In other threads, we have considered the Constitutional foundation for Roe v Wade, and while much disagreement remains, there is some agreement that this whole matter would be better addressed by a constitutional amendment specifically addressing the problem of abortion. I therefore have a proposal to offer in this regard, with the expectation that we can discuss the merits of the particulars of the proposal.

I shall not attempt to provide the actual wording of such an amendment, as I am certain that some fundamentals must be agreed upon before we can get into precise wordings. Instead, I shall sketch out the basic ideas to be incorporated into the amendment.

My proposed 28th amendment to the Constitution divides the period of pregnancy into two halves. During the first half of pregnancy, four and a half months long, abortion is available on demand. During the second half of the pregnancy, abortion is legal only if the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother or if the fetus is found to be genetically defective, defined to be "unlikely to be able to care for itself after the age of 18". Obviously, the mother is not required to have an abortion in this case, but retains the option if tests show profound genetic defects.

Obviously, there will be a bit of a problem precisely defining the dividing line between the two halves. I would expect that we can determine this dividing line based on several measurements, although in most cases that would not be necessary.

So, the questions for debate are:

Is the division of the pregnancy into two periods the best way of dealing with the issue of how far advanced the pregnancy is?

Should some restrictions be placed on legal access to abortion during the first period?

Should the restrictions this amendment places on legal access to abortion in the second period be loosened or tightened?

Would you vote for an amendment worded to reflect the ideas presented here?

Are you suggesting we have an amendment that only applies to half(or a little over) of our population?

And why are you trying to seperate a pregnancy into halves when there are already trimesters. Do you know something about fetal development that the rest of the medical community doesn't?

I agree with the spirit of your question. I'm not sure of the timing as there might be a big difference between 4 1/2 months and the end of the second trimester in terms of fetal development.

Instead of an arbitrary period, I would make the cut-off at the point that a fetus could survive outside the womb - whenever that is. The rest of your idea seems perfectly reasonable.

I would like to never allow an abortion unless it's a medical emergency, but realize that's not practical. So, an abortion for birth control purposes (which it is predominatly used for) should be allowed before the fetus can survive on it's own. After that point, it should be an extreme emergency.

All in all, good idea.

I think that there is no "constitutional right" to an abortion. Period. Roe v. Wade was an abomination and an activist court at its absolute worst. It was social engineering using the flimsiest of justifications. This is a matter for the "people" to decide and an ethical/moral debate that is long overdue. That's the primary issue. A "constitutional amendment" is not the right solution. Legislation is. But, with respect to your specific questions:

a. I think that dividing pregnancy into "two periods" is excessively long. Medical people have established milestones in the gestation based on 3 divisions, or trimesters. Personally, I favor relatively unrestricted access to abortion during the "first trimester". During the second trimester, abortions should only be available for very specific "medical" reasons and in the third, they should be outlawed completely.

b. I addressed that question above.

c. I don't think that a constitutional amendment is the right remedy. Abortion is not "right". It's not an issue of "privacy". One does not have the right to kill one's child even if done in "private" anymore than one has the right to engage in child pornography or embezzlement behind closed doors.

We need a national debate on this issue followed by a referendum. If the people want unrestricted abortion, we'll get that. If they don't, the same.

I suspect that the majority would fall along the lines I indicated above with easy abortions early on and difficult to impossible available at the end of the pregnancy when "abortion" is essentially infanticide. I also think common sense issues like parental notification would be confirmed with great ease.

This is the direction our country should go in. It makes sense. It wrestles the debate over these sort of issues away from an unelected court and puts it back into the hands of the people and their elected representatives who CAN be held accountable for their votes.

Well, yes, but I don't see any problems with that. Do you?


Not at all. The trimester system is the medically preferred way to slice the pie, and in fact I originally set out to design an amendment based on that. The killer problem here is that a goodly number of women can easily be unaware of their pregnancy in their first trimester; it becomes really obvious only in the second trimester. So if we place restrictions on abortion in the second trimester, there will be lots of women tripped up because they didn't even know they were pregnant. I considered some sort of "show cause" procedure to get around this, but it got complicated and clumsy. I therefore decided to extend the "abortion on demand" phase to cover the entire period during which a woman might be unaware of her pregnancy. Does that sound reasonable?


I considered that, but got hung up on the changing standard of viability. Medical science is slowly pushing back the date of viability. It is likely that the day will come when a human egg can be fertilized in vitro and brought to term entirely outside a womb. That would eliminate all abortions. Hence my decision to settle on a simple-minded ticking clock. Much less likely to generate further controversy, don't you think?

I don't believe your statements to be true at all. Abortion is not a right, but life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is. So, sucking the brains out of a fetus seems to deny those inalienable rights.

Obviously, you have no regard for the life of a fetus that if removed from the womb, could survive (Not on it's own obviously, but neither can a two year old and we're not murdering them), but not to worry - you have plenty of company.

But many of us believe that life inside the womb is life and should be afforded protection. Personally, I think when we cause a beating heart to stop, we're committing murder. But this topic is not that debate. The topic is "middle ground" and the reason that could never happen. If you don't value life, you won't value middle ground because there is no middle.

I really hoped Bush would have selected a Supreme Court nominee that doesn't need to hide his position and instead got one who would set Roe v. Wade on it's ear, where it belongs. If we can't find middle ground, error on the side of protecting life.

And that's the point of this topic that I happen to agree with.

Er, DaytonRocker, I think LordHelmet was agreeing with you.


No, because abortion is not a Constitutional right, nor should it be a Constitutional right. Per the Constitution's request, each individual State should be able to decide for themeselves whether or not they think abortion should be legal. Allowing two thirds of the United States to dictate to the other one third is tyranny by the majority, no matter what the decision is. Leave it up to the states, you know, like the law says we should.

CP

You are correct. I didn't read the entire post as thoroughly as I should have.

My apologies, lordhelmut

First off, ConservPat, I gather that you are offering an anti-abortion argument, not primarily a states-rights argument. That is, am I correct in assuming that you would oppose such an amendment on abortion grounds first and states-rights grounds second?

Proceeding on the assumption that you do, then we have both you and DaytonRocker giving a thumbs-down on such an amendment, and I am curious to understand the reasoning behind your judgment here. Is it that you reject out of hand any compromise on this issue? If so, let me remind you that the majority of the American public supports some kind of abortion rights for women, and so you are pushing for an objective that in the long run you can't win. Moreover, at this point you are definitely losing this point, as abortion on demand is pretty much the law of the land. This amendment would improve the situation from your point of view, would it not?

Perhaps I misunderstand your position here.

I couldn’t agree with you more. Finding the dividing line is impossible. In my opinion there is no dividing line.
I am absolutely against abortion unless the mother is dying and on the table. Although my faith guides me to my decision I believe that one could also be against abortion and not have a faith at all.

Is the division of the pregnancy into two periods the best way of dealing with the issue of how far advanced the pregnancy is?

This issue isn’t choosing whether you want chocolate or vanilla ice cream. It’s about determining when a doctor can kill an unborn child. The dividing line then becomes the point in which the child can be disposed of legally.
How many doctors are off on due dates? I had two children, the doctor was off by 2 weeks on both.
Questions to consider….
If a doctor makes a mistake on the actual gestation and a woman gets an abortion based on his calculations, is he responsible for his mistake should the child be older?
What happens if the abortion doctor, is in the middle of suctioning the child out and discovers calculations are off and the child is in fact further along than once thought?
Who will be responsible for these deaths?
Woman would go into the abortion thinking they were safe and doing nothing more than aborting a hunk of tissue… only to find out that the child was further along.
………How many doctors in this case would lie to cover their mistakes up?
Would they send the aborted baby away for testing to make sure no laws were broken?


If you say life is viable and valuable at a certain date but you can’t 100% pinpoint when that date is, don’t you take the chance of killing the child because your off on the time? Or doesn’t that matter?
There is no humanly way of pinpointing the exact time, second and hour.

Another note about viability.

My neice was born at 21 weeks. She weighed one pound. She survived and is now 14 years old and brilliant. Technology helped her live. Her chance of survival twenty-thirty years ago would have been unheard of. But with new technology everyday, who is to say that in the future we aren’t able to save an unborn child at 18 weeks, 15 weeks.
The point of viability is changing every day because it is somewhat dependant on technology, not the unborn child itself. In the past three decades viability has been reduced from 30 weeks to less than 20 weeks of development. A child has actually been born at 19 weeks and survived. When we are able to save lives at 15-12-8 weeks, will those children suddenly become human and worthy to live? Children survive at 20 weeks now, are we to believe they were not human 20 years ago?
You would have to change the amendment every time technology changed.

Should the restrictions this amendment places on legal access to abortion in the second period be loosened or tightened?

In most states abortion in the second trimester is allowed. You take this away and make restrictions, the ACLU, radical woman’s groups all over would pounce.
You would be taking a woman’s choice to kill in this trimester away.

Would you vote for an amendment worded to reflect the ideas presented here?

No.
No amendment should be made to determine which life is valuable and which is not. A baby is a baby in each term…. First trimester, second and third. The development is different, but they are still living human beings. They do not have the DNA of a dog, cat, bird, turkey. They are human.


This whole issue is just incredible to me.
I believe the majority of people think life begins at conception. Finding a dividing line for an amendment is ridiculous.
How many woman do you hear say, gee this blob of tissue kicked me? Or this product of conception kicked me, or the fetus kicked me?
How many doctors after a woman initially find out she is pregnant say….you can smoke, drink, do drugs up until that dividing line when it becomes viable?
How many woman after having an abortion cry, regret their decision? If it’s only a blob of tissue why feel sad at all?
How many of you fathers after hearing your wife was pregnant, announced to the world, my wife is carrying a fetus? Tissue?

I believe most of us know that abortion is taking the life of an innocent human being. Taking it earlier makes it seem less horrific, but it still is… taking a life. However little, tiny, the unborn have their own separate DNA’s, they have separate hearts, separate organs from their mothers. The doctor not only listens to the heat beat of the woman, but ALSO tries to find the child’s heartbeat as well. This happens long before the dividing line we are trying to decide on.


“During the second half of the pregnancy, abortion is legal only if the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother or if the fetus is found to be genetically defective, defined to be "unlikely to be able to care for itself after the age of 18". Obviously, the mother is not required to have an abortion in this case, but retains the option if tests show profound genetic defects.”

So if a woman knew her fetus was a boy and she wanted a girl, she could abort?
If she knew the father of her son was short and she had her heart set on having a tall son, she could abort?
If the child was blind?
If the child had 8 toes instead of ten?

Now your determining who is valuable based on physical appearances.

They did that in London this year. Two London physicians aborted a male child because he had a cleft palate.

What is “profound” anyway? I would love and take care of a child no matter what deformities he/she had. So nothing for me at least is profound enough to kill it.

Of course there is no biological dividing line. It would be rather difficult to imagine one. My point is that we need a legal dividing line. Ofttimes legal dividing lines are arbitrary. For example, why do we set a numeric blood alcohol level to define when somebody is driving drunk? There are people who can drive adequately with that amount of alcohol in their bloodstream, and people who can't drive straight with less alcohol in their bloodstream. But we set a number and declare that it is our dividing line. It's a legal requirement, not a medical absolute.

I realize that you feel strongly against abortion and feel that there is no time when abortion is reasonable. However, I am not asking you about your druthers, but whether you can compromise on this issue. Are Americans so pig-headed that they just can't come to some sort of compromise here? Are we doomed to fight this stupid battle for all time? A hundred years from now, will confirmation of Supreme Court judges hinge on how they feel about Roe v Wade? Will we all be screaming at each other even then?


This is no different from the arbitrariness of the bloodstream alcohol limit. What happens if we send to jail a driver who was in adequate control of his vehicle merely because his blood alcohol level was higher than some arbitrary number? We live with this because it's the only way to get on with the job of establishing a workable law.


No, I specifically obviated this issue by making the amendment independent of the issue of viability.


So you see, there's something in this for you; it's a compromise. It doesn't give you everything you want, but it does give you something. The same thing goes for the other side. Perhaps we can hear from somebody on that side of the aisle, but for now I'm asking you: can you grudgingly accept this compromise?


The polls indicate that the majority of Americans support the idea of some abortion rights for women. The dividing line may not suit your philosophy, but is it a workable compromise?


You misunderstand the amendment proposal. It clearly says that abortion in the third trimester is permissible only if the life of the mother is threatened, or if the fetus is found to be genetically defective, and I define "genetically defective" to mean "unlikely to be able to care for itself after the age of 18". A boy is certainly able to care for itself after the age of 18. A short son could take care of himself after the age of 18. A blind person can take care of him/herself after the age of 18. A person with 8 toes can take care of themself after the age of 18. Therefore, under the proposed amendment, no abortions would be permitted in the third trimester under the scenarios you pose.

I think we have an example of why the courts have to make so many of our hard choices for us- because there is no compromise on certain issues- this one probably being the most intransient.

I personally would support an amendment with clear legal boundries- so we don't have to keep re-visiting this issue over and over again until the end of time, with every judge being nominated having a litmus test over roe v wade. Even Ireland has finally allowed abortion- the whole religious reasoning against all abortion is an anachronism that is fatally flawed to begin with- however, there can be a rational, legal definition of when and where this should be legal.

Making it illegal will never happen- EVER- but making it "rare, but legal" is a reality that could happen with the right amount of compromise, by both sides. Marginalizing the extremists on both sides would have to happen first- and I personnaly find both sides nutty as all get out -

Like Dukakis was quoted as saying "it is 97th out of 100 issues" on my list, I would just soon as have it settled on some rational basis.

Erasmussimo said,



I can’t compromise on this issue at all. In my opinion abortion is murder. It’s taking the life of an innocent that can’t defend for him/herself. From the child’s point of view, there is no such thing as a safe, legal abortion. It is always deadly. For every two people who enter an abortion clinic, only one comes out alive. So I guess really after thinking about it, I can’t lend anything to this debate.




Erasmussimo said,


You need not name call. This is an emotional issue and we must be respectful of different opinions. I probably am the only one on this thread who is not pro-choice, so I would appreciate being treated respectfully for my differing views.




For some there can’t be a compromise. I happen to be one of those people. I am very passionate about this issue as you can tell. Why? First, I have had an abortion and I know what can happen after one. Secondly, I am a pro-life activist with many organizations. I have studied this issue backwards and forwards. This is not a stupid battle. For pro-lifers, abortion is the ultimate in child abuse. The fact of the matter is, pro-lifers cannot, and will not, walk away until children are protected again. Life is of the utmost importance, and persistence wins. We will not give up. Abortion has been legal for almost 30 years now-and yet it remains the most divisive, most controversial issue in our nation. You tell me why?



I will end by saying this. Once you know the truth about abortion, you can’t walk away from it.
You can call me an extremist, but I think dismembering children is wrong. You ask for compromise. For someone who is pro-life like me, there can be none.

God Bless

This amendment is not appropriate. It is not a fundamental principle. It is arbitrary. It is not a basic ideal on which to base law. It is a law.

Laws should be laws and kept out of the constitution.

The problem with this is issue is PRECISELY that the "courts made this hard decision for us".

It's not their obligation, nor their right.

The hard choices like this are to be made by the people through their representatives who are elected and held accountable for their representation.

This is a moral and ethical issue. It's not a "rights" issue and certainly not a PRIVACY issue which is a bogus concept in the first place.

We need to decide, as a people, if and when it's ethical and moral to kill a fetus. That's the issue. The issue isn't "choice". The issue isn't "women's rights". The issue isn't anything else.

An amendment to the constitution to recognize the "right to abortion" is not required and should not pass if proposed.

We, as a people have already decided many of these hard issues. For example, we've decided that it's ethical and moral to kill an adult human being as punishment for conviction of heinous crimes. This choice is no less difficult but must be made in the same way. Some states allow capital punishment and some don't.

In the same exact way, the people must decide if and when abortion, the termination of a life independent of the mother and father, is ethical and moral. That should be done through legislation, not through the rulings of an activist court that twists the constitution like a pretzel in order to make that "hard choice" for us in their paternalistic way.

The extremists in NARAL and NOW are sticking to their guns because they know they have accomplished far more by subverting the democratic process than by following it. Yet, most Americans believe that unrestricted abortion on demand, up to the final moment of pregnancies, is NOT moral or ethical.

A line in the sand must be drawn somewhere after a full and honest debate in our population. And that line must be drawn by legislation, and signed by the executive branch; not by a bunch of unelected elitists with an agenda.

Roe vs. Wade should be overturned and the wailing of the extremists from the abortion lobby, and their dutiful servants within the democrat party, should be ignored.

Well, I do believe you definately made my point for me- some poeple just have to go extremist no matter what LOL

NARAL and NOW I find a little whacky- no doubt, I have been to some of thier little group sessions, and roll my eyes alot- but to be fair, I pretty much read your post and felt the same way -

So, are those folks that go around murdering abortion providers not wacky to you? Perhaps they are part of the problem as well? No way, it is all NARAL and NOW's fault, oh yeah, and the democratic party LOL

There are probably alot of folks out there like me, that really don't have this at the top of our agenda, and find all this hissy fit throwing by both sides a little tiresome "oh, it is the unborn fetus (meaning at conception to them) life at stake" on one hand and then on the other we have the "I have no responsibility for the pregnancy and can terminate it at any time, because it is my right to use this as a form of birth control" extremist on the other side.

Both sides irratate me to no end. They and the pro-gun anti-gun crowd- no compromise, everyone is evil for not believing thier brand of ideology.

Yes, the courts have really stretched the privacy issue IMO on this one- BUT- it is not the fault of the courts, this decision was forced on them, and like Solomon, had to make a very tough decision from something that is a complex issue.

On one hand, you have, if you follow the anti-abortion crowd, forced pregnancy on anyone who becomes pregnant, for whatever reason (and I bet rape is not even a good reason to the Churchmouse, correct?) and on the other hand, you want no accountability for behavior whatsoever on the other- of the two choices, were I a SC judge, and was forced to make a permanent and long lasting decision, my decision would be to keep goverment out of it- and allow the woman to make the decision.

I have posted on many threads on this issue, specifically gender issues, as to why a man's right to choose is terminated the minute he drops his pants, but the womans continues until the child is 18 or even older- and there has never been a "fair" or consistant answer.

WE NEED an amendment on this- but Americans are simply NOT rational enough to do this as a country- we knee jerk react to every decision that comes our way.

IMO, Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and has created a divisive and counter productive political climate in our country over the past several decades. The solution that I propose would be to take this issue off the table with a constitutional amendment that includes a heightened states' rights component.

First, I think we should have an amendment to the Constitution that would guarantee the right to abort if the mother's life is in danger, or following a criminal rape. I also believe there should be a right to use something like the morning after pill. Both of these would solve the difficult issues of pregnancy following a rape; threat to the mother's life; or immediate contraception to prevent a "mistake".

I believe the constitutional amendment should require that the rest of the limitations on abortion be resolved by the individual states. By giving states the power to regulate abortion, we could finally rid ourselves of this issue on the national level. The issue will never go away, but it will at least be fought in the state legislatures and will remove much of the divisive political venom that skews our national politics and pervades the federal judiciary.

Well, I'm not sure what to address in your post since it weaves and bobs around a bit.

But, I'll try.

The issue of extremists within NARAL and NOW isn't really debatable. Their position is that abortion is an inherent right of a woman up to the moment of birth. They don't recognize that the fetus is an independent human being, consider it a "lump of tissue" and grant the power of life and death to the woman in every case. That's an extreme view anyway you slice it.

You mentioned the gun issue and that's another topic. But, I will point out that the framers of the constitution took great pains to recognize the right of the people to "keep and bear arms". Why? Because our independence as a nation was the result of an armed population and because the founders of our nation thought that the best insurance policy against a tyrannical government was to put "real" power in the hands of the people. Abortion wasn't given the same sort of importance. In fact, I'd bet that the founders of our nation would consider the voluntary killing of a human fetus to be a heinous crime. But, I digress.....

What you keep alluded to is that there are "extremists" on both sides of the abortion issue and therefore, the courts should step in and make that hard choice for us.

Hogwash. Just because the debate is "emotional" or "difficult" or "polarizing" doesn't mean it should be swept under the rug or deferred to some unelected individuals in robes. This is the NATURE of our democracy. It's the RIGHT of the people to debate, argue, cajole, and then ultimately VOTE on such difficult issues.

The framers of our constitution only took a few issues "off the table". The right to assemble and speak freely. The right to own weapons (and that is NOT ambiguous, in spite of what a few liberal courts, in their activist way have decided). The right not to be forced to house troops. The rights to due process. Etc, etc., etc.

Abortion isn't one of these. Neither is the nebulous, and thus meaningless concept of "privacy".

Outside of the few issues mentioned by the framers, or enshrined through constitutional amendment after the (by design) difficult process of amending has been achieved, ALL issues are "on the table" for debate, discussion, and ultimately legislation that must be approved (or not) by the executive branch..

The legislative branch allowing their power to be co-opted by the judiciary is cowardice, plain and simple.

But hayleyanne- would you make IUDs illegal? - after all, they prevent the implantation of the fertilized egg- there are a great many anti-abortion types that feel this is abortion too

Oh- and LH- it wasn't a "liberal judge" that decided on the 2nd amendment- no single sitting SC has EVER interpreted the 2nd amendment the way the NRA does- dating back before FDR and the modern liberal. Gun control laws started in the early 20s with gangsters

it is not so off topic though- in that case, as with many SC decisions, in a day when there was pretty fair reasonable debate, politicians and the American public sidestepped clarifying that idea through an amendment, instead, the SC decided that to some degree- and it was conservatives of the day that demanded it "law and order" and all.

You absolutely give all the blame to the NARAL and NOW side, but accept no responsibility whatsoever for your side- this is why the SC has to decide- there is no way, ever, that you could see that a blanket ban on abortion would never work- or understand why we allow abortion- it is for the safety of the mother initially- back alley abortions and all-

there is no middle ground in this debate for your side or the other - only, "my way or the highway, your side is evil, my side is good" continueing over and over, for what, over 30 years now?

CR-- I don't know what IUDs are in the form of a pill. Or, are you talking about an IUD (device)? In any case, the way you describe them as preventing implantation-- I see that as simple contraception and not abortion at all.

hayleyanne- I grew up in the anti-abortion crowd, the whole right wing ideologue movement- this is condemmed within this group as abortion itself- and, when explained, is very consistant with the anti-abortion belief- i.e.- life begins at the moment of conception- they do not believe it starts at the moment of implantation in the uterous- the IUD is an early abortificant just like the morning after pill- so must be made illegal.

For those against abortion, it is not even what one would consider "extremist"- but, just being consistant with thier views-

this is why Catholics oppose birth control as well- to them, it is a slippery slope argument with different but equal "tangs" (like on a fork) of the same argument.

So those on the board that believe that life begins at conception- should an IUD be made illegal?

Yes, CR, this is an extreme view. And we know that some people will always hold these views. It is also argued that the embryos themselves should be protected.


I have another general comment about using the amendment process to settle the moral question of abortion:

I think the Constitution is a poor instrument to decide this question at all. It is like using a sledge hammer to crack open a nut. The question about abortion is a complex question and well intentioned, good people can hold different views.

The "solution" we have now simply leaves it to the woman to decide. It's a sledge hammer. The problem many people have with this solution is that it does not sufficiently consider the moral questions that abortion raises i.e. to what degree does "life" exist in the womb. I think when we have complex moral issues like this, the best solution is to cede most of the control of the issue to the "people" to resolve in their state legislatures. Let the dialogue take place there, and ultimately we will be able to resolve the issue fairly consistently. Just as LH says-- we have dealt with these issues before with things like the death penalty.

But have we REALY dealt with it hayleyanne? Or did we just satisfy a small, very small part of it that we could live with? As pointed out in the DP debate, it seems we really just modified it enough to make it look like we use it and on and on, but we only really use it against poor poeple and don't really try to get it right, or apply it evenly.

If given the choice between goverment control and the woman's right to choose what she does with her own body, despite my personal objections (the old "eww" factor) - I choose the individual.

The IUD IS NOT an extreme example- if we outlaw abortion, as LH wants, then we outlaw IUDs- because it is an abortificant-

does this magic amendment decide when life begins, as Eurosimmo (sp) pointed out- can the right to lifers live with this definition?

I think not- let us look at a couple of posts-

"azchurchmouse- I will end by saying this. Once you know the truth about abortion, you can’t walk away from it.
You can call me an extremist, but I think dismembering children is wrong. You ask for compromise. For someone who is pro-life like me, there can be none."


LH- "Roe vs. Wade should be overturned and the wailing of the extremists from the abortion lobby, and their dutiful servants within the democrat party, should be ignored."


"We need to decide, as a people, if and when it's ethical and moral to kill a fetus. That's the issue. The issue isn't "choice". The issue isn't "women's rights". The issue isn't anything else. "

Do you see any room for the woman to be able to over-ride the goverment's power here?

You see any room for compromise here?


- this is the "mainstream" anti-abortion view- you and I are in the minority here, with the majority, by far, satisfied with the status quo.

My understanding of LH's position is that it should be decided by referendum. He would accept whatever the majority decides. He is advocating for a full discussion of the ethical question of when it is acceptable to terminate a fetus.

You ask whether there is any room in the discussion for the ability of a woman to override the government's power. I think there is. In my hypothetical-- she has that ability in three circumstances: when her life is threatened; when she is raped; and immediately after conception by use of an "abortificant" (or whatever term you want to use to describe stopping implantation). This position would not be accepted by the extreme right. They would need to compromise. Nor would it be accepted by the extreme left. They too would need to compromise.

All of the solutions put forth by people in this thread should be considered. Ultimately, we would need to reach a compromise position. Erassmussimo proposes that abortion should be guaranteed in the first 4 1/2 months of the pregnancy. His position gives great weight to the argument that the woman should have a great amount of control over her body. It ignores the fact that many believe a 4 1/2 month old fetus is a life. Which view is morally acceptable to our society? Both arguments have value. My suggestion throws the issue to the states to figure out the precise details.

Our case law (Roe), as it stands now, has taken a specific moral position and enshrined it into the Constitution. Ultimately, that is why so many oppose it.

I’m also against abortion, but against banning it. Because my opposition is based on "Faith” and not "Science”; I think it would be Talibanish of me to force my "Faith” on others.


What we should be doing, is to create an environment where women choose not to have an abortion. Abortions did go down significantly during the 90’s, so we know it can be done without Big Government legislating a ban.

I see your point- and agree with it- but to the best of my knowledge, NARAL and NOW members haven't started to go out and murder those that don't agree with the "debate"- even thier most extreme elements -

If the religious right lost this one, as they most certainly would a well thought out centrist position on this- something along the lines Eurasimmo pointed out- we would have a domestic holy war very quickly- and if you think I am being reactionary or exagerating, bring that up at the next Baptist church you go to- the religious in the world, regardless of denomination, has never exactly run away from inflicting violence on the non-believer

I do not believe in allowing the states to choose this issue- for a couple reasons- and don't think it would work, for the same reasons-

1) Like with Loving vs Virginia- some states would make having an abortion illegal- so what is to prevent those folks from travelling to another state to have it- and from the illegal state prescribing criminal penalties for the same? This is a good question- since this is precisely what the Catholics in Ireland tried to do- make it illegal for Irish citizens to travel to Britain for an abortion.

So at some point- the full faith clause will be implemented- making the state decisions moot. Someone will get an abortion outside the "red' states- and someone wil be outraged and try to undermine the whole state's rights thing.

2) States have rarely made the right decision when allowed to do so- from civil rights, to slavery, to inter-racial marriage to gun control-to even the 2000 election- at some point, the feds HAD to step in because of some eventual rights violations, some of them very fundamental, yet acceptable to that state.

Case in point was some of the earliest challenges to our constitution- the seperation of church and state issue- you, as a legal eagle, probably know that at one time, the states required taxes of everyone to be donated to the church of thier choice- very similar to what GW is doing today with the faith based initiative- and it was a federal challenge and "liberal activist judges" that made that proccess go away LOL

When it comes to civil liberties, the state level has a history of making the wrong choices-

the eminent domain issue- some poeple want that changed federally- because they don't trust thier state goverment to do the right thing- which is the most interesting part to me- states righters types are all for it if they believe they have the votes to see it thier way- but very quickly against it when they do not.

A point I would like to make about what the Old Testament says about abortions:

If you were to read Number 5; you would notice that in the case of suspected infidelity, a husband could ask for an abortion, by forcing a miscarriage, to be performed.


The Test for an Unfaithful Wife (New International Version)

11 Then the LORD said to Moses, 12 "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'If a man's wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him 13 by sleeping with another man, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act), 14 and if feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure—or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure- 15 then he is to take his wife to the priest. He must also take an offering of a tenth of an ephah [c] of barley flour on her behalf. He must not pour oil on it or put incense on it, because it is a grain offering for jealousy, a reminder offering to draw attention to guilt.

16 " 'The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the LORD. 17 Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. 18 After the priest has had the woman stand before the LORD, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. 19 Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, "If no other man has slept with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. 20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have defiled yourself by sleeping with a man other than your husband"- 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse of the oath-"may the LORD cause your people to curse and denounce you when he causes your thigh to waste away and your abdomen to swell. [d] 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells and your thigh wastes away. [e] " " 'Then the woman is to say, "Amen. So be it."

23 " 'The priest is to write these curses on a scroll and then wash them off into the bitter water. 24 He shall have the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water will enter her and cause bitter suffering. 25 The priest is to take from her hands the grain offering for jealousy, wave it before the LORD and bring it to the altar. 26 The priest is then to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial offering and burn it on the altar; after that, he is to have the woman drink the water. 27 If she has defiled herself and been unfaithful to her husband, then when she is made to drink the water that brings a curse, it will go into her and cause bitter suffering; her abdomen will swell and her thigh waste away, [f] and she will become accursed among her people. 28 If, however, the woman has not defiled herself and is free from impurity, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children.

29 " 'This, then, is the law of jealousy when a woman goes astray and defiles herself while married to her husband, 30 or when feelings of jealousy come over a man because he suspects his wife. The priest is to have her stand before the LORD and is to apply this entire law to her. 31 The husband will be innocent of any wrongdoing, but the woman will bear the consequences of her sin.' "

First off, I'd like to apologize to azchurchmouse for inadvertently insinuating that she is pig-headed. That was not my intention at all, but my wording sloppily permitted that interpretation, so I apologize. My comment was directed at all of those who refuse to compromise, on both sides, as a group. I realize that you are part of that group, azchurchmouse, so I will attempt to re-work my point in a way that is not insulting.

Refusal to compromise is inimical to the peace of a civilized society. We all have different notions of perfection, but we must not allow the best to be the enemy of the good. Where our differing notions of perfection do not overlap, we can never agree; unless we compromise, one must win and another must lose. The losers will forever burn with resentment, undermining the sense of commonality that holds society together.

Right now, you and yours are among the losers. The law of the land gives no regard to your beliefs; abortion is freely permitted under almost all conditions. I appreciate your resentment of this situation, but I ask, would you resolve this problem by simply reversing everything so that you achieve total victory and those who support abortion rights suffer total defeat? Surely you recognize that there are many millions (indeed, the majority of Americans) who believe that a woman should have some right to abortion under some circumstances; would you force your beliefs down the throats of that majority?

Yes, you are arguing a moral principle, and I agree that in morality there can be no compromise on principle. But this is not morality, this is politics, and compromise is the lifeblood of politics. You can retain your moral absolutes even as you accept political compromises. If you insist on applying your own moral absolutes to politics, how can you object to other people applying their own moral absolutes to politics? Where would we all be if we all refused to compromise?

hayleyanne would prefer to see the amendment scaled back a bit, in two regards: states' rights and the cutoff date for abortion on demand. On the states' rights point, I agree with CruisingRam that the ease of movement between states would make such distinctions pointless. Yes, in a legal sense it would be nice to permit everybody to have their own variation, but travel between states is so cheap and easy that this would merely produce abortion travel agencies. A state with strong restrictions on abortion would see its laws flouted by those who travel to a neighboring state with no restrictions whatever. Ultimately, a states' rights solution would yield results little different from the current situation, something that I think that pro-life people would find terribly frustrating. I think we would all be better off with a national-level compromise that applies to everybody.

I agree that the cutoff date is a bit late; I too would prefer to make the cutoff in the first trimester. The killer problem here is the impossibility of guaranteeing that all women would be aware of their pregnancy in the first trimester. To deny a woman the right to an abortion because she had no inkling of her pregnancy is grossly unfair. I think that biology forces our hand here.

Lastly, hayleyanne, you implictly reject my provision for abortion in cases of genetic deformity. Suppose that a woman discovers that the fetus she is carrying has a genetic defect for a childhood disease that is always fatal. Do you really believe that this woman should be forced to give birth to that child, only to watch it die later?

To further E's question- does a genetic disease like Huntingtons Chorea, a horrible, debilitating disease, eventually fatal in every case, qualify for an abortion?

http://medical.preferredconsumer.com/nervo...ons_chorea.html

CrusinRam posted,


I agree with you. In the abortion issue, the Supreme court has made this totally a womans issue and slams the door on men altogether.

Abortion is a human issue not a gender issue. Facts, logic, reason have no anatomy. The point is not the gender of those advancing arguments, but whether or not the arguments are accurate. To believe otherwise is sexism.

On one hand, a man is told he should take responsibility for an unwanted pregnancy and give the mother financial help and emotional support. He should take ownership of the situation he helped cause by regarding the baby not just as the woman's but his own.

On the other hand, the same man is told that abortion is none of his business, only the mother's and doctor's. Given this mixed message , how can we expect a man to act responsibly toward the mother and child.

Erassmussimo asks:




and Cruising Ram follows up:



In my proposal, I would also allow for the exception that Erassmussimo describes but in a very limited fashion: the "right" to abort in those instances where the birth defect would be so severe as to render the person completely unable to care for him or herself. I know this would be a difficult line to draw-- it gets into some very murky areas.

If we ever get to the point, techologically, where we can predict whether someone will die from a childhood disease or a later disease in adulthood (like Lou Gehrigs), and if abortion remains a "right" as it is now -- I am certain that there will be people who choose to abort. I can't support that kind of playing God in a Brave New World.

Agreed; we cannot simply base this decision on the existence of a difficult or even disabling disease. My "not taking care of oneself" criterion did have an ambiguity: do I mean it in the sense of being able to get a job and support oneself, or in the sense of being unable to take care of simple daily necessities. That's a very tough call, and I think that this would be something that could go either way. If the people decided to deny abortions even in the case where the individual would have to be a ward of the state for his entire life -- and they're willing to pay the costs of providing a decent life -- then I can live with that. I think I would draw the line at a disease certain to be fatal in childhood, or condemning a person to a life of immobility or great pain. But this is a point that can be haggled over.

One of our correspondents, Azure-Citizen directed me to this link presenting the thoughts of Carl Sagan on the issue. He makes an excellent point: that the single characteristic most associated with human-ness (thinking) does not begin until the end of the second trimester. That is, the brain prior to that point does not function in any fashion we would call human, whereas the brain after that point shows recognizably human activity. He therefore proposed that the end of the second trimester be the demarcation point. It makes sense to me, but I fear that it is politically a non-starter. In order to achieve a compromise, each side must give something, and drawing the line at the end of the second trimester doesn't give the pro-life people very much. A constitutional amendment along these lines would still block some abortions, but not many.

Erasmussimo- I agree completely- we disconnected Terry Schiavo because, she was a husk, and there was no thing we could call "human life" left in her- and that is a very good determining point for what constitutes "human life"- when those higher brain fuctions, or actually, when the ability for higher brain functions to develope, begin, I would be very satisfied with a cut off line there, in the second trimester as you say.

Huntingtons Chorea is alway fatal- always. It dooms the person to live in a mental institution for their entire life, or most of it, around mid-adolecense. I have taken care of these poeple for much of my life, as both a volunteer and employee- and now we can take a test if there is a genetic predisposition to this disease- most choose to be permanently sterilized if they know- but those that don't, it is pure hell to bring a kid like that to earth.

If I were a female carrying that child knowing what I know, I would kill myself before I brought that child to term- it is that bad.

The so-called "late term" abortion debate is a wierd one for me- every case performed that I know about was a life of the mother and child decision- I have had to escort 4 patients to the hospital in my 18 years working for this procedure- and each time, there was no real choice, it was either the abortion or they both die.

All late term abortion laws so far have not allowed that exemption.

I am perfectly willing to compromise on this issue, come to a definition and willing to live with it, even if Idon't totally agree to it.

This is where precision in our language becomes important. When we start trying to judge when living persons are no longer "human" I think the potential for abuse (as well as the just plain arbitrary nature of the decision) becomes a concern.

Sentiency has nothing to do with "human-ness". A person is a human as long as they are alive.

If you mean to say sentient, please say so, don't create a category of sub-human humans...

Your terms work well enough for me I suppose, whatever works to put Roe V Wade behind us, I am all for- once again, I have no problem with compromise here.

No, I believe the point is that we settle on a time of two trimesters rather than on some measurement of sentience. The discussion of brain function is used to provide a justification for the cut-off date at the end of the second trimester, not to provide an independent criterion for the decision to permit or forbid an abortion.

No, I oppose the Amendment on states' rights grounds alone. I would support a state Constitutional Amendment, or a pro-abortion law. This is 100% a State's rights issue for me.


As I said, any kind of abortion with the exception of partial-birth abortions should be legal in my opinion. I'm not anti-abortion in any way.

CP

Sure, though I do believe that's we the question inevitably heads. I was merely pointing out that is is misleading to say that at a point in fetal development a fetus "becomes" human.

It's always human.

Therefore that cannot be the criteria on which we base a cut-off date for abortions. It would be equivalent to an all-out ban or legalizing extremely late-term abortions.

Where did I say I want to "outlaw abortion?" You're attributing things to me that I did not say.

snip




I don't understand your point at all or your premise.

Here's the bottom line from my perspective. The congress dodged dealing with the abortion issue so they gladly let the courts step in and decide it. They did. They overstepped their bounds and the congress let them get away with it.

We don't need a constitutional amendment for abortion. We need an open and honest debate about it and then we need to decide, as a society, where to draw the ethical and moral lines.

I'm not saying it won't be hard. I'm not saying it won't be emotional or divisive. But we MUST face these hard issues head on and stop throwing them over the fence to the judiciary, and thus giving them far more power than our system designed for them, out of the unwillingness to face the hard tests.

Compromise is what occurs in the legislative process. It does NOT occur as a result of an activist USSC which could go off in ANY direction.

An activist court could have just as easily BANNED ALL ABORTIONS by coming up with some "right to life" within an unspecified part of the constitution. They could have twisted it in the same way that the majority did in Roe v. Wade did when they relied on the pseudo right of "privacy".

That's what liberals don't seem to understand. An activist court could turn on them and take many of their issues off the table, for good.

That's not how our system was designed. Roe vs. Wade was a disaster and it should be overturned.

Then, it'll be up to who can win the "hearts and minds" of the population.

Where does LH think it would fall? I think first trimester abortions would continue to be legal, 2nd term would be restricted and require health issues, and partial birth abortions would be banned except in extreme cases. That would be the national average. CA, MA, NY, and a few other lefty states would probably have unrestricted abortion up to, and including full dilation. Utah, Arizona, Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, and a few others might severely restrict all abortions.

And that's the way it should be. The people should be able to exercise their democracy through their elected representatives in order to draw the moral/ethical lines where they want.

Not where some unelected elitist judges who live a sheltered life within the beltway in DC want them to be.

I believe that such an amendment would be short-sighted. Abortion cannot be banned at the current time, but there is no guarantee that our society will not progress to a point at which it can be. A constitutional amendment gives permanence to what is, in truth, a transient aspect of our mores. Two hundred years ago, abortion was almost universally legal. Fifty years ago, abortion was almost universally illegal. Now, abortion is universally legal. In a hundred years, it could be illegal again, and it would not seem or be a human rights abuse. That is why we cannot sacrifice the system, nor can we write such transient issues into the Constitution. Such an amendment should most certainly not be passed.

You make an excellent point Bay State Rebel. A constitutional amendment that guaranteed abortion in certain circumstances would be rigid and inflexible.

The current Constitution is also rigid because Roe has held that the right to abortion is guaranteed. In both instances we have inflexibility on this moral issue. That is why I favor an amendment that lays down minimal, but strict guidelines for when abortion is acceptable but maintains the flexibility of allowing the states to craft legislation that can continue to respond to our progress in resolving this prickly moral question.

First, let me point out that the amendment process requires a strong supermajority to pass. If the will of that large a percentage of the people is that abortion should be available, then it is unlikely that we will experience a sea change in the future. If it could be passed, then your argument doesn't apply. Of course, we don't know whether it could be passed, so the question is open. But I think your argument relies on the assumption that it could never be passed -- in which case your argument is unnecesary.
Second, I think it unlikely that society will progress -- or regress -- to a point where abortion is seen as a crime. History is very much on the side of the pro-choice people. Three forces in their favor are at work.
First is the continuing trend of according greater respect to the individual. Western civilization has always honored the individual more than any other civilization has, and that deference has shown nothing but steady advance in the last century. We have seen ever-increasing protection for the will of the individual, and a steady erosion in the ability of the majority to impose its will on the individual. There has been a small counter-trend arising from increasing population densities, but that trend has been narrowly circumscribed to issues arising directly from population density, and abortion is not one of them.
Second is the advance of technology. In general, improved technology makes it easier to meet individual desires. One of the reasons for 19th century laws against abortion was the danger of such procedures; nowadays that argument is obsolete, as abortions are safe. It is almost a certainty that we will someday develop a true abortion pill that terminates pregnancy ungorily. Such a pill would render any legal restrictions on abortion unenforceable. The pregnant woman would have no difficulty locating a source for the pill and purchasing one. She could probably purchase it from a reputable foreign source over the Internet. What then? If we can't stop hundreds of tons of narcotics from entering this country, how could we ever stop a few pounds of abortion pills?
Third is the continuing decrease in support for our value of woman as exclusively a mother. The trend is so clear that it is now considered an iron law of population: as women grow more educated, they have fewer children. A woman with primary education can learn how to use contraception; a woman with secondary education can learn to insist on its use; a woman with a college degree has the skills to support herself and therefore need not rely on marriage for support; and a woman with a postgraduate degree will not subordinate her career development to family. Education undermines the sociological basis of the pro-life movement, and education is on the advance.
Historical progress is very much against the pro-life movement; the sooner that group settles, the better the deal they can get. Refusal to compromise only delays total defeat.

Erasmussimo thank you for your reply.

It is the truth when you say that, “you and yours” are the losers. But you forget the biggest group who loses out, the unborn child, they are the big losers. They don’t have a voice. I am proud to be involved with pro-life organizations who feel they do speak for these children. We feel this country has more empathy towards animal abuses than they do for human abuses.



You asked me if I would resolve this problem by simply reversing everything so that “our cause” achieves total victory and those who support abortion rights suffer total defeat.

I think you knew my answer before you asked.  Yes, Yes, Yes ! Total victory for the unborn would be wonderful. But in my heart I know this probably will never happen. We are to far gone. People do not value life like they did forty years ago.







I believe the majority of American’s really know nothing about abortion. They know what it is by definition but they are still not educated in this area. They have not seen pictures, read statistics, books, and are aware of the laws regarding abortion. I don’t think they want to know, because they really can’t face the reality of what abortion is, the dismemberment of a human life.
How many people would still be for abortion if they witnessed one in person?



[QUOTE]You said
“Yes, you are arguing a moral principle, and I agree that in morality there can be no compromise on principle. But this is not morality, this is politics, and compromise is the lifeblood of politics. You can retain your moral absolutes even as you accept political compromises. If you insist on applying your own moral absolutes to politics, how can you object to other people applying their own moral absolutes to politics? Where would we all be if we all refused to compromise?”[QUOTE]

This is an issue really over what is good and what is evil. It is a morality issue. You see abortion as good, I see it as bad. As individual people, maybe good and evil are merely our own personal, private ideas. In that case morality could change not only from one culture to another but from one person to another. If that’s what it is, then how could you say your morality is better than anyone else’s.


Do you honestly think that the morality of each and everyone of those Supreme Court Justices didn’t come into play when they rendered their decisions? Each one of us has a moral sense, a conscience, which will continue to exert itself in our thinking and actions. Those on the benches across the nation, all have moral senses.
You tell me not to impose my moral judgments on others. But you and the courts have imposed yours on me. You want to keep yours and you want me to change mine.
Declarations like, “you ought not condemn other people’s actions” and “you should not impose your moral values on others” are self-defeating. The very act of making these statements, and you commit the precise error your telling others not to commit.



Question? What is the standard for judging good and evil in a pluralistic culture like ours? And who is the final judge? The government?

Abortion is legal....... What if the courts decided these should be legal............Are they moral just because they are made legal? Beastiality, prostitution, drug use, gambling, group marriages, incest.......

Please don't impute that value to me. My personal views on the matter are complex. I see every abortion as a tragedy, and I would much like to reduce the number of these tragedies. However, in this topic, I am asking about our ability to reach a compromise.


No, my point here is that, rather than one side imposing its moral judgments on the other, we should all come to a compromise that recognizes the each others' morals and represents the best compromise we can all accept. There are good people on both sides of this issue. They have sincere differences of opinion. I am not saying that either side is right or wrong; I am asking, can't we all just find a way to get along? A political compromise is not based on one side's sense of absolute right and wrong; it is a recognition that both sides disagree but must find what common ground they can. If the American people were 90% in favor of abortion and 10% opposed, I would recommend a 90/10 compromise. Right now it looks like about 60/40, depending on how you define the terms. That means that you in the 40% lose out completely. I think this is wrong. I would rather see a 60/40 compromise. Perhaps a 60/40 compromise means that a woman can get an abortion in the first 60% of her term, but not in the last 40%. I am not insisting on any particular terms of the compromise (although I am suggesting a likely set of terms). My primary argument is in favor of some kind of compromise. You seem to be taking the position that you will never accept anything less than total victory, that compromise is simply out of the question. Aside from the fact that I find your position profoundly antidemocratic, I will also point out that it is a futile stance that merely serves to guarantee your utter failure. Why take a position that insures that you save NO lives when you could at least save some lives with a more compromising approach?

Erasimissimo



All this proves is that educated woman can obtain more abortions because they have more money.

Abortion is the most frequently performed surgery on adults in America.
Every 23 seconds a child is killed in America by abortion. That's 3,700 a day, every day of the year. It’s ironic that in hospitals all over the country, doctors and nurses work hard to try to save a 23 week old fetus born prematurely in one room and in the next room; one is being LEGALLY and deliberately killed. Did you know that in some states the law requires that a medical team be present during third term abortions in case that child happens to survive? How sweet.
Our government sanctions every abortions in this country.


Erasimissimo. The majority of woman obtaining abortions are repeat participants.
One would think to use abortion as a form of birth control one would have to have money. The average abortion is $372.


According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute,




This gives us some hope that these educated woman are viewing abortion as what it really is, the taking of an innocent life.

Tell me Erasimissimo, why all over the country there are support groups for woman who have had abortions?






As I said before, our groups have NO plans on giving up. I belong to many who lobby daily to stop abortion. Our lobbyists are all over the country, in every state.
This is an issue that will NOT go away. Why is it the top issue still debated since 1973? A date that has become synonymous with death. A date when seven men on the Supreme Court imposed their morality on every child waiting to be born in this nation.

Amendments? We do not need an abortion amendment; we need a human rights amendment to be added to the Constitution. Look at our courts: the tyrannical rule of "unelected" judges overriding the rule by the people by overturning existing laws and making up their own laws from the bench-all while appointed for life.
And we should not forget the White House. Clinton wiped out every pro-life executive order issued by previous administrations. He vetoed the partial abortion Ban two times-the law that would have protected children from having their brains sucked out. Then in front of the cameras told everyone he wanted to make abortion rare. What a joke. He then fights to have abortion funded by our tax dollars, to be included in healthcare.

The courts, the White House, the NEA, the media, Congress, Hollywood are all on one side so it seems and the truth is on the other.
The truth will prevail.



The history of abortion in America should bring more shame to us than anything else. And our government’s sponsorship of abortion is outrageous and inhumane and inconsistent. The fact that they allow woman the choice to kill is inconceivable.

Abortion has been legal for nearly 30 years and yet it remains and always will the most controversial issue in the nation.

There are many things in life that can be compromised on.
Which side of the road to drive on, salaries, vouchers, which resturant to eat at, age one can drink legally....etc

Abortion deals with the life and death of an unborn child. There can be no compromise. How can you compromise on the dismemberment of a human being?

If people were forced to watch a video or hear first hand from a doctor the proceddures done in an abortion ...we would not be having this discussion.
Every one of those Supreme Court Justices should be forced to watch what they see as every womans right to do, dismemebering and killing a child.

Let them stand next to an operating table and watch.

Do you think you could do it? Do you think if you did, you would still think an amendment was necessary?


You said in your last post that you see every abortion as a tragedy, that you would much like to reduce the number of these tragedies.
Then if you see abortion obviously as being wrong, how can you for one instant intertain the idea about an amendment to allow some sort of killing?

If you think its a tragedy, then work and spend your energy thinking of a way to stop abortion altogether. Just because its legal doesn't mean like Bay State Rebel stated in a post that sometime in the near future it might become illegal.

For myself and others who oppose abortion, there can be NO compromise.
We see a child valuable from conception, so dismemberment would be the same every day that child is in the womb.

I think it might be wise to take a step back for a moment azchurchmouse. I have no problem at all with your point of view or your arguments of course, many people in the US seem to believe as you do.

However your opinion that abortion is murdering a child is an opinion. I am in NO way faulting your right to your opinion, nor (even though I disagree with it) can I stand up and say your opinion is mistaken, nor can I present conclusive proof dismissing your opinion.

But you can also not to the same in reverse. I see abortion as a sad and unfortunate reality, but one that must be largely unrestricted, at least up until the stage where the foetus could survive on its own outside the womb. I simply think that the rights of the woman, who IS a person, trump the right of the foetus, who is NOT a person as recognised by the law. Now thats my opinion, I know you disagree of course, and I also know there is no provable right answer to this debate. No side can claim universal moral authority, no side can claim universal medical authority. Each side has an opinion.




It's too bad you are yours are unwilling to compromise, because that means the issue will never be resolved. As to your seeing a zygote as a person from conception, that is your opinion, and you have every right to it, but please do your best to keep in mind that it is only an opinion, just as my opposite opinion is only an opinion.

Just a couple points I wanted to raise about the issue--

First, didn't the holding in Roe anticipate that the dividing line (first trimester) between the mother's right to privacy and the state's interest in the fetus might be altered depending on technological advances that would affect viability? Why then, when medical advances have indeed been made in this regard-- has the dividing line remained exactly the same?

Second, I know that many people, like azchurchmouse, see abortion as the killing of a human being. But I have never heard anyone equate it completely with murder and call for punishing the person who has an abortion in the same way as a murderer. That means the two situations are different enough that we ought to be able to come up with some kind of compromise.

azchurchmouse, I do not wish to debate the merits of abortion in this topic. You have made it clear that you will not compromise on this issue, and I can only shake my head in sadness for your setting yourself up to a lifetime of failure and frustration -- but that is your choice.

I do wish to counter you on a key point: public support for abortion. The poll you cite was either mistaken, way off, or a statistical fluctuation. Here is a site offering a whole collection of different poll results on abortion issues:
Poll results
There are many different polls asking many different questions here. If you examine them as a whole, you will see that the overall figures are quite clear. About 55% - 60% of Americans support the right to have an abortion with some restrictions. Most Americans agree that women under 18 should be required to obtain permission from at least one parent, and that partial-birth abortions should be prohibited. The number of Americans taking your position, that abortion should never be legal, is steady at 20%. A good majority oppose abortions in the third trimester. About 60% think that Roe v Wade was a good decision and would not like to see it overturned.

These numbers appear to be stable over time; where the polls go back a number of years, there is no indication of any substantial shift in opinion. You can not win this battle; you can only drag it out indefinitely. Again, that is your right as a citizen. I just wish that more Americans could accept the value of compromise and get on with the many other problems facing the republic.

The dividing line was the point at which the mother's right to privacy was outweighed by the state's interest in the health of the mother. That was why the dividing line was put where it was. There was much historical evidence presented that indicated that this was the reason abortion laws were created in the first place -- to protect the health of the mother. It was determined that up until the end of the 1st trimester, the procedure had become safe to the point that the possibility of harm to the mother was the same or less than giving birth. The court stated that after the 1st trimester, the state interest in protecting the mother came into effect. The state's interest in protecting potential life only came into play when the stages where it was possible for the fetus to survive outside the womb -- viability.

What technological advances have there been that allow for viability in the 1st trimester? I don't know of any. Any for the 2nd trimester?

This is the way it is laid out in Roe: