Bfgrn
Gold Member
- Apr 4, 2009
- 16,829
- 2,496
- 245
The Politics of the "Abortion" Word Games
- Thread starter PoliticalChic
- Start date
Bfgrn
Gold Member
- Apr 4, 2009
- 16,829
- 2,496
- 245
14th Amendment
The Fourteenth Amendment addresses many aspects of citizenship and the rights of citizens. The most commonly used -- and frequently litigated -- phrase in the amendment is "equal protection of the laws", which figures prominently in a wide variety of landmark cases, including Brown v. Board of Education (racial discrimination), Roe v. Wade (reproductive rights), Bush v. Gore (election recounts), Reed v. Reed (gender discrimination), and University of California v. Bakke (racial quotas in education). See more...
Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The Fourteenth Amendment addresses many aspects of citizenship and the rights of citizens. The most commonly used -- and frequently litigated -- phrase in the amendment is "equal protection of the laws", which figures prominently in a wide variety of landmark cases, including Brown v. Board of Education (racial discrimination), Roe v. Wade (reproductive rights), Bush v. Gore (election recounts), Reed v. Reed (gender discrimination), and University of California v. Bakke (racial quotas in education). See more...
Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
C_Clayton_Jones
Diamond Member
True, whether one accepts the Constitutional right to privacy or not is of no consequence, it exists nonetheless, it is the law of the land nonetheless, and the states are prohibited from violating the right to privacy accordingly.
C_Clayton_Jones
Diamond Member
JoeMoma
Platinum Member
- Nov 22, 2014
- 23,829
- 11,665
- 950
Why the red? do you think you are a mod?
link? Use some common sense. Abortion was illegal before Roe vs. Wade. Was it because a fetus at that time was considered a vegetable?
JoeMoma
Platinum Member
- Nov 22, 2014
- 23,829
- 11,665
- 950
If a fetus were a person then the right to privacy issue would be trumped.
JoeMoma
Platinum Member
- Nov 22, 2014
- 23,829
- 11,665
- 950
Damn! You actually supported what I said in post in your 498. The surpreme court determined a fetus is not a person.
JoeB131
Diamond Member
Ohhh, more PC Brain drippings.
Here's the reality. Women are going to have abortions. Even Conservative, Christian and Republican women.
When I was in the service, I knew a gal not unlike yourself. Asian, Christian, brought up in a good home with traditional values. And she was dating one of my fellow NCO's who was really kind of a cad. Cheated on her, humiliated her in front of his friends, and so on.
And when he wasn't making good on his promises to marry her, she "forgot" to take her birth control pills.
Want to take a guess where that fetus ended up? I'll give you a hint. She didn't want her parents to know she wasn't still a virgin at 22.
Well, they broke up, I pretty much stopped talking to the guy. (Again, this was back in the 1980's before I realized that the GOP was full of shit on abortion and social issues). Then they got back together and the same thing happened.
Here's the thing. It would be WONDERFUL if we had less abortions performed. Absolutely.
But you don't get there by waiving big placards with pictures of medical waste at people.
You get there with better sex education, better availability to contraception, and better social supports so that when you are just starting out in your 20's, you have an abortion because you don't have medical insurance but you DO have $65,000 in student loans you are paying off.
Derideo_Te
Je Suis Charlie
- Mar 2, 2013
- 20,461
- 7,961
- 360
What about the right of a fetus to not be incarcerated simply because a pregnant woman committed a crime? Does the fetus have the right to a lawyer provided by the state? If not then why not? Are you prepared to pay for lawyers for fetuses? Would a fetus that was conceived by two foreigners while visiting Disneyworld on their honeymoon be entitled to American citizenship?
By declaring that a fetus is a person you open up a whole can of worms as to where those rights begin and end. Obviously you are incapable of thinking through what you are suggesting.
Last edited:
C_Clayton_Jones
Diamond Member
Neither the Roe nor Casey Court sought to decide if abortion was 'good' or 'bad,' 'right' or 'wrong,' 'moral' or 'immoral,' or was 'sanctioned' by any religion's doctrine and dogma.
The Supreme Court sought only to explore the Constitutionality of laws seeking to compel a woman to give birth against her will, if those laws were consistent with established precedent, and whether or not such laws were repugnant to our long-standing tradition of individual liberty and restricting government overreach.
By invalidating these laws – and later reaffirming that other such measures were likewise un-Constitutional – the Court only removed from the political realm one solution intended to address the problem; leaving citizens at liberty to seek other means by which to end the practice of abortion that indeed conform with the Constitution and its case law, allowing each citizen to decide for himself the merits of the issue in accordance with his own conscience and good faith, free from unwarranted interference by the state.
It is consequently incumbent upon those opposed to abortion to bring about its end while respecting the rights of their fellow citizens.
The Supreme Court sought only to explore the Constitutionality of laws seeking to compel a woman to give birth against her will, if those laws were consistent with established precedent, and whether or not such laws were repugnant to our long-standing tradition of individual liberty and restricting government overreach.
By invalidating these laws – and later reaffirming that other such measures were likewise un-Constitutional – the Court only removed from the political realm one solution intended to address the problem; leaving citizens at liberty to seek other means by which to end the practice of abortion that indeed conform with the Constitution and its case law, allowing each citizen to decide for himself the merits of the issue in accordance with his own conscience and good faith, free from unwarranted interference by the state.
It is consequently incumbent upon those opposed to abortion to bring about its end while respecting the rights of their fellow citizens.
Dana7360
Diamond Member
- Aug 6, 2014
- 15,147
- 13,605
- 2,405
No you're wrong. Abortion has been legal in my state since the people of my state had their first chance to vote on the subject in 1968. So abortion has been legal in my state for 47 years.
We've had two more chances to vote on the abortion issue. Again in the early 1980s when we voted to use state tax dollars to pay for abortion. It passed and I voted in the majority. So our state medicaid dollars have been paying for abortions for around 35 years.
Then again in the early 1990s. we had the chance to vote on an initiative that said that no matter what DC does, no matter what any judge says, no matter what any politician does in our state congress, abortion stays legal and safe in my state. It passed again and I voted with the majority. So no matter what any judge or politician in DC or politician in our state congress says or does, abortion stays legal and safe in my state forever.
JoeMoma
Platinum Member
- Nov 22, 2014
- 23,829
- 11,665
- 950
Just because I didn't address those things does not mean that they are not addressable. However, under current law it would be a moot point since a fetus is not considered a person.
JoeMoma
Platinum Member
- Nov 22, 2014
- 23,829
- 11,665
- 950
Good point. Abortion was legal in some states before Roe vs. Wade. In many states it was not.
As far as that law your state passed in the early 1990s, that is absurd. Passing a law that says the law cannot be changed has no merit. If a future generation has the votes to change the law, they will do it.
saintmichaeldefendthem
Gold Member
There is no right to an abortion in the Constitution. Calling it "privacy" doesn't change that fact.
HenryBHough
Diamond Member
Less risk of prosecution for liberals since the product of their romps never would mature into actual humans.
Derideo_Te
Je Suis Charlie
- Mar 2, 2013
- 20,461
- 7,961
- 360
There is a right to privacy in the Constitution and you have no right to shove your meddling sanctimonious nose into any woman's uterus without her explicit permission.
TSJohnson
Active Member
Report you for being offensive? That's what just happened.
Bfgrn
Gold Member
- Apr 4, 2009
- 16,829
- 2,496
- 245
The irony of the OP title...
The position of the right on abortion was driven BY politics, not morality, ethics or the concern for the unborn. Conservatives show no concern for the crawling or the walking, why would anyone believe they care about an egg or embryo.
In a 7-2 decision by a conservative leaning Supreme Court, Roe v. Wade really was about abortion, nothing more or less. To read the actual opinion, as almost no one ever does, is to understand that the seven middle-aged to elderly men in the majority certainly didn’t think they were making a statement about women’s rights: women and their voices are nearly absent from the opinion.
It’s a case about the rights of doctors – fellow professionals, after all – who faced criminal prosecution in states across the country for acting in what they considered to be the best interests of their patients. In “Before Roe v. Wade: Voices That Shaped the Abortion Debate Before the Supreme Court’s Ruling,” a book collecting pre-Roe documents that Reva B. Siegel and I published, we reprint an account by Dr. Jane E. Hodgson, a Mayo Clinic-trained obstetrician/gynecologist, of her arrest in St. Paul in 1970 for performing a first-trimester abortion for a patient who had contracted German measles in the fourth week of pregnancy. (In those days before immunization eradicated the threat posed to pregnant women by German measles, the disease commonly caused serious birth defects.) Justice Harry A. Blackmun, formerly the Mayo Clinic’s lawyer, knew Dr. Hodgson’s story; I had found her account, published in the clinic’s alumni magazine, in the justice’s files at the Library of Congress.
In decriminalizing abortion, the justices were reflecting a rapid sea change in public opinion that moved over the course of a decade from the elites of the public health and legal professions to ordinary people who viewed the issue as one of policy rather than, as many later would, personal identity. A Gallup poll in the summer of 1972 found 64 percent of Americans agreeing with the statement that “The decision to have an abortion should be made solely by a woman and her physician.” A majority of all identified groups, including Catholics, agreed with that statement. There was almost no difference between men and women. The group expressing the strongest agreement – 68 percent – was made up of Republicans. George Gallup’s syndicated column discussing the poll results, “Abortion Seen Up to Woman, Doctor,” which we reprint in the book, was also in Justice Blackmun’s files.
more
All of PC's ridicule of Liberals and progressives applies to Republicans before the Evangelical right politicized abortion when the IRS sought to revoke the tax-exempt status of Bob Jones University in 1975 because the school's regulations forbade interracial dating; African Americans, in fact, had been denied admission altogether until 1971, and it took another four years before unmarried African Americans were allowed to enroll.
Paul M. Weyrich, a longtime conservative activist, saw the evangelical discontent over the Bob Jones case as the opening he was looking for to start a new conservative movement using evangelicals as foot soldiers.
During the meeting in Washington, D.C., Weyrich went on to characterize the leaders of the Religious Right as reluctant to take up the abortion cause even close to a decade after the Roe ruling. "I had discussions with all the leading lights of the movement in the late 1970s and early 1980s, post–Roe v. Wade," he said, "and they were all arguing that that decision was one more reason why Christians had to isolate themselves from the rest of the world."
"What caused the movement to surface," Weyrich reiterated,"was the federal government's moves against Christian schools." The IRS threat against segregated schools, he said, "enraged the Christian community." That, not abortion, according to Weyrich, was what galvanized politically conservative evangelicals into the Religious Right and goaded them into action. "It was not the other things," he said.
more
The position of the right on abortion was driven BY politics, not morality, ethics or the concern for the unborn. Conservatives show no concern for the crawling or the walking, why would anyone believe they care about an egg or embryo.
In a 7-2 decision by a conservative leaning Supreme Court, Roe v. Wade really was about abortion, nothing more or less. To read the actual opinion, as almost no one ever does, is to understand that the seven middle-aged to elderly men in the majority certainly didn’t think they were making a statement about women’s rights: women and their voices are nearly absent from the opinion.
It’s a case about the rights of doctors – fellow professionals, after all – who faced criminal prosecution in states across the country for acting in what they considered to be the best interests of their patients. In “Before Roe v. Wade: Voices That Shaped the Abortion Debate Before the Supreme Court’s Ruling,” a book collecting pre-Roe documents that Reva B. Siegel and I published, we reprint an account by Dr. Jane E. Hodgson, a Mayo Clinic-trained obstetrician/gynecologist, of her arrest in St. Paul in 1970 for performing a first-trimester abortion for a patient who had contracted German measles in the fourth week of pregnancy. (In those days before immunization eradicated the threat posed to pregnant women by German measles, the disease commonly caused serious birth defects.) Justice Harry A. Blackmun, formerly the Mayo Clinic’s lawyer, knew Dr. Hodgson’s story; I had found her account, published in the clinic’s alumni magazine, in the justice’s files at the Library of Congress.
In decriminalizing abortion, the justices were reflecting a rapid sea change in public opinion that moved over the course of a decade from the elites of the public health and legal professions to ordinary people who viewed the issue as one of policy rather than, as many later would, personal identity. A Gallup poll in the summer of 1972 found 64 percent of Americans agreeing with the statement that “The decision to have an abortion should be made solely by a woman and her physician.” A majority of all identified groups, including Catholics, agreed with that statement. There was almost no difference between men and women. The group expressing the strongest agreement – 68 percent – was made up of Republicans. George Gallup’s syndicated column discussing the poll results, “Abortion Seen Up to Woman, Doctor,” which we reprint in the book, was also in Justice Blackmun’s files.
more
All of PC's ridicule of Liberals and progressives applies to Republicans before the Evangelical right politicized abortion when the IRS sought to revoke the tax-exempt status of Bob Jones University in 1975 because the school's regulations forbade interracial dating; African Americans, in fact, had been denied admission altogether until 1971, and it took another four years before unmarried African Americans were allowed to enroll.
Paul M. Weyrich, a longtime conservative activist, saw the evangelical discontent over the Bob Jones case as the opening he was looking for to start a new conservative movement using evangelicals as foot soldiers.
During the meeting in Washington, D.C., Weyrich went on to characterize the leaders of the Religious Right as reluctant to take up the abortion cause even close to a decade after the Roe ruling. "I had discussions with all the leading lights of the movement in the late 1970s and early 1980s, post–Roe v. Wade," he said, "and they were all arguing that that decision was one more reason why Christians had to isolate themselves from the rest of the world."
"What caused the movement to surface," Weyrich reiterated,"was the federal government's moves against Christian schools." The IRS threat against segregated schools, he said, "enraged the Christian community." That, not abortion, according to Weyrich, was what galvanized politically conservative evangelicals into the Religious Right and goaded them into action. "It was not the other things," he said.
more
TSJohnson
Active Member
Bullshit. I've never once met an uneducated Jew. I've never once met a Jewish parent who would allow their child to fall in with Evangelical extremists. You're as Jewish as the Queen is English.
Statistikhengst
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #600
Well, that was weird, Herr Pimmelknaller. So, you think there are no Jews who are pro-life? Really?
I just love it when newbies do drive-bys as if they really know the membership. This is always fun.
Similar threads
- Locked
New Topics
-
VIDEO : Hundreds of thousands of Muslims have taken over the center of Moscow to mark the end of Ramadan.- Started by Litwin
- Replies: 0
-
Every problem we have today is the result of democrat policies- Started by Hafar1014
- Replies: 0
-
The answer to every "why is this redacted" question is because Israel was behind it- Started by EMH
- Replies: 3
-
-
