Could we ban abortion on the state level?

[jillian]

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.

i don't think anyone has argued that.

there are already limitations and they're outlined by Roe v Wade

 

[jillian]

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?

that was part of it.

the other part of it, which is the real crux of the matter is when does the governmental interest in protecting a fetus outweigh the interest of a woman in her own body. the cut off was a compromise. was the cut off based on viability? largely... which is why, although roe is a correct decision, it was a badly written one.

 

[Care4all]

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.

Yes, I have seen some posters stick to this position of "whenever" the woman deems necessary even if 8 months....I disagree with this totally, unless for legit medical reasons.

 

[Madeline]

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, you are correct. The holding (effect) of Roe was undeniably (mostly) correct...but the reasoning of the decision was based on bad science and bad law. The 1973 Supremes apparently wanted a "compromise" decision to appease mysognists, so they carved up a fictious state's rght in "fetal life" said to commence at viability...wrong on the law and wrong on the science. In 1973, a 6 month old fetus was hardly "viable" -- ever. In 2010, a lady need not even carry her own fetus to term. Surrogacy etc. has rendered Roe insensible on the science.

Thank you for attending to my tasks whilst I so rudely left to get Real Life wrestled back down under control!

Next time I'll get a Hall Pass, he he.

*Winks*

 

[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.

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.

I see, so you get to determine what is human life and at what stage it is worth protecting. If an unborn child isn't human life then what is it? Something between "conception and birth"? Wow, thats insightful.

Here's an idea, how about letting the voters have a voice on abortion for once? Or does that prospect scare you too much?

 

[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.

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?

The rule of Common Law, stare decsis, requires sitting judges and Justices to following binding authority -- decisons rendered in the past by courts of their own or higher authority that are (1) directly on-point and (2) rendered by a court with jurisdicton over their matters/contestants.

If these exceptions are not sufficient for the Gang of Nine to render a decision that turns the Earth 180 degrees on its axis, they can and do revert to re-intrepreting the Constitution and "correcting" a mistake of prior decisions. In the Roe decision, the Supremes perceived a "Right to Privacy" in the "penumbras" or facts and circumstances surrounding the constitutional language as it was drafted OR as it should/must/may be applied to modern facts. ("Penumbras" are not the same as "intent of the Founders", though the two are similiar.)

This "perceiving of penumbras" is the most radical of Supreme Court actions and has not often happened. Most Justices and their clerks are extremely smart people who have little difficulty distinguishing a prior decision whose holding/rule of law they don't like. When it happens, the Supremes get lots of criticism for "judical activism" and perhaps rightly so.

But since Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life, they can afford to be unpopular...and that too is a constitutional aid to the Balance of Powers.


Lawyer Joke:

The King calls his three advisors in and asks "What is 2 plus 2?"

His accountant runs a spread sheet and replies "Four".

His doctor uses a bunser burner to boil eggs and replies "Four".

His lawyer draws the window shades, asks everyone but the King to leave, then replies "What would you like it to be?"

 

[jillian]

I see, so you get to determine what is human life and at what stage it is worth protecting. If an unborn child isn't human life then what is it? Something between "conception and birth"? Wow, thats insightful.

Here's an idea, how about letting the voters have a voice on abortion for once? Or does that prospect scare you too much?

constitutional rights are up for a vote now?

 

[GHook93]

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.

i don't think anyone has argued that.

there are already limitations and they're outlined by Roe v Wade

And reenforced by Planned Parenthood!

What is amazing is many of the libertarians (in which one of their main premises is privacy) do not realize the implication of overturning Roe v Wade. Beyond allowing abortion, it also recognized the fundamental right of privacy. A right that is not explicitly stated in the constitution. Overturning Roe v. Wade could overturn the fundamental right status of a right to privacy. In this data base storing and identity theft era, I would right to think of a world without the right to privacy being a fundamental right.


I personally HATE legislating from the bench, so Roe v. Wade rubs me the wrong way. However, I am prochoice in the first trimester. Therefore, I'm glad its in place, but I wish it was made legal by legislation and not by activist judges.

 

[Dr Gregg]

The major difference between the pro-choice and the anti-choice is that the pro choice will compromise. I have no problem with setting a cut off date for abortion, at say 3 months, except if the mother's life is at risk and the abortion would save her life. Most of the anti-choice people believe a tiny single cell is a human being. People like that will never compromise.

 

[Dr Gregg]

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.

I see, so you get to determine what is human life and at what stage it is worth protecting. If an unborn child isn't human life then what is it? Something between "conception and birth"? Wow, thats insightful.

Here's an idea, how about letting the voters have a voice on abortion for once? Or does that prospect scare you too much?

It's totally subjective, you anti-choice fools live in fantasy land and YOU want to determine what human life is. Hence why pro choice people will compromise and pick a cut off date, but people like you refuse to. Reality is filled with tough decisions. There are not unlimited resources and people are surviving longer and longer, and the population is growing a ton. We can't just keep growing and growing.

What separates humans from the rest of the animal world is out awareness, our intelligence. WHat happens when someone is brain dead? Its perfectly OK to pull the plug on them, since they are no longer there and are just a bag of bones so to speak.

 

[DiamondDave]

Running out of resources, eh?... need a cut off date for those old people not to be considered a life either? I am sure you can find a way to complain about their strain on limited resources as well

 

[Madeline]

I see, so you get to determine what is human life and at what stage it is worth protecting. If an unborn child isn't human life then what is it? Something between "conception and birth"? Wow, thats insightful.

Here's an idea, how about letting the voters have a voice on abortion for once? Or does that prospect scare you too much?

constitutional rights are up for a vote now?

Amending the US Constitution, by itself, would NOT pave the way for Greater Mysoginy through Denial of Women's Reproductive Rights. States also have constitutions and many/most guarantee their residents an EXPLICIT Right to Privacy. Those that have no such language have, for the most part been interpreted by State Supreme Courts to have the very same "penumbras" that assure the residents of that state a Right to Privacy as the US Constitution has.

I cannot "get" mysoginy, but even if I could, I have never understood the craven desire of mysoginists to recreate America as the Land When No One Has Any Privacy Ever.

I think the anti-abortion crew need to lay off the fruit loops. Criminlaizing abortion again ain't happening here -- ever.

Thank God. And thank the men and women of my generation, who fought to legalize abortion on demand.

[/SIZE][/COLOR]

 

[Dr Gregg]

Running out of resources, eh?... need a cut off date for those old people not to be considered a life either? I am sure you can find a way to complain about their strain on limited resources as well

This is all you delusional people have, completely assinine analagies. Comparing a living, breathing, thinking, feeling person to a collection of cells at early stages of development without higher brain function, is just plain idiotic and reeks of desperation.

 

[Immanuel]

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.

I see, so you get to determine what is human life and at what stage it is worth protecting. If an unborn child isn't human life then what is it? Something between "conception and birth"? Wow, thats insightful.

Here's an idea, how about letting the voters have a voice on abortion for once? Or does that prospect scare you too much?

It's totally subjective, you anti-choice fools live in fantasy land and YOU want to determine what human life is. Hence why pro choice people will compromise and pick a cut off date, but people like you refuse to. Reality is filled with tough decisions. There are not unlimited resources and people are surviving longer and longer, and the population is growing a ton. We can't just keep growing and growing.

What separates humans from the rest of the animal world is out awareness, our intelligence. WHat happens when someone is brain dead? Its perfectly OK to pull the plug on them, since they are no longer there and are just a bag of bones so to speak.

If you (collective you, not you personally) truly believe (as I do) that the fetus is a living human being whose only crime is to be dependent upon a mother that does not want it, then there really is not a whole heck of a lot of room to compromise. You cannot say that it is a human being but that killing it is justified because the mother does not want it. I cannot compromise with you and say, "oh well big deal it is just a fetus", because it is not. It is a developing human being in the early stages of life.

You say you want compromise, but what you seem to really want is for people who believe in the right to life to simply cave in to things that they believe are extremely immoral.

I do not believe overturning Roe v. Wade will solve the problem. Science has advanced too far in the last thirty eight years to make overturning it a viable option.

That is why I believe that we have to educate rather than legislate. Pro-lifers like myself have to realize that we are not going to eliminate abortion by making it illegal. That simply is not realistic. Therefore, we have to work to make it less desirable. There are several ways to accomplish that: promoting adoption, education about the stages of life from conception on, comprehensive sex education including (but not solely) abstinence to name just a few.

I appreciate your "willingness" to compromise, but from where I am sitting, I don't see your idea of compromise as actually being a compromise. You already have everything you want us to compromise to... what were you willing to give in this "compromise"? The way I see it, pro-lifers accepting cases of medical necessity, incest and rape is a compromise and I even struggle with the incest part unless the victim is underage and was technically raped.

Immie

 

[Dr Gregg]

blah blah blah immie, nobody is forcing you to think its right, you people are the ones that usually always want to force your morals and your opinions on others. It's split the opinion on this matter, so your side doesn't get to tell a woman what to do with her body and her health decision. and I don't feel anybody is being condemned to anything as a fetus is unaware of anything going on. An animal that we kill for food has more awareness than an early fetus, yet its perfectly fine to kill that for food. THat is the reality of life which many of you fantasy believers can't accept.

YOu think its wrong, you don't have one, but its not your decision to make for others.

 

[Immanuel]

Running out of resources, eh?... need a cut off date for those old people not to be considered a life either? I am sure you can find a way to complain about their strain on limited resources as well

This is all you delusional people have, completely assinine analagies. Comparing a living, breathing, thinking, feeling person to a collection of cells at early stages of development without higher brain function, is just plain idiotic and reeks of desperation.

I hope you realize that by the time most women find out that they are pregnant, the so-called clump of cells has developed into something that actually can be identified as a human being. If is no longer just a "clump of cells". You do... don't you?

Immie

 

[Bern80]

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.

i don't think anyone has argued that.

there are already limitations and they're outlined by Roe v Wade

See thread, "what abortion laws should be" and JD-2B's position. She has stated repeatedly that there should be no limitations on abortion.

 

[Immanuel]

blah blah blah immie, nobody is forcing you to think its right, you people are the ones that usually always want to force your morals and your opinions on others. It's split the opinion on this matter, so your side doesn't get to tell a woman what to do with her body and her health decision. and I don't feel anybody is being condemned to anything as a fetus is unaware of anything going on. An animal that we kill for food has more awareness than an early fetus, yet its perfectly fine to kill that for food. THat is the reality of life which many of you fantasy believers can't accept.

YOu think its wrong, you don't have one, but its not your decision to make for others.

To quote you... blah, blah, blah... what gives you the right to decide?

Immie

 

[Dr Gregg]

blah blah blah immie, nobody is forcing you to think its right, you people are the ones that usually always want to force your morals and your opinions on others. It's split the opinion on this matter, so your side doesn't get to tell a woman what to do with her body and her health decision. and I don't feel anybody is being condemned to anything as a fetus is unaware of anything going on. An animal that we kill for food has more awareness than an early fetus, yet its perfectly fine to kill that for food. THat is the reality of life which many of you fantasy believers can't accept.

YOu think its wrong, you don't have one, but its not your decision to make for others.

To quote you... blah, blah, blah... what gives you the right to decide?

Immie

The supreme court decided

 

[Immanuel]

blah blah blah immie, nobody is forcing you to think its right, you people are the ones that usually always want to force your morals and your opinions on others. It's split the opinion on this matter, so your side doesn't get to tell a woman what to do with her body and her health decision. and I don't feel anybody is being condemned to anything as a fetus is unaware of anything going on. An animal that we kill for food has more awareness than an early fetus, yet its perfectly fine to kill that for food. THat is the reality of life which many of you fantasy believers can't accept.

YOu think its wrong, you don't have one, but its not your decision to make for others.

To quote you... blah, blah, blah... what gives you the right to decide?

Immie

The supreme court decided

Hehehe,

I knew you would say that, so let me ask you this, if we pro-lifers found a way to convince the Supreme Court of the errors of its ways, would you simply give up?

Somehow, I kind doubt it.

Immie