What is your plan for dealing with 800,000 children each year if you ban abortion?

[GummyVitamins]

It is impossible to improve on the explanation of Justice Blackmun in his opinion in the case of Roe v. Wade.

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.

So you believe the constitution says you can murder another human if you do it in privacy?

The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation.
Decided: January 22, 1973 by Justice Harry Andrew Blackmun

There are many things that are a "detriment" to an individual. That does not grant the Supreme Court the ability to strike down laws because they do not meet their standard of the type of society they prefer. There is nothing in the context of the constitution or in the legal history of our nation that comes anywhere close to constitutional protection of abortion. It was invented out of whole cloth by the Supreme Court. And the "privacy" argument they presented leaves us open for the Supreme Court to decide that things like child abuse are a "fundamental" constitutional right.

 

[Irredentist]

So you believe the constitution says you can murder another human if you do it in privacy?



There are many things that are a "detriment" to an individual. That does not grant the Supreme Court the ability to strike down laws because they do not meet their standard of the type of society they prefer. There is nothing in the context of the constitution or in the legal history of our nation that comes anywhere close to constitutional protection of abortion. It was invented out of whole cloth by the Supreme Court. And the "privacy" argument they presented leaves us open for the Supreme Court to decide that things like child abuse are a "fundamental" constitutional right.

Of course the Supreme Court has that ability. That's literally their job, to strike down laws that unconstitutionally restrict the liberty of citizens. If a woman is prevented from accessing abortion, her liberty is being restricted, and the Court must intervene, as they have.

 

[weaver2]

So you believe that in the absence of RvW we would have just as many unplanned pregnancies and nobody would take more responsibility over their sex life?

Yes, I believe that is possible. Only 10% of those women who do not wish to be pregnant leave things to chance and do not use any form of birth control. 50% of unwanted pregnancies happen to couples who were using some form of birth control. These unwanted pregnancies are the result of contraception failure or improper use of the method. The failure rate of women's contraception (IUD, The Pill, hormonal implant, sterilization) is .5% for the IUD to 8% for The Pill. The failure rate of male controlled birth control is 18% for condoms to 22 % for withdrawal. The failure rate for the rhythm method is 25%.

Banning abortions would probably not change attitudes or the number of unwanted pregnancies very much since most couples that do not want sex to end in a pregnancy are already being responsible.

 

[weaver2]

So you believe the constitution says you can murder another human if you do it in privacy? There are many things that are a "detriment" to an individual. That does not grant the Supreme Court the ability to strike down laws because they do not meet their standard of the type of society they prefer. There is nothing in the context of the constitution or in the legal history of our nation that comes anywhere close to constitutional protection of abortion. It was invented out of whole cloth by the Supreme Court. And the "privacy" argument they presented leaves us open for the Supreme Court to decide that things like child abuse are a "fundamental" constitutional right.

If you had read the entire decision you would have seen that all of your objections had been addressed and resolved by looking at the the history of the issue or the precedence of previous court decisions. Blackmun knew this decision would be scrutinized by all and he accounted for his decision very thoroughly, with great detail and with very careful and precise language.

It is my belief that his decision can only be overturned if religious conservatives manage to get the SC to confer legal personhood on the fetus.

 

[weaver2]

To be honest I don't really understand how birth control works. It is similar to abortion? I didn't understand religious conservatives have a issue with birth control.

Birth Control | Contraception | Contraceptives | MedlinePlus

Birth control, or contraception, is designed to prevent pregnancy. Read about the different options and their risks and benefits.

medlineplus.gov

 

[GummyVitamins]

Of course the Supreme Court has that ability. That's literally their job, to strike down laws that unconstitutionally restrict the liberty of citizens. If a woman is prevented from accessing abortion, her liberty is being restricted, and the Court must intervene, as they have.

You don't have the liberty to kill a human in the constitution. What other harm do you have the right do to do another human in "privacy?" Can you rape someone in private? Raping isn't terminating their life so clearly that is less destructive than abortion.

 

[GummyVitamins]

Yes, I believe that is possible.

Would you place your tooth under your pillow at night? It could be possible...

Only 10% of those women who do not wish to be pregnant leave things to chance and do not use any form of birth control. 50% of unwanted pregnancies happen to couples who were using some form of birth control. These unwanted pregnancies are the result of contraception failure or improper use of the method. The failure rate of women's contraception (IUD, The Pill, hormonal implant, sterilization) is .5% for the IUD to 8% for The Pill. The failure rate of male controlled birth control is 18% for condoms to 22 % for withdrawal. The failure rate for the rhythm method is 25%.

Banning abortions would probably not change attitudes or the number of unwanted pregnancies very much since most couples that do not want sex to end in a pregnancy are already being responsible.

This has absolutely no basis in logic. Do you also believe that if we did away with homicide laws that there would be no change in the number of homicides? If not, do you understand how ridiculous your argument is? If so, please read a book.

 

[GummyVitamins]

If you had read the entire decision you would have seen that all of your objections had been addressed and resolved by looking at the the history of the issue or the precedence of previous court decisions. Blackmun knew this decision would be scrutinized by all and he accounted for his decision very thoroughly, with great detail and with very careful and precise language.

It is my belief that his decision can only be overturned if religious conservatives manage to get the SC to confer legal personhood on the fetus.

If you have read the decision you would know that none of the cited cases had anything to do with killing a human. For example, Skinner states you have a right to procreate. That does not mean you have the right to kill. The outcome is the inverse of the right that was cited. Having the right to life does not mean you have the right to take life. It was tortured logic. So rather than citing things you don't understand why don't you make your argument. Summarize it in your own words. It is my belief (and mother others) that RvW is a horrible judicial decision that has no merit in law. Telling me to "read" something I've told you I have read and disagree with doesn't make any sense. Why don't you try reading it and then try to justify it.

The point is that the justices decided that a right to abortion would be best for society so they came up with a roundabout means of getting to that conclusion. Legally, it's horrible. Morally, you can debate it up and down. But, from a legal standpoint it's obvious they started with a personal morality decision and cooked a decision to meet that need. And, they didn't do a particularly good job at that.

 

[weaver2]

You don't have the liberty to kill a human in the constitution. What other harm do you have the right do to do another human in "privacy?" Can you rape someone in private? Raping isn't terminating their life so clearly that is less destructive than abortion.

You do not have a legal right to harm another person. Rape harms another person. Abortion is not harming another person because the fetus is not a legal person. Conservative religious groups claim the fetus is a person. That claim has no legal standing. The law does not confer personhood on a fetus.

The conservative religious groups are in the process of bringing to the SC all the cases they think will force the SC to declare the fetus a legal person with legal rights.

 

[Irredentist]

You don't have the liberty to kill a human in the constitution. What other harm do you have the right do to do another human in "privacy?" Can you rape someone in private? Raping isn't terminating their life so clearly that is less destructive than abortion.

That's irrelevant, because fetuses aren't "humans" as far as the law is concerned regarding abortion.

 

[weaver2]

If you have read the decision you would know that none of the cited cases had anything to do with killing a human. For example, Skinner states you have a right to procreate. That does not mean you have the right to kill. The outcome is the inverse of the right that was cited. Having the right to life does not mean you have the right to take life. It was tortured logic. So rather than citing things you don't understand why don't you make your argument. Summarize it in your own words. It is my belief (and mother others) that RvW is a horrible judicial decision that has no merit in law. Telling me to "read" something I've told you I have read and disagree with doesn't make any sense. Why don't you try reading it and then try to justify it. The point is that the justices decided that a right to abortion would be best for society so they came up with a roundabout means of getting to that conclusion. Legally, it's horrible. Morally, you can debate it up and down. But, from a legal standpoint it's obvious they started with a personal morality decision and cooked a decision to meet that need. And, they didn't do a particularly good job at that.

I assumed from your posts that you had not read the whole decision. Bad assumption. You are certainly allowed to disagree with it.

The Blackmun et al. argument starts with the fact that the fetus has no personhood. You disagree. Until personhood is conferred on a fetus Roe gives women the legal right to abort a fetus. How you feel about it doesn't change the law. Your quarrel is with the law not with me.

 

[GummyVitamins]

You do not have a legal right to harm another person. Rape harms another person. Abortion is not harming another person because the fetus is not a legal person. Conservative religious groups claim the fetus is a person. That claim has no legal standing. The law does not confer personhood on a fetus.

The conservative religious groups are in the process of bringing to the SC all the cases they think will force the SC to declare the fetus a legal person with legal rights.

You can be charged with homicide for killing a fetus. Your argument falls short on that point. As such, states can regulate the killing of a fetus.

 

[weaver2]

How about taxing people who have more than two children? At your third child that you cant afford we remove your welfare bennies you got from the first two. That will make people be more responsible one way or the other. Since we can force masks on people we can sure as hell now force them to work.

Thanks for suggesting an action that is at least possible. So many answers to the question of how to plan for a 15% increase in births in one year are just edicts to not have children or are quarrels about abortion being murder.

Quite frankly I think most people don't realize that a 15% increase in births in one year is huge. Historically yearly increases or decreases have been around 1% to 3%. A 15% increase will have radicle repercussions on the country if there is no plan in place.

 

[GummyVitamins]

That's irrelevant, because fetuses aren't "humans" as far as the law is concerned regarding abortion.

Fetuses are humans as far as the law and science is concerned. Don't be anti-science or a human-truther please. It's not a good look.

 

[GummyVitamins]

The Blackmun et al. argument starts with the fact that the fetus has no personhood. You disagree. Until personhood is conferred on a fetus Roe gives women the legal right to abort a fetus. How you feel about it doesn't change the law. Your quarrel is with the law not with me.

If that were the case then the Unborn Victims of Violence Act would be unconstitutional. Challenges to fetal homicide laws have been rejected by state and federal courts. It is constitutional.

The operative portion of the law, now codified as Title 18, Section 1841 of the United States Code, reads as follows:

Sec. 1841. Protection of unborn children

(a) (1) Whoever engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section.
(2) (A) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, the punishment for that separate offense is the same as the punishment provided under Federal law for that conduct had that injury or death occurred to the unborn child's mother.
(B) An offense under this section does not require proof that—
(i) the person engaging in the conduct had knowledge or should have had knowledge that the victim of the underlying offense was pregnant; or
(ii) the defendant intended to cause the death of, or bodily injury to, the unborn child.
(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.
(D) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the death penalty shall not be imposed for an offense under this section.
(b) The provisions referred to in subsection (a) are the following:
(1) Sections 36, 37, 43, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 229, 242, 245, 247, 248, 351, 831, 844 (d), (f), (h)(1), and (i), 924 (j), 930, 1111, 1112, 1113, 1114, 1116, 1118, 1119, 1120, 1121, 1153 (a), 1201 (a), 1203, 1365 (a), 1501, 1503, 1505, 1512, 1513, 1751, 1864, 1951, 1952 (a)(1)(B), (a)(2)(B), and (a)(3)(B), 1958, 1959, 1992, 2113, 2114, 2116, 2118, 2119, 2191, 2231, 2241 (a), 2245, 2261, 2261A, 2280, 2281, 2332, 2332a, 2332b, 2340A, and 2441 of this title.
(2) Section 408(e) of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 848 (e)). (3) Section 202 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2283).
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution—
(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;
(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or
(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.
(d) As used in this section, the term "unborn child" means a child in utero, and the term "child in utero" or "child, who is in utero" means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.
The provision amending the Uniform Code of Military Justice is functionally the same, except for minor technical points.

And RvW is not law. It's a judicial decision. I know it pretends to be law, but laws come from the legislature. And our legislatures have largely decided that killing a fetus is homicide with the caveat of permission from the mother because of a wrongly decided Supreme Court case. So now we have laws that make no sense, but are constitutional nonetheless.

 

[Irredentist]

Fetuses are humans as far as the law and science is concerned. Don't be anti-science or a human-truther please. It's not a good look.

If fetuses were legally considered humans, then abortion would be homicide. But they aren't, so it's not.

 

[GummyVitamins]

If fetuses were legally considered humans, then abortion would be homicide. But they aren't, so it's not.

Killing a fetus without consent of the mother often is homicide. You're proving yourself wrong and it's hilarious. Only about 10 states do not have fetal homicide laws.

 

[Irredentist]

Killing a fetus without consent of the mother often is homicide. You're proving yourself wrong and it's hilarious. Only about 10 states do not have fetal homicide laws.

So because my state has no fetal homicide law, fetuses are not humans in my state?

 

[GummyVitamins]

So because my state has no fetal homicide law, fetuses are not humans in my state?

No they're still human. Read a biology book. The law decides what regulations are pertinent. You don't stop being human because someone has power of attorney over you or because you have a developmental defect. Please think about what you're saying. This is getting ridiculous.

 

[Irredentist]

No they're still human. Read a biology book. The law decides what regulations pertain to humans.

You're right, and here is what the law says about what a human is.



1 U.S. Code § 8.“Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant
(a)
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
(b)
As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
(c)
Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.

 

[Scrabaholic]

You said your mother should have killed you before you were born. That's the epitome of self loathing.

No, I said she should have aborted. She should have aborted all her pregnancies, but that doesn't mean I hate myself.

And she's not my mother. She's the **** that birthed me.

 

[GummyVitamins]

No, I said she should have aborted. She should have aborted all her pregnancies, but that doesn't mean I hate myself.

And she's not my mother. She's the **** that birthed me.

I don't think "aborted" means what you think it means. A medically speaking, she's your mother.

 

[weaver2]

If that were the case then the Unborn Victims of Violence Act would be unconstitutional. Challenges to fetal homicide laws have been rejected by state and federal courts. It is constitutional.And RvW is not law. It's a judicial decision. I know it pretends to be law, but laws come from the legislature. And our legislatures have largely decided that killing a fetus is homicide with the caveat of permission from the mother because of a wrongly decided Supreme Court case. So now we have laws that make no sense, but are constitutional nonetheless.

You'll be happy to learn that John Kerry agrees with you
"Senator John Kerry ….. voted against the bill, saying, "I have serious concerns about this legislation because the law cannot simultaneously provide that a fetus is a human being and protect the right of the mother to choose to terminate her pregnancy.”

Unborn Victims of Violence Act - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It doesn't matter whether the law is consistent or not, whether it is bad law, whether the law has undesirable unintended consequences or whether you like it or not, until the Religious Right packs the SC with religious conservatives the law does not considered abortion to be the killing of a human.

 

[Irredentist]

No they're still human. Read a biology book. The law decides what regulations are pertinent. You don't stop being human because someone has power of attorney over you or because you have a developmental defect. Please think about what you're saying. This is getting ridiculous.

The US Code very clearly states that you have to be "born alive" to legally be a human. Emphasis added.

I've never heard of anyone receiving the power of attorney over a fetus before. I suppose that's because the pregnant woman is legally entitled to make all medical decisions regarding the welfare of herself and her fetus. She already has the power of attorney, and more. She carries the fetus inside of her. She holds both the keys and the kingdom. If she wants to terminate, she can do so, and no one can stop her. Nor should they.

 

[Scrabaholic]

I don't think "aborted" means what you think it means. A medically speaking, she's your mother.

Not legally. Abortion is termination of pregnancy.

I see you concede the point of whether or not I hate myself.