Another discussion about abortion

[BackAgain]

My point is still valid.

Maybe. But you haven’t made it all that clear

People vote to decide who decide things.

No. Mostly people vote for legislators and the President. They then make the decisions.

And the Constitution itself was ratified by state legislatures who were voted into office democratically.

True. But not of any particular relevance to the discussion. The laws that can be passed are limited by several things within our Constitution. Purported “laws” that are in derogation of the Constitutional limits are no laws at all. They are void.

Ergo? You've still not shown why the unborn should be persons, only that if they were, then they would have rights. That is true, but trite.

Nope. Not what I said. Your “understanding” falls short.

Yea. I did show why. If you don’t grasp it, I’m okay with you going back to the OP. The short version is our Constitution serves to protect human life. A human life is a person. A person is a unique human being.

And you're no different than the folks who used unelected and undemocratic courts to push through their agenda to legalize abortions nationwide.

You mean like the Roe v. Wade decision? Wrong. I am completely different than that. In fact, it’s what I am saying needs to be now corrected. If life begins at conception, than the Constitution demands that such life be protected.

Yes, the courts should protect rights. But I don't think they have the competence to decide all on their own whether an unborn fetus is a person.

Ok. But they seemed to assume they had such ability and authority in Roe.

Now they say it’s a state matter. I disagree. Why should snuffing out a human life be illegal in one state and legal in another if our national Constitution protects human life?

That's a fundamental decision with huge implications for the entire country and there needs to be broad consensus (or at least as much as we can musted in these fractious times) on such a thing.

Not really. It should be decided on our Conatitutional basis.

If 50% disagree, frankly that’s just tough shit.

 

[Winco]

​

Guttmacher Institute — a leading reproductive health research organization — regularly studies the demographics of abortion in the U.S.

• Fact: A 2014 Guttmacher Institute study found that 24% of all abortion patients identified as Catholic, and 13% identified as evangelical Protestant.
• These are not marginal figures — they show that millions of religious women, including conservative Christians, have had abortions.

Guttmacher Study Summary

 

[Eman623]

Yea. I did show why. If you don’t grasp it, I’m okay with you going back to the OP. The short version is our Constitution serves to protect human life. A human life is a person. A person is a unique human being.

The Constitution does not define what a person is. You are trying to force the definition so you can demand unelected courts rule in a way pleasing to you.

You mean like the Roe v. Wade decision? Wrong. I am completely different than that. In fact, it’s what I am saying needs to be now corrected. If life begins at conception, than the Constitution demands that such life be protected.

Life is present even before conception. That is not the question. It always goes back to personhood which IMO is much more a philosophical and ethical question than a legal one.

Ok. But they seemed to assume they had such ability and authority in Roe.

They were wrong.

Now they say it’s a state matter. I disagree. Why should snuffing out a human life be illegal in one state and legal in another if our national Constitution protects human life?

Why should the death penalty be legal in one state but not another? Such is the way of federalism.

Not really. It should be decided on our Conatitutional basis.


If 50% disagree, frankly that’s just tough shit.

Why? Because you'll never be able to sway public opinion to your position, which is not even close to 50%. More like 36%.

Public Opinion on Abortion

While public support for legal abortion has fluctuated some in two decades of polling, it has remained relatively stable over the past five years.

www.pewresearch.org

 

[Eman623]

That is a classic example of mob rule, populism.

Calling it mob rule seems a little overheated. When was the last time you saw an abortion riot?

Populism also seems inapt. I would call it popular government if it passes laws that align with the way the most people feel.

 

[Chuz Life]

Calling it mob rule seems a little overheated. When was the last time you saw an abortion riot?

Populism also seems inapt. I would call it popular government if it passes laws that align with the way the most people feel.

Semantics.

You are still arguing for "might makes right" and I have to wonder if you really believe that the majority is always "right" or entitled to pretend like they aren't wrong (incorrect.)

 

[Eman623]

Semantics.

You are still arguing for "might makes right" and I have to wonder if you really believe that the majority is always "right" or entitled to pretend like they aren't wrong (incorrect.)

You're the one talking about right and wrong here, not me.

I'm only saying the will of the majority should generally prevail. Not because it's always right. Because it's how democracies work - and please don't start going on about constitutional republics like BackAgain. You know what I mean.

 

[BackAgain]

The Constitution does not define what a person is.

We all know that. Which is precisely why interpretation is necessary.

You are trying to force the definition so you can demand unelected courts rule in a way pleasing to you.

Wrong. What I am suggesting is that if, as definitions make clear, a zygote, fetus and embryo are human life and each one is unique, then they are persons. And those are beings with a Constitutionally guaranteed right to life. You don’t like that? Ok. But if the proper case can be brought before the SCOTUS, neither of us will be getting a vote

Life is present even before conception.

Not really. A brain cell or a nerve cell or a skin cell are all living cells, but not human lives.

That is not the question. It always goes back to personhood which IMO is much more a philosophical and ethical question than a legal one.

It may come down to personhood. And whether a zygote or fetus or embryo is a person’s exactly the issue presented.

They were wrong.

Who was wrong? And about what? And what’s the actual basis for your claim?

Why should the death penalty be legal in one state but not another? Such is the way of federalism.

The Constiturion says the right to life can’t be denied without due process. It doesn’t say that it can’t be taken as a penalty for hideous crimes provided due process has been properly rendered.

Why? Because you'll never be able to sway public opinion to your position, which is not even close to 50%. More like 36%.

Public Opinion on Abortion

While public support for legal abortion has fluctuated some in two decades of polling, it has remained relatively stable over the past five years.

www.pewresearch.org

Again. We don’t have to sway public opinion. The Constitution controls, not some democratic vote. We are not a democracy. We are a Constitutional republic.

 

[Eman623]

We all know that. Which is precisely why interpretation is necessary.

Wrong. What I am suggesting is that if, as definitions make clear, a zygote, fetus and embryo are human life and each one is unique, then they are persons. And those are beings with a Constitutionally guaranteed right to life. You don’t like that? Ok. But if the proper case can be brought before the SCOTUS, neither of us will be getting a vote
Not really. A brain cell or a nerve cell or a skin cell are all living cells, but not human lives.

It may come down to personhood. And whether a zygote or fetus or embryo is a person’s exactly the issue presented.

I do not accept this as a "person" in any meaningful sense of the word. At best it is a potential person.

Who was wrong? And about what? And what’s the actual basis for your claim?

The court that decided Roe. My basis is that it was overturned as unconstitutional.

The Constiturion says the right to life can’t be denied without due process. It doesn’t say that it can’t be taken as a penalty for hideous crimes provided due process has been properly rendered.

Not the point. The point is that if you think the 14A's guarantee of due process preempts state's rights, then you might think the SCOTUS should rule that the DP is either legal everywhere or legal nowhere. That it cannot be legal in one state and banned in the state next door. Are you in fact arguing that?

Again. We don’t have to sway public opinion. The Constitution controls, not some democratic vote. We are not a democracy. We are a Constitutional republic.

Hmmm. Seems like you're trying to sway public opinion (or at least opinion here on USMB) that public opinion does not need to be swayed. Back on our Earth, abortion is a state issue and will be for the foreseeable future. If you want to change that, then I think you have your work cut out for you.

 

[BackAgain]

I do not accept this as a "person" in any meaningful sense of the word.

Ok. Many people do, though. For in the end it always nt gonna be a giraffe.

At best it is a potential person.

No. It is a person in any early stage of development.

 

[Chuz Life]

You're the one talking about right and wrong here, not me.

I'm only saying the will of the majority should generally prevail. Not because it's always right. Because it's how democracies work - and please don't start going on about constitutional republics like BackAgain. You know what I mean.

I knew you would try to take that ******* diversion. That's why I put "incorrect" in parentheses to clarify and head that off, but you still took the diversion.

The views of popular opinion may hold for a very long time, but if those opinions are not based on fact, consistency, and the most solid of fundamental principles, the arguments that ARE based on the facts, consistency, and solid principles can (I think will) eventually prevail.

 

[Eman623]

Ok. Many people do, though. For in the end it always nt gonna be a giraffe.

No. It is a person in any early stage of development.

Agree to disagree.

 

[Zincwarrior]

1. If we look up the definition of “person” we see things like “a human being regarded as being an individual.” And since we aren’t talking about corpses, I say we must add “living” to “human being.”

2. We know when a male’s spermatazum succeeds in entering a female’s ovum, that new being has its own unique identity. And we also know what kind of being it is: a human being. Huh. A unique human being

3. It is accepted by a large percentage of doctors that “life” begins at the moment of conception.

Therefore, if we agree to use actual definitions, we would be forced to agree that, absent lawful duty (like an “executioner”), absent being engaged in a war and absent self-defense for life threatening crimes, the taking of a human life is a homicide.

I regularly see “liberals” argue for abortion “rights” by arguing that the blastula or zygote is merely a “cluster of cells” but not “life” yet because — stage of development. Yet, even some strident abortion rights advocates concede that life begins at conception. They argue against any abortion laws which “limit access to abortion” on when. When does a “life” become an”person?”

Well, given those first three numbered paragraphs, it should be considered a “person” also at conception.

If men fon't want abortions keep their zippers closed.

 

[Chuz Life]

Agree to disagree.

Were YOU conceived?

Answer truthfully.

 

[BackAgain]

Agree to disagree.

I don’t believe I was seeking to force you to agree. And I certainly do disagree with much of what you say. And that’s fine, too.

 

[Zincwarrior]

It all comes down to personhood.

View attachment 1146378

When men can be pregnant, they have a point.

 

[Eman623]

I knew you would try to take that ******* diversion. That's why I put "incorrect" in parentheses to clarify and head that off, but you still took the diversion.

You seem to be moving away from the topic and making this personal, about me and what I allegedly think, or what you want to imagine I think.

The views of popular opinion may hold for a very long time, but if those opinions are not based on fact, consistency, and the most solid of fundamental principles, the arguments that ARE based on the facts, consistency, and solid principles can (I think will) eventually prevail.

It's been said that Americans will eventually do the right thing, but only after all other possible alternatives have been exhausted.

 

[BackAgain]

If men fon't want abortions keep their zippers closed.

If any person thinks murder should be criminal, don’t commit murder.

Your proposition is trite and meaningless.

 

[Chuz Life]

You seem to be moving away from the topic and making this personal, about me and what I allegedly think, or what you want to imagine I think.


It's been said that Americans will eventually do the right thing, but only after all other possible alternatives have been exhausted.

You made the attempt at diversion, even after I put the word "incorrect" into parentheses to clarify what I meant by the word "wrong."

That's not making it about you.

Only pointing out what YOU did.

 

[BackAgain]

When men can be pregnant, they have a point.

Silly. If someone wants to kidnap another person, just because it she may not be my own daughter doesn’t mean that I (and numerous others in our society) can’t proscribe such behavior.

 

[Eman623]

Were YOU conceived?

Answer truthfully.

Not sure what you mean by "answer truthfully". I have no reason to lie to you and I am puzzled by the insinuation otherwise.

But yes, I was conceived, gestated, born, raised and lived long enough to repeat the process again with my wife. The whole package.