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?
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?