Deliberating The 'Right' To Kill

[Moonglow]

Slavery was allowed up until 1866. Women were denied the vote up until 1920.

Now tell us when child labor was outlawed.

 

[protectionist]

Now tell us when child labor was outlawed.

I'll tell you when abortion was only a matter between a woman and her doctor > NEVER.

 

[Cecilie1200]

For one most Americans support abortion for rape and incest or medical emergency reasons. And America is not a theocracy. So I do not see it happening.

What does "theocracy" have to do with anything? Are you of the massively-incorrect opinion that only religious people object to abortion? Are you also of the massively-incorrect opinion that even if abortion WAS solely a religious idea, that somehow magically makes abortion part of the US Constitution? Or that "It's religious! Aaaaargh!" somehow makes it irrelevant whether or not abortion is in the Constitution?

 

[Cecilie1200]

If you think America is going to ban abortion outright I do not see it happening. Like I said America is not a theocracy and most Americans don't agree with banning it totally.

How did we get to "ban abortion"? Do you have ANYTHING to say that isn't a straw man?

 

[Cecilie1200]

There is something else that concerns me. If abortion is illegal or more difficult to get will there be a much higher number of women dying from illegal abortions?

Were there before Roe v. Wade? Do you assume that women are ignorant, instinct-driven animals incapable of making judgements about their own actions and the potential impact on their lives?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Abortion is the argument you are making. You are arguing that it isn’t there. All I want to know is where the Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness is found in the Constitution.

Why do they have to be, other than to fuel your straw man?

For the record, the assumption of the Founding Fathers was that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are (or should be) the natural default setting of humans. The Constitution exists not to grant those things, but to set up the structure of the government charged with protecting those natural defaults, and then to LIMIT THE GOVERNMENT in the ways it can infringe on those natural defaults for a person in their pursuit of protecting them for others.

Because the purpose of the Constitution is to set out and limit powers of the federal government, anything that isn't mentioned there is not and should not be undertaken by the federal government.

From that perspective, ALL of the Bill of Rights address life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, even though they don't explicitly use those words. They were written to say, "Government will not interfere with the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of its citizens in these areas, with these exceptions (where there are exceptions)."

First Amendment - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

You have no liberty, and cannot pursue your happiness, if you cannot speak your thoughts and beliefs freely without fear of government punishment, or cannot freely engage in the practice of your religious beliefs, or associate with like-minded people of your choosing or petition the government which exists to protect your rights regarding a violation thereof.

Second Amendment - A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Here we have all three. You have no life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness if you do not have the ability to protect all of those things from violation by others.

Third Amendment - No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Not really a problem now, but it was when the Constitution was written. And how do you have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness when the government can take control of your home and property for its own purposes without your consent, to install agents of itself at will?

Fourth Amendment - The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

This one's pretty explicit in protecting our liberty. Notice that it is NOT granting us our liberty, but assuming it and restricting the specific occasions when the government - in the form of the legal system - can infringe on it.

Fifth Amendment - No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Here we find life and liberty being mentioned explicitly, as well as property, which the writings of the Founders tells us they equated with the pursuit of happiness. Notice again that it doesn't grant us rights, but again specifies limitations on the government infringing on those rights.

Sixth Amendment - In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Once again, we are discussing infringements on our liberty by the government through its action arm, the legal system.

Seventh Amendment - In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

And again, our liberty is protected against the government in the form of the legal system.

Eighth Amendment - Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

And more protection for our liberty and property.

Ninth Amendment - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

This is one of the two Amendments in the Bill of Rights about which people know the least, stating the Founders' assumption that our rights which comprise their belief in "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" exist as a natural default and do not have to be explicitly numerated in the Constitution to exist, because they are not granted by the Constitution.

Tenth Amendment - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The other Amendment people know nothing about, which continues to clarify the existence of our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness where the Constitution or the laws of the states do not clearly carve out an exception for the government to be allowed to impact those freedoms.

So, to be clear, the Constitution is very clear that it exists to numerate the very specific occasions in which the federal government can infringe and impose on its people. If the Constitution doesn't grant a power to the federal government, then it is because the federal government does not have and should not have that power. Abortion is never mentioned, which means the federal government has no business in that area. The states, however, have the power to decide the question in their laws under the Tenth Amendment.

And your argument that abortion can be read into the Constitution where it doesn't exist, because "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness aren't mentioned either" has failed in epic fashion.

Here endeth the lesson.

 

[Cecilie1200]

However outlawing abortion causes another problem. You have many women dying every year from illegal abortions done by non professionals. But I would outlaw it except in cases like I mentioned in my last post.

Prove it.

 

[shoshi]

Were there before Roe v. Wade? Do you assume that women are ignorant, instinct-driven animals incapable of making judgements about their own actions and the potential impact on their lives?

Yes there were. many women died from illegal abortions before roe vs Wade. Do your research sometime.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yes there were. many women died from illegal abortions before roe vs Wade. Do your research sometime.

Oh, really? And do you have proof of this, or do you just have "I know it's true, because I was told to know it"? Because I note that you didn't SHOW any proof. You just ordered me to go find your proof for you. Unfortunately, I won't be doing your homework for you.

 

[shoshi]

Oh, really? And do you have proof of this, or do you just have "I know it's true, because I was told to know it"? Because I note that you didn't SHOW any proof. You just ordered me to go find your proof for you. Unfortunately, I won't be doing your homework for you.

If you are that ignorant you are not worth talking to. If you had basic knowledge of your own history you would know that.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If you are that ignorant you are not worth talking to. If you had basic knowledge of your own history you would know that.

In other words, "I don't need no proof! I have talking points!"

Abortion is no longer a dangerous procedure. This applies not just to therapeutic abortions as performed in hospitals but also to so-called illegal abortions as done by physicians. In 1957 there were only 260 deaths in the whole country attributed to abortions of any kind.

In New York City in 1921 there were 144 abortion deaths. In 1951 there were only 15; and, while the abortion death rate was going down so strikingly in that 30-year period, we know what happened to the population and the birth rate. Two corollary factors must be mentioned here: first, chemotherapy and antibiotics have come in, benefiting all surgical procedures as well as abortion. Second, and even more important, the conference estimated that 90 percent of all illegal abortions are presently being done by physicians.

Call them what you will, abortionists or anything else, they are still physicians, trained as such; and many of them are in good standing in their communities. They must do a pretty good job if the death rate is as low as it is… abortion, whether therapeutic or illegal, is in the main no longer dangerous. - Mary S. Calderone, Medical Director of Planned Parenthood in 1960.

Just in case your talking points didn't mention this, Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973.

How many deaths were we talking about when abortion was illegal? In NARAL., we generally emphasized the drama of the individual case, not the mass statistics, but when we spoke of the latter it was always “5,000 to 10,000 deaths a year.” I confess that I knew the figures were totally false, and I suppose the others did too if they stopped to think of it.

But in the “morality” of our revolution, it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics? The overriding concern was to get the laws eliminated, and anything within reason that had to be done was permissible. - Dr. Bernard Nathanson, co-founder of NARAL, in his 1977 book Aborting America.

Those who want the [abortion] law to be liberalized will stress the hazards of illegal abortion and claim that hundreds, or thousands, of women die unnecessarily each year — when the actual number is far lower. - Malcolm Potts, Medical Director of International Planned Parenthood Federation in 1977.

Do your talking points have anything to say about the contradiction of your heroes now versus their predecessors (that would mean "people who had their jobs before them", because it's obvious you won't understand words with more than two syllables)? Or is this a Big Brother scenario where you just mindlessly chant, "We've ALWAYS been at war with East Asia, and we've ALWAYS believed that thousands of women die from abortion every year, because I was told to believe I had always believed it!"? (Big Brother, by the way, is a reference to a book called 1984, where everyone was taught to be a stupid, gullible drone like you.)

If you need to go ask your masters what you're supposed to "know" about this, we can wait.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No you don't.


Amazing how much of the propaganda you've swallowed.

Apparently, swallowing the propaganda is easier than all that messy "Thinking and having original opinions" stuff.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You made a claim about deaths that is Leftist propaganda.

And when challenged to prove it instead of simply stating it as "fact", he/she/it got all hostile and outraged at the idea of having to actually prove anything.

Saves so much time, though, when they just tell me straight out that I can stop pretending their people with brains.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Yes there were. many women died from illegal abortions before roe vs Wade. Do your research sometime.

A FUCKLOAD of women have died from legal abortions after Roe v Wade,

Not as many as the babies who have been slaughtered, but far more than died from illegal abortions.

 

[PoliticalChic]

In other words, "I don't need no proof! I have talking points!"

Abortion is no longer a dangerous procedure. This applies not just to therapeutic abortions as performed in hospitals but also to so-called illegal abortions as done by physicians. In 1957 there were only 260 deaths in the whole country attributed to abortions of any kind.

In New York City in 1921 there were 144 abortion deaths. In 1951 there were only 15; and, while the abortion death rate was going down so strikingly in that 30-year period, we know what happened to the population and the birth rate. Two corollary factors must be mentioned here: first, chemotherapy and antibiotics have come in, benefiting all surgical procedures as well as abortion. Second, and even more important, the conference estimated that 90 percent of all illegal abortions are presently being done by physicians.

Call them what you will, abortionists or anything else, they are still physicians, trained as such; and many of them are in good standing in their communities. They must do a pretty good job if the death rate is as low as it is… abortion, whether therapeutic or illegal, is in the main no longer dangerous. - Mary S. Calderone, Medical Director of Planned Parenthood in 1960.

Just in case your talking points didn't mention this, Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973.

How many deaths were we talking about when abortion was illegal? In NARAL., we generally emphasized the drama of the individual case, not the mass statistics, but when we spoke of the latter it was always “5,000 to 10,000 deaths a year.” I confess that I knew the figures were totally false, and I suppose the others did too if they stopped to think of it.

But in the “morality” of our revolution, it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics? The overriding concern was to get the laws eliminated, and anything within reason that had to be done was permissible. - Dr. Bernard Nathanson, co-founder of NARAL, in his 1977 book Aborting America.

Those who want the [abortion] law to be liberalized will stress the hazards of illegal abortion and claim that hundreds, or thousands, of women die unnecessarily each year — when the actual number is far lower. - Malcolm Potts, Medical Director of International Planned Parenthood Federation in 1977.

Do your talking points have anything to say about the contradiction of your heroes now versus their predecessors (that would mean "people who had their jobs before them", because it's obvious you won't understand words with more than two syllables)? Or is this a Big Brother scenario where you just mindlessly chant, "We've ALWAYS been at war with East Asia, and we've ALWAYS believed that thousands of women die from abortion every year, because I was told to believe I had always believed it!"? (Big Brother, by the way, is a reference to a book called 1984, where everyone was taught to be a stupid, gullible drone like you.)

If you need to go ask your masters what you're supposed to "know" about this, we can wait.

I love research.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I love research.

Well, that's what happens when leftist dipshits demand that I do their homework for them: they get proof that they're as wrong as I said they were. Next time, maybe she should do it herself.