The Great Abortion Compromise!

[glockmail]

"Because the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you, that you may make atonement with it upon the altar for your souls, and the blood may be for an expiation of the soul."
Leviticus 17:11

The Bible states in many more verses that the blood is life and that life is in the blood. Blood does not form in the body of a baby until several days after conception. I believe this when the "soul" "takes shape" as well. I'm not contradicting you, just backing you up with verse.

Sorry I'm late on this thread, and for being too lazy to read through the entirety. This is a very interesting idea. Have there been comments about it?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

That's such a stupid question I am not going to even bother. It's pretty much the only reason we even have a Constitution to begin with.

Any lawyers here want to help Hawk out with this one? I don't have the patience.

Not a stupid question at all. Even Supreme Court Justices were not able to locate "right to privacy" anywhere in the Constitution. The whole "right to privacy" (not to mention judicial activism) basically began with Griswold v Connecticut. What scares liberals is that the whole line of cases based upon the so-called "right to privacy" following from Griswold v Connecticut could be reversed including RvW and the sodomy case, Lawrence v Texas. A little basic history:

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)[1], was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Constitution protected a right to privacy. The case involved a Connecticut law that prohibited the use of contraceptives. By a vote of 7-2, the Supreme Court invalidated the law on the grounds that it violated the "right to marital privacy."

Although the Bill of Rights does not explicitly mention "privacy," Justice William O. Douglas (writing for the majority) ruled that the right was to be found in the "penumbras" of other constitutional protections. Justice Arthur Goldberg wrote a concurring opinion in which he used the Ninth Amendment to defend the Supreme Court's ruling. Justice John Marshall Harlan II wrote a concurring opinion in which he argued that privacy is protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Byron White also wrote a concurrence based on the due process clause.

Two Justices, Hugo Black and Potter Stewart, filed dissents. Black argued that the right to privacy is to be found nowhere in the Constitution. Furthermore, he criticized the interpretations of the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to which his fellow Justices adhered. Stewart famously called the Connecticut statute "an uncommonly silly law," but noted that it was nevertheless constitutional.

Since Griswold, the Supreme Court has made several further rulings protecting sexual privacy. Most notably, in Roe v. Wade (1973), the Supreme Court decided that the Constitution protected a right to abortion. For the most part, the Court has made these later rulings on the basis of Justice Harlan's substantive due process rationale. The Griswold line of cases remains controversial, and has drawn accusations of "judicial activism."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I think that could be debatable. I think one could argue that destroying future generations of America is just as damaging if not more so than our enemies. We can deal with the enemies. What do we do if great leaders, great thinkers, etc that are necessary for the survival of the nation get murdered before they have a chance to experience the fullness life has to offer?

I am not trying to start an argument. im just saying i dont think its as clear cut as you say

I tend to Agree with Dilloduck on this one. I dont think he is saying the situation with our enemies is more important, I think he is saying its more important that we AGREE on who our enemies are, than to agree on abortion.

On your point of us possibly killing babies who may have become the leaders we need to save our country, I have never liked that arguement. too much speculation for starters, plus you could just as easily say that those who might destroy our country may have been aborted, killed.

I think the larger, longer term and worst ramifications of abortion are much more subtle and complex.

 

[nt250]

Not a stupid question at all. Even Supreme Court Justices were not able to locate "right to privacy" anywhere in the Constitution. The whole "right to privacy" (not to mention judicial activism) basically began with Griswold v Connecticut. What scares liberals is that the whole line of cases based upon the so-called "right to privacy" following from Griswold v Connecticut could be reversed including RvW and the sodomy case, Lawrence v Texas. A little basic history:

Sorry, but I think it is stupid. The entire purpose of the Constitution is to protect the citizens from the abuse of those in power in the government. And there is no more abuse of power than to tell someone what medical decisions they can make.

The courts aren't perfect. For example, I think forfeiture laws are blatantly unconstitutional. I mean, how much closer can you get to an "unreasonable search and seizure" than having a cop take your money or property without you ever even being charged with a crime? But forfeiture laws have never been declared unconstitutional even though it's right there in the Constitution in plain language.

The right to privacy is basic. Without it, we may as well throw the Constitution away.

 

[dilloduck]

Sorry, but I think it is stupid. The entire purpose of the Constitution is to protect the citizens from the abuse of those in power in the government. And there is no more abuse of power than to tell someone what medical decisions they can make.

The courts aren't perfect. For example, I think forfeiture laws are blatantly unconstitutional. I mean, how much closer can you get to an "unreasonable search and seizure" than having a cop take your money or property without you ever even being charged with a crime? But forfeiture laws have never been declared unconstitutional even though it's right there in the Constitution in plain language.

The right to privacy is basic. Without it, we may as well throw the Constitution away.

If the right to privacy is so "basic", WHERE IS IT ? Abortion is a medical procedure-----the decision regarding who should have the ONLY say so on terminating a pregnancy is a social and legal issue.

 

[MissileMan]

If the right to privacy is so "basic", WHERE IS IT ? Abortion is a medical procedure-----the decision regarding who should have the ONLY say so on terminating a pregnancy is a social and legal issue.

I disagree...if there's one thing that an individual should have legal dominion over, it's his or her body. I wonder how many people would be as eager to interfere with that dominion if it were suggested, for example, that every female, as soon as she becomes capable, receives a sub-dermal implant to prevent pregnancy and it isn't removed until she's married.

 

[nt250]

If the right to privacy is so "basic", WHERE IS IT ? Abortion is a medical procedure-----the decision regarding who should have the ONLY say so on terminating a pregnancy is a social and legal issue.

Right, abortion is a medical procedure.

The last part of that sentence is so stupid I can't even figure out what you meant by it. Who should have the ONLY say on abortion? The woman? Or should she, you know, ask around to cover the whole social and legal requirements?

 

[nt250]

I disagree...if there's one thing that an individual should have legal dominion over, it's his or her body. I wonder how many people would be as eager to interfere with that dominion if it were suggested, for example, that every female, as soon as she becomes capable, receives a sub-dermal implant to prevent pregnancy and it isn't removed until she's married.

I vote for one of those for men. Let them deal with the hormone imbalances, and breast cancer risks. Works for me.

 

[dilloduck]

I disagree...if there's one thing that an individual should have legal dominion over, it's his or her body. I wonder how many people would be as eager to interfere with that dominion if it were suggested, for example, that every female, as soon as she becomes capable, receives a sub-dermal implant to prevent pregnancy and it isn't removed until she's married.

Some women are already angry enough at men. Making it a requirement for men to have this implant would be much more widely received. The problem is that women would object strenuously to giving men the choice to continue to take it AFTER marriage.

 

[Gem]

Missileman Wrote:

I disagree...if there's one thing that an individual should have legal dominion over, it's his or her body.

Here's the thing....no one on this thread has argued against that. No one. And I think this is where one of the big rifts in pro-choice/pro-life thought emerges.

No one here has argued that an individual should not have legal dominion over his or her body, Missileman. What they have stated is that a woman does not have legal dominion to kill another person simply because they had the misfortune of being conceived in her instead of another woman.

You can agree or disagree with that...that isn't the issue. But do not confuse a person who is anti-abortion with a person who does not believe that a person has the right to their own body, a person who believes in the legal dominion of self. Many pro-lifers ardently believe that you have the right to your own body and the right to privacy with a doctor. Where they differ is whether or not that right allows a person to decide to kill another person due to a conflict in where that second person happens to be residing.

Many pro-lifers believe that a woman's right to choose for herself is sacred....her right to kill another person because she feels like it...is not.

 

[Dr Grump]

What they have stated is that a woman does not have legal dominion to kill another person simply because they had the misfortune of being conceived in her instead of another woman.

And another part of that argument is what constitutes a 'person'. Some believe that once is leaves the womb it is. Some say from the moment of conception...

 

[Gem]

Dr. Grump,

Exactly. I guess my point is simply that I don't want people who are pro-choice to over-generalize the pro-life point. People who are anti-abortion are not trying to take rights away from women (to declare that they are is to over-simplify their point and paint them as misogynistic). They are, instead, debating the very notion of WHY killing what they feel is a human being in its earliest stage is something that some people feel should be a right at all.

Again, I am fine with people agreeing and disagreeing with eachother on this issue...my own feelings about abortion are complicated...but I don't want people to overgeneralize or oversimplify the other side's opinion by blanket statements like "you are for denying women the right to their own body."

 

[MissileMan]

Dr. Grump,

Exactly. I guess my point is simply that I don't want people who are pro-choice to over-generalize the pro-life point. People who are anti-abortion are not trying to take rights away from women (to declare that they are is to over-simplify their point and paint them as misogynistic). They are, instead, debating the very notion of WHY killing what they feel is a human being in its earliest stage is something that some people feel should be a right at all.

Again, I am fine with people agreeing and disagreeing with eachother on this issue...my own feelings about abortion are complicated...but I don't want people to overgeneralize or oversimplify the other side's opinion by blanket statements like "you are for denying women the right to their own body."

My comments were directed at Dillo who was arguing that a father should have an input in an abortion decision when the mother's life is in danger.

As for generalizations, are you also referring to the blanket statements of pro-lifers like, "abortion is murder" or "pro-choicers advocate the killing of babies"?

 

[dilloduck]

My comments were directed at Dillo who was arguing that a father should have an input in an abortion decision when the mother's life is in danger.

As for generalizations, are you also referring to the blanket statements of pro-lifers like, "abortion is murder" or "pro-choicers advocate the killing of babies"?

Why is the father is denied the option of "opting out of parenthood"

 

[nt250]

Dr. Grump,

Exactly. I guess my point is simply that I don't want people who are pro-choice to over-generalize the pro-life point. People who are anti-abortion are not trying to take rights away from women (to declare that they are is to over-simplify their point and paint them as misogynistic). They are, instead, debating the very notion of WHY killing what they feel is a human being in its earliest stage is something that some people feel should be a right at all.

Again, I am fine with people agreeing and disagreeing with eachother on this issue...my own feelings about abortion are complicated...but I don't want people to overgeneralize or oversimplify the other side's opinion by blanket statements like "you are for denying women the right to their own body."

But that's exactly what you are doing. You want to deny to women the right to decide what to do with her own body. There is no way around that.

Both sides use language to try and trip up the other. For example, the word "choice". Now, the "pro-choice" movement was very successful in using the word choice to get Roe V Wade made into law in the first place. Norma McCorvey, Jane Roe's real name, claimed that she was raped. She's admitted that she lied about that, and last I read she is a pro-lifer. But the argument that abortion is about choice led both sides to get side tracked into the behavior of the mother.

This thread, and the other one, are proof that many pro-lifers simply believe that a woman who allows herself to get pregnant should have thought of the consequences and should live with the result. But what about rape? What about incest?

That's where many pro-lifers get tripped up. Life is life and whether or not a baby is the result of a rape or incest (the mothers choice), it's not the baby's fault, so no pro-lifer who really cares about life would care what caused a pregnancy. Any pro-lifer who makes exceptions for abortion in the case of rape or incest is automatically pro-choice by definition.

The pro-life movement finally wised up to that during Reagan's time because Reagan refused to make any exceptions for abortion. Oh, but he had to make one. The life of the mother.

There is one HUGE problem that pro-lifers have. They don't give a flying fuck about the life of the mother because their whole purpose is to control what the mother does in the first place. But they can't argue it that way because the law won't let them. They have to give lip service to the "life of the mother" because they can't come right out and admit that it doesn't matter to them if the mother lives or not. All they care about is the baby.

Somebody elses baby. Somebody else life. Somebody elses health. They refuse to consider any abortion in any circumstance because they would rather think that all abortions are done on demand and have no medical reason for them, and even in those cases that DO have a valid medical reason, they don't care because they don't want a woman to be able make such decisions.

Pro-lifers are religious fanatics who hate women. All women. I can say that because if it weren't for religous piety, and contempt for women, they would all simply mind their own business.

 

[dilloduck]

But that's exactly what you are doing. You want to deny to women the right to decide what to do with her own body. There is no way around that.

Both sides use language to try and trip up the other. For example, the word "choice". Now, the "pro-choice" movement was very successful in using the word choice to get Roe V Wade made into law in the first place. Norma McCorvey, Jane Roe's real name, claimed that she was raped. She's admitted that she lied about that, and last I read she is a pro-lifer. But the argument that abortion is about choice led both sides to get side tracked into the behavior of the mother.

This thread, and the other one, are proof that many pro-lifers simply believe that a woman who allows herself to get pregnant should have thought of the consequences and should live with the result. But what about rape? What about incest?

That's where many pro-lifers get tripped up. Life is life and whether or not a baby is the result of a rape or incest (the mothers choice), it's not the baby's fault, so no pro-lifer who really cares about life would care what caused a pregnancy. Any pro-lifer who makes exceptions for abortion in the case of rape or incest is automatically pro-choice by definition.

The pro-life movement finally wised up to that during Reagan's time because Reagan refused to make any exceptions for abortion. Oh, but he had to make one. The life of the mother.

There is one HUGE problem that pro-lifers have. They don't give a flying fuck about the life of the mother because their whole purpose is to control what the mother does in the first place. But they can't argue it that way because the law won't let them. They have to give lip service to the "life of the mother" because they can't come right out and admit that it doesn't matter to them if the mother lives or not. All they care about is the baby.

Somebody elses baby. Somebody else life. Somebody elses health. They refuse to consider any abortion in any circumstance because they would rather think that all abortions are done on demand and have no medical reason for them, and even in those cases that DO have a valid medical reason, they don't care because they don't want a woman to be able make such decisions.

Pro-lifers are religious fanatics who hate women. All women. I can say that because if it weren't for religous piety, and contempt for women, they would all simply mind their own business.

Not a problem at all---many pro-lifers will condone murder if it is to save the life of the mother or the life of a rape or incest victim. They will condone murder as punishment for a crime and in self defense. There are all sorts of grey areas.

 

[MissileMan]

Not a problem at all---many pro-lifers will condone murder if it is to save the life of the mother or the life of a rape or incest victim. They will condone murder as punishment for a crime and in self defense. There are all sorts of grey areas.

Executing a criminal or killing someone in self-defense is not murder.

 

[dilloduck]

Executing a criminal or killing someone in self-defense is not murder.

Don't get all caught up in semantics dude---I'm talking about killing someone.
Pro lifers DO condone killing in certain circumstances.

 

[MissileMan]

Don't get all caught up in semantics dude---I'm talking about killing someone.
Pro lifers DO condone killing in certain circumstances.

It's not about semantics...murder is a crime. The taking of a human life isn't always a crime.

 

[dilloduck]

It's not about semantics...murder is a crime. The taking of a human life isn't always a crime.

Whatever---contrary to certain opinions pro-lifers DO support the taking of a human life in certain circumstances. They just happen to think that willy nilly killing of fetuses is wrong. There not interested in controlling a womans' body--there are concerned about the life inside it. So are the laws that protect that life.