A question for the pro-abortion aka pro-choice crowd

[Dr.Drock]

I haven't moved shit, asshat. We're on THIS thread, and we're talking about abortion. The fact that YOU tried to move the goalposts to talk about other threads and other topics and got stopped cold is YOUR problem to deal with, not mine.

Get back on topic, or admit that your side of the abortion argument is peopled by dumbasses who know less about biology than the average middle-schooler. Your choice.

"And yet it's the pro-abortion side of the argument that keeps making arguments in direct conflict with basic biological science"

You hold pro-lifers accountable to going against biology, but not pro-lifers, that's my point.

And I see you're still perfectly incapable of posting without emotional diatribe.

I would have nothing but confidence in a large sample size IQ test between pro-lifers and pro-choicers.

Thank you. Your incoherent surrender is duly noted. You may now stop waving your white flag and move along.

I've never once said pro-lifers views on abortion go against biology. If you feel you need to pretend I did in order to crown yourself victor, by all means go on.

 

[koshergrl]

When you decide where the goal posts will land, let me know.

 

[Foxfyre]

Appreciation extended to those who reject dragging nonrelated subjects, such as evolution, into this discussion.

TRUTH: What ANYBODY thinks or claims or supposes or teaches or believes about evolution is 100% irrelevent to what anybody thinks or claims or supposes or teaches or believes about abortion UNLESS one believes there is evolutionary evidence existing within the development of the baby between conception and birth.

Now if nobody thinks there is sufficient time between conception and birth for evolution to be a factor, then evolution can be effectively removed from the discussion.

Also the fact that inflation raises costs or there were once Nazis in Germany or President Bush sucked or Obama promotes Marxist tendencies or the Arctic ice cap thinned over the summer or who really is funding the OWS group, or the death penalty are also irrelevent to the topic of abortion in case those are intended to be the next deflection from the subject.

Abortion is boiled down to a few question and concepts:
1. When does life begin?

2. Is the unborn fetus a human life?

3. Under what legal authority should a pregnancy be terminated?

4. Under what moral authority should a pregnancy be terminated?

5. Should the age of the unborn baby be a factor in the morality or legality of when a pregnancy should be terminated?

6. Does or should the unborn child have any rights at all?

7. For those who don't think the embryo or developing fetus is a child and object to it being referred to as a child, at what precise point is the woman pregnant with a baby instead of a zygote or embryo or fetus?

8. Should the woman bear no responsibility for a choice resulting in a pregnancy or should she have 100% choice as to whether her baby lives or dies at ANY time prior to its actual birth and 100% detachment from her body.

9. For those who support partial birth abortion being legal, would you also support killing the baby after it is born but the umbilical cord has not yet detached from the mother?

10. If a viable baby survives abortion, should that baby be killed or allowed to die as is the law in Illinois?

11. Should the federal government mandate the conditions under which abortion is legal or should be federal government stay out of it and allow the states and/or local communities set their own laws and follow their own consciences in the matter?

12. Should a strict interpretation of Roe v Wade be the norm?

All of the above are fair game in a discussion on abortion.

We should continue to resist those who can't defend their position on abortion attempting to drag in staw men, red herrings, and other unrelated or deflecting topics.

 

[Cecilie1200]

When you decide where the goal posts will land, let me know.

Doesn't matter. He lost when he proved that pro-baby-killers can't even remember the thread topic without having a diagram drawn for them.

 

[Dragon]

TRUTH: What ANYBODY thinks or claims or supposes or teaches or believes about evolution is 100% irrelevent to what anybody thinks or claims or supposes or teaches or believes about abortion UNLESS one believes there is evolutionary evidence existing within the development of the baby between conception and birth.

Actually, not even then. There is a connection between abortion and gestational biology, but not evolution per se. So: I agree.

Abortion is boiled down to a few question and concepts:
1. When does life begin?

2. Is the unborn fetus a human life?

No, to either of those. The question is whether the unborn fetus is a person. Or rather (because I'm sure it becomes a person at some point in gestation), the question is at what point does that happen, which in turn rests on what defines personhood.

The problem with the questions as you have presented them is that life doesn't "begin," it's an unbroken continuum back to the first emergence of life on the planet, and there is no such thing as "a human life" in any biological sense. There is no way for biology to answer the question.

3. Under what legal authority should a pregnancy be terminated?

Clearly, in the U.S., the legal authority belongs to the states, within the parameters set by the U.S. Constitution, esp. Article I Sec. 10, the Bill of Rights, and the 14th Amendment.

4. Under what moral authority should a pregnancy be terminated?

A much tougher and more interesting question.

5. Should the age of the unborn baby be a factor in the morality or legality of when a pregnancy should be terminated?

I believe so, but that follows from my own definition of personhood.

6. Does or should the unborn child have any rights at all?

At such point as it becomes a person, yes. Before that, no.

7. For those who don't think the embryo or developing fetus is a child and object to it being referred to as a child, at what precise point is the woman pregnant with a baby instead of a zygote or embryo or fetus?

For me, the line is crossed when the fetus develops a functioning cerebral cortex.

8. Should the woman bear no responsibility for a choice resulting in a pregnancy or should she have 100% choice as to whether her baby lives or dies at ANY time prior to its actual birth and 100% detachment from her body.

No, I can see the moral logic in restrictions on late-term abortion.

9. For those who support partial birth abortion being legal, would you also support killing the baby after it is born but the umbilical cord has not yet detached from the mother?

If necessary to protect the mother's health, yes, although I don't see why that would ever be the case.

10. If a viable baby survives abortion, should that baby be killed or allowed to die as is the law in Illinois?

Setting aside the question about whether that really is the law in Illinois, I would not approve, no.

11. Should the federal government mandate the conditions under which abortion is legal or should be federal government stay out of it and allow the states and/or local communities set their own laws and follow their own consciences in the matter?

Apart from the parameters of state law set in the Constitution, and enforcement thereof by federal court, the federal government is not given jurisdiction in this matter by any enumerated power that I can see.

12. Should a strict interpretation of Roe v Wade be the norm?

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

Except for the first two points, nice run-down on the pertinent questions.

 

[Gadawg73]

67 pages and there is still no evidence anywhere that anyone is "pro baby killing".

 

[koshergrl]

Yes there is. You're pro-baby-killing = pro abortion.

 

[koshergrl]

pro-a·bor·tion
adj. Favoring or supporting legalized abortion.
pro-abortion - definition of pro-abortion by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

ba·by
[ báybee ]
NOUN
ba·biesplural

1.
very young child: a very young child who is not yet able to walk or talk

2.
unborn child: a child who is still in the womb

define baby - Bing DICTIONARY

 

[Gadawg73]

Yes there is. You're pro-baby-killing = pro abortion.

I am anti abortion for the 7,987th time.

 

[Cecilie1200]

pro-a·bor·tion
adj. Favoring or supporting legalized abortion.
pro-abortion - definition of pro-abortion by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

ba·by
[ báybee ]
NOUN
ba·biesplural

1.
very young child: a very young child who is not yet able to walk or talk

2.
unborn child: a child who is still in the womb

define baby - Bing DICTIONARY

Probably explains why pregnant women refer to their baby and not their fetus (since the left is SO enamored of defining things by "how the average person views it").

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

11. Should the federal government mandate the conditions under which abortion is legal or should be federal government stay out of it and allow the states and/or local communities set their own laws and follow their own consciences in the matter?

The Federal government doesn’t ‘mandate’ anything on the issue – this is a judicial, not legislative, matter. There’s noting for the Federal government to stay out of.

The Court has ruled that there is a Constitutional right to privacy, and in the context of that right to privacy, no legislative entity – Congress or state government – may violate the right to privacy. Consequently, state and local governments are not authorized to determine who will or will not have his right to privacy; that one lives in a conservative state whose majority population is opposed to the right to privacy is relevant – one’s rights are not determined by majority vote, see: West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943).

Indeed, this is the cornerstone of our Constitutional Republic, where all governments and the people are subject to the rule of law. The Constitution and its case law protect the individual from the tyranny of the majority.

12. Should a strict interpretation of Roe v Wade be the norm?

Moot.

This was resolved in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), where the Court upheld the right to privacy, it is considered settled law.

To understand the nature of the right to privacy one must view the issue in the context of the Constitution and its case law on the matter, particularly Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) and the doctrine of substantive due process. Indeed, Griswold is the true ‘landmark’ case, not Roe – as the former established the principle of privacy rights; Roe merely identified abortion as an issue outside the realm of government interference, reaffirmed by Casey.

As for the rest of Post 903, that’s for the people to decide in the context of the right to privacy, if one believes abortion is wrong, then she doesn’t have an abortion. But the Constitution forbids law-making entities to compel the population in general to conform to that belief.

Yes there is. You're pro-baby-killing = pro abortion.

And yet you fail time and again to provide any legal basis for this accusation.

 

[Gadawg73]

11. Should the federal government mandate the conditions under which abortion is legal or should be federal government stay out of it and allow the states and/or local communities set their own laws and follow their own consciences in the matter?

The Federal government doesn’t ‘mandate’ anything on the issue – this is a judicial, not legislative, matter. There’s noting for the Federal government to stay out of.

The Court has ruled that there is a Constitutional right to privacy, and in the context of that right to privacy, no legislative entity – Congress or state government – may violate the right to privacy. Consequently, state and local governments are not authorized to determine who will or will not have his right to privacy; that one lives in a conservative state whose majority population is opposed to the right to privacy is relevant – one’s rights are not determined by majority vote, see: West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943).

Indeed, this is the cornerstone of our Constitutional Republic, where all governments and the people are subject to the rule of law. The Constitution and its case law protect the individual from the tyranny of the majority.

12. Should a strict interpretation of Roe v Wade be the norm?

Moot.

This was resolved in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), where the Court upheld the right to privacy, it is considered settled law.

To understand the nature of the right to privacy one must view the issue in the context of the Constitution and its case law on the matter, particularly Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) and the doctrine of substantive due process. Indeed, Griswold is the true ‘landmark’ case, not Roe – as the former established the principle of privacy rights; Roe merely identified abortion as an issue outside the realm of government interference, reaffirmed by Casey.

As for the rest of Post 903, that’s for the people to decide in the context of the right to privacy, if one believes abortion is wrong, then she doesn’t have an abortion. But the Constitution forbids law-making entities to compel the population in general to conform to that belief.

Yes there is. You're pro-baby-killing = pro abortion.

And yet you fail time and again to provide any legal basis for this accusation.

You are talking facts, law and The United States Constitution.
Far over their heads. All they understand is emotion.

 

[koshergrl]

Yes there is. You're pro-baby-killing = pro abortion.

I am anti abortion for the 7,987th time.

I guess the definitions are what's wrong. You'd better change them.

PS, you're a liar.

 

[koshergrl]

Next the pro-abortionists will propose legislation changing the meaning of the word "baby", and "kill".

 

[Foxfyre]

Another question that could be asked in my off-the-top-of-my-head list up there:

13. Is the opinion of the court always sacrosanct in all matters of morality or, in this context, abortion? Or is there a higher authority than even that of the courts?

My observation: Those who want to use the courts for their own advantage will appoint or locate a judge who disagrees with the law, and then fashion a case that allows an opinion that alters or changes the traditional application of the law. That sets a precedent that may or may not be held up by a higher court, but it nevertheless will be in case law for other judges who disagree with the law to use to their advantage.

And then there are those who will offer a court's opinion as the final answer rather than allow an open debate on the subject. Some will even cite the court's opinion as being the 'scientific' one rather than the 'emotional' one.

I wonder if they disallow emotion in all moral decisions?

 

[MikeK]

I am adamantly opposed to abortion[...]

Why?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You are talking facts, law and The United States Constitution.
Far over their heads. All they understand is emotion.

Which is fine, provided they don’t try to codify their emotion.

13. Is the opinion of the court always sacrosanct in all matters of morality or, in this context, abortion? Or is there a higher authority than even that of the courts?

Again, the issue is privacy rights, not abortion. An American citizen, a pregnant woman, less than 5 months pregnant, may not have her right to privacy preempted if an abortion statute manifests an ‘undue burden’ on that right (Casey, Ibid.). Each statute and situation is examined in the context of what constitutes an ‘undue burden.’

Per the right to privacy, therefore, the courts have wisely deferred the issue to the individual, her family, and her moral/religious beliefs; the government is completely inappropriate to make such decisions, the involvement of the state in this issue would be disastrous.

My observation: Those who want to use the courts for their own advantage will appoint or locate a judge who disagrees with the law, and then fashion a case that allows an opinion that alters or changes the traditional application of the law. That sets a precedent that may or may not be held up by a higher court, but it nevertheless will be in case law for other judges who disagree with the law to use to their advantage.

Your observation is predicated on a misunderstanding of the judicial process. The courts are not ‘used,’ except by a citizen to find relief from the state when the state violates the citizen’s rights. Judges don’t ‘agree’ or ‘disagree’ with the law, they interpret the law in the context of the facts of the case before them, guided by precedent and relevant case law. Judges who deviate from precedent often have their rulings overturned on appeal. Or if upheld, it’s because the judge made an accurate and compelling case for his decision, affirmed by a higher court.

Any judge who tries to ‘use the law to his own advantage,’ whatever that’s supposed to mean, will rarely be successful upon appeal, if ever.

And then there are those who will offer a court's opinion as the final answer rather than allow an open debate on the subject.

The doctrine of stare decisis provides the needed resolution to a given issue, the courts can not be forever changing precedent to conform to changes in politics; the genius of the Anglo-American judicial tradition of common law is the understanding that after many judges rule the same way over many years, a fundamental truth is realized, providing guidance to future jurists.

Indeed, that an issue such as abortion becomes settled law allows the debate to move to a more appropriate and productive venue for actual resolution.

Let’s assume abortion were again banned, abortions wouldn’t stop, they’d simply move underground; and such a ban would be as much of a failure as Prohibition during the 1920’s or the current failed ‘war on drugs’ today.

Abortion is a difficult and complicated problem, it can’t be ‘solved’ through legislation.

I wonder if they disallow emotion in all moral decisions?

Emotion is rarely beneficial in any decision.

 

[PredFan]

Why do women abort their babies?

I understand there may be an ample number of reasons, but what, in your opinion would be the concensus?

I think it's purely for selfish reasons for the most part.

Your thoughts.

I am pro-choice in everything and my answer to this question is that MOST women, not all mind you, have abortions because of accidental unwanted pregnancies. IMO.

 

[Foxfyre]

You are talking facts, law and The United States Constitution.
Far over their heads. All they understand is emotion.

Which is fine, provided they don’t try to codify their emotion.

13. Is the opinion of the court always sacrosanct in all matters of morality or, in this context, abortion? Or is there a higher authority than even that of the courts?

Again, the issue is privacy rights, not abortion. An American citizen, a pregnant woman, less than 5 months pregnant, may not have her right to privacy preempted if an abortion statute manifests an ‘undue burden’ on that right (Casey, Ibid.). Each statute and situation is examined in the context of what constitutes an ‘undue burden.’

Per the right to privacy, therefore, the courts have wisely deferred the issue to the individual, her family, and her moral/religious beliefs; the government is completely inappropriate to make such decisions, the involvement of the state in this issue would be disastrous.



Your observation is predicated on a misunderstanding of the judicial process. The courts are not ‘used,’ except by a citizen to find relief from the state when the state violates the citizen’s rights. Judges don’t ‘agree’ or ‘disagree’ with the law, they interpret the law in the context of the facts of the case before them, guided by precedent and relevant case law. Judges who deviate from precedent often have their rulings overturned on appeal. Or if upheld, it’s because the judge made an accurate and compelling case for his decision, affirmed by a higher court.

Any judge who tries to ‘use the law to his own advantage,’ whatever that’s supposed to mean, will rarely be successful upon appeal, if ever.

And then there are those who will offer a court's opinion as the final answer rather than allow an open debate on the subject.

The doctrine of stare decisis provides the needed resolution to a given issue, the courts can not be forever changing precedent to conform to changes in politics; the genius of the Anglo-American judicial tradition of common law is the understanding that after many judges rule the same way over many years, a fundamental truth is realized, providing guidance to future jurists.

Indeed, that an issue such as abortion becomes settled law allows the debate to move to a more appropriate and productive venue for actual resolution.

Let’s assume abortion were again banned, abortions wouldn’t stop, they’d simply move underground; and such a ban would be as much of a failure as Prohibition during the 1920’s or the current failed ‘war on drugs’ today.

Abortion is a difficult and complicated problem, it can’t be ‘solved’ through legislation.

I wonder if they disallow emotion in all moral decisions?

Emotion is rarely beneficial in any decision.

Well, I'm sorry but God seems to have installed the full gamut of emotion in us humanbeings ranging from the deepest love, caring, concern, humor, anger, fear, to the deepest hatred. And to think that our emotion should only rarely guide us in what is right and wrong suggests that we should just turn over all decision making to impartial computers and take the human element out of it.

I am fully aware how laws are made and not all that ignorant on how the legal system and the courts work.

Nevertheless, I prefer to make my decisions on what is right or wrong based on the best insight, information, and intuition available to me. I don't take my cue as to what is right or wrong from Presidents, congresspersons, senators, lawyers, court cases, or judges.

Some may think the courts are infallible and never get it wrong.

I know better.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You are talking facts, law and The United States Constitution.
Far over their heads. All they understand is emotion.

Which is fine, provided they don’t try to codify their emotion.



Again, the issue is privacy rights, not abortion. An American citizen, a pregnant woman, less than 5 months pregnant, may not have her right to privacy preempted if an abortion statute manifests an ‘undue burden’ on that right (Casey, Ibid.). Each statute and situation is examined in the context of what constitutes an ‘undue burden.’

Per the right to privacy, therefore, the courts have wisely deferred the issue to the individual, her family, and her moral/religious beliefs; the government is completely inappropriate to make such decisions, the involvement of the state in this issue would be disastrous.



Your observation is predicated on a misunderstanding of the judicial process. The courts are not ‘used,’ except by a citizen to find relief from the state when the state violates the citizen’s rights. Judges don’t ‘agree’ or ‘disagree’ with the law, they interpret the law in the context of the facts of the case before them, guided by precedent and relevant case law. Judges who deviate from precedent often have their rulings overturned on appeal. Or if upheld, it’s because the judge made an accurate and compelling case for his decision, affirmed by a higher court.

Any judge who tries to ‘use the law to his own advantage,’ whatever that’s supposed to mean, will rarely be successful upon appeal, if ever.



The doctrine of stare decisis provides the needed resolution to a given issue, the courts can not be forever changing precedent to conform to changes in politics; the genius of the Anglo-American judicial tradition of common law is the understanding that after many judges rule the same way over many years, a fundamental truth is realized, providing guidance to future jurists.

Indeed, that an issue such as abortion becomes settled law allows the debate to move to a more appropriate and productive venue for actual resolution.

Let’s assume abortion were again banned, abortions wouldn’t stop, they’d simply move underground; and such a ban would be as much of a failure as Prohibition during the 1920’s or the current failed ‘war on drugs’ today.

Abortion is a difficult and complicated problem, it can’t be ‘solved’ through legislation.

I wonder if they disallow emotion in all moral decisions?

Emotion is rarely beneficial in any decision.

Well, I'm sorry but God seems to have installed the full gamut of emotion in us humanbeings ranging from the deepest love, caring, concern, humor, anger, fear, to the deepest hatred. And to think that our emotion should only rarely guide us in what is right and wrong suggests that we should just turn over all decision making to impartial computers and take the human element out of it.

I am fully aware how laws are made and not all that ignorant on how the legal system and the courts work.

Nevertheless, I prefer to make my decisions on what is right or wrong based on the best insight, information, and intuition available to me. I don't take my cue as to what is right or wrong from Presidents, congresspersons, senators, lawyers, court cases, or judges.

Some may think the courts are infallible and never get it wrong.

I know better.

Not to mention that the law must follow society's understanding of right and wrong. It cannot lead it.