Abortion and Dred Scott

[meaner gene]

That's an odd bit of semantic bullshit that you've got there.

I think any rational mind would recognize that a ruling is overturned, if the Constitution itself is amended in a manner that invalidates that ruling.

The constitution invalidated the decision, not the opinion. Everything they cited as how the constitution didn't grant personhood to blacks remains true.
The constitution was amended by the 14th to grant personhood (citizenship) to everyone "born" in the US.
Dred Scott still denies personhood to those not born.

 

[jwoodie]

Amend the constitution, otherwise it grants no such right to the unborn.

and leaves it up to the States, where it belongs.

 

[task0778]

I've said, it's about competing rights.

If you place the rights of the unborn child over the rights of the mother - then do you do the same for the child AFTER birth?

It's not very competitive when one's right to life is ended but the other's right to life is not, and in fact the other (mother) is inconvenienced for 9 months or whatever time is left on her pregnancy. I mean, look at it: the unborn baby is dead but the mother has to carry the child to term and give birth. Which BTW is the risk she voluntarily took when she had unprotected sex. That isn't placing the rights of the unborn over the rights of the mother, cuz what's at stake is life and death. In my opinion, we all make decisions and when we make bad one we should deal with the consequences. The mama made several bad choices: she wasn't using BC and her partner wasn't either, she didn't check to see if she's pregnant, she didn't take a morning after pill. So now we should be totally concerned with her plight, which she herself created with some help from the dad. I ain't leaving him off the hook, but she's the one that gets pregnant and she's the one that has to give birth or go through an abortion. No doubt a very trying time either way, but ending the unborn baby's life is akin to murder because a life is ended.

When the baby is aborted he or she IS DEAD and the mama and dad go on with their lives. OR, the baby is not aborted and nobody dies. For me that ain't a hard choice to make. Do you think the right to life outweighs the right to be inconvenienced? You say that isn't the right way to look at it, but that's the way it appears to be IMHO. The parents will go on living but the unborn child won't, how is that anything other than being inconvenienced?

Inconvenient: causing trouble, difficulties, or discomfort. Seems to me that is the correct word to use here.

 

[AZrailwhale]

What percentage aborted? Give a source.

Given the increase in the numbers of black slaves between 1787 and 1865, it must not have been a large number.

 

[meaner gene]

and leaves it up to the States, where it belongs.

Actually it doesn't. The privileges and immunities clause prevents a patchwork of such a right.

 

[surada]

Abortion kills. So no. It isn’t just a private choice. And denying anyone the right to snuff out a human life is a perfectly valid and rational decision society can make — and should. Every person first has a right to be alive.

How many children do you have? Is this strictly an academic exercise for you or do you have skin in the game?

 

[meaner gene]

Which BTW is the risk she voluntarily took when she had unprotected sex.

Have you heard of stealthing? Or rape?

 

[surada]

Given the increase in the numbers of black slaves between 1787 and 1865, it must now have been a large number.

Women could get pregnant every year or several times a year between miscarriages. There was no birth control. There were lots of young women and babies in the cemeteries. Do you know what sanctimonious asshole means?

 

[jwoodie]

I can compromise on restricting it. Can you compromise?

Sure. Leave it to the people of the States to work out a compromise. Why should you or I dictate to them? Personally, I would restrict abortions after detection of a fetal heartbeat (17-20 weeks), but it isn't just up to me to decide.

 

[meaner gene]

Every person first has a right to be alive.

If that was true, they would also have the right to healthcare.

Yet you argue against obamacare.

 

[jwoodie]

Have you heard of stealthing? Or rape?

What do those have to do with abortion?

 

[surada]

Sure. Leave it to the people of the States to work out a compromise. Why should you or I dictate to them? Personally, I would restrict abortions after detection of a fetal heartbeat (17-20 weeks), but it isn't just up to me to decide.

Quickening seems to mean when the baby first kicks. IMO abortion should be allowed up to 16 weeks. Heartbeat can be detected much earlier. But, some serious birth defects can't be tested for before 16 weeks.

 

[meaner gene]

What do those have to do with abortion?

Your premise is that those who voluntarily had unprotected sex should have no right to abortion. But those are those who didn't volunteer. What about them?

 

[surada]

If that was true, they would also have the right to healthcare.

Yet you argue against obamacare.

Ouch. These "conservatives" don't want universal healthcare even if it means a healthy workforce.

 

[Chuz Life]

There is also this;

 

[jwoodie]

Your premise is that those who voluntarily had unprotected sex should have no right to abortion. But those are those who didn't volunteer. What about them?

That is not MY premise. But why should viable fetuses be aborted just because rape or trickery was involved?

 

[surada]

That is not MY premise. But why should viable fetuses be aborted just because rape or trickery was involved?

Have you been pregnant?

 

[task0778]

She is the one who has to deal with it, she is the one who takes the risks, the job loss, the education loss, the loss of giving up a child after birth and deals with it all. An embryo has no conception, no feeling, nothing but a potential to be born and become. It's not meant to sound cold and callous, but when a fertilized egg is considered as important in terms of rights as the body it may grow in, or the child who is born - then I see something wrong with that.

"She is the one who has to deal with it, she is the one who takes the risks, the job loss, the education loss, the loss of giving up a child after birth and deals with it all"

Knowing all that, why isn't she on BC? Why doesn't she require her partner to use a condom? Or why doesn't she take a pregnancy test and if positive take the morning after pill? It's hard to feel bad for a woman who has all these options and avails herself of none of them. If we don't force people to deal with the consequences of their words and actions then there's no deterrence to further bad decisions. It's not the baby's fault, right? Why does the baby have to die because the parents were irresponsible?

For too many people on the Left, they see a fertilized egg as basically the same as a pimple, with no rights at all. And I see something wrong with that. I know you don't like the "pimple" reference, but the Left is willing to end the life of any unborn baby from conception all the way to point of birth. With no restrictions at all, which is virtually the same thing as removing a pimple. According to the Left, and unborn baby has no more of a right to life than a pimple, right?

BUT - we live in a society where compromises are necessary, especially when we cannot agree on much of anything regarding a specific issue like abortion. So, having said all that, people are going to have to find a way to deal with the problem. IMHO, the Roe v Wade decision by the 1973 SC has insufficient basis in the Constitution to be declared by 9 unelected people to be a constitutional right, and therefore should be overturned. Which means either the US Congress crafts a bipartisan abortion bill or the issue falls to the individual states to write their own abortion laws. Which is the way it oughta be in the 1st place, our elected state reps should legislate the issue and if the voters don't like it then they can replace the politicians if the legislation is not struck down in a court somewhere.

I believe the Senate is working on a bipartisan abortion bill, which I think would survive any legal challenges depending on what they eventually do. But whether they can do it remains to be seen because too many people on both sides don't want to compromise. Some people want no abortions at all while others want abortions to be legal right up to birth. Are there enough people in the middle that could reach some kind of deal? Dunno. Kinda doubt it.

Personally, I believe contraceptives should be legal and free. As should pregnancy tests and morning after pills, which I think can end a pregnancy within the 1st 10 weeks or so. But then things get sticky, once an unborn baby has a beating heart (6 weeks) it's tough to convince somebody like me that it's okay to terminate that life. It looks like we'll end up with many states banning abortions altogether while others allow it up to birth. And the rest with some varying restrictions. IOW, almost nobody is going to be happy about how things end up. Maybe they never will.

 

[meaner gene]

That is not MY premise. But why should viable fetuses be aborted just because rape or trickery was involved?

A handmaids tale?

 

[Muhammed]

I heard it in a discussion panel with historians and intellectuals on one of those 24/7 cable news networks last night....either CNN or msnbc....

It's called fake news for a reason.