CDZ Can There be Exceptions?

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by Chuz Life, Dec 31, 2016.

?

If abortions are banned, could any exceptions to the ban be Constitutional?

  1. Yes. It is possible that exceptions in some cases would be Constitutional

    100.0%
  2. No. It is not possible that exceptions in some cases would be Constitutional

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. there4eyeM
    Offline

    there4eyeM unlicensed metaphysician

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2012
    Messages:
    9,977
    Thanks Received:
    1,043
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +3,273
    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.
     
  2. FA_Q2
    Offline

    FA_Q2 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2009
    Messages:
    15,652
    Thanks Received:
    2,284
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Location:
    Washington State
    Ratings:
    +5,249
    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.

    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.
    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...
     
  3. jon_berzerk
    Offline

    jon_berzerk Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2013
    Messages:
    26,166
    Thanks Received:
    6,376
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +15,552
    as with life nothing is absolute
     
  4. FA_Q2
    Offline

    FA_Q2 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2009
    Messages:
    15,652
    Thanks Received:
    2,284
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Location:
    Washington State
    Ratings:
    +5,249
    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.
     
  5. Chuz Life
    Offline

    Chuz Life Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2015
    Messages:
    3,519
    Thanks Received:
    433
    Trophy Points:
    170
    Location:
    USA
    Ratings:
    +2,157
    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?

    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?

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

    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"

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

    WTF?

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

    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?

    Your post is disappointingly self contradicting.
     
  6. Staidhup
    Offline

    Staidhup Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2012
    Messages:
    3,029
    Thanks Received:
    523
    Trophy Points:
    155
    Location:
    PNW
    Ratings:
    +1,328
    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.
     
  7. Staidhup
    Offline

    Staidhup Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2012
    Messages:
    3,029
    Thanks Received:
    523
    Trophy Points:
    155
    Location:
    PNW
    Ratings:
    +1,328
    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?
     
  8. Chuz Life
    Offline

    Chuz Life Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2015
    Messages:
    3,519
    Thanks Received:
    433
    Trophy Points:
    170
    Location:
    USA
    Ratings:
    +2,157
    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?"

    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?
     
  9. FA_Q2
    Offline

    FA_Q2 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2009
    Messages:
    15,652
    Thanks Received:
    2,284
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Location:
    Washington State
    Ratings:
    +5,249
    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.
     
  10. Chuz Life
    Offline

    Chuz Life Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2015
    Messages:
    3,519
    Thanks Received:
    433
    Trophy Points:
    170
    Location:
    USA
    Ratings:
    +2,157
    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?

    Understood. See above question for my response to that.

    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?
     

Share This Page