CDZ Why President Trump will have no 'Choice' but to ban Abortion.

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by Chuz Life, Dec 11, 2016.

?

If personhood begins at conception, elective abortions must be banned.

  1. Yes. Because the Constitution protects the rights of ALL persons, equally

  2. No. The Constitution allows for us to deny personhood to keep abortions legal

Results are only viewable after voting.
  1. Chuz Life
    Offline

    Chuz Life Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2015
    Messages:
    4,985
    Thanks Received:
    648
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    USA
    Ratings:
    +3,204
    First of all, let's be clear. It is understood that the President alone does not have the power nor the authority to "ban abortion" on their own. Please don't read too far into the title of this thread.

    That said, on inauguration day, January 20, 2017 - When President Elect Donald Trump is sworn in as the President of the United States, he will "swear or affirm that he "will to the best of [his] Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

    The Constitution of the United States is the Supreme Law of our land. What it says matters not only to the "pro-choice" arguments surrounding abortion but to the "pro-life" side of the issue as well.

    The Constitution's 5th and 14th Amendments state clearly that "all persons" are entitled to the "equal protections" of our laws and that no "person" can be "deprived of their life" without due process of law.

    When Roe v Wade was being decided, Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart said; "the basic Constitutional question, initially, is whether or not an unborn fetus is a person, isn’t it? That’s critical to this case, is it not?"

    To which the pro-abortion lawyer, Sarah Weddington responded; "Yes, it is."

    Justice Potter Stewart continued; "If it were established that an unborn fetus is a person within the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment, you would have almost an impossible case here, would you not?"

    And Sarah Weddington responded again, saying; "I would have a very difficult case."

    All sides have agreed from the start that the Constitution and "personhood" are key components in the abortion debate.

    Of course, we all know that the Supreme Court ruled in their 7-2 decision - that "All this, together with our observation, supra, that, throughout the major portion of the 19th century, prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn."

    However, The Supreme Court did recognize even in Roe that; "The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument."

    The Supreme Court of the United States is very sensitive to the "personhood" aspect of the abortion issue.

    During Oral Arguments, Justice Potter Stewart commented; "Well, if---if it were established that an unborn fetus is a person, with the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment, you would have almost an impossible case here,would you not?"

    MRS. WEDDINGTON responded: "I would have a very difficult case."

    The question becomes; "What (if anything) has changed in the way of establishing the "personhood" of children in the womb - in the four decades following the Roe v Wade decision?

    The most obvious answer to that question is found in the language and in the upheld convictions of our nations many "Fetal Homicide" laws.

    Currently, at least 38 states have fetal homicide laws. The states include: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia;and>Wisconsin>. At least 23 states have fetal homicide laws that apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy ("any state of gestation," "conception," "fertilization" or "post-fertilization"); these are indicated below with an asterisk (*).

    Forty Three Years after Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart speculated that a State or State's "could" establish "personhood" for children in the womb, the Federal Government and nearly Forty States have already passed laws which essentially do exactly that.

    As Gloria Feldt, the former President of Planned Parenthood said herself; "If they are able to make fetuses people in law with the same standing as women and men, then Roe will be moot."

    The Oath of office that President (elect) Trump will be taking soon, on January 20th, 2017 will not leave room for anything less!
     
  2. candycorn
    Offline

    candycorn Alis volat propriis

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2009
    Messages:
    44,474
    Thanks Received:
    5,266
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Ratings:
    +16,311
    Politically it would be great for the Democrats if Trump did open this can of worms.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Funny and Agree!! Funny and Agree!! x 1
  3. Chuz Life
    Offline

    Chuz Life Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2015
    Messages:
    4,985
    Thanks Received:
    648
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    USA
    Ratings:
    +3,204
    Do you feel the oath of the office allows for the President to dismiss matters as serious as this for political expediency?
     
  4. mamooth
    Offline

    mamooth Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2012
    Messages:
    18,642
    Thanks Received:
    3,282
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    Ratings:
    +11,539
    Being that abortion was legal and common when the Constitution was written, it's very clear the founders did not consider fetuses to be people.

    But then, when has the right ever cared about original intent?
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  5. candycorn
    Offline

    candycorn Alis volat propriis

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2009
    Messages:
    44,474
    Thanks Received:
    5,266
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Ratings:
    +16,311
    A woman’s right to privacy? I don’t think the oath of office allows the President to usurp the doctor/patient confidentiality.
     
  6. Chuz Life
    Offline

    Chuz Life Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2015
    Messages:
    4,985
    Thanks Received:
    648
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    USA
    Ratings:
    +3,204

    When the Constitution was written, full grown slaves were not Constitutionally recognized as equal "persons" either.

    [​IMG]

    One can easily argue that the original "intent" was never to exclude ANY human beings of any age, race, creed or stage of life from their personhood protections - despite the fact that they got it wrong with regards to slaves and in other areas.
     
    Last edited: Dec 11, 2016
  7. Chuz Life
    Offline

    Chuz Life Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2015
    Messages:
    4,985
    Thanks Received:
    648
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    USA
    Ratings:
    +3,204
    Does anyone have the right to violate the Constitutional rights of another human being / Person and to shield that violation behind a so called "right to privacy?(sic)"

    I, for one, don't think they do.
     
  8. Divine.Wind
    Offline

    Divine.Wind Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2011
    Messages:
    20,473
    Thanks Received:
    5,444
    Trophy Points:
    420
    Ratings:
    +14,579
    What if personhood doesn't begin until a specific stage of development such as when the cerebrum becomes active?
     
  9. Divine.Wind
    Offline

    Divine.Wind Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2011
    Messages:
    20,473
    Thanks Received:
    5,444
    Trophy Points:
    420
    Ratings:
    +14,579
    So you are against deporting illegals? Even minor children with no other place to go?
     
  10. Chuz Life
    Offline

    Chuz Life Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2015
    Messages:
    4,985
    Thanks Received:
    648
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    USA
    Ratings:
    +3,204
    That debate can be had again and again, I suppose. However, it's worth nothing that our fetal homicide laws which I cited earlier, already make it a crime of MURDER to kill a child in the womb in ANY stage of life / development - during a criminal act.

    And I don't see anyone trying to overturn the precedent set in those laws.
     

Share This Page