Rape does not justify abortion

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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 offense 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.

An embryo or a fetus is not a person.

The correct answer.

A person does not exist till birth.

A statement of belief, not fact.

Just as the position that one is a person prior to birth is a belief, not fact; the question is otherwise moot per Casey.

And if it starts that early, then all those clamoring for "abortion rights" ARE indeed saying that the pre-born don't have a right to life. To the extent we don't know, therefore, I say we are kind of obliged to err on the side of caution.

Who are ‘we’ to make that decision, by what authority, and for whom – certainly not the state. If a women wishes to ‘err on the side of caution,’ she’s free to do so. But that’s her decision alone.

 

[syrenn]

We all have a right to life, even if you don't believe that rights come from the government the right to life is written into the constitution.



If the purpose of government is to protect the rights of those who cannot defend themselves because no one is less capable of defending their rights than an unborn child. Rape is a horrific crime, we all know that, but it does not justify anyone taking away the rights of an innocent person.

Roe v. Wade.

A woman does not need to justify anything to obtain an abortion. It is her body and she has absolute rights over her body.

She doesnt have rights over her child's body.

And no. She doesnt have an absolute right over her body. None of us do. There are alot of things we cant do to our body.

Agreed a woman does not have rights to another persons body. Remove the "body" from the woman and give it all the rights you want.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

We all have a right to life, even if you don't believe that rights come from the government the right to life is written into the constitution.

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 offense 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.

If the purpose of government is to protect the rights of those who cannot defend themselves because no one is less capable of defending their rights than an unborn child. Rape is a horrific crime, we all know that, but it does not justify anyone taking away the rights of an innocent person.

Roe v. Wade.

A woman does not need to justify anything to obtain an abortion. It is her body and she has absolute rights over her body.

Good point, the law doesn't worry about right and wrong, it just worries about rationalization.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

An embryo or a fetus is not a person.

You do know that the way the CDZ works is you back your arguments up with facts, not opinions, don't you?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If you support life at this level you must then follow the Catholic church and make sure that the ovum each month is given the opportunity for life. Each month of fertility the potential for life exists just as it does when the egg is finally fertilized (see link quote below). Since life is important you must also provide medical care so life has the opportunity to thrive. After birth your responsibility does not end as life then requires other supports and life is the critical piece. All healthcare should be provided free if necessary and must be supplied regardless of age or sickness. Life must be taken care of for as long as the person lives. When you agree to all this, and support all life, we will take you seriously. If life matters so much to you put your money where your mouth is.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...luding-late-term-abortions-2.html#post5858288

"Abolition of a woman's right to abortion, when and if she wants it, amounts to compulsory maternity: a form of rape by the State." Edward Abbey


Boston Review — Judith Jarvis Thomson
Top 10 Anti-Abortion Myths - Top 10 Myths About Abortion
Why Francis Beckwith

Why must I follow the Catholic Church, do they have a monopoly on morality I missed at some point in my education? My guess is that the Imams will be surprised to learn they have to be Catholics simply because you say so.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

An adult woman's rights trumps those of an embryo ESPECIALLY when its been implanted against her will.

I guess that means you agree with Akin when he said women can control whether they get pregnant. Hate to tell you this, but science disagrees with you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So a women should be forced to remember the worst thing that happen to her for the rest of her life? That is so barbaric and ridiculous and it tells women that only men know what they should do with their own body.

Do you think women can forget? do they have a magic ability that lets them turn trauma off unless they get pregnant?

 

[jillian]

Roe v. Wade.

A woman does not need to justify anything to obtain an abortion. It is her body and she has absolute rights over her body.

they hate that.

I agree. The OP argues the constitution...and yet Roe v. Wade is protected by the constitution.

they pick and choose... 2nd amendment good; 1st, not so much... heller..good; roe v wade, not so much.

they're funny that way.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Does one evil justify another? I don't consider abortion evil but what if the child is born because abortions are illegal thanks to republicans? Does the evil of not providing for the child with free health care and other welfare justify forcing a woman to carry to full term? Republicans want to cut this type assistance and none that I know of take any responsibility for the child after birth. Remember a woman who is raped did not choose to have a child and her circumstances may not allow it financially, emotionally, etc. So the option or choice is always hers. She is not an inhuman incubator!

Swing State Polls as of 8/22/12​

Florida Obama 49 Romney 46
Ohio 50 44
Virginia 50 45
Colorado 49 46
Nevada 49 45
Wisconsin 50 45
MI 44 47
PA 48 42​

This is still not the random reply zone.

 

[jasonnfree]

Maybe the pro lifers can contribute to a fund that will support the babies of women who were raped but didn't want to have the baby. Like from birth to age 18? If you all or so worried about life, dig deep.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

We all have a right to life, even if you don't believe that rights come from the government the right to life is written into the constitution.

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 offense 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.

If the purpose of government is to protect the rights of those who cannot defend themselves because no one is less capable of defending their rights than an unborn child. Rape is a horrific crime, we all know that, but it does not justify anyone taking away the rights of an innocent person.

In the (GOD FORBID!) event that any woman I love or know is raped and gets impregnated because of it (yes Congressman Akin, that is biologically possible, you twit): if that woman does not wish to carry the child of the rapist, then my vote is to throw logical consistency and morality out the window and not get in her way. And I would go so far as to say that the same rule would apply whether I knew the rape victim or not.

Life is sacred and abortion does take the life of a human being who is totally innocent regardless of how it came to exist. And so my position is a contradiction in the case of rape (and incest and in the case of a risk to the life of the mother or significant risk to her health). I admit the contradiction and do not alter my position one tiny bit because of it.

Congratulations on giving the first actual reply to my post. It only took 11 tries before someone actually thought before they tried. I admire your honesty.

 

[syrenn]

We all have a right to life, even if you don't believe that rights come from the government the right to life is written into the constitution.

If the purpose of government is to protect the rights of those who cannot defend themselves because no one is less capable of defending their rights than an unborn child. Rape is a horrific crime, we all know that, but it does not justify anyone taking away the rights of an innocent person.

Roe v. Wade.

A woman does not need to justify anything to obtain an abortion. It is her body and she has absolute rights over her body.

Good point, the law doesn't worry about right and wrong, it just worries about rationalization.

You ask about the law and the constitution. I gave it to you. The rest of your argument is personal opinion.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

We all have a right to life, even if you don't believe that rights come from the government the right to life is written into the constitution.

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 offense 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.

If the purpose of government is to protect the rights of those who cannot defend themselves because no one is less capable of defending their rights than an unborn child. Rape is a horrific crime, we all know that, but it does not justify anyone taking away the rights of an innocent person.

A person does not exist till birth.

Age is measured from birth not conception.

In China they measure age from conception, what actual facts do you have to back your position?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Do you also support free health care for all?

This is the debate zone, not the random reply zone.

Its not a random reply. The fact that you think the two are unrelated however speaks volumes.

They are unrelated.

By the way, did you know that the entitlement system you support depends on population growth that has been decimated by abortion?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Do you also support free health care for all?

nope...and he hates regulations and he can't stand police. he's totally laissez faire...

except when it comes to women's bodies.

Yes, I am totally free market. Not sure what that has to do with the discussion since we are talking about morality and rights, but feel free to keep posting without actually making a defense of abortion.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A person does not exist till birth.

A statement of belief, not fact.

Age is measured from birth not conception.

Here, that is true. It is not necessarily true everywhere. But, regardless, it is totally irrelevant.

Sperm, eggs and embryos can all be frozen, then thawed and still viable to continue on into life. Once birth has occurred, we cannot freeze a breathing person and bring them back.

Is it a lack of technology or could it be that we cannot freeze and then thaw "life"?

That is not true. The diving reflex allows people who freeze to death to be brought back to life.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So a woman is raped, gets pregnant and the woman's life in endanger medically, the woman can't abort it per the law via GOP. So the rape victim dies giving birth. And the rape victim would have no choice in this matter.
That's the GOP way. Reminds me of the Taliban

The law does not say that.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

LOL

I did have three drinks at my sisters wedding this past weekend. Thats three more than Ive had in the last ten years, so maybe.

But reread what I posted and come back with a non humor response ( though this response was quite funny and clever )

I asked a question at the end of that post that I think is an interesting one...what do you think? Lack of technology or proof of life?

There is no "right" answer. Its not a set up...Im just asking your opinion.

I still don't see the connection to the Topic.

No one and I mean NO ONE, on either side of this particular issue, is saying we all dont have a right to life.

In fact, thats the wrong question...the question is: When does life begin?

If we can freeze embryos, sperm and eggs and thaw them out, implant and still make a baby, but we cant do that with a living breathing already birthed person, MAYBE that shows us where life is and where it is not

Its a thought...thats all nothing more...what do you think?

We can freeze frogs and bring them back to life, does that mean frogs are not alive? I think the fault here is not the freezing process, it is your definition of life.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The basic issue IMHO is when the right to life starts; do we want to allow the termination of life prior to birth? 10 minutes prior? 10 days? 10 weeks? At conception? At what point should our society confer that most basic right: to life.

And then there's this - if you decide that the right to life begins at conception, then why should the circumstances of the conception influence the decision? Should we deny the right to life for a fetus based on those curcumstances? Where's the justice in that? The fetus is terminated due to events beyond it's control?

I understand the injustice of rape or incest, no question the victim already has to deal with a great deal of pain without an unwanted pregnancy as a reminder. But is that worse than terminating a life, even if an unborn one? Not an easy decision.

That’s for the individual to determine, not society; it’s a question best left to theologians, ethicists, and philosophers – the individual then decides which answer best comports with his personal belief, free of interference from the state.

I think it oughta be a local or state decision for now, rather than a federal law or using federal funds. But thast's just me.

It’s not appropriate for any jurisdiction – Federal, state, local – to decide; as any such measure would be un-Constitutional, such as the law struck down in Oklahoma earlier this year.

The whole OP is a none issue.


There is no ....need.... for any justification.... to anyone at all for having an abortion.

True. One is not compelled to ‘justify’ the exercising of a fundamental right, in this case the right to privacy.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

We all have a right to life, even if you don't believe that rights come from the government the right to life is written into the constitution.



If the purpose of government is to protect the rights of those who cannot defend themselves because no one is less capable of defending their rights than an unborn child. Rape is a horrific crime, we all know that, but it does not justify anyone taking away the rights of an innocent person.

Roe v. Wade.

A woman does not need to justify anything to obtain an abortion. It is her body and she has absolute rights over her body.

they hate that.

Actually, I don't. I see it as irrelevant because we are discussing what should be, not what is. I am sure there were plenty of people that used Dred Scott as justification for slavery, that did not make it right, did it?