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

[eohrnberger]

It is strange now that you mention it that the US allows elective abortions up to viability ( about 23 to 24 weeks).
European countries have cutoff dates sooner in pregnacy.

Yet the US has a lower rate than Sweden, France, Denmark,Finland and the Netherlands.

So what conclusions from these data points do you draw?

 

[Lursa]

It’s a conflict of rights. One party or the other will be harmed.

Which party suffers the greater harm?

Women. Unless you value quantity over quality of life. The woman is fulfilling her role in society, has people dependent on her, obligations to others, dreams, opportunities, feels pain and suffers if her role in society is reduced to less than the unborn, etc. The unborn suffers no pain or awareness.

Do you value quantity over quality of life? Reducing the argument to just 'more being born' seems dehumanizing. My argument is a moral argument...it is immoral to intentionally force pain and suffering and loss of self-determination on women.

 

[NatMorton]

Look at you avoiding the tough questions again. You didnt even refute anything in my post. Some states did exactly what you wrote for the REASONS I wrote...

I've avoided nothing. You made a misstatement in support of your argument, and I corrected it.

Do you really not understand? Or is it that you refuse to acknowledge it? Here, try again.

MA will not distinguish abortion from other medical procedures. What right is needed?​

What if the city of Pittsfield, MA passess an ordinance banning abortion procedures within its city limits? Without MA's state-level right to abortion that law would be allowed to stand.

​

Thank you for making my point. Why would there need to be a right to abortion? Because it was needed **to protect women** To enable them to choose something much safer than pregnancy/childbirth...there would be no need to protect women's right to bodily autonomy, medical privacy (health decisions), and due process if some states werent protecting women under federal law. The RvW decision clarified women are entitled to those protections. States may not supersede that.​

I think we both understand what abortion rights are. I'm not sure why you think this needs to be explained.

​

Again, why should women not be allowed the safer medical procedure if they choose it? The unborn have no legal standing to affect that. So please explain? Just because you "imagine" the unborn have rights *at some point after conception but before birth* in your own para-phrased words...doesnt mean it exists in the Const.​

It's not a question of imagining the unborn having rights. In most states -- even under Roe -- the unborn in the third trimester have a basic right to live. You ignored this when we were debating Roe months ago and you're still ignoring it. Even under Roe the concept of a state enforced fetal right to life was permissible for the third trimester. Fact, not opinion.

​

Demonstrably, it does not. You continue to ignore the first sentence of the 14th A and the fact that no federal-level court decisions...which have examined it per Constitutionality...recognize rights for the unborn.​

And I think I must have said this to you at least a dozen times. I have never claimed there is a Constitutional right to life for the unborn.

In fact, maybe this will jog your memory:

Why are so many women anti-choice?

Did you mean 'hypothetical?' Just checking :) And you described it perfectly. Please, you’ve both been incredibly dishonest. You’ve claimed to have answered my questions and you have not. So you can both stop the BS. Your arguments have fallen far short, and we both know it.

debatepolitics.com

It is just one straw-man after another from you.

 

[Lursa]

To start a thread whose premise is basically, “haha look at all the libs I’ve pwned on this issue,” is rather hubristic, especially given that otherwise your conduct has been civil and your arguments well researched.

Esp since he hasnt if I've been in a thread with him...he's failed each time, just as he's doing so here.

 

[NatMorton]

I think on this issue people are dead set on their opinions - the absolute freedom of autonomy over ones reproductive system or the absolute right to life for the unborn.

To that end both sides will plumb the depths of law, religion or the constitution to justify their opinion. Once they’ve done that, and inevitably found comfort in a reading or interpretation that they believe supports their side they will be confident that the matter is settled and there are no more points to raise.

Now if one chooses to leave the debate at that point it is more likely because they don’t see eye to eye and never will, not because they feel they’ve been outsmarted or faced with some unassailable argument that undermines their confidence. They’ve simply said all they have and are done with it.

To start a thread whose premise is basically, “haha look at all the libs I’ve pwned on this issue,” is rather hubristic, especially given that otherwise your conduct has been civil and your arguments well researched.

I think one can be pro-choice and agree Roe was overreach.

I'm not trying to change anyone's views on abortion here. I am trying to convince people that democracy is the better way for us to resolve our differences.

 

[NatMorton]

McFall v Shimp makes it clear that is not a consideration. It's about the violation of bodily autonomy without consent. Even if it results in the other person's death.

It may make it clear, but the way things are going it will not make it operative. Tighter abortion restrictions are coming to many states once Dobbs is finalized.

 

[NatMorton]

Women. Unless you value quantity over quality of life. The woman is fulfilling her role in society, has people dependent on her, obligations to others, dreams, opportunities, feels pain and suffers if her role in society is reduced to less than the unborn, etc. The unborn suffers no pain or awareness.

Do you value quantity over quality of life? Reducing the argument to just 'more being born' seems dehumanizing. My argument is a moral argument...it is immoral to intentionally force pain and suffering and loss of self-determination on women.

You are entitled to that opinion. Others will differ, and they get to vote, too.

 

[craig]

She is totally responsible for the life created. Her body.

Accidents happen.

 

[Lursa]

I've avoided nothing. You made a misstatement in support of your argument, and I corrected it.

I accept that so I'll clarify it. I just get tired of typing sometimes because I've posted it before and you've seen it.

A state can create a right to something as long as it's exercise does not violate the Constitution or the rights it protects. See: Supremacy Clause.

What if the city of Pittsfield, MA passess an ordinance banning abortion procedures within its city limits? Without MA's state-level right to abortion that law would be allowed to stand.

Stop answering questions with more questions. Answer first.

I think we both understand what abortion rights are. I'm not sure why you think this needs to be explained.


It's not a question of imagining the unborn having rights. In most states -- even under Roe -- the unborn in the third trimester have a basic right to live. You ignored this when we were debating Roe months ago and you're still ignoring it. Even under Roe the concept of a state enforced fetal right to life was permissible for the third trimester. Fact, not opinion.

No, that's not written anywhere. You've written that before and been proven wrong. States 'may' take an interest in the unborn and protect it. That doesnt mean that protecting recognizes it has rights.

Where does the state taking an interest in protecting endangered species, historic buildings, forests, wildlife, etc recognize a basic right to life for those things?

And I think I must have said this to you at least a dozen times. I have never claimed there is a Constitutional right to life for the unborn.

You are being disingenuous...that's exactly what you 'believe' should be the case. You have discussed the moral aspects and inherent rights before. So all your arguments are skewed to attempt that justification. Just look at the lie or mistake you wrote above...the RvW decision did not mean the unborn has a right to life at viablity if the state protects it. Sounds stupid when written that way, doesnt it?

 

[minnie616]

Isn't that was Ginsberg said in the quote ?

Toobin is just following along.

Justice Blackmun used to be an attorney at the !Mayo clinic before he became a Justice.
Mentioning Doctor so often was a kind of recognition he giving to his Mayo Clinic friends

Blackmun also knew of the cases where women who never would have thought about an abortion caught rubella and felt the need for a therapeutic abortion.

In the 1960s a rubella epidemic swept the United States and panicked every pregnant woman in the country. Rubella, also called German measles.

Though the virus is relatively harmless for most people, when contracted during pregnancy, it can severely harm the developing fetus. During the epidemic many pregnant women who may have never identified as abortion-rights advocates suddenly found themselves seeking abortions and dismantling barriers to access.
……..
Now we have a vaccination that prevents measles but we still have other catastrophic birth defect that are not caught until after an ultrasound is given about 18 to 20 weeks.

Currently about 1 percent of abortions happen at, or after, 21 weeks, and 80 percent of those are the results of catastrophic defects that were detected during the ultrasound.

 

[NatMorton]

Esp since he hasnt if I've been in a thread with him...he's failed each time, just as he's doing so here.

That wasn't the point of the OP, and you're dancing with straw-men, again.

 

[Lursa]

You are entitled to that opinion. Others will differ, and they get to vote, too.

Correct. Here's a question for you then: what gives state or federal govt the right to force subjective opinion on women that dont agree with it? At the risk of their own lives?

That's why 'choice' is the moral position. No woman is forced to act in a manner she believes immoral or high risk to her life (all her life...not just breathing, but her responsibilities and obligations as well).

It explicitly says it wont in McFall v Shimp where it objects to it on moral grounds.

 

[Lursa]

That wasn't the point of the OP, and you're dancing with straw-men, again.

My posts are definitely an exception to your OP premise, I dont remember you qualifying it with 'most,' but maybe you did

 

[justoneman]

Sure I am. It only applies to persons, human beings. They had to explicitly spell out fetuses because they arent persons/human beings.

You are mistaken:

18 U.S. Code § 1841 - Protection of unborn children

www.law.cornell.edu

(C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall instead of being punished under subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections 1111, 1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.

 

[smallvoice]

I'm sure you're right. I'm sure you know more about legislation and the actors that shape it.
But I think if this was the only reason it should be repealed, nobody would even give it a second thought.
It will have an impact. But it seems the supreme court is getting nervous, so my hope is if they repeal it, it will be changed and come back in other words, giving the same results.

No human is an island and laws can have far reaching consequences. If judges fail to see that, maybe we shouldn't pay 'm as much.

So how much of your taxes go to "pay'm"?

 

[Lursa]

I think we both understand what abortion rights are. I'm not sure why you think this needs to be explained.

Prove it, since your continued harping on fetal rights indicates otherwise. Please address this directly:

Why would there need to be a right to abortion? Because it was needed **to protect women** To enable them to choose something much safer than pregnancy/childbirth...there would be no need to protect women's right to bodily autonomy, medical privacy (health decisions), and due process if some states were not denying women those protections women under federal law. The RvW decision clarified women are entitled to those protections. States may not supersede that.​

Where is the legal justification to violate those rights, protected by the Const, to invent rights for the unborn?

 

[NatMorton]

I accept that so I'll clarify it. I just get tired of typing sometimes because I've posted it before and you've seen it.

A state can create a right to something as long as it's exercise does not violate the Constitution or the rights it protects. See: Supremacy Clause.

I agree with that statement 100%.

Stop answering questions with more questions. Answer first.

Why would I do that?

No, that's not written anywhere. You've written that before and been proven wrong. States 'may' take an interest in the unborn and protect it. That doesnt mean that protecting recognizes it has rights.

Knowing as I hope you do that bans on third trimester abortions are permissible under Roe, i.e. where and when a woman's Constitutional right to privacy may be legally denied, what is the justification for that denial if not a fetal right to life? Please be specific.

Where does the state taking an interest in protecting endangered species, historic buildings, forests, wildlife, etc recognize a basic right to life for those things?

Those protections can (and do) exist for reasons other than a right to life. Historical buildings are preferred for many reasons: sometimes it's to preserve the tourist trade (I was recently in Charleston SC and that is an excellent example of that). Other times it's just for aesthetic values.

You are being disingenuous...that's exactly what you 'believe' should be the case. You have discussed the moral aspects and inherent rights before. So all your arguments are skewed to attempt that justification. Just look at the lie or mistake you wrote above...the RvW decision did not mean the unborn has a right to life at viablity if the state protects it. Sounds stupid when written that way, doesnt it?

No, you are just being arrogant. I do not believe that. I have said to you multiple times I do not believe that. No argument I've made relies on that. So you can stop the bullshit.

 

[Lursa]

You are mistaken:

18 U.S. Code § 1841 - Protection of unborn children

www.law.cornell.edu

(C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall instead of being punished under subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections 1111, 1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.

yes, it's saying that the person will be punished with the same law that punishes people that kill human beings.

It doesnt say fetuses are human beings. I realize that 'legalese' can be more difficult to understand sometimes, but...you didnt get it right here.

 

[NatMorton]

Correct. Here's a question for you then: what gives state or federal govt the right to force subjective opinion on women that dont agree with it? At the risk of their own lives?

Are you expecting a different answer from the dozen other times you've asked me this question? You know my answer.

 

[minnie616]

I am sorry that you had such traumatic pregnancies, that's never a good situation. Since it seemed to be an ongoing issue, did you consider having your tubes tied? or his? THAT would be a responsible act. Abortion is not.

Thank you for your kind words about my difficult pregnancies.

Before we were married my love and I had hoped for and planned to have 4 children.

After our forth child was born. My hubby had a vasectomy.

We have been happily married over 40 years now and yes, he is the love of my life.

 

[NatMorton]

My posts are definitely an exception to your OP premise, I dont remember you qualifying it with 'most,' but maybe you did

And didn't say all, and I'll agree. You don't give up.

 

[NatMorton]

You are mistaken:

18 U.S. Code § 1841 - Protection of unborn children

www.law.cornell.edu

(C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall instead of being punished under subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections 1111, 1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.

Gosh, that almost reads like an implied, qualified right to live for the unborn.

 

[justoneman]

yes, it's saying that the person will be punished with the same law that punishes people that kill human beings.

It doesnt say fetuses are human beings. I realize that 'legalese' can be more difficult to understand sometimes, but...you didnt get it right here.

Haha! Yes they will be convicted of murder, Just like Scott Peterson was convicted of murdering his unborn son. He was not convicted of "the same law that punishes people that kill human beings". He was convicted of murder.

 

[Gordy327]

I think one can be pro-choice and agree Roe was overreach.

I'm pro-choice and I do not agree that Roe was overreach. Roe simply decided the constitutionality of states legal bans on abortion. That is the job of the SCOTUS.

I'm not trying to change anyone's views on abortion here. I am trying to convince people that democracy is the better way for us to resolve our differences.

Except we are not a pure democracy.

 

[Lursa]

Why would I do that?

To avoid answering honestly. To try and divert to an argument you think you understand better.

Knowing as I hope you do that bans on third trimester abortions are permissible under Roe, i.e. where and when a woman's Constitutional right to privacy may be legally denied, what is the justification for that denial if not a fetal right to life? Please be specific.

I've answered that before. The RvW decision says it...the state's interest. Why do you need a different answer from me when it's there in writing? Please be specific.

Those protections can (and do) exist for reasons other than a right to life. Historical buildings are preferred for many reasons: sometimes it's to preserve the tourist trade (I was recently in Charleston SC and that is an excellent example of that). Other times it's just for aesthetic values.

So then why do you assume the RvW justices meant that their acknowledgement of the state's interest meant the recognition of fetal rights? Be specific.

No, you are just being arrogant. I do not believe that. I have said to you multiple times I do not believe that. No argument I've made relies on that. So you can stop the bullshit.

I'll stop the "bullshit" when you stop lying. What 'democratic process' was abrogated in RvW? Dont you keep writing that the decision is improper? How? Procedurally? In it's content? All you keep saying is that they had no foundation for not considering fetal rights. That's not true and has been sourced and proven.