Why Pro-Abortion Is Anti-Science

[Ravi]

Yes, but you can find nothing in the Constitution that addresses social issues of conscience. It was the intent of the Founders that the federal government would NOT decide such issues but rather would focus on securing and defending the rights of the people so that THEY would be free to form whatever sort of society they wished to have. It was a document allowing the people to govern themselves, not be dictated to by government.

Abortion as a legislated 'right' would have been unthinkable to the Founders. To a man, I believe they would have seen that as a disgusting and immoral act, but I think to a man they would not have seen it as the prerogative of the Federal government to legislate.

From what I understand, abortion was quite common in those times. And based on biblical principals, a non-quickening fetus was not a living being.

If the founders cared about the issue at all they would have addressed it.

Nope. They had the ability to separate the role of government from those matters of conscience that they cared about. They were extricating the American people from a long history of governments dictating what people must care about and allowing the people to govern themselves.

And yet, this is exactly what you wish not happen.

 

[Foxfyre]

From what I understand, abortion was quite common in those times. And based on biblical principals, a non-quickening fetus was not a living being.

If the founders cared about the issue at all they would have addressed it.

Nope. They had the ability to separate the role of government from those matters of conscience that they cared about. They were extricating the American people from a long history of governments dictating what people must care about and allowing the people to govern themselves.

And yet, this is exactly what you wish not happen.

No, I do wish for the people to govern themselves and to form whatever society they wish to have. And if they do not wish to have abortions in their community, I do not want a federal government who insists that they must have that. And if they do want abortions in their community, I do not want a federal government who insists that they cannot do that.

The whole problem with pro-abortionists is that they do not want to leave that decision up to the people themselves. They are terrified to allow the people to decide. They want an authoritarian government to decide it as THEY want it to be and everybody else just suck it up and accept it as the way it has to be.

 

[Samson]

Yes, but you can find nothing in the Constitution that addresses social issues of conscience. It was the intent of the Founders that the federal government would NOT decide such issues but rather would focus on securing and defending the rights of the people so that THEY would be free to form whatever sort of society they wished to have. It was a document allowing the people to govern themselves, not be dictated to by government.

Abortion as a legislated 'right' would have been unthinkable to the Founders. To a man, I believe they would have seen that as a disgusting and immoral act, but I think to a man they would not have seen it as the prerogative of the Federal government to legislate.

From what I understand, abortion was quite common in those times. And based on biblical principals, a non-quickening fetus was not a living being.

If the founders cared about the issue at all they would have addressed it.

Nope. They had the ability to separate the role of government from those matters of conscience that they cared about. They were extricating the American people from a long history of governments dictating what people must care about and allowing the people to govern themselves.

Um...the Constitution has been ammended to include a few things the founders did not address.......

Why don't anti-abortionsts simply amend the consitution, making abortion illegal?

 

[Ravi]

Nope. They had the ability to separate the role of government from those matters of conscience that they cared about. They were extricating the American people from a long history of governments dictating what people must care about and allowing the people to govern themselves.

And yet, this is exactly what you wish not happen.

No, I do wish for the people to govern themselves and to form whatever society they wish to have. And if they do not wish to have abortions in their community, I do not want a federal government who insists that they must have that. And if they do want abortions in their community, I do not want a federal government who insists that they cannot do that.

The whole problem with pro-abortionists is that they do not want to leave that decision up to the people themselves. They are terrified to allow the people to decide. They want an authoritarian government to decide it as THEY want it to be and everybody else just suck it up and accept it as the way it has to be.

I disagree.

I believe the intent of the US Constitution was to guarantee the rights of individual above the rights of the community...unless there is a compelling need. I can see no compelling need to allow a community to decide to be abortion free, birth control free, people with funny noses free...

 

[Foxfyre]

From what I understand, abortion was quite common in those times. And based on biblical principals, a non-quickening fetus was not a living being.

If the founders cared about the issue at all they would have addressed it.

Nope. They had the ability to separate the role of government from those matters of conscience that they cared about. They were extricating the American people from a long history of governments dictating what people must care about and allowing the people to govern themselves.

Um...the Constitution has been ammended to include a few things the founders did not address.......

Why don't anti-abortionsts simply amend the consitution, making abortion illegal?

Every time the Constitution has been amended to take away rights or property of the people, we have had unacceptable unintended negative consequences. Every time the Constitution has been amended to clarify the individual rights of the people such as abolition of slavery or the Equal Rights amendment, it has only strengthened the Constitution as it was originally intended.

Making abortions illegal would force a moral issue on the people that was never intended by the Constitution.

 

[Foxfyre]

And yet, this is exactly what you wish not happen.

No, I do wish for the people to govern themselves and to form whatever society they wish to have. And if they do not wish to have abortions in their community, I do not want a federal government who insists that they must have that. And if they do want abortions in their community, I do not want a federal government who insists that they cannot do that.

The whole problem with pro-abortionists is that they do not want to leave that decision up to the people themselves. They are terrified to allow the people to decide. They want an authoritarian government to decide it as THEY want it to be and everybody else just suck it up and accept it as the way it has to be.

I disagree.

I believe the intent of the US Constitution was to guarantee the rights of individual above the rights of the community...unless there is a compelling need.

That is correct. But the Constitution also allowed for social contract in which the people could agree among themselves what sort of community it wished to have. If they wanted Puritan religious rigidity, they could have that. If they wanted legaized prostitution, gambling, and open saloons they could have that. Those who didn't agree with the community had full right to leave it. But, short of respecting individual liberties, nobody had the right to demand that the majority conform to his/her concept of morality or propriety.

I can see no compelling need to allow a community to decide to be abortion free, birth control free, people with funny noses free...

The intent of the Constitution was that the federal government would have no authority to tell people what they did and did not 'need'. The intent of the Constitution was to secure and defend the unalienable rights of the people so that they would be free to form whatever sort of society they wished to have.

It is the difference between a government that governs the people--which is what the world had always had before the USA was formed--and a people who govern themselves.

 

[Samson]

Nope. They had the ability to separate the role of government from those matters of conscience that they cared about. They were extricating the American people from a long history of governments dictating what people must care about and allowing the people to govern themselves.

Um...the Constitution has been ammended to include a few things the founders did not address.......

Why don't anti-abortionsts simply amend the consitution, making abortion illegal?

Every time the Constitution has been amended to take away rights or property of the people, we have had unacceptable unintended negative consequences. Every time the Constitution has been amended to clarify the individual rights of the people such as abolition of slavery or the Equal Rights amendment, it has only strengthened the Constitution as it was originally intended.

Making abortions illegal would force a moral issue on the people that was never intended by the Constitution.

So.....slavery wasn't a moral issue?

Prohibition wasn't a moral issue?

Indeed, no constitutional amedments are associated with any moral issues?

Article 5:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Where is it mentioned that anything can be amended to the constitution unless it would force a moral issue on the people that was never intended by the Constitution?

 

[JBeukema]

Abortion is about choice, and anti-abortionists want to take that choice away. I guess they don't think that the US is the land of the free. They want to live under a white sharia law, govern the country by religion.

Some would make the same argument about mandating clothing in public, traffic laws, and laws forbidding target practice in your duplex.

Others don't think there should be a 'choice' to commit homicide.

 

[JBeukema]

Funny, I've still never met a single person that is "Pro" abortion.

So you don't know anyone that's had one then? Is a woman who has one 'pro abortion' in your view then? Or are you naively stating that no one is pro abortion even though there are millions of them going on every year in this country?

I've had a shattered knee and I can unequivocally state that I am not in favor of shattered knees.

That sounds excruciating.

 

[JBeukema]

which is why they call themselves 'pro-life'.

a more accurate assessment would be that they're 'pro-birth'

This post reminds me of this:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvF1Q3UidWM"]YouTube - George Carlin: Pro Life, Abortion, And The Sanctity Of Life[/ame]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Modbert again.

 

[JBeukema]

So you don't know anyone that's had one then? Is a woman who has one 'pro abortion' in your view then? Or are you naively stating that no one is pro abortion even though there are millions of them going on every year in this country?

Usually when one asks a question, they don't answer it in the next sentence and throw in a question mark. Such loaded questions are pointless anyway since Mani is specifically saying in his personal experience that's he never met someone who was pro abortion.

You've already made the assumption however that because someone has an abortion, they must be ""pro" abortion." That's a very poor illogical assumption to make in the first place.

So you're implying someone that is anti-abortion would have an abortion? Weak.

I'm willing to bet that if they had a non-self-terminating ectopic pregnancy, most of them would change their stance the moment they found out.

The rest would be weeded out by natural selection.

 

[JBeukema]

 

[JBeukema]

I am not in favor of any government funds for abortions. None at all.

So if a woman has an ectopic pregnancy and no insurance (or, for some reason, her insurance doesn't cover it), we let her die in an alley?

 

[JBeukema]

If you don't want an abortion, don't have one.

It is really that simple.

Some don't see the difference between that and 'if you don't want to go on a shooting spree at school, don't'

 

[Ravi]

No, I do wish for the people to govern themselves and to form whatever society they wish to have. And if they do not wish to have abortions in their community, I do not want a federal government who insists that they must have that. And if they do want abortions in their community, I do not want a federal government who insists that they cannot do that.

The whole problem with pro-abortionists is that they do not want to leave that decision up to the people themselves. They are terrified to allow the people to decide. They want an authoritarian government to decide it as THEY want it to be and everybody else just suck it up and accept it as the way it has to be.

I disagree.

I believe the intent of the US Constitution was to guarantee the rights of individual above the rights of the community...unless there is a compelling need.

That is correct. But the Constitution also allowed for social contract in which the people could agree among themselves what sort of community it wished to have. If they wanted Puritan religious rigidity, they could have that. If they wanted legaized prostitution, gambling, and open saloons they could have that. Those who didn't agree with the community had full right to leave it. But, short of respecting individual liberties, nobody had the right to demand that the majority conform to his/her concept of morality or propriety.

I can see no compelling need to allow a community to decide to be abortion free, birth control free, people with funny noses free...

The intent of the Constitution was that the federal government would have no authority to tell people what they did and did not 'need'. The intent of the Constitution was to secure and defend the unalienable rights of the people so that they would be free to form whatever sort of society they wished to have.

It is the difference between a government that governs the people--which is what the world had always had before the USA was formed--and a people who govern themselves.

On private land a "community" can do pretty much as it pleases...but I don't see how you can make that claim for a community that is inclusive of public and private land.

 

[Ravi]

If you don't want an abortion, don't have one.

It is really that simple.

Some don't see the difference between that and 'if you don't want to go on a shooting spree at school, don't'

Yes, we already got one of those.

 

[Foxfyre]

I am not in favor of any government funds for abortions. None at all.

So if a woman has an ectopic pregnancy and no insurance (or, for some reason, her insurance doesn't cover it), we let her die in an alley?

An ectopic pregnancy has no chance to produce a live birth and it is almost certain it will cause serious medical problems for the woman. In my opinion that would not be an abortion but would be a medical emergency and would be fully covered by the woman's hospitalization insurance no matter what insurance it was.

Abortion of a healthy, normal embryo is generally a purely elective procedure however, and the tax payer should not have to subsidize that.

 

[JBeukema]

If you don't want an abortion, don't have one.

It is really that simple.

Some don't see the difference between that and 'if you don't want to go on a shooting spree at school, don't'

Yes, we already got one of those.

Both involve the unilateral ending of other human lives.

I missed where you explained why you have more rights than the baby. Is it because you can vote?

When did you gain the right to life? When you were two? When you were born? When our mama's water broke? How ere you fundamentally any different than the day before?

Tell us what changed everything.

 

[JBeukema]

An ectopic pregnancy has no chance to produce a live birth and it is almost certain it will cause serious medical problems for the woman. In my opinion that would not be an abortion

Your 'opinion' means jack shit.

It's an abortion by definition.

Abortion: In medicine, an abortion is the premature exit of the products of conception (the fetus, fetal membranes, and placenta) from the uterus. It is the loss of a pregnancy and does not refer to why that pregnancy was lost.

Abortion definition - Medical Dictionary definitions of popular medical terms easily defined on MedTerms

1 : the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: a : spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation—compare miscarriage b : induced expulsion of a human fetus c : expulsion of a fetus of a domestic animal often due to infection at any time before completion of pregnancy—see contagious abortion, trichomoniasis b, vibrionic abortion

http://www.merriam-webster.com/medlineplus/abortion
[/quote]

Abortion of a healthy, normal embryo is generally a purely elective procedure however, and the tax payer should not have to subsidize that.

Are you retracting your earlier statement?

 

[Foxfyre]

Um...the Constitution has been ammended to include a few things the founders did not address.......

Why don't anti-abortionsts simply amend the consitution, making abortion illegal?

Every time the Constitution has been amended to take away rights or property of the people, we have had unacceptable unintended negative consequences. Every time the Constitution has been amended to clarify the individual rights of the people such as abolition of slavery or the Equal Rights amendment, it has only strengthened the Constitution as it was originally intended.

Making abortions illegal would force a moral issue on the people that was never intended by the Constitution.

So.....slavery wasn't a moral issue?

Prohibition wasn't a moral issue?

Indeed, no constitutional amedments are associated with any moral issues?

Only if you consider unalienable rights to be a moral issue. Those who saw the "Negro" as a subhuman or lesser than human being had no moral problem with slavery. Those who did not see the black person as being less than human did very much have a moral problem with slavery. Eventually the Congress and ultimately the people sided with the anti-slavery group to amend the Constitution. The impetus to do so was almost certainly motivated by conscience. But the act itself was not based on any form of morality but on the principle of unalienable human rights. If the black man was indeed a human being, it violated his unalienable rights to deprive him of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

And yes prohibition was very much a moral issue. But the grounds for ending it were not based on morality but rather on the rights of the people to govern themselves in the choice to consume or not consume alcohol. It was rightfully not a federal prerogative to control or regulate that but rather the prerogative of the more local government.

Article 5:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Where is it mentioned that anything can be amended to the constitution unless it would force a moral issue on the people that was never intended by the Constitution?

It is mentioned in the preamble and in the duties specifically charged to the Federal government and in the Tenth Amendment. The intent can be found in such documents as the Declaration of Independence and in the numerous writings of the Founders themselves.