Abortion, expanded

[Cecilie1200]

The constitution is not and never has been infallible. To imagine that the Constitution of the United States is absolute in natural law as relates to human beings is a legally defective perspective. Simply because something is legislated does not constitute absolute morality.

Also, not everything should "have" to be held to a legislative standard. Human beings are naturally expected to exercise a collective value system which includes a respect for all human life, when living among eachother as a society. This deals with, among other things, self regulation self respect and the lack of encroachment of the chosen quality of life within that community within any society.

Anne Marie

And anyway, this is not a statement of fact concerning the actual wording of the Constitution. What this REALLY is is a statement of fact concerning one group of people's INTERPRETATION - colored with their own biases and agenda - of the wording of the Constitution. It is not the Constitution that does not grant unborn chidren rights or "personhood", which the Constitution doesn't grant to anyone inasmuch as it is a made-up concept invented specifically to split hairs and rationalize on this very subject.

Quite simply, if society chooses to define fetuses as people, then they have Constitutional rights. If it does not, they don't. But the Constitution itself doesn't speak to who is and is not a person at all.

The Constitution, through it's interpretation of Property Rights and Right of Privacy purports to define the value of the life of a fetus as an exclusive arbitration by it's mother of its inherent worth, whereby she can either consider her pregnancy the makings of a human being and bring the child to term, or simply cut out what she has a right to consider simply a piece of her flesh. And most often, actually 83% of abortions in this country, that are not the result of rape, incest or danger to the life of the mother, are performed to accommodate the current lifestyle of the mother.

Anne Marie

The Constitution does nothing of the sort. Please show me ANYWHERE that the Constitution mentions fetuses or pregnancy in any context, let alone to quantify them under the heading of "property rights". Once again, you are talking about a specific group's interpretation and extrapolation of the Constitution, not the Constitution itself.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Oh? How do you justify it to the fetus/embryo? To God, if you believe in God? Why should some be punished because their father-to-be raped their mother-to-be?

"Justifiable" in the context I'm using it means justifiable in the eyes of society. And quite honestly, I don't believe that there's any overarching order or purpose to it: unfair things happen to everyone, every day.

However society seems not to think it justifiable and that is why abortion is legal in this country.

Untrue. Abortion is not legal because "society" decided anything at all. When it was left up to society, abortion was closely regulated and restricted. Abortion is legal because a handful of lawyers in robes thought it was justifiable, and it's unfair to lay the blame for their decision off onto the society that had it forced on them against their will.

Oh, by the way, in case you didn't notice, I've taken you off of ignore. We'll see how it goes.

 

[Anguille]

You might want to restrain yourself a bit from automatically equating your personal opinions with a universal standard for "reasonable and understanding". Not everyone instantly assumes the "reasonable and understanding" action in such a case is abortion.

Oh? What is it then?

Wouldn't that depend on the woman, or in Immie's shock-value example, her parents? Shockingly, a number of rape victims who become pregnant decide the reasonable response is to give birth. It is not even unheard-of for the parents of a very young victim to make that decision.

You're not answering my question.

Why do you say it's not abortion when the 11 year old victim of rape terminates her pregnancy?

 

[Cecilie1200]

I have zero sympathy for anyone who kills herself through her own dumbassery.

Wow!! Such respect for life you have there, Cecilie!

I respect her life. I just don't respect her intelligence. And respect for life doesn't require me to be sympathetic to the results of stupid decisions.

 

[Anguille]

"Justifiable" in the context I'm using it means justifiable in the eyes of society. And quite honestly, I don't believe that there's any overarching order or purpose to it: unfair things happen to everyone, every day.

However society seems not to think it justifiable and that is why abortion is legal in this country.

Untrue. Abortion is not legal because "society" decided anything at all. When it was left up to society, abortion was closely regulated and restricted. Abortion is legal because a handful of lawyers in robes thought it was justifiable, and it's unfair to lay the blame for their decision off onto the society that had it forced on them against their will.

Oh, by the way, in case you didn't notice, I've taken you off of ignore. We'll see how it goes.

Please provide something factual to back up your statement in bold.

I never knew you had me on ignore. I'm so flattered.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Oh? What is it then?

Wouldn't that depend on the woman, or in Immie's shock-value example, her parents? Shockingly, a number of rape victims who become pregnant decide the reasonable response is to give birth. It is not even unheard-of for the parents of a very young victim to make that decision.

You're not answering my question.

Why do you say it's not abortion when the 11 year old victim of rape terminates her pregnancy?

I said abortion isn't universally the "reasonable" choice in every case, even in every case with an 11-year-old victim, simply because HE considers it to be. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but it's a bad idea to say, "This is what I think is correct, and therefore that's the objective standard for EVERYONE."

 

[Anguille]

I have zero sympathy for anyone who kills herself through her own dumbassery.

Wow!! Such respect for life you have there, Cecilie!

I respect her life. I just don't respect her intelligence. And respect for life doesn't require me to be sympathetic to the results of stupid decisions.

No, it doesn't. Your "respect for life" certainly hasn't provided you with much empathy or love for other humans. I've learned a new understanding of what "respect for life" means to some and it's rather chilling.

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

I'm not saying that abortion is unconstitutional at all, any more than homicide is unconstitutional.
The constitution doesn't come into play except in the case of rape, when you have a case of involuntary servitude on the mother's part.

Isn't that what forced birth, by means of denying access to abortion, is? Involuntary servitude? In other words, slavery?

Not if the woman chose to have sex. With that choice, it becomes voluntary.

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

Oh? How do you justify it to the fetus/embryo? To God, if you believe in God? Why should some be punished because their father-to-be raped their mother-to-be?

"Justifiable" in the context I'm using it means justifiable in the eyes of society. And quite honestly, I don't believe that there's any overarching order or purpose to it: unfair things happen to everyone, every day.

However society seems not to think it justifiable and that is why abortion is legal in this country.

Exactly backwards: society does think it's justifiable because abortion is legal.

 

[Immanuel]

I find it remarkable that anyone who claims a fetus or and embryo has a right to life would deny that right to some just because they resulted from a rape.

How is that the fault of the fetus or embryo?

I completely agree, but if it came to an 11 year old rape victim... well, sometimes I think we have to be reasonable and understanding.

Immie

How is that being reasonable and understanding to the fetus or embryo?

The point being that there are times when a mother, in this case an 11 year old girl, did not make the choice to risk becoming pregnant. It was forced upon her without her consent.

I do not believe there should be a hard and fast rule in this case. Quite simply some 11 year old girls would not be able to handle the situation and those that cant should not be made to feel guilty for it.

I find it remarkable that anyone who claims a fetus or and embryo has a right to life would deny that right to some just because they resulted from a rape.

How is that the fault of the fetus or embryo?

I completely agree, but if it came to an 11 year old rape victim... well, sometimes I think we have to be reasonable and understanding.

Immie

You might want to restrain yourself a bit from automatically equating your personal opinions with a universal standard for "reasonable and understanding". Not everyone instantly assumes the "reasonable and understanding" action in such a case is abortion.

I also have to say that the kneejerk response of leaping to extreme cases is threadbare and bordering on offensive.

What kneejerk response? I gave an example of a case that might be an exception to the rule. I did nothing more than that, nor did I ask you to adopt my standards. Nor would I counsel abortion in the case that I described above. However, protecting the mother in this case is just as important as protecting the baby within her. Some people would condemn her for being so unlucky to have crossed paths with a rapist and then considering an abortion.

Immie

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

The woman's constitutional right not to be enslaved trumps the child's right to life. It's a Hobson's choice, but it's still morally correct. (And BTW, it's not to say that a rape victim can't birth the child of her own free will. Many such women have done so.)

So once a woman becomes pregnant her right to life is stripped from her?

Sure, let's kill all pregnant women.

 

[Sky Dancer]

I think the issue is pretty straightforward. You can be personally opposed to abortion but open to respecting other women's LEGAL and ETHICAL choices.

What I want to know is how you can be a so-called 'pro-lifer' and for the death penalty?

 

[Sky Dancer]

The woman's constitutional right not to be enslaved trumps the child's right to life. It's a Hobson's choice, but it's still morally correct. (And BTW, it's not to say that a rape victim can't birth the child of her own free will. Many such women have done so.)

So once a woman becomes pregnant her right to life is stripped from her?

Sure, let's kill all pregnant women.

Been there and done that. It was called back alley and coat hanger abortions, at one time the only choice for a woman with an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy.

Some people want to go back in time to when a woman had childbirth to death--one pregnancy after another with NO family planning choices.

 

[Immanuel]

Simple. If the sex isn't voluntary, the pregnancy is involuntary. And involuntary servitude is unconstitutional.

What do the conditions contraception happened have to do with the fetus/embroyo and their purported right to life?

The woman's constitutional right not to be enslaved trumps the child's right to life. It's a Hobson's choice, but it's still morally correct. (And BTW, it's not to say that a rape victim can't birth the child of her own free will. Many such women have done so.)

Constitutional rights trump the right to life?

Sorry, but I can't agree with that. The most basic right anyone has is the right to live. In fact, that may be the only right we have. Should we chose to give other rights then it is our choice and constitutional rights granted by the U.S. government are not supreme... not here and not worldwide.

And as a side note: a person may even be deprived of the right to life, but no constitutional right trumps the right to life especially the right to life of an innocent being.

Immie

 

[sidneyworld]

And anyway, this is not a statement of fact concerning the actual wording of the Constitution. What this REALLY is is a statement of fact concerning one group of people's INTERPRETATION - colored with their own biases and agenda - of the wording of the Constitution. It is not the Constitution that does not grant unborn chidren rights or "personhood", which the Constitution doesn't grant to anyone inasmuch as it is a made-up concept invented specifically to split hairs and rationalize on this very subject.

Quite simply, if society chooses to define fetuses as people, then they have Constitutional rights. If it does not, they don't. But the Constitution itself doesn't speak to who is and is not a person at all.

The Constitution, through it's interpretation of Property Rights and Right of Privacy purports to define the value of the life of a fetus as an exclusive arbitration by it's mother of its inherent worth, whereby she can either consider her pregnancy the makings of a human being and bring the child to term, or simply cut out what she has a right to consider simply a piece of her flesh. And most often, actually 83% of abortions in this country, that are not the result of rape, incest or danger to the life of the mother, are performed to accommodate the current lifestyle of the mother.

Anne Marie

The Constitution does nothing of the sort. Please show me ANYWHERE that the Constitution mentions fetuses or pregnancy in any context, let alone to quantify them under the heading of "property rights". Once again, you are talking about a specific group's interpretation and extrapolation of the Constitution, not the Constitution itself.

"The court issued its decision on January 22, 1973, with a 7 to 2 majority vote in favor of McCorvey. Burger and Douglas' concurring opinion and White's dissenting opinion were issued separately, in the companion case of Doe v. Bolton.

The Roe Court deemed abortion a fundamental right under the United States Constitution, thereby subjecting all laws attempting to restrict it to the standard of strict scrutiny. Although abortion is still considered a fundamental right, subsequent cases, notably Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Stenberg v. Carhart, and Gonzales v. Carhart have affected the legal standard.

The opinion of the Roe Court, written by Justice Harry Blackmun, declined to adopt the district court's Ninth Amendment rationale, and instead asserted that the "right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." Douglas, in his concurring opinion from the companion case Doe v. Bolton, stated more emphatically that, "The Ninth Amendment obviously does not create federally enforceable rights." Thus, the Roe majority rested its opinion squarely on the Constitution's due process clause."

The United States Supreme Court's interpretation of a right to an abortion is predicated on the Constitution's Right to Privacy thus setting a precedent which extends to a woman's right to choose.

What matters here is that abortion became an expressed right of a woman on a federal level, whereby a state cannot usurp and subsequently redefine, specifically, what that right encompasses. The Supreme Court's decision qualifies the viability of a fetus at whatever stage and otherwise remains rather ambiguous with state contentions, such as Texas.

Anne Marie

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

So once a woman becomes pregnant her right to life is stripped from her?

Sure, let's kill all pregnant women.

Been there and done that. It was called back alley and coat hanger abortions, at one time the only choice for a woman with an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy.

Remember also that back then, a woman couldn't legally abandon a newborn at a hospital or fire station, either.

 

[Cecilie1200]

However society seems not to think it justifiable and that is why abortion is legal in this country.

Untrue. Abortion is not legal because "society" decided anything at all. When it was left up to society, abortion was closely regulated and restricted. Abortion is legal because a handful of lawyers in robes thought it was justifiable, and it's unfair to lay the blame for their decision off onto the society that had it forced on them against their will.

Oh, by the way, in case you didn't notice, I've taken you off of ignore. We'll see how it goes.

Please provide something factual to back up your statement in bold.

I never knew you had me on ignore. I'm so flattered.

Um, before Roe v. Wade, a decision made by a handful of lawyers in black robes (aka Justices) rather than passed as legislation by either the people or their elected representatives, the prevailing laws in all states (which WERE passed as legislation by the people/their elected representatives) was that abortion was regulated and/or restricted. Ergo, when society actually had a hand in the law, society chose to regulate/restrict abortion.

Can't imagine how you didn't know. I make a practice of telling people when I put them on ignore, so that they don't have to bother talking to me anymore. And you should be flattered. You're the first person I've ever unignored.

 

[Immanuel]

You might want to restrain yourself a bit from automatically equating your personal opinions with a universal standard for "reasonable and understanding". Not everyone instantly assumes the "reasonable and understanding" action in such a case is abortion.

Oh? What is it then?

Wouldn't that depend on the woman, or in Immie's shock-value example, her parents? Shockingly, a number of rape victims who become pregnant decide the reasonable response is to give birth. It is not even unheard-of for the parents of a very young victim to make that decision.

And I agree with that as well. Under no circumstances was I indicating that the preferred outcome of a 11 year old girl's pregnancy was abortion. In my opinion, the best outcome if the mother nor her parents could care for the baby would be adoption. However, I can not see making an 11 year old go through with something like that simply because of my personal opinion.

Immie

 

[Sky Dancer]

Sure, let's kill all pregnant women.

Been there and done that. It was called back alley and coat hanger abortions, at one time the only choice for a woman with an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy.

Remember also that back then, a woman couldn't legally abandon a newborn at a hospital or fire station, either.

Yes, so let's not go back there folks. Magdalene prisons for pregnant women in Ireland---not so long ago.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Wow!! Such respect for life you have there, Cecilie!

I respect her life. I just don't respect her intelligence. And respect for life doesn't require me to be sympathetic to the results of stupid decisions.

No, it doesn't. Your "respect for life" certainly hasn't provided you with much empathy or love for other humans. I've learned a new understanding of what "respect for life" means to some and it's rather chilling.

Untrue on several levels. One, love for others does not require you to develop a bleeding heart every time they suffer the consequences of their own actions, or to harm others in an attempt to protect people from the consequences of their own actions. Two, while I'm certainly not glad that she died, I reserve my empathy and sympathy both for helpless and innocent victims, neither of which she was. Three, if you want chilling, cast your thoughts toward the millions of dead babies produced every year by the "empathy" and "love for others" shown by the pro-choice crowd. Brrr!