CDZ From Pro-Choice to Pro-Life (what changed my mind)

[JaggedZenMonkey]

Given that I've been PRO CHOICE most of my adult life, I'm beginning to rethink that position now. Through Roe vs. Wade woman have been granted the legal right to decide the value of every unborn human life and have been granted the absolute power to legally terminate all of them at their sole discretion. This is not a right or power that should be given to anyone. Woman ultimately decide who lives and who dies - who's valuable and who is not, and many people have absolutely no problem with this. At one time I didn't either, but then I never thought about this issue in these terms.


Many pro choicer's suggest woman can be trusted with such absolute power. Still, there are over 1,000,000 abortions taking place in this nation annually, an estimated 850,000 of which could have been prevented absolutely by being more responsible. I realize that what people do in the bedroom is not my business (thank God). However, if a couple do not want an unwanted pregnancy, it can be prevented. There are quite a few options that will never result in pregnancy. Abstinence being one of many. Also, there are no contraceptives that offer 100% pregnancy prevention. That's an important thing to consider also, but I digress.


While woman's personal issues are not my business either, granting any human absolute power to determine the value of, and the authority to terminate unborn human life at their sole discretion is my business as an American citizen. This issue is about human rights. It's about granting human entities far too much power. It's about ethics and even morality for some. Heck, I'd prefer deliberate and well focused genetic engineering over the haphazard method of determining human value utilized by some, and that's a VERY frightening proposition. It's unethical too. Many pro choicer's suggest woman should be fully trusted and able to retain this undeniably unequaled liberty and power. I Am now in disagreement. Yesterday I was on the fence. The day before I was pro-choice.


You can thank those with fictitious and hostile arguments that are irrelevant to the discussion thrown against people who actually care about everyone involved. You can thank those who outright deny and sugar coat the harsh reality of abortion, their unwillingness to discuss the issue honestly, their want to suppress responsible behavior, their indirect encouragement of irresponsible behavior, their indirect encouragement of accountability avoidance, and the fact that all this threatens not only the human rights of woman, but the human rights of everyone else in this nation, as well as the future of the entire human race. I thank them for opening my eyes. There is no room nor chance for compromise between the opposing views. I understand this now. This issue is going to back to court as it needs to.


Furthermore, many pro choicer's have the gall to mock those who place trust in God. I find this quite ironic being that 850,000 woman annually have proven themselves (some over and again) to be terribly irresponsible when it comes to this issue (abusive even). The unequaled and absolute power granted to them over unborn human life is being abused without question. None of us should have this kind of power. Not you, not me, not our government, not woman, not men, not anyone ... Ever (.) If a woman's right to choose is to remain a right, very real limitations of that power need to placed upon them. Otherwise, Roe vs. Wade should be overturned indefinitely, which is where this issue is heading and at a very rapid pace. If woman have the absolute power to determine the value of, and the authority to terminate all unborn human lives at their sole discretion, then the future of humanity is at stake and placed solely on the character of woman, many of whom have proven themselves over and again to be abusive of this power.

 

[midcan5]

I always find it fascinating that men who can never experience the joy anguish or pain of pregnancy are obsessed with abortion? The amount of internet bandwidth that goes into this debate must astound, it may even beat Hitler or Munich references? It's so simple when all you have to do is expound on a subject that for most of us will never even be decisive. But the poor soul who has made a mistake or has accidentally become pregnant must face a world that knows what's best for you and will kill to prove it.

Abortion is the hypocrite's crutch, it requires nothing of the hypocrite, controlling the lives of another person is what they desire most, taking care of or assisting the same person is something they loathe. Empty moralizing is their trademark. A child dies every 15 seconds in the world of natural causes, do you ever hear the hypocrites mention them? And every married couple, every month aborts life, unless they attempt to conceive the potential life present, they just pretend it is something other than what it is. The same people who argue against supporting a woman's right to contraceptive medicine, gladly pay for boner medicine, I guess males matter more than women in their world, and so it goes.

"Abolition of a woman's right to abortion, when and if she wants it, amounts to compulsory maternity: a form of rape by the State." Edward Abbey

''God Does Not Regard the Fetus as a Soul,' Conservative evangelicals didn’t always care much about abortion or contraception. The strange story of how they came to be obsessed with them.' By Jamelle Bouie

"In his book Broken Words: The Abuse of Science and Faith in American Politics, Jonathan Dudley notes that most evangelicals held far more liberal views at the time. “God does not regard the fetus as a soul no matter how far gestation has progressed,” wrote professor Bruce Waltke of Dallas Theological Seminary in a 1968 issue of Christianity Today on contraception and abortion, edited by Harold Lindsell, a then-famous champion of biblical “inerrancy.” His argument rested on the Hebrew Bible, “[A]ccording to Exodus 21:22–24, the destruction of the fetus is not a capital offense. … Clearly, then, in contrast to the mother, the fetus is not reckoned as a soul.”"

Hobby Lobby and contraception How conservative evangelicals went from not caring about abortion and birth control to being obsessed with them.

Hm...

Is lack of proper health care legalized murder? Is collateral damage murder? Are sanctions which only kill children and the sickly murder? Is the lack of a fair wage and a place to sleep murder? If parents can be held accountable for their children after birth and society finds it acceptable to punish them, then shouldn't all those who argue against healthcare, child support, food programs, and welfare, shouldn't they too be held accountable? Is invading a sovereign nation on trumped up charges murder? Did you protest Iraq? Did you cry these crocodile tears? So called pro life may be the biggest hypocritical religious position of modern America as none of these people want to support the living, feed the hungry, stop war, or follow their own phony stance and have lots of children. None would take care all the children born except to place them into servitude and condemn them. Hypocrites all.

Why is it that men who cannot make this decision know the proper decision? Keep your religion out of other people lives.

Does pro-life include not eating and killing other life forms for surely they suffer and die at a more advanced level of life and feeling?

Each month a women, a couple, decide on whether the cells, the potential person cells are to be discarded or if they are to attempt a conception and thus life. If they choose not to create life, is that OK, for surely this is life (cellular life) being discarded? Why are some cells more important than other cells.

Two out of five (or more) conceptions end naturally, who is at fault here? Nature, god, who? Are these conceptions humans? If so support an effort to end this.

How is it that a decision, a moral judgment, that a women or a couple makes is thought of as wrong by another person or entity who have no authority to tell or command another person? And not only do not care but would be offended if asked to support or raise the child. It is so easy to preach and have superior values when nothing is required.

I repeat when anti-abortion foes stop the needless deaths of living, feeling humans throughout the world who die every 15 seconds, when they even care and protest that this happens, when they protest wars that kill the innocent, when they provide welfare and care for the homeless and the hungry in America and the world, then I will take them serious. But until then they are hypocrites because their only desire is to control another who they do not care about and probably condemn. It's so easy to be moral when nothing is required of you and you do nothing but preach and legislate.

"In the 1950s, about a million illegal abortions a year were performed in the U.S., and over a thousand women died each year as a result. Women who were victims of botched or unsanitary abortions came in desperation to hospital emergency wards, where some died of widespread abdominal infections. Many women who recovered from such infections found themselves sterile or chronically and painfully ill. The enormous emotional stress often lasted a long time." HISTORY OF ABORTION

 

[JaggedZenMonkey]

I always find it fascinating that men who can never experience the joy anguish or pain of pregnancy are obsessed with abortion? The amount of internet bandwidth that goes into this debate must astound, it may even beat Hitler or Munich references? It's so simple when all you have to do is expound on a subject that for most of us will never even be decisive. But the poor soul who has made a mistake or has accidentally become pregnant must face a world that knows what's best for you and will kill to prove it.

Abortion is the hypocrite's crutch, it requires nothing of the hypocrite, controlling the lives of another person is what they desire most, taking care of or assisting the same person is something they loathe. Empty moralizing is their trademark. A child dies every 15 seconds in the world of natural causes, do you ever hear the hypocrites mention them? And every married couple, every month aborts life, unless they attempt to conceive the potential life present, they just pretend it is something other than what it is. The same people who argue against supporting a woman's right to contraceptive medicine, gladly pay for boner medicine, I guess males matter more than women in their world, and so it goes.

"Abolition of a woman's right to abortion, when and if she wants it, amounts to compulsory maternity: a form of rape by the State." Edward Abbey

''God Does Not Regard the Fetus as a Soul,' Conservative evangelicals didn’t always care much about abortion or contraception. The strange story of how they came to be obsessed with them.' By Jamelle Bouie

"In his book Broken Words: The Abuse of Science and Faith in American Politics, Jonathan Dudley notes that most evangelicals held far more liberal views at the time. “God does not regard the fetus as a soul no matter how far gestation has progressed,” wrote professor Bruce Waltke of Dallas Theological Seminary in a 1968 issue of Christianity Today on contraception and abortion, edited by Harold Lindsell, a then-famous champion of biblical “inerrancy.” His argument rested on the Hebrew Bible, “[A]ccording to Exodus 21:22–24, the destruction of the fetus is not a capital offense. … Clearly, then, in contrast to the mother, the fetus is not reckoned as a soul.”"

Hobby Lobby and contraception How conservative evangelicals went from not caring about abortion and birth control to being obsessed with them.

Hm...

Is lack of proper health care legalized murder? Is collateral damage murder? Are sanctions which only kill children and the sickly murder? Is the lack of a fair wage and a place to sleep murder? If parents can be held accountable for their children after birth and society finds it acceptable to punish them, then shouldn't all those who argue against healthcare, child support, food programs, and welfare, shouldn't they too be held accountable? Is invading a sovereign nation on trumped up charges murder? Did you protest Iraq? Did you cry these crocodile tears? So called pro life may be the biggest hypocritical religious position of modern America as none of these people want to support the living, feed the hungry, stop war, or follow their own phony stance and have lots of children. None would take care all the children born except to place them into servitude and condemn them. Hypocrites all.

Why is it that men who cannot make this decision know the proper decision? Keep your religion out of other people lives.

Does pro-life include not eating and killing other life forms for surely they suffer and die at a more advanced level of life and feeling?

Each month a women, a couple, decide on whether the cells, the potential person cells are to be discarded or if they are to attempt a conception and thus life. If they choose not to create life, is that OK, for surely this is life (cellular life) being discarded? Why are some cells more important than other cells.

Two out of five (or more) conceptions end naturally, who is at fault here? Nature, god, who? Are these conceptions humans? If so support an effort to end this.

How is it that a decision, a moral judgment, that a women or a couple makes is thought of as wrong by another person or entity who have no authority to tell or command another person? And not only do not care but would be offended if asked to support or raise the child. It is so easy to preach and have superior values when nothing is required.

I repeat when anti-abortion foes stop the needless deaths of living, feeling humans throughout the world who die every 15 seconds, when they even care and protest that this happens, when they protest wars that kill the innocent, when they provide welfare and care for the homeless and the hungry in America and the world, then I will take them serious. But until then they are hypocrites because their only desire is to control another who they do not care about and probably condemn. It's so easy to be moral when nothing is required of you and you do nothing but preach and legislate.

"In the 1950s, about a million illegal abortions a year were performed in the U.S., and over a thousand women died each year as a result. Women who were victims of botched or unsanitary abortions came in desperation to hospital emergency wards, where some died of widespread abdominal infections. Many women who recovered from such infections found themselves sterile or chronically and painfully ill. The enormous emotional stress often lasted a long time." HISTORY OF ABORTION

Prevent unwanted pregnancies destined to be terminated and we wouldn't be having this discussion at all. Imagine people being responsible for a change. That's all it takes. Mutual masturbation, anal sex, toys, oral sex, and a host of other possibilities that tend to get woman off better than typical vaginal sex are options. Abstinence is just one method of preventing pregnancy. The others involve a willingness to explore human sexuality. This becomes our business (human business) when human life is being terminated deliberately and unnecessarily. This feeds poison to the ideal that humans should have basic rights. Human lives being deliberately terminated because of irresponsible behavior, and people are using the legality of abortion to justify it. If these people don't see how this is threatening their right to choose, there's nothing more to be said. You may as well place a woman's right to choose in a meat grinder. The end result is the same. It's going to be stripped from woman and because of the actions of those who take advantage of this right.


At what point does a human fertilized egg gain value? Some insist at birth. At what stage of our developmental process do we begin to matter as humans? Again many insist at birth. At what point after conception do you place value upon human life? Many again insist at birth. Why at birth and who gets to make this value determination for all potential human lives? Mothers? I disagree. That's quite a one sided liberty to be given to a single gender. That would imply that woman deserve far greater and unequal authority over all potential human lives. Are woman playing the role of God? The truth is value determinations are not being placed on the human lives developing in mothers who abort at all, but only on what these woman desire for themselves. It's a selfish and personal fancy. The value determination is being placed only on the perceived and personal value they place on their own lives. It's personal vanity. To many human life has no value until born. If our value is merely determined by the whims of woman, or even ourselves after birth, then none of us have any inherent value at all. Our want for human rights become the moot fancy of inherently valueless beings. This position makes human rights a moot fancy derived from the minds of those who are inherently valueless.


At what stage of the following process do human rights begin to matter and have value?


0. As an ideal not yet conceptualized by humans?

1. As a conceptualized ideal in the mind of humans?

2. Within the first trimester - The ideal has made some developmental progress?

3. Within the second trimester - The ideal has made even greater developmental progress?

4. Within the third trimester - Has nearly completed its developmental progress as an ideal?

5. After the ideal has fully developed and has been given birth, becoming a very real part of our human reality?

 

[Katzndogz]

When abortion became widely available I was absolutely pro choice. I was a counselor with Planned Parenthood and a clinic defender when clinics came under protest from pro life groups.

I thought I was helping women find their way through an impossible situation with very few options. My mind was changed when abortion changed. When I was instructed to lie to mothers. Women who wanted to discuss options where they would bring their pregnancy to term meant they were treated as if they were particularly cruel and very stupid. When abortion became an end to itself and the most preferred way to end pregnancy.

Abortion changed and it changed again. Abortion is now profitable. It's a business in the business of buying and selling body parts. It has gone beyond gruesome.

 

[Moonglow]

Let's face it, humans and animals live off of death.....If abortion was illegal, it would not stop women getting abortions or families opting for an abortion when teens get pregnant...In other words, abortion will never just go away...
The resale or recycling of dead humans will always be part of society, why do you think they want your parts when you die...??
Unexpected pregnancies will never go away as long as humans, like animals, have sex drives that control the person to make hasty decisions...

 

[Derideo_Te]

Has the OP actually ever bothered to read the RvW decision for himself?

Because that would be a good starting point for him to find the answers to some of the questions he posed in post #3. The SCOTUS did actually address many of those questions.

Once the OP has educated himself he might want to try answering how he personally would take on the responsibility of raising a newborn until they have graduated college as a single father. Because that is the burden he is placing on others that he doesn't have to deal with himself.

Next the OP should go the Guttmacher site and read the statistics on women who do have abortions.

There he will discover that a majority of them do have religious beliefs similar to his own. He will also discover that many of these women already do have other children to care for and an additional child might be more than they can afford.

Again, is the OP willing to carry the burden of that additional child himself? If not, why is he imposing it on a mother already trying her best to raise the children she already has?

 

[Derideo_Te]

When abortion became widely available I was absolutely pro choice. I was a counselor with Planned Parenthood and a clinic defender when clinics came under protest from pro life groups.

I thought I was helping women find their way through an impossible situation with very few options. My mind was changed when abortion changed. When I was instructed to lie to mothers. Women who wanted to discuss options where they would bring their pregnancy to term meant they were treated as if they were particularly cruel and very stupid. When abortion became an end to itself and the most preferred way to end pregnancy.

Abortion changed and it changed again. Abortion is now profitable. It's a business in the business of buying and selling body parts. It has gone beyond gruesome.

Please provide credible nonpartisan to support those claims.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"From Pro-Choice to Pro-Life (what changed my mind)"

There's no need for anyone to 'change one's mind' on the issue.

It's perfectly appropriate and consistent to oppose abortion while at the same time acknowledge a woman's right to privacy, where the state cannot compel a woman to give birth against her will.

Indeed, everyone is 'pro-life' and opposes abortion, the conflict exists as to how best end the practice, not whether the practice should be allowed to continue.

 

[JaggedZenMonkey]

Has the OP actually ever bothered to read the RvW decision for himself?

Because that would be a good starting point for him to find the answers to some of the questions he posed in post #3. The SCOTUS did actually address many of those questions.

Once the OP has educated himself he might want to try answering how he personally would take on the responsibility of raising a newborn until they have graduated college as a single father. Because that is the burden he is placing on others that he doesn't have to deal with himself.

Next the OP should go the Guttmacher site and read the statistics on women who do have abortions.

There he will discover that a majority of them do have religious beliefs similar to his own. He will also discover that many of these women already do have other children to care for and an additional child might be more than they can afford.

Again, is the OP willing to carry the burden of that additional child himself? If not, why is he imposing it on a mother already trying her best to raise the children she already has?

To get pregnant when you refuse to have a child, then to terminate that pregnancy when it could have been prevented absolutely is irresponsible. Morality isn't the issue. Religion isn't the issue. Character, absolute power over unborn human life, mindful and deliberate terminations based of haphazard value determinations are. If you think the power granted to woman, which you think woman should have isn't dangerous, that we should trust them, put our faith in them, and not put limitations upon the powers granted when it has been proven over and again that this power is being abused by many, you're in denial. How many decades have we entrusted woman with this right? It's not only dangerous, it's irresponsible and careless. No one is to blame but those who gave this power to woman in the first place. The power will be pulled.


850,000 woman annually have proven themselves (some over and again) to be terribly irresponsible when it comes to this issue (abusive even). The unequaled and absolute power granted to them over unborn human life is being abused without question. None of us should have this kind of power. Not you, not me, not our government, not woman, not men, not anyone ... Ever (.) It's too much power and it negates basic human rights based on the ideal that we have no inherent value. Human life begins developing at conception. Although, a newly fertilized egg is not yet a person, the building blocks of its entire personal human existence is contained within itself. While many refuse to acknowledge human life at all, even in later stages of fetal development, many others aren't nearly as eager to follow suit. Will acorns become oak trees? Will flower seeds become flowers? Will sturgeon eggs become fish? Will tadpoles become frogs? Will babies become a toddlers? Will toddlers become teens? Will teens become adults? Will adults become seniors? Will human fertilized eggs become human babies?


Why are fetus' not referred to as human lives? Fetus' are undeniably human. They are simply going through early developmental stages. We are all under continual development. We're just further along than a fetus. We're further along than babies. We're further along than toddlers. I think most of us are further along than teens. We may consider ourselves to be fully grown, fully developed adults, but our developmental stages are far from being complete. We too are in the process of further developmental stages. Take the fact that unwanted pregnancy can be prevented absolutely, the fact woman have been granted absolute power to terminate every unborn human life that could ever potentially have life at their soul discretion in this nation, the fact that the entire cause of human rights is negated by the insistence that unborn human life has no value until [insert answer here] when it has been proven that human life undeniably begins to develop the moment conception takes place, and the fact that many woman are undeniably abusing the power they've been granted, and you have a sure fire recipe for overturning Roe vs. Wade.


How many decades have woman been entrusted with this right? How often is this right being abused? How resistant is the pro choice crowd to cooperation? How often is the horror of abortion sugar coated for sake of pandering to PC sensitivities? The pro choice crowd has literally ensured they lose the right to choose and by their own devises. I was pro choice up until 2 days ago. I changed my stance based on everything I've written in this thread. If woman wish to retain even a small portion of their right to choose, something needs to be done by them and cooperation needs to be pursued. . Otherwise we're going to end up with a lot of woman getting back alley abortions, more deaths, and worse. As it is, unequaled power and authority over every future unborn human have been granted to even the selfish, irresponsible, and haphazard woman among us. How does this not concern people? The future of all humanity and the power to determine who lives and dies are at their sole discretion. Who lives and who dies - Who's valuable and who's not? We may as well go the Gattaca route and breed out inferior genome traits. At least then we'd know there were a future for the human race, but that route has been deemed unethical.

Go figure.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Has the OP actually ever bothered to read the RvW decision for himself?

Because that would be a good starting point for him to find the answers to some of the questions he posed in post #3. The SCOTUS did actually address many of those questions.

Once the OP has educated himself he might want to try answering how he personally would take on the responsibility of raising a newborn until they have graduated college as a single father. Because that is the burden he is placing on others that he doesn't have to deal with himself.

Next the OP should go the Guttmacher site and read the statistics on women who do have abortions.

There he will discover that a majority of them do have religious beliefs similar to his own. He will also discover that many of these women already do have other children to care for and an additional child might be more than they can afford.

Again, is the OP willing to carry the burden of that additional child himself? If not, why is he imposing it on a mother already trying her best to raise the children she already has?

To get pregnant when you refuse to have a child, then to terminate that pregnancy when it could have been prevented absolutely is irresponsible. Morality isn't the issue. Religion isn't the issue. Character, absolute power over unborn human life, mindful and deliberate terminations based of haphazard value determinations are. If you think the power granted to woman, which you think woman should have isn't dangerous, that we should trust them, put our faith in them, and not put limitations upon the powers granted when it has been proven over and again that this power is being abused by many, you're in denial. How many decades have we entrusted woman with this right? It's not only dangerous, it's irresponsible and careless. No one is to blame but those who gave this power to woman in the first place. The power will be pulled.


850,000 woman annually have proven themselves (some over and again) to be terribly irresponsible when it comes to this issue (abusive even). The unequaled and absolute power granted to them over unborn human life is being abused without question. None of us should have this kind of power. Not you, not me, not our government, not woman, not men, not anyone ... Ever (.) It's too much power and it negates basic human rights based on the ideal that we have no inherent value. Human life begins developing at conception. Although, a newly fertilized egg is not yet a person, the building blocks of its entire personal human existence is contained within itself. While many refuse to acknowledge human life at all, even in later stages of fetal development, many others aren't nearly as eager to follow suit. Will acorns become oak trees? Will flower seeds become flowers? Will sturgeon eggs become fish? Will tadpoles become frogs? Will babies become a toddlers? Will toddlers become teens? Will teens become adults? Will adults become seniors? Will human fertilized eggs become human babies?


Why are fetus' not referred to as human lives? Fetus' are undeniably human. They are simply going through early developmental stages. We are all under continual development. We're just further along than a fetus. We're further along than babies. We're further along than toddlers. I think most of us are further along than teens. We may consider ourselves to be fully grown, fully developed adults, but our developmental stages are far from being complete. We too are in the process of further developmental stages. Take the fact that unwanted pregnancy can be prevented absolutely, the fact woman have been granted absolute power to terminate every unborn human life that could ever potentially have life at their soul discretion in this nation, the fact that the entire cause of human rights is negated by the insistence that unborn human life has no value until [insert answer here] when it has been proven that human life undeniably begins to develop the moment conception takes place, and the fact that many woman are undeniably abusing the power they've been granted, and you have a sure fire recipe for overturning Roe vs. Wade.


How many decades have woman been entrusted with this right? How often is this right being abused? How resistant is the pro choice crowd to cooperation? How often is the horror of abortion sugar coated for sake of pandering to PC sensitivities? The pro choice crowd has literally ensured they lose the right to choose and by their own devises. I was pro choice up until 2 days ago. I changed my stance based on everything I've written in this thread. If woman wish to retain even a small portion of their right to choose, something needs to be done by them and cooperation needs to be pursued. . Otherwise we're going to end up with a lot of woman getting back alley abortions, more deaths, and worse. As it is, unequaled power and authority over every future unborn human have been granted to even the selfish, irresponsible, and haphazard woman among us. How does this not concern people? The future of all humanity and the power to determine who lives and dies are at their sole discretion. Who lives and who dies - Who's valuable and who's not? We may as well go the Gattaca route and breed out inferior genome traits. At least then we'd know there were a future for the human race, but that route has been deemed unethical.

Go figure.

Why does the OP refuse to actually discuss anything of substance?

Like the RvW decision itself that clearly demarcates where the lines of responsibility lie?

Or the Guttmacher data that tells us who is having abortions and why?

Instead the OP merely reiterates the same rants without any making any cogent points.

Women are adults and they are in control of their own reproductive organs.

The OP doesn't get to infringe upon their rights as to what happens to their bodies any more than anyone else can decide that the OP needs to be forced to donate his sperm or have a vasectomy.

So if the OP is actually interested in discussing the topic he can address the facts.

 

[mamooth]

850,000 woman annually have proven themselves (some over and again) to be terribly irresponsible when it comes to this issue (abusive even).

The fear of allowing women to possess basic human liberty is the true driving force behind the pro-life movement.

The unequaled and absolute power granted to them over unborn human life is being abused without question. None of us should have this kind of power. Not you, not me, not our government, not woman, not men, not anyone ... Ever (.)

Yet you have no problem giving people those people absolute power to enslave women. Go figure.

I'll err on the side of liberty for the real people, the women. Just as the founders did. Abortion was legal and common when the Constitution was written, so the founders certainly knew about abortion, and they didn't think it was worth mentioning.

Will human fertilized eggs become human babies?

Maybe. And maybe human unfertilized eggs will become human babies. Claiming one has potential and the other doesn't is purely subjective and inconsistent, hence the argument from potential fails.

 

[Bfgrn]

To the OP...

First, educate yourself

Acceptable government regulation according to Roe v. Wade:
Different rules at different stages of pregnancy were considered appropriate:

• In the first trimester, the state (that is, any government) could treat abortion only as a medical decision, leaving medical judgment to the woman's physician.
• In the second trimester (before viability), the state's interest was seen as legitimate when it was protecting the health of the mother.
• After viability of the fetus (the likely ability of the fetus to be able to survive outside and separated from the uterus), the potential of human life could be considered as a legitimate state interest, and the state could choose to "regulate, or even proscribe abortion" as long as the life and health of the mother was protected.

 

[Bfgrn]

I always find it fascinating that men who can never experience the joy anguish or pain of pregnancy are obsessed with abortion? The amount of internet bandwidth that goes into this debate must astound, it may even beat Hitler or Munich references? It's so simple when all you have to do is expound on a subject that for most of us will never even be decisive. But the poor soul who has made a mistake or has accidentally become pregnant must face a world that knows what's best for you and will kill to prove it.

Abortion is the hypocrite's crutch, it requires nothing of the hypocrite, controlling the lives of another person is what they desire most, taking care of or assisting the same person is something they loathe. Empty moralizing is their trademark. A child dies every 15 seconds in the world of natural causes, do you ever hear the hypocrites mention them? And every married couple, every month aborts life, unless they attempt to conceive the potential life present, they just pretend it is something other than what it is. The same people who argue against supporting a woman's right to contraceptive medicine, gladly pay for boner medicine, I guess males matter more than women in their world, and so it goes.

"Abolition of a woman's right to abortion, when and if she wants it, amounts to compulsory maternity: a form of rape by the State." Edward Abbey

''God Does Not Regard the Fetus as a Soul,' Conservative evangelicals didn’t always care much about abortion or contraception. The strange story of how they came to be obsessed with them.' By Jamelle Bouie

"In his book Broken Words: The Abuse of Science and Faith in American Politics, Jonathan Dudley notes that most evangelicals held far more liberal views at the time. “God does not regard the fetus as a soul no matter how far gestation has progressed,” wrote professor Bruce Waltke of Dallas Theological Seminary in a 1968 issue of Christianity Today on contraception and abortion, edited by Harold Lindsell, a then-famous champion of biblical “inerrancy.” His argument rested on the Hebrew Bible, “[A]ccording to Exodus 21:22–24, the destruction of the fetus is not a capital offense. … Clearly, then, in contrast to the mother, the fetus is not reckoned as a soul.”"

Hobby Lobby and contraception How conservative evangelicals went from not caring about abortion and birth control to being obsessed with them.

Hm...

Is lack of proper health care legalized murder? Is collateral damage murder? Are sanctions which only kill children and the sickly murder? Is the lack of a fair wage and a place to sleep murder? If parents can be held accountable for their children after birth and society finds it acceptable to punish them, then shouldn't all those who argue against healthcare, child support, food programs, and welfare, shouldn't they too be held accountable? Is invading a sovereign nation on trumped up charges murder? Did you protest Iraq? Did you cry these crocodile tears? So called pro life may be the biggest hypocritical religious position of modern America as none of these people want to support the living, feed the hungry, stop war, or follow their own phony stance and have lots of children. None would take care all the children born except to place them into servitude and condemn them. Hypocrites all.

Why is it that men who cannot make this decision know the proper decision? Keep your religion out of other people lives.

Does pro-life include not eating and killing other life forms for surely they suffer and die at a more advanced level of life and feeling?

Each month a women, a couple, decide on whether the cells, the potential person cells are to be discarded or if they are to attempt a conception and thus life. If they choose not to create life, is that OK, for surely this is life (cellular life) being discarded? Why are some cells more important than other cells.

Two out of five (or more) conceptions end naturally, who is at fault here? Nature, god, who? Are these conceptions humans? If so support an effort to end this.

How is it that a decision, a moral judgment, that a women or a couple makes is thought of as wrong by another person or entity who have no authority to tell or command another person? And not only do not care but would be offended if asked to support or raise the child. It is so easy to preach and have superior values when nothing is required.

I repeat when anti-abortion foes stop the needless deaths of living, feeling humans throughout the world who die every 15 seconds, when they even care and protest that this happens, when they protest wars that kill the innocent, when they provide welfare and care for the homeless and the hungry in America and the world, then I will take them serious. But until then they are hypocrites because their only desire is to control another who they do not care about and probably condemn. It's so easy to be moral when nothing is required of you and you do nothing but preach and legislate.

"In the 1950s, about a million illegal abortions a year were performed in the U.S., and over a thousand women died each year as a result. Women who were victims of botched or unsanitary abortions came in desperation to hospital emergency wards, where some died of widespread abdominal infections. Many women who recovered from such infections found themselves sterile or chronically and painfully ill. The enormous emotional stress often lasted a long time." HISTORY OF ABORTION

Excellent post midcan...

Some folks believe in small government, small enough to fit in a woman's vagina...

 

[JaggedZenMonkey]

Has the OP actually ever bothered to read the RvW decision for himself?

Because that would be a good starting point for him to find the answers to some of the questions he posed in post #3. The SCOTUS did actually address many of those questions.

Once the OP has educated himself he might want to try answering how he personally would take on the responsibility of raising a newborn until they have graduated college as a single father. Because that is the burden he is placing on others that he doesn't have to deal with himself.

Next the OP should go the Guttmacher site and read the statistics on women who do have abortions.

There he will discover that a majority of them do have religious beliefs similar to his own. He will also discover that many of these women already do have other children to care for and an additional child might be more than they can afford.

Again, is the OP willing to carry the burden of that additional child himself? If not, why is he imposing it on a mother already trying her best to raise the children she already has?

To get pregnant when you refuse to have a child, then to terminate that pregnancy when it could have been prevented absolutely is irresponsible. Morality isn't the issue. Religion isn't the issue. Character, absolute power over unborn human life, mindful and deliberate terminations based of haphazard value determinations are. If you think the power granted to woman, which you think woman should have isn't dangerous, that we should trust them, put our faith in them, and not put limitations upon the powers granted when it has been proven over and again that this power is being abused by many, you're in denial. How many decades have we entrusted woman with this right? It's not only dangerous, it's irresponsible and careless. No one is to blame but those who gave this power to woman in the first place. The power will be pulled.


850,000 woman annually have proven themselves (some over and again) to be terribly irresponsible when it comes to this issue (abusive even). The unequaled and absolute power granted to them over unborn human life is being abused without question. None of us should have this kind of power. Not you, not me, not our government, not woman, not men, not anyone ... Ever (.) It's too much power and it negates basic human rights based on the ideal that we have no inherent value. Human life begins developing at conception. Although, a newly fertilized egg is not yet a person, the building blocks of its entire personal human existence is contained within itself. While many refuse to acknowledge human life at all, even in later stages of fetal development, many others aren't nearly as eager to follow suit. Will acorns become oak trees? Will flower seeds become flowers? Will sturgeon eggs become fish? Will tadpoles become frogs? Will babies become a toddlers? Will toddlers become teens? Will teens become adults? Will adults become seniors? Will human fertilized eggs become human babies?


Why are fetus' not referred to as human lives? Fetus' are undeniably human. They are simply going through early developmental stages. We are all under continual development. We're just further along than a fetus. We're further along than babies. We're further along than toddlers. I think most of us are further along than teens. We may consider ourselves to be fully grown, fully developed adults, but our developmental stages are far from being complete. We too are in the process of further developmental stages. Take the fact that unwanted pregnancy can be prevented absolutely, the fact woman have been granted absolute power to terminate every unborn human life that could ever potentially have life at their soul discretion in this nation, the fact that the entire cause of human rights is negated by the insistence that unborn human life has no value until [insert answer here] when it has been proven that human life undeniably begins to develop the moment conception takes place, and the fact that many woman are undeniably abusing the power they've been granted, and you have a sure fire recipe for overturning Roe vs. Wade.


How many decades have woman been entrusted with this right? How often is this right being abused? How resistant is the pro choice crowd to cooperation? How often is the horror of abortion sugar coated for sake of pandering to PC sensitivities? The pro choice crowd has literally ensured they lose the right to choose and by their own devises. I was pro choice up until 2 days ago. I changed my stance based on everything I've written in this thread. If woman wish to retain even a small portion of their right to choose, something needs to be done by them and cooperation needs to be pursued. . Otherwise we're going to end up with a lot of woman getting back alley abortions, more deaths, and worse. As it is, unequaled power and authority over every future unborn human have been granted to even the selfish, irresponsible, and haphazard woman among us. How does this not concern people? The future of all humanity and the power to determine who lives and dies are at their sole discretion. Who lives and who dies - Who's valuable and who's not? We may as well go the Gattaca route and breed out inferior genome traits. At least then we'd know there were a future for the human race, but that route has been deemed unethical.

Go figure.

Why does the OP refuse to actually discuss anything of substance?

Like the RvW decision itself that clearly demarcates where the lines of responsibility lie?

Or the Guttmacher data that tells us who is having abortions and why?

Instead the OP merely reiterates the same rants without any making any cogent points.

Women are adults and they are in control of their own reproductive organs.

The OP doesn't get to infringe upon their rights as to what happens to their bodies any more than anyone else can decide that the OP needs to be forced to donate his sperm or have a vasectomy.

So if the OP is actually interested in discussing the topic he can address the facts.

"Never once did the Supreme Court declare abortion itself to be a Constitutional right."

The Supreme Court said:

"We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins . . . the judiciary at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."

The High Courts key admission:

"If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case of course collapses, for the fetus' right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment."


When a human egg is fertilized, that individual humans existence and personhood has been initiated and determined. Even its very genetic code has been determined. Everything that human will ever be is contained within that fertilized cell. Human life and individual personhood begins and is established when a human cell has been fertilized. Whether that cell implants to the uterus is another story. Human life and the personhood of that life begins and is determined at conception. The science behind this is undeniable with any validity at all. Each individual, and each already determined personhood of each individual are enabled to continue development once the fertilized cell implants to the uterus. The personhood has been determined and that persons individual existence will undergo further development just like the rest of us.


The facts are every human is still in developmental stages. I am still in developmental stages, you are still in developmental stages, babies, toddlers, teens, adults, seniors, etc. People discriminate against the personhood of unborn human lives based on the zygote and even the fetus not looking like us, not being able to think like us, not being able to breath like us, etc. It's PC standard to not even speak a discriminatory word much less take a human life based on discrimination. What you are looking at is possible future abortions being deemed discriminatory hate crimes against the personhood of unborn human lives.


Consider the fact that unwanted pregnancy can be prevented absolutely, the fact woman have been granted absolute power to terminate every unborn human life that could ever potentially have life at all at their sole discretion in this nation, the fact that the entire cause of human rights is negated by the insistence that unborn human life has no true value until [insert answer here] when it has been proven that human life undeniably begins to develop and its personhood established the moment conception takes place, as well as the fact that many woman are undeniably abusing the power they've been granted, and you have a sure fire recipe for overturning Roe vs. Wade.


How many decades have woman been entrusted with this right? How often is this right being abused? How resistant are the pro choice crowd to cooperation? How often is the horror of abortion sugar coated for sake of pandering to PC sensitivities? The pro choice PC crowd has literally ensured they lose the right to choose and by their own selfish devises. I was completely pro choice up until 2 days ago. Yesterday I was on the fence. This morning I changed my stance entirely based on many variables already stated ad nauseam, but namely that abortion is unconstitutional.


If woman wish to retain even a small portion of their right to choose, something needs to be done by the pro choice crowd and cooperation needs to be pursued relentlessly by them (if this is even an option at all at this point). If not, there are going to be woman getting back alley abortions, more unnecessary deaths, and people possibly being charged with hate crimes because of, and all because they refuse to live responsible sex lives. As it is, unequaled power and absolute authority over every future unborn human life in this nation have been granted to even the most selfish, irresponsible, and haphazard woman among us. How does this not concern people?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Obviously the OP has no interest in having a serious debate on this topic therefore I am unsubscribing.

Have a nice day.

 

[JaggedZenMonkey]

The fear of allowing women to possess basic human liberty is the true driving force behind the pro-life movement.

It's not woman. Such power should not be granted to any human entity. We're not talking about basic human liberty. We're talking about the absolute power to terminate every unborn human life that could ever possibly have life at all in this nation at the sole discretion of a specific gender.

Yet you have no problem giving people those people absolute power to enslave women. Go figure.

No. If you don't want a child don't get pregnant. That's an easy fix, and no man will ever again be required to watch his child's life be terminated by such unequaled and absolute power. No one will be given the power to enslave woman. Woman make their own choices.

I'll err on the side of liberty for the real people, the women. Just as the founders did. Abortion was legal and common when the Constitution was written, so the founders certainly knew about abortion, and they didn't think it was worth mentioning.

They also knew about slavery and didn't think it was worth mentioning if you're even remotely correct. I'll err on the side of caution, the constitution, equality, and life.

Maybe. And maybe human unfertilized eggs will become human babies. Claiming one has potential and the other doesn't is purely subjective and inconsistent, hence the argument from potential fails.

If we were just speaking about potential I'd agree. We are not.

 

[Bfgrn]

Has the OP actually ever bothered to read the RvW decision for himself?

Because that would be a good starting point for him to find the answers to some of the questions he posed in post #3. The SCOTUS did actually address many of those questions.

Once the OP has educated himself he might want to try answering how he personally would take on the responsibility of raising a newborn until they have graduated college as a single father. Because that is the burden he is placing on others that he doesn't have to deal with himself.

Next the OP should go the Guttmacher site and read the statistics on women who do have abortions.

There he will discover that a majority of them do have religious beliefs similar to his own. He will also discover that many of these women already do have other children to care for and an additional child might be more than they can afford.

Again, is the OP willing to carry the burden of that additional child himself? If not, why is he imposing it on a mother already trying her best to raise the children she already has?

To get pregnant when you refuse to have a child, then to terminate that pregnancy when it could have been prevented absolutely is irresponsible. Morality isn't the issue. Religion isn't the issue. Character, absolute power over unborn human life, mindful and deliberate terminations based of haphazard value determinations are. If you think the power granted to woman, which you think woman should have isn't dangerous, that we should trust them, put our faith in them, and not put limitations upon the powers granted when it has been proven over and again that this power is being abused by many, you're in denial. How many decades have we entrusted woman with this right? It's not only dangerous, it's irresponsible and careless. No one is to blame but those who gave this power to woman in the first place. The power will be pulled.


850,000 woman annually have proven themselves (some over and again) to be terribly irresponsible when it comes to this issue (abusive even). The unequaled and absolute power granted to them over unborn human life is being abused without question. None of us should have this kind of power. Not you, not me, not our government, not woman, not men, not anyone ... Ever (.) It's too much power and it negates basic human rights based on the ideal that we have no inherent value. Human life begins developing at conception. Although, a newly fertilized egg is not yet a person, the building blocks of its entire personal human existence is contained within itself. While many refuse to acknowledge human life at all, even in later stages of fetal development, many others aren't nearly as eager to follow suit. Will acorns become oak trees? Will flower seeds become flowers? Will sturgeon eggs become fish? Will tadpoles become frogs? Will babies become a toddlers? Will toddlers become teens? Will teens become adults? Will adults become seniors? Will human fertilized eggs become human babies?


Why are fetus' not referred to as human lives? Fetus' are undeniably human. They are simply going through early developmental stages. We are all under continual development. We're just further along than a fetus. We're further along than babies. We're further along than toddlers. I think most of us are further along than teens. We may consider ourselves to be fully grown, fully developed adults, but our developmental stages are far from being complete. We too are in the process of further developmental stages. Take the fact that unwanted pregnancy can be prevented absolutely, the fact woman have been granted absolute power to terminate every unborn human life that could ever potentially have life at their soul discretion in this nation, the fact that the entire cause of human rights is negated by the insistence that unborn human life has no value until [insert answer here] when it has been proven that human life undeniably begins to develop the moment conception takes place, and the fact that many woman are undeniably abusing the power they've been granted, and you have a sure fire recipe for overturning Roe vs. Wade.


How many decades have woman been entrusted with this right? How often is this right being abused? How resistant is the pro choice crowd to cooperation? How often is the horror of abortion sugar coated for sake of pandering to PC sensitivities? The pro choice crowd has literally ensured they lose the right to choose and by their own devises. I was pro choice up until 2 days ago. I changed my stance based on everything I've written in this thread. If woman wish to retain even a small portion of their right to choose, something needs to be done by them and cooperation needs to be pursued. . Otherwise we're going to end up with a lot of woman getting back alley abortions, more deaths, and worse. As it is, unequaled power and authority over every future unborn human have been granted to even the selfish, irresponsible, and haphazard woman among us. How does this not concern people? The future of all humanity and the power to determine who lives and dies are at their sole discretion. Who lives and who dies - Who's valuable and who's not? We may as well go the Gattaca route and breed out inferior genome traits. At least then we'd know there were a future for the human race, but that route has been deemed unethical.

Go figure.

Why does the OP refuse to actually discuss anything of substance?

Like the RvW decision itself that clearly demarcates where the lines of responsibility lie?

Or the Guttmacher data that tells us who is having abortions and why?

Instead the OP merely reiterates the same rants without any making any cogent points.

Women are adults and they are in control of their own reproductive organs.

The OP doesn't get to infringe upon their rights as to what happens to their bodies any more than anyone else can decide that the OP needs to be forced to donate his sperm or have a vasectomy.

So if the OP is actually interested in discussing the topic he can address the facts.

"Never once did the Supreme Court declare abortion itself to be a Constitutional right."

The Supreme Court said:

"We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins . . . the judiciary at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."

The High Courts key admission:

"If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case of course collapses, for the fetus' right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment."


When a human egg is fertilized, that individual humans existence and personhood has been initiated and determined. Even its very genetic code has been determined. Everything that human will ever be is contained within that fertilized cell. Human life and individual personhood begins and is established when a human cell has been fertilized. Whether that cell implants to the uterus is another story. Human life and the personhood of that life begins and is determined at conception. The science behind this is undeniable with any validity at all. Each individual, and each already determined personhood of each individual are enabled to continue development once the fertilized cell implants to the uterus. The personhood has been determined and that persons individual existence will undergo further development just like the rest of us.


The facts are every human is still in developmental stages. I am still in developmental stages, you are still in developmental stages, babies, toddlers, teens, adults, seniors, etc. People discriminate against the personhood of unborn human lives based on the zygote and even the fetus not looking like us, not being able to think like us, not being able to breath like us, etc. It's PC standard to not even speak a discriminatory word much less take a human life based on discrimination. What you are looking at is possible future abortions being deemed discriminatory hate crimes against the personhood of unborn human lives.


Consider the fact that unwanted pregnancy can be prevented absolutely, the fact woman have been granted absolute power to terminate every unborn human life that could ever potentially have life at all at their sole discretion in this nation, the fact that the entire cause of human rights is negated by the insistence that unborn human life has no true value until [insert answer here] when it has been proven that human life undeniably begins to develop and its personhood established the moment conception takes place, as well as the fact that many woman are undeniably abusing the power they've been granted, and you have a sure fire recipe for overturning Roe vs. Wade.


How many decades have woman been entrusted with this right? How often is this right being abused? How resistant are the pro choice crowd to cooperation? How often is the horror of abortion sugar coated for sake of pandering to PC sensitivities? The pro choice PC crowd has literally ensured they lose the right to choose and by their own selfish devises. I was completely pro choice up until 2 days ago. Yesterday I was on the fence. This morning I changed my stance entirely based on many variables already stated ad nauseam, but namely that abortion is unconstitutional.


If woman wish to retain even a small portion of their right to choose, something needs to be done by the pro choice crowd and cooperation needs to be pursued relentlessly by them (if this is even an option at all at this point). If not, there are going to be woman getting back alley abortions, more unnecessary deaths, and people possibly being charged with hate crimes because of, and all because they refuse to live responsible sex lives. As it is, unequaled power and absolute authority over every future unborn human life in this nation have been granted to even the most selfish, irresponsible, and haphazard woman among us. How does this not concern people?

 

[Bfgrn]

"Never once did the Supreme Court declare abortion itself to be a Constitutional right."

The Supreme Court said:

"We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins . . . the judiciary at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."

The High Courts key admission:

"If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case of course collapses, for the fetus' right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment."


When a human egg is fertilized, that individual humans existence and personhood has been initiated and determined. Even its very genetic code has been determined. Everything that human will ever be is contained within that fertilized cell. Human life and individual personhood begins and is established when a human cell has been fertilized. Whether that cell implants to the uterus is another story. Human life and the personhood of that life begins and is determined at conception. The science behind this is undeniable with any validity at all. Each individual, and each already determined personhood of each individual are enabled to continue development once the fertilized cell implants to the uterus. The personhood has been determined and that persons individual existence will undergo further development just like the rest of us.


The facts are every human is still in developmental stages. I am still in developmental stages, you are still in developmental stages, babies, toddlers, teens, adults, seniors, etc. People discriminate against the personhood of unborn human lives based on the zygote and even the fetus not looking like us, not being able to think like us, not being able to breath like us, etc. It's PC standard to not even speak a discriminatory word much less take a human life based on discrimination. What you are looking at is possible future abortions being deemed discriminatory hate crimes against the personhood of unborn human lives.


Consider the fact that unwanted pregnancy can be prevented absolutely, the fact woman have been granted absolute power to terminate every unborn human life that could ever potentially have life at all at their sole discretion in this nation, the fact that the entire cause of human rights is negated by the insistence that unborn human life has no true value until [insert answer here] when it has been proven that human life undeniably begins to develop and its personhood established the moment conception takes place, as well as the fact that many woman are undeniably abusing the power they've been granted, and you have a sure fire recipe for overturning Roe vs. Wade.


How many decades have woman been entrusted with this right? How often is this right being abused? How resistant are the pro choice crowd to cooperation? How often is the horror of abortion sugar coated for sake of pandering to PC sensitivities? The pro choice PC crowd has literally ensured they lose the right to choose and by their own selfish devises. I was completely pro choice up until 2 days ago. Yesterday I was on the fence. This morning I changed my stance entirely based on many variables already stated ad nauseam, but namely that abortion is unconstitutional.


If woman wish to retain even a small portion of their right to choose, something needs to be done by the pro choice crowd and cooperation needs to be pursued relentlessly by them (if this is even an option at all at this point). If not, there are going to be woman getting back alley abortions, more unnecessary deaths, and people possibly being charged with hate crimes because of, and all because they refuse to live responsible sex lives. As it is, unequaled power and absolute authority over every future unborn human life in this nation have been granted to even the most selfish, irresponsible, and haphazard woman among us. How does this not concern people?

In essence, the court did rule abortion "constitutional"...by ruling that banning abortion is unconstitutional.

Abortion
Abortion.—In Roe v. Wade,557 the Court established a right of personal privacy protected by the due process clause that includes the right of a woman to determine whether or not to bear a child. In doing so, the Court dramatically increased judicial oversight of legislation under the privacy line of cases, striking down aspects of abortion-related laws in practically all the States, the District of Columbia, and the territories. To reach this result, the Court first undertook a lengthy historical review of medical and legal views regarding abortion, finding that modern prohibitions on abortion were of relatively recent vintage and thus lacked the historical foundation which might have preserved them from constitutional review.558 Then, the Court established that the word "person" as used in the due process clause and in other provisions of the Constitution did not include the unborn, and therefore the unborn lacked federal constitutional protection.559 Finally, the Court summarily announced that the "Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action" includes "a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy"560 and that "[t]his right of privacy . . . is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."561

557 410 U.S. 113, 164 (1973). A companion case was Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973). The opinion by Justice Blackman was concurred in by Justices Douglas, Brennan, Stewart, Marshall, and Powell, and Chief Justice Burger. Justices White and Rehnquist dissented, id. at 171, 221, arguing that the Court should follow the traditional due process test of determining whether a law has a rational relation to a valid state objective and that so judged the statute was valid. Justice Rehnquist was willing to consider an absolute ban on abortions even when the mother's life is in jeopardy to be a denial of due process, 410 U.S. at 173, while Justice White left the issue open. 410 U.S. at 223.

 

[JaggedZenMonkey]

"Never once did the Supreme Court declare abortion itself to be a Constitutional right."

The Supreme Court said:

"We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins . . . the judiciary at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."

The High Courts key admission:

"If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case of course collapses, for the fetus' right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment."


When a human egg is fertilized, that individual humans existence and personhood has been initiated and determined. Even its very genetic code has been determined. Everything that human will ever be is contained within that fertilized cell. Human life and individual personhood begins and is established when a human cell has been fertilized. Whether that cell implants to the uterus is another story. Human life and the personhood of that life begins and is determined at conception. The science behind this is undeniable with any validity at all. Each individual, and each already determined personhood of each individual are enabled to continue development once the fertilized cell implants to the uterus. The personhood has been determined and that persons individual existence will undergo further development just like the rest of us.


The facts are every human is still in developmental stages. I am still in developmental stages, you are still in developmental stages, babies, toddlers, teens, adults, seniors, etc. People discriminate against the personhood of unborn human lives based on the zygote and even the fetus not looking like us, not being able to think like us, not being able to breath like us, etc. It's PC standard to not even speak a discriminatory word much less take a human life based on discrimination. What you are looking at is possible future abortions being deemed discriminatory hate crimes against the personhood of unborn human lives.


Consider the fact that unwanted pregnancy can be prevented absolutely, the fact woman have been granted absolute power to terminate every unborn human life that could ever potentially have life at all at their sole discretion in this nation, the fact that the entire cause of human rights is negated by the insistence that unborn human life has no true value until [insert answer here] when it has been proven that human life undeniably begins to develop and its personhood established the moment conception takes place, as well as the fact that many woman are undeniably abusing the power they've been granted, and you have a sure fire recipe for overturning Roe vs. Wade.


How many decades have woman been entrusted with this right? How often is this right being abused? How resistant are the pro choice crowd to cooperation? How often is the horror of abortion sugar coated for sake of pandering to PC sensitivities? The pro choice PC crowd has literally ensured they lose the right to choose and by their own selfish devises. I was completely pro choice up until 2 days ago. Yesterday I was on the fence. This morning I changed my stance entirely based on many variables already stated ad nauseam, but namely that abortion is unconstitutional.


If woman wish to retain even a small portion of their right to choose, something needs to be done by the pro choice crowd and cooperation needs to be pursued relentlessly by them (if this is even an option at all at this point). If not, there are going to be woman getting back alley abortions, more unnecessary deaths, and people possibly being charged with hate crimes because of, and all because they refuse to live responsible sex lives. As it is, unequaled power and absolute authority over every future unborn human life in this nation have been granted to even the most selfish, irresponsible, and haphazard woman among us. How does this not concern people?

In essence, the court did rule abortion "constitutional"...by ruling that banning abortion is unconstitutional.

Abortion
Abortion.—In Roe v. Wade,557 the Court established a right of personal privacy protected by the due process clause that includes the right of a woman to determine whether or not to bear a child. In doing so, the Court dramatically increased judicial oversight of legislation under the privacy line of cases, striking down aspects of abortion-related laws in practically all the States, the District of Columbia, and the territories. To reach this result, the Court first undertook a lengthy historical review of medical and legal views regarding abortion, finding that modern prohibitions on abortion were of relatively recent vintage and thus lacked the historical foundation which might have preserved them from constitutional review.558 Then, the Court established that the word "person" as used in the due process clause and in other provisions of the Constitution did not include the unborn, and therefore the unborn lacked federal constitutional protection.559 Finally, the Court summarily announced that the "Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action" includes "a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy"560 and that "[t]his right of privacy . . . is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."561

557 410 U.S. 113, 164 (1973). A companion case was Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973). The opinion by Justice Blackman was concurred in by Justices Douglas, Brennan, Stewart, Marshall, and Powell, and Chief Justice Burger. Justices White and Rehnquist dissented, id. at 171, 221, arguing that the Court should follow the traditional due process test of determining whether a law has a rational relation to a valid state objective and that so judged the statute was valid. Justice Rehnquist was willing to consider an absolute ban on abortions even when the mother's life is in jeopardy to be a denial of due process, 410 U.S. at 173, while Justice White left the issue open. 410 U.S. at 223.

It was only ruled unconstitutional because human personhood could not be verified at that time. Times have changed.

 

[Bfgrn]

"Never once did the Supreme Court declare abortion itself to be a Constitutional right."

The Supreme Court said:

"We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins . . . the judiciary at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."

The High Courts key admission:

"If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case of course collapses, for the fetus' right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment."


When a human egg is fertilized, that individual humans existence and personhood has been initiated and determined. Even its very genetic code has been determined. Everything that human will ever be is contained within that fertilized cell. Human life and individual personhood begins and is established when a human cell has been fertilized. Whether that cell implants to the uterus is another story. Human life and the personhood of that life begins and is determined at conception. The science behind this is undeniable with any validity at all. Each individual, and each already determined personhood of each individual are enabled to continue development once the fertilized cell implants to the uterus. The personhood has been determined and that persons individual existence will undergo further development just like the rest of us.


The facts are every human is still in developmental stages. I am still in developmental stages, you are still in developmental stages, babies, toddlers, teens, adults, seniors, etc. People discriminate against the personhood of unborn human lives based on the zygote and even the fetus not looking like us, not being able to think like us, not being able to breath like us, etc. It's PC standard to not even speak a discriminatory word much less take a human life based on discrimination. What you are looking at is possible future abortions being deemed discriminatory hate crimes against the personhood of unborn human lives.


Consider the fact that unwanted pregnancy can be prevented absolutely, the fact woman have been granted absolute power to terminate every unborn human life that could ever potentially have life at all at their sole discretion in this nation, the fact that the entire cause of human rights is negated by the insistence that unborn human life has no true value until [insert answer here] when it has been proven that human life undeniably begins to develop and its personhood established the moment conception takes place, as well as the fact that many woman are undeniably abusing the power they've been granted, and you have a sure fire recipe for overturning Roe vs. Wade.


How many decades have woman been entrusted with this right? How often is this right being abused? How resistant are the pro choice crowd to cooperation? How often is the horror of abortion sugar coated for sake of pandering to PC sensitivities? The pro choice PC crowd has literally ensured they lose the right to choose and by their own selfish devises. I was completely pro choice up until 2 days ago. Yesterday I was on the fence. This morning I changed my stance entirely based on many variables already stated ad nauseam, but namely that abortion is unconstitutional.


If woman wish to retain even a small portion of their right to choose, something needs to be done by the pro choice crowd and cooperation needs to be pursued relentlessly by them (if this is even an option at all at this point). If not, there are going to be woman getting back alley abortions, more unnecessary deaths, and people possibly being charged with hate crimes because of, and all because they refuse to live responsible sex lives. As it is, unequaled power and absolute authority over every future unborn human life in this nation have been granted to even the most selfish, irresponsible, and haphazard woman among us. How does this not concern people?

In essence, the court did rule abortion "constitutional"...by ruling that banning abortion is unconstitutional.

Abortion
Abortion.—In Roe v. Wade,557 the Court established a right of personal privacy protected by the due process clause that includes the right of a woman to determine whether or not to bear a child. In doing so, the Court dramatically increased judicial oversight of legislation under the privacy line of cases, striking down aspects of abortion-related laws in practically all the States, the District of Columbia, and the territories. To reach this result, the Court first undertook a lengthy historical review of medical and legal views regarding abortion, finding that modern prohibitions on abortion were of relatively recent vintage and thus lacked the historical foundation which might have preserved them from constitutional review.558 Then, the Court established that the word "person" as used in the due process clause and in other provisions of the Constitution did not include the unborn, and therefore the unborn lacked federal constitutional protection.559 Finally, the Court summarily announced that the "Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action" includes "a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy"560 and that "[t]his right of privacy . . . is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."561

557 410 U.S. 113, 164 (1973). A companion case was Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973). The opinion by Justice Blackman was concurred in by Justices Douglas, Brennan, Stewart, Marshall, and Powell, and Chief Justice Burger. Justices White and Rehnquist dissented, id. at 171, 221, arguing that the Court should follow the traditional due process test of determining whether a law has a rational relation to a valid state objective and that so judged the statute was valid. Justice Rehnquist was willing to consider an absolute ban on abortions even when the mother's life is in jeopardy to be a denial of due process, 410 U.S. at 173, while Justice White left the issue open. 410 U.S. at 223.

It was only ruled unconstitutional because human personhood could not be verified at that time. Times have changed.

Times haven't changed...the ruling and the law are not based on some dubious definition of "human personhood". The law is based on viability.

The fetus or baby is viable
This refers to the time in pregnancy when the baby, if born now and prematurely, has a reasonable chance of survival. For most hospitals in the United States the age of viability is about 24 weeks 0 days of the pregnancy. However, being born at 24 weeks does not mean that most babies will survive or that if they survive they will have no problems. The chances of survival increase with each day after 24 weeks, and the risks of complications decrease.

At 24 weeks is the cutoff point for when many doctors will use intensive medical intervention to attempt to save the life of a baby born prematurely including doing a cesarean section. Between 23 and 24 weeks is a "gray zone" where most doctors would not intervene. And below 23 weeks weeks doctors are unlikely to do a cesarean section for fetal reasons and most neonatologist will not resuscitate a baby born before 23 weeks, and many won't resuscitate a baby born between 23-24 weeks.

A baby born at 24 weeks would generally require a lot of intervention, potentially including mechanical ventilation and other invasive treatments followed by a lengthy stay in a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU).

Odds of survival increase as the pregnancy progresses, and even an extra week in the womb can make a difference. In general, premature babies born closer to 37 weeks will be much better off than those born before 28 weeks.