Why is abortion a political question??

[DC42]

Why are people's decision on who to vote for decided by matters such as abortion??

Roe v. Wade (A woman's right to choose) was decided in 1973 by the Supreme Court!!! Presidents have absolutely no bearing on the decision for the reversal of Roe v. Wade!! So why is it considered such an important issue when voting for President??

NOT TRUE!

First, the President appoints Supreme Court Justices. If a President got enough prolifers on the bench, the R v. W would be over-turned!

Second, Congress could theoritically create a law that aborts abortion! Or even a constitutional amendment!

Yes, and exactly!!! There are currently 7 of the 9 supreme court justices appointed by Republican Presidents!!! Yet, Republicans still claim they can overturn this decision and nothing has been done!!!

 

[JBeukema]

Amendment XXVIII​

Abortion, Marriage and Citizenship Amendment​

Section 1:
First trimester - No State or Federal Law can infringe on a women's right to an abortion during the 1st trimester.
Why can she kill hr child for three months? Also, if I kick her in the stomach and she miscarries, I can be charged only for assaulting her, correct.
Second trimester - Its up to the State to decide whether to allow or to disallow abortion in the 2nd trimester. Exceptions to the prohibition of abortion in the 2nd trimester are cases of rape, incest or the mother's life is in danger.
If she were raped, she had three months according to article one. Why would she wait? Also, if it's legal in a given state, I can kick her in the stomach until she miscarries with no consequence, correct? Would yo make them look at the remains of their child so they know what they're doing, or would you simply slay the child for convienence and let her go about her way?
Third Trimester - Abortion in the 3rd trimester is illegal in all cases, unless one of the prescribed exceptions is present. Exceptions to the prohibition on abortion in the 3rd trimester are cases of incest or the mother's life is in danger.
Father's rights and minor's parental consent are left to the State to decide on.
Why can that ***** kill my baby, who is half of my DNA? This law is also sexist and deprives a father of the ability to protect his child

.......

 

[jillian]

You forget that Souter was appointed before the appointments got that partisan.

abortion wasn't a litmus test then. that didn't happen until... maybe Bork's hearing... and then got worse from there?

 

[jillian]

1- The hearing itself, Roe V Wade was determined on perjury and inadmissible testimony. Whenever such a thing comes to light, the hearing must be reheard before a judge- this applies to all legal decisions

2- finish the quote. Stop quote mining. What's the very next part of that sentence? 'TO LIFE'

What on earth are you talking about?

Seriously, I'd discuss the issue with you, but you really are ill informed.

 

[sealybobo]

Roe V Wade is unconstitutional, for it allows the deprivation of a child's life

Roe V Wade was founded on lies and perjury. do a little research, Norma Mccorvey and Sandra Bensing have both admitted to lying to the supreme court at the request of pro-abortion groups. The law says the case must be thrown out and both women tried for perjury


Also, as an aside, neither got an abortion. McCorvey adopted her child out. If I recall, Bensing is now a good mother

Only an extremist considers a seed in the womb as life.

Like, do you think people who got illegal abortions before abortions were legal should be charged with murder?

You do know rumor has it says that when Bush was younger, he accidentilly knocked a woman up and got her to get an illegal abortion, so it wouldn't ruin his chances at politics.

So, if that is true, and there is no statute of limitation on murder, are you suggesting that we should try George Bush for murder?

 

[sealybobo]

Amendment XXVIII​

Abortion, Marriage and Citizenship Amendment​

Section 1:
First trimester - No State or Federal Law can infringe on a women's right to an abortion during the 1st trimester.
Why can she kill hr child for three months? Also, if I kick her in the stomach and she miscarries, I can be charged only for assaulting her, correct.
Second trimester - Its up to the State to decide whether to allow or to disallow abortion in the 2nd trimester. Exceptions to the prohibition of abortion in the 2nd trimester are cases of rape, incest or the mother's life is in danger.
If she were raped, she had three months according to article one. Why would she wait? Also, if it's legal in a given state, I can kick her in the stomach until she miscarries with no consequence, correct? Would yo make them look at the remains of their child so they know what they're doing, or would you simply slay the child for convienence and let her go about her way?
Third Trimester - Abortion in the 3rd trimester is illegal in all cases, unless one of the prescribed exceptions is present. Exceptions to the prohibition on abortion in the 3rd trimester are cases of incest or the mother's life is in danger.
Father's rights and minor's parental consent are left to the State to decide on.
Why can that ***** kill my baby, who is half of my DNA? This law is also sexist and deprives a father of the ability to protect his child

.......

Would you have a funeral if you had a miscarriage? Or should all people who have miscarriages be forced to have a funeral when they have a miscarriage?

Burial plot, casket, funeral home, and all the expenses that go with it?

 

[Care4all]

Or even a constitutional amendment!

Article 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 state laws allowing the slaughter of the unborn are unconstitutional

To "abort abortion" they would have to overturn Roe v Wade...

Roe V Wade is unconstitutional, therefore null and void. Furthermore, it was decided based on demonstratively false evidence, therefore the law says it must be overturned and can only be reinstated pending a new hearing

All persons BORN is what it says JB, so your assumption on Section 1 is off base in my opinion.

Abortion up until the time of quickening, (about the 3rd or fourth month of gestation, was permitted at the time the framers wrote the constitution. There were no US laws covering it at all, not even within the States until the mid 1800's. Prior to this, Common Law, which most states followed unless they wrote their own legislation, Abortion was permitted until quickening, and after quickening it was considered a crime for the doctor or midwife or pharacist or anyone who assisted in the abortion. The woman having the abortion was not penalized by Common Law because compassion was given to her and temporary insanity was thought about these scared women, faced with pregnancy, faced with dying in delivery....which a GREAT NUMBER did die, during delivery back then....women still die now in delivery, though much rarer now.

Pregnant women, who did not want to carry through their pregnancy back then, went to their pharmacist and the Pharmacist provided a cocktail of drugs that terminated the pregnancy...it was done in private and the government had no say in this private situation what so ever....only when the child reaches the point of kicking in the woman's womb, does the government come in and protect the child to be, to a certain degree.

the founders of our constitution were VERY AWARE of common law and if they were speaking of the UNBORN in section 1 as it appears you are implying, then I believe they would have stated such protections for the UNBORN as well...?

care

 

[JBeukema]

Only an extremist considers a seed in the womb as life.

Only an idiot thinks humans have seeds

Like, do you think people who got illegal abortions before abortions were legal should be charged with murder?

retroactive law

You do know rumor has it says that when Bush was younger, he accidentilly knocked a woman up and got her to get an illegal abortion, so it wouldn't ruin his chances at politics.

your point?

Burial plot, casket, funeral home, and all the expenses that go with it?

reductio ad absurdium

All persons BORN is what it says JB, so your assumption on Section 1 is off base in my opinion.

You speak lies. That section deals only with citizenship:

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.

It says nothing about needing to be born to be protected from murder

 

[code1211]

Why are people's decision on who to vote for decided by matters such as abortion??

Roe v. Wade (A woman's right to choose) was decided in 1973 by the Supreme Court!!! Presidents have absolutely no bearing on the decision for the reversal of Roe v. Wade!! So why is it considered such an important issue when voting for President??

Because they appoint the Supreme Court justices. Bush put Alito & Roberts in. They would reverse Roe V Wade. That's why it was important a liberal win 2008 and 2012, because a couple more justices might retire.

And this is a great wedge issue. The GOP has nothing to offer middle class people financially. Anyone middle class voting GOP is voting against their own financial interests. They only think they are talking about them when the GOP talks about lowering taxes. The GOP means rich people's taxes. How does that help you? Well they say it'll trickle down on you. Has it?

So abortion is a great wedge issue. I know a lot of anti abortion people who know the GOP suck for them financially, but to them, abortion is the number one issue.

I hope they go broke, can't afford to have a child and then get knocked up.

Do you know how many anti abortion women have gotten an abortion themselves? Many. Hypocrites. And they'd do it again if they were in the same situation. But now they are a little older and it wouldn't ruin their life, so they have the luxury of being anti abortion. Mind your own business people.

I completely agree!!!! I knew that Presidents appoint supreme court justices!!! Most of the people who argue pro-life and use that as grounds for voting for a Republican President, don't even realize that 7 of the 9 current justices were appointed by Republican Presidents...if it hasnt' been overturned by now, its not going to be people!!!

I'm just trying to educate myself on why this is an issue!!! Or if I've been looking at this the wrong way!!!

Just a couple points. The Roe v Wade decision says that a woman's right to choose is in the Constitution. One can hardly argue agaist freedom of choice. In this position, an unborn embryo, zygot or fetus or whatever is a tissue mass. Like an appendix. Very few appendixes, given nine or any number of months, learn to walk, talk and post on message boards.

For many, though, the issue is not about the woman's right to choose but rather about the definition of life. Is a zygot or a fetus or an embryo a person or an undfined tissue mass? Is the potential of life actually life? If a tissue mass cannot survive outside thw womb, is it really a separate life? Is life even a physically measurable thing? Is the twinkle a father's eys really life? When or if does potential or intent turn the corner to actually become life?

Because one of the the definitions of a US Citizen is someone born in the United States, and because an unborn baby is not yet born, that baby is not a citizen and therefore has no rights. Roe v Wade declares that a baby unborn at 8 months +3 weeks and 6 days is completely and entirely different than a baby that is born the next day.

This definition holds under US Law, though, only if the woman chooses to abort the child. This is the only situation in the US that I am aware of in which the opinion of one person dictates the status of another. If the woman hopes to give birth to a live baby and is pregnant and a killer kills both mother and unborn child, that killer is liable for the murder of two.

If the mother wants the pregnacy to end without the birth of a child, she may dictate the end of the pregnancy and the resulting end of life for the unborn child is not a murder. Interesting dichotemy in the law, no?

Second point: If Roe v Wade is overturned, abortion is not made illegal. It reverts to a states rights issue. If Roe v Wade had never been heard or if it had been ruled down, there would be 50 state level debates going on all the time.

As it is, the only time we ever think of it is when we either are individually faced with that very personal decision or the President is appointing a justice.

 

[Smartt33]

Why are people's decision on who to vote for decided by matters such as abortion??

Roe v. Wade (A woman's right to choose) was decided in 1973 by the Supreme Court!!! Presidents have absolutely no bearing on the decision for the reversal of Roe v. Wade!! So why is it considered such an important issue when voting for President??

Smartt: A person's vote should not rest on one issue only. However, we so consider the issues of abortion, mariage, social security, character of candedate, his/her voting history, and much more when we vote. It is the American way.

To the question of why abortion is political, I believe it becomes political when it divides the country as much as it does. It is religious for the religious, and it is a civil matter to those who don't see it as religious. It is considered a matter of "rights" to some people. It is indeed a hot political issue, and not just a religious one.

 

[JBeukema]

Is the potential of life actually life? If a tissue mass cannot survive outside thw womb, is it really a separate life?

you're begging the question and using loaded language. What the hell is 'potential life'?! Something is life or non-life (dead things still fall under life, they're just... dead)

Because one of the the definitions of a US Citizen is someone born in the United States, and because an unborn baby is not yet born, that baby is not a citizen and therefore has no rights.

That's not true. Read the applicable text again. The protection of rights is later, and not bound by citizenship. That is why killing an immigrant, visitor, or illegal alien is still murder

Roe v Wade declares that a baby unborn at 8 months +3 weeks and 6 days is completely and entirely different than a baby that is born the next day.

What changes? At what exact second does that status change and why? I have defined human life and noone has shown the definition I provided to be invalid or incorrect in any way

This definition holds under US Law, though, only if the woman chooses to abort the child. This is the only situation in the US that I am aware of in which the opinion of one person dictates the status of another. If the woman hopes to give birth to a live baby and is pregnant and a killer kills both mother and unborn child, that killer is liable for the murder of two.

Illogical, unreasonable, and stupid. Such inconsistencies demonstrate that such laws and

Second point: If Roe v Wade is overturned, abortion is not made illegal. It reverts to a states rights issue. If Roe v Wade had never been heard or if it had been ruled down, there would be 50 state level debates going on all the time.

-and it would again fall to the definition of murder. What is the definition of murder? Anyone?

As for your last statement: that's a blanket statement and I can say it's not true for at least one person here

 

[jillian]

-and it would again fall to the definition of murder. What is the definition of murder? Anyone?

murder is an unlawful premeditated killing

by definition, abortion is not murder because it is not illegal.

please stop talking about law until you learn something about it.

thanks.

 

[JBeukema]

-and it would again fall to the definition of murder. What is the definition of murder? Anyone?

murder is an unlawful premeditated killing

by definition, abortion is not murder because it is not illegal.

please stop talking about law until you learn something about it.

thanks.

What laws and rulings determine what premeditated killing is lawful?

 

[jillian]

see above...

thanks.

 

[JBeukema]

you didn't answer the question what determines whether a particular taking of life is murder? What conditions make it murder? What is the legal definition of murder? Stop beating around the bush and answer the question

 

[GHook93]

Roe v. Wade was all about privacy. They said that a right to privacy was within the penumbras of many constitutional amendments, 1st, 3rd, 4th ad 5th, although a right to privacy was never directly protected by the constitution. Roe v. Wade and the Planed Parenthood case both allowed early term abortion, but left the door wide open for prohibiting late term abortion.

Roe v. Wade also established the right to privacy! Therefore, a right to privacy is another motivation for judges not overturn Roe v. Wade!

Because they appoint the Supreme Court justices. Bush put Alito & Roberts in. They would reverse Roe V Wade. That's why it was important a liberal win 2008 and 2012, because a couple more justices might retire.

And this is a great wedge issue. The GOP has nothing to offer middle class people financially. Anyone middle class voting GOP is voting against their own financial interests. They only think they are talking about them when the GOP talks about lowering taxes. The GOP means rich people's taxes. How does that help you? Well they say it'll trickle down on you. Has it?

So abortion is a great wedge issue. I know a lot of anti abortion people who know the GOP suck for them financially, but to them, abortion is the number one issue.

I hope they go broke, can't afford to have a child and then get knocked up.

Do you know how many anti abortion women have gotten an abortion themselves? Many. Hypocrites. And they'd do it again if they were in the same situation. But now they are a little older and it wouldn't ruin their life, so they have the luxury of being anti abortion. Mind your own business people.

I completely agree!!!! I knew that Presidents appoint supreme court justices!!! Most of the people who argue pro-life and use that as grounds for voting for a Republican President, don't even realize that 7 of the 9 current justices were appointed by Republican Presidents...if it hasnt' been overturned by now, its not going to be people!!!

I'm just trying to educate myself on why this is an issue!!! Or if I've been looking at this the wrong way!!!

Just a couple points. The Roe v Wade decision says that a woman's right to choose is in the Constitution. One can hardly argue agaist freedom of choice. In this position, an unborn embryo, zygot or fetus or whatever is a tissue mass. Like an appendix. Very few appendixes, given nine or any number of months, learn to walk, talk and post on message boards.

For many, though, the issue is not about the woman's right to choose but rather about the definition of life. Is a zygot or a fetus or an embryo a person or an undfined tissue mass? Is the potential of life actually life? If a tissue mass cannot survive outside thw womb, is it really a separate life? Is life even a physically measurable thing? Is the twinkle a father's eys really life? When or if does potential or intent turn the corner to actually become life?

Because one of the the definitions of a US Citizen is someone born in the United States, and because an unborn baby is not yet born, that baby is not a citizen and therefore has no rights. Roe v Wade declares that a baby unborn at 8 months +3 weeks and 6 days is completely and entirely different than a baby that is born the next day.

This definition holds under US Law, though, only if the woman chooses to abort the child. This is the only situation in the US that I am aware of in which the opinion of one person dictates the status of another. If the woman hopes to give birth to a live baby and is pregnant and a killer kills both mother and unborn child, that killer is liable for the murder of two.

If the mother wants the pregnacy to end without the birth of a child, she may dictate the end of the pregnancy and the resulting end of life for the unborn child is not a murder. Interesting dichotemy in the law, no?

Second point: If Roe v Wade is overturned, abortion is not made illegal. It reverts to a states rights issue. If Roe v Wade had never been heard or if it had been ruled down, there would be 50 state level debates going on all the time.

As it is, the only time we ever think of it is when we either are individually faced with that very personal decision or the President is appointing a justice.

 

[Smartt33]

NOT TRUE!

First, the President appoints Supreme Court Justices. If a President got enough prolifers on the bench, the R v. W would be over-turned!

Second, Congress could theoritically create a law that aborts abortion! Or even a constitutional amendment!

A constitutional amendment prohibiting abortion? How far do you think that one would get?

As for alaw that "aborts abortion"... no...they couldn't, That was the point of the supreme court decision... that there is a constitutional right to control your own body up to a certain point in the pregnancy.

To "abort abortion" they would have to overturn Roe v Wade...

Smartt: Some believe that the unborn have the right to life. When there is a situation where a life will end becase of an abortion, their might well be reason for an abortion, however that decision should be a medical one and not one that is made by law.

Killing babies at any stage of pregnancy, including being partially born, should be outlawed unless there is good medical reason. This idea of having sex and then killing ther resulting baby because it is unwanted is immoral.

 

[jillian]

No one is killing babies.

That judgment was never the province of the court... or poltiicians. The decision came down to When does the governmental interest in protecting potential life override the right of a woman to exercise dominion over her own body.

People who try to impose their religious judgment on this subject are the reason politicians use it as a wedge issue....

And if you don't want to have an abortion, no one will ever force you to.

Thanks.

 

[JBeukema]

That judgment was never the province of the court... or poltiicians. The decision came down to When does the governmental interest in protecting potential life override the right of a woman to exercise dominion over her own body

noone's exercising dominion over their own body. If it were her own body, they'd have the same genome


If you don't want to murder or rape, noone will force you to. If you are murdered or raped- well, we figure it was your father and he made you anyway, so you're his body and property... you have no rights...

Actually, that used to be the law in many places

 

[Smartt33]

-and it would again fall to the definition of murder. What is the definition of murder? Anyone?

murder is an unlawful premeditated killing

by definition, abortion is not murder because it is not illegal.

please stop talking about law until you learn something about it.

thanks.

Smartt: Abortion may not be illegal, but by God's standards unless there is some medical reason for it, it is immoral.