• 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.

Is South Dakota Bill Too Restrictive? Bush Says Yes

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
And, this time, I do agree completely with President Bush. Not allowing for rape and incest is, IMHO, forcing a woman to pay for the perpetrator's crime.

It is my belief that Roe v. Wade should be overturned, and that the states should decide the issue for themselves, but in the case of a woman who is carrying the child of an attacker or father who raped her, it should be her right to abort. She deserves due process herself. To all those who disagree - Why dont you show your anger against the real criminal, who is the rapist, instead of the woman?

Article is here.
 

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
danarhea said:
And, this time, I do agree completely with President Bush. Not allowing for rape and incest is, IMHO, forcing a woman to pay for the perpetrator's crime.

It is my belief that Roe v. Wade should be overturned, and that the states should decide the issue for themselves, but in the case of a woman who is carrying the child of an attacker or father who raped her, it should be her right to abort. She deserves due process herself. To all those who disagree - Why dont you show your anger against the real criminal, who is the rapist, instead of the woman?

Article is here.
I don't believe that Roe should be overturned, but if it is, it would be a tad hypocritical to allow abortions for rape. The basic premise for overturning seems to be that a fetus' right to life trumps a women's right to privacy. Allowing abortion for rape basically means that a fetus conceived from rape has less of a right to life than one who isn't. Makes no logical sense.
 
F

FallingPianos

Kelzie said:
I don't believe that Roe should be overturned, but if it is, it would be a tad hypocritical to allow abortions for rape. The basic premise for overturning seems to be that a fetus' right to life trumps a women's right to privacy. Allowing abortion for rape basically means that a fetus conceived from rape has less of a right to life than one who isn't. Makes no logical sense.
its extremely hypocritical. I've never understood when people say "that unborn child is a living human being with the right to live... unless it was conceived by rape"
 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Kelzie said:
I don't believe that Roe should be overturned, but if it is, it would be a tad hypocritical to allow abortions for rape. The basic premise for overturning seems to be that a fetus' right to life trumps a women's right to privacy. Allowing abortion for rape basically means that a fetus conceived from rape has less of a right to life than one who isn't. Makes no logical sense.
Actually, that is not why I believe Roe v. Wade should be overturned. It is an issue that Consitutionally belongs to the states, per the 10th Amendment, unless the woman's own Consitutional rights are at stake. If she is raped, then she Consitutionally has the right not to carry the fetus, should she become pregnant.
 

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
danarhea said:
Actually, that is not why I believe Roe v. Wade should be overturned. It is an issue that Consitutionally belongs to the states, per the 10th Amendment, unless the woman's own Consitutional rights are at stake. If she is raped, then she Consitutionally has the right not to carry the fetus, should she become pregnant.
Sorry, I don't think states should ever be able to outlaw civil liberties, which is what I think an abortion is.

Why? What's the difference in value between a fetus from rape and a consentual one?
 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Kelzie said:
Sorry, I don't think states should ever be able to outlaw civil liberties, which is what I think an abortion is.

Why? What's the difference in value between a fetus from rape and a consentual one?
Consentual sex is a whole different animal than rape, which is a viscious crime. No woman should have to be reminded every day about how she was brutalized, by having to carry the fetus to term.

However, if consentual sex leads to pregnancy, that is a different story, and people of various regions feel differently about abortion. This belongs to the states and is none of the Federal government's business.
 

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
danarhea said:
Consentual sex is a whole different animal than rape, which is a viscious crime. No woman should have to be reminded every day about how she was brutalized, by having to carry the fetus to term.

However, if consentual sex leads to pregnancy, that is a different story, and people of various regions feel differently about abortion. This belongs to the states and is none of the Federal government's business.
Oh really? Because forcing a woman to carry a child she doesn't want becomes more unacceptable when she didn't consent to the act?

Sorry. It doesn't add up. You can say that the fetus' value is more important than the mother's body. And while I don't agree, that's fine. What you can't say is that some fetus's have more value. Especially when the fetus is not guilty of the crime at all.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
danarhea said:
Actually, that is not why I believe Roe v. Wade should be overturned. It is an issue that Consitutionally belongs to the states, per the 10th Amendment, unless the woman's own Consitutional rights are at stake. If she is raped, then she Consitutionally has the right not to carry the fetus, should she become pregnant.
Where in the Constitution do you see this distinction between fetuses conceived through rape, versus fetuses conceived through consensual sex? For that matter, where in the Constitution do you see the right to an abortion at all?

I agree that Roe v Wade should be overturned and left to the states (and I also agree that the SD law is idiotic). But I'm afraid we part company if you see some distinction in the Constitution over various abortion circumstances.
 

scottyz

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
1,575
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
star2589 said:
its extremely hypocritical. I've never understood when people say "that unborn child is a living human being with the right to live... unless it was conceived by rape"
What happens when the rapist comes looking for his kid and the mom? Probably nothing good...
 

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
scottyz said:
What happens when the rapist comes looking for his kid and the mom? Probably nothing good...
That's not really the issue and the same problem exists with a consentual baby when the mother never wanted to be in a relationship with the father.
 

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Kandahar said:
Where in the Constitution do you see this distinction between fetuses conceived through rape, versus fetuses conceived through consensual sex? For that matter, where in the Constitution do you see the right to an abortion at all?

I agree that Roe v Wade should be overturned and left to the states (and I also agree that the SD law is idiotic). But I'm afraid we part company if you see some distinction in the Constitution over various abortion circumstances.
Just out of curiousity, do you believe the states should be able to declare a state religion? Or...I guess the easier question would be if you think abortion is a civil right?
 
F

FallingPianos

scottyz said:
What happens when the rapist comes looking for his kid and the mom? Probably nothing good...
well, thats a different issue. I dont know much about child custody laws, but I would not be surprised to find out that they need a lot of fixing.

the whole abortion debate is on whether the unborn have the right to live, and I dont see how rape would make any difference.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Kelzie said:
Just out of curiousity, do you believe the states should be able to declare a state religion?
No. They were able to do so up until the 14th amendment was ratified (some of them had state religions at the time the Constitution was written). But with the 1st amendment combined with the 14th, the restriction on the federal government against establishing a state religion now applies to the states too.

Kelzie said:
Or...I guess the easier question would be if you think abortion is a civil right?
Not really. I can't envision any circumstance where it would be a good idea for a state to ban it, but I don't see any constitutional reason they shouldn't be allowed to.
 

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Kandahar said:
No. They were able to do so up until the 14th amendment was ratified (some of them had state religions at the time the Constitution was written). But with the 1st amendment combined with the 14th, the restriction on the federal government against establishing a state religion now applies to the states too.



Not really. I can't envision any circumstance where it would be a good idea for a state to ban it, but I don't see any constitutional reason they shouldn't be allowed to.
So you believe freedom of religion is a civil liberty, but not freedom over your own body. Huh.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Kelzie said:
So you believe freedom of religion is a civil liberty, but not freedom over your own body. Huh.
I favor both the freedom of religion and the freedom to have an abortion. But at issue here is the constitutionality.

The former is a freedom explicitly granted in the Constitution. As for the latter, I don't even see an implication anywhere in the Constitution that states can't ban it if they want to. I'm willing to interpret the Constitution somewhat liberally when it comes to individual rights because of the 9th amendment, but even so I don't see how abortion is even implied in any of the freedoms granted.
 

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Kandahar said:
I favor both the freedom of religion and the freedom to have an abortion. But at issue here is the constitutionality.

The former is a freedom explicitly granted in the Constitution. As for the latter, I don't even see an implication anywhere in the Constitution that states can't ban it if they want to. I'm willing to interpret the Constitution somewhat liberally when it comes to individual rights because of the 9th amendment, but even so I don't see how abortion is even implied in any of the freedoms granted.
So you don't think humans have any inherent liberties, only those given to them by law?
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Kelzie said:
So you don't think humans have any inherent liberties, only those given to them by law?
Sure. But that doesn't mean that our government should ignore its Constitution to protect liberties that are not enumerated in it. I'd support a constitutional amendment to protect the right to have an abortion, but until that happens I see no constitutional justification for Roe v Wade.
 

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Kandahar said:
Sure. But that doesn't mean that our government should ignore its Constitution to protect liberties that are not enumerated in it. I'd support a constitutional amendment to protect the right to have an abortion, but until that happens I see no constitutional justification for Roe v Wade.
So you do think abortion is a civil liberty, just not one that's included in the Constitution?
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Kelzie said:
So you do think abortion is a civil liberty, just not one that's included in the Constitution?
I'm not sure what you mean by "civil liberty." I've always thought that to mean a liberty that is protected by the Constitution. In which case, this would obviously be an oxymoron.

I see no reason for it to be illegal, but I don't think abortion is protected by the Constitution. A better question is this: What should define what's protected and not protected by the government, if not the Constitution?
 

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Kandahar said:
I'm not sure what you mean by "civil liberty." I've always thought that to mean a liberty that is protected by the Constitution. In which case, this would obviously be an oxymoron.

I see no reason for it to be illegal, but I don't think abortion is protected by the Constitution. A better question is this: What should define what's protected and not protected by the government, if not the Constitution?
I've always thought of a civil liberty as one that cannot/should not be taken away. Like freedom of religion. I could have the wrong definition though.


I'm a big fan of "one's liberties extend until they impede on another's liberties". Kind of a catch all.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Kelzie said:
I've always thought of a civil liberty as one that cannot/should not be taken away. Like freedom of religion. I could have the wrong definition though.
In that case I'd agree that the government shouldn't deny people the right to do as they want with their own body.

Kelzie said:
I'm a big fan of "one's liberties extend until they impede on another's liberties". Kind of a catch all.
A little too vague for legal purposes though.
 

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Kandahar said:
A little too vague for legal purposes though.
Is it? It seems fairly easy to apply to me. Killing someone...not okay. Speaking your mind...okay.
 

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Kelzie said:
I don't believe that Roe should be overturned, but if it is, it would be a tad hypocritical to allow abortions for rape. The basic premise for overturning seems to be that a fetus' right to life trumps a women's right to privacy. Allowing abortion for rape basically means that a fetus conceived from rape has less of a right to life than one who isn't. Makes no logical sense.
No, the basis for overturning Roe V Wade is that it's a violation of the 10th amendment and that the Supreme Court used an invented, "total incorporation plus," interpretation of the Constitution to find a right to privacy that doesn't exist. I'm all for pro-choice just so long as the people get their vote.
 

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
No, the basis for overturning Roe V Wade is that it's a violation of the 10th amendment and that the Supreme Court used an invented, "total incorporation plus," interpretation of the Constitution to find a right to privacy that doesn't exist. I'm all for pro-choice just so long as the people get their vote.
Uh huh...which wasn't what I was talking about at all, but great.

And it's not really a violation of the 10th amend. You can say it's an incorrect interpretation of the right to privacy that is suggested in the Constiution (or perhaps being denied the right to life or property), but all the states are required to recognize it since it's supposedly in the Constitution. The issue is whether it's really there.
 

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Kelzie said:
Uh huh...which wasn't what I was talking about at all, but great.

And it's not really a violation of the 10th amend. You can say it's an incorrect interpretation of the right to privacy that is suggested in the Constiution (or perhaps being denied the right to life or property), but all the states are required to recognize it since it's supposedly in the Constitution. The issue is whether it's really there.
Actually it is a violation of the xth because the right to privacy isn't in the Constitution it was made up by using the total incorporation plus, interpretation of the Constitution.
 
Top Bottom