Could we ban abortion on the state level?

[JakeStarkey]

The Supreme Court opines on the law, not bioethics.

 

[Bern80]

ihef and beern, you ignored "so you do want the government involved in people's lives."

Any other answer than 'yes' or 'no' can only be logically construed as 'yes.'

Do remember Rush is right when he says that, "words have meanings."

You are both for federal intrusion into private lives at the local level, got that.

When someone's choices violate the freedoms of others, then yes I am for government getting involved in people's lives

 

[JakeStarkey]

Then you approve federal intrusion into peoples' lives at the local level, which means you have much in common with progressivism and socialism. The major flaw of you two is not the role of government but relation of mother and fetus.

 

[DiamondDave]

What next, no infant has the right to nurse or feed via the mother because it infringes on her freedom??

wow.... that's pretty darn moronic....

they don't have the "right to nurse". making up rules that don't exist and claiming they have been violated does not make you correct.

1) Taking of an premeditated innocent life when it is not endangering you... yep... I'll stick with comparing it to murder
2) Medical procedure logs (not just records) are indeed reviewed within the hospitals and other medical organizations
3) Not all laws in the medical field are 'just' tied to ethics... I would suggest to ask a doctor as to the laws that prevent them from doing certain things
4) Doctors were even pretty recently performing late term abortions
5) I do understand quite well... even though I am not in the medical field, I am one of the few in my family who is not specifically in NNICU or OB/GYN
6) I am also lucky to have a daughter who was at a very early gestational stage when delivered early... a stage where survival % is low and until pretty recently a timeframe where women were still receiving abortions.. and I know the fight she had in her, what she felt, and how much indeed that is a life growing within

In direct response to the corresponding numbers above....
1) It's not a "premeditated life". I know the big words can confuse people sometimes, but lrn2English if you're going to try to use them. You still don't understand life.
2) Medical records are indeed reviewed by members of the health team providing care, and no one else. Accessing such records otherwise is known as a HIPAA violation. It's illegal, and gets people fired or thrown in prison. Yet again, you seem to have no clue what you're talking about, but continue convincing yourself your opinion has some value.
3) False. All medical laws are tied to those four principles of medical ethics. If you'd like to prove me wrong, simply point out a single case that suggests otherwise. My guess is, those words and concepts are too big for you to understand in the first place.
4) Proof? Citation? Anything?
5) You have demonstrated throughout several posts you have no clue what you're talking about, let alone know the cutoff date or understand the reason for it. If you did know, you would have simply stated it.
6) Oh? What gestational age? I couldn't help but notice how you completely left that part out.

Nothing like another undereducated ignorant hick insisting they know something about medicine.

Nurse or feed.. you are not allowed to endanger the child or kill by not feeding the child.. that is indeed murder

1) Typed out of order.. the premeditated taking of an innocent life...
2) Since procedures can and do get policed from within the medical field, when things are done against rules or law, they can be punished.. and doctors have been turned in to authorities after internal reviews
3) I am referring to medical laws based on actions.. wherein a doctor can be charged with murder, etc... laws and ethics do overlap, but are not all inclusive of each other
4) Late-term abortion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia not all states have outlawed late term abortions, and they have been performed since the time I first became a father
5) You have demonstrated trough your posts that you are quite the asshole as well.. perhaps you should have joined the pretty in depth discussion we had on the biological functions of the pre-implantation embryos
6) My daughter was ~28 weeks (that is premature) and 37 ounces.. and thanks to my mother and the wonderful NNICU unit she has been a part of for decades, I have a thriving 11 year old today

Anyway... having a better discussion/argument of the medical specifics for the beginning of human life in the other thread which I will continue with.... and I still maintain my stance that the abortion procedure is indeed the premeditated murder of an innocent life

 

[Bern80]

Then you approve federal intrusion into peoples' lives at the local level, which means you have much in common with progressivism and socialism. The major flaw of you two is not the role of government but relation of mother and fetus.

It's pretty easy to make all or nothing arguments. I mean if you're trying to goad someone into saying they are for government intrusion into people's lives, I could play that game too and just obtusely assume that must mean, by implication, that YOU are for allowing people to do absolutely whatever they want. After all if someone were 'harassed' by the police because they killed someone, that would be just awful, right, because government is intruding into their lives. You wanna have real conversation THEN GET FUCKING REAL.

As a libertarian, of course I think government should have as little input and control over people's lives as necessary. One of those necessary roles is protecting it's people, especially those that can not protect themselves. Which again means the only way to rationalize abortion is for a fetus to be somehow less than a person. YOUR problem is you don't get the difference between intruding into life and protecting it.

 

[Dr Gregg]

The strategy in my opinon should be for each state to enact seperate methods for banning abortion without interfering with a woman's right to choose. For example, one state can ban doctors from providing abortions yet not punish women for recieving them thus maintaining her right to choose. This prevents a court battle that would attempt to use the Roe V Wade precedence to block anti-abortion laws.

Another state can enact a head tax for every abortion provided, another state can use its power of eminant domain and take abortion clinics specifically and turn them into parks. It can be called the parks restoration act.

The point is by creating 30 different scenarios to ban abortion if forces opponents to come up with 30 unique defenses and one of those defenses is bound to fail and once it does the other 29 states can implement that law that successfully bans abortions.

Give it up already, you guys lost. Work on helping woman with unwanted pregnancies and preventing or lowering abortion

 

[theHawk]

ihef and beern, you ignored "so you do want the government involved in people's lives."

Any other answer than 'yes' or 'no' can only be logically construed as 'yes.'

Do remember Rush is right when he says that, "words have meanings."

You are both for federal intrusion into private lives at the local level, got that.

Only an anarchist would say they don't want government involved in people's lives any any aspect. It is disingenuous to compare laws to punish violent behavior in society to that of government institutions and agencies intruding on the private sector or private lives. Punishing an individual for ending another human life isn't comparable to the Federal government running a bank or motor company.

 

[JakeStarkey]

As a libertarian, of course I think government should have as little input and control over people's lives as necessary. One of those necessary roles is protecting it's people, especially those that can not protect themselves. Which again means the only way to rationalize abortion is for a fetus to be somehow less than a person. YOUR problem is you don't get the difference between intruding into life and protecting it.
____________

Then you are not a libertarian at all, or at the very most, one of insignificant convenience.

You remind me of the guy who was all for getting government out of folks lives until he found his teenage daughter yoking the dealer down on the corner to get her fix. Then he wanted the government involved.

Your opinion that abortion is murder remains only that, your opinion without merit.

 

[JakeStarkey]

ihef and beern, you ignored "so you do want the government involved in people's lives."

Any other answer than 'yes' or 'no' can only be logically construed as 'yes.'

Do remember Rush is right when he says that, "words have meanings."

You are both for federal intrusion into private lives at the local level, got that.

Only an anarchist would say they don't want government involved in people's lives any any aspect. It is disingenuous to compare laws to punish violent behavior in society to that of government institutions and agencies intruding on the private sector or private lives. Punishing an individual for ending another human life isn't comparable to the Federal government running a bank or motor company.

the Hawk is losing the argument. An unborn is not simply "another human life." It is unborn, thus it is something, for sure, between conception and birth.

The right question is this: are all abortions wrong? Of course not, or human reason would stare. If an unborn threatens the mother's life, she takes precedence every time in every situation, unless she decides otherwise. Not you, not me, not the state.

 

[Dr Gregg]

Yeah, the hell with the fact there is 6 billion people and rising on this planet and so many actual living, breathing, thinking feeling humans are dying each year. Children without families, children dying in poverty and starvation, a billion starving people. But lets fight tooth and nail to protect a non thinking, non-sentient embryo/fetus and have even more unwanted children into the world, more people to starve. THere is not unlimited resources.

More than 852 million people - about 13 percent of the world population - do not have enough food each day to sustain a healthy life, according to the Rome-based Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO).

RIGHTS: Millions of Starving Shame the World, U.N. Says - IPS ipsnews.net

On September 30, 2006, there were an estimated 510,000 children in foster care.

ADOPTION INSTITUTE: FOSTER CARE FACTS

arly 13 million American children live in families with incomes below the federal poverty level, which is $20,000 a year for a family of four. The number of children living in poverty increased by more than 11 percent between 2000 and 2005. There are 1.3 million more children living in poverty today than in 2000, despite indications of economic recovery and growth.

NCCP | Who are America’s Poor Children?

According to UNICEF, 24,000 children die each day due to poverty

Poverty Facts and Stats ? Global Issues

 

[Bern80]

As a libertarian, of course I think government should have as little input and control over people's lives as necessary. One of those necessary roles is protecting it's people, especially those that can not protect themselves. Which again means the only way to rationalize abortion is for a fetus to be somehow less than a person. YOUR problem is you don't get the difference between intruding into life and protecting it.
____________

Then you are not a libertarian at all, or at the very most, one of insignificant convenience.

You remind me of the guy who was all for getting government out of folks lives until he found his teenage daughter yoking the dealer down on the corner to get her fix. Then he wanted the government involved.

Your opinion that abortion is murder remains only that, your opinion without merit.

Libertarians disagree about whether abortion should be legal or not. Generally, libertarians believe in individual freedom. There is nothing contradictory about being libertarian and being of the mind that abortion should be prosecutable at a certain point. I count the unborn in that group who's freedom should be protected. You don't. And there is plenty of merit to my opinion. The Supreme Court said so.......in Roe v. Wade.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

1) Typed out of order.. the premeditated taking of an innocent life...
2) Since procedures can and do get policed from within the medical field, when things are done against rules or law, they can be punished.. and doctors have been turned in to authorities after internal reviews
3) I am referring to medical laws based on actions.. wherein a doctor can be charged with murder, etc... laws and ethics do overlap, but are not all inclusive of each other
4) Late-term abortion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia not all states have outlawed late term abortions, and they have been performed since the time I first became a father
5) You have demonstrated trough your posts that you are quite the asshole as well.. perhaps you should have joined the pretty in depth discussion we had on the biological functions of the pre-implantation embryos
6) My daughter was ~28 weeks (that is premature) and 37 ounces.. and thanks to my mother and the wonderful NNICU unit she has been a part of for decades, I have a thriving 11 year old today

1) putting aside misuse of big words, you still don't understand life or the reason for the cutoffs
2) Yet again you have no clue what you're talking about. Making vague references to things you don't understand on the news does not make it true. Patients can willingly review their own records. Research can analyze de-identified medical records. But I will say once again: it is illegal to randomly go into a patient's records and just look around. Hey, maybe you should make up more scenarios to support your completely inaccurate perspectives on this one.
3) doctors murdering a patient violates nonmaleficence, one of the four ethical principles I stated, which you just confirmed you don't understand whatsoever
4) Your link claims that an estimated 0.08% of abortions in the US are late term. I think you just proved yourself wrong
5) Trying to refute a solid point with name calling? How sad.
6) So you're saying your daughter was born a full MONTH after the cutoff for abortion, and you said she had a hard time and barely pulled through? Imagine what would have happened with one less month. Her lungs wouldn't work. Her skin would not have fully formed, creating a transparent tissue that didn't look human.

So to summarize: you don't know the cutoff for abortion, you don't understand the REASON for that cutoff, you don't know the stats on late term abortion in the US, you have no concept of medical ethics or the laws surrounding those principles, you are clueless when it comes to patient privacy rights, and you have no training or education in biology. And yet you still think your ridiculous ideas have value?

 

[Madeline]

I don't like Roe because it creates a judicial barrier to what is a policy matter. I'm not against judicial precedence generally, but I think the social and political landscape would look very different if the people we elect the power to legislate the issue and be held accountable. To be honest, I see one of the precedences tied to abortion being overturned in the next 5-10 years, be it Roe, Planned Parenthood, or Casey.

Qball, most constitutional lawyers etc, see the Balance of Power among the Three Branches of Government as being one of the genuises of our systen of government. If we only had two and they disagreed, what result? If Executive trumped Legislatve and there was nowhere to appeal...we'd have an American King, not a President.

The Supreme Court cannot initiate a case. They cannot entertain hypothetical matters and render decisions. They cannot depart from previous decisions although they can refine them on new facts. The Supreme Court has never posed any significant threat of turning into a Gang of Nine running the government. Their power seems exactly what it needs to be to restrain the other Branches, but no more.

 

[FA_Q2]

The line on abortion can and probably should be moved back as technology progresses and infants become viable at earlier stages.

Nonetheless, Roe is bad law. It's reasoning is based on antiquated POVs about pregnancy and the "trimester" view of abortion rights/fetal viability. The progress in science and medicine since 1973 renders Roe all but moot, and no bioethicist today would analyse or decide any abortion question as that 1973 Court did.

What are these technology advances you both talk about? What has changed so much since 1973 for premature babies past perhaps new ways to make them breath? Cuz as I see it, their lungs are still underdeveloped, they don't look human, they suffer the same horrible diseases, and the large majority still see early deaths anyway. So what is this magical technology that both of you think is going to save all the premies?

will they ever answer this?

Perhaps if you give us TIME! I am not on here continually because I have responsibilities in the real world so excuse me if I cannot comment fast enough for you...

I believe that you have Madeline pegged wrong. Since Madeline has not answered I will put my opinion of her statement and (Madeline, please correct me if I get it wrong) We are on opposite ends here. It looks like she is stating that current technologies have made the case moot because they have shown that a person does not become so until birth regardless of the trimester and on those grounds abortion should be legal as it is now.

I contended that technology is advancing and allowing premature babies to survive at earlier births. I have no idea what technologies are doing this specifically, just that the rate of survival for premature babies are increasing. What technology we are using does not matter, only that survival rates are better. At some point that will move back the viability line and I believe that viability and brain development should have an impact on abortion laws.

 

[FA_Q2]

I don't like Roe because it creates a judicial barrier to what is a policy matter. I'm not against judicial precedence generally, but I think the social and political landscape would look very different if the people we elect the power to legislate the issue and be held accountable. To be honest, I see one of the precedences tied to abortion being overturned in the next 5-10 years, be it Roe, Planned Parenthood, or Casey.

Qball, most constitutional lawyers etc, see the Balance of Power among the Three Branches of Government as being one of the genuises of our systen of government. If we only had two and they disagreed, what result? If Executive trumped Legislatve and there was nowhere to appeal...we'd have an American King, not a President.

The Supreme Court cannot initiate a case. They cannot entertain hypothetical matters and render decisions. They cannot depart from previous decisions although they can refine them on new facts. The Supreme Court has never posed any significant threat of turning into a Gang of Nine running the government. Their power seems exactly what it needs to be to restrain the other Branches, but no more.

Says who? I would find it hard to swallow that they cannot depart from previous decisions. Was that not done during the black fight for equality with MLK? I had thought that separate but equal was ruled as constitutional and then overturned?

 

[Sarah G]

so you do want the government involved in people's lives.

YOu don't want them to tell you what to do, but it is okay if the government tells someone else what to do with their body.

Not to mention their guns so they can decide who to shoot if the situation arises.

The death penalty is also ok with Rs. It all has to do with rights and power...

As long as it's their rights and they have the power.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

I contended that technology is advancing and allowing premature babies to survive at earlier births. I have no idea what technologies are doing this specifically, just that the rate of survival for premature babies are increasing. What technology we are using does not matter, only that survival rates are better. At some point that will move back the viability line and I believe that viability and brain development should have an impact on abortion laws.

So you restated your opinion without providing a crumb of proof to it still. Great. In actuality, we still have no better way to treat many of the horrible issues that befall premies. See necrotizing enterocolitis as an example. Further, even IF you could say we got better at treating babies at the 8 month mark, that doesn't mean we're able to save younger premies. I don't know what miracle hand-waiving technology you think was invented in the last few years, but you are mistaken.

 

[Care4all]

so you do want the government involved in people's lives.

YOu don't want them to tell you what to do, but it is okay if the government tells someone else what to do with their body.

No, it's the government telling you what you CAN'T do to someone elses body (i.e. kill it). That's the only way abortion can be justified because pretty much everyone here would agree that taking an innocent human life is wrong and should be legally prosecutable. The only way a pro-abortionist can rationalize their way around that is to define a fetus as something less than a human life (despite all evidence to the contrary).

Actually, I think the argument was VIABILITY of the embryo or fetus....the supreme court protected the womaqn's right to choose UP TO the point of the child to be's viability....about 12 weeks gestation? The SC did not give women the right to choose beyond that.... each state then determines their policies regarding abortion after the 12 weeks is my understanding of it?

 

[Bern80]

so you do want the government involved in people's lives.

YOu don't want them to tell you what to do, but it is okay if the government tells someone else what to do with their body.

No, it's the government telling you what you CAN'T do to someone elses body (i.e. kill it). That's the only way abortion can be justified because pretty much everyone here would agree that taking an innocent human life is wrong and should be legally prosecutable. The only way a pro-abortionist can rationalize their way around that is to define a fetus as something less than a human life (despite all evidence to the contrary).

Actually, I think the argument was VIABILITY of the embryo or fetus....the supreme court protected the womaqn's right to choose UP TO the point of the child to be's viability....about 12 weeks gestation? The SC did not give women the right to choose beyond that.... each state then determines their policies regarding abortion after the 12 weeks is my understanding of it?

Maybe for some. In other threads you may recall there are those on here who believe there should be zero limitations on when and what circumstances a women can have an abortion.

 

[Qball]

I don't like Roe because it creates a judicial barrier to what is a policy matter. I'm not against judicial precedence generally, but I think the social and political landscape would look very different if the people we elect the power to legislate the issue and be held accountable. To be honest, I see one of the precedences tied to abortion being overturned in the next 5-10 years, be it Roe, Planned Parenthood, or Casey.

Qball, most constitutional lawyers etc, see the Balance of Power among the Three Branches of Government as being one of the genuises of our systen of government. If we only had two and they disagreed, what result? If Executive trumped Legislatve and there was nowhere to appeal...we'd have an American King, not a President.

The Supreme Court cannot initiate a case. They cannot entertain hypothetical matters and render decisions. They cannot depart from previous decisions although they can refine them on new facts. The Supreme Court has never posed any significant threat of turning into a Gang of Nine running the government. Their power seems exactly what it needs to be to restrain the other Branches, but no more.

It's not the role of the judiciary to legislate "good policy", though. Their job is to determine constitutionality of our laws, not make new ones.

I know what the Supreme Court can and cannot do, but I do think there's going to be a challenge to the abortion precedence in the coming years, and I see them striking part of it. I don't know what the effect of it will be, though.