficult for me to oppose it in any way legally. At the same time, Roe v. Wade has been disastrous for America in the following ways:


It has positioned the Religious right in firm opposition to the courts.
It has colored and politicized our view of the courts in general.
It has allowed potentially moderate politicians to simply play the religious Right off the courts, without having to actually do anything.
Other decisions like Texas v. Johnson, while opposed by a majority of Americans at the time, nonetheless have stood the test of time, because they have compelling Constitutional arguments. Roe v. Wade was a big stretch (if they applied the same principles to the commerce clause, for example, there would hardly be any federal regulation of business at all).


Maybe these objections are more than compensated by the potential personal freedom gained through Roe v. Wade. Yet inconcievably, this seems one issue that has continually been decided in favor of abortion rights in virtually every other developed country (even fairly religious ones). Blame at this point will be shifted back to religious conservatism in America and how evil it is and how we cannot prevent these evil radicals from changing the laws democratically. But virtually every radical (for the record, I despise the word 'radical' as it is so subjective, so I am applying it from the position of the pro-choice crowd) movement has arisen because some tyrant pushed too far, and too much, and there was a backlash.

Other than the difficulty of ammending it, what prevents the constitution from having the same characteristics of interpretation ascribed to it as any piece of legislation made under it? If we really believe that the constitution is a "living, breathing document," does that mean that it then becomes a thing that can be molded after the principles of the left or the right, depending on who is in power (and who can get justices on the court)? And if we are to bend the constitution to the predominate will of the modern day, why would a court issue a decision against democracy? As a libertarian, my opinion is that "democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others." (W. Churchill) But you have to walk before you can run, and this is one issue where self-determination HAS prevailed in democratic determinations. Roe v. Wade is bad law, and needs to be overturned.

You've kind of answered your own question, haven't you? Because it needs to be regulated, as are other procedures involving medical practice.

The states already regulate the practice in the same way the regulate other procedures. Roe v. Wade simply doesn't give them the right to outlaw it, in the same way they cannot outlaw other procedures.

I'm pro-choice for the most part on everything. I have a lot of problems with abortion morally, but at the same time it is something that is so intensely private that it's very difficult for me to oppose it in any way legally. At the same time, Roe v. Wade has been disastrous for America in the following ways:


It has positioned the Religious right in firm opposition to the courts.
It has colored and politicized our view of the courts in general.
It has allowed potentially moderate politicians to simply play the religious Right off the courts, without having to actually do anything.
Other decisions like Texas v. Johnson, while opposed by a majority of Americans at the time, nonetheless have stood the test of time, because they have compelling Constitutional arguments. Roe v. Wade was a big stretch (if they applied the same principles to the commerce clause, for example, there would hardly be any federal regulation of business at all).


Maybe these objections are more than compensated by the potential personal freedom gained through Roe v. Wade. Yet inconcievably, this seems one issue that has continually been decided in favor of abortion rights in virtually every other developed country (even fairly religious ones). Blame at this point will be shifted back to religious conservatism in America and how evil it is and how we cannot prevent these evil radicals from changing the laws democratically. But virtually every radical (for the record, I despise the word 'radical' as it is so subjective, so I am applying it from the position of the pro-choice crowd) movement has arisen because some tyrant pushed too far, and too much, and there was a backlash.

Other than the difficulty of ammending it, what prevents the constitution from having the same characteristics of interpretation ascribed to it as any piece of legislation made under it? If we really believe that the constitution is a "living, breathing document," does that mean that it then becomes a thing that can be molded after the principles of the left or the right, depending on who is in power (and who can get justices on the court)? And if we are to bend the constitution to the predominate will of the modern day, why would a court issue a decision against democracy? As a libertarian, my opinion is that "democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others." (W. Churchill) But you have to walk before you can run, and this is one issue where self-determination HAS prevailed in democratic determinations. Roe v. Wade is bad law, and needs to be overturned.

Interesting, so the courts, rather than considering the legal arguments, should consider that the religious right isn't going to like them and reverse their decision, because anything else causes a very vocal religious minority to attack them, is that right? And here I thought they were making legal decisions.

Hmmm... I guess they better go back and reverse decisions about interracial marriage because that sure made some people mad at the courts and politicized the courts for a while.

I guess they need to not protect gays because that sure upsets the religious right and we sure can't risk upsetting a small vocal minority group. Oh, wait, isn't the... no, it can't be... but wait, aren't gay rights advocates a small vocal minority group? They are? *gasp* You mean we can't make everyone happy and issues should be decided on the basis of laws rather than on the basis of making everyone happy? But that would be silly... why would a court of LAW interpret LAW using LEGAL arguments when they just make decisions that make the religious right happy. It's settled. Glad everyone's happy.

Since you've put everything out there already, could you point me to the posts where I'll find the answers to my questions, because I don't see them?

You misunderstand. This is it, there is no more than what this thread contains. Whether it satisfies you or not, I've explained my opinion in as much detail as I care to. That's the real purpose of these forums. I'll never persuade anyone, so if I satisfy myself, I'm content.

You misunderstand. This is it, there is no more than what this thread contains. Whether it satisfies you or not, I've explained my opinion in as much detail as I care to. That's the real purpose of these forums. I'll never persuade anyone, so if I satisfy myself, I'm content.

I see. So you didn't come here to discuss the issue, but just to stick your opinion out there and ignore any rebuttals. Understood.

Interestingly enough, it usually takes several pages before someone just decides not to discuss their opinion. Either I'm getting more intimidating or you're a quicker study than most people. Either way, I find it interesting.

To everyone else, I like to have my opinions questioned and debated because it helps me better understand my mind and minds of others. Feel free to question any or all of the things I've said as much as like. I welcome it as I'm under the impression that this is "the real purpose of these forums".

This is one of many reasons why I love America. It's the only true Conservative western nation, and conservatism is still rolling strong there.

This is one of many reasons why I love America. It's the only true Conservative western nation, and conservatism is still rolling strong there.

You're welcome to it.

This is one of many reasons why I love America. It's the only true Conservative western nation, and conservatism is still rolling strong there.
It's not conservative--it's regressive, and if it keeps up, we're going to regress our asses all the way back to the 15th century.

Certainly my favorite yardstick, common sense, tells us that our thoughts and emotions are not for public consumption unless we say so. Which brings us back to abortion. My argument is that a right to privacy does exist, but it is not extended to abortion. Any procedure that requires the services of a doctor, nurses, hospital, insurance company, and possibly a government agency or two isn't private in the commonly used sense of the word. So again, I'll say that the Constitution, as amended, doesn't provide any federal protection for abortions. Return the power to the states.

So could the states ban heart transplants? Bypass surgeries? Chemotherapy? Vaccinations?

It's not conservative--it's regressive, and if it keeps up, we're going to regress our asses all the way back to the 15th century.

We're not regressing. We're figuring it out. Our nation continues to progress despite the setbacks of the short-sighted and woefully discriminatory administrations of the past quarter century. We continue make progress in the realm of civil rights. We continue to make progress in gender equality. We continue to make progress in the realm of LGBT rights. I mean, yes, there is the DOMA and there are laws that outlaw gay marriage outright, but unlike 25 years ago, it's being openly discussed and analyzed. The idea of the gay/bisexual/transgender/lesbian/"insert sexuality or gender identity here" lifestyle continues to be debunked by the exploration of television, movies, music, news, etc.

Our country has the unfortunate and wonderful effect of being a behemoth with a ton of momentum and it takes a lot of effort to change its direction. It's a great thing when you want to prevent some short-sighted politician from eroding our rights and it's a difficult thing when you want to stop eroding rights that have been destroyed or ignored essentially since the inception of the country. The point is that we can move it when we need and we have the energy and the heart to do so. Look around, it's happening and GWB and the fanatics on either side don't have the power to stop this behemoth from heading down the right path no matter how much they scream and shake their fist at it.

Republicans suck, I agree, but if you really want to have that argument, start a new thread.
i dont consider republican suckage to be up for debate. i was commenting on what i hope the price of their policies turns out to be.

Sure. I can't regurgitate an unlimited number of opinions in my favor, but that's not what matters, anyway. Courts have been wrong before and they'll be wrong again. I'm a 'first principles' kind of guy. That works in physics and it would work in law, too, if common sense was admissible.

Enough of that. The 14th and 9th amendments are the most often cited when talking about the 'right' to an abortion. I'm a little confused about that, as the 14th amendment was only adopted to show the South that the Abolitionists meant business. The amendment was intended only to guarantee that slaves held the rights that other citizens enjoyed. As it turns out, it was a hack that was badly planned and had many unforseen consequences. It certainly lacks the clarity of the first ten amendments. In fact, it wasn't until the mid 1960s that this amendment was used to create a 'right' to privacy.

The ninth amendment, on the other hand, is quite clear. It elegantly allows that there are rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution. My opinion is that the 'right' to an abortion is not one of those unnamed rights.

You wanted a contrast with the IPA, right? The Constitution, as amended, gives no federal power to regulate abortion. Or any other medical treatment, for that matter. That is clearly delegated to the states under the 10th amendment, and there it should stay. The Campaign Finance Act clearly limits free speech rights given in the First amendment. Thus it isn't a proper function of the federal government. Like Roe, the IPA should be overturned and returned to the states as a right that has been reserved for their action.

The question was why can't states regulate free speech, but can regulate abortion.

You didn't answer that question.

You didn't explain why the 1st Amendment applies to the states. If you knew anything about the subject, you would know it only applies to the states because it has been incorporated through the 14th Amendment.

The Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment protects fundamental liberties. You are mistaken if you think the 9th Amendment has played an important role in constitutional law. It has not. The 14th Amendment has.

The First Amendment has been held to be a fundamental liberty protected by the 14th Amendment. So has privacy. So has the right to abortion.

The Bill of Rights, as incorporated (http://www.answers.com/topic/incorporation-bill-of-rights) through the Fourteenth Amendment, limits the powers of state and local governments, as well as the federal government.

The right to privacy is a fundamental human right and the Supreme Court has correctly recognized that the right to choose is protected by the Constitution. See, e.g., Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/505/833.html ); Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/410/113.html )

The Tenth Amendment has little practical meaning. More importantly, it does not authorize the states to deny any rights of the people -- such as free speech, privacy, due process, or reproductive rights.

I'll let the Supreme Court do a little explaining for me:

Constitutional protection of the woman's decision to terminate her pregnancy derives from the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It declares that no State shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The controlling word in the cases before us is "liberty." Although a literal reading of the Clause might suggest that it governs only the procedures by which a State may deprive persons of liberty, for at least 105 years, since Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623, 660 -661 (1887), the Clause has been understood to contain a substantive component as well, one "barring certain government actions regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them." Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 331 (1986). As Justice Brandeis (joined by Justice Holmes) observed, [d]espite arguments to the contrary which had seemed to me persuasive, it is settled that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to matters of substantive law as well as to matters of procedure. Thus all fundamental rights comprised within the term liberty are protected by the Federal Constitution from invasion by the States. Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 373 (1927) (concurring opinion). [T]he guaranties of due process, though having their roots in Magna Carta's "per legem terrae" and considered as procedural safeguards "against executive usurpation and tyranny," have in this country "become bulwarks also against arbitrary legislation." Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 541 (1961) (Harlan, J., dissenting from dismissal on jurisdictional grounds) (quoting Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516, 532 (1884)).

The most familiar of the substantive liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment are those recognized by the Bill of Rights. We have held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates most of the Bill of Rights against the States. See, e.g., Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 147 -148 (1968). It is tempting, as a means of curbing the discretion of federal judges, to suppose that liberty encompasses no more than those rights already guaranteed to the individual against federal interference by the express provisions of the first eight amendments to the Constitution. See Adamson v. California, 332 U.S. 46, 68 -92 (1947) (Black, J., dissenting). But of course this Court has never accepted that view.

... It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter. We have vindicated this principle before. Marriage is mentioned nowhere in the Bill of Rights, and interracial marriage was illegal in most States in the 19th century, but the Court was no doubt correct in finding it to be an aspect of liberty protected against state interference by the substantive component of the Due Process Clause in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967) (relying, in an opinion for eight Justices, on the Due Process Clause). Similar examples may be found in Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 94 -99 (1987); in Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 684 -686 (1977); in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 481 -482 (1965), as well as in the separate opinions of a majority of the Members of the Court in that case, id. at 486-488 (Goldberg, J., joined by Warren, C.J., and Brennan, J., concurring) (expressly relying on due process), id. at 500-502 (Harlan, J., concurring in judgment) (same), id. at 502-507, (WHITE, J., concurring in judgment) (same); in Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 534 -535 (1925); and in Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 -403 (1923).

Neither the Bill of Rights nor the specific practices of States at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment marks the outer limits of the substantive sphere of liberty which the Fourteenth Amendment protects. See U.S. Const., Amdt. 9. As the second Justice Harlan recognized:

[T]he full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution. This "liberty" is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . . . and which also recognizes, what a reasonable and sensitive judgment must, that certain interests require particularly careful scrutiny of the state needs asserted to justify their abridgment. Poe v. Ullman, supra, 367 U.S., at 543 (dissenting from dismissal on jurisdictional grounds).

Justice Harlan wrote these words in addressing an issue the full Court did not reach in Poe v. Ullman, but the Court adopted his position four Terms later in Griswold v. Connecticut, supra. In Griswold, we held that the Constitution does not permit a State to forbid a married couple to use contraceptives. That same freedom was later guaranteed, under the Equal Protection Clause, for unmarried couples. See Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972). Constitutional protection was extended to the sale and distribution of contraceptives in Carey v. Population Services International, supra. It is settled now, as it was when the Court heard arguments in Roe v. Wade, that the Constitution places limits on a State's right to interfere with a person's most basic decisions about family and parenthood, see Carey v. Population Services International, supra; Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 (1977); Eisenstadt v. Baird, supra; Loving v. Virginia, supra; Griswold v. Connecticut, supra; Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, supra; Meyer v. Nebraska, supra, as well as bodily integrity, see, e.g., Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 221 -222 (1990); Winston v. Lee, 470 U.S. 753 (1985); Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952).

...

Our law affords constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education. Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S., at 685 . Our cases recognize 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. Eisenstadt v. Baird, supra, 405 U.S., at 453 (emphasis in original). Our precedents "have respected the private realm of family life which the state cannot enter." Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944). These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life


--Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/505/833.html)

Interesting, so the courts, rather than considering the legal arguments, should consider that the religious right isn't going to like them and reverse their decision, because anything else causes a very vocal religious minority to attack them, is that right? And here I thought they were making legal decisions.

Hmmm... I guess they better go back and reverse decisions about interracial marriage because that sure made some people mad at the courts and politicized the courts for a while.

I guess they need to not protect gays because that sure upsets the religious right and we sure can't risk upsetting a small vocal minority group. Oh, wait, isn't the... no, it can't be... but wait, aren't gay rights advocates a small vocal minority group? They are? *gasp* You mean we can't make everyone happy and issues should be decided on the basis of laws rather than on the basis of making everyone happy? But that would be silly... why would a court of LAW interpret LAW using LEGAL arguments when they just make decisions that make the religious right happy. It's settled. Glad everyone's happy.

The last paragraph I posted was nothing but legal arguments. That is the basis for my opposition to Roe. The rest is just icing on the cake.

Edit: what I am advocating is a commitment to democracy. Do you believe that Congress should have passed the Civil Rights Act, because it applied to those who conducted their entire business within a state, not just those that engaged in interstate commerce?

The last paragraph I posted was nothing but legal arguments. That is the basis for my opposition to Roe. The rest is just icing on the cake.

Legal arguments that amount to nothing. You ask a bunch of questions, don't answer them and don't associate them to how you think your interpretation legally makes the status quo on abortion wrong. You offered nothing in the way of legal arguments, just marginally-connected questions about the legal system, in general.

This is going to veer off in another direction for a while. Maybe there is an existing right to privacy. But, the 'right' to privacy is not universally recognized by law. We make exceptions for 'hate' crimes, where the thoughts and emotions of the perpetrator are weighed when evaluating whether he is guilty of a basic crime or whether he is guilty of 'hating' the victim while commiting the crime. This is really silly, but it does start us thinking about whether a person can be committing a crime with just a thought. I mean, if it aggravates the crime, why can't it be a crime in and of itself?.

The difference between murder and manslaughter is also one of intent. Is that silly?

You are only showing your lack of understanding of criminal law.

Certainly my favorite yardstick, common sense, tells us that our thoughts and emotions are not for public consumption unless we say so. Which brings us back to abortion. My argument is that a right to privacy does exist, but it is not extended to abortion. Any procedure that requires the services of a doctor, nurses, hospital, insurance company, and possibly a government agency or two isn't private in the commonly used sense of the word. So again, I'll say that the Constitution, as amended, doesn't provide any federal protection for abortions. Return the power to the states.

Certainly my favorite yardstick, common sense, tells us that our bodies are not for public consumption unless we say so

Again:

Our law affords constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education. Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S., at 685 . Our cases recognize 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. Eisenstadt v. Baird, supra, 405 U.S., at 453 (emphasis in original). Our precedents "have respected the private realm of family life which the state cannot enter." Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944). These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life

Under your definition anything that is not fully contained within my mind is not private and not free. So I can have free thought, but not free speech.

I'm pro-choice for the most part on everything. I have a lot of problems with abortion morally, but at the same time it is something that is so intensely private that it's very difficult for me to oppose it in any way legally. At the same time, Roe v. Wade has been disastrous for America in the following ways:


It has positioned the Religious right in firm opposition to the courts.
It has colored and politicized our view of the courts in general.
It has allowed potentially moderate politicians to simply play the religious Right off the courts, without having to actually do anything.
Other decisions like Texas v. Johnson, while opposed by a majority of Americans at the time, nonetheless have stood the test of time, because they have compelling Constitutional arguments. Roe v. Wade was a big stretch (if they applied the same principles to the commerce clause, for example, there would hardly be any federal regulation of business at all).


Maybe these objections are more than compensated by the potential personal freedom gained through Roe v. Wade. Yet inconcievably, this seems one issue that has continually been decided in favor of abortion rights in virtually every other developed country (even fairly religious ones). Blame at this point will be shifted back to religious conservatism in America and how evil it is and how we cannot prevent these evil radicals from changing the laws democratically. But virtually every radical (for the record, I despise the word 'radical' as it is so subjective, so I am applying it from the position of the pro-choice crowd) movement has arisen because some tyrant pushed too far, and too much, and there was a backlash.

Other than the difficulty of ammending it, what prevents the constitution from having the same characteristics of interpretation ascribed to it as any piece of legislation made under it? If we really believe that the constitution is a "living, breathing document," does that mean that it then becomes a thing that can be molded after the principles of the left or the right, depending on who is in power (and who can get justices on the court)? And if we are to bend the constitution to the predominate will of the modern day, why would a court issue a decision against democracy? As a libertarian, my opinion is that "democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others." (W. Churchill) But you have to walk before you can run, and this is one issue where self-determination HAS prevailed in democratic determinations. Roe v. Wade is bad law, and needs to be overturned.

You do not appear to understand the concepts of rights or a Constitution.

These are not matters for popular vote.

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/319/624.html ), 319 US 624, 638 (1943):

The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.

The last paragraph I posted was nothing but legal arguments. That is the basis for my opposition to Roe. The rest is just icing on the cake.

Edit: what I am advocating is a commitment to democracy. Do you believe that Congress should have passed the Civil Rights Act, because it applied to those who conducted their entire business within a state, not just those that engaged in interstate commerce?

You did not actually make any legal argument at all. You made some vague appeals to democracy that do not reflect the existence of the 14th Amendment and over 100 years of substantive Due Process.

Your edit is a non-sequitor. It has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

The difference between murder and manslaughter is also one of intent. Is that silly?

You are only showing your lack of understanding of criminal law.

I'm not holding myself out as a lawyer. I can only bill my clients for 24 hours every day. But I do think that a lay person should be able to read and form an opinion on the law. If our law is so complex that a lay person cannot read it and hold an opinion, then it should be simplified. I've given you my opinion and you have repeated opinions of others. That doesn't make for much of a discussion, does it?

I think you misunderstood what I object to in hate crime sentencing. A man can certainly be guilty of murder, manslaughter, or assault. But to say that he deserves a longer, harder sentence because he had hateful thoughts is absolutely wrong. What he thinks is his business, and no one elses. It certainly doesn't make the victim any more or less injured. It is difficult to me to imagine any violent crime occuring without any malice toward the victim. Maybe a mob hit -- "It's just business".

To repeat an earlier comment, I don't consider that the 14th Amendment has anywhere near the power that it has been given over the years. It was just a hack to the Constitution that guaranteed that states would be powerless to deprive slaves of their rights. It's been used out of context for just about any purpose that a court has seen fit for it to serve. In fact, non-slave citizens already had all the rights and it is only a redundant statement in that scope.

Again, you missed my point about thoughts and privacy. If you'll read the dissent to Roe v Wade, you'll find that I'm not to much different that those judges in my opinion of what is private and what is public. When you talk about free thought vs free speech, you are no longer discussing privacy, but free speech. Yes, thoughts are private, but speech is not. Speech is protected explicitly by the First amendment, Privacy is vaguely protected by the Ninth.

You did not actually make any legal argument at all. You made some vague appeals to democracy that do not reflect the existence of the 14th Amendment and over 100 years of substantive Due Process.

Your edit is a non-sequitor. It has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

Ha, your response was almost identical to mine. Good to see you, friend.

You do not appear to understand the concepts of rights or a Constitution.

These are not matters for popular vote.

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/319/624.html ), 319 US 624, 638 (1943):

The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.

Of course I do. I mentioned Texas vs. Johnson, which gives a person the right to burn the flag (which was a ruling against democracy). This is because the burning of a flag, or any display of opinion in a way consistent with the rights of others, is, in effect, "speech." The spirit of the law is there, and even conservatives can see that. The question is, when rights come into conflict with each other, what should be the outcome? Of course the woman has the right to life, liberty, and property, but so does the child. To me the best way of handling this is to establish parameters, and let the democratic process deal with the gray areas. To me those parameters are conception (i.e. before conception no law should be allowed) and the life of the child after birth. As I have said before, I am pro-choice. The problems I have with Roe are they try to divine a standard so fundamental, that all other things being equal it is better to have a balance determined by legislatures in their respective states, than by nine justices in Washington D.C.

I'm not holding myself out as a lawyer. I can only bill my clients for 24 hours every day. But I do think that a lay person should be able to read and form an opinion on the law. If our law is so complex that a lay person cannot read it and hold an opinion, then it should be simplified. I've given you my opinion and you have repeated opinions of others. That doesn't make for much of a discussion, does it?

He pulled out parts of the legal argument that can be easily understood by the layperson that explain the reason for the current legal position. If you are going to argue about something that is inherently legal, you are going to need to have an understanding of the legal lay of the land. Of course, you're welcome to make a moral argument but that really has no bearing on what we're currently talking about.

Meanwhile, he pulled the opinions of Supreme Court Justices whose sole purpose is to translate the US Constitution so that it can be applied to us layfolks who can't charge for more than 24 hours in a day. I would say given that they are selected as legal experts on the US Constitution and are given a job that bears entirely on this issue, that his quoted material is fairly pertinent.

I think you misunderstood what I object to in hate crime sentencing. A man can certainly be guilty of murder, manslaughter, or assault. But to say that he deserves a longer, harder sentence because he had hateful thoughts is absolutely wrong. What he thinks is his business, and no one elses. It certainly doesn't make the victim any more or less injured. It is difficult to me to imagine any violent crime occuring without any malice toward the victim. Maybe a mob hit -- "It's just business".

Does intent make a person more or less injured? Why is it considered? Because the difference between negligence and intent to kill is significant and should be addressed. Does a hate crime make a person more or less injured? No. But it makes the entired of the class of people feel less safe. It has a greater effect to the public. Hate crime legislation adjusts the penalty for that effect.

To repeat an earlier comment, I don't consider that the 14th Amendment has anywhere near the power that it has been given over the years. It was just a hack to the Constitution that guaranteed that states would be powerless to deprive slaves of their rights. It's been used out of context for just about any purpose that a court has seen fit for it to serve. In fact, non-slave citizens already had all the rights and it is only a redundant statement in that scope.

You wrong about both the intent of the amendment and the law that surrounds it. Of course, cases could be posted to show that but you are unwilling to look at them because that would be make a legal argument about, you know, a legal issue.

Again, you missed my point about thoughts and privacy. If you'll read the dissent to Roe v Wade, you'll find that I'm not to much different that those judges in my opinion of what is private and what is public. When you talk about free thought vs free speech, you are no longer discussing privacy, but free speech. Yes, thoughts are private, but speech is not. Speech is protected explicitly by the First amendment, Privacy is vaguely protected by the Ninth.

Well, then you should be more clear. You clearly try to make the argument that only thoughts and emotions are private and that once you wander into the point of interacting with others it becomes public. In fact, that was your entire argument for why this isn't a privacy issue.

Let's be specific.

Are relationships private or can they be legislated by the states?
Are religous marriages able to be legislated?
Can legislation deny me the ability to have heart surgery?
Can legislation deny me the freedom to choose what color clothes I wear?
Should there be doctor/patient confidentiality?
Should my conversations with my mother be subject to legislation?
In other words, do I get to make other private decisions about my body?

Of course I do. I mentioned Texas vs. Johnson, which gives a person the right to burn the flag (which was a ruling against democracy). This is because the burning of a flag, or any display of opinion in a way consistent with the rights of others, is, in effect, "speech." The spirit of the law is there, and even conservatives can see that. The question is, when rights come into conflict with each other, what should be the outcome? Of course the woman has the right to life, liberty, and property, but so does the child. To me the best way of handling this is to establish parameters, and let the democratic process deal with the gray areas. To me those parameters are conception (i.e. before conception no law should be allowed) and the life of the child after birth. As I have said before, I am pro-choice. The problems I have with Roe are they try to divine a standard so fundamental, that all other things being equal it is better to have a balance determined by legislatures in their respective states, than by nine justices in Washington D.C.

The problem is there is no objective reason for setting those parameters or for allowing people to vote on what private citizens do with their bodies. The only reason for the vote is if you ALREADY assume there is a child. You are making a circular argument.

The focus of the law that the Supreme Court is looking at is partial birth abortions. Not knowing much about partial birth abortions, I took the liberty of examining the process. I was horrified to find that the process involves the doctor pulling the fetus' legs out, delivers the baby, and stabs it in the back of the head. I encourage you all to do the research for yourselves.

If we did that to animals, you have to admit that PETA would be all over us, yet we do it to human fetuses.

For those who are utterly convinced that D&X or D&E are used as "birth control" for women who "just don't want to use other forms of birth control," lets look at a few studies of the methods themselves:

From a paper which sought to compare D&X (dilation and extraction) and D&E (dilation and evacuation) which tracked 383 abortions at a hospital over a period of time, the reasons for the procedures were as follows:

For D&E (which the authors found was most often used earlier than D&X, with very little other difference between them):

42.6% Abnormal fetal karyotype (In other words, chromosomal defects)
36.5% Structural fetal abnormality
10.3% Intrauterine fetal demise
5.3% premature cervical dilation/PPROM (preterm premature rupture of membranes)
8.4% Other

*Some women had more than one indication
Even if we assume that all of the "other" category did not fit into any of the listed categories, and that all of the "other"s just didn't want to use birth control (not very good assumptions), we aren't looking at a huge percentage here.

Let's look at D&X from the same paper (a procedure used only 120 times in the seven-year period of the study):

27.5% Abnormal fetal karyotype (In other words, chromosomal defects)
39.2% Structural fetal abnormality
11.7% Intrauterine fetal demise
16.7% premature cervical dilation/PPROM (preterm premature rupture of membranes)
10.8% Other

From another, more recent study investigating the effects of such abortions on later pregnancy (Look kids! These were women who actually wanted to have a child!):

69% Fetal abnormality
10% Intrauternine fetal demise
9.2% PPROM or spontaneous cervical dilation
5% Other



Somehow, the "others" don't seem to be winning out here, and chances are that not all of them (hell, probably not even most of them) are "I didn't want to use birth control and now I'm going to have an abortion."
:rolleyes:

The focus of the law that the Supreme Court is looking at is partial birth abortions. Not knowing much about partial birth abortions, I took the liberty of examining the process. I was horrified to find that the process involves the doctor pulling the fetus' legs out, delivers the baby, and stabs it in the back of the head. I encourage you all to do the research for yourselves.

If we did that to animals, you have to admit that PETA would be all over us, yet we do it to human fetuses.

Have you ever seen a liver transplant? It's really awful. They knock someone completely out with potentially lethal drugs. They shave the patient in weird places and shove a big tube up into the patient's urethra. Then they cut into the patient by burning through the skin and membranes. Once they get into the chest cavity, they cut out the person's liver, burning most of the places that start to bleed in the process, clipping the major blood vessels for later use. Then they take a liver from another person, makeshift a few blood vessels, shove it into the patient, and sew them up. I encourage you all to do the research for yourselves.

If we did that to animals, you have to admit that PETA would be all over us, yet we do it to human liver patients.


Sorry my dear, but medicine isn't pretty.

Edit: Meanwhile, the procedure does not involve delivering it and then stabbing it in the back of the head. Delivering it would mean a full birth. It basically involves getting the fetus to a point that the doctor can reach it, at which point the spinal cord is cut.

And by the way, all you so-called pro-choice Bush voters, this is largely your fault, if it gets overturned and abortions become illegal in this country.
Well, by simply voting for Bush they've done exactly as much or as little harm as the anti-choice Bush voters. Thinking about abortion doesn't change anything.

Unfortunately, I think Pro-Death is going to win out. Alito seems like he leans left.
Hell yeah! Death all tha way! Kill the babies, the criminals, the animals and the Middle East! HEll, why stop there, let's kill the planet!

The problem is there is no objective reason for setting those parameters or for allowing people to vote on what private citizens do with their bodies. The only reason for the vote is if you ALREADY assume there is a child. You are making a circular argument.

As I see it, either way we look at it, it's conclusive. If you look at the Mother, of course you have the right to do with your body as you will. If you look at the child, of course the child has the right to life. The problem as I see it is, we as a society have never actually quantified what is or is not a human being. That is what IMO must be voted on democratically, as well as, if we do indeed ascertain that the fetus is a human being, what the balance should be between both interests.

As I see it, the most practical barrier is birth. I sympathize with those who contest that the fetus is human, but nonetheless see it as a choice that the mother should make. Before birth, it is the woman's choice; after it is society's duty to protect it.

Of course, the best way of handing this is to pass an ammendment to the Constitution which clears up this whole mess.

*snip*

By the way, you know what I find most interesting about the argument that the it's just 'sluts who didn't want to you use birth control'? This is a horribly traumatic procedure that you'd have to be nuts to go through when you have so many simpler procedures and medications that accomplish the same thing. PLUS, you have to go through five or six months of pregnancy, just to end up with no baby. Why would anybody do that?

Well, by simply voting for Bush they've done exactly as much or as little harm as the anti-choice Bush voters. Thinking about abortion doesn't change anything.
If you're pro-choice, really pro-choice, then you had to know that Bush and his party are against you. They've said for the last forty years or so, that their ultimate goal is to outlaw abortion. Some members are more extreme than others, and in the past--ten years ago, for instance--there were Republican politicians who really did stand up for the right to choose. But not any more. The most prominent members of the Senate showed that they sold out to executive and religious power during both the Roberts and Alito nominations.

I just don't believe you can claim to be a pro-choice Republican anymore. You might be able to argue that choice is nice, or that it's a good thing, but the party you support is out to get rid of choice, plain and simple. If you want to say that abortion isn't that high a priority for you, that other issues are more important and that you support Republicans for those reasons, that's fine--just don't identify yourself as pro-choice, because you voted for the party that wants to end choice. Actions speak louder than words.

By the way, you know what I find most interesting about the argument that the it's just 'sluts who didn't want to you use birth control'? This is a horribly traumatic procedure that you'd have to be nuts to go through when you have so many simpler procedures and medications that accomplish the same thing. PLUS, you have to go through five or six months of pregnancy, just to end up with no baby. Why would anybody do that?
Because for these people, it's not about the fetus--it's about the sex. It's about the idea that someone could have sex and not have a child as a result. They really are harkening back to the idea that a woman's job is to procreate and nothing more, and anything that gets in the way of that--abortion, birth control, lesbianism--is evil and contrary to God's will. These people would return us to the Dark Ages, sexually speaking.

As I see it, either way we look at it, it's conclusive. If you look at the Mother, of course you have the right to do with your body as you will. If you look at the child, of course the child has the right to life. The problem as I see it is, we as a society have never actually quantified what is or is not a human being. That is what IMO must be voted on democratically, as well as, if we do indeed ascertain that the fetus is a human being, what the balance should be between both interests.

As I see it, the most practical barrier is birth. I sympathize with those who contest that the fetus is human, but nonetheless see it as a choice that the mother should make. Before birth, it is the woman's choice; after it is society's duty to protect it.

Of course, the best way of handing this is to pass an ammendment to the Constitution which clears up this whole mess.

EDIT: I take it back. This is the same old BS. You admit that you don't know it's a child, but you try to allow the 'child' to invoke rights. Absent of the rights of the 'child', you have no right to put to vote what medical procedures a woman can and cannot have. There is nothing gray about the issue. Unless you can show there are anyone else's rights involved (and even then it's a question), you simply don't have any argument for denying a woman's rights.

As I see it, either way we look at it, it's conclusive. If you look at the Mother, of course you have the right to do with your body as you will. If you look at the child, of course the child has the right to life. The problem as I see it is, we as a society have never actually quantified what is or is not a human being. That is what IMO must be voted on democratically, as well as, if we do indeed ascertain that the fetus is a human being, what the balance should be between both interests.
I don't think we should ever put to a vote wheter or not a fetus is a person. I mean first off all your opening up a decision to people who haven't studied the issue and are voting off of stances which lack logic. Secondly just because you vote on what is a human being does not make it so. Hell last time we did something like this people were still considered property.

As I see it, either way we look at it, it's conclusive. If you look at the Mother, of course you have the right to do with your body as you will. If you look at the child, of course the child has the right to life.

There are two problems here. First, you make this statement and follow it with:

The problem as I see it is, we as a society have never actually quantified what is or is not a human being.

Now, if we haven't quantified it, how can you refer to an embryo/fetus (especially early term fetus) as a child? You are stating in no uncertain terms that it is a human being - a human child - with certain rights, and then stating that "human being" has not yet been defined. You contradict yourself.

The second problem is the following: Even if we say, "Yes, an embryo/fetus is a human being with human rights," human rights do not include a right to the body of another. Anyone who makes the argument that a mother must donate her womb to the fetus to preserve it's life must also logically argue that I must donate part of my liver or a kidney or my blood or my bone marrow to someone who needs it in order to preserve their life.

Would you be ok with it if your state passed a law making blood donation mandatory? What if they made live organ donation mandatory?

That is what IMO must be voted on democratically, as well as, if we do indeed ascertain that the fetus is a human being, what the balance should be between both interests.

Shouldn't this be something that is more objectively defined than by taking a vote which includes people who don't even know what an embryo or fetus even is - people who can't even tell you what DNA is?

Of course, the best way of handing this is to pass an ammendment to the Constitution which clears up this whole mess.

And what would that ammendment be?

Because for these people, it's not about the fetus--it's about the sex. It's about the idea that someone could have sex and not have a child as a result. They really are harkening back to the idea that a woman's job is to procreate and nothing more, and anything that gets in the way of that--abortion, birth control, lesbianism--is evil and contrary to God's will. These people would return us to the Dark Ages, sexually speaking.

You know, on Boston Legal, someone made a comment that it seems like the more alternatives there are to abortion (like the morning-after pill) the more opposition there is. The response by Murphy Brown was something like, "that's because it's not about abortion, it's about control." The fact is that women who are denied the morning-after pill are simply being forced to make a decision that may result in an abortion. Those doctors that object on moral grounds essentially had a hand in bringing about an abortion. Interesting, no?

Remember people this is a controversial topic so lets try to keep it civil. To help acomplish this point I've brought a visual aid

http://www.found.org.uk/resource/hhfh/deadpool.jpg

For those who don't get this its sacrasm.
That is Brilliant!

I just don't believe you can claim to be a pro-choice Republican anymore. You might be able to argue that choice is nice, or that it's a good thing, but the party you support is out to get rid of choice, plain and simple. If you want to say that abortion isn't that high a priority for you, that other issues are more important and that you support Republicans for those reasons, that's fine--just don't identify yourself as pro-choice, because you voted for the party that wants to end choice. Actions speak louder than words.
I agree. Though it is worth noting that Republicans are never going to end abortion. They'll say that they want to, they'll put on a show, but at the end of the day all each party wants is to stay in power. If abortion is gone, then so is many people's main reason to vote Republican.

Because for these people, it's not about the fetus--it's about the sex. It's about the idea that someone could have sex and not have a child as a result.
I've noticed that US social conservatives seem to be rather fixated on sex.

You know, on Boston Legal, someone made a comment that it seems like the more alternatives there are to abortion (like the morning-after pill) the more opposition there is. The response by Murphy Brown was something like, "that's because it's not about abortion, it's about control." The fact is that women who are denied the morning-after pill are simply being forced to make a decision that may result in an abortion. Those doctors that object on moral grounds essentially had a hand in bringing about an abortion. Interesting, no?
Yeah--that's precisely the reason why the whole "it's a baby, not a choice" argument is so fatuous. Because if they were so damned concerned about the baby, they'd be working to increase sex education, access to birth control and emergency contraception, because those are all things that lower the abortion rate. What they really want is for women to shut the fuck up and get back in the kitchen and be good little cum dumpsters that calve every year like clockwork.

And then there's the whole issue that most of the people who chant about being pro-life are also supporters of the Republican economic strategy, which seems to be based partly on the idea of cutting any and all possible aid to children. What they really are is pro-birth--once they're out, they're on their own.

If you're pro-choice, really pro-choice, then you had to know that Bush and his party are against you. They've said for the last forty years or so, that their ultimate goal is to outlaw abortion. Some members are more extreme than others, and in the past--ten years ago, for instance--there were Republican politicians who really did stand up for the right to choose. But not any more. The most prominent members of the Senate showed that they sold out to executive and religious power during both the Roberts and Alito nominations.

I just don't believe you can claim to be a pro-choice Republican anymore. You might be able to argue that choice is nice, or that it's a good thing, but the party you support is out to get rid of choice, plain and simple. If you want to say that abortion isn't that high a priority for you, that other issues are more important and that you support Republicans for those reasons, that's fine--just don't identify yourself as pro-choice, because you voted for the party that wants to end choice. Actions speak louder than words.

I don't agree with you. You pointed out that it may not be the issue that drives your decision. As long as there is a two-party system there will always be this kind of an issue of having to prioritize your issues and just go with the person that sucks least, but that should not be seen as a wholesale endorsement of the candidate. Do you think as many people wholesale endorse the actions of GWB as voted for him? Of course not. Same with Kerry. They simply thought Bush would do less damage than Kerry, or vice versa.

Did you vote for Clinton? If you did, then you're anti-gay. Clinton signed the DOMA and no one that believed in equality for LGBT's would sign such a ridiculous and unconstitutional document. You can vote democrat if you like, but just don't identify yourself as being for Gay rights, okay? See how ridiculous that argument is.

And here's the clincher, I think we're going to find that Alito and Roberts, or at least Roberts, are going to uphold Roe v. Wade. I fully expect Roberts to go with precedence and not rock that boat. I hope Alito does the same.

I truly believe the majority of Republican politicians stroke the pro-Life lobby because it wins elections. I sincerely doubt most of them would do something as stupid as ACTUALLY reversing Roe v. Wade. Remember that proposing a law that will never pass or remain in law due to the Supreme Court is a great way, politically, to make a statement about what you 'believe' without pissing the people who disagree with you off too much. It's a strategy and try not to read too much into it.

Now, if we haven't quantified it, how can you refer to an embryo/fetus (especially early term fetus) as a child? You are stating in no uncertain terms that it is a human being - a human child - with certain rights, and then stating that "human being" has not yet been defined. You contradict yourself.

One's personal; the other's societal. Obviously I realize I'm not the only person or viewpoint on the planet.

I don't think we should ever put to a vote wheter or not a fetus is a person. I mean first off all your opening up a decision to people who haven't studied the issue and are voting off of stances which lack logic. Secondly just because you vote on what is a human being does not make it so. Hell last time we did something like this people were still considered property.

I advocate democracy because it is the best we've got. I don't think this is necessarily something that should be solely determined by logic (the wonderful thing about choice is it isn't necessarily overtly conformative to the logical threads of the time, which can be wrong). Heck, even ammending the constitution is a political process that might be called democratic.

And what would that ammendment be?

Whatever the people decide it should be. Of course, whatever they decide would be very difficult to unravel.Personally I would keep it as open as possible until birth.

This post does not say what I read in the last post. I thought you were saying that the democratic process should decide what is legal and what isn't between conception and birth (the gray area you referred to). This would put abortion to a vote. Now you seem to be saying that abortion should not be voted on.

It should be voted on. This would be my particular position if it ever was.

I just don't believe you can claim to be a pro-choice Republican anymore. You might be able to argue that choice is nice, or that it's a good thing, but the party you support is out to get rid of choice, plain and simple. If you want to say that abortion isn't that high a priority for you, that other issues are more important and that you support Republicans for those reasons, that's fine--just don't identify yourself as pro-choice, because you voted for the party that wants to end choice. Actions speak louder than words.

This is, of course, ludicrous, especially when the values of 290 million people are squeezed narrowly into two parties.

Yeah--that's precisely the reason why the whole "it's a baby, not a choice" argument is so fatuous. Because if they were so damned concerned about the baby, they'd be working to increase sex education, access to birth control and emergency contraception, because those are all things that lower the abortion rate. What they really want is for women to shut the fuck up and get back in the kitchen and be good little cum dumpsters that calve every year like clockwork.

And then there's the whole issue that most of the people who chant about being pro-life are also supporters of the Republican economic strategy, which seems to be based partly on the idea of cutting any and all possible aid to children. What they really are is pro-birth--once they're out, they're on their own.

Yes, I find it amusing as well.

"You can put them up for adoption."
"My baby is black, do you want to adopt him?"
"Hell, no, but you can put them up for adoption anyway."
"Are you going to vote to increase funding to DCFS, child welfare, school funding, etc. for the increased population and the increase in people who cannot afford or raise children but have them?"
"Hell, no. Now would you stop making me sound like I haven't thought this through. The Bible is very clear on this. Abortion is illegal. If you're poor, it's because you're a loser. I have no obligation to be responsibe for forcing my particular brand of morality on others."
"The Bible says all that. Can you please point me to the verses?"
"Um, well, um, it says it. Are you calling God a liar?"

Do you think as many people wholesale endorse the actions of GWB as voted for him? Of course not.

What?!?! You mean GWB was lying with all that "clear mandate" stuff? Well I'll be darned....

hehe

And here's the clincher, I think we're going to find that Alito and Roberts, or at least Roberts, are going to uphold Roe v. Wade. I fully expect Roberts to go with precedence and not rock that boat. I hope Alito does the same.

It's so hard to tell what they're going to do. I'd like to think that both will go with precedent, since the precedent in this area makes darn good sense and abortion hardly meets the requirements set out in precedent for overturning precedent (there has to be a better way to say athat). But I really don't know. I wouldn't put it past Bush to coach his justices to walk the line to get voted in after making sure they'd vote his way.

One's personal; the other's societal. Obviously I realize I'm not the only person or viewpoint on the planet.

Good to know. Hopefully, you also realize that the 'viewpoint' of the majority is also not the only viewpoint on the planet.

I advocate democracy because it is the best we've got. I don't think this is necessarily something that should be solely determined by logic (the wonderful thing about choice is it isn't necessarily overtly conformative to the logical threads of the time, which can be wrong). Heck, even ammending the constitution is a political process that might be called democratic.

Good thing the founders didn't agree with you. That believed that some rights cannot and should not EVER be voted on. That's why they didn't create a democracy. "The best we've got" is a Republic and this what prevents people from being able to subjugate the rights of the minority to the majority.

Now, I'm wondering which of your rights we should be allowed to put up for a vote. If we decide that Christianity is doing to much damage by forcing certain 'ideals' on others, can we vote to outlaw it? If Christians were in the minority would you be willing to put your religion up for vote? Why are you so anxious to put the rights of a woman up for vote?

Whatever the people decide it should be. Of course, whatever they decide would be very difficult to unravel.Personally I would keep it as open as possible until birth.

Why should the rights of a woman be voted on? Unless of course you are already assuming there is a child. Still a circular argument.

It should be voted on. This would be my particular position if it ever was.

Again, which of your rights are available to be voted on. If they can be voted on are they even rights? Aren't they more like priveleges that can change with the next political wind?

What?!?! You mean GWB was lying with all that "clear mandate" stuff? Well I'll be darned....

hehe

Yes, according to him, Kerry had a clear mandate as well that exceeded every other president in history even Bush's first term.

It's so hard to tell what they're going to do. I'd like to think that both will go with precedent, since the precedent in this area makes darn good sense and abortion hardly meets the requirements set out in precedent for overturning precedent (there has to be a better way to say athat). But I really don't know. I wouldn't put it past Bush to coach his justices to walk the line to get voted in after making sure they'd vote his way.

If that's true, the Roberts deserves an oscar. Roberts is a true conservative (which is both good and bad) or appears to be. He believes, I think, in interpreting the law that exists and not the law that he wants to exist. If that's true, he has to uphold Roe v. Wade and recognize that banning gay marriage is unconstitutional, among other things. It means we won't be able to get any play from him on issues that are legal but just plain wrong, but really that's not the job of a justice. I watched a lot of the confirmation and I would have voted him in, given the choice.

I didn't watch as much of Alito.

By the way, that deleting thing only works if you do it, too. That's the second time I deleted a post so you could just edit your original and you didn't follow up and delete the reply. (btw, once you fix it, I'm editting this out).