conserv.pat15
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2006
- Messages
- 647
- Reaction score
- 7
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Can someone tell me the exact amendment that gives a woman the RIGHT to an abortion?
-
This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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.
Question...
- Thread starter conserv.pat15
- Start date
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2005
- Messages
- 5,623
- Reaction score
- 605
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
conserv.pat15 wrote: "Can someone tell me the exact amendment that gives a woman the RIGHT to an abortion?"
In THAT phrasing, there isn't one. But some part of either the Constitution or its Amendments offers something that is interpreted as a "right to privacy" (the word "privacy", though, is not used), and in the Roe vs Wade decision, THAT was the thing invoked to allow abortions. It could be said that a pregnant woman seeking an abortion is "minding her own business", and so others should do the same, instead of try to interfere.
However, there is a BETTER Constitutional argument/precedent supporting abortion rights. This comes from the way the U.S. Census has been conducted, every one of them since the first in 1790. All persons are supposed to be counted, so that each State can have the correct/appropriate number of Representatives in Congress. And unborn humans have NEVER been counted! The simple conclusion is that they "do not count" as being persons. (And, remember the adage, "Don't count your chickens before they are hatched? Our ancestors told us that for a reason, and it is applicable to other countings. For example, unborn humans have a high miscarriage rate (up to 40%, when failure-to-implant-in-womb is included), so counting them when they might not even get born is silly.) Well, the Constitution uses the word "person" a LOT, and rights are specifically granted to "persons born" in the 14th Amendment. The net effect of the preceding is that unborn humans, since they have never been considered to be persons worth counting in more than 200 years of Census-taking, do not deserve rights under the Constitution. Therefore there is no obstacle between a pregnant woman and an abortion, should she desire it.
Then there is the 13th Amendment, which prohibits involuntary servitude. A woman who is pregnant but doesn't want to be pregnant is a woman who is involuntarily "serving" the unborn human in her womb. She has the right to become free of that bondage, thanks to its prohibition in the 13th Amendment. Note that a woman who WANTS to be pregnant is not involuntarily serving the unborn human in her womb. There are no contradictions in this interpretation of that Amendment.
So, between right-to-privacy, the Census of persons-born, and the prohibition of involuntary servitude, women in the U.S.A. are free to seek abortions if they so choose. Opponents of abortion will have to overcome all three Constitutional obstacles, and should they succeed the net SIDE-EFFECTS will be to let the Government spy on us freely (no privacy), miscarried pregnancies will have to be counted in the Census, and slavery will return. BAD, STUPID, AND VERY BAD. Better to keep allowing abortion. Although humans are killed by that procedure, they do not have minds enough to understand any of the issues, including "values" or "rights". They have mere-animal-intelligence AT MOST. We kill smarter animals every day in slaughterhouses; just because THESE animals are human should make utterly no difference at all -- and it doesn't, except in the minds of the prejudiced.
In THAT phrasing, there isn't one. But some part of either the Constitution or its Amendments offers something that is interpreted as a "right to privacy" (the word "privacy", though, is not used), and in the Roe vs Wade decision, THAT was the thing invoked to allow abortions. It could be said that a pregnant woman seeking an abortion is "minding her own business", and so others should do the same, instead of try to interfere.
However, there is a BETTER Constitutional argument/precedent supporting abortion rights. This comes from the way the U.S. Census has been conducted, every one of them since the first in 1790. All persons are supposed to be counted, so that each State can have the correct/appropriate number of Representatives in Congress. And unborn humans have NEVER been counted! The simple conclusion is that they "do not count" as being persons. (And, remember the adage, "Don't count your chickens before they are hatched? Our ancestors told us that for a reason, and it is applicable to other countings. For example, unborn humans have a high miscarriage rate (up to 40%, when failure-to-implant-in-womb is included), so counting them when they might not even get born is silly.) Well, the Constitution uses the word "person" a LOT, and rights are specifically granted to "persons born" in the 14th Amendment. The net effect of the preceding is that unborn humans, since they have never been considered to be persons worth counting in more than 200 years of Census-taking, do not deserve rights under the Constitution. Therefore there is no obstacle between a pregnant woman and an abortion, should she desire it.
Then there is the 13th Amendment, which prohibits involuntary servitude. A woman who is pregnant but doesn't want to be pregnant is a woman who is involuntarily "serving" the unborn human in her womb. She has the right to become free of that bondage, thanks to its prohibition in the 13th Amendment. Note that a woman who WANTS to be pregnant is not involuntarily serving the unborn human in her womb. There are no contradictions in this interpretation of that Amendment.
So, between right-to-privacy, the Census of persons-born, and the prohibition of involuntary servitude, women in the U.S.A. are free to seek abortions if they so choose. Opponents of abortion will have to overcome all three Constitutional obstacles, and should they succeed the net SIDE-EFFECTS will be to let the Government spy on us freely (no privacy), miscarried pregnancies will have to be counted in the Census, and slavery will return. BAD, STUPID, AND VERY BAD. Better to keep allowing abortion. Although humans are killed by that procedure, they do not have minds enough to understand any of the issues, including "values" or "rights". They have mere-animal-intelligence AT MOST. We kill smarter animals every day in slaughterhouses; just because THESE animals are human should make utterly no difference at all -- and it doesn't, except in the minds of the prejudiced.
Gaivs Ivlivs
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2006
- Messages
- 14
- Reaction score
- 0
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
vergiss said:
Infallible or no it is the highest law of our land. No law may contridict the Constutution and it is the duty of the supreme court to ensure that none do. To say that Americans beleive that the Constutution is infallible you would have to provide some sort of testing criteria. I do beleive, however, that it would be accurate to say that most Americans have a high level of respect from one of the most well composed documents in history.
Last edited: