- Joined
- Aug 27, 2005
- Messages
- 43,602
- Reaction score
- 26,256
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
What happens when the rapist comes looking for his kid and the mom? Probably nothing good...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"
scottyz said:What happens when the rapist comes looking for his kid and the mom? Probably nothing good...
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.
scottyz said:What happens when the rapist comes looking for his kid and the mom? Probably nothing good...
Kelzie said:Just out of curiousity, do you believe the states should be able to declare a state religion?
Kelzie said:Or...I guess the easier question would be if you think abortion is a civil right?
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.
Kelzie said:So you believe freedom of religion is a civil liberty, but not freedom over your own body. Huh.
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.
Kelzie said:So you don't think humans have any inherent liberties, only those given to them by law?
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.
Kelzie said:So you do think abortion is a civil liberty, just not one that's included in the Constitution?
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?
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.
Kelzie said:I'm a big fan of "one's liberties extend until they impede on another's liberties". Kind of a catch all.
Kandahar said:A little too vague for legal purposes though.
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.
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?