Should abortion be restricted/banned? Make your case!

[zincwarrior]

Roe absolutely did not find the unborn to be citizens. They couldn't have, not legitimately, as that would contradict the US Constitution, since a citizen has to be born.

No, thats not what I meant. They found the state had a compelling state interest at a defined point in the cycle.

 

[roguenuke]

Late term abortions. When the foetus is almost able to survive on its own outside the womb I would argue against abortion because you're not just killing a foetus at this stage - you're killing a human being.

Less than 200 abortions occur annually after week 28 gestation in the US, and those are easily accounted for by those with health problems or severe fetal issues, which I don't know why anyone would be against abortions for such problems.

 

[roguenuke]

No, thats not what I meant. They found the state had a compelling state interest at a defined point in the cycle.

I believe Roe was a compromise for the time, as they didn't see it as likely they could rule abortion completely a right of women during the 1970s without some push for a Constitutional Amendment to overturn. Roe was written to justify a compromise that neither side really supported but at least ensured abortion was legal up to a point to some degree.

 

[Lursa]

I believe Roe was a compromise for the time, as they didn't see it as likely they could rule abortion completely a right of women during the 1970s without some push for a Constitutional Amendment to overturn. Roe was written to justify a compromise that neither side really supported but at least ensured abortion was legal up to a point to some degree.

I posted (and sourced) the decisions pretty clearly...and still havent seen what that specific states interest is...esp. something that would place that interest above the woman's life and health. It focused on women. Post 99.

 

[tshade]

I think discourage the need for or make far less necessary in most cases would be better here, if I'm reading this right.

you are

 

[Infinite Chaos]

Less than 200 abortions occur annually after week 28 gestation in the US, and those are easily accounted for by those with health problems or severe fetal issues, which I don't know why anyone would be against abortions for such problems.

That's my position too but thanks for the statistics for the USA.

Should abortion be restricted/banned? Make your case!

It exists only as an emotionally manipulative talking point for anti-abortion supporters. I have noticed emotionally manipulative talking points is all anti abortion supporters seem to offer. Certainly nothing rationally or legally based.

debatepolitics.com

I think the other two posters were more about making political points rather than points about abortion in general so I wasn't expecting another person to quote me in this thread at election time.

 

[Lursa]

That's my position too but thanks for the statistics for the USA.

Should abortion be restricted/banned? Make your case!

It exists only as an emotionally manipulative talking point for anti-abortion supporters. I have noticed emotionally manipulative talking points is all anti abortion supporters seem to offer. Certainly nothing rationally or legally based.

debatepolitics.com

I think the other two posters were more about making political points rather than points about abortion in general so I wasn't expecting another person to quote me in this thread at election time.

My positions and "points" are about women's rights and morality...and as such, I didnt see the commonality with other nations. Esp not on rights.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

My positions and "points" are about women's rights and morality...and as such, I didnt see the commonality with other nations. Esp not on rights.

I wasn't criticising you.

I will however look for abortion threads in future which focus less on the American constitution and constitutional rights to participate in.

 

[Gordy327]

I will however look for abortion threads in future which focus less on the American constitution and constitutional rights to participate in.

Given the political and legal entanglement with abortion, it might be rather difficult to have a discussion on abortion that doesn't involve law or the Constitution.

 

[Gordy327]

No, thats not what I meant. They found the state had a compelling state interest at a defined point in the cycle.

That interest is not legally defined. It's rather ambiguous.

 

[Bodi]

I don't believe that any Pro-Lifer actually cares about the human life at it's blobulor level... there is hardly any of these fakers screaming about the kids in Gaza or child abuse victims in Compton or domestic violence or homelessness or deaths in the Ukraine. They are full of shit and want to play a moral righteousness game in a debate of words. They don't do shit to actually support life that matters... born life. People. But a zygote? They piss their pants screaming about the value of human life. Disgusting trash... "pro" lifers.

 

[Ginger Ale]

Alberta is in fact on the level of Texas, but lacks the power to do anything.

Yep, and that's where we need to get it. Wacko Texas and the other 50's wannabes lacking the power to do anything wacky. Right now the Zoo doors open.

 

[Ginger Ale]

I don't believe that any Pro-Lifer actually cares about the human life at it's blobulor level... there is hardly any of these fakers screaming about the kids in Gaza or child abuse victims in Compton or domestic violence or homelessness or deaths in the Ukraine. They are full of shit and want to play a moral righteousness game in a debate of words. They don't do shit to actually support life that matters... born life. People. But a zygote? They piss their pants screaming about the value of human life. Disgusting trash... "pro" lifers.

 

[choiceone]

I believe Roe was a compromise for the time, as they didn't see it as likely they could rule abortion completely a right of women during the 1970s without some push for a Constitutional Amendment to overturn. Roe was written to justify a compromise that neither side really supported but at least ensured abortion was legal up to a point to some degree.

This may be so from a practical perspective, but I think there was also a genuine constitutional perspective.

A person has a right to his/her own body, and this is found within the right to liberty, as philosopher John Locke had included there the right to enjoy one's own limbs and one's own health. He did not necessarily extend this to pregnant women, but he also didn't spend much time on them or the fact that by nature men could physically overpower them, as that is not different from strong men being able to physically empower weaker men, which he would have objected to.

In addition, the 1st amendment freedom of religion, 4th amendment freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, and mention in the fifth amendment the rights to life, liberty, and property, though it an inapplicable context.

For the Roe court, one could not deprive women of the right if the 14th Amendment applied. But the problem of saying that it didn't apply is serious, and the Dobbs decision probably made its key error here. An unmarried woman old enough to consent to marriage and without a living parent obviously has a right to liberty, for she has not consented to the marital coverture rule and has no father with a coverture rule over her, so no excuse exists for denying her the right to enjoy her own limbs and health or the right to freedom from unreasonable search or seizure or the right to practice her own religion or philosophy within her person.

So what the court had to decide is at what point one could argue that a state might legally appeal. Even as a person, no embryo/fetus could have a right to the woman's body or life, but only to its own, and for that reason, viability was a reasonable compromise, because it has a 50/50 chance of life if just removed from the woman's body by induced birth instead of abortion.

 

[weaver2]

THIS is the underlying discussion. No need for banning or restricting if the incentive NOT to have an abortion is adequate & much more positive. Trumpers need a broader mind, otherwise nothing gets solved............and THAT is the bottom line of the "discussion"-------or is that concept a bit too complex????

Faced with legislation that supports families right wing Christians vote "no". Faced with re-funding a program that cut abortion by 40%, increased H S graduation rate and saved millions in welfare payments they vote to cut funding. Then they introduce and vote into law restrictions on abortion and overturn Roe v Wade and introduce a nation wide ban on abortion. It's at this point that it should become crystal clear to everyone that the conservative Christian goal is not preserving families, not saving fetuses, not increasing the population but legislating against women's freedom to direct their own lives and make their own reproductive choices.

Trumpers have absolutely no need to broaden their minds, they are achieving their goal with their narrow, bigoted little minds just fine.

 

[Mungo Jerry]

what is the rational and legal reason to restrict abortion at all?

Abortion ends a human life.
A person only has the right to end a human life if that life presents a clear, present, and immediate risk of death or substantial injury/harm to himself.
Thus, with the exception of the instances note above, there is no right to an abortion.
As such, the state may restrict it in the same manner as it would restrict the taking of any other life. as a means to protect that human life.

 

[roguenuke]

Abortion ends a human life.
A person only has the right to end a human life if that life presents a clear, present, and immediate risk of death or substantial injury/harm to himself.
Thus, with the exception of the instances note above, there is no right to an abortion.
As such, the state may restrict it in the same manner as it would restrict the taking of any other life. as a means to protect that human life.

Says who? You? Are you the arbiter of when people have a right to end human life? Who gave you that job?

It isn't the case in our laws. We have death penalty, war (which comes with a whole bunch of cases of ending human life that isn't as you describe), denial of needed healthcare, just the perception that someone might do that harm is in fact enough in many states, under many state laws. It isn't required that the person actually be a clear and immediate danger that is being killed, only that the person who kills them could reasonably believe that. And that even goes to collateral deaths in some cases, as in as long as someone in the vicinity of the person was a potential danger, than shooting someone else unintentionally is excused or shooting someone else that you believed could have been that person who was a danger can be excused, as in potentially no punishment by the law.

And those scenarios aren't even taking into account the fact that no entity, living thing has a right to live off a person, physically use their bodily resources as their own, be inside a person's body.

 

[Mungo Jerry]

Says who? You? Are you the arbiter of when people have a right to end human life?

The common law right to self-defense, exercised for millennia, is the only universal instance where a person has a right to take a life:
When your life is in danger.

 

[roguenuke]

The common law right to self-defense, exercised for millennia, is the only universal instance where a person has a right to take a life:
When your life is in danger.

Not just in danger. You can just believe your life is in danger or you are in danger of serious bodily harm. Not just your life.

And it is noted how you left off the rest of my post.

But how about you tell that claim to the parents of this little girl, who was shot and killed by a man shooting at someone else and acquitted for her killing.

Texas grand jury declines to indict man accused of killing 9-year-old girl while shooting at armed robber | CNN

A grand jury in Harris County, Texas, on Tuesday declined to indict a man who allegedly killed 9-year-old Arlene Alvarez while shooting at an armed robber in February, Harris County District Attorney Kim Ogg said.

www.cnn.com

And are you saying that a person cannot use lethal force to stop another person from just raping them?

 

[Mungo Jerry]

Not just in danger. You can just believe your life is in danger or you are in danger of serious bodily harm. Not just your life.

The usual term is "reasonable belief" or something similar; in Ohio the term is "reasonable belief of immediate danger of bodily harm".

And are you saying that a person cannot use lethal force to stop another person from just raping them?

Rape represents a reasonable belief that your life is in danger.

 

[roguenuke]

The usual term is "reasonable belief" or something similar; in Ohio the term is "reasonable belief of immediate danger of bodily harm".

Rape represents a reasonable belief that your life is in danger.

Rape represents a reasonable belief of bodily harm. You just stated that was part of it.

 

[Lursa]

The usual term is "reasonable belief" or something similar; in Ohio the term is "reasonable belief of immediate danger of bodily harm".

Rape represents a reasonable belief that your life is in danger.

So does every single pregnancy. Death or serious permanent disability. Limiting one's ability to care for oneself, support their family, earn an income, etc.

When a woman is in labor...every single friend and relative in that waiting room are praying...or sending good thoughts...for her and the baby to survive. It's very real, it's very significant, and we all know it

It cannot always be predicted or prevented...so what entitles the govt to force women to risk their lives without their consent? Name one other law or policy where the govt does that? (There is one.)

 

[Mungo Jerry]

Rape represents a reasonable belief of bodily harm. You just stated that was part of it.

Right. So?

 

[roguenuke]

Right. So?

So is pregnancy. There is a reasonable belief that pregnancy itself can be a risk, can cause severe bodily harm or death and there is no right for any being to live off another. In fact, just that act, trying to steal our bodily resources, can be considered severe bodily harm. You can legally remove any being from your body, even if that results in death to them.

 

[Mungo Jerry]

So does every single pregnancy.

"Reasonable belief"
A demonstrable, quantifiable belief, consistent with the facts of the situation.

"Immediate danger of bodily harm"
Not possible, not potential, but immediate.

Finding out you are a 2 months pregnant does not meet these requirements.

what entitles the govt to force women to risk their lives without their consent?

According to Roe v Wade...
A State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life. At some point in pregnancy, these respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision. ... We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation.

Why do you disagree with Roe?