CDZ Can There be Exceptions?

[there4eyeM]

Life began billions of years ago and is a continuum. Placing a point on when it begins for a fetus is arbitrary, though birth is a vivid event and confronts our senses. Most of all, it confronts the woman involved. It was her egg, that was linked genetically in direct line back hundreds of thousands of years at least to an ancestral mother, that was fertilized. Every month of her fertile years, nature determines one of these passes out of potentiality to replicate her kind. Essentially, any month she is not pregnant a woman decides that a person will not be born. If a sperm is in the egg, then, it is the sperm that somehow changes things. 'Anti-abortionists', thus, need to pursue men for the change of situation.

 

[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.

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

It accomplishes debate. You asked what about the SCOTUS members that disagreed in the past. I gave you an answer - I have nothing to say to them. They are not here - you are. If you have an argument that you wish to bring to bear on the subject then do so.

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.

It would be had I brought such an argument to the table. I have not. Thus far, I don't think that you disagree with me yet on something that I have stated.

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.

Ah, something that we disagree on. But you do not want to talk about that.

I don't think that no one really is having an issue staying on topic. Rather, it seems no one has anything to say about the topic at all...

 

[jon_berzerk]

as with life nothing is absolute

 

[FA_Q2]

Something that might get traction but do not know if the thread was supposed to bring this about:

I agree that there would be exceptions and that would be constitutional BUT I do not think that if abortion were banned under the guise of murder that you could put an exception in for the case of rape or incest.

The 2 ideas are morally (and really legally) counter to each other. If killing an unborn at X time is murder, that does not suddenly change because the child was not a product of a willing mother.

 

[Chuz Life]

Life began billions of years ago and is a continuum.

True. However, this thread is not about that.

Now is it?

This thread presumes that for whatever reason, Abortions have been banned. Proceeding from that premise, we are discussing the possibilities and even the likelyhood that some "exceptions" to the ban might be Constitutional.

Why is everyone so incapable of focusing on that?

Placing a point on when it begins for a fetus is arbitrary,

Again, that is not the topic of THIS thread. And biologically, you are wrong anyway. Every individual human organism's life can be traced all the way back to conception but no further.

How is that biological fact anything but indicative of when and how that life began? What other BIOLOGICAL event created and began your biological parents role as YOUR biological parents?

though birth is a vivid event and confronts our senses.

The same can be said for Conception. . . though one does have to be intelligent and perceptive enough to actually comprehend it.

Most of all, it confronts the woman involved. It was her egg, that was linked genetically in direct line back hundreds of thousands of years at least to an ancestral mother, that was fertilized.

You seem incapable of discerning the difference between an individual organism's life and the origins of that individual's life and the subject of "life" in the general sense.

Taking YOUR logic to it's extreme, we should not have any laws against murder at all... because "life" is millions of years old and any laws against murder is therefore "arbitrary"

Every month of her fertile years, nature determines one of these passes out of potentiality to replicate her kind.

Not without CONCEPTION taking place, it doesn't. But that's just an "arbitrary" biological fact that some can just ignore, I suppose.

Essentially, any month she is not pregnant a woman decides that a person will not be born.

WTF?

Are you actually claiming that life begins even BEFORE conception now?

If a sperm is in the egg, then, it is the sperm that somehow changes things.

No kidding.

So, How then do you reconcile that fact with what you said in the first part of your own post where you claimed that it's all a "continuum" and "arbitrary?"

Are you simply trying to troll?

'Anti-abortionists', thus, need to pursue men for the change of situation.

Your post is disappointingly self contradicting.

 

[Staidhup]

The supreme court will not entertain arguments for repeal without first a case being tried, appealed, and overturned.....The President can not overturn a ruling of the court. For the sake of argument lets presume a case was filed, progressed through the court system and eventually presented to the Supreme Court for review and accepted for argument. One can only assume the merits of such a case requiring oral arguments and a ruling infringed on ones Constitutional rights. Would the court overturn its own ruling or adjudicate that this is a states rights issue to be determined by its citizens? My guess is that the court would favor shifting the responsibility to the state for decision and rule the Constitution does not allow for or condone taking of a life. The same position that the court employed when reviewing the Constitutional arguments as it regarded the death sentence and uphenazia.

 

[Staidhup]

sorry about that "euthanasia". The court under the strict interpretation of the Constitution should not be creating law but interpreting ones rights. So is it ones constitutional right to dictate whom shall live and die?

 

[Chuz Life]

. . . I agree that there would be exceptions and that would be constitutional BUT I do not think that if abortion were banned under the guise of murder that you could put an exception in for the case of rape or incest.

This comment of yours represents the the reason for why I started this thread.

Why do you feel that we could have an exception for rape pregnancies in a setting where abortions are banned under the guise that abortions are "murders?"

The 2 ideas are morally (and really legally) counter to each other. If killing an unborn at X time is murder, that does not suddenly change because the child was not a product of a willing mother.

That is an excellent (very strong) answer and I should have read your post more closely before I posted my question above.

I would like to explore your premise a little further - if I may.

We already have laws that make the criminal killing of another human being a crime of "murder." Right?

No-one disputes (for example) that an adult human being is a "person" and that they are entitled to the protections of our laws, that it would be a crime of MURDER to kill another adult in a criminal act, etc...

Correct?

So, what then about laws which ALLOW the use of deadly force against another (undeniable) "person" who happens to be an adult who is coming at you with a knife?

 

[FA_Q2]

. . . I agree that there would be exceptions and that would be constitutional BUT I do not think that if abortion were banned under the guise of murder that you could put an exception in for the case of rape or incest.

This comment of yours represents the the reason for why I started this thread.

Why do you feel that we could have an exception for rape pregnancies in a setting where abortions are banned under the guise that abortions are "murders?"

The 2 ideas are morally (and really legally) counter to each other. If killing an unborn at X time is murder, that does not suddenly change because the child was not a product of a willing mother.

That is an excellent (very strong) answer and I should have read your post more closely before I posted my question above.

I would like to explore your premise a little further - if I may.

We already have laws that make the criminal killing of another human being a crime of "murder." Right?

No-one disputes (for example) that an adult human being is a "person" and that they are entitled to the protections of our laws, that it would be a crime of MURDER to kill another adult in a criminal act, etc...

Correct?

So, what then about laws which ALLOW the use of deadly force against another (undeniable) "person" who happens to be an adult who is coming at you with a knife?

Those laws are based on the fact that you have the right to protect yourself and your rights. Killing is not a crime - killing someone without just cause is. One such just cause is that they are threatening your well being or your rights.

That concept does not apply to the case of abortions in general. The question there is a balance of rights between an individual over their own bodies and the individual that resides within right to life.

 

[Chuz Life]

. . . I agree that there would be exceptions and that would be constitutional BUT I do not think that if abortion were banned under the guise of murder that you could put an exception in for the case of rape or incest.

This comment of yours represents the the reason for why I started this thread.

Why do you feel that we could have an exception for rape pregnancies in a setting where abortions are banned under the guise that abortions are "murders?"

The 2 ideas are morally (and really legally) counter to each other. If killing an unborn at X time is murder, that does not suddenly change because the child was not a product of a willing mother.

That is an excellent (very strong) answer and I should have read your post more closely before I posted my question above.

I would like to explore your premise a little further - if I may.

We already have laws that make the criminal killing of another human being a crime of "murder." Right?

No-one disputes (for example) that an adult human being is a "person" and that they are entitled to the protections of our laws, that it would be a crime of MURDER to kill another adult in a criminal act, etc...

Correct?

So, what then about laws which ALLOW the use of deadly force against another (undeniable) "person" who happens to be an adult who is coming at you with a knife?

Those laws are based on the fact that you have the right to protect yourself and your rights. Killing is not a crime - killing someone without just cause is.

Exactly.

So, the question becomes. . . does a woman surrender her right to defend herself against a threat that was forced upon her in a criminal act such as a rape?

One such just cause is that they are threatening your well being or your rights.

Understood. See above question for my response to that.

That concept does not apply to the case of abortions in general. The question there is a balance of rights between an individual over their own bodies and the individual that resides within right to life.

Same question again. "Does a woman loose or surrender her right to defend herself for the duration of any pregnancies. . . including a pregnancy that is forced upon her in a case like a rape?"

I personally see a LEGAL and Constitutional difference between a situation where the pregnancy resulted in a consensual act of sex and a pregnancy which was forced upon the woman in a criminal act like a rape.

Do you disagree?

 

[FA_Q2]

. . . I agree that there would be exceptions and that would be constitutional BUT I do not think that if abortion were banned under the guise of murder that you could put an exception in for the case of rape or incest.

This comment of yours represents the the reason for why I started this thread.

Why do you feel that we could have an exception for rape pregnancies in a setting where abortions are banned under the guise that abortions are "murders?"

The 2 ideas are morally (and really legally) counter to each other. If killing an unborn at X time is murder, that does not suddenly change because the child was not a product of a willing mother.

That is an excellent (very strong) answer and I should have read your post more closely before I posted my question above.

I would like to explore your premise a little further - if I may.

We already have laws that make the criminal killing of another human being a crime of "murder." Right?

No-one disputes (for example) that an adult human being is a "person" and that they are entitled to the protections of our laws, that it would be a crime of MURDER to kill another adult in a criminal act, etc...

Correct?

So, what then about laws which ALLOW the use of deadly force against another (undeniable) "person" who happens to be an adult who is coming at you with a knife?

Those laws are based on the fact that you have the right to protect yourself and your rights. Killing is not a crime - killing someone without just cause is.

Exactly.

So, the question becomes. . . does a woman surrender her right to defend herself against a threat that was forced upon her in a criminal act such as a rape?

No, she does not. She is free to defend herself from the rapist as she deems necessary. The child, however, is not raping her. How the child came to be is not connected with the supposition that it is harming the mother.

IF the mother retains the right to 'defend' herself from pregnancy then she would retain that right is the act creating the child was rape or consensual. The state of being pregnant is identical in both situations a week or a month later.

One such just cause is that they are threatening your well being or your rights.

Understood. See above question for my response to that.

That concept does not apply to the case of abortions in general. The question there is a balance of rights between an individual over their own bodies and the individual that resides within right to life.

Same question again. "Does a woman loose or surrender her right to defend herself for the duration of any pregnancies. . . including a pregnancy that is forced upon her in a case like a rape?"

I personally see a LEGAL and Constitutional difference between a situation where the pregnancy resulted in a consensual act of sex and a pregnancy which was forced upon the woman in a criminal act like a rape.

Do you disagree?

I do disagree IF we are supposing that abortion is illegal.

 

[Chuz Life]

. . . I agree that there would be exceptions and that would be constitutional BUT I do not think that if abortion were banned under the guise of murder that you could put an exception in for the case of rape or incest.

This comment of yours represents the the reason for why I started this thread.

Why do you feel that we could have an exception for rape pregnancies in a setting where abortions are banned under the guise that abortions are "murders?"

The 2 ideas are morally (and really legally) counter to each other. If killing an unborn at X time is murder, that does not suddenly change because the child was not a product of a willing mother.

That is an excellent (very strong) answer and I should have read your post more closely before I posted my question above.

I would like to explore your premise a little further - if I may.

We already have laws that make the criminal killing of another human being a crime of "murder." Right?

No-one disputes (for example) that an adult human being is a "person" and that they are entitled to the protections of our laws, that it would be a crime of MURDER to kill another adult in a criminal act, etc...

Correct?

So, what then about laws which ALLOW the use of deadly force against another (undeniable) "person" who happens to be an adult who is coming at you with a knife?

Those laws are based on the fact that you have the right to protect yourself and your rights. Killing is not a crime - killing someone without just cause is.

Exactly.

So, the question becomes. . . does a woman surrender her right to defend herself against a threat that was forced upon her in a criminal act such as a rape?

No, she does not. She is free to defend herself from the rapist as she deems necessary. The child, however, is not raping her.

True and I am not trying to say that the child IS raping her.

My question is about the "condition" of pregnancy. It's not about the child that she is pregnant with.

How the child came to be is not connected with the supposition that it is harming the mother.

I agree.

But it is connected to the woman's right on what to do about it. I'll try to illustrate my point a little bit later.

IF the mother retains the right to 'defend' herself from pregnancy then she would retain that right is the act creating the child was rape or consensual.

I completely disagree and I can hardly wait to explain WHY.

One such just cause is that they are threatening your well being or your rights.

Understood. See above question for my response to that.

That concept does not apply to the case of abortions in general. The question there is a balance of rights between an individual over their own bodies and the individual that resides within right to life.

Same question again. "Does a woman loose or surrender her right to defend herself for the duration of any pregnancies. . . including a pregnancy that is forced upon her in a case like a rape?"

I personally see a LEGAL and Constitutional difference between a situation where the pregnancy resulted in a consensual act of sex and a pregnancy which was forced upon the woman in a criminal act like a rape.

Do you disagree?

I do disagree IF we are supposing that abortion is illegal.

Allow me to try to illustrate my premise a slightly different way.

If you were to make the decision to engage in an activity where you might or could end up connected to the body of another human being. . . and you were connected in such a way that the other human being would Die if you severed that connection at any time prior to nine months... You would be obligated to remain so connected for that period of time. Or, you would be held accountable for that other person's death.

Would you not?

This (above) illustrates the circumstances surrounding a pregnancy that results from a consensual act.

Now. Let's consider the same Physical / biological relationship created another way.

Suppose someone grabbed you in a criminal act and forcibly connected your body to the body of another human being "Against Your Will" and all else was the same. The other would die if disconnected before Nine months, etc.

Would your legal/ Constitutional obligation to maintain that physical connection be the exact same in both of those instances? Or not?

I don't see how anyone can claim that the obligation would be or should be the same.

 

[Tresha91203]

Something that might get traction but do not know if the thread was supposed to bring this about:

I agree that there would be exceptions and that would be constitutional BUT I do not think that if abortion were banned under the guise of murder that you could put an exception in for the case of rape or incest.

The 2 ideas are morally (and really legally) counter to each other. If killing an unborn at X time is murder, that does not suddenly change because the child was not a product of a willing mother.

Self defense if the life of the mother of other fetuses is in danger. That's the only one I can come up with ATM.

 

[Chuz Life]

Something that might get traction but do not know if the thread was supposed to bring this about:

I agree that there would be exceptions and that would be constitutional BUT I do not think that if abortion were banned under the guise of murder that you could put an exception in for the case of rape or incest.

The 2 ideas are morally (and really legally) counter to each other. If killing an unborn at X time is murder, that does not suddenly change because the child was not a product of a willing mother.

Self defense if the life of the mother of other fetuses is in danger. That's the only one I can come up with ATM.

Right.

But the question is whether it falls under an act of 'self defense' in a case where the woman was raped and the pregnancy is forced upon her in a criminal act.

Our right to self defense is not limited to only defending ourselves against an armed crazy masked intruder. . . Is it?

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

 

[eflatminor]

The entire argument, including the Constitutionality of abortion rests on the basic premise of when life begins. We've not settled that debate and many would argue the Supreme Court had no authority to attempt to do so in Roe V Wade. Regardless, their ruling then leaves the issue unsettled today, as this ongoing debate demonstrates.

So, if you believe life starts at conception, there is almost never justification for abortion as you'd be murdering a child. If you believe life begins at birth, you'll happily chop that little sucker up minutes before delivery. The SC said life begins when the fetus is viable outside the womb, which technology renders a moving target and leaves us with the mess we have today.

I remain agnostic on the legality. Woman are going to do this regardless of the law. Personally, I can't contemplate the notion of ending a viable pregnancy voluntarily. But then, I have no ovaries.

Tricky topic to be sure. It's the one debate that can divide libertarians with differing opinions on when life begins.

I suspect some day technology will render the debate moot. When we can take a fetus at any stage from one woman who doesn't want it and implant it in a woman that does, the notion of abortion will become obsolete.

 

[Tresha91203]

Something that might get traction but do not know if the thread was supposed to bring this about:

I agree that there would be exceptions and that would be constitutional BUT I do not think that if abortion were banned under the guise of murder that you could put an exception in for the case of rape or incest.

The 2 ideas are morally (and really legally) counter to each other. If killing an unborn at X time is murder, that does not suddenly change because the child was not a product of a willing mother.

Self defense if the life of the mother of other fetuses is in danger. That's the only one I can come up with ATM.

Right.

But the question is whether it falls under an act of 'self defense' in a case where the woman was raped and the pregnancy is forced upon her in a criminal act.

Our right to self defense is not limited to only defending ourselves against an armed crazy masked intruder. . . Is it?

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

Self defense is when your life is in danger, not when you are under unfair stress.

 

[there4eyeM]

What is 'self'?

 

[SeaGal]

I am in the camp of those who believe that Roe v Wade is bad law and the US Constitution has no place in approving or banning abortions to begin with...so it's difficult to answer your hypothetical. However, very few laws can/should be absolute...so I guess that's an answer in a way. Allowing abortions or not should be a state issue. It is a difficult situation as some states have fetal homicide laws...therefore the lines can easily become blurred.

On a side note - it's a strange society whose law protects the embryo of an eagle but not that of a human.

 

[FA_Q2]

The entire argument, including the Constitutionality of abortion rests on the basic premise of when life begins. We've not settled that debate and many would argue the Supreme Court had no authority to attempt to do so in Roe V Wade. Regardless, their ruling then leaves the issue unsettled today, as this ongoing debate demonstrates.

So, if you believe life starts at conception, there is almost never justification for abortion as you'd be murdering a child. If you believe life begins at birth, you'll happily chop that little sucker up minutes before delivery. The SC said life begins when the fetus is viable outside the womb, which technology renders a moving target and leaves us with the mess we have today.

I remain agnostic on the legality. Woman are going to do this regardless of the law. Personally, I can't contemplate the notion of ending a viable pregnancy voluntarily. But then, I have no ovaries.

Tricky topic to be sure. It's the one debate that can divide libertarians with differing opinions on when life begins.

I suspect some day technology will render the debate moot. When we can take a fetus at any stage from one woman who doesn't want it and implant it in a woman that does, the notion of abortion will become obsolete.

I would disagree with your premise. We know when life begins, that is not in question. There is no workable definition of life that would preclude a fetus but include a child. It is simply fact that life begins at conception. The general argument usually revolves around when 'person hood' begins as that is a more philosophical term versus life which is a more scientific one.

The crux of the problem lies when one gains basic rights or the protection of them.

 

[there4eyeM]

Flying blindly in the fog of baseless assumptions, errors will abound.