Abortion as a States Rights Issue

[Luddly Neddite]

Its a right, guaranteed by our Constitution.

Control of one's own body is a human right.

It is NOT the right of others to control the bodies of others.

Get the goddamned R out of our bedrooms and our private lives. Believe what you wish on this and **other issues, but just as I do not have the right to control YOUR body, you do not have the right to control mine.

** such as, assisted suicide

Under what part of the constitution is abortion a right? I keep trying to find it, but I never can.

Constitution: Constitutional views on abortion

How is it that "you" can simper and whine about Roe v Wade but not understand that our SCOTUS ruled 'the right of personal privacy includes abortion' and is a constitutionally guaranteed right?

It doesn't matter whether or not YOU can "find it" because the SCOTUS did.

Understand now?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I can't tell you the number of times I've been called "liberal" on these boards. But I believe any human being has the right to protection under our legal system.

But rather than shower people with insults and vitriolic language why don't we confess that there are significant inequalities built into our system of procreation and there is just not too much we can do about that. And why not offer compassion and understanding rather than making a woman run a gauntlet of jeers and insults on what is already probably one of the worst days of her life.

I don't want to insult anyone or be insensitive. But if it's a human being, he or she deserves some protecting. Protecting the weaker from being victimized by the stronger is a central theme of our legal system. I can't think of a more appropriate application.

I wasn't calling you a liberal, but since you acknowledge that abortion is ending a human life would you be more comfortable with justifiable homicide or self-defense?

Oh I diodn't mean to imply I thought you were calling me a liberal. It just struck me that there are probably a lot of posters on the boards that would keel over if they saw me defending a "conservative" position.

But imho it's not an issue of conservative, or liberal, or of religion. To me, it's a simple question of law. At what point do human beings merit the protections of our legal system?

Why are some eager to defend the rights of a glob of protoplasm while ignoring or refusing the rights of children who are here, hungry and homeless?

This is a major reason why I have little use for the bible thumping types who SAY they are upholding some right of the unborn while voting to take, oh, say, school lunches, away from poor children.

And yes, its the most radical, bible thumping rw's who are doing exactly that and at the same time, congratulating themselves because they go sit in a tax free church, tithe their 10% but wouldn't get their hands dirty helping children.

But, all of that aside, abortion is simply no one's business but the woman's.

 

[martybegan]

Its a right, guaranteed by our Constitution.

Control of one's own body is a human right.

It is NOT the right of others to control the bodies of others.

Get the goddamned R out of our bedrooms and our private lives. Believe what you wish on this and **other issues, but just as I do not have the right to control YOUR body, you do not have the right to control mine.

** such as, assisted suicide

Under what part of the constitution is abortion a right? I keep trying to find it, but I never can.

Constitution: Constitutional views on abortion

How is it that "you" can simper and whine about Roe v Wade but not understand that our SCOTUS ruled 'the right of personal privacy includes abortion' and is a constitutionally guaranteed right?

It doesn't matter whether or not YOU can "find it" because the SCOTUS did.

Understand now?

Because years ago the court decided Dred Scott was not a person, and couldnt sue for his freedom. because years ago the court decided discrimination by a common carrier was consitutional, and therefore government discrimination was consitutional.

One was before the 14th and 15th amendments guaranteed rights regardless of race, one was after. The point is that both decsions were made by a court that stated what was going on was consitutional. In the first case it might have been, in the second, it was clearly not.

Interpretations of the consitution are not explicit words in the consitution, and interpreted rights are not explicit rights.

You just cant admit that the right to abortion is not in the constituion, but I ask you again, and try to do it in your own words, not links, "Is the right to an abortion in the consitution?"

Edit: Also reported you for not playing nice in the Clean Debate Zone. Next time check where your posts are going. "Simper and whine" is not playing nice.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I wasn't calling you a liberal, but since you acknowledge that abortion is ending a human life would you be more comfortable with justifiable homicide or self-defense?

Oh I diodn't mean to imply I thought you were calling me a liberal. It just struck me that there are probably a lot of posters on the boards that would keel over if they saw me defending a "conservative" position.

But imho it's not an issue of conservative, or liberal, or of religion. To me, it's a simple question of law. At what point do human beings merit the protections of our legal system?

Why are some eager to defend the rights of a glob of protoplasm while ignoring or refusing the rights of children who are here, hungry and homeless?

This is a major reason why I have little use for the bible thumping types who SAY they are upholding some right of the unborn while voting to take, oh, say, school lunches, away from poor children.

And yes, its the most radical, bible thumping rw's who are doing exactly that and at the same time, congratulating themselves because they go sit in a tax free church, tithe their 10% but wouldn't get their hands dirty helping children.

But, all of that aside, abortion is simply no one's business but the woman's.

Well, I believe it's the child's business. And since the child is unable to protect himself or herself - I believe it is the role of government to defend them.

I take a little offense at your suggestion that I do not care for living children. I know there are many "Bible-thumpers" whose positions I also find difficult to reconcile. I am a Christian, but I am a Christian who firmly believes in the seperation of church and state. I think that's what Jesus was talking about when he said "Give unto Caesar ..."

My position is NOT a religious one - it's a legal one.

At what point do you believe a child goes from a "glob of protoplasm" to a human with rights?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

REGARDLESS of its merits, this issue is killing the GOP among a large group of American women voters. Short of ignoring the issue, which is a moral imperative for many people, the only other way to approach it in a salable manner is to make it a States Rights issue.

This would allow the 60% majority who favor some restrictions on abortions to express their views within their states while allowing a plausible escape hatch for the other 40% who could travel to another state if necessary. (Contrary to popular propaganda, state laws do not extend across borders to other states.)

As a big supporter of the constitution and the ammendments within it I feel abortion is a states only issue as the power to do anything in this area was not specifically given to the federal govt in the constitution.

 

[nodoginnafight]

REGARDLESS of its merits, this issue is killing the GOP among a large group of American women voters. Short of ignoring the issue, which is a moral imperative for many people, the only other way to approach it in a salable manner is to make it a States Rights issue.

This would allow the 60% majority who favor some restrictions on abortions to express their views within their states while allowing a plausible escape hatch for the other 40% who could travel to another state if necessary. (Contrary to popular propaganda, state laws do not extend across borders to other states.)

As a big supporter of the constitution and the ammendments within it I feel abortion is a states only issue as the power to do anything in this area was not specifically given to the federal govt in the constitution.

equal protection?

 

[nodoginnafight]

off topic - but I have to commend all for keeping in the spirit of the "clean debate" board. I know this is one of the most divisive and contentious issues in America today - and pretty much everyone has refrained from using demeaning and insulting language. Thanks all.

 

[martybegan]

REGARDLESS of its merits, this issue is killing the GOP among a large group of American women voters. Short of ignoring the issue, which is a moral imperative for many people, the only other way to approach it in a salable manner is to make it a States Rights issue.

This would allow the 60% majority who favor some restrictions on abortions to express their views within their states while allowing a plausible escape hatch for the other 40% who could travel to another state if necessary. (Contrary to popular propaganda, state laws do not extend across borders to other states.)

As a big supporter of the constitution and the ammendments within it I feel abortion is a states only issue as the power to do anything in this area was not specifically given to the federal govt in the constitution.

equal protection?

equal protection UNDER THE LAW. As long as the law is equally applied, you have your equal protection.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Under what part of the constitution is abortion a right? I keep trying to find it, but I never can.

Constitution: Constitutional views on abortion

How is it that "you" can simper and whine about Roe v Wade but not understand that our SCOTUS ruled 'the right of personal privacy includes abortion' and is a constitutionally guaranteed right?

It doesn't matter whether or not YOU can "find it" because the SCOTUS did.

Understand now?

Because years ago the court decided Dred Scott was not a person, and couldnt sue for his freedom. because years ago the court decided discrimination by a common carrier was consitutional, and therefore government discrimination was consitutional.

One was before the 14th and 15th amendments guaranteed rights regardless of race, one was after. The point is that both decsions were made by a court that stated what was going on was consitutional. In the first case it might have been, in the second, it was clearly not.

Interpretations of the consitution are not explicit words in the consitution, and interpreted rights are not explicit rights.

You just cant admit that the right to abortion is not in the constituion, but I ask you again, and try to do it in your own words, not links, "Is the right to an abortion in the consitution?"

Edit: Also reported you for not playing nice in the Clean Debate Zone. Next time check where your posts are going. "Simper and whine" is not playing nice.

You're right that I did not see that this is in the "clean debate zone".

It does not matter if you or I believe its in the US Constitution. Its the SCOTUS that decides that.

You're certainly free to disagree but that won't change that fundamental fact.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

REGARDLESS of its merits, this issue is killing the GOP among a large group of American women voters. Short of ignoring the issue, which is a moral imperative for many people, the only other way to approach it in a salable manner is to make it a States Rights issue.

This would allow the 60% majority who favor some restrictions on abortions to express their views within their states while allowing a plausible escape hatch for the other 40% who could travel to another state if necessary. (Contrary to popular propaganda, state laws do not extend across borders to other states.)

As a big supporter of the constitution and the ammendments within it I feel abortion is a states only issue as the power to do anything in this area was not specifically given to the federal govt in the constitution.

equal protection?

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

I'm not sure how allowing people to have abortions or denying people from having abortions falls under the language of the equal protection clause of the 14th ammendment in your mind, can you enlighten me as to how you are personally interpreting that? (i'm not saying you are right or wrong, i'm just looking for more info on your view)

 

[nodoginnafight]

As a big supporter of the constitution and the ammendments within it I feel abortion is a states only issue as the power to do anything in this area was not specifically given to the federal govt in the constitution.

equal protection?

equal protection UNDER THE LAW. As long as the law is equally applied, you have your equal protection.

and does that equal protection apply to all humans within the jurisdiction?

 

[martybegan]

Constitution: Constitutional views on abortion

How is it that "you" can simper and whine about Roe v Wade but not understand that our SCOTUS ruled 'the right of personal privacy includes abortion' and is a constitutionally guaranteed right?

It doesn't matter whether or not YOU can "find it" because the SCOTUS did.

Understand now?

Because years ago the court decided Dred Scott was not a person, and couldnt sue for his freedom. because years ago the court decided discrimination by a common carrier was consitutional, and therefore government discrimination was consitutional.

One was before the 14th and 15th amendments guaranteed rights regardless of race, one was after. The point is that both decsions were made by a court that stated what was going on was consitutional. In the first case it might have been, in the second, it was clearly not.

Interpretations of the consitution are not explicit words in the consitution, and interpreted rights are not explicit rights.

You just cant admit that the right to abortion is not in the constituion, but I ask you again, and try to do it in your own words, not links, "Is the right to an abortion in the consitution?"

Edit: Also reported you for not playing nice in the Clean Debate Zone. Next time check where your posts are going. "Simper and whine" is not playing nice.

You're right that I did not see that this is in the "clean debate zone".

It does not matter if you or I believe its in the US Constitution. Its the SCOTUS that decides that.

You're certainly free to disagree but that won't change that fundamental fact.

But do you agree that the supreme court has been wrong before? and that something that people said is a right (the right of local governments to discriminate) can be taken away?

Threre is no language saying abortion is a right in the entire document, or even medical procedures are a right. If you feel so strongly about it, start a drive to make it an amendment guaranteeing a right to it.

Then you can say "its in the consitution" until then its only in the mind of dead supreme court justices.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

REGARDLESS of its merits, this issue is killing the GOP among a large group of American women voters. Short of ignoring the issue, which is a moral imperative for many people, the only other way to approach it in a salable manner is to make it a States Rights issue.

This would allow the 60% majority who favor some restrictions on abortions to express their views within their states while allowing a plausible escape hatch for the other 40% who could travel to another state if necessary. (Contrary to popular propaganda, state laws do not extend across borders to other states.)

As a big supporter of the constitution and the ammendments within it I feel abortion is a states only issue as the power to do anything in this area was not specifically given to the federal govt in the constitution.

In point of fact, you are incorrect.

The fact that the decision came from the Supreme Court of the United States makes it federal. It also makes a Constitutional right in that THAT is the very definition of a decision made by the SCOTUS.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

off topic - but I have to commend all for keeping in the spirit of the "clean debate" board. I know this is one of the most divisive and contentious issues in America today - and pretty much everyone has refrained from using demeaning and insulting language. Thanks all.

LOL i didnt even realize this was in the "clean debate" section. I just try to respect others opinions even if they are not my own.

 

[nodoginnafight]

"... nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

I believe a fetus is a person - who merits this protection under the law.

Or at the very least - if we cannot decide exactly WHEN a fetus becomes a person with the right to protection under the law, we should err on the side of life.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

REGARDLESS of its merits, this issue is killing the GOP among a large group of American women voters. Short of ignoring the issue, which is a moral imperative for many people, the only other way to approach it in a salable manner is to make it a States Rights issue.

This would allow the 60% majority who favor some restrictions on abortions to express their views within their states while allowing a plausible escape hatch for the other 40% who could travel to another state if necessary. (Contrary to popular propaganda, state laws do not extend across borders to other states.)

As a big supporter of the constitution and the ammendments within it I feel abortion is a states only issue as the power to do anything in this area was not specifically given to the federal govt in the constitution.

In point of fact, you are incorrect.

The fact that the decision came from the Supreme Court of the United States makes it federal. It also makes a Constitutional right in that THAT is the very definition of a decision made by the SCOTUS.

I understand that currently it is federal law and decided. I'm approaching the topic in the spirit of the person who started the thread wanted us to.

 

[nodoginnafight]

REGARDLESS of its merits, this issue is killing the GOP among a large group of American women voters. Short of ignoring the issue, which is a moral imperative for many people, the only other way to approach it in a salable manner is to make it a States Rights issue.

This would allow the 60% majority who favor some restrictions on abortions to express their views within their states while allowing a plausible escape hatch for the other 40% who could travel to another state if necessary. (Contrary to popular propaganda, state laws do not extend across borders to other states.)

As a big supporter of the constitution and the ammendments within it I feel abortion is a states only issue as the power to do anything in this area was not specifically given to the federal govt in the constitution.

In point of fact, you are incorrect.

The fact that the decision came from the Supreme Court of the United States makes it federal. It also makes a Constitutional right in that THAT is the very definition of a decision made by the SCOTUS.

And since supreme court decisions (and the U.S. Constitution) can be - and have been - reversed, I don't believe saying "It's Constitutional" is the end of the debate.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

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

I'm not sure how allowing people to have abortions or denying people from having abortions falls under the language of the equal protection clause of the 14th ammendment in your mind, can you enlighten me as to how you are personally interpreting that? (i'm not saying you are right or wrong, i'm just looking for more info on your view) .

I believe a fetus is a person - that merits this protection under the law

Or at the very least - if we cannot decide exactly WHEN a fetus becomes a person with the right to protection under the law, we should err on the side of life.

Well then under the equal protection clause, if a fetus is a person, you would not be able to have an abortion as that would be the same as murdering someone.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Because years ago the court decided Dred Scott was not a person, and couldnt sue for his freedom. because years ago the court decided discrimination by a common carrier was consitutional, and therefore government discrimination was consitutional.

One was before the 14th and 15th amendments guaranteed rights regardless of race, one was after. The point is that both decsions were made by a court that stated what was going on was consitutional. In the first case it might have been, in the second, it was clearly not.

Interpretations of the consitution are not explicit words in the consitution, and interpreted rights are not explicit rights.

You just cant admit that the right to abortion is not in the constituion, but I ask you again, and try to do it in your own words, not links, "Is the right to an abortion in the consitution?"

Edit: Also reported you for not playing nice in the Clean Debate Zone. Next time check where your posts are going. "Simper and whine" is not playing nice.

You're right that I did not see that this is in the "clean debate zone".

It does not matter if you or I believe its in the US Constitution. Its the SCOTUS that decides that.

You're certainly free to disagree but that won't change that fundamental fact.

But do you agree that the supreme court has been wrong before? What has that to do with this issue?and that something that people said is a right (the right of local governments to discriminate) can be taken away?What has that to do with this issue?

Threre is no language saying abortion is a right in the entire document, or even medical procedures are a right. That's two separate issues. SCOTUS ruled on the first. If you feel so strongly about it, start a drive to make it an amendment guaranteeing a right to it.Already fought for and won the SCOTUS decision. As long as there are people in our government to value individual freedom and individual responsibility, that decision will not be overturned.

Then you can say "its in the consitution" until then its only in the mind of dead supreme court justices.

Which, in fact, makes it "constitutional". Doesn't matter if he/she is dead or alive. In our form of government, a decision by the SCOTUS is the final word. It is the very definition of what is in the Constitution.

 

[nodoginnafight]

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

I'm not sure how allowing people to have abortions or denying people from having abortions falls under the language of the equal protection clause of the 14th ammendment in your mind, can you enlighten me as to how you are personally interpreting that? (i'm not saying you are right or wrong, i'm just looking for more info on your view) .

I believe a fetus is a person - that merits this protection under the law

Or at the very least - if we cannot decide exactly WHEN a fetus becomes a person with the right to protection under the law, we should err on the side of life.

Well then under the equal protection clause, if a fetus is a person, you would not be able to have an abortion as that would be the same as murdering someone.

That's been my point all along. If you define a fetus as a human being - then I believe you have an obligation to extend the most basic of rights to that human.

So the question still hinges on WHEN you determine that a fetus is no longer a "glob of protoplasm," and he or she becomes a person.

Roe v Wade defined that moment as "viability" but with the advances in medical science, I believe that distinction is less distinct. But aside from that, I think "viability" is the wrong place to draw the line anyway.