I've noticed something has changed about the abortion debate on DP

[NatMorton]

I can deny use of my body to another even if it means they will die. Why would it matter where that person resides? There are risks of harm in every pregnancy.

Are you at least partly responsible for creating the life in question?

 

[ttwtt78640]

That's impossible and that's why the ninth amendment exists.

The 9A (invisible potential additional rights) is 100% dependent on SCOTUS interpretation which is what got us Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood in the first place. They used the implied “right to privacy” (which has no actual text) to accomplish that (their political?) mission.

The Constitutional amendment process is controlled (at least indirectly) by the majority of the electorate, while the SCOTUS only needs the approval of a majority of our nine, appointed for life, robed umpires. While it’s great to have umpires to enforce the rules, it’s not so great to have the umpires able to write the rules.

There is no right to privacy. All rights are property rights, and you'll find that all real privacy violations are in fact property rights violations.

There certainly should be - otherwise, we get nonsense like civil asset forfeiture laws (allowing a sentence to be imposed without any need for criminal conviction) and special federal income tax penalties imposed based on how we did not choose to spend part of our incomes.

 

[justoneman]

France also pays for all abortions. Want to go the way of France?

Universal healthcare is a different topic. Back to the idea of the legislature setting a limit of time for legal abortion. So how about it? Is it a good idea or not?

 

[jnug]

The right of self defense is a well established legal principle and one can harm another if one’s life (or even health) is threatened. IMO, the debate here is not about abortions that are medically necessary for the mother. They are about abortions on demand.

Hum....interesting since that is not where most of the states trying to outlaw Abortion are headed. But that is neither here or there. A state should not and does not have the power to take choice over woman's body away from her. You can call it Abortion on demand if you like but that is just another provocative turn of phrase and you know it.

Again, unless somebody makes an argument to me that I buy that keeps the legal limit for Abortion at end of he second trimester, I can see taking it down to 15 weeks. 9 out of 10 Abortions now occur on or before 13 weeks.

However, making Abortion illegal is purely an effort to regress women. That is what it is and that is all it is except for those gullible enough to think all this embryo and fetus and unborn nonsense is the heart of the issue.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Yes, I understand you're into eugenics and dehumanization. There is no need for you to announce it.

Your ignorance continues….

 

[Jredbaron96]

I would not, no. Causing a rape victim to carry to term could be seen as a form of torture.

So the right to life does not in fact exist in blanket form for a fetus, and lies at the discretion of the state to determine whether or not it is granted.

 

[HikerGuy83]

The people who want to shove their religion down everyone's throats think it's everyone else who has the weak argument?



Yeah, ok. And we all know what comes next. An endless litany of bad-faith questions. You'll note he hasn't made any argument himself.

He was simply making an assertion.

And he seems to be somewhat correct.

While I don't like the discussion myself (there are so many other things to discuss), he is correct in his statement that people will say "Well, it's O.K. by SCOTUS so we know who is right".

Not anymore (according to the rumor).

 

[NatMorton]

Hum....interesting since that is not where most of the states trying to outlaw Abortion are headed. But that is neither here or there. A state should not and does not have the power to take choice over woman's body away from her. You can call it Abortion on demand if you like but that is just another provocative turn of phrase and you know it.

Again, unless somebody makes an argument to me that I buy that keeps the legal limit for Abortion at end of he second trimester, I can see taking it down to 15 weeks. 9 out of 10 Abortions now occur on or before 13 weeks.

However, making Abortion illegal is purely an effort to regress women. That is what it is and that is all it is except for those gullible enough to think all this embryo and fetus and unborn nonsense is the heart of the issue.

I am not most states.

 

[NatMorton]

So the right to life does not in fact exist in blanket form for a fetus, and lies at the discretion of the state to determine whether or not it is granted.

Yes, a fetus’s right to live is at the discretion of the state. But if you think about it, so is your life and mine. We only have the rights we, society, choose to protect.

 

[jnug]

Folks, what should be obvious even from this one thread is that there is no consensus about when life begins. That is why Roe was so wrong. A national consensus never existed and certainly never existed in the expressed will of two-thirds of Congress and three fourths of the states (the majority needed to ratify the Bill of Rights and all the other enumerated rights in the Constitution.)

Repealing Roe will be the right thing to do. These differences need to be worked out by voters and our elected officials. Not judges with lifetime tenure.

There is fact, Consensus is simply a matter of opinion and that these days is a matter of politics. I could give a crap about consensus. The Right does not care about consensus. Most citizens in this country favor a woman's right of choice.

We should base policy on fact not bullshit.

 

[HikerGuy83]

^^^ see what mean?

Yes, heard that one before.

I've also noticed that people care about what men say regarding abortion.

I've also noticed that men get to vote for the people who make laws regarding abortion.

I've also noticed that male legislators do vote on these laws.

 

[wolfsgirl]

Folks, what should be obvious even from this one thread is that there is no consensus about when life begins. That is why Roe was so wrong. A national consensus never existed and certainly never existed in the expressed will of two-thirds of Congress and three fourths of the states (the majority needed to ratify the Bill of Rights and all the other enumerated rights in the Constitution.)

Repealing Roe will be the right thing to do. These differences need to be worked out by voters and our elected officials. Not judges with lifetime tenure.

Roe never forced anyone to have an abortion against their will, it only allowed those who want to to get one without their choice being denied.

 

[jnug]

I am not most states.

Another so what.

 

[wolfsgirl]

Are you at least partly responsible for creating the life in question?

Even if I cause a car accident I can not be forced to use my body to keep the other person alive.

 

[NatMorton]

There is fact, Consensus is simply a matter of opinion and that these days is a matter of politics. I could give a crap about consensus. The Right does not care about consensus. Most citizens in this country favor a woman's right of choice.

We should base policy on fact not bullshit.

If most people feel as you say, you should have no worries about Roe being repealed.

But look at it this way: we only have a right to free speech because two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of the states agreed that right should be enforced in every state. Why should a national right to an abortion on demand be established with a lower threshold of consensus?

 

[wolfsgirl]

Universal healthcare is a different topic. Back to the idea of the legislature setting a limit of time for legal abortion. So how about it? Is it a good idea or not?

If they want to determine what medical care a woman can have and when then they should pay for it.

 

[NatMorton]

Yes, heard that one before.

I've also noticed that people care about what men say regarding abortion.

I've also noticed that men get to vote for the people who make laws regarding abortion.

I've also noticed that male legislators do vote on these laws.

Have you noticed that men can have a uterus can get pregnant, too? Apparently it’s a recent development.

 

[Jay59]

You were perfectly free to decline a vaccination, and in turn whatever organization or service that was requiring it was free to decline your patronage.

I am not worried about patronage. I'm talking about reprisals, such as job loss.

 

[NatMorton]

Roe never forced anyone to have an abortion against their will, it only allowed those who want to to get one without their choice being denied.

Did anyone check with the fetus?

 

[NatMorton]

Another so what.

Exactly.

 

[Jredbaron96]

I am not worried about patronage. I'm talking about reprisals, such as job loss.

Businesses have every right to make decisions based on the welfare of their employee base.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Have you noticed that men can have a uterus can get pregnant, too? Apparently it’s a recent development.

Uh oh......

Now, how exactly do they get pregnant (this isn't a question I relish and answer to

 

[NatMorton]

Even if I cause a car accident I can not be forced to use my body to keep the other person alive.

That’s an interesting argument (seriously).

 

[wolfsgirl]

Did anyone check with the fetus?

The fetus doesn't get a vote on the use of another person's body

 

[justoneman]

If they want to determine what medical care a woman can have and when then they should pay for it.

Again, should the legislature not address this issue by setting the legal issues. Please stop trying to drag it into a different topic.