• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

A 2-Part Invalidation Of Rowe Vs. Wade

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Part 1: Rowe vs. Wade was unconstitutional.

Rowe vs. Wade was based on two false assertions. One was that the 4th Amendment grants us a right to privacy and the other was that it is undeterminable whether or not a fetus is a living human with rights.

The 4th Amendment was a protection against the state using searches to harass and intimidate. There was no right to privacy mentioned or implied, and the founding fathers were even clearer about that in their other writings. The “right” to privacy was an outright fabrication and a classic example of judicial activism.

The DNA of unborn babies proves that they are separate individuals from their mothers. They consume, they grow, they have heartbeats; they meet and exceed the standards set by modern science for calling something alive, and their DNA also proves that they are human. They are created through sex and are not a collection of damaged genes-distinguishing it from the tumors and other bodily tissue pro-abortionists compare them to in order to dehumanize them.

Beyond the two false assertions Rowe vs. Wade was based on, the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to even rule on the matter being that they were designed specifically and expressly for the sole purpose of interpreting FEDERAL law. Moreover, the history of the Constitution proves that the founding fathers went out of their way to prevent the federal courts from ever interfering in state and local affairs.

New York and Virginia originally refused to sign the Constitution because they were convinced this new federal government would trample their rights. The Bill of Rights was created specifically to assure them that this would never happen. Yet with Rowe vs. Wade, that is exactly what happened-and it set into motion a series of events that now have us in the midst of a disturbing and dangerous Constitutional crisis, with the Supreme Court increasingly usurping its authority at the expense of the will of the people.

If there had been some federal law banning abortion, then the Supreme Court would have had the Constitutional authority to interpret (but still not strike down) that federal law. But as it was, the Constitutional decision would have been to refuse to even hear the case and revert it back to the state supreme court where state murder cases were always intended to be handled.

Additionally, the Constitution never mentioned anything about the rights of children. The Tenth Amendment designates all authority on matters not specifically addressed in the Constitution to the states. And although most rights given to the people by the states and by the Constitution are generally addressed to adults, age has never been considered (at the federal or state level) a disqualifier for one’s right to live-except in Rowe vs. Wade. Children have always had the right to live even though they are largely unrepresented in early state and federal law. People under the voting age, even unborn ones, were never intended to have no right to live just by lack of mention.


Part 2: Rowe vs. Wade is based on nothing more than some people’s arbitrary decision to dehumanize the unborn on the basis of age-which is no basis for law.

The national conversation on abortion ultimately consists of anti-abortionists perpetually contending with a constantly shifting collection of inconsistent, arbitrary, invalid arguments blurring the issue.

1)

Pro-Abortionist: It isn’t a living human being.

(It always comes down to dehumanization based on age)

Anti-Abortionist: (As stated in part 1) The DNA of unborn babies proves that they are separate individuals from their mothers. They consume, they grow, they have heartbeats; they meet and exceed the standards set by modern science for calling something alive, and their DNA also proves that they are human. They are created through sex and are not a collection of damaged genes-distinguishing it from the tumors and other bodily tissue pro-abortionists compare them to in order to dehumanize them.


2)

Pro-Abortionist: It’s my body.

Anti-Abortionist: It IS the government’s place to tell you who you can and cannot kill, but even if this WERE just about your body, the government legitimately legislates that all the time too.

Pro-Abortionist: But it’s not killing if it is just a bunch of tissue.

(It always comes down to dehumanization based on age)

Anti-Abortionist: See 1).


3)

Pro-Abortionist: But if it is IN my body, then it is in my domain.

Anti-Abortionist: Siamese twins can’t legally kill each other and they are INSIDE each other. Geography is no basis for murder laws.

Pro-Abortionist: But in that case, the one being killed is fully developed.

(It always comes down to dehumanization based on age)

Anti-Abortionist: See 1).


4)

Pro-Abortionist: But the person whose body it is in is its MOTHER.

Anti-Abortionist: Being a mother doesn’t give you the right to kill anyone.

Pro-Abortionist: It does if it is in YOUR body, and is only a piece of human tissue.

(It always comes down to dehumanization based on age)

Anti-Abortionist: See 1) and 2). No it doesn’t.


5)

Pro-Abortionist: But a fetus isn’t even developed enough to witness anything.

Anti-Abortionist: Watch the tapes. They wouldn’t flinch in pain if they couldn’t feel it. Besides, if the basis is on whether or not the victim is capable of feeling pain then anyone currently jacked up on morphine or in a coma can be killed too.

Pro-Abortionist: Well, those people are fully developed.

Anti-Abortionist: See 1).


6)

Pro-Abortionist: If we illegalize it, women will get hurt.

Anti-Abortionist: If we keep bank robbery legal, bank robbers will continue to get hurt. So what? We don’t care about the well-being of the assailant over the criminal.

Pro-Abortionist: But it isn’t a victim if it isn’t alive.

Anti-Abortionist: See 1).


7)

Pro-Abortionist: What about rape?

Anti-Abortionist: Being a victim of a former crime in no way entitles you to kill people.

Pro-Abortionist: But that would mean rape victims would have to look at their rapist in the eyes of their child every day for 18 years.

Anti-Abortionist: Life is unpleasant, even disturbing sometimes, but even if you can’t put someone else’s right to live over your own ability to never have unpleasant thoughts of your rape, you can always give them up for adoption.


8)

Pro-Abortionist: Giving a baby up for adoption is cruel.

Anti-Abortionist: Then act like a mother and face your responsibility. Besides, killing them ISN’T cruel? People come from difficult backgrounds all the time. It often is what drives the world’s most driven people. People make it. Besides, suffering is one of the greatest enablers of spiritual progress. We should not have such an aversion to starting out with less. People today could gain a lot from a major spiritual adjustment.


9)

Pro-Abortionist: The unwanted babies and society are better off with them dead than living in poverty.

Anti-Abortionist: Again, suffering happens, and it builds character. People survive adversity. Who are you to deem them incapable of being happy or overcoming their circumstances and then use that as an excuse to kill them?

(Also, aborting those who are useless to society DOES reduce crime. And the first person to see this as a valid basis for policy was Adolf Hitler.)

Pro-Abortionist: Well, it’s not killing them, it’s preventing them.

Anti-Abortionist: See 1).


10)

Pro-Abortionist: What if they are retarded or handicapped?

Anti-Abortionist: Having disabilities doesn’t incapacitate happiness, and certainly doesn’t justify being killed (which often serves the parent more than the child –who would probably rather be allowed to live). Besides, if intelligence is what determines who gets to live, then why don’t we start pulling over short buses and mowing down the slow folk?

Pro-Abortionist: Well, those people are alive.

Anti-Abortionist: See 1).



Pro-abortionists have this fixation on their own dehumanized image of the unborn that blinds them from all other rational discussion on the subject. They throw up all these smokescreen arguments full of blatant contradictions at every turn of the road that never survive a moment of serious scrutiny. The only ACTUAL basis they have for wanting abortion to be legal is that THEY have emotionally detached THEMSELVES from a certain age group via some age-old dehumanization tactics. And that in no way justifies Rowe vs. Wade.

On a side note, what about the father’s parental/religious rights?
 

tryreading

Steve
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 8, 2005
Messages
4,809
Reaction score
764
Location
Central Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
aquapub said:
Part 1: Rowe vs. Wade was unconstitutional.

Rowe vs. Wade was based on two false assertions. One was that the 4th Amendment grants us a right to privacy and the other was that it is undeterminable whether or not a fetus is a living human with rights.

The 4th Amendment was a protection against the state using searches to harass and intimidate. There was no right to privacy mentioned or implied, and the founding fathers were even clearer about that in their other writings. The “right” to privacy was an outright fabrication and a classic example of judicial activism.

The DNA of unborn babies proves that they are separate individuals from their mothers. They consume, they grow, they have heartbeats; they meet and exceed the standards set by modern science for calling something alive, and their DNA also proves that they are human. They are created through sex and are not a collection of damaged genes-distinguishing it from the tumors and other bodily tissue pro-abortionists compare them to in order to dehumanize them.

Beyond the two false assertions Rowe vs. Wade was based on, the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to even rule on the matter being that they were designed specifically and expressly for the sole purpose of interpreting FEDERAL law. Moreover, the history of the Constitution proves that the founding fathers went out of their way to prevent the federal courts from ever interfering in state and local affairs.

New York and Virginia originally refused to sign the Constitution because they were convinced this new federal government would trample their rights. The Bill of Rights was created specifically to assure them that this would never happen. Yet with Rowe vs. Wade, that is exactly what happened-and it set into motion a series of events that now have us in the midst of a disturbing and dangerous Constitutional crisis, with the Supreme Court increasingly usurping its authority at the expense of the will of the people.

If there had been some federal law banning abortion, then the Supreme Court would have had the Constitutional authority to interpret (but still not strike down) that federal law. But as it was, the Constitutional decision would have been to refuse to even hear the case and revert it back to the state supreme court where state murder cases were always intended to be handled.

Additionally, the Constitution never mentioned anything about the rights of children. The Tenth Amendment designates all authority on matters not specifically addressed in the Constitution to the states. And although most rights given to the people by the states and by the Constitution are generally addressed to adults, age has never been considered (at the federal or state level) a disqualifier for one’s right to live-except in Rowe vs. Wade. Children have always had the right to live even though they are largely unrepresented in early state and federal law. People under the voting age, even unborn ones, were never intended to have no right to live just by lack of mention.


Part 2: Rowe vs. Wade is based on nothing more than some people’s arbitrary decision to dehumanize the unborn on the basis of age-which is no basis for law.

The national conversation on abortion ultimately consists of anti-abortionists perpetually contending with a constantly shifting collection of inconsistent, arbitrary, invalid arguments blurring the issue.

1)

Pro-Abortionist: It isn’t a living human being.

(It always comes down to dehumanization based on age)

Anti-Abortionist: (As stated in part 1) The DNA of unborn babies proves that they are separate individuals from their mothers. They consume, they grow, they have heartbeats; they meet and exceed the standards set by modern science for calling something alive, and their DNA also proves that they are human. They are created through sex and are not a collection of damaged genes-distinguishing it from the tumors and other bodily tissue pro-abortionists compare them to in order to dehumanize them.


2)

Pro-Abortionist: It’s my body.

Anti-Abortionist: It IS the government’s place to tell you who you can and cannot kill, but even if this WERE just about your body, the government legitimately legislates that all the time too.

Pro-Abortionist: But it’s not killing if it is just a bunch of tissue.

(It always comes down to dehumanization based on age)

Anti-Abortionist: See 1).


3)

Pro-Abortionist: But if it is IN my body, then it is in my domain.

Anti-Abortionist: Siamese twins can’t legally kill each other and they are INSIDE each other. Geography is no basis for murder laws.

Pro-Abortionist: But in that case, the one being killed is fully developed.

(It always comes down to dehumanization based on age)

Anti-Abortionist: See 1).


4)

Pro-Abortionist: But the person whose body it is in is its MOTHER.

Anti-Abortionist: Being a mother doesn’t give you the right to kill anyone.

Pro-Abortionist: It does if it is in YOUR body, and is only a piece of human tissue.

(It always comes down to dehumanization based on age)

Anti-Abortionist: See 1) and 2). No it doesn’t.


5)

Pro-Abortionist: But a fetus isn’t even developed enough to witness anything.

Anti-Abortionist: Watch the tapes. They wouldn’t flinch in pain if they couldn’t feel it. Besides, if the basis is on whether or not the victim is capable of feeling pain then anyone currently jacked up on morphine or in a coma can be killed too.

Pro-Abortionist: Well, those people are fully developed.

Anti-Abortionist: See 1).


6)

Pro-Abortionist: If we illegalize it, women will get hurt.

Anti-Abortionist: If we keep bank robbery legal, bank robbers will continue to get hurt. So what? We don’t care about the well-being of the assailant over the criminal.

Pro-Abortionist: But it isn’t a victim if it isn’t alive.

Anti-Abortionist: See 1).


7)

Pro-Abortionist: What about rape?

Anti-Abortionist: Being a victim of a former crime in no way entitles you to kill people.

Pro-Abortionist: But that would mean rape victims would have to look at their rapist in the eyes of their child every day for 18 years.

Anti-Abortionist: Life is unpleasant, even disturbing sometimes, but even if you can’t put someone else’s right to live over your own ability to never have unpleasant thoughts of your rape, you can always give them up for adoption.


8)

Pro-Abortionist: Giving a baby up for adoption is cruel.

Anti-Abortionist: Then act like a mother and face your responsibility. Besides, killing them ISN’T cruel? People come from difficult backgrounds all the time. It often is what drives the world’s most driven people. People make it. Besides, suffering is one of the greatest enablers of spiritual progress. We should not have such an aversion to starting out with less. People today could gain a lot from a major spiritual adjustment.


9)

Pro-Abortionist: The unwanted babies and society are better off with them dead than living in poverty.

Anti-Abortionist: Again, suffering happens, and it builds character. People survive adversity. Who are you to deem them incapable of being happy or overcoming their circumstances and then use that as an excuse to kill them?

(Also, aborting those who are useless to society DOES reduce crime. And the first person to see this as a valid basis for policy was Adolf Hitler.)

Pro-Abortionist: Well, it’s not killing them, it’s preventing them.

Anti-Abortionist: See 1).


10)

Pro-Abortionist: What if they are retarded or handicapped?

Anti-Abortionist: Having disabilities doesn’t incapacitate happiness, and certainly doesn’t justify being killed (which often serves the parent more than the child –who would probably rather be allowed to live). Besides, if intelligence is what determines who gets to live, then why don’t we start pulling over short buses and mowing down the slow folk?

Pro-Abortionist: Well, those people are alive.

Anti-Abortionist: See 1).



Pro-abortionists have this fixation on their own dehumanized image of the unborn that blinds them from all other rational discussion on the subject. They throw up all these smokescreen arguments full of blatant contradictions at every turn of the road that never survive a moment of serious scrutiny. The only ACTUAL basis they have for wanting abortion to be legal is that THEY have emotionally detached THEMSELVES from a certain age group via some age-old dehumanization tactics. And that in no way justifies Rowe vs. Wade.

On a side note, what about the father’s parental/religious rights?
Since you have it all figured out, and know for sure where you stand, I'm sure you want Roe v Wade overturned and state anti-abortion laws enacted. What would the law be in your state if you wrote it?
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
aquapub said:
Part 1: Rowe vs. Wade was unconstitutional.

Rowe vs. Wade was based on two false assertions. One was that the 4th Amendment grants us a right to privacy and the other was that it is undeterminable whether or not a fetus is a living human with rights.

The 4th Amendment was a protection against the state using searches to harass and intimidate. There was no right to privacy mentioned or implied, and the founding fathers were even clearer about that in their other writings. The “right” to privacy was an outright fabrication and a classic example of judicial activism.
Actually, this right to privacy has been foundation for law for more than a century. So you are saying that all rulings in this area are wrong, right?
The DNA of unborn babies proves that they are separate individuals from their mothers.
Please don't lie about DNA, thanks.
hey consume, they grow, they have heartbeats; they meet and exceed the standards set by modern science for calling something alive, and their DNA also proves that they are human.
And so?
They are created through sex and are not a collection of damaged genes-distinguishing it from the tumors and other bodily tissue pro-abortionists compare them to in order to dehumanize them.
And so?

Is that all you got? Just emotional hyperbole?


Beyond the two false assertions Rowe vs. Wade was based on, the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to even rule on the matter...
ETC. Given that you obviously are not a Constitutional Scolar, your "just because I say so" attempt at presenting your wishful thinking as fact merely underscores the dishonesty of prolife claims.
New York and Virginia originally refused to sign the Constitution because they were convinced this new federal government would trample their rights. The Bill of Rights was created specifically to assure them that this would never happen. Yet with Rowe vs. Wade, that is exactly what happened
Abortion was legal in new York. Your claim is absolute nonsense, it is outright falsehood and silly deceptions.

Your silliness really isn't worth the effort here, you simply are to ignorant.
 

Axismaster

Active member
Joined
Jan 6, 2006
Messages
296
Reaction score
1
Location
Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
tryreading said:
Since you have it all figured out, and know for sure where you stand, I'm sure you want Roe v Wade overturned and state anti-abortion laws enacted. What would the law be in your state if you wrote it?
If I could write the law in my state this is what it would say.

1. Abortion is banned in the exception of rape, incest, and the life of the mother, or if it can be proven that carrying the baby to term will do permanent emotional or physical damage.

2. If a minor gets pregnant and can provide a valid reason to have an abortion, she should be able to have one because minors are not developed enough to make a rational decision about the consequences of sex in the same way adults are. There will still be parental notification, though not consent laws.

3. Anyone who performs an illegal abortion will be charged with manslaughter, but if it is partial birth abortion they will be charged with first degree murder. The mother will not be charged but will be required to undergo treatment for emotional problems it may have caused.

4. For any abortion, doctors must gain legal waiver to perform it.
 

vergiss

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
2,356
Reaction score
1
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
"Former" crime? Rape being "unpleasant"? What's next, they only provoked it anyway?
 

Stace

Boobie Jubilee
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2005
Messages
7,255
Reaction score
364
Location
Clarksville, TN
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
vergiss said:
"Former" crime? Rape being "unpleasant"? What's next, they only provoked it anyway?
Yup...they were asking for it. :doh

I can't even debate seriously with someone that can't spell Roe properly, when that case is at the heart of so many abortion debates.
 

FutureIncoming

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2005
Messages
5,623
Reaction score
605
Location
Land of the Freedom-Stealers, because also Home of
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
aquapub wrote: "Pro-Abortionist: It isn’t a living human being."

FALSE!

--and wrote: "(It always comes down to dehumanization based on age)"

BALDERDASH! (see below next section)

--and wrote: "Anti-Abortionist: (As stated in part 1) The DNA of unborn babies proves that they are separate individuals from their mothers. They consume, they grow, they have heartbeats; they meet and exceed the standards set by modern science for calling something alive, and their DNA also proves that they are human. They are created through sex and are not a collection of damaged genes-distinguishing it from the tumors and other bodily tissue pro-abortionists compare them to in order to dehumanize them."

MOSTLY AGREED. However, ALL cancer-causing genes in any human ultimately originated through the sex of the parents, so your point is? Nevertheless, the fatal flaw in your argument is that you think "dehumanization" is needed for abortion to be allowed. NOTHING IS FARTHER FROM THE TRUTH. The REAL key is, "When does life MATTER?" You do not think that the life of an average bacterium matters very much, do you? Or the life of an average fly or mosquito? Well, why should human life matter more than the bacterium or the fly or the mosquito? The answer involves "personhood", a phenomen that puts MANY humans into a special category, distinct from the merely animal. PERSONS are declared to "matter" (though this is a subjective and not an objective claim...). Unborn humans, however, do NOT qualify for personhood; they are unable to exhibit ANY of the prime characteristics that distinguish persons from mere animals. Well, since unborn humans, despite being utterly and completely human, ARE IN ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC FACT ALSO ONLY mere animals, like bacteria or flies or mosquitoes, then what is the big deal about killing them when they are unwanted? There is NO "dehumanization" here; there is only recognition that genuine facts about humans always supercede ignorant prejudices about humans.

Paraphrased from something I first wrote elsewhere:
+++
So, the issue is not whether an unborn human is alive; the issue is whether it qualifies as anything more than a mere animal organism (which it completely truly is, in objective scientific fact). What is it that distinquishes "persons" from "animals", anyway? The U.S. Constitution references "persons" many many times, and "humans" not at all. That's neat because it means the Constitution is all ready to accommodate "huddled masses" of non-human people seeking refuge from a cruel Universe (see fictional TV series "Alien Nation"). It logically follows that a growing yet unborn human organism is purely an animal, and at some point in its life it develops traits such that the human can then be called a person. Scientifically, these traits all appear to be associated with advanced mental abilities, such as Free Will (ordinary animals are pretty much nothing more than stimulus/response biological machines), empathy (no mere animal can imagine itself experiencing the situation of another organism), grasping abstract concepts like the future (no mere animal can understand its own mortality), representation of abstract concepts as symbols (no mere animal can understand a topographic map), and manipulation of abstract symbols (no mere animal can do mathematics like algebra). Scientific measurements of human abilities indicate that humans don't grow enough brainpower to fully qualify as persons until two to three years after birth. Logically, therefore, no unborn human qualifies as a person, and if actions that are called "ethical" (or not) involve matters in which people get along with each other (or don't), then unborn humans are as exempt from ethical consideration as any ordinary unwanted animal, such as an annoying fly that you might want to swat.
+++
 

Axismaster

Active member
Joined
Jan 6, 2006
Messages
296
Reaction score
1
Location
Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
shuamort said:
Who is Rowe?
It is an alias for a woman down in Dallas who was prosecuted for having an abortion by Wade, who also had dealings with investigating the Kennedy assassination.
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Axismaster said:
It is an alias for a woman down in Dallas who was prosecuted for having an abortion by Wade, who also had dealings with investigating the Kennedy assassination.
I thought that was Roe.
 

tryreading

Steve
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 8, 2005
Messages
4,809
Reaction score
764
Location
Central Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Axismaster said:
If I could write the law in my state this is what it would say.

1. Abortion is banned in the exception of rape, incest, and the life of the mother, or if it can be proven that carrying the baby to term will do permanent emotional or physical damage.

2. If a minor gets pregnant and can provide a valid reason to have an abortion, she should be able to have one because minors are not developed enough to make a rational decision about the consequences of sex in the same way adults are. There will still be parental notification, though not consent laws.

3. Anyone who performs an illegal abortion will be charged with manslaughter, but if it is partial birth abortion they will be charged with first degree murder. The mother will not be charged but will be required to undergo treatment for emotional problems it may have caused.

4. For any abortion, doctors must gain legal waiver to perform it.
Are you really anti-abortion? In paragraph #1 above, you have left so many loop holes that any woman who wants to can have an abortion regardless of your law.

#2 allows minors to abort almost at will.

#3 applies consequences to the doctor. Why do you not provide punishment for the woman who initiated the premeditated action that resulted in an abortion? If you consider abortion murder, then there must be serious punishment for the murderer. She is the murderer, right? The doctor was an accomplice maybe, he aided and abetted, but he did nothing wrong if the woman didn't originate the steps which led to the abortion. She approached him. It was her decision. Her punishment should be worse than the doctor's, shouldn't it?

#4 - By waiver, do you mean a form that she would sign to hold the doctor harmless? Or do you mean a court order, which would allow the abortion? If the latter, the legal system is now deeply involved in the process, which will complicate it greatly, and slow it down. You'll have a waiting list, and some of the women who need an abortion for health reasons will die before getting approval.
 

tryreading

Steve
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 8, 2005
Messages
4,809
Reaction score
764
Location
Central Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Axismaster said:
It is an alias for a woman down in Dallas who was prosecuted for having an abortion by Wade, who also had dealings with investigating the Kennedy assassination.
You sure about that? McCorvey (Roe) had her baby.
 

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
tryreading said:
Since you have it all figured out, and know for sure where you stand, I'm sure you want Roe v Wade overturned and state anti-abortion laws enacted. What would the law be in your state if you wrote it?
All abortion illegal except when it GENUINELY threatens the life of the mother.
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
aquapub said:
All abortion illegal except when it GENUINELY threatens the life of the mother.
Why? What makes one life more valuable than another?
 

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Steen: Actually, this right to privacy has been foundation for law for more than a century. So you are saying that all rulings in this area are wrong, right?

Aquapub: I am saying that all laws involving this fictional privacy right should be overturned as the ELECTED legislature sees fit, and the unaccountable oligarchy of judges illegally making our laws should be returned to what Alexander Hamilton clarified (in Federalist 81) is, "the weakest branch."

Steen: Please don't lie about DNA, thanks.

Aquapub: Even if I weren't a microbiologist, it is common knowledge that each person has entirely unique DNA. Are you just not thinking or are you really this stupid?

Steen: Is that all you got? Just emotional hyperbole?

Aquapub: Left to right, top to bottom. It's called reading. I just laid out the facts and the reasoning (or lack thereof) behind Roe. You clearly don't know what emotion or hyperbole are. Neither was present in my argument. Calm down and think or leave. :roll:


Steen: Given that you obviously are not a Constitutional Scolar....

Aquapub: Actually, unlike you, I just don't hallucinate when I read the Constitution. It's all spelled out very clearly. Your egregious mis-identifications of what is Constitutional is EXACTLY what's wrong with the concept of the "living Constitution." All it does is help halfwits change the rules at the expense of the country.

Steen: ...your "just because I say so" attempt at presenting your wishful thinking as fact merely underscores the dishonesty of prolife claims.
Abortion was legal in new York. Your claim is absolute nonsense, it is outright falsehood and silly deceptions.Your silliness really isn't worth the effort here, you simply are to ignorant.

Aquapub: There is a reason you aren't refuting of these facts with anything but name-calling. All you have to go on are mindless insults and adolescant personal attacks.



I will take your incredibly weak-minded and un-substantive response to be an admission that you can't argue this. Go play in the kiddie pool if you can't debate with any more maturity or intelligence than this. :roll:
 
Last edited:

Axismaster

Active member
Joined
Jan 6, 2006
Messages
296
Reaction score
1
Location
Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
aquapub said:
All abortion illegal except when it GENUINELY threatens the life of the mother.
Who would be punished for the deed?
 

oracle25

Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2006
Messages
136
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
FutureIncoming said:
aquapub wrote: "Pro-Abortionist: It isn’t a living human being."

FALSE!

--and wrote: "(It always comes down to dehumanization based on age)"

BALDERDASH! (see below next section)

--and wrote: "Anti-Abortionist: (As stated in part 1) The DNA of unborn babies proves that they are separate individuals from their mothers. They consume, they grow, they have heartbeats; they meet and exceed the standards set by modern science for calling something alive, and their DNA also proves that they are human. They are created through sex and are not a collection of damaged genes-distinguishing it from the tumors and other bodily tissue pro-abortionists compare them to in order to dehumanize them."

MOSTLY AGREED. However, ALL cancer-causing genes in any human ultimately originated through the sex of the parents, so your point is? Nevertheless, the fatal flaw in your argument is that you think "dehumanization" is needed for abortion to be allowed. NOTHING IS FARTHER FROM THE TRUTH. The REAL key is, "When does life MATTER?" You do not think that the life of an average bacterium matters very much, do you? Or the life of an average fly or mosquito? Well, why should human life matter more than the bacterium or the fly or the mosquito? The answer involves "personhood", a phenomen that puts MANY humans into a special category, distinct from the merely animal. PERSONS are declared to "matter" (though this is a subjective and not an objective claim...). Unborn humans, however, do NOT qualify for personhood; they are unable to exhibit ANY of the prime characteristics that distinguish persons from mere animals. Well, since unborn humans, despite being utterly and completely human, ARE IN ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC FACT ALSO ONLY mere animals, like bacteria or flies or mosquitoes, then what is the big deal about killing them when they are unwanted? There is NO "dehumanization" here; there is only recognition that genuine facts about humans always supercede ignorant prejudices about humans.

Paraphrased from something I first wrote elsewhere:
+++
So, the issue is not whether an unborn human is alive; the issue is whether it qualifies as anything more than a mere animal organism (which it completely truly is, in objective scientific fact). What is it that distinquishes "persons" from "animals", anyway? The U.S. Constitution references "persons" many many times, and "humans" not at all. That's neat because it means the Constitution is all ready to accommodate "huddled masses" of non-human people seeking refuge from a cruel Universe (see fictional TV series "Alien Nation"). It logically follows that a growing yet unborn human organism is purely an animal, and at some point in its life it develops traits such that the human can then be called a person. Scientifically, these traits all appear to be associated with advanced mental abilities, such as Free Will (ordinary animals are pretty much nothing more than stimulus/response biological machines), empathy (no mere animal can imagine itself experiencing the situation of another organism), grasping abstract concepts like the future (no mere animal can understand its own mortality), representation of abstract concepts as symbols (no mere animal can understand a topographic map), and manipulation of abstract symbols (no mere animal can do mathematics like algebra). Scientific measurements of human abilities indicate that humans don't grow enough brainpower to fully qualify as persons until two to three years after birth. Logically, therefore, no unborn human qualifies as a person, and if actions that are called "ethical" (or not) involve matters in which people get along with each other (or don't), then unborn humans are as exempt from ethical consideration as any ordinary unwanted animal, such as an annoying fly that you might want to swat.
+++
Example number one for why christian conservatives must defeat liberal/atheist/communists.
 

Axismaster

Active member
Joined
Jan 6, 2006
Messages
296
Reaction score
1
Location
Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
oracle25 said:
Example number one for why christian conservatives must defeat liberal/atheist/communists.
Hey, I'm no Christian conservative, I'm a libertarian, so don't leave me out. I am united in defeating them. Of course, when I finish them off I will get rid of the theocrats.
 

oracle25

Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2006
Messages
136
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Sorry, I guess this example number one for anyone who doesn't like fetuses being compared to animals.
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
oracle25 said:
Sorry, I guess this example number one for anyone who doesn't like fetuses being compared to animals.
But they do taste like chicken.
 
Joined
Dec 28, 2005
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Axismaster said:
It is an alias for a woman down in Dallas who was prosecuted for having an abortion by Wade, who also had dealings with investigating the Kennedy assassination.

Wrong, Roe never wanted an abortion she left the state to keep her child, it was her partner [male ] who instigated the case to get her to abort, something which pro choice fail to mention, yet call anyone who wishes their partner to continue a pregnancy a misogynist.The law you cling to was instigated by a misogynist.
 

tryreading

Steve
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 8, 2005
Messages
4,809
Reaction score
764
Location
Central Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
aquapub said:
All abortion illegal except when it GENUINELY threatens the life of the mother.
What does illegal mean? If something is illegal, and someone violates the law, there are consequences.

If abortion is illegal, and a woman has an abortion anyway, what is her punishment? I don't care about the doctor who performs the procedure, do what you want with him. How do you make the woman pay for her crime, if abortion becomes a crime?
 

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
vergiss said:
"Former" crime? Rape being "unpleasant"? What's next, they only provoked it anyway?

If your child is a product of rape, then by the nature of time, it is a FORMER crime, yes. What the hell is that about?

If I called it horrific, would you then get over semantics and consider the point?!?!? :roll:
 

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Stace said:
Yup...they were asking for it. :doh

I can't even debate seriously with someone that can't spell Roe properly, when that case is at the heart of so many abortion debates.

If you are that superficial and un-concerned with the substance of the matter, then you are probably doing us all a favor by not weighing in. :roll:
 
Top Bottom