Well, since I'm not a communist, I don't think I'm qualified to answer that question. I will tell you that I hold the U.S. Constitution superior to the Declaration of Independence, however. I also hold it higher than any other set of rules written or otherwise.



You got it.



Play on emotions much, Johnlocke? The truth of what happens to these unborn fetuses is that they are removed and disposed of. Why is that "too much?" Also, what exactly do you mean by "cowardly hide behind the letter of the law?" No one is hiding behind anything. The law is the law. If a woman wishes to have an abortion, the law says its her right to do so. Upon doing so, it would appear that they are, in fact, living by the word of it, since those letters spell words and those words form laws and the law says is legal.



No more emotion? Good.



Woops....I spoke too soon.



Yes, let's...



I hope this isn't something you'd like to try just to see what would happen, legally speaking. Click here to see why.



Hahahahahaha......oh, Johnlocke, you crack me up. Now, looking at your hypothesized scenario above, I think its safe to say that you are the one who is trying to misinterpret the law. What am I, or others who hold the same opinion, supposedly misinterpreting? Also, I'll bet that coming up with new and outlandish ways to defend the ignorance of the pro-life stance is getting tiresome. Click here to read the 14th Amendment, which identifies who is a citizen, for yourself. You will notice the word born is in there.

I believe that Roe V Wade is bad constitutional law. I don't agree that the right to abort as a privacy right, per se...I think those judgements should be made at the discretion of the state. I am pro-choice.

However, I have had two live births and one miscarriage. The miscarriage resulted in a D and C (both first term spontaneous and induced abortions do) to ensure that the placental tissue was properly expelled. The ONLY difference is one fetus is presumed dead (no heartbeat) and the other presumed alive. On my medical charts, 'abortion' (spontaneous) is written.

I have, actually, known friends who were referred to abortion clinics because they were spontaneously aborting their fetuses and those types of clinics are often more experienced in that procedure (less risk to the woman). Also, some doctors apparently don't want to deal with that kind of procedure.

I also knew a woman in the third trimester to have a (deemed 'partial birth') abortion. She was on dialysis machines, bed rest since the 5th month, and in terrible (life threatening) health. Her doctor failed to tell her (since she was Catholic, and he was anti-abortion) that the baby only had half of a brain. That was discovered during the first trimester, but the doctor assumed she would lose it sooner. Her body kept it anyway. Her first ultrasound results mysteriously disappeared with the second (third trimester) ultrasound. The new doctor performed an abortion on a baby which should have been expelled months prior.

I don't doubt that there are many frivolous abortions. I do, however, find it hard to believe in the extreme numbers I've heard on various sites. I wonder how the data is drawn, and how anyone could conclude that one doctor-referred D and C or another voluntary D and C are different. I honestly find it hard to believe that the number of induced abortions is that large, especially when I know how many friends have had miscarriages in the past. Statistically, the odds of losing a fetus (natuarly) is over 30 percent. My personal experience and that of many friends would correlate.

Mrs. P,

I've written the Alan Guttmacher Institute and asked for statistics on spontaneous abortion vs. voluntary abortion. Let's keep our fingers crossed that they can provide that info.

I have researched the issue further and found that in the most recent study by Alan Guttmacher Institute the number of abortions has dropped recently. The Alan Guttmacher Institute now claims that more than one-fifth of all pregnancies end in abortion.

Here's some information about how they collect the data:

Data Collection

On average, women give at least 3 reasons for choosing abortion: 3/4 say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities; about 2/3 say they cannot afford a child; and 1/2 say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner

Induced Abortion

You recently wrote:


I agree with your statement completely and consider myself to be pro-choice. I hope that nothing I've written has given a different impression. My stance on abortion is not to take the choice away, but to find a way to make them rare.

Having said that, I do believe there is a fine line between being pro-choice and pro-abortion. When we move past the point of recognizing that this fertilized egg, this zygote, embryo, fetus - is alive inside of us - when we begin to sermonize the disposability of this living potential person we have crossed that fine line.

Most women who've had abortions or miscarriages or carried a baby to term understand this.

To use a paragraph from an article by Kathleen Parker:

Some people have stated that they don't agree with Roe vs. Wade because they think that the matter should have been decided on a state level. Like a state telling women the options they have with their pregnancy would somehow be more legitimate than the federal government telling women what options they should have with their pregnancy. I don't understand how anyone can think that any government - be it state, local, or national - has any right to decide what options a woman has if she becomes pregnant. I further have a problem with this because these are mostly males deciding what females should do, like they've ever been in the predicament of many of these women whose lives they'd like to decide. I'd probably be able to handle it a little better if females were making these laws. But that's another story. Unless the state/local/national government plans on taking care of every single child they force a woman to have, I think they have absolutely no right to interfere with a woman and her pregnancy. It's simply none of their business, and I can't understand how anyone could think it is. If you're against abortion, for moral/religious/whatever grounds, it's simple: don't have one. But going around trying to interfere with others who want to make that decision isn't right.
More relevant to the topic - I don't even understand why this debate is still going on. The fourteenth ammendment clearly says "born." That should have been the end of it.

It does not matter what my personal opinion is as to abortion. What matters is when the USSC gives an opinion it should be one that is logically derived from the Constitution. IMO, abortion is not a right guaranteed by the US Constitution. Nor are fetuses protected under the US Constitution. Therefore it is a state issue.

This will not sound right, but if it doesn't hold the same veiw as me then to me there is a problem with it, therefore the constitution m,ust be changed to hold my veiw. In exactly the same light you see nothing wrong with the constitution because it holds you veiw.


This is a debate of whether it is unconstitutional, the constitution exist to have rule over it's people, whether it says what is right is irrespective of this debate. It is about what it should say and whether what it does say is against what it should say. Should a constitution allow the killing of people that it could rule in the future, it is unconstitutional to allow potential people to be killed as they are decreasing their power by doing so.


It denies evidence that a fetus is alive.
It gives the consent to kill (to end the life of) to another (the mother).
Everyone who wrote it was once a fetus is now a grown person and they would consider themselves to have rights yet they wrote that even when they where alive they did not have these rights.


The purpose of the constitution is set constitutional law and it does this to ensure power, So the more people it has power over the more influence it has and the more power it has. So it wants more power yet it wants to let people kill other people that would be under its rule and give it the power it is set up to use.

Miscarriages are not abortions by consent, a mother does not choose to miscarry. It is in no way her fault but to get an abortion of your child by choice is killing by consent and is murder. Whether the constitution sees it as such is irrelevant, it matters whether the constitution is right in what it says.

So what if the constitution gives rights at birth and only after birth, is this right and is it unconstitutional with what it should say.


I feel sorry for you if you did not understand johnlockes argument, they were well constructed (maybe the truth hurts to much) and the pictures did add something to the debate to say that the constitution says something that is against what the pictures show. It is not propagandrous to show the truth, those are pictures of babies in thier mothers womb and they can blatently be seen to be alive displaying everything you do now without the experience of life.

And had it been a state issue, there would be many states where it was legal, and people from states where it was illegal would simply cross the state line and have it done. Heck, even before RvW, there were abortions. It isn't like the law is going to stop anyone who really wants to get one.

What the Supreme Court said though was that no one, not the federal government, not state governments, not YOU, have the right to tell a woman that she MUST bear a child. It's none of your business. If you don't want an abortion, don't have one. You're certainly welcome to politely offer alternatives to any woman considering an abortion, but you have no power to enforce your will upon her, any more than she can tell you what to do with your body.

I still find it funny that, while it is possible for men to have a fetus implanted and carry it to term, you don't see a lot of these "pro-life" guys offering to save the "innocent little babies". This has been done (details here), but it's funny that a lot of Christians are calling this "sick" and "against God".

Actually, Roe v Wade did not eliminate state regulation. It allowed for state regulation after the end of the first trimester. It specifically struck down an article in the TX constitution excluding women from prosecution who obtained abortions under life threatening conditions. This, the SC determined, violated the 14th Amendment of the US constitution.

Roe v Wade transcripts

That was article 1196 of the following:


Our conclusion that Art. 1196 is unconstitutional means, of course, that the Texas abortion statutes, as a unit, must fall. The exception of Art. 1196 cannot be struck down separately, for then the State would be left with a statute proscribing all abortion procedures no matter how medically urgent the case.

Once again it matters not rather I, or you, favor or oppose abortion. I find the USSC's construction of privacy rights as judicial activism at it's worst. When the supreme law of the land can be interpreted so liberally that it no longer means anything all our rights are in jeopardy.

Bye the way the USSC in Roe vs. Wade did limit a woman's right to abortion. This should be a state issue. Of course now it seems to be impossible for anyone who actually believes the Constitution means what it says to get a seat on the USSC.

A portion of the dissenting opinion on Roe vs. Wade

EVEN IF THERE WERE A PLAINTIFF IN THIS CASE CAPABLE OF LITIGATING THE
ISSUE WHICH THE COURT DECIDES, I WOULD REACH A CONCLUSION OPPOSITE TO THAT REACHED BY THE COURT. I HAVE DIFFICULTY IN CONCLUDING, AS THE COURT DOES, THAT THE RIGHT OF "PRIVACY" IS INVOLVED IN THIS CASE. TEXAS, BY THE STATUTE HERE CHALLENGED, BARS THE PERFORMANCE OF A MEDICAL ABORTION BY A LICENSED PHYSICIAN ON A PLAINTIFF SUCH AS ROE. A TRANSACTION RESULTING IN AN OPERATION SUCH AS THIS IS NOT "PRIVATE" IN THE ORDINARY USAGE OF THAT WORD. NOR IS THE "PRIVACY" IN THE ORDINARY USAGE OF THAT WORD. NOR IS THE "PRIVACY" THAT THE COURT FINDS HERE EVEN A DISTANT RELATIVE OF THE FREEDOM FROM SEARCHES AND SEIZURES PROTECTED BY THE FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION, WHICH THE COURT HAS REFERRED TO AS EMBODYING A RIGHT TO PRIVACY. KATZ V. UNITED STATES, 389 U.S. 347 (1967).

IF THE COURT MEANS BY THE TERM "PRIVACY" NO MORE THAN THAT THE CLAIM OF A PERSON TO BE FREE FROM UNWANTED STATE REGULATION OF CONSENSUAL
TRANSACTIONS MAY BE A FORM OF "LIBERTY" PROTECTED BY THE FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT, THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT SIMILAR CLAIMS HAVE BEEN UPHELD IN OUR EARLIER DECISIONS ON THE BASIS OF THAT LIBERTY. I AGREE WITH THE
STATEMENT OF MR. JUSTICE STEWARD IN HIS CONCURRING OPINION THAT THE
"LIBERTY," AGAINST DEPRIVATION OF WHICH WITHOUT DUE PROCESS THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT PROTECTS, EMBRACES MORE THAN THE RIGHTS FOUND IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS. BUT THAT LIBERTY IS NOT GUARANTEED ABSOLUTELY AGAINST DEPRIVATION, ONLY AGAINST DEPRIVATION WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW. THE TEST TRADITIONALLY APPLIED IN THE AREA OF SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC LEGISLATION IS WHETHER OR NOT A LAW SUCH AS THAT CHALLENGED HAS A RATIONAL RELATION TO A VALID STATE OBJECTIVE. WILLIAMSON V. LEE OPTICAL CO., 348 U.S. 483, 491 (1955). THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT UNDOUBTEDLY DOES PLACE A LIMIT, ALBEIT A BROAD ONE, ON LEGISLATIVE POWER TO ENACT LAWS SUCH AS THIS. IF THE TEXAS STATUTE WERE TO PROHIBIT AN ABORTION EVEN WHERE THE MOTHER'S LIFE IS IN JEOPARDY, I HAVE LITTLE DOUBT THAT SUCH A STATUTE WOULD LACK A RATIONAL RELATION TO A VALID STATE OBJECTIVE UNDER THE TEST STATED IN WILLIAMSON, SUPRA. BUT THE COURT'S SWEEPING INVALIDATION OF ANY RESTRICTIONS ON ABORTION DURING THE FIRST TRIMESTER IS IMPOSSIBLE TO JUSTIFY UNDER THAT STANDARD, AND THE CONSCIOUS WEIGHING OF COMPETING FACTORS THAT THE COURT'S OPINION APPARENTLY SUBSTITUTES FOR THE ESTABLISHED TEST IS FAR MORE APPROPRIATE TO A LEGISLATIVE JUDGMENT THAN TO A JUDICIAL ONE.

THE COURT ESCHEWS THE HISTORY OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT IN ITS RELIANCE ON THE "COMPELLING STATE INTEREST" TEST. SEE WEBER V. AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY CO., 406 U.S. 164, 179 (1972) (DISSENTING OPINION). BUT THE COURT ADDS A NEW WRINKLE TO THIS TEST BY TRANSPOSING IT FROM THE LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THIS CASE ARISING UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. UNLESS I MISAPPREHEND THE CONSEQUENCES OF THIS TRANSPLANTING OF THE "COMPELLING STATE INTEREST TEST," THE COURT'S OPINION WILL ACCOMPLISH THE SEEMINGLY IMPOSSIBLE FEAT OF LEAVING THIS
AREA OF THE LAW MORE CONFUSED THAN IT FOUND IT.

WHILE THE COURT'S OPINION QUOTES FROM THE DISSENT OF MR. JUSTICE HOLMES IN LOCHNER V. NEW YORK, 198 U.S. 45, 74 (1905), THE RESULT IT REACHES IS MORE CLOSELY ATTUNED TO THE MAJORITY OPINION OF MR. JUSTICE PECKHAM IN THAT CASE. AS IN LOCHNER AND SIMILAR CASES APPLYING SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS STANDARDS TO ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL WELFARE LEGISLATION, THE ADOPTION OF THE COMPELLING STATE INTEREST STANDARD WILL INEVITABLY REQUIRE THE COURT TO EXAMINE THE LEGISLATIVE POLICIES AND PASS ON THE wISDOM OF THESE POLICIES IN THE VERY PROCESS OF DECIDING WHETHER A PARTICULAR STATE INTEREST PUT FORWARD MAY OR MAY NOT BE "COMPELLING." THE DECISION HERE TO BREAK PREGNANCY INTO THREE DISTINCT TERMS AND TO OUTLINE THE PERMISSIBLE RESTRICTIONS THE STATE MAY IMPOSE IN EACH ONE, FOR EXAMPLE, PARTAKES MORE OF JUDICIAL LEGISLATION THAN IT DOES OF A DETERMINATION OF THE INTENT OF THE DRAFTERS OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.

THE FACT THAT A MAJORITY OF THE STATES REFLECTING, AFTER ALL, THE
MAJORITY SENTIMENT IN THOSE STATES, HAVE HAD RESTRICTIONS ON ABORTIONS FOR AT LEAST A CENTURY IS A STRONG INDICATION, IT SEEMS TO ME, THAT THE ASSERTED RIGHT TO AN ABORTION IS NOT "SO ROOTED IN THE TRADITIONS AND CONSCIENCE OF OUR PEOPLE AS TO BE RANKED AS FUNDAMENTAL," SNYDER V. MASSACHUSETTS, 291 U.S. 97, 105 (1934). EVEN TODAY, WHEN SOCIETY'S VIEWS ON ABORTION ARE CHANGING THE VERY EXISTENCE OF THE DEBATE IS EVIDENCE THAT THE "RIGHT TO AN ABORTION IS NOT SO UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED AS THE APPELLANT WOULD HAVE US BELIEVE.

TO REACH ITS RESULT, THE COURT NECESSARILY HAS HAD TO FIND WITHIN THE
SCOPE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT A RIGHT THAT WAS APPARENTLY COMPLETELY UNKNOWN TO THE DRAFTERS OF THE AMENDMENT. AS EARLY AS 1821, THE FIRST STATE LAW DEALING DIRECTLY WITH ABORTION WAS ENACTED BY THE CONNECTICUT LEGISLATURE. CONN. STAT., TIT. 22, SECS. 14, 16. BY THE TIME OF THE DOPTION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT IN 1868, THERE WERE AT LEAST 36 LAWS ENACTED BY STATE OR TERRITORIAL LEGISLATURES LIMITING ABORTION. /1/ WHILE MANY STATE HAVE AMENDED OR UPDATED THEIR LAWS, 21 OF THE LAWS ON THE BOOKS IN 1868 REMAIN IN EFFECT TODAY. /2/ INDEED, THE TEXAS STATUTE STRUCK DOWN TODAY WAS, AS THE MAJORITY NOTES, FIRST ENACTED IN 1857 AND "HAS REMAINED SUBSTANTIALLY UNCHANGED TO THE PRESENT TIME." ANTE, AT 119.

Roe vs. Wade was legislation from the bench.

If it doesn't hold the same view as you then there is a problem with it? I'm sorry, but that's a problem you're going to have to live with, unless of course, you manage to single-handedly convince the country to change it and I don't see that happening anytime soon. The Constitution mustn't change to hold your view, you must change your view or learn to deal with the way things are. The Constitution doesn't just happen to hold my view. My view is that the Constitution protects people's freedoms from government interference. I'm sorry you don't feel the same way.



Wrong. This debate is about what the U.S. Constitution actually says. It has nothing to do with what you want it to say, or what anyone else wants it to say. It says what it says, case closed.



Wait wait wait......are you suggesting that with every abortion, the power of the United States of America grows weaker? That's your weakest argument yet. Or, are you trying to be funny? I can't tell...



Good thing, too, since fetuses aren't alive.



It isn't killing, its a medical procedure. And the mother isn't aborting the fetus, the doctor is.



Actually, everyone who wrote it is now a corpse in Virginia. Of course they considered themselves to have rights, they were an oppressed society who had fought for and won their independence and freedom from tryanny. What in the world does that have to do with the constitutionality of abortion?



Ok, when you make statements like the above, it becomes difficult to take your point of view seriously. The purpose of the constitution is to do two things: first, outline the formation of the federal government and its general operation, and second, to protect the individual rights of U.S. citizens from interference from the federal government. It has nothing to do with amassing power. And your assertion that the constitution "wants" anything is laughable. The U.S. Constitution doesn't "want" a thing being that its an inanimate piece of paper and not a living creature with emotions such as desire or greed.



Actually, the constitution is the only relevant thing here. And, for the second time, abortion is not murder, its a medical procedure. Murder implies the killing of an actual person, but that does not apply here because unborn fetuses are not actual persons in the eyes of the law. Also, the constitution doesn't say what is or isn't right, it says what is or isn't law. Determining right and wrong is a human endeavor.



Hypothetical questions like this have no place here. Your definition of what it "should" say has absolutely nothing to do with what it actually does say.



What an asinine thing to say. Johnlocke's argument was based on emotion, not fact. A lot like your position actually. And the constitution mentions the word "abortion" nowhere so why do you say that its against "what the pictures show?" It is propaganda to play on emotions (like showing those pictures), that's how propaganda works. And they are not blatantly alive "displaying everything you do now." Do fetuses breathe air? Do they chew their own food? Do they catch colds? No, they do not do everything I do. They are not blatantly alive. They depend on the mother for life. They are not independent beings.

Mrs Pigpen raises an important point that is often times missed I think in the abortion debate. Roe v Wade does recognise that the state has a 'legitimate interest' in protecting the rights of the unborn. From Roe v Wade......



It seems to me that this leaves the door wide open for certain restrictions to be placed on abortion, most certainly the use of late term abortions as a birth control measure.

The fallacy in your argument, Nu Marx, is that rights are not reserved to citizens alone. EVERYONE in the country (citizen and non-citizen) has their rights protected. Now, priveledges (voting, driving a car, etc) are limited to certain categories of individuals.

Are you arguing that the unborn are constitutionally protected? I agree about the privileges part of your statement, however, abortion is not a privilege.

It's funny that on the one hand, they argue that the right to an abortion shouldn't exist because it doesn't appear in the Constitution, but the rights of the unborn should exist, even though they don't appear in the Constitution.

A fetus is alive.

If you read the entire Roe v. Wade decision, it spells out that the state has a compelling interest in fostering "potential human life" (or whatever they call it...). Therefore, after a certain point, the rights of this potential life trumps the "right to privacty of the mother. The fetus's life never trumps the health or life of the mother, however.

The ONLY impact of Roe v. Wade was to protect first trimester abortions, and to restrict the states regulation of such (it actually forbids the state to regulate 1st trimester abortions). After the first trimester, it rules, the mother's wishes and health must be balanced with the fetus's right to life.

Logically, there is NO difference between a "fetus" with a toe nail still in the birth canal and a fully "born" baby. Since there is no instantaneous development, it is very hard to pick a point at which the baby is only a fetus, or the fetus is just a clump of cells. Roe v. Wade uses the "viability" standard of the third trimester (28 weeks). Premature babies as young as 24 weeks have survived outside the womb.

The USSC has found a law Constitutional which declares that life begins at conception. So, if the Court can accept that premise (which, in Roe it decided was NOT the overwhelming medical opinion), I think we are moving closer to the Court accepting that the unborn have rights. It won't make that decision today, but it might someday.

This is a very charged topic, for obvious reasons. Bill55AZ makes some
good points on the issue of abortion. The problem is this: each situation
is different, and you cannot say, across the board, that abortion must never
occur. There are times when it is the best solution. Men and women can
get angry and cry and complain (mostly the pro-lifers), but they are usually
not around when a baby is born to a crack mother, or to a teenager without
the resources to care for a child, or to an abusive parent, etc.. People are so quick
to judge and act high-and-mighty about this issue. It is politically correct to say you are against abortion, and that abortion is a tragedy. However, make no mistake, if women ever lose the right to make that choice, THAT would be the bigger tragedy.

Yes, these babies born to teenage mothers and crackheads would be better off dead. Too bad that 14th Amendment prohibits infanticide. Now please address the topic; the constitutional protections given to the fetus.

In many cases where the child is born addicted to crack and suffering from birth defects, absolutely they'd be better had they never been born.

And what Constitutional protections? Find one place in the Constitition where a fetus is mentioned. In fact, it's very clear that you can't even be a citizen until you're born.

I'm not sure where it is at, but the USSC in Roe vs. Wade found reasons to protect the fetus in the third trimester.

Since we are so certain that all these babies born addicted to crack are better off dead the only humane thing is to legalize infanticide in these cases.

Sorry for the delay in responding to this, I forgot I had posted a reply in this thread

If abortion rights were decided on by a state-to-state basis, the reasons in that state for/against allowing it just wouldn't make any sense. For example, they'd have to have a valid reason for prohibiting abortion, or allowing it. And if the reasons are valid in that state, it makes no sense why they wouldn't be anywhere else. Imagine for a moment if the legality of smoking cigarettes were decided on a state-by-state basis. Let's say California decides to outlaw smoking cigarettes because tobacco has been proven to cause cancer... like they don't cause cancer anywhere else? Facts are facts. If they cause one state to make a certain decision one way, there's no logical reason why any other state should differ. The only way I can see how these laws would be decided, would be by the prevalent morals and ethics of that particular state. Texas could decide that abortion is illegal because the fetus' "right to live" supercedes the mother's right not to carry it to term. This is not based on fact, it is based on the ethics of the few people in the legislature, or the morals of the majority. The morals of the majority, however, shouldn't be imposed on everyone, IMHO.

And I don't understand why everything that happens has to be supported by the constitution. It doesn't make sense. There are a lot of "rights" that aren't anywhere in the constitution. Fetuses aren't protected by the constitution, but neither is abortion. So? Like my cigarette example, no one's given a right to smoke either. It's not in the constitution. No one has a right to drive, no one has a right to eat. None of these things are mentioned anywhere in the constitution. The constitution can't possibly cover all the things people should or should not be allowed to do, as it would take forever to introduce and add all the ammendments. There's no expressly written right to dye my hair purple. Do you see what I'm getting at? This should have definitely been a national decision, as it was.

You have, actually, made the point. There is no Constitutionally backed right to smoke, drive, dye your hair, ect. Those are state and local issues.

I would not want to see abortion banned in any state. I do however, recognize that, barring some new constitutional amendment, it is not the Supreme Court's jurisdiction.

As in so many other arguments, this one superficially is about the constitutionality of abortion.

Some of the people arguing against Roe v Wade are even careful enough to point out that while they do not see that judgement as constitutional, they are personally pro-choice and think the decisions on legality should be taken at state level. Interestingly, this is (on a quick skim through the thread), the position of nearly all the women who have expressed and opinion. (I'm with Suzy Steamboat - I'm male, therefore my opinion on abortion just matters less. Female opinions on vasectomy and male circumcision are similarly, but not equally, irrelevant; there is no male parallel.)

Underneath this, of course, and what is really driving the thread, is a debate about the morality of abortion. Most of the men arguing against the constitutionality of abortion aren't concerned with the niceties of constitutional law, they just want abortion to be banned.

In this it seems to me that their chosen rallying label "Pro-Life" is a misnomer. What is the position of pro-lifers on capital punishment, corporate manslaughter, or the use of preemptive strikes against suspected terrorist targets? Unless it is universally hostile to the taking of human life, I don't see how the label of "pro-life" is an accurate one. Surely they are just "anti-abortion"?

It reminds me of the tactics of groups like PETA in opposing the wearing of fur or of hunting with dogs. These may have their own merits and demerits as arguments in themselves, but PETA sees them as steps leading to their ultimate agenda to "liberate" all animals from human exploitation, leaving us all as pet-less vegans.

I have to agree. The opening poll, under the heading of "Abortion" is subjective and misleading.

Had the poll been simply "Abortion: for or against" would have been a better way to go.

I am FOR a woman's right to choose.

OK, I'll bite: Why? What societal devastion would descend upon our country in this case?

That poll is so incredibly biased as to be useless. Sadly, I responded without reading carefully, or I'd have voted with an abstention.

I support the legality of abortion, in all circumstances, without any justification of any sort required, and I think that it should be entirely the mother's decision. Leave the date range limitations precisely as they are.

To sum up my reasoning: I don't believe that a fetus is any more a "person" than a guinea pig is; when the law forbids the killing of guinea pigs, it will be logical to also forbid the killing of fetuses. I would still be against such a law (unless my opinion were changed regarding fetuses/personhood), but I do believe that the law should be consistent.

Abortion is one of the most touchy subjects. But I'll try to make my own point. Hopefully it has not been brought up and argued before.

When a human being stops breathing, their heart stops, we pronounce them dead (after trying for revival). Why, then, do we not apply this same notion to unborn children? If the fetus is not breathing and its heart has not started beating, then how can anyone say it is alive? It's just a question I have and I'd like to hear someone answer it. Perhaps my opinion will change if I get a decent response.

I am typically against abortions, although I am fully behind a woman's right to choose. I merely don't want it to be viewed as a form of birth control. It shouldn't be, "Well, I'm not really in the mood to have a child right now."

I believe it would be difficult to use that standard on an embryo/fetus. The embryo's heart starts to beat at around the 5th week (though poppyseed sized). Its lungs, on the other hand, might not be fully functional even at the point of birth. Actually, a person might also be considered dead if they are pronounced 'brain dead', even with a functioning heart. Machines often keep the vitals functioning after death in order to keep organs fresh and 'harvest them'.

In the case of a pregnancy, the fetus is being kept alive by a 'machine', in this case, the woman's body. In virtually all cases, the legal representative of the "brain dead" individual has the right to take them off the machines that are keeping them alive. In the case of abortion, the woman (the legal representative) has the right to take the fetus off the machine keeping it alive (herself).

Seems pretty cut and dried, doesn't it?

FargoUT,

By the 25th day, the heart starts to beat.

By month two all major body organs and systems are formed but not completely developed.

Check this site out:

http://health.discovery.com/centers/pregna...aby/senses.html

I especially suggest this link:

http://health.discovery.com/convergence/ul...ses/senses.html

Cephus,

The fetus' brain is not dead. Dead would mean just that - dead. The fetus' brain is alive and growing and learning every single minute.

Even if you had no religious values, you would still know that abortion is wrong. It is crazy that the practice of abortion is still in effect, sad.

When a man and a women have sex, the women recives a sperm( Living).

Once the baby fetus has grown, it is really considered a child. You think?

Why do this to a child, its killing,its just like me telling all of you that i "killed someone" and heres the prove. It cannot be tolerated.

People say that it is the parents choice whether or not to perform these horrific actionson life, but why is it? Its the laws choice.

Put the children into an adoption program. what is so bad about this?

I know people have there different views about this, but with this subject, there is no "different view" its a No.

If what you say is true, and there is no debate; then there is no reason for you to contribute to our discussion. Sperm IS alive. So is a tumor. Is it a person? It contains genetic material unique to the human species but it posesses none of the characteristics of a person. A fetus carries some of the outward characteristics of a person, but none of the internal ones. A fetus cannot think, respond to stimuli from it's environment, or operate independently. Now whether or not you consider this a person seems to me like something that CAN be debated.

However, the constraints of THIS DEBATE (you know, the one that you think is unnecessary) are the Constitutional standing of abortion.

Given this, you need to demonstrate that a fetus is a person UNDER THE LAW to establish the illegality of abortion. This is where we are debating the issue. Feel free to join us.

It may seem sad, but what is even more sad is putting the child in an adoption home. If that were the case, in most states, only married couples are allowed to adopt. I know that is the case here in Utah. The only married couples who would adopt are an extremely small percentage: those who can not bear children, and those who choose to adopt for societal or ethical reasons. Limiting the adoption rights would prevent many of these children from finding loving parents (whether they be gay, or unmarried couples, or even single citizens).

I've never understood the Republican view on this issue, since it seems hypocritical. Republicans by definition are supposed to desire low governmental interference in the lives of citizens, and yet they would be more than happy to prevent women from aborting children. I guess when the Republican party became synonymous with conservativism, this ideal changed.

I am happy that partial-birth abortions have been nixed, but I do not feel a woman should be restricted from aborting a fetus that is 3 weeks old. As someone who does not have religious beliefs (at least, not traditional religious beliefs), I do not find abortion wrong.

That being said, do not think that I promote abortion as a form of birth control. There are better options available.

I would like to compare population control with birth control (this will probably be considered of poor taste by some). A local story detailed elk and deer hunters as promoting a better wildlife by "population control". Since any fertile female can bear children, why do we allow humans to procreate to their heart's desire and yet we kill elk and deer when their population gets to be too large? Think about it before criticizing this comparison.

You arent following me, once the fetus comes out of the mothers body, i would consider that being a "person", brought into life, a harmless kid, innocent, and all.

The republican view on this is strictly that of being against "The mudering of innocent babies", and thatis the problem, Joe.

I am so sick of reading day after day about some female or male animal (they are ANYTHING but mothers and fathers) killing or torturing their offspring. most of these freaks are either drug addicted, mentally ILL, or just plain ###### up.

WHY they continue to have offspring when they are incapable of caring for even themselves makes me nuts.

abortion. I'm all for it. early! If you are incapable to parenting, DON'T BOTHER and dont bring a child into this world that YOU don't deserve.
UGH!

rant over now...

Please don't try to bypass the profanity filter. -Jaime

Ok....and if your of some religious influence, then youd understand the idea of not haveing kids till after you are married, correct?

Im all for in it some ways, in haveing sex with your girlfriend, if you love her enough, before you marry.

Use a condom, why not? Double up on the condom, just in case it brakes.

I agree with this. Abortion should not be used to escape responsibility. This is why I only support the possibility of abortion when the mother's health is at risk or if she has been raped.
However, abortion is never something that should be taken lightly for a number of reasons. One being the acute emotional distress that always follows an abortion. Often it is devastating to the mother. I have a friend whose job was to console women who were having abortions. She quit before long because it was too depressing.

I disagree with this. Parents who wish to adopt have to wait in long lines before they can adopt. This is because the supply of adoptive babies is smaller than the demand for them.

Here is a link on post abortion stress.
Here is a link on the supply and demand for adoption.

So what? How does that make a human fetus any different than a cow fetus which does the same thing?

Jimbo writes:


Prove it. Demonstrate objectively that abortion is wrong. We'll wait.



Because today's adoption programs are already filled to overflowing with children nobody wants to adopt! Try fixing the current system before you start talking about adding more to it.

Cephus,

You were comparing the fetus brain to a "brain dead" individual. It is, of course, not comparable. It's apples and oranges - just like cows and a humans are not comparable. A fetus is - HUMAN.

I understand abortions in the first trimester. But in this country alone we eliminate 1 million fetuses a year. That is an indicator of a serious need for education - and part of that education is understanding WHAT you are eliminating.

Who cares that the fetus is human? Simply being genetically human doesn't make you special, sorry.

And the fact that there are a million abortions a year means that there are at least a million unwanted pregnancies. What do you propose to do with those million unwanted children *PER YEAR* when you force the mothers to give birth? Especially since we can't even find homes for all the unwanted children we already have.

What's your solution to the problem you are creating?

I have seen the 14th Amendment brought up earlier in this debate and in other debates. I feel it is worth pointing out that that the emphasis need not stop at the use of the word born, but may also be applied to the statement that laws will protect persons.


Being genetically human is not alone cause for legal protection. All of our cells are genetically human, whether they be individual gametes or the collection of cells present immediately after conception. Simply being genetically human, as Cephus and UJ point out, no more qualifies a fertilized egg to be a person than an individual gamete.

Individual gametes and fertilized eggs both represent the potential to mature into independently viable, conscious individuals. That potential, however, should not outweigh the rights and legal protection granted by our constitution to absolute persons. So, as UJ said before, it seems to me that the argument for abortion to be made illegal has yet to find a way to define a fertilized egg as a person rather than merely a complex collection of cells and tissue.

While it is not only persuasive authority the case can be made that a historical precedence for the unborn being protected under common law. I'm riding the fence on this one but there are strong legal and scientific reasons for believing the fetus is a viable human person and entilled to protection uner the law.



The Beginning of Life, science and legal history

Nowhere in the provided article do I see a reference to any English common law protecting zygotes, embryos or fetuses as persons or citizens. As a matter of fact, nowhere in the provided article do I see a case being made for zygotes, embryos or fetuses as persons rather than only genetically distinct forms of human life.

Rather than try to make a case for either, Mr. Kischer (Ph.D. in Anatomy) instead appears to favor distortion and smear campaigns. Instead of trying to argue that a fertilized egg is an individual person, the dear doctor attempts to make an unfounded connection between legalized abortion, illegitimate births and the prevalence of sexually transmitted diseases. The article ends with a tangent against a generation in which some recognize that different people have different morals, and with references to the Third Reich as though abortion was a conspiracy for genocide -- without ever bothering to show a fertilized egg to be a person.

Yelling about science and moral relativism still fails the task of defining a fertilized egg as a person protected by the Constitution, rather than a complex collection of cells and tissue no more the subject of murder or genocide than sperm released in a non-reproductive manner.

I think the biggest issue with the abortion debate is that we have a difference in opinions. Some people are of the opinion that a person begins at conception. Some people are of the opinion that a person begins at birth. Some people are somewhere in between. The main issue is that it is all a matter of opinion.

If you are of the opinion that life begins at conception - it is your right not to have an abortion.
If you are of the opinion that life begins at birth - it is your right to have one.

Same thing with homosexuality. If your religious beliefs say that homosexuality is wrong - it is your right not to be homosexual.

If your religious beliefs say that homosexuality is OK, then it is your right to be that way. With all the perks of a "normal" couple.

Our Constitution protects the equal rights of people who disagree, no matter how strongly two people disagree. If the Constitution ever begins to elevate one person's beliefs over another, I for one will fight til the death to keep it from turning into a tool of bigotry.

Abs like Jesus, the unborn fetus was protected under common law, not just in England but here right up until the Griswold case. Since you seem oblivious to this fact, keep in mind it wasn't a legal brief, it was just an essay. We could go into the 'eye for an eye' concept in common law but that would be persuasive authority only. His main point was that this is human life from a scientific point of view is either alive or dead, age is irrelavant, and the courts are ignoring that fact. You don't think the guy is making sense? Well, your entitled to your opinion just like he is.

I'm not sure that the article is focusing on abortion exclusivly and this whole buisness of 'viable' vs. 'person' is what makes the law so ambiguise. I know I came away from the article still puzzled and that goes back to the way the Roe v. Wade case was decided. I wll say this, Dr. Kisher is convinced that the issue is cut and dried from both a legal and a scientific point of view and the Court is wrong for being ambiguise. I thought he made a strong argument but if it were as simple as he, or you, make it out to be, there would be nothing to debate.

People have strong feelings about abortion and its all too easy to make moral judgments about the opposing view point. Lets cut to the chase, Abs like Jesus when does and unborn child have a right to life? Now as far a zygotes being people vs. body chemistry, maybe we would be better off debating that topic in the Science forum. I can't really get into that on this thread but you might check out Designer Babies or maybe start something on zygotes in stem cell research. Apart from that I don't know what to tell you.

perspective, religion is one point of view worth considering. Religious people do seem to be out front on this issue. As the article pointed out though, they don't accept that it is that 'opinion' should not settle this issue. There has to be sound moral reasoning.

I continue to take the position that a fetus is not protected under the Constitution until it attains personhood, which I consider to occur with the capacity for consciousness and the ability to sustain life independent of another particular person's continued biological function. I have started a new topic to discuss when cells become people here: Personhood (abortion spin-off)

As the Constitution clearly states that it protects persons, it does seem necessary that we first establish at what point in a fertilized egg's development it becomes a person protected by law.

In South Carolina they convicted a woman who's cocain use resulted in the death of her unborn child. The law makes it criminal homocide and she was sentenced to 20 years with 8 suspended. The fact is that the term personhood is being revised and the implications in legal issues are growing.




Supreme Court upholds murder conviction in a stillborn case