Rape does not justify abortion

[syrenn]

Roe v. Wade.

A woman does not need to justify anything to obtain an abortion. It is her body and she has absolute rights over her body.

they hate that.

Actually, I don't. I see it as irrelevant because we are discussing what should be, not what is. I am sure there were plenty of people that used Dred Scott as justification for slavery, that did not make it right, did it?

What should be for you and what should be for others..... may be different. What is and is not allowed under the law is binding to all.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Roe v. Wade.

A woman does not need to justify anything to obtain an abortion. It is her body and she has absolute rights over her body.

they hate that.

I agree. The OP argues the constitution...and yet Roe v. Wade is protected by the constitution.

I did not argue the constitution, I pointed out that the constitution actually proves we have a right to life. That right does not come from the constitution anymore than my ability to type does. The constitution does not protect Roe anymore than it protects slavery. The court used the constitution, and some seriously dubious logic, to justify abortion.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Right to life is a given but the right to create a life knowingly and willingly is also important. The woman's life supercedes the fetus' because she is a conscious, living, human being with awareness, needs and much more. The fetus will not be aware it is being aborted. I don't LIKE abortion but I also don't like denying a woman choice!

You don't like giving a woman a choice? What if her choice is to kill anyone who thinks an avatar of a falling cat is cute, do you still support her choice?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Just imagine what the millions of slaughtered children might have to say about it had their lives and voices not been ripped apart.

Indeed. This is why many pro lifers speak up.

I was once an embryo, so was my son, you, jillian and everyone here that is speaking out, their voices are being heard.

While some may not have had great mothers, great lives, at least they were given a chance at life.

and some of us wouldn't be alive but for reproductive choice.

and some of us wouldn't have had very wanted children via in vitro or other means if the radical right's 'personhood' laws were in effect.

for the upteenth time... no one is wise enough to make moral choices for others. so those choices should be left between the woman and her doctor.

we are not idiots who can't make decisions but for the dictates of a bunch of religious extremists who think they're more moral than the rest of us.

Abortion helps people get born? How?

By the way, I am not making moral choice for others, I am attempting to prevent people from making immoral choices to kill others.

 

[syrenn]

they hate that.

I agree. The OP argues the constitution...and yet Roe v. Wade is protected by the constitution.

I did not argue the constitution, I pointed out that the constitution actually proves we have a right to life. That right does not come from the constitution anymore than my ability to type does. The constitution does not protect Roe anymore than it protects slavery, the court used the constitution, and some seriously dubious logic, to justify abortion.

You quoted the Constitution to support your opinion. I used the Constitution to support mine.


Stalemate. The rest is only opinion.

 

[jillian]

Indeed. This is why many pro lifers speak up.

I was once an embryo, so was my son, you, jillian and everyone here that is speaking out, their voices are being heard.

While some may not have had great mothers, great lives, at least they were given a chance at life.

and some of us wouldn't be alive but for reproductive choice.

and some of us wouldn't have had very wanted children via in vitro or other means if the radical right's 'personhood' laws were in effect.

for the upteenth time... no one is wise enough to make moral choices for others. so those choices should be left between the woman and her doctor.

we are not idiots who can't make decisions but for the dictates of a bunch of religious extremists who think they're more moral than the rest of us.

Abortion helps people get born? How?

the people who are anti-choice are opposed to in vitro.... they call the frozen embryos 'snowflake babies'... as such, in vitro would be illegal under your personhood laws.

 

[syrenn]

Indeed. This is why many pro lifers speak up.

I was once an embryo, so was my son, you, jillian and everyone here that is speaking out, their voices are being heard.

While some may not have had great mothers, great lives, at least they were given a chance at life.

and some of us wouldn't be alive but for reproductive choice.

and some of us wouldn't have had very wanted children via in vitro or other means if the radical right's 'personhood' laws were in effect.

for the upteenth time... no one is wise enough to make moral choices for others. so those choices should be left between the woman and her doctor.

we are not idiots who can't make decisions but for the dictates of a bunch of religious extremists who think they're more moral than the rest of us.

Abortion helps people get born? How?

C section is a from of birth......

which is how my son was born... after in vitro...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

We all have a right to life, even if you don't believe that rights come from the government the right to life is written into the constitution.



If the purpose of government is to protect the rights of those who cannot defend themselves because no one is less capable of defending their rights than an unborn child. Rape is a horrific crime, we all know that, but it does not justify anyone taking away the rights of an innocent person.

Roe v. Wade.

A woman does not need to justify anything to obtain an abortion. It is her body and she has absolute rights over her body.

She doesnt have rights over her child's body.

And no. She doesnt have an absolute right over her body. None of us do. There are alot of things we cant do to our body.

That is also wrong.

 

[NYcarbineer]

We all have a right to life, even if you don't believe that rights come from the government the right to life is written into the constitution.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

If the purpose of government is to protect the rights of those who cannot defend themselves because no one is less capable of defending their rights than an unborn child. Rape is a horrific crime, we all know that, but it does not justify anyone taking away the rights of an innocent person.

Since Constitutional law has established that the fetus is not a person, any references to a person in the Constitution do not apply to fetuses.

 

[syrenn]

Indeed. This is why many pro lifers speak up.

I was once an embryo, so was my son, you, jillian and everyone here that is speaking out, their voices are being heard.

While some may not have had great mothers, great lives, at least they were given a chance at life.

and some of us wouldn't be alive but for reproductive choice.

and some of us wouldn't have had very wanted children via in vitro or other means if the radical right's 'personhood' laws were in effect.

for the upteenth time... no one is wise enough to make moral choices for others. so those choices should be left between the woman and her doctor.

we are not idiots who can't make decisions but for the dictates of a bunch of religious extremists who think they're more moral than the rest of us.

Abortion helps people get born? How?

By the way, I am not making moral choice for others, I am attempting to prevent people from making immoral choices to kill others.

How is removing cell..... by c section.... killing something that you claim is a life?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

An embryo or a fetus is not a person.

The correct answer.

A statement of belief, not fact.

Just as the position that one is a person prior to birth is a belief, not fact; the question is otherwise moot per Casey.

And if it starts that early, then all those clamoring for "abortion rights" ARE indeed saying that the pre-born don't have a right to life. To the extent we don't know, therefore, I say we are kind of obliged to err on the side of caution.

Who are ‘we’ to make that decision, by what authority, and for whom – certainly not the state. If a women wishes to ‘err on the side of caution,’ she’s free to do so. But that’s her decision alone.

What, exactly, makes a unsupported declaration the correct answer? How come the state has the power to tell me I cannot kill Christopher Reeve, who cannot breathe without assistance, but it doesn't power to tell me I cannot kill baby before it is born?

 

[HUGGY]

We all have a right to life, even if you don't believe that rights come from the government the right to life is written into the constitution.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

If the purpose of government is to protect the rights of those who cannot defend themselves because no one is less capable of defending their rights than an unborn child. Rape is a horrific crime, we all know that, but it does not justify anyone taking away the rights of an innocent person.

Edit: Good Call.

Sorry..I didn't notice that this thread was in the clean zone. My comment is not intended as an insult, Just an observation.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Roe v. Wade.

A woman does not need to justify anything to obtain an abortion. It is her body and she has absolute rights over her body.

Good point, the law doesn't worry about right and wrong, it just worries about rationalization.

You ask about the law and the constitution. I gave it to you. The rest of your argument is personal opinion.

I did not ask about anything, I used the premise that the purpose of government is to protect rights to argue that it should not be allowing abortions.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The basic issue IMHO is when the right to life starts; do we want to allow the termination of life prior to birth? 10 minutes prior? 10 days? 10 weeks? At conception? At what point should our society confer that most basic right: to life.

And then there's this - if you decide that the right to life begins at conception, then why should the circumstances of the conception influence the decision? Should we deny the right to life for a fetus based on those curcumstances? Where's the justice in that? The fetus is terminated due to events beyond it's control?

I understand the injustice of rape or incest, no question the victim already has to deal with a great deal of pain without an unwanted pregnancy as a reminder. But is that worse than terminating a life, even if an unborn one? Not an easy decision.

That’s for the individual to determine, not society; it’s a question best left to theologians, ethicists, and philosophers – the individual then decides which answer best comports with his personal belief, free of interference from the state.

I think it oughta be a local or state decision for now, rather than a federal law or using federal funds. But thast's just me.

It’s not appropriate for any jurisdiction – Federal, state, local – to decide; as any such measure would be un-Constitutional, such as the law struck down in Oklahoma earlier this year.

The whole OP is a none issue.


There is no ....need.... for any justification.... to anyone at all for having an abortion.

True. One is not compelled to ‘justify’ the exercising of a fundamental right, in this case the right to privacy.

Does the right to life trump the right to privacy?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

they hate that.

Actually, I don't. I see it as irrelevant because we are discussing what should be, not what is. I am sure there were plenty of people that used Dred Scott as justification for slavery, that did not make it right, did it?

What should be for you and what should be for others..... may be different. What is and is not allowed under the law is binding to all.

We both know that is not true.

 

[NYcarbineer]

At the very minimum, even if for sake of argument you set aside the issue of the right of a woman to have an abortion,

she certainly has the right NOT TO BE FORCIBLY IMPREGNATED.

When such a violation of that right occurs, it is the duty of the law in the interests of justice to provide the best remedy that it can,

and the most appropriate and just remedy in that case is to allow the woman the option to have an abortion.

There is no course of action - in that circumstance - more just than that.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I agree. The OP argues the constitution...and yet Roe v. Wade is protected by the constitution.

I did not argue the constitution, I pointed out that the constitution actually proves we have a right to life. That right does not come from the constitution anymore than my ability to type does. The constitution does not protect Roe anymore than it protects slavery, the court used the constitution, and some seriously dubious logic, to justify abortion.

You quoted the Constitution to support your opinion. I used the Constitution to support mine.


Stalemate. The rest is only opinion.

You did not quote the constitution, you cited a Supreme Court decision.

 

[syrenn]

Good point, the law doesn't worry about right and wrong, it just worries about rationalization.

You ask about the law and the constitution. I gave it to you. The rest of your argument is personal opinion.

I did not ask about anything, I used the premise that the purpose of government is to protect rights to argue that it should not be allowing abortions.

Agreed.

C section out all the cells and give them as many rights as you want.

 

[NYcarbineer]

We all have a right to life, even if you don't believe that rights come from the government the right to life is written into the constitution.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

If the purpose of government is to protect the rights of those who cannot defend themselves because no one is less capable of defending their rights than an unborn child. Rape is a horrific crime, we all know that, but it does not justify anyone taking away the rights of an innocent person.

Edited

Hey there! This is the Clean Debate Zone. If you can't say something in a civil manner, go let off a little steam in the Flame Zone.

 

[syrenn]

I did not argue the constitution, I pointed out that the constitution actually proves we have a right to life. That right does not come from the constitution anymore than my ability to type does. The constitution does not protect Roe anymore than it protects slavery, the court used the constitution, and some seriously dubious logic, to justify abortion.

You quoted the Constitution to support your opinion. I used the Constitution to support mine.


Stalemate. The rest is only opinion.

You did not quote the constitution, you cited a Supreme Court decision.

True..... but you still cant get around the law of the land.