Abortion: What is wrong with letting the States decide?

[martybegan]

You think people don't have a natural right to privacy? Wow. Maybe America isn't the right country for you.

They have a right to be secure unless a court decides they do not, which is similar to a legislature making a law banning a certain action. Both are examples of due process.

The 4th amendment covers your right to privacy from unwarranted government intervention. Again, where does it say "you cant ban abortion." If you want that amend the consitituion to say that.

LOL! Forcing someone to be an incubator against her will is certainly unwarranted government intervention.

What are we doing when we are forcing someone to be in prision against their will? Im sure they feel that there is no need for them to suffer for X amount of time due to what they did.

 

[martybegan]

There is no expressed right to abortion in the Constitution, just as there is no expressed right to a lot of specific things, but there is an expressed right to individual privacy, and when a specific case involving reproductive privacy was presented to the court, that right to privacy was upheld by SCOTUS on Constitutional grounds... Meaning, NOT on "made up" grounds, but on LEGAL Constitutional grounds...




...the Court ruled that the Texas statute violated Jane Roe's constitutional right to privacy. The Court argued that the Constitution's First, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual's "zone of privacy" against state laws...

Again a court decsion does not amend the consitution, it interprets it. My original point still stands, that the consitituion is silent when it comes to the topic of abortion. The only reason it cannot be banned today is 7 justices "found" a right that was not really there.

Answer this, when Roe V Wade was decided did some magic pen write" abortion is allowed" in the original document.

You can keep copypasta-ing the same thing from wikipedia over and over, it doesnt mean its in the consititution. all it means is that court at that time THOUGHT it was in the consitution. To me, they were wrong.

You're thinking of it backward. The State of Texas was asserting an authority that was "not there" and when Roe's case was presented to the court, SCOTUS said no no no, sorry Texas, but you don't have the right to invade her privacy, as cited here, here and here in the Constitution...

In my opinion the Warren court was wrong, wrong and wrong. Abortion is not a given right in the document, therefore it is open to legislative action at both the state, and probably the federal level.

 

[martybegan]

Why does abortion need to be a Federal issue, especially since it is not addressed in the Constitution? Why not let individual States decide where to draw the line, just like they do for almost all other laws? For example, States widely differ on whether the murder of a pregnant woman constitutes double homicide. Why should abortion be any different?

I think its just STUNNING that so many people want to give away the civil rights of OTHER Americans.

What's wrong with letting the (nanny) state decide is simply that its none of the state's business what Americans do with their own bodies.

Repubs want more and more control over us but what we need is get government OUT of our private lives.

^ This is what really bothers me, these "anti-choice" people call themselves "Conservative" and are supposedly against "Big Government" intrusion into our lives.

They ironically go even further to claim the moral high-ground as they are willing to hand-over Citizens' reproductive privacy to the "Big Government" they otherwise hold in great disdain... A "pro-choice" stance has conveniently become political fodder for disgusting"pro-abortion" rhetoric as these sanctimonious twits demonize their fellow citizens as if they are all sluts and whores who don't care about babies...

I am against laws that would ban abortion, as I agree that I find them against my more libertarian leanings. What I a do not agree with is that others are prevented from even brining the laws up to a vote due to a percieved "right" found in the consitution. The ability of a legislative body to legislate should only be limited by those issues denied it explicitly in the consititution of both the federal government, and of the states themselves.

All I ask of abortion rights people is that if they think its a right, try to amend your constitutions, both state and federal.

 

[Ravi]

A state can violate a right via due process. Your right to assembly can be taken away by criminal law, as other rights can be. The example of not being able to yelli "fire" in a crowded theatre is an example of the state and feds taking away your right to free speech.

And these are enumerated rights, listed by word in the consitituion, not the "right to privacy" which isnt even in there, except in the minds of the warren court.

You are describing things the state can do if they have a compelling reason to do so. Yelling fire in a theater is only a chargeable offense if you are inciting to riot or otherwise cause the theater goers harm.

Does anyone doubt that an abortion causes harm to a fetus?

A fetus is not a living person. You keep overlooking the fact that you are claiming that the state has a right to force someone to use their body as an incubator.

 

[Ravi]

They have a right to be secure unless a court decides they do not, which is similar to a legislature making a law banning a certain action. Both are examples of due process.

The 4th amendment covers your right to privacy from unwarranted government intervention. Again, where does it say "you cant ban abortion." If you want that amend the consitituion to say that.

LOL! Forcing someone to be an incubator against her will is certainly unwarranted government intervention.

What are we doing when we are forcing someone to be in prision against their will? Im sure they feel that there is no need for them to suffer for X amount of time due to what they did.

Again, it isn't the same thing.

 

[martybegan]

LOL! Forcing someone to be an incubator against her will is certainly unwarranted government intervention.

What are we doing when we are forcing someone to be in prision against their will? Im sure they feel that there is no need for them to suffer for X amount of time due to what they did.

Again, it isn't the same thing.

Its closer than you think. In both cases the state would be forcing someone to do something they didnt want to do. If one does believe that a fetus is a seperate life, than via prison you protect society from someone that wants to do it harm. By banning abortion you protect the fetus from someone who wants to do IT harm.

That being said, again, I would not vote for an abortion ban, I would vote against it.

 

[martybegan]

You are describing things the state can do if they have a compelling reason to do so. Yelling fire in a theater is only a chargeable offense if you are inciting to riot or otherwise cause the theater goers harm.

Does anyone doubt that an abortion causes harm to a fetus?

A fetus is not a living person. You keep overlooking the fact that you are claiming that the state has a right to force someone to use their body as an incubator.

Only if a majority thinks it does in a legislature, and it is not against the consititution of said state. Alot of people do think a fetus is a seperate living organism worthy of protection, regardless of what the courts say.

 

[Ravi]

Does anyone doubt that an abortion causes harm to a fetus?

A fetus is not a living person. You keep overlooking the fact that you are claiming that the state has a right to force someone to use their body as an incubator.

Only if a majority thinks it does in a legislature, and it is not against the consititution of said state. Alot of people do think a fetus is a seperate living organism worthy of protection, regardless of what the courts say.

They can think what they want but they cannot force anyone to give birth.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

State?

What's a state?

All they do is issue drivers licenses.

 

[martybegan]

A fetus is not a living person. You keep overlooking the fact that you are claiming that the state has a right to force someone to use their body as an incubator.

Only if a majority thinks it does in a legislature, and it is not against the consititution of said state. Alot of people do think a fetus is a seperate living organism worthy of protection, regardless of what the courts say.

They can think what they want but they cannot force anyone to give birth.

They did not force them to have sex either, uprotected, or during a period of fertility.
I know you see forcing someone to live with the consequences of thier actions as somehow unfair. Unfortunately the consititution, just like life, doesnt guarantee fairness.

 

[Ravi]

Only if a majority thinks it does in a legislature, and it is not against the consititution of said state. Alot of people do think a fetus is a seperate living organism worthy of protection, regardless of what the courts say.

They can think what they want but they cannot force anyone to give birth.

They did not force them to have sex either, uprotected, or during a period of fertility.
I know you see forcing someone to live with the consequences of thier actions as somehow unfair. Unfortunately the consititution, just like life, doesnt guarantee fairness.

I don't really care about the fairness aspect. The fact of the matter is that the woman is a better judge of what she is capable of in the motherhood department than the government is. Even if she's screwing every guy she comes in contact with.

 

[martybegan]

They can think what they want but they cannot force anyone to give birth.

They did not force them to have sex either, uprotected, or during a period of fertility.
I know you see forcing someone to live with the consequences of thier actions as somehow unfair. Unfortunately the consititution, just like life, doesnt guarantee fairness.

I don't really care about the fairness aspect. The fact of the matter is that the woman is a better judge of what she is capable of in the motherhood department than the government is. Even if she's screwing every guy she comes in contact with.

If she was screwing every guy she came in contact with, and then became pregnant, and then aborted the pregancy soley for means of birth control, that would make her a terrible terrible human being. Just because I would not legislate against abortion, doesnt mean I do not condemn a person for having one soley for the reason of "not wanting a baby" You dont even have to be religous to abhor something like this. Its denying someone a chance at existance soley for selfish reasons.

A person not willing to accept the results of thier action in something like this is a person I wouldnt trust with almost anything.

 

[Ravi]

They did not force them to have sex either, uprotected, or during a period of fertility.
I know you see forcing someone to live with the consequences of thier actions as somehow unfair. Unfortunately the consititution, just like life, doesnt guarantee fairness.

I don't really care about the fairness aspect. The fact of the matter is that the woman is a better judge of what she is capable of in the motherhood department than the government is. Even if she's screwing every guy she comes in contact with.

If she was screwing every guy she came in contact with, and then became pregnant, and then aborted the pregancy soley for means of birth control, that would make her a terrible terrible human being. Just because I would not legislate against abortion, doesnt mean I do not condemn a person for having one soley for the reason of "not wanting a baby" You dont even have to be religous to abhor something like this. Its denying someone a chance at existance soley for selfish reasons.

A person not willing to accept the results of thier action in something like this is a person I wouldnt trust with almost anything.

And you are entitled to feel that way. Doesn't change my point in the least.

 

[martybegan]

I don't really care about the fairness aspect. The fact of the matter is that the woman is a better judge of what she is capable of in the motherhood department than the government is. Even if she's screwing every guy she comes in contact with.

If she was screwing every guy she came in contact with, and then became pregnant, and then aborted the pregancy soley for means of birth control, that would make her a terrible terrible human being. Just because I would not legislate against abortion, doesnt mean I do not condemn a person for having one soley for the reason of "not wanting a baby" You dont even have to be religous to abhor something like this. Its denying someone a chance at existance soley for selfish reasons.

A person not willing to accept the results of thier action in something like this is a person I wouldnt trust with almost anything.

And you are entitled to feel that way. Doesn't change my point in the least.

Good enough for me.

 

[Ravi]

If she was screwing every guy she came in contact with, and then became pregnant, and then aborted the pregancy soley for means of birth control, that would make her a terrible terrible human being. Just because I would not legislate against abortion, doesnt mean I do not condemn a person for having one soley for the reason of "not wanting a baby" You dont even have to be religous to abhor something like this. Its denying someone a chance at existance soley for selfish reasons.

A person not willing to accept the results of thier action in something like this is a person I wouldnt trust with almost anything.

And you are entitled to feel that way. Doesn't change my point in the least.

Good enough for me.

 

[Wolfmann]

Hello

The person who said that the woman's right to have an abortion IS covered under the 14th amendment is correct. It is also implied in the "life liberty and pursuit of happiness" areas.

I believe that under most circumstances abortion is ok and is none of the governments business.

But if it were then my objection to the government deciding would be that they would be swayed by and use emotion rather than facts to decide when is the cut off time for an abortion.

I can't prove it but I believe that when the decision to use the first trimester as the cut off time was determined it was actually based on science.

In the 80's Reagan once said that it was not possible to determine when life (human) begins. This was an incredibly naive thing for him to say since almost 8 years earlier the National Academy of Sciences came out with a paper that stated that when higher brain functioning and the heart stop a Person (human) can be considered to be legally dead. Therefore the opposite would be true for life. As I understand it, higher brain functioning in a fetus begins around the 10th week of existence. IF this is true then this is when human life begins.

You can argue all you want about when the heart starts is the beginning of life or conception is the beginning of life and in a very narrow and rigid sense you might be right, but what kind of life. During its development after the heart starts it develops gill slits which become the ears (does that mean its a fish of some type) it develops webbed toes. It also develops a very small tail for most of its development and some babies are even born with small tails up to 3 inches long because the coxic vertebrae did not fuse. These are medical facts and can be found on almost legitimate website or discovered by talking with any legitimate obstetrician.

Although a fetus may have some of these characteristics after the 10th week (I am no expert on fetal development), the fact that its brain has reached the a rudimentary level of Human functioning is the key.

Thanks

Wolfman 24

 

[martybegan]

Hello

The person who said that the woman's right to have an abortion IS covered under the 14th amendment is correct. It is also implied in the "life liberty and pursuit of happiness" areas.

I believe that under most circumstances abortion is ok and is none of the governments business.

But if it were then my objection to the government deciding would be that they would be swayed by and use emotion rather than facts to decide when is the cut off time for an abortion.

I can't prove it but I believe that when the decision to use the first trimester as the cut off time was determined it was actually based on science.

In the 80's Reagan once said that it was not possible to determine when life (human) begins. This was an incredibly naive thing for him to say since almost 8 years earlier the National Academy of Sciences came out with a paper that stated that when higher brain functioning and the heart stop a Person (human) can be considered to be legally dead. Therefore the opposite would be true for life. As I understand it, higher brain functioning in a fetus begins around the 10th week of existence. IF this is true then this is when human life begins.

You can argue all you want about when the heart starts is the beginning of life or conception is the beginning of life and in a very narrow and rigid sense you might be right, but what kind of life. During its development after the heart starts it develops gill slits which become the ears (does that mean its a fish of some type) it develops webbed toes. It also develops a very small tail for most of its development and some babies are even born with small tails up to 3 inches long because the coxic vertebrae did not fuse. These are medical facts and can be found on almost legitimate website or discovered by talking with any legitimate obstetrician.

Although a fetus may have some of these characteristics after the 10th week (I am no expert on fetal development), the fact that its brain has reached the a rudimentary level of Human functioning is the key.

Thanks

Wolfman 24

Its still an interpretation, and in my opinon a wrong one. There is no mention of medical procedures, abortions, or even the word "woman."

If you want a right to be enumerated, you need to pass an amendment.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

They did no such thing. They extrapolated a "right" where none existed. Again show me the words in the consitution "Abortion is a right." You can't. All you get are weasely terms like "zone of privacy".

And why the did they go back to ancient greece to find a valid reason for a ban? The will of the people is enough, as long as the consitution does not specifically ban the action by the federal or state government.

Again, like the decison all you want, its still made up.

You think people don't have a natural right to privacy? Wow. Maybe America isn't the right country for you.

They have a right to be secure unless a court decides they do not, which is similar to a legislature making a law banning a certain action.

No it isn't.

Both are examples of due process.

The 4th amendment covers your right to privacy from unwarranted government intervention. Again, where does it say "you cant ban abortion." If you want that amend the consitituion to say that.

The 9th amendment clearly states the Constitution does not need to specifically enumerate a right for it to exist.

 

[martybegan]

You think people don't have a natural right to privacy? Wow. Maybe America isn't the right country for you.

They have a right to be secure unless a court decides they do not, which is similar to a legislature making a law banning a certain action.

No it isn't.

Both are examples of due process.

The 4th amendment covers your right to privacy from unwarranted government intervention. Again, where does it say "you cant ban abortion." If you want that amend the consitituion to say that.

The 9th amendment clearly states the Constitution does not need to specifically enumerate a right for it to exist.

But is also doesnt say that anything not listed is automatically a right.

and just saying "no it isnt" does not make a compelling argument. Try harder.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The Founders, BTW, apparently did NOT think abortion should be a crime. The first anti-abortion laws in the U.S. didn't show up until 1820's - and even those only prohibited it after the 4th month.

The founders also probably thought bleeding was a good way to cure certain illnesses.

Whether or not abortion should be allowed in a free society isn't a medical question.