CDZ Can There be Exceptions?

[Chuz Life]

Can there be Exceptions?

According to this article from "Pro-Life Wisconsin," the answer is No!

The article says; "Totally banning abortion makes some people uncomfortable. We've been told time and again that there are unique situations for which abortion is the best option. If a lie is repeated often enough, people begin to accept it as truth. Such is the case with the erroneous notion that abortion must be permitted in cases of rape, incest, fetal deformity, or a perceived threat to the mother's life. Let's take a look at each of these situations and explain why the exception is in error."

This issue has come up several times in some of my other threads and it seems important enough to have a thread all its own.

For what it is worth, I personally feel that there are (or can be) Constitutionally sound arguments for exceptions to be established.

Rather than to present my arguments here in the OP, I will leave it entirely open for discussions. All CDZ rules will be enforced. All violations and attempts to derail the thread will be reported.

Let the discussions begin.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Depends on the type of constitutional ban, chuz life.

If absolute, the American people would throw out the government overwhelmingly in the next two elections, the new government would impeach and remove the Judges who voted for such a ban, and Congress would install a 9-0 majority for regulated abortion by ratifying the President's nominations.

 

[emilynghiem]

Can there be Exceptions?

According to this article from "Pro-Life Wisconsin," the answer is No!

The article says; "Totally banning abortion makes some people uncomfortable. We've been told time and again that there are unique situations for which abortion is the best option. If a lie is repeated often enough, people begin to accept it as truth. Such is the case with the erroneous notion that abortion must be permitted in cases of rape, incest, fetal deformity, or a perceived threat to the mother's life. Let's take a look at each of these situations and explain why the exception is in error."

This issue has come up several times in some of my other threads and it seems important enough to have a thread all its own.

For what it is worth, I personally feel that there are (or can be) Constitutionally sound arguments for exceptions to be established.

Rather than to present my arguments here in the OP, I will leave it entirely open for discussions. All CDZ rules will be enforced. All violations and attempts to derail the thread will be reported.

Let the discussions begin.

Dear Chuz Life Bans on abortion affect women more than men,
although men have at least equal responsibility for sex,
if not more responsibility in cases of rape and coercion.

Why not ban sex that results in unwanted pregnancy, unwanted children or unwanted abortion?
And hold BOTH parties responsibility for such cases of sexual abuse or relationship abuse?

If both parties agree to the consequences, then make that the standard of determining consent.
And if some consequence is UNWANTED by either party, then coercion is involved.
And hold BOTH parties responsible for seeking counseling to correct the problem.

Want to have that discussion?
Where men are equally responsible
for the decision to have sex, and not just women?

 

[Fishlore]

Can there be Exceptions?

According to this article from "Pro-Life Wisconsin," the answer is No!

The article says; "Totally banning abortion makes some people uncomfortable. We've been told time and again that there are unique situations for which abortion is the best option. If a lie is repeated often enough, people begin to accept it as truth. Such is the case with the erroneous notion that abortion must be permitted in cases of rape, incest, fetal deformity, or a perceived threat to the mother's life. Let's take a look at each of these situations and explain why the exception is in error."

This issue has come up several times in some of my other threads and it seems important enough to have a thread all its own.

For what it is worth, I personally feel that there are (or can be) Constitutionally sound arguments for exceptions to be established.

Rather than to present my arguments here in the OP, I will leave it entirely open for discussions. All CDZ rules will be enforced. All violations and attempts to derail the thread will be reported.

Let the discussions begin.

I admit I am agnostic about the morality of abortion --- I just don't know. But I do have a clear belief about what can or can't be done about it. I see a certain parallel with a grisly homicide in a foreign country. It may be a crime. It may be awful. We may know who did it. But we (Americans) can do nothing about it because we lack legal standing. The government of the USA does not have the authority to enforce laws or punish crime in other countries.

Well, I just don't think the government has power to control what happens within a woman's uterus because such intrusion is a profound violation of the rights of that woman under the U.S. Constitution. Even if one thinks life begins at conception and that abortion is murder, it is murder committed outside the jurisdiction of the government. It sounds a little weird I know, but that's how I feel about the issue.

 

[flacaltenn]

Moderation Note:

What the OP desires here is to limit the debate to whether exceptions should/can be made to the language of abortion laws. OP does not want to rehash the topic from basic principles. And actually, it would be better if it WAS limited to the question in the poll.

The concept of Constitutionality of abortion or the prohibition of abortion is also part of this question -- (i would think).

 

[Chuz Life]

Interesting.

No-one seems to want to discuss this in a thread of its own but it comes up repeatedly in other threads as a side bar (distraction.)

I wonder why that is.

 

[anotherlife]

The anti abortion bullies want no exception, because it would stop them from finding a loophole to protect their pedo rapist core constituents.

 

[FA_Q2]

The problem with putting forth a proper answer to the OP's question is that the language or process of how abortion is hypothetically banned is not clear.

I see no reason that there would not be exceptions though. There are exceptions to essentially everything because context matter. It is illegal in almost every instance to kill another person - unless of course they are threatening your life or the life of another. Everything has context.

 

[Chuz Life]

The problem with putting forth a proper answer to the OP's question is that the language or process of how abortion is hypothetically banned is not clear.

I see no reason that there would not be exceptions though. There are exceptions to essentially everything because context matter. It is illegal in almost every instance to kill another person - unless of course they are threatening your life or the life of another. Everything has context.

Thank you.

You have already touched on much of what I hoped this thread would bring about.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[PoliticalChic]

Can there be Exceptions?

According to this article from "Pro-Life Wisconsin," the answer is No!

The article says; "Totally banning abortion makes some people uncomfortable. We've been told time and again that there are unique situations for which abortion is the best option. If a lie is repeated often enough, people begin to accept it as truth. Such is the case with the erroneous notion that abortion must be permitted in cases of rape, incest, fetal deformity, or a perceived threat to the mother's life. Let's take a look at each of these situations and explain why the exception is in error."

This issue has come up several times in some of my other threads and it seems important enough to have a thread all its own.

For what it is worth, I personally feel that there are (or can be) Constitutionally sound arguments for exceptions to be established.

Rather than to present my arguments here in the OP, I will leave it entirely open for discussions. All CDZ rules will be enforced. All violations and attempts to derail the thread will be reported.

Let the discussions begin.

1. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Thomas Jefferson.

a. And based on the above, every conservative is pro-life.

2. Our nation was founded on the premise that each individual has the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But they don’t become rights by virtue of birth…we are endowed with these rights by our Creator, at the moment of creation.

a. This is a political argument: the form of the Creator invoked by the Founders is irrelevant to the debate. Morality is not a consideration here, so there is no mention of contraception as being right or wrong; one’s use of contraceptives does not infringe on anyone else’s rights.

b. The fact is that our nation, at its very founding, acknowledged that, by virtue of being created, of being conceived, the unborn child, has a right to live. It is not a right that is alienable….even by the child’s mother.

The subject is covered well in
"Reinventing the Right: Conservative Voices for the New Millennium,"
by John Amble (Author), Robert Wheeler (Author)


3. As I believe that it is the rights of the individual that set the conservative apart from these collectivist views...
Liberalism, Progressivism, Nazism, Fascism, Socialism and Communism, I believe that there is the exception for rape, i.e., where the mother did not willingly aid in the responsibility for the creation of the child.

a. Let's deal with the so very overused idea of "cases of rape or incest."
The concept that there are "cases of rape or incest" is a chimera.
They really don't exist.....well, the fact is that 98.5% of abortion don't involve either abhorrent event.
The cases in which abortion is for rape, 1%; and incest .5% incest.http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf
I would accept the argument that these are exceptions.

 

[Chuz Life]

Can there be Exceptions?

According to this article from "Pro-Life Wisconsin," the answer is No!

The article says; "Totally banning abortion makes some people uncomfortable. We've been told time and again that there are unique situations for which abortion is the best option. If a lie is repeated often enough, people begin to accept it as truth. Such is the case with the erroneous notion that abortion must be permitted in cases of rape, incest, fetal deformity, or a perceived threat to the mother's life. Let's take a look at each of these situations and explain why the exception is in error."

This issue has come up several times in some of my other threads and it seems important enough to have a thread all its own.

For what it is worth, I personally feel that there are (or can be) Constitutionally sound arguments for exceptions to be established.

Rather than to present my arguments here in the OP, I will leave it entirely open for discussions. All CDZ rules will be enforced. All violations and attempts to derail the thread will be reported.

Let the discussions begin.

1. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Thomas Jefferson.

a. And based on the above, every conservative is pro-life.

2. Our nation was founded on the premise that each individual has the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But they don’t become rights by virtue of birth…we are endowed with these rights by our Creator, at the moment of creation.

a. This is a political argument: the form of the Creator invoked by the Founders is irrelevant to the debate. Morality is not a consideration here, so there is no mention of contraception as being right or wrong; one’s use of contraceptives does not infringe on anyone else’s rights.

b. The fact is that our nation, at its very founding, acknowledged that, by virtue of being created, of being conceived, the unborn child, has a right to live. It is not a right that is alienable….even by the child’s mother.

The subject is covered well in
"Reinventing the Right: Conservative Voices for the New Millennium,"
by John Amble (Author), Robert Wheeler (Author)


3. As I believe that it is the rights of the individual that set the conservative apart from these collectivist views...
Liberalism, Progressivism, Nazism, Fascism, Socialism and Communism, I believe that there is the exception for rape, i.e., where the mother did not willingly aid in the responsibility for the creation of the child.

a. Let's deal with the so very overused idea of "cases of rape or incest."
The concept that there are "cases of rape or incest" is a chimera.
They really don't exist.....well, the fact is that 98.5% of abortion don't involve either abhorrent event.
The cases in which abortion is for rape, 1%; and incest .5% incest.http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf
I would accept the argument that these are exceptions.

I am trying very hard to find areas where we disagree and I am not finding any.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[jwoodie]

Abortion is not a (U.S.) Constitutional issue in the first place. That is why each State has its own criminal and civil codes.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Abortion is not a (U.S.) Constitutional issue in the first place. That is why each State has its own criminal and civil codes.

The erroneous decision, Roe, made it so.

 

[miketx]

Can there be Exceptions?

According to this article from "Pro-Life Wisconsin," the answer is No!

The article says; "Totally banning abortion makes some people uncomfortable. We've been told time and again that there are unique situations for which abortion is the best option. If a lie is repeated often enough, people begin to accept it as truth. Such is the case with the erroneous notion that abortion must be permitted in cases of rape, incest, fetal deformity, or a perceived threat to the mother's life. Let's take a look at each of these situations and explain why the exception is in error."

This issue has come up several times in some of my other threads and it seems important enough to have a thread all its own.

For what it is worth, I personally feel that there are (or can be) Constitutionally sound arguments for exceptions to be established.

Rather than to present my arguments here in the OP, I will leave it entirely open for discussions. All CDZ rules will be enforced. All violations and attempts to derail the thread will be reported.

Let the discussions begin.

Dear Chuz Life Bans on abortion affect women more than men,
although men have at least equal responsibility for sex,
if not more responsibility in cases of rape and coercion.

Why not ban sex that results in unwanted pregnancy, unwanted children or unwanted abortion?
And hold BOTH parties responsibility for such cases of sexual abuse or relationship abuse?

If both parties agree to the consequences, then make that the standard of determining consent.
And if some consequence is UNWANTED by either party, then coercion is involved.
And hold BOTH parties responsible for seeking counseling to correct the problem.

Want to have that discussion?
Where men are equally responsible
for the decision to have sex, and not just women?

You can't possibly expect liberals to have personal responsibility.

 

[jwoodie]

Abortion is not a (U.S.) Constitutional issue in the first place. That is why each State has its own criminal and civil codes.

The erroneous decision, Roe, made it so.

Since Roe was based on a provably erroneous assumption that fetal viability and "safe" abortions were mutually exclusive, maybe it's time to reverse that decision or pursue a Constitutional Amendment to restore this authority to the states?

 

[Chuz Life]

Abortion is not a (U.S.) Constitutional issue in the first place. That is why each State has its own criminal and civil codes.

What do you say to the several Supreme Court Justices (past and present) who disagree with you and say that it IS too a Constitutional issue?

 

[emilynghiem]

Can there be Exceptions?

According to this article from "Pro-Life Wisconsin," the answer is No!

The article says; "Totally banning abortion makes some people uncomfortable. We've been told time and again that there are unique situations for which abortion is the best option. If a lie is repeated often enough, people begin to accept it as truth. Such is the case with the erroneous notion that abortion must be permitted in cases of rape, incest, fetal deformity, or a perceived threat to the mother's life. Let's take a look at each of these situations and explain why the exception is in error."

This issue has come up several times in some of my other threads and it seems important enough to have a thread all its own.

For what it is worth, I personally feel that there are (or can be) Constitutionally sound arguments for exceptions to be established.

Rather than to present my arguments here in the OP, I will leave it entirely open for discussions. All CDZ rules will be enforced. All violations and attempts to derail the thread will be reported.

Let the discussions begin.

Dear Chuz Life Bans on abortion affect women more than men,
although men have at least equal responsibility for sex,
if not more responsibility in cases of rape and coercion.

Why not ban sex that results in unwanted pregnancy, unwanted children or unwanted abortion?
And hold BOTH parties responsibility for such cases of sexual abuse or relationship abuse?

If both parties agree to the consequences, then make that the standard of determining consent.
And if some consequence is UNWANTED by either party, then coercion is involved.
And hold BOTH parties responsible for seeking counseling to correct the problem.

Want to have that discussion?
Where men are equally responsible
for the decision to have sex, and not just women?

You can't possibly expect liberals to have personal responsibility.

If we don't hold each other to personal responsibility,
why do you think there isn't accountability?

You get the govt you ask for.
We get the standards we enforce.

Why not enforce mutual responsibility for standards
and maybe we'd all benefit.

If you don't ask and don't enforce it,
how do you expect to get it? miketx

 

[miketx]

And how well does that work on forums like this? Their is little responsibility, and that is why I do not even try to hold a responsible convo. Waste of time.You've got people posting blatant lies as truth and then trying to defend it. LOL! Let the denial begin.

 

[FA_Q2]

Abortion is not a (U.S.) Constitutional issue in the first place. That is why each State has its own criminal and civil codes.

What do you say to the several Supreme Court Justices (past and present) who disagree with you and say that it IS too a Constitutional issue?

Meh, the rulings of the court do indeed make the issue constitutional in a legal sense but that does not mean that we, with a conversation here, are unable to disagree with that decision. There are numerous SCOTUS decisions that I would call blatant and willful attacks on the constitution. The court gets things incorrect some times. Unfortunately, there is very little that can be done with it without extreme measures.

 

[Chuz Life]

Abortion is not a (U.S.) Constitutional issue in the first place. That is why each State has its own criminal and civil codes.

What do you say to the several Supreme Court Justices (past and present) who disagree with you and say that it IS too a Constitutional issue?

Meh, the rulings of the court do indeed make the issue constitutional in a legal sense but that does not mean that we, with a conversation here, are unable to disagree with that decision.

True. We can all agree to disagree on virtually any other aspect of any other debate as well. What does that accomplish?

There are numerous SCOTUS decisions that I would call blatant and willful attacks on the constitution.

Ok. But then the onus is on you to support those claims and to also show why the sitting courts Justices missed it.

The court gets things incorrect some times.

I agree.

Unfortunately, there is very little that can be done with it without extreme measures.

On that, I have to disagree.

It wouldn't take much at all for the SCOTUS to reverse it's earlier decisions on Roe. Nor would I think that it would be "extreme."

Regardless, that is not what this thread is about and it boggles my mind that participants are having such a hard time staying focused on what the topic of this thread really is.