Abortion

[steen]

Steen... can you tell me the exact amendment in the Constitution that gives a woman the RIGHT to an abortion? Just give me the number of the amendment...

That was already done in the Roe vs Wade decision:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=410&invol=113

 

[Hornburger]

Because I can guarantee that it'd still be cheaper than it is to carry a pregnancy to term.

Not if we tax it like hell lol.

But even if it wasn't...it would still greatly lower the difference between pregnancy and abortion...and would discourage abortions.

 

[conserv.pat15]

But not a woman or a man. Perhaps you have some trouble with vocabulary, assuming that all words mean the same?

An infant also isn't a woman or a man... Neither is a person who is 10 years old or 11 years old, ect... What is your point?

 

[conserv.pat15]

...you seriously can't see it?!

Nope. Please explain...

 

[conserv.pat15]

That was already done in the Roe vs Wade decision:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=410&invol=113

Are you talking about the 9th and 14th amendments?

 

[Hornburger]

That was already done in the Roe vs Wade decision:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=410&invol=113

There's a big difference between a court decision and the Constitution...

 

[Vandeervecken]

So you are in favor for abortion up until the time of natural birth, 9 months?

I'm not, "in favor," of any abortion frankly. I merely oppose the government involving itself in the choice. The choice should remain the woman's. I always took great care where I left my semen so I would never have to be inviolved in an unwanted or unplanned pregnancy. Yet, it still happened to me. My wife, disptie being declared infertile by three different OBGYN's got pregnant. So there I was involved in an unplanned pregnancy. Lucky for us we were thrilled by it and our little girl is the joy of our life. But that was her choice and nobody else had a right to decide for her, not even me.

Are you saying too that our Constitution should not include children in its definition of “equality for everyone with rights under the law” because they are not full persons so they shouldn’t qualify?

Actually I feel it is wrong to deny children many of the rights they are denied. Unless the Constitution itself puts an age limit on an issue I do not feel legislation should. However children have been born and the Constitution recogises them as entities with rights. See Amendment 14 Section 1. A fetus cannot say the same thing even if a fetus could say anything.

And other Peter Singer fan eh? For you to compare animals to humans is absurd. That is how pro-abortionists see life though. They have to justify in their minds that the thing they are killing is no more… than just an animal... A barnyard animal. You compare the unborns value to that of an animal so really there is no reason not to also compare the value of born people to animals, right? You murder a cow and you get life in prison with no hopes of parole? :rofl

Frankly I value a few animals in my life more highly than I value most fetuses. The only fetuses that I should be concerned about are those in my own family.

That mentality of “life for a child begins when his mother wants him worldview or when 'he takes his first breath”….is so tragically sad.

No other moment in the devlopment is so unmistakable as birth. It is also the moment it no longer requires the body of a single individual for life support. As long as it needs a host, the host has the right to evict.

You on the pro-death side can’t stomach the idea of a child being dismembered, so you go to great lengths to redefine what it means to be a person. The unborn in the womb then is nothing more than an animal to you, nothing better or more valuable than a non-human animal.

Not pro-death and your tried name calling does nothing for your arguments. I am merely for the government following the Constitution. I am also for individual liberty. I oppose slavery and theocracy.

 

[Vandeervecken]

Then why is it illegal to execute a woman if she is pregnant? If our Constitution doesn’t recognize the rights of the fetus……….then why not execute the woman?

I am not aware of the law that says this, can you cite it for me?

Why is it illegal in some states for a pregnant woman to damage her fetus by taking drugs or alcohol?

It isn't illegal until the child is born. Then they get charged for delvering those drugs to the child. A blood test is taken at the moment of birth and of course the drugs are in the blood stream. It isn;t a crime till the child has legal standing though, after birth.

You mean sick minds? Any moron can see that abortion is the legal dismemberment of human children. One need not be religious to see this. But it is obvious that you hate those who do hold to a religious faith that it clouds your judgment. So much for tolerance of the LEFT.

More name calling. No a child is born. A fetus is different. That is why they have different words for them. You know tween and teen are different too. Or is a 10 year old an, "unaged teen," in your eyes? I hate very little actually. I spend my hate much more niggardly than I spend my love, and I spend that carefully. I merely distrust evil, and being a student of history I see nearly all organised religions as evil.

So only those who are pro-life should adopt….? What are you doing? You adopting? Don’t use the excuse your pregnant, you could do both couldn’t you?

You are the ones demanding millions of unwanted children be born, it is up to you therefore to care for them if you wish them born. The problem is if you look at the religous right they are big on forcing the unwanted children to be born, then do everything they can to leave the kids in hell. Opposing all wlefare, and educaltional programs for the poor and the like, not to mention the snide digs at bastards and their ostracisim by the relgious.

Why is it that there are laws against partial birth abortions? If they do not deserve protection………..then why not make it legal to abort up until natural delivery?

I do not recognise the constitutional validity of these laws. The justification I have heard used for them is they consider the moment ANY part of a fetus clears the vaginal canal it is born, and therefore posesssing of rights. I, the medical world, and the rest of the world do not consider it born until it is clreaed the woman completely and the cord is cut ending its life support from the mother.

Comments such as this are pathetic, sick, deranged…………inhumane……….what else can I say? But at least this is the first post you have ever made without references to your moles. :rofl

No, it is perfectly valid. Thee is no semantic difference between the phrases, "unborn children," and, "undead corpses." I've never mentioned any moles. What are you talking about?

 

[Vandeervecken]

There's a big difference between a court decision and the Constitution...

The court decisions cites, in detail, its Constitutional Justification. That is what Supreme Court Decisions do. . . . .

Anyone that hasn't read Roe v Wade AND Boe v Dalton really has no place discussing abortion law.

 

[Hornburger]

The court decisions cites, in detail, its Constitutional Justification. That is what Supreme Court Decisions do. . . . .

Anyone that hasn't read Roe v Wade AND Boe v Dalton really has no place discussing abortion law.

Court decisions are not the supreme law of the land. They do not make enforceable laws or anything like that...

The Constitution is the Supreme Document that outlines what the government can and can not do. The courts only determine whether the laws are fair and Constitutional or not. It's not like the court decisions are laws themselves...

They're different, the Constitution and court decisions...

And I never said that you don't have to look at such cases. I merely am stating that there is a big difference between the Constitution and the courts...if they're the same thing, why have both?

P.S. TAX TAX TAX lol

 

[Kandahar]

The court decisions cites, in detail, its Constitutional Justification. That is what Supreme Court Decisions do. . . . .

Anyone that hasn't read Roe v Wade AND Boe v Dalton really has no place discussing abortion law.

All court decisions prove is that the Supreme Court has the final say on the matter. That doesn't mean that they're right.

 

[Mixed View]

When you get lung cancer because you are lazy and irresponsible with smoking, then I would be the bad guy if I tried to stop you from treatment of the lung cancer. So yes, that DOES make you the bad guys, oppressing and enslaving women.[.QUOTE]

Being pregnant isn't a disease, thought you should know considering you can't tell the difference.

Thanks for emphasizing that this is all about oppression and controlling the woman. Your misogynistic agenda is clear.

This issue isn't about oppressing the woman or anything like that. It's about how there is a human's life at stake and you liberals aren't sticking up for the human that did nothing wrong. you're killing an innocent!

 

[Kandahar]

This issue isn't about oppressing the woman or anything like that. It's about how there is a human's life at stake and you liberals aren't sticking up for the human that did nothing wrong. you're killing an innocent!

I love how you people continue to frame the argument this way, without so much as an acknowledgement that the humanity of the fetus is the very thing that's being debated. It's like talking to a brick wall.

 

[conserv.pat15]

Pro-abortionists, do you feel that a fetus is a person?

If you pro-abortionists feel that a fetus is not a person, then that means you would have to support abortion all the way up until birth.

 

[Kandahar]

Pro-abortionists, do you feel that a fetus is a person?

If you pro-abortionists feel that a fetus is not a person, then that means you would have to support abortion all the way up until birth.

Personally I do support abortion all the way up until birth. But your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise, because there are varying degrees of personhood throughout a human's development (before and after birth).

 

[earthworm]

"That man should learn to respect woman" is not meaningful,Sheen ??

I rant as there is apparently no way to get through to those who agree with the practice of abortion..

Believe it nor not, Sheen, I voted to continue with legal abortion..

Why - man, at this time does not respect woman, respects nothing....

Maybe in another several millennia he will...

 

[conserv.pat15]

Personally I do support abortion all the way up until birth. But your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise, because there are varying degrees of personhood throughout a human's development (before and after birth).

But if a person isn't a person until birth(as pro-abortionists claim), then that means that the fetus has no value to them. So it wouldn't make sense for someone who is pro-abortion to say that an abortion could only be allowed up to a certain point. Do you see what I'm saying?

 

[Kandahar]

But if a person isn't a person until birth(as pro-abortionists claim), then that means that the fetus has no value to them. So it wouldn't make sense for someone who is pro-abortion to say that an abortion could only be allowed up to a certain point. Do you see what I'm saying?

Not everyone who supports abortion rights thinks exactly the same thing. Obviously if someone believes a fetus is a person at birth, then they would be in favor of allowing abortion up until birth. If someone believes a fetus is a person after six months, then they would be in favor of allowing abortion up until six months, etc.

Where's the inconsistency in this?

 

[Stace]

Not everyone who supports abortion rights thinks exactly the same thing. Obviously if someone believes a fetus is a person at birth, then they would be in favor of allowing abortion up until birth. If someone believes a fetus is a person after six months, then they would be in favor of allowing abortion up until six months, etc.

Where's the inconsistency in this?

Kandahar, you need to go check out the "How is abortion not murder?" thread.....or something like that. Oh, I am having fun over there, could use some help though :mrgreen:

 

[Hornburger]

grr...it is evident how so many people continue to look at the wrong question...it shouldn't be "Is abortion murder" but "How do we fix the problem"

 

[earthworm]

grr...it is evident how so many people continue to look at the wrong question...it shouldn't be "Is abortion murder" but "How do we fix the problem"

I fully agree, Hornburger..
The problem is this : Man simply is not that advanced, he has yet to learn absolute respect of life; respect for woman.
It really was not that long ago when he would enslave others and practice unspeakable horrors upon the weak and innocent..
His advancement will take time, hundreds of years yet.
Maybe this can be measured in the annual death by abortion count - I hope this is declining...

 

[conserv.pat15]

Not everyone who supports abortion rights thinks exactly the same thing. Obviously if someone believes a fetus is a person at birth, then they would be in favor of allowing abortion up until birth. If someone believes a fetus is a person after six months, then they would be in favor of allowing abortion up until six months, etc.

Where's the inconsistency in this?

This is why it's inconsistent... If someone claims that the fetus is not a person until 6 months, then they would agree that it is OK to abort the fetus at 5 months 27 days. Meaning that at 6 months it is a person(according to the person who believes the 6 month time period)... but seconds, hours, or a few days earlier, it is not a person. My point is that if someone puts a certain timetable on when the fetus becomes a person, then someone can ask why isn't the fetus a person seconds before the timetable they specify.

 

[Kandahar]

This is why it's inconsistent... If someone claims that the fetus is not a person until 6 months, then they would agree that it is OK to abort the fetus at 5 months 27 days. Meaning that at 6 months it is a person(according to the person who believes the 6 month time period)... but seconds, hours, or a few days earlier, it is not a person. My point is that if someone puts a certain timetable on when the fetus becomes a person, then someone can ask why isn't the fetus a person seconds before the timetable they specify.

It's all a gray area, including your view that an embryo is the moral equivalent of an adult human five seconds after conception. That's certainly not the fault of those who support abortion rights, it's just a fact of biology. The law needs an arbitrary cutoff; the fact that the line is arbitrary doesn't mean that the line shouldn't be drawn at all.

 

[Vandeervecken]

Court decisions are not the supreme law of the land. They do not make enforceable laws or anything like that...

Nor did I ever claim they were or did.

The Constitution is the Supreme Document that outlines what the government can and can not do. The courts only determine whether the laws are fair and Constitutional or not. It's not like the court decisions are laws themselves...

Once again I never claimed they did.

They're different, the Constitution and court decisions...

Of course they are, this was never the issue.

And I never said that you don't have to look at such cases. I merely am stating that there is a big difference between the Constitution and the courts...if they're the same thing, why have both?

Once again you attack a straw man.

P.S. TAX TAX TAX lol

This does not even make sense. What, preytell, does this mean in context with this or any other conversation we are having?

The point of my post was simple. Conserv keeps demanding that people point to what part(s) of the Constitution support the right to an abortion. He claims time and again that nobody has ever explained this. I merely pointing out that a simple reading of Roe v Wade and Boe v Dalton would explain to him, in excruciating detail, what parts of the Constitution come into play here.

It has been explained to him in detail here as well, but he keeps shouting, "Is not, Is not, Is not, Is not, Is not, Is not, Is not, Is not, Is not, Is not, Is not, Is not, Is not, Is not, Is not, Is not, Is not, Is not, Is not, Is not, Is not, Is not, Is not, Is not, Is not, Is not, I caaaaaaaaaaan't hear you, nayh nayh, nayh nayh, nayh nayh, nayh nayh, nayh nayh, nayh nayh, nayh nayh, nayh nayh, nayh nayh, nayh nayh, nayh nayh, nayh nayh, nayh nayh, nayh nayh, nayh nayh, nayh nayh, nayh nayh, nayh nayh, nayh nayh, nayh nayh!" And demanding over again that someone explain it to him.

I merely pointed out that nobody really has any business in a serious discussion of abortion law that has not read those decisions and seen how the Court said the Constitution applied.

 

[Vandeervecken]

All court decisions prove is that the Supreme Court has the final say on the matter. That doesn't mean that they're right.

While I agree with you, you cannot argue they are wrong meaningfully without having read them now can you?

Quite simply you cannot have a fact based discussion on ANY issue you have not researched the basic facts of.

I am amazed at how many people seem to think this concept is wrong. It does explain a lot though about some folks and their debating style.