• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

14th Amendment

So, you're not against abortion, per se, but you want a say in whether the motivations to kill the baby are appropriate.

Sure, I have opinions like everyone else. There must be reasons, excuses, or motivations to kill a baby, it's not done out of mindlessness.
 
So, you're not against abortion, per se, but you want a say in whether the motivations to kill the baby are appropriate.

That’s certainly one way to look at the matter. Much like the distinction made between justifiable homicide and murder.
 
I agree, but I was simply offering an example.



We got here via a constant increase in the power and expense of the federal government coupled with ‘do whatever you think should be done’ (legislative) mission statements for these ever expanding federal ‘executive’ departments, agencies and programs.

Yes, the States are in the shadow of the federal government, when the federal should be in the shadow of the States. This keeps our government under control and closer to the People.
 
I agree, but I was simply offering an example.



We got here via a constant increase in the power and expense of the federal government coupled with ‘do whatever you think should be done’ (legislative) mission statements for these ever expanding federal ‘executive’ departments, agencies and programs.
The EPA came about, not in a vacuum, but rather with the support of many states. The states were tired of having to sue other states for allowing pollution that had adverse impacts beyond their own borders. Toxic waste was being dumped into water supplies that were used by farmers and drank by children. The legal wrangling typically took years, if not decades, to wend their way through the court system. Meanwhile, crops were failing and children were developing cancers. The EPA streamlined the process with regulations and enforcement.

We should definitely go back to the pre-EPA days. Things were so much better back then.
 
Yes, it's hard to find common ground for compromise on abortion.....can't disagree with that. With such an emotional issue that has drastic change on both the mother and child with differing beliefs that affects many areas of lives, a total agreement between both sides and differing timelines between abortions can begin or cease is near impossible.
There was a compromise under Roe/Casey, and that was viability. Anti abortionists were not satisfied with that. They're clearly not interested in compromise. And emotion is the problem. People get all emotional and irrational when it comes to abortion.
I've always said/believed when there's complications with pregnancy that could cause serious health issues, even death to the mother or unborn, abortion becomes a medical procedure to save life. That's the middle ground of agreement both sides agree upon, except the radical who take it too far, either way.
Health issues are quite one sided and limiting. It reduces individual choice to a very specific circumstance. How is that "compromise" as opposed to viability being a figurative and near literal middle ground?
 
Sure, I have opinions like everyone else. There must be reasons, excuses, or motivations to kill a baby, it's not done out of mindlessness.
There is no baby in an abortion and killing babies is already illegal.
 
And you prefer judges and politicians be in charge of determining whether the motivations are appropriate.

That's difficult because judges and politicians have opinions and beliefs similar to everybody. As seen during this current administration political ideology is stronger factor than rule of law or morality. This is the same as far too radical religious belief in our government. So, where's mutual ground?
 
The EPA came about, not in a vacuum, but rather with the support of many states. The states were tired of having to sue other states for allowing pollution that had adverse impacts beyond their own borders. Toxic waste was being dumped into water supplies that were used by farmers and drank by children. The legal wrangling typically took years, if not decades, to wend their way through the court system. Meanwhile, crops were failing and children were developing cancers. The EPA streamlined the process with regulations and enforcement.

We should definitely go back to the pre-EPA days. Things were so much better back then.

I have no objection whatsoever to congress agreeing to create specific nationwide environmental protection laws, but fail to see the need (or Constitutional justification) for allowing unelected bureaucrats to make such laws.
 
I have no objection whatsoever to congress agreeing to create specific nationwide environmental protection laws, but fail to see the need (or Constitutional justification) for allowing unelected bureaucrats to make such laws.
So who would you have enforce the laws? Without the EPA, you're right back in the courts, just like the good old days.
 
The 14th Amendment and 'my body my choice' conundrum.

Supporters of abortion use this amendment faithfully, only because the unborn are not spoken of, they assume they are excluded and therefore give them "zero" rights. Yet I wonder how that's possible, seeing how they also faithfully believe in the slogan, "my body, my choice". Believing that unborn inside the womb is her body.....herein's the rub. Then that unborn inside the womb has equal rights given by the Constitution, seeing how the unborn is 'her body'.

I'm not looking for senseless back and forth bs.....I've made a valid point and expect an honest explanation or if you can't then an admission something is not right here, tks in advance.
The body is not relevant under the 14th until legal personhood is established. Bodies without personhood are actually subject to a sort of quasi -property rights of another. that's why states provide specifics for just who gets to decide what happens to remains, after the legal personhood is compromised. The states regulate parameters of conduct post mortum, and its family that decides where Sheila gets buried, whether she has her favorite Teddy Bear with her, or what dress she will wear, or whether she gets creamated. Sheila gets to have her wishes honored about her body, if she expressed some when she was a legal person or when she becomes one.

The pro choice position is that the legal person who is pregnant has an an absolute right to decide what happens to her body, and as 'closest living relative' , the prevailing decider and quasi property owner of said body (not a legal person) inside her, absent clear instructions from the fetus when it was a legal person.

And then we can begin to explain the legal rights of personhood to minors and legal gaurdianship.
 
Last edited:
Hmm… the federal government doesn’t lack law enforcement agencies, but those law enforcement agencies don’t make laws.

You're suggesting elected politicians ought to be deciding which toxins and in what amounts should be allowed in our drinking water. We don't need scientists or experts in biochemical processes deciding these issues. That's what we elected our congressmen for. They are the ones who should decide for us which poisons we are to consume. And we should have cops, not scientists, making sure those laws are obeyed.

Hey, while we're at it, let's do the same with the FAA. Let Congress decide how planes are flown in and out of our airports.
 
The 14th Amendment and 'my body my choice' conundrum.

Supporters of abortion use this amendment faithfully, only because the unborn are not spoken of, they assume they are excluded and therefore give them "zero" rights. Yet I wonder how that's possible, seeing how they also faithfully believe in the slogan, "my body, my choice". Believing that unborn inside the womb is her body.....herein's the rub. Then that unborn inside the womb has equal rights given by the Constitution, seeing how the unborn is 'her body'.

I'm not looking for senseless back and forth bs.....I've made a valid point and expect an honest explanation or if you can't then an admission something is not right here, tks in advance.
That same thinking also allows men to say no to having a kidney removed despite the fact that a kidney will save another persons life. Can you explain why it is that men can say my body, my choice when it comes to saving a life but women cannot.

I think the contradiction is huge and relevant to understanding on this issue. For any other reason than 'abortion' if one injures or kills an unborn child within the womb they are charged with crimes against the unborn, during any stage of development.
And here you are giving support to the idea of my body my choice. When someone else causes harm to a pregnant woman then they are taking away her right to decide to have a child.
And your statement is not quite accurate. As women can and legally do harm their own pregnancy yet face no criminal charge.
Currently, no states criminalize alcohol use during pregnancy per se, nor do the CDC recommendations suggest that states do so
The other argument that directly deals with your assumption of rights for a fetus brings up the question of who has the greater right. the woman to decide what happens to her body or the fetus the right to a life. Only by treating women as second class citizens whose rights are of lesser importance than a fetus can you demand that women must be forced to continue a pregnancy they do not want.

I would also bring up a point about logic.
The premises of an argument do not need to be true in order for the argument to be valid. The argument is valid if the premises and conclusion link correctly with one other. Therefore, if the premises were true, the conclusion would have to be true as well. The following examples are valid but unsound arguments:

All toasters have gold.
All golden items are time-travel devices.
Therefore, all toasters are time-travel devices.

Having a valid point does not mean you have a sound argument and you do not have a sound argument because you rely on one argument instead of looking at the many that support a women's right to choose.
 
You're suggesting elected politicians ought to be deciding which toxins and in what amounts should be allowed in our drinking water. We don't need scientists or experts in biochemical processes deciding these issues. That's what we elected our congressmen for. They are the ones who should decide for us which poisons we are to consume. And we should have cops, not scientists, making sure those laws are obeyed.

Hey, while we're at it, let's do the same with the FAA. Let Congress decide how planes are flown in and out of our airports.

Yes, I’m “suggesting” that the federal legislative branch make our federal laws - see the Constitution.
 
The 14th Amendment and 'my body my choice' conundrum.

Supporters of abortion use this amendment faithfully, only because the unborn are not spoken of, they assume they are excluded and therefore give them "zero" rights. Yet I wonder how that's possible, seeing how they also faithfully believe in the slogan, "my body, my choice". Believing that unborn inside the womb is her body.....herein's the rub. Then that unborn inside the womb has equal rights given by the Constitution, seeing how the unborn is 'her body'.

I'm not looking for senseless back and forth bs.....I've made a valid point and expect an honest explanation or if you can't then an admission something is not right here, tks in advance.

Conundrum: a confusing and difficult problem or question.

There is no conundrum about your hostility toward a slogan. The sentiment expresses an independence of action by women that you believe they should not have.

There is no conundrum about the meaning of 'liberty' and 'privacy' explained by the SC justices in detailed and sourced referenced to amendments supporting abortion up to viability.

Nor is there a conundrum about overturning Roe; the Robert's Court cared nothing about states rights as proven by subsequent decisions. They simply ignored historical evidence and precedence in order to legitimize the decision they wanted.

And there is no conundrum about abortion. You believe women should not be allowed to abort except in cases of rape or risk of death.

Why you believe you have the only right answer to a question with multiple facets is the only conundrum.
 
Conundrum: a confusing and difficult problem or question.

There is no conundrum about your hostility toward a slogan. The sentiment expresses an independence of action by women that you believe they should not have.

There is no conundrum about the meaning of 'liberty' and 'privacy' explained by the SC justices in detailed and sourced referenced to amendments supporting abortion up to viability.

Nor is there a conundrum about overturning Roe; the Robert's Court cared nothing about states rights as proven by subsequent decisions. They simply ignored historical evidence and precedence in order to legitimize the decision they wanted.

And there is no conundrum about abortion. You believe women should not be allowed to abort except in cases of rape or risk of death.

Why you believe you have the only right answer to a question with multiple facets is the only conundrum.

Hmm… which (constitutional) amendment(s) define viability?
 
The 14th Amendment and 'my body my choice' conundrum.

Supporters of abortion use this amendment faithfully, only because the unborn are not spoken of, they assume they are excluded and therefore give them "zero" rights. Yet I wonder how that's possible, seeing how they also faithfully believe in the slogan, "my body, my choice". Believing that unborn inside the womb is her body.....herein's the rub. Then that unborn inside the womb has equal rights given by the Constitution, seeing how the unborn is 'her body'.

I'm not looking for senseless back and forth bs.....I've made a valid point and expect an honest explanation or if you can't then an admission something is not right here, tks in advance.

Feel free to show where any federal laws or federal court decisions recognize rights for the unborn?

Also, if the unborn were recognized as persons, or had rights recognized...how could the Dobbs decision enable states to allow women to have their unborn killed?
 
Your position seems to conflict with fetal homicide laws. Even the Roe/Casey SCOTUS decisions ‘reasoned’ that the level of fetal development prior to birth was important.


Please quote anywhere in those laws where the unborn have any rights recognized? OTOH, they explicitly exempt abortion and still allow women to kill their unborn, so obviously there is no right to life recognized.

The govt uses laws to protect many things, endangered species, forests, livestock, coral reefs, etc. None of them have any rights recognized, correct?

Protect/penalize does not = rights

Anyone may consider and answer...it appears this poster chooses not to. @redbeer you have seen this before and refuse to accept it...please reiterate your reasoning? Do you have something new?
 
Last edited:
The bottom line is that there will never be compromise on abortion. When the bodily autonomy argument clashes with the life starts at conception argument, there is no middle ground.

Roe was the closest to compromise, and not enough people even agree it was….
 
The body is not relevant under the 14th until legal personhood is established. Bodies without personhood are actually subject to a sort of quasi -property rights of another. that's why states provide specifics for just who gets to decide what happens to remains, after the legal personhood is compromised. The states regulate parameters of conduct post mortum, and its family that decides where Sheila gets buried, whether she has her favorite Teddy Bear with her, or what dress she will wear, or whether she gets creamated. Sheila gets to have her wishes honored about her body, if she expressed some when she was a legal person or when she becomes one.

The pro choice position is that the legal person who is pregnant has an an absolute right to decide what happens to her body, and as 'closest living relative' , the prevailing decider and quasi property owner of said body (not a legal person) inside her, absent clear instructions from the fetus when it was a legal person.

And then we can begin to explain the legal rights of personhood to minors and legal gaurdianship.

The time of the adding of the 14th Amendment was post-civil war to reunite the nation and give liberties to those enslaved prior. The entire context of time and reason had nothing to do whatsoever about abortion, neither hinting or speaking towards the rights or non-rights of unborn children. This has to be 'read' into the text. Using this preconceived notion from the 14th amendment is what causes the usage of 'personhood', 'legal person' onto an unborn child and turns it into a non-human form without any rights.....herein lies the error, imo.

It's a very difficult decision to write into law on either side, for of all the 'illegal abortions' which occurred causing the death of many women. Then there's the faith of many to take into consideration.....wanting to not being responsible for the deaths of unborn children, plus not wanting women to turn to dirty, illegal abortion places where women have died by the thousands. So, it's a conundrum....some go too far on the religious side forbidding any abortions, then some go too far on the pro-abortion side by wanting abortion at any time. Bickering back and forth to a boiling point has solved nothing but division.

My thoughts are more onto pre-pregnancy and educate, educate, educate on what happens once pregnant, giving birth, raising a child and the joys and hardships of being a parent.....these are far reaching responsibilities. Everyone's life dramatically change once becoming a parent or at least to those who stick around. Admittedly, men are not in the same sphere of courage when it comes to giving birth and raising children with the 24/7 amount of work they do.....this education will also go a long way to educating these responsibilities it takes for a man to stick around and be a father.

Imo, thankfully women give birth, for if it were the men, the human race would have been extinct many years ago. I would say, "hell no" that's not happening to me, lol.
 
Yes, it's hard to find common ground for compromise on abortion.....

What is the compromise you think the nation would find acceptable? There was one with RvW...at viability, states had the option of restricting elective abortion.

Since anti-choice people believe abortion is murder...what compromise are you suggesting or visualizing? Dont deflect, please provide something besides a facile "we want compromise."

If you think it's about trimester or # of weeks, be specific on what distinction that date makes in terms of the unborn's (or woman's) humanity or status, from any other timeframe?
 
The bottom line is that there will never be compromise on abortion. When the bodily autonomy argument clashes with the life starts at conception argument, there is no middle ground.

Roe was the closest to compromise, and not enough people even agree it was….
Roe didn't go far enough. Casey was better as a "middle ground." But the life argument fails because it's based more on emotion than anything rather than reason or law. It only persists because are overly emotional and irrational. Besides, anti abortionists have demonstrated they were never interested in compromise. So there is none and they deserve none!
 
I've always said/believed when there's complications with pregnancy that could cause serious health issues, even death to the mother or unborn, abortion becomes a medical procedure to save life. That's the middle ground of agreement both sides agree upon, except the radical who take it too far, either way.

It's not remotely a middleground. The mother's life is always in danger with any pregnancy, as well as risks to her "life"...meaning every day, trying to make a living, keeping food on the table, supporting dependents, risking her ability to uphold her responsibilities and obligations to others in her life, contributing to church, community, society, etc.

You suggest a compromise that risks the woman's life, health, self-determination...and all those impacts on OTHERS. All to save a single unborn? What about the individual woman as a moral agent and member of society? How is it a "compromise" that all that should all that be sacrificed just to save the unborn?
 
We got here via a constant increase in the power and expense of the federal government coupled with ‘do whatever you think should be done’ (legislative) mission statements for these ever expanding federal ‘executive’ departments, agencies and programs.

So then what would be any reasoning to support the govt's intrusion into family reproduction? What is a legal premise for govt interference between woman and doctor here?

There is an entire "umbrella of privacy" (not my term) that the 10 Constitutional precedents that RvW was based on cover. Yet Dobbs only overturned abortion. Why?

Anyone may consider and answer...it appears this poster chooses not to.
 
Back
Top Bottom