Full Version: Abortion
Save any emotional, irrational ranting for another debate. Beyond regurgitating pro-abortionist creedos like, "my body, my business", are there any real arguments establishing the constitutionality of the Rowe vs Wade decision?
Obviously no "body part" falls off and becomes an adult. No "body part" has unique, human DNA made up of your DNA and someone else's. We charge people with vehicular MANSLAUGHTER when they get drunk and kill this body part.
Example after example, the pro-abortionists' arguments never seem to withstand serious scrutiny. Can anyone really defend the pro-abortion position?
Obviously no "body part" falls off and becomes an adult. No "body part" has unique, human DNA made up of your DNA and someone else's. We charge people with vehicular MANSLAUGHTER when they get drunk and kill this body part.
Example after example, the pro-abortionists' arguments never seem to withstand serious scrutiny. Can anyone really defend the pro-abortion position?
The manner in which your poll is worded makes it impossible to honestly answer anything other than to agree that it unconstitutional. You know this, of course. The problem is that not everyone would agree that the wording of your poll reflects the reality of abortion.
Allow me to try to defend the "pro-abortion" position, as you call it. (I accept this term for now, although, as you know, very few people think abortion should be encouraged as a positive good. Like most people on this side of the issue, I simply believe that abortion is sometimes the lesser of two evils.)
Let's consider two extreme examples.
1. Abortion one minute before normal birth. I think we can agree that most people would consider this unethical in any situation, unless it were the only possible way to save the life of the mother.
2. Abortion one minute after fertilization. Some would consider this exactly equivalent to killing a child already born, based (usually) on the belief that the soul enters the flesh at the moment of conception. Those who do not accept the idea of the soul would be likely to disagree. They would consider this form of abortion ethical.
Where, then, do we draw the line? It's not at all easy to say. I would suggest that abortion during the very early stages of development is not always unethical, based on the level of development of the nervous system. (Much would depend on the exact circumstances, of course. A "morning after" pill for a rape victim, for example, would not be unethical in my view.)
I think we can agree that it is best to minimize the demand for abortion by encouraging responsible sexual behavior and by attempting to make birth control safe and effective.
Allow me to try to defend the "pro-abortion" position, as you call it. (I accept this term for now, although, as you know, very few people think abortion should be encouraged as a positive good. Like most people on this side of the issue, I simply believe that abortion is sometimes the lesser of two evils.)
Let's consider two extreme examples.
1. Abortion one minute before normal birth. I think we can agree that most people would consider this unethical in any situation, unless it were the only possible way to save the life of the mother.
2. Abortion one minute after fertilization. Some would consider this exactly equivalent to killing a child already born, based (usually) on the belief that the soul enters the flesh at the moment of conception. Those who do not accept the idea of the soul would be likely to disagree. They would consider this form of abortion ethical.
Where, then, do we draw the line? It's not at all easy to say. I would suggest that abortion during the very early stages of development is not always unethical, based on the level of development of the nervous system. (Much would depend on the exact circumstances, of course. A "morning after" pill for a rape victim, for example, would not be unethical in my view.)
I think we can agree that it is best to minimize the demand for abortion by encouraging responsible sexual behavior and by attempting to make birth control safe and effective.
See, the difference is (and I know that this has been explained OVER AND OVER AND OVER, and some people still wont grasp the concept) that not everyone holds the belief "life begins at conception". And since not everyone holds that belief this is where the argument stems. And you will not ever convince me otherwise, and I will not convince you otherwise. But if a person sees an embryo as nothing more than a cluster of cells (something innocuous like a wart for example) it is their right to get rid of it. When that person starts seeing it as more than just an embryo then the decision she has to make becomes more difficult. Its all based on what people believe, and doesnt everyone have the right to believe what they want?
Women miscarry all the time, does that mean the mother is an involuntary murderer? After all, if you accidentally kill someone in an accident, its involuntary manslaughter. We have many charges for accidental deaths, we may as well add miscarriage to the list then. But of course, thats a fallacious argument.
Women miscarry all the time, does that mean the mother is an involuntary murderer? After all, if you accidentally kill someone in an accident, its involuntary manslaughter. We have many charges for accidental deaths, we may as well add miscarriage to the list then. But of course, thats a fallacious argument.
I am not religious, its not about a soul with me. Its about a provably living, DNA-unique and human thing that seems logical to call a person. How is it not murder?
And I sympathize with rape victims genuinely, but you don't get to kill someone every time you are made to suffer.
The general apathy people feel towards the unborn, even among many Republicans makes me feel like Oscar Schindler watching a whole society gone mad, in this case, as they casually accept genocide based on the profoundly arrogant assertion that women (or anybody) are fit to deem people's lives as worthy or not of basic human rights.
And I sympathize with rape victims genuinely, but you don't get to kill someone every time you are made to suffer.
The general apathy people feel towards the unborn, even among many Republicans makes me feel like Oscar Schindler watching a whole society gone mad, in this case, as they casually accept genocide based on the profoundly arrogant assertion that women (or anybody) are fit to deem people's lives as worthy or not of basic human rights.
I like the wart example, as by virtue of their benign tumour status, they are not genetically identical to the rest of the body on which they live, but they are certainly genetically identifiable as "human".
They could, therefore, be said to be genetically "unique" and human, yet (like you say), nobody sane argues that warts should not be removed if they pose a threat, or a mere inconvenience, to the host.
The pre-implanted fertilised egg/blastocyst is, in essence, a potential human. In the current state of embryology, it will never ever become human unless it is implanted into an human womb. So I do not see how anyone who claims to be arguing from a humanist standpoint, as opposed to the "soul from conception" standpoint, can object to the morning after pill, which simply prevents implantation.
The current cut-off for abortion-proper, at about 23 weeks (I don't know what it is there - it varies in different countries), is around the time where it is perfectly possible for the mother to be completely unaware of the prengancy. (That's not proof in itself of anything - mothers have given birth before now without ever knowing they were pregnant.)
But I think it's instructive to look at the way lay people and the medical establishment talk about naturally occurring events. When it's not a recognisable baby that it produced, we talk about a "miscarriage" (the medical term for which is "spontaneous abortion", not uncoincidentally). When it is a "baby", we talk about a still birth.
I'm not trying to show that this justifies abortion, being perfectly aware that children or adults can drop dead for a multitude of reasons, yet we still disapprove of killing them. But what I am trying to do is illustrate that we have always, since prehistory, made a distinction between a human and a potential human, between a baby and a foetus, between something with rights and something without rights.
I think that, in this context, aquapubs objections have less merit than if he WAS arguing from a "soul from conception" position.
As an aside, why is it that almost all of the most vocal anti-abortionists are MEN?
They could, therefore, be said to be genetically "unique" and human, yet (like you say), nobody sane argues that warts should not be removed if they pose a threat, or a mere inconvenience, to the host.
The pre-implanted fertilised egg/blastocyst is, in essence, a potential human. In the current state of embryology, it will never ever become human unless it is implanted into an human womb. So I do not see how anyone who claims to be arguing from a humanist standpoint, as opposed to the "soul from conception" standpoint, can object to the morning after pill, which simply prevents implantation.
The current cut-off for abortion-proper, at about 23 weeks (I don't know what it is there - it varies in different countries), is around the time where it is perfectly possible for the mother to be completely unaware of the prengancy. (That's not proof in itself of anything - mothers have given birth before now without ever knowing they were pregnant.)
But I think it's instructive to look at the way lay people and the medical establishment talk about naturally occurring events. When it's not a recognisable baby that it produced, we talk about a "miscarriage" (the medical term for which is "spontaneous abortion", not uncoincidentally). When it is a "baby", we talk about a still birth.
I'm not trying to show that this justifies abortion, being perfectly aware that children or adults can drop dead for a multitude of reasons, yet we still disapprove of killing them. But what I am trying to do is illustrate that we have always, since prehistory, made a distinction between a human and a potential human, between a baby and a foetus, between something with rights and something without rights.
I think that, in this context, aquapubs objections have less merit than if he WAS arguing from a "soul from conception" position.
As an aside, why is it that almost all of the most vocal anti-abortionists are MEN?
Hey aquapub - where's that "other, please explain" option? 
the poll seems confusingly worded so I nulled my vote.
from http://www.voters4choice.org/facts/myths.shtml:
it has been shown that at this stage(first 12 weeks) the embryo doesn't have a brain, thus no electrical signals. it is not even alive! (in most senses of the word) I have seen anti-choicers protesting and they had HUGE photos of partial birth abortions. (which I oppose 100%) and act like that is what most abortions are like, when in fact, according to the CDC, it is only 1.4% of ALL abortions. most (88%) occur when you still can barely see the embryo. it seems to me anti-choicers, not pro-choicers, arguments AGAINST abortion fall apart upon scrutiny.
more sources:
A doctors right to choose near bottom of page
and from the CDC's own website:
from http://www.voters4choice.org/facts/myths.shtml:
QUOTE
Myth: Abortion happens through all nine months of pregnancy.
Fact:
According to the Centers for Disease Control, which collects abortion statistics from every state, the overwhelming majority of abortions -- 88 percent -- occur within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. In fact, one-half occur within eight weeks. Six percent take place early in the early second trimester, and only a tiny fraction of all abortions -- 1.4 percent -- occur in the second half of pregnancy, after 20 weeks. Abortions in the third trimester, the point when fetuses are mature enough to potentially survive outside the uterus are very rare. They are less than one-fiftieth of one percent of all abortions, and in fact are only done when there are serious health problems for the mother or fetus.
Fact:
According to the Centers for Disease Control, which collects abortion statistics from every state, the overwhelming majority of abortions -- 88 percent -- occur within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. In fact, one-half occur within eight weeks. Six percent take place early in the early second trimester, and only a tiny fraction of all abortions -- 1.4 percent -- occur in the second half of pregnancy, after 20 weeks. Abortions in the third trimester, the point when fetuses are mature enough to potentially survive outside the uterus are very rare. They are less than one-fiftieth of one percent of all abortions, and in fact are only done when there are serious health problems for the mother or fetus.
it has been shown that at this stage(first 12 weeks) the embryo doesn't have a brain, thus no electrical signals. it is not even alive! (in most senses of the word) I have seen anti-choicers protesting and they had HUGE photos of partial birth abortions. (which I oppose 100%) and act like that is what most abortions are like, when in fact, according to the CDC, it is only 1.4% of ALL abortions. most (88%) occur when you still can barely see the embryo. it seems to me anti-choicers, not pro-choicers, arguments AGAINST abortion fall apart upon scrutiny.
more sources:
A doctors right to choose near bottom of page
QUOTE
The CDC reports that 88 percent of abortions in the U.S. occur in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy; nearly 99 percent occur within the first 20 weeks; and only about 1 percent of terminations occur past 21 weeks of pregnancy. The annual total of intact dilation and extraction procedures was estimated to be approximately 650 of the 1.4 million abortions performed in 1996, the last year for which data is available.
and from the CDC's own website:
QUOTE
More than half (58%) of the reported legal induced abortions were performed during the first 8 weeks of gestation; 88% were performed within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. Source: MMWR, November 29, 2002/Vol. 51/No.SS-9.
How old are you when you are born? It starts at zero, one day old, ect.
Therefore, your poll is erroneously written at the get-go if you wish to view abortion in regards to its constitutionality on the basis of age.
Edited to add: I think this is the problem many have regarding this issue. It is full of loaded questions, such as yours, which can as easily be turned around. It is constitutional to require one person to sacrifice his/her self in some way to save another's life? When's the last time you were required to give a mandatory blood donation?
Therefore, your poll is erroneously written at the get-go if you wish to view abortion in regards to its constitutionality on the basis of age.
Edited to add: I think this is the problem many have regarding this issue. It is full of loaded questions, such as yours, which can as easily be turned around. It is constitutional to require one person to sacrifice his/her self in some way to save another's life? When's the last time you were required to give a mandatory blood donation?
Well, let us see here. Before the 14th Amendment one class of people could be enslaved under our Constitution.
Amendment 14 Sec 1
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws
Notice the word BORN.
No the fetus is not protected under the constitution. Nor do I find abortion being an issue under the jurisdiction of the federal government. IMO, Roe vs. Wade was the wrong decision because abortion should be a state issue.
Yes, states discriminating against the unborn is just as constitutional as enslaving blacks was before the 14th Amendment.
Amendment 14 Sec 1
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws
Notice the word BORN.
No the fetus is not protected under the constitution. Nor do I find abortion being an issue under the jurisdiction of the federal government. IMO, Roe vs. Wade was the wrong decision because abortion should be a state issue.
Yes, states discriminating against the unborn is just as constitutional as enslaving blacks was before the 14th Amendment.
Well, first off, aquapub, your poll consists of a loaded question and I saw right through it, so I voted that it is constitutional for two reasons. First, because it is. Second, to spite you. Abortion is not murder/mass murder/genocide etc. Abortion is a medical procedure. A fetus is not a person. A fetus is a blob of cells. The government (federal/state/local/whatever) has absolutely NO BUSINESS telling women what they can and can't do with their own bodies. For that matter, the government has no business telling ANYONE what they can and can't do with their own bodies. I'm sorry that you are against abortion/freedom, but you are nothing but completely wrong.
QUOTE
Well, first off, aquapub, your poll consists of a loaded question and I saw right through it, so I voted that it is constitutional for two reasons. First, because it is. Second, to spite you. Abortion is not murder/mass murder/genocide etc. Abortion is a medical procedure. A fetus is not a person. A fetus is a blob of cells. The government (federal/state/local/whatever) has absolutely NO BUSINESS telling women what they can and can't do with their own bodies. For that matter, the government has no business telling ANYONE what they can and can't do with their own bodies. I'm sorry that you are against abortion/freedom, but you are nothing but completely wrong.
Such hostility.
I think that within the first trimester it is appropriate to terminate the pregnancy if it is needed. There are circumstances that occur that abortion is needed in the later stages of pregnancies, but I think that you're walking a thin line then. Full term abortions are NOT okay, IMO. I think women should have the right to abortions no matter what, BUT to say that what has been conceived inside of you isn't a life until it's born, is pretty ridiculous, especially after the first trimester.
I suppose it would be inflammatory to say that it was also "medical procedures" that were performed in the death camps, the difference being, of course, that they were done against the will of the prisoners. And the fact is, you really can't compare the two, except in the case of mandatory abortions.
But I do know that when a pregnant woman gets into a car accident and is injured, she asks the physician about "my baby," not "the fetus" or "the embryo."
Whether it is just a cluster of cells or whether it has fingers and toes, this is a developing human. It's not a puppy or kitten.
I would not impose my own wishes on a pregnant woman, but I would say, let your conscience be your guide. As long as the Supreme Court says it's legal, it can be done, whether it is encompassed by the Constitution or not.
(edited)
But I do know that when a pregnant woman gets into a car accident and is injured, she asks the physician about "my baby," not "the fetus" or "the embryo."
Whether it is just a cluster of cells or whether it has fingers and toes, this is a developing human. It's not a puppy or kitten.
I would not impose my own wishes on a pregnant woman, but I would say, let your conscience be your guide. As long as the Supreme Court says it's legal, it can be done, whether it is encompassed by the Constitution or not.
(edited)
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Aug 14 2003, 01:31 PM)
I suppose it would be inflammatory to say that it was also "medical procedures" that were performed in the death camps
Actually, that would be murder since it is the taking of life. Abortion has nothing to do with the taking of life. Abortion is the removal of an unwanted growth of cells inside the body. Make no mistake, a fetus is NOT life.
It is arbitrary to assert that life begins at birth, not to mention scientifically false. A fetus is provably human, provably composed of unique DNA from the father and the mother, and provably living, being that non-living things don't consume, grow, and multiply. (Unless you are dealing with viruses, which the verdict still isn't back on that one yet)
The protocol we are supposed to follow when the constitution isn't specific enough (as with not clarifying when someone is old enough to get human rights) is to act in the spirit of the constitution. I'm sure the founding fathers never saw it coming that the supreme court would actually entertain this disengenuous hair-splitting about body parts aimed at giving women the special right to kill people. I think its safe to say we were supposed to err on the side of caution on this one and put the burden of proof on the people asking to legalize genocide.
The protocol we are supposed to follow when the constitution isn't specific enough (as with not clarifying when someone is old enough to get human rights) is to act in the spirit of the constitution. I'm sure the founding fathers never saw it coming that the supreme court would actually entertain this disengenuous hair-splitting about body parts aimed at giving women the special right to kill people. I think its safe to say we were supposed to err on the side of caution on this one and put the burden of proof on the people asking to legalize genocide.
I was an unwanted child, and suffered emotional abuse from my mother.
She should have sent my spirit back to God and have him place me with a mother who actually wants me.
That is one reason for abortion. No child should have to go through that.
I have a sister who has had many children (from several husbands and several boy friends), the first got adopted out of the family and is probably a normal person now. The second, my parents adopted! As though messing up the lives of their own children wasn't enough, they just had to take on one more in their later years. The others that my sister had, most of them are messed up just from having my sister as their mother.
I also have had a nephew on my wife's side of the family born with mulitple birth defects, who should have been allowed to die within the few months predicted, but the doctors decided to do multiple and expensive surgeries to keep the child alive longer. He lived 3.5 years and never got over 17 pounds and never got past the mental age of a 3 month old baby. The family suffered the initial pain, the years of hardship caring for him, and then the mother got the difficult task of holding the child in her arms as she watched him die. And the expense was a hardship as well.
That is another reason for abortion, if you can determine in advance that such problems exist.
Making a rape victim carry her attacker's child is akin to continuous rape, but now by an uncaring society who values the potential life of a fetus more than the mental health of the mother. Similar situation for incest conceived children, and I have seen that in my own neighborhood a few years back.
More reasons to allow abortion.
Only reason I find abhorent is when the mother uses the process for birth control. Those women should consider sterilization.
And lastly, I am a man. Even it it were my own wife, if she decides to terminate an unplanned pregnancy, I won't like it, but I will support her in the decision.
Men have too much to say on this issue, and not enough involvement in the process of having/raising children to veto the woman's decision.
Oh, yeah, my church is against it, but I don't think it is their decision either.
She should have sent my spirit back to God and have him place me with a mother who actually wants me.
That is one reason for abortion. No child should have to go through that.
I have a sister who has had many children (from several husbands and several boy friends), the first got adopted out of the family and is probably a normal person now. The second, my parents adopted! As though messing up the lives of their own children wasn't enough, they just had to take on one more in their later years. The others that my sister had, most of them are messed up just from having my sister as their mother.
I also have had a nephew on my wife's side of the family born with mulitple birth defects, who should have been allowed to die within the few months predicted, but the doctors decided to do multiple and expensive surgeries to keep the child alive longer. He lived 3.5 years and never got over 17 pounds and never got past the mental age of a 3 month old baby. The family suffered the initial pain, the years of hardship caring for him, and then the mother got the difficult task of holding the child in her arms as she watched him die. And the expense was a hardship as well.
That is another reason for abortion, if you can determine in advance that such problems exist.
Making a rape victim carry her attacker's child is akin to continuous rape, but now by an uncaring society who values the potential life of a fetus more than the mental health of the mother. Similar situation for incest conceived children, and I have seen that in my own neighborhood a few years back.
More reasons to allow abortion.
Only reason I find abhorent is when the mother uses the process for birth control. Those women should consider sterilization.
And lastly, I am a man. Even it it were my own wife, if she decides to terminate an unplanned pregnancy, I won't like it, but I will support her in the decision.
Men have too much to say on this issue, and not enough involvement in the process of having/raising children to veto the woman's decision.
Oh, yeah, my church is against it, but I don't think it is their decision either.
Well, in light of abortion being legal, i think thousands of people are being born everyday, so for the sake of all Americans using it as a way to be irresponsible with sex i have yet to see it become a trend or commonplace, that would be a problem.
I have spent some time in the study of neuropsychology, its a field that holds a lot of promise for understanding the brain and the idea of consciousness.
Well at any rate i was amazed to see how easy the human brain and the "soul" can be destroyed per say in an accident that leaves the human alive. Such things as a car accident leavening a 40+ year old women to not be able to remember anything in her life, not her family, 14 year old daughter, nothing but the English language, and their are many more interesting cases of brain trauma and its correlating effect on human consciousness. What this has with abortion is rather simple. Like Unabomber i don’t agree with partial birth abortions as being a free choice, but in that same light i do agree with a females choice to get an abortion under certain circumstances. Such as fetus development, the presence of a functioning brain. Then the rape and handicapped scenarios also come into effect here. The idea is choice, just because a person may have it does not mean that they will use it, but nonetheless a person has the choice. A family may make the choice out of mercy to abort a heavily retarded fetus, not because they don’t want to deal with it, who then has the right to force them either way? Abortion like many things is an issue with gray areas and not easily forced into being black and white, just like gun control.
I have spent some time in the study of neuropsychology, its a field that holds a lot of promise for understanding the brain and the idea of consciousness.
Well at any rate i was amazed to see how easy the human brain and the "soul" can be destroyed per say in an accident that leaves the human alive. Such things as a car accident leavening a 40+ year old women to not be able to remember anything in her life, not her family, 14 year old daughter, nothing but the English language, and their are many more interesting cases of brain trauma and its correlating effect on human consciousness. What this has with abortion is rather simple. Like Unabomber i don’t agree with partial birth abortions as being a free choice, but in that same light i do agree with a females choice to get an abortion under certain circumstances. Such as fetus development, the presence of a functioning brain. Then the rape and handicapped scenarios also come into effect here. The idea is choice, just because a person may have it does not mean that they will use it, but nonetheless a person has the choice. A family may make the choice out of mercy to abort a heavily retarded fetus, not because they don’t want to deal with it, who then has the right to force them either way? Abortion like many things is an issue with gray areas and not easily forced into being black and white, just like gun control.
QUOTE(aquapub @ Aug 15 2003, 04:15 AM)
The protocol we are supposed to follow when the constitution isn't specific enough (as with not clarifying when someone is old enough to get human rights) is to act in the spirit of the constitution. I'm sure the founding fathers never saw it coming that the supreme court would actually entertain this disengenuous hair-splitting about body parts aimed at giving women the special right to kill people. I think its safe to say we were supposed to err on the side of caution on this one and put the burden of proof on the people asking to legalize genocide.
Surely you are not suggesting that abortion was unknown to the founding fathers?
It was done back then more than most of us think.
Even worse is the treatment that children 'born out of wedlock' received in the state and church orphanages. The children were treated as though THEY had committed the sin that caused their birth. I have seen 3 TV News Magazines describing how these children were cruelly treated by their keepers.
You keep saying genocide, don't you mean infanticide? Infanticide was a very common practice among many cultures, especially it the child had defects that would place a burden on the family. Still is in some countries.
I like what I read in Ann Landers' column a while back. There are no illegitimate children, only illigetimate parents.
QUOTE(aquapub @ Aug 14 2003, 11:15 PM)
It is arbitrary to assert that life begins at birth, not to mention scientifically false.
Your wealth of ignorance on this issue is astounding.
QUOTE
A fetus is provably human, provably composed of unique DNA from the father and the mother, and provably living
Ok, so prove it.
QUOTE
being that non-living things don't consume, grow, and multiply
Really? Our federal government is a "non-living thing," yet it consumes our tax dollars, grows bigger with every new employee it hires, and multiplies with every new department or bureaucracy it creates.
QUOTE
(Unless you are dealing with viruses, which the verdict still isn't back on that one yet)
Prove this as well.
QUOTE
The protocol we are supposed to follow when the constitution isn't specific enough (as with not clarifying when someone is old enough to get human rights) is to act in the spirit of the constitution.
First of all, the phrase "human rights" appears zero times in the U.S. Constitution. Secondly, if you were referring to civil rights, it is quite clear. Hugo already quoted the 14th Amendment for you, in case you missed it.
QUOTE
I'm sure the founding fathers never saw it coming that the supreme court would actually entertain this disengenuous hair-splitting about body parts aimed at giving women the special right to kill people.
This is incorrect in two ways. Firstly, no people are being killed. Secondly, abortion happened back then just as it does now. Click here for a quick history lesson. Also, I'm sure the founding fathers never saw a lot of things coming, such as the government trying to involve itself into the private affairs of its citizens i.e., telling people what they can and can't do to their own bodies or telling people what they can and can't consume.
QUOTE
I think its safe to say we were supposed to err on the side of caution on this one and put the burden of proof on the people asking to legalize genocide.
No one is asking to legalize genocide. Fortunately, there is no genocide in the United States. And if you would refer to the link I provided above, you'll notice that abortion has been legal in the United States since 1973. Therefore, the burden of proof is put upon those opposed to personal freedom to show why the government should stick its nose into an individual's personal affairs when those affairs harm no other person and puts no one else at risk.
Couldn't have said it better myself Bill- you are dead on.
No matter what anyone says a fetus under normal circumstances will become life even if you do not believe it is already.
Life has a choice so why don't you ask a fetus if it wants to be killed.
We can't do this so the consent under the constitution falls to the mother, I do not think abortion should be allowed under any circumstances (ANY).
IMO from the moment the two gametes form a single replicating cell it is life and should have rights to be born and live as all other living people.
I agree with this completely, the child is not responsible for thier parents actions but the parent is. Therefore the parents are responsible to bring the life they have created into the world.
We do not live in a perfect world and because of this we must justify our actions, there should be no circumstances where abortion should even be considered.
And Bill55AZ I simpathise with you and your sister but if it causes so much heart ache why is she going round getting pregnant so often. Some people never learn because they where never taught. If everyone held the view that life was precious and to be loved, no matter what, these problems wouldn't exist but they do.
When does a baby become old enough to become life, 10 weeks, 30 weeks, after they can speek, when they can teach another, when they leave home, when there 50. When does a person become human enough to be called a person. IMO when it is concieved it is more than just a bunch of chemicals and whether it knows it or not it under normal circumstances will live a normal life and should be given this chance.
A fetus is the combined DNA of it's parents. I don't have to prove this.
Provably human, you started out like this and you are human, where you ever not a human.
Provably living, it does all the things a living thing is said to do.
Move
Respire
Sense
Grow
Reproduce
Excrete
Nutrition(Eat)
therefore it is classified as life. What's to prove.
What is the difference between a fetus (a bunch of cells) and you (a bunch of cells).
1. You have been born and now consider yourself life.
2. You have replicated more than it
3. You are aloud to choose for yourself.
4. A fetus never decides anything for itself if you kill it so you are denying it the chance.
Can I decide it is better to kill you because you gave your parents grief, just because your a bunch of cells is this alright.
federal government is living but it is not life, it is an entity that may do some of the things life does but it cannot be said to be alive of itself.
No, we are asking to illegalise genocide. Whether abortion is legal or not does not make it right, and burden falls to those who oppose something to show it is wrong, I am against it being one persons choice to end the life of another, it is not your choice. you are against giving that fetus freedom, I am not against freedom. The government has no right to stick it's nose into anything but it does and when it does the right thing I support it's actions and when it prevents something from happening that would be beneficial I would disagree but I am sure you would prefer there to be government rather than Anarchy.
Life has a choice so why don't you ask a fetus if it wants to be killed.
We can't do this so the consent under the constitution falls to the mother, I do not think abortion should be allowed under any circumstances (ANY).
IMO from the moment the two gametes form a single replicating cell it is life and should have rights to be born and live as all other living people.
QUOTE
I like what I read in Ann Landers' column a while back. There are no illegitimate children, only illigetimate parents.
I agree with this completely, the child is not responsible for thier parents actions but the parent is. Therefore the parents are responsible to bring the life they have created into the world.
We do not live in a perfect world and because of this we must justify our actions, there should be no circumstances where abortion should even be considered.
And Bill55AZ I simpathise with you and your sister but if it causes so much heart ache why is she going round getting pregnant so often. Some people never learn because they where never taught. If everyone held the view that life was precious and to be loved, no matter what, these problems wouldn't exist but they do.
QUOTE
QUOTE (aquapub @ Aug 14 2003, 11:15 PM)
It is arbitrary to assert that life begins at birth, not to mention scientifically false.
Your wealth of ignorance on this issue is astounding.
It is arbitrary to assert that life begins at birth, not to mention scientifically false.
Your wealth of ignorance on this issue is astounding.
When does a baby become old enough to become life, 10 weeks, 30 weeks, after they can speek, when they can teach another, when they leave home, when there 50. When does a person become human enough to be called a person. IMO when it is concieved it is more than just a bunch of chemicals and whether it knows it or not it under normal circumstances will live a normal life and should be given this chance.
QUOTE
QUOTE
A fetus is provably human, provably composed of unique DNA from the father and the mother, and provably living
Ok, so prove it.
A fetus is provably human, provably composed of unique DNA from the father and the mother, and provably living
Ok, so prove it.
A fetus is the combined DNA of it's parents. I don't have to prove this.
Provably human, you started out like this and you are human, where you ever not a human.
Provably living, it does all the things a living thing is said to do.
Move
Respire
Sense
Grow
Reproduce
Excrete
Nutrition(Eat)
therefore it is classified as life. What's to prove.
What is the difference between a fetus (a bunch of cells) and you (a bunch of cells).
1. You have been born and now consider yourself life.
2. You have replicated more than it
3. You are aloud to choose for yourself.
4. A fetus never decides anything for itself if you kill it so you are denying it the chance.
Can I decide it is better to kill you because you gave your parents grief, just because your a bunch of cells is this alright.
QUOTE
Really? Our federal government is a "non-living thing," yet it consumes our tax dollars, grows bigger with every new employee it hires, and multiplies with every new department or bureaucracy it creates.
federal government is living but it is not life, it is an entity that may do some of the things life does but it cannot be said to be alive of itself.
QUOTE
No one is asking to legalize genocide. Fortunately, there is no genocide in the United States. And if you would refer to the link I provided above, you'll notice that abortion has been legal in the United States since 1973. Therefore, the burden of proof is put upon those opposed to personal freedom to show why the government should stick its nose into an individual's personal affairs when those affairs harm no other person and puts no one else at risk.
No, we are asking to illegalise genocide. Whether abortion is legal or not does not make it right, and burden falls to those who oppose something to show it is wrong, I am against it being one persons choice to end the life of another, it is not your choice. you are against giving that fetus freedom, I am not against freedom. The government has no right to stick it's nose into anything but it does and when it does the right thing I support it's actions and when it prevents something from happening that would be beneficial I would disagree but I am sure you would prefer there to be government rather than Anarchy.
I've read the posts considerable and have come to some conclusions:
If I eat a chicken egg in the morning, am I killing a chicken? I am killing a potential chicken, but I'm not killing the chicken itself. Is that egg alive? No, I certainly hope not. The eggs DNA is different from the mothers, does that virtue make it a chicken?
But I realize that no matter what I say, I will never change the opinion of the other side. So, I think I came up with some plausible alternatives we can all enjoy.
If
You feel that an embryo, no matter what stage, is not a living being, abortion occurs as normal.
Else
You feel that life begins immediately at fertilization, then the child life form is to be removed from the mother, and sent to an adoption agency post-haste where they can take care of it better. Generally, the mother is given this option when the child is born, but why wait till then if its already alive?
If I eat a chicken egg in the morning, am I killing a chicken? I am killing a potential chicken, but I'm not killing the chicken itself. Is that egg alive? No, I certainly hope not. The eggs DNA is different from the mothers, does that virtue make it a chicken?
But I realize that no matter what I say, I will never change the opinion of the other side. So, I think I came up with some plausible alternatives we can all enjoy.
If
You feel that an embryo, no matter what stage, is not a living being, abortion occurs as normal.
Else
You feel that life begins immediately at fertilization, then the child life form is to be removed from the mother, and sent to an adoption agency post-haste where they can take care of it better. Generally, the mother is given this option when the child is born, but why wait till then if its already alive?
QUOTE(aquapub @ Aug 14 2003, 09:15 PM)
It is arbitrary to assert that life begins at birth, not to mention scientifically false.
If you are going to start a topic asserting that abortion is unconstitutional on the grounds of age discrimination, it is actually highly relevant.
QUOTE
I'm sure the founding fathers never saw it coming that the supreme court would actually entertain this disengenuous hair-splitting about body parts aimed at giving women the special right to kill people.
Abortion was legal during the time of the founding fathers, BTW. http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/97may/abortion.htm
QUOTE
UNTIL the last third of the nineteenth century, when it was criminalized state by state across the land, abortion was legal before "quickening" (approximately the fourth month of pregnancy). Colonial home medical guides gave recipes for "bringing on the menses" with herbs that could be grown in one's garden or easily found in the woods. By the mid eighteenth century commercial preparations were so widely available that they had inspired their own euphemism ("taking the trade"). Unfortunately, these drugs were often fatal. The first statutes regulating abortion, passed in the 1820s and 1830s, were actually poison-control laws: the sale of commercial abortifacients was banned, but abortion per se was not. The laws made little difference. By the 1840s the abortion business -- including the sale of illegal drugs, which were widely advertised in the popular press -- was booming. The most famous practitioner, Madame Restell, openly provided abortion services for thirty-five years, with offices in New York, Boston, and Philadelphia and traveling salespeople touting her "Female Monthly Pills."
Becoming Human - An egg that you eat is not a life because it has not been fertilised, that is why you don't get half grown chickens in them and just a white which once fertilised a chick will feed on and the yoke which grows into the chick.
So you are not killing a chicken, even a potential chicken, by eating an egg. If I made this assertion I would have to say that a women who has a period is killing an egg and is therefore a murderer under the same ruling.
Life starts at fertalisation which never happens to the eggs we eat. I also think human life is above all animal life and don't have anything against killing animals.
You are more than just flesh and blood, your in denial.
Could you clarify what you meant Mrs. Pigpen, what was relevant.
So you are not killing a chicken, even a potential chicken, by eating an egg. If I made this assertion I would have to say that a women who has a period is killing an egg and is therefore a murderer under the same ruling.
Life starts at fertalisation which never happens to the eggs we eat. I also think human life is above all animal life and don't have anything against killing animals.
You are more than just flesh and blood, your in denial.
QUOTE
QUOTE (aquapub @ Aug 14 2003, 09:15 PM)
It is arbitrary to assert that life begins at birth, not to mention scientifically false.
If you are going to start a topic asserting that abortion is unconstitutional on the grounds of age discrimination, it is actually highly relevant.
It is arbitrary to assert that life begins at birth, not to mention scientifically false.
If you are going to start a topic asserting that abortion is unconstitutional on the grounds of age discrimination, it is actually highly relevant.
Could you clarify what you meant Mrs. Pigpen, what was relevant.
QUOTE(Zebbeddee @ Aug 15 2003, 06:51 AM)
QUOTE
QUOTE (aquapub @ Aug 14 2003, 09:15 PM)
It is arbitrary to assert that life begins at birth, not to mention scientifically false.
If you are going to start a topic asserting that abortion is unconstitutional on the grounds of age discrimination, it is actually highly relevant.
It is arbitrary to assert that life begins at birth, not to mention scientifically false.
If you are going to start a topic asserting that abortion is unconstitutional on the grounds of age discrimination, it is actually highly relevant.
Could you clarify what you meant Mrs. Pigpen, what was relevant.
Certainly. The poll and topic for this debate (ostensibly to support an anti-abortion position) is Is it unconstitutional to treat an entire group of people as property, declaring them ineligible for themost basic of human rights, on the basis of age?
This is a constitutional debate, not a 'when does life begin' philosophical debate. Therefore, the 'arbitrary' nature of when life begins doesn't have a place in this particular debate. Specifically, when do a citizen's rights, according to the constitution, begin (birth)? There is no 'age' discrimination, per se, because there is no citizen age until the time of birth.
There are other topics in the Woman's, Men's, and Lifestyle forum to discuss the morality of abortion, but this is a constitutional debate.
Thankyou,
The constitution is the problem then, ammend that and you get rid of the problem.
According to the constitution an unborn baby has a right to live, if a pregnant mother is killed in an accident then it is attempted to save her child under the pretense that the child should be given a chance. Yet at the same time they legalise the killing of unborn infants.
I have a friend that works in a hospital and under the ruling of choice in the same ward four doctors struggle to keep a premature baby alive and one the other side another doctor will be performing an abortion. It is a contradiction of the constitution for more than one reason than age.
It is downright hypocritical, not just a contradiction.
The constitution is the problem then, ammend that and you get rid of the problem.
According to the constitution an unborn baby has a right to live, if a pregnant mother is killed in an accident then it is attempted to save her child under the pretense that the child should be given a chance. Yet at the same time they legalise the killing of unborn infants.
I have a friend that works in a hospital and under the ruling of choice in the same ward four doctors struggle to keep a premature baby alive and one the other side another doctor will be performing an abortion. It is a contradiction of the constitution for more than one reason than age.
It is downright hypocritical, not just a contradiction.
QUOTE(Zebbeddee @ Aug 15 2003, 10:20 AM)
Thankyou,
The constitution is the problem then, ammend that and you get rid of the problem.
According to the constitution an unborn baby has a right to live, if a pregnant mother is killed in an accident then it is attempted to save her child under the pretense that the child should be given a chance. Yet at the same time they legalise the killing of unborn infants.
I have a friend that works in a hospital and under the ruling of choice in the same ward four doctors struggle to keep a premature baby alive and one the other side another doctor will be performing an abortion. It is a contradiction of the constitution for more than one reason than age.
It is downright hypocritical, not just a contradiction.
The constitution is the problem then, ammend that and you get rid of the problem.
According to the constitution an unborn baby has a right to live, if a pregnant mother is killed in an accident then it is attempted to save her child under the pretense that the child should be given a chance. Yet at the same time they legalise the killing of unborn infants.
I have a friend that works in a hospital and under the ruling of choice in the same ward four doctors struggle to keep a premature baby alive and one the other side another doctor will be performing an abortion. It is a contradiction of the constitution for more than one reason than age.
It is downright hypocritical, not just a contradiction.
No where in the Constitution does it say an unborn baby has the right to live. As Hugo pointed out, it says when a citizen is born or naturalized, so I see absolutely NO contradiction or hypocrisy. And now I am going to steal from Hugos post to reiterate the point:
QUOTE
Amendment 14 Sec 1
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
If a pregnant mother is harmed in an accident, sure doctors try to save the child, but its still not protected by the constitituion, and if that child dies anyways, do we charge those doctors with murder?
I happen to think the legality of abortion dealing with the Constitution should end this debate, unless there is another amendment that says differently.
QUOTE(Zebbeddee @ Aug 15 2003, 10:20 AM)
The constitution is the problem then, ammend that and you get rid of the problem.
The Constitution is the problem? Now, exactly what is wrong with the Constitution according to you? I see no problems here.
QUOTE
According to the constitution an unborn baby has a right to live
No it doesn't. Please read the quotes from the 14th Amendment that have been posted twice now. You are not an American citizen until you are born in the United States. Plain and simple.
QUOTE
It is a contradiction of the constitution for more than one reason than age.
There is more than one reason? I was unaware of any reason whatsoever. But if you believe this then by all means, give us these reasons.
QUOTE
It is downright hypocritical, not just a contradiction.
Who is being hypocritical, and why?
Aqua,
Well worded against those Liberals that constantly hide behind the letter of the law, or try to weasel their way out of responsibility with catch phrases like, "My body, my business". Perhaps a better saying would be, "My baby, my blood".
Well worded against those Liberals that constantly hide behind the letter of the law, or try to weasel their way out of responsibility with catch phrases like, "My body, my business". Perhaps a better saying would be, "My baby, my blood".
The callousness of this thread is unbelievable to me.
There are animals(I'm an animal lover btw) out there that are protected under law and are not american citizens. It's illegal to kill these animals either off hunting season or at all, and yet the "you have no rights until you are born" argument is used ad naseaum here.
It amazes me that someone might actually throw themselves in front of a bulldozer to save a spotted owl's tree, but has no problem killing(I didn't say murdering) their unborn son or daughter.
There are animals(I'm an animal lover btw) out there that are protected under law and are not american citizens. It's illegal to kill these animals either off hunting season or at all, and yet the "you have no rights until you are born" argument is used ad naseaum here.
It amazes me that someone might actually throw themselves in front of a bulldozer to save a spotted owl's tree, but has no problem killing(I didn't say murdering) their unborn son or daughter.
QUOTE(Zebbeddee @ Aug 15 2003, 01:51 PM)
Becoming Human - An egg that you eat is not a life because it has not been fertilised, that is why you don't get half grown chickens in them and just a white which once fertilised a chick will feed on and the yoke which grows into the chick.
So you are not killing a chicken, even a potential chicken, by eating an egg. If I made this assertion I would have to say that a women who has a period is killing an egg and is therefore a murderer under the same ruling.
Life starts at fertalisation which never happens to the eggs we eat. I also think human life is above all animal life and don't have anything against killing animals.
You are more than just flesh and blood, your in denial.
Could you clarify what you meant Mrs. Pigpen, what was relevant.
So you are not killing a chicken, even a potential chicken, by eating an egg. If I made this assertion I would have to say that a women who has a period is killing an egg and is therefore a murderer under the same ruling.
Life starts at fertalisation which never happens to the eggs we eat. I also think human life is above all animal life and don't have anything against killing animals.
You are more than just flesh and blood, your in denial.
QUOTE
QUOTE (aquapub @ Aug 14 2003, 09:15 PM)
It is arbitrary to assert that life begins at birth, not to mention scientifically false.
If you are going to start a topic asserting that abortion is unconstitutional on the grounds of age discrimination, it is actually highly relevant.
It is arbitrary to assert that life begins at birth, not to mention scientifically false.
If you are going to start a topic asserting that abortion is unconstitutional on the grounds of age discrimination, it is actually highly relevant.
Could you clarify what you meant Mrs. Pigpen, what was relevant.
Alright, I admit that that was my terrible attempt to try to use something that relates to this situation in order to prove a point. I clearly accomplished neither (Hey, it was 3:58 in the morning)
Next, I could argue the contrary, about a fertilized egg within the first couple of weeks doesn't have a nervous system and isn't a child. Or that if the egg is really alive, it should be sent to the adoption agency (Really, really tired).
But, under the constitution apparently, there is nothing that prohibits abortion. And thats what the point of this debate was, so case closed!
It all boils down to personal belief about when life begins. I would much rather have a law so that everyone (born) can make there own choices as to what constitutes as a child than a law that forces other peoples opinions to coincide with their own.
We are in the Constitutional Debate forum here. Please stick to that issue.
QUOTE(Ataal @ Aug 15 2003, 02:36 PM)
The callousness of this thread is unbelievable to me.
An appeal to emotion isn't exactly what the constitutional forum is about. Perhaps you should participate there, if you prefer an emotional response to this issue.
Well. this debate really has nothing to do with the Constitution, since the real question isn't whether abortion is Constitutional, but whether people can come up with an argument for it that aquapub likes. The Supreme Court has ruled that abortion is Constitutional, that debate is already settled.
As for a good argument, there are *MANY*. For one, it is a misrepresentation to claim that pro-choice people claim "life doesn't begin at conception". In fact, life existed before conception. Sperm and ova are alive and each carry 50% of the human genome. They are certianly alive, so the issue isn't life. How about human life? The fertilized ova certainly does have a human genetic code, but as people have pointed out, so does a wart. So does cancer. So does your appendix. Nobody is suggesting we stop fighting cancer because it's genetically human. In fact, Down's Syndrome children have less in common with 'human genetics' than cancer does, hence we should be able to kill Down's Syndrome kids? No, of course not. Obviously, this definition has little to do with a demonstrable event (the formation of human life) and everything to do with emotionalism. I don't see people screaming to save the Bonobo chimps, which are 98.6% genetically identical to humans, do you? Apparently this has nothing to do with genes.
In a perfect world, all children would be wanted children, but this is hardly a perfect world. In the real world where most of us live, there are unwanted pregnancies, broken households, deadbeat dads, mothers with medical problems, rape, incest, teenage pregnancy, failed birth control, etc. To pretend all of these don't exist is foolish. Introducing a child into any of these constitutes a vast failure of conscience IMO. An unwanted child is more likely to be abused, physically, sexually and emotionally, than a wanted thild. An unwanted child is less likely to have parental involvement in their school life than a wanted child. Especially in a single-parent environment, an unwanted child is more likely to get involved in gangs, drugs and crime than a wanted child. A parent who isn't involved in their child's life will raise a child who is more likely to have problems. If you outlawed abortion and somehow forced every pregnancy to carry through to term, you'd have a social mess.
Oh, but what about adoption, you ask? There aren't enough qualified adoptive parents for the children in foster care today, what makes you think that you'd magically find another million plus homes by stopping abortion? By and large, adoptive parents are looking for perfect, white, male infants. If you're a black crack baby, you're out of luck. If you've got a birth defect, you're screwed. If you're older than 2, forget it. These are the children that are very hard to place today, where do you get the idea that adding tens of thousands more to the adoption rolls will suddenly start finding parents? Adoption, while it's a wonderful CHOICE, isn't a solution for the big problem.
The big problem is that there are too many unwanted pregnancies. Unfortunately, that's not a problem that's going to simply go away with the snap of your fingers. People are going to sleep around. People are going to do stupid things like not use protection. Birth control is going to fail. Like it or not, unwanted pregnancies will occur. Why are you so insistent that children pay for the mistakes of their parents? Why do you want kids to grow up unwanted? You'd rather a child have a lifetime of pain than to simply never face life at all. Abortion is, under normal circumstances, almost painless. There certainly is no sentient mind which realizes it's not loved or wanted. A quick flash, it's all over with, that's that. Wouldn't the more loving approach be what's best for the potential child? Apparently not.
There really aren't any good arguments against a reasonable abortion policy. In fact, the people who argue against abortion don't do so for the children, but for themselves. Children are born without preconceived religious notions. They don't know the difference between being alive and dead, born and not born. They only learn that from adults. There isn't an inherent biological change that makes a lump of tissue 'protected' where once it wasn't. A fetus, like it or not, doesn't have many rights. There is no 'right to life'. Rights are granted at a particular developmental stage, in this case birth. A person gets the 'right' to drive a car at age 16. They get the 'right' to vote at age 18. They get the 'right' to drink at age 21. And like it or not, they get the 'right' to be alive at birth, and not one second before. And all the religious, hyper-emotional arguments to the contrary, the Supreme Court has ruled that it's in accordance with the Constitution. So I guess we have your answer.
As for a good argument, there are *MANY*. For one, it is a misrepresentation to claim that pro-choice people claim "life doesn't begin at conception". In fact, life existed before conception. Sperm and ova are alive and each carry 50% of the human genome. They are certianly alive, so the issue isn't life. How about human life? The fertilized ova certainly does have a human genetic code, but as people have pointed out, so does a wart. So does cancer. So does your appendix. Nobody is suggesting we stop fighting cancer because it's genetically human. In fact, Down's Syndrome children have less in common with 'human genetics' than cancer does, hence we should be able to kill Down's Syndrome kids? No, of course not. Obviously, this definition has little to do with a demonstrable event (the formation of human life) and everything to do with emotionalism. I don't see people screaming to save the Bonobo chimps, which are 98.6% genetically identical to humans, do you? Apparently this has nothing to do with genes.
In a perfect world, all children would be wanted children, but this is hardly a perfect world. In the real world where most of us live, there are unwanted pregnancies, broken households, deadbeat dads, mothers with medical problems, rape, incest, teenage pregnancy, failed birth control, etc. To pretend all of these don't exist is foolish. Introducing a child into any of these constitutes a vast failure of conscience IMO. An unwanted child is more likely to be abused, physically, sexually and emotionally, than a wanted thild. An unwanted child is less likely to have parental involvement in their school life than a wanted child. Especially in a single-parent environment, an unwanted child is more likely to get involved in gangs, drugs and crime than a wanted child. A parent who isn't involved in their child's life will raise a child who is more likely to have problems. If you outlawed abortion and somehow forced every pregnancy to carry through to term, you'd have a social mess.
Oh, but what about adoption, you ask? There aren't enough qualified adoptive parents for the children in foster care today, what makes you think that you'd magically find another million plus homes by stopping abortion? By and large, adoptive parents are looking for perfect, white, male infants. If you're a black crack baby, you're out of luck. If you've got a birth defect, you're screwed. If you're older than 2, forget it. These are the children that are very hard to place today, where do you get the idea that adding tens of thousands more to the adoption rolls will suddenly start finding parents? Adoption, while it's a wonderful CHOICE, isn't a solution for the big problem.
The big problem is that there are too many unwanted pregnancies. Unfortunately, that's not a problem that's going to simply go away with the snap of your fingers. People are going to sleep around. People are going to do stupid things like not use protection. Birth control is going to fail. Like it or not, unwanted pregnancies will occur. Why are you so insistent that children pay for the mistakes of their parents? Why do you want kids to grow up unwanted? You'd rather a child have a lifetime of pain than to simply never face life at all. Abortion is, under normal circumstances, almost painless. There certainly is no sentient mind which realizes it's not loved or wanted. A quick flash, it's all over with, that's that. Wouldn't the more loving approach be what's best for the potential child? Apparently not.
There really aren't any good arguments against a reasonable abortion policy. In fact, the people who argue against abortion don't do so for the children, but for themselves. Children are born without preconceived religious notions. They don't know the difference between being alive and dead, born and not born. They only learn that from adults. There isn't an inherent biological change that makes a lump of tissue 'protected' where once it wasn't. A fetus, like it or not, doesn't have many rights. There is no 'right to life'. Rights are granted at a particular developmental stage, in this case birth. A person gets the 'right' to drive a car at age 16. They get the 'right' to vote at age 18. They get the 'right' to drink at age 21. And like it or not, they get the 'right' to be alive at birth, and not one second before. And all the religious, hyper-emotional arguments to the contrary, the Supreme Court has ruled that it's in accordance with the Constitution. So I guess we have your answer.
Roe v Wade stated that a woman's right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy (recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut) protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
It’s interesting to note that Griswold v Conneticut was about the Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, and its medical director, a licensed physician, being convicted as accessories for giving married persons information and medical advice on how to prevent conception and, following examination, prescribing a contraceptive device or material for the wife's use. A Connecticut statute made it a crime for any person to use any drug or article to prevent conception. Appellants claimed that the accessory statute, as applied, violated the Fourteenth Amendment. An intermediate appellate court and the State's highest court affirmed the judgment.
http://www.roevwade.org/index2.html
I fail to understand the logic that killing (for lack of a better term) a fetus equates to preventing conception.
It’s interesting to note that Griswold v Conneticut was about the Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, and its medical director, a licensed physician, being convicted as accessories for giving married persons information and medical advice on how to prevent conception and, following examination, prescribing a contraceptive device or material for the wife's use. A Connecticut statute made it a crime for any person to use any drug or article to prevent conception. Appellants claimed that the accessory statute, as applied, violated the Fourteenth Amendment. An intermediate appellate court and the State's highest court affirmed the judgment.
http://www.roevwade.org/index2.html
I fail to understand the logic that killing (for lack of a better term) a fetus equates to preventing conception.
In the late 1990's several scientists that were admittedly pro-abortion rallied in hope that NASA scientists would be able to find micro-organisms and more specifically single-cell life forms on the surface of Mars. Everyone in the world was hoping as a matter of fact that NASA would find "life" on Mars. It is necessary when considering this to point out that a single cell life form on Mars could be considered finding "life" on Mars, yet when you find a single (or poly-cellular) life form inside a woman, it doesn't constitute human life. This fact is only made more disgusting when considering just how dependent that life is on that person who will allow the mutilating and then murdering of him or her.
Just in case anyone here wanted to see how cute these little babies are while still in the womb even at only seven weeks, I'll be posting some links here so maybe people can see just exactly who they don't mind killing. They are posted here to remind us that they are babies with constitutional rights even though they are below the age some consider human.
At seven weeks
http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/ab.../fig20baby7.jpg
At eight weeks
http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/ab.../fig16baby8.jpg
At twelve weeks...look at the detailed integrated system of life readily noticable
http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/ab.../fig05leg12.jpg
At 5 months and adorable
http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/ab...g03face5mos.jpg
And At six months.....can this be legal
http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/ab...g07face6mos.jpg
It is monumentally important when considering the constitutionality of abortion to remember that these babies are living human beings that can see, smell, hear, feel and taste. They are also citizens of the United States, now unprotected by the law, with no one to protect them from their own mothers that would willingly allow harm.
Just in case anyone here wanted to see how cute these little babies are while still in the womb even at only seven weeks, I'll be posting some links here so maybe people can see just exactly who they don't mind killing. They are posted here to remind us that they are babies with constitutional rights even though they are below the age some consider human.
At seven weeks
http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/ab.../fig20baby7.jpg
At eight weeks
http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/ab.../fig16baby8.jpg
At twelve weeks...look at the detailed integrated system of life readily noticable
http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/ab.../fig05leg12.jpg
At 5 months and adorable
http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/ab...g03face5mos.jpg
And At six months.....can this be legal
http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/ab...g07face6mos.jpg
It is monumentally important when considering the constitutionality of abortion to remember that these babies are living human beings that can see, smell, hear, feel and taste. They are also citizens of the United States, now unprotected by the law, with no one to protect them from their own mothers that would willingly allow harm.
Oh christ, I cant believe you've resorted to showing pictures of a fetus to prove that abortion is CONSTITUTIONAL. Perhaps you could explain to me how showing your propaganda is proving that abortion is CONSTITUTIONAL. Oh thats right, it doesnt prove anything. And no matter how you spin it, the Constitution has PLAINLY stated the word BORN, or naturalized. There is nothing about being in a mother's womb. Pro-lifers may not like it, but there it is. Stop trying to misinterpret the words intentionally, its getting tiresome.
I agree with kim and MrsP - this thread is not about the morality of abortion it's about the Constitutionality. If you feel the two can't be separated be prepared to defend why. I would suggest citing the Constitution as your first method of debate
Genocide, baby killing, and more words then you can shake a stick at will be used, but that really has nothing to do with the issue. On one side you pro-choice, that means you can have a heavily retarded baby from rape if you want, then on the pro-life side you have no choice. On a personal level for where this has gone, i don’t think people should have the right to keep severely disabled persons alive, i think its brutal and disgusting, after all its not like that person had a say in it either way. What is life then human life is the real issue here, i don’t think i would find a pro life rally going against new plans to burn away a rich ecosystem of life to make room for cows that go to the local fast food chain, the entire argument is really delusional if you think about it.
The issue is if its constitutional, the constitution grants rights to born people, even as i am against such a thing in the form that abortion should be regulated and not be allowed at the presence of a working brain, thus thought and being alive in a human sense, it still does not go against the constitution. Once again it is not a black and white issue that people try to make it.
If the question has only to do with the constitution the debate was over before it started.
The issue is if its constitutional, the constitution grants rights to born people, even as i am against such a thing in the form that abortion should be regulated and not be allowed at the presence of a working brain, thus thought and being alive in a human sense, it still does not go against the constitution. Once again it is not a black and white issue that people try to make it.
If the question has only to do with the constitution the debate was over before it started.
QUOTE(johnlocke @ Aug 15 2003, 07:29 PM)
They are also citizens of the United States
No, they are not. The 14th Amendment CLEARLY states that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." This has been quoted several times now, yet some here refuse to acknowledge it.
First, I want to address a few issues.
nileriver wrote:
I posted this in another thread but feel it bears repeating in light of the above comment.
Every third child conceived in America is aborted and almost half of those are repeat abortions. Let me repeat: Every third child conceived in America is aborted and almost half of those are repeat abortions. Think about that - 4 million babies born in America every year and a little over 1 million abortions. That's 24.5 abortions performed per 100 pregnancies.
The top three reasons given according to Planned Parenthood and Alan Guttmacher Institute are social. They include:
Inadequate finances 21%
Not ready for responsibility 21%
Woman’s life would be changed too much 16%
38,356 abortions performed daily. 38,356 potential men and women destroyed daily mostly for social reasons. That’s a trend. That’s a common occurrence. That shouldn’t be tolerated by any society.
That doesn’t mean that abortion should be outlawed. It means we as a society need to figure out what to do to prevent abortion.
unabomber wrote:
Recently released figures by the Alan Guttmacher Institute place the number of partial-birth abortions performed in 2000 in the U.S. at 2,200. 2,200 out of 1.3 million that is three times higher than the number released by the institute in 1996.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3500603.html
It doesn't matter what the percentage is, be it 0.17% or 3%. That's 2,200 potential men and women who were destroyed. Of course, this particular procedure is usually used due to medical reasons, e.g., the baby is deformed. It should always be available in instances where it's the humane thing to do. It should never be used if the reason is social.
Nu Marx said:
Perhaps Nu Marx, YOU are the one who needs to educate yourself on the fetus. I would suggest starting with the basics, like the definitions:
Life 1 a : the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body b : a principle or force that is considered to underlie the distinctive quality of animate beings c : an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction
Organism 1 : a complex structure of interdependent and subordinate elements whose relations and properties are largely determined by their function in the whole 2 : an individual constituted to carry on the activities of life by means of organs separate in function but mutually dependent : a living being
Fetus: an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically : a developing human from usually three months after conception to birth
Then you should take the time to explore this site:
http://health.discovery.com/convergence/ul...nses/touch.html
After this maybe you will understand that a fetus is alive, is a life.
I challenge you to bring back one shred of evidence that indicates a zygote, embryo or fetus are not alive.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Referring back to my earlier post citing Roe v Wade, let’s consider this:
Roe v. Wade wasn’t based on the segment of Amendment 14 that some are trying to base their argument.
Roe vs. Wade was based on a woman’s right to privately seek contraceptives. That ruling was then extended to include the constitutionally protected right to have an abortion in the early stages of pregnancy--that is, before viability--free from government interference.
The Constitution doesn’t define a fetus. The Constitution doesn’t define life.
There is no constitutional authority to kill the unborn. There is a flawed interpretation of what a woman has the right to do in private.
There is a beautifully written statement; tucked away in what is considered this country’s organic law, that provides all of us the fundamental right to the most basic thing – life. We should all take another look at it.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
nileriver wrote:
QUOTE
Well, in light of abortion being legal, i think thousands of people are being born everyday, so for the sake of all Americans using it as a way to be irresponsible with sex i have yet to see it become a trend or commonplace, that would be a problem.
I posted this in another thread but feel it bears repeating in light of the above comment.
Every third child conceived in America is aborted and almost half of those are repeat abortions. Let me repeat: Every third child conceived in America is aborted and almost half of those are repeat abortions. Think about that - 4 million babies born in America every year and a little over 1 million abortions. That's 24.5 abortions performed per 100 pregnancies.
The top three reasons given according to Planned Parenthood and Alan Guttmacher Institute are social. They include:
Inadequate finances 21%
Not ready for responsibility 21%
Woman’s life would be changed too much 16%
38,356 abortions performed daily. 38,356 potential men and women destroyed daily mostly for social reasons. That’s a trend. That’s a common occurrence. That shouldn’t be tolerated by any society.
That doesn’t mean that abortion should be outlawed. It means we as a society need to figure out what to do to prevent abortion.
unabomber wrote:
QUOTE
The annual total of intact dilation and extraction procedures was estimated to be approximately 650 of the 1.4 million abortions performed in 1996, the last year for which data is available.
Recently released figures by the Alan Guttmacher Institute place the number of partial-birth abortions performed in 2000 in the U.S. at 2,200. 2,200 out of 1.3 million that is three times higher than the number released by the institute in 1996.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3500603.html
It doesn't matter what the percentage is, be it 0.17% or 3%. That's 2,200 potential men and women who were destroyed. Of course, this particular procedure is usually used due to medical reasons, e.g., the baby is deformed. It should always be available in instances where it's the humane thing to do. It should never be used if the reason is social.
Nu Marx said:
QUOTE
Make no mistake, a fetus is NOT life.
Perhaps Nu Marx, YOU are the one who needs to educate yourself on the fetus. I would suggest starting with the basics, like the definitions:
Life 1 a : the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body b : a principle or force that is considered to underlie the distinctive quality of animate beings c : an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction
Organism 1 : a complex structure of interdependent and subordinate elements whose relations and properties are largely determined by their function in the whole 2 : an individual constituted to carry on the activities of life by means of organs separate in function but mutually dependent : a living being
Fetus: an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically : a developing human from usually three months after conception to birth
Then you should take the time to explore this site:
http://health.discovery.com/convergence/ul...nses/touch.html
After this maybe you will understand that a fetus is alive, is a life.
I challenge you to bring back one shred of evidence that indicates a zygote, embryo or fetus are not alive.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Referring back to my earlier post citing Roe v Wade, let’s consider this:
Roe v. Wade wasn’t based on the segment of Amendment 14 that some are trying to base their argument.
Roe vs. Wade was based on a woman’s right to privately seek contraceptives. That ruling was then extended to include the constitutionally protected right to have an abortion in the early stages of pregnancy--that is, before viability--free from government interference.
The Constitution doesn’t define a fetus. The Constitution doesn’t define life.
There is no constitutional authority to kill the unborn. There is a flawed interpretation of what a woman has the right to do in private.
There is a beautifully written statement; tucked away in what is considered this country’s organic law, that provides all of us the fundamental right to the most basic thing – life. We should all take another look at it.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
QUOTE(Beladonna @ Aug 16 2003, 06:21 AM)
First, I want to address a few issues.
nileriver wrote:
I posted this in another thread but feel it bears repeating in light of the above comment.
Every third child conceived in America is aborted and almost half of those are repeat abortions. Let me repeat: Every third child conceived in America is aborted and almost half of those are repeat abortions. Think about that - 4 million babies born in America every year and a little over 1 million abortions. That's 24.5 abortions performed per 100 pregnancies.
nileriver wrote:
QUOTE
Well, in light of abortion being legal, i think thousands of people are being born everyday, so for the sake of all Americans using it as a way to be irresponsible with sex i have yet to see it become a trend or commonplace, that would be a problem.
I posted this in another thread but feel it bears repeating in light of the above comment.
Every third child conceived in America is aborted and almost half of those are repeat abortions. Let me repeat: Every third child conceived in America is aborted and almost half of those are repeat abortions. Think about that - 4 million babies born in America every year and a little over 1 million abortions. That's 24.5 abortions performed per 100 pregnancies.
I believe that is a fallacy.
An estimated one third of all pregnancies end in a miscarriage (the actual stats are difficult because many of the miscarriages take place before the woman even knows she's preganant). This is termed 'spontaneous abortion' by the medical community, and counted as an abortion on prolife statistics. How many people do you know who have had a surgical abortion, Bela? Do you think every third female friend has had one?
Edited to add: Incidentally, that is also a primary mode of obtaining photographs of 'aborted fetuses'.
Edited again to add..To be fair, both pro abortion and prolife sites skew the statistics to make induced abortion appear more prevalent. Pro abortion sites wish to legitimize abortion and say,'look at all those women who would have died! Imagine our world without 30 percent of the women' and Prolife sites wish to say 'Look at all of these unborn babies that would have come into the world!' Neither is accurate.
QUOTE(kimpossible @ Aug 16 2003, 12:48 AM)
Oh christ, I cant believe you've resorted to showing pictures of a fetus to prove that abortion is CONSTITUTIONAL. Perhaps you could explain to me how showing your propaganda is proving that abortion is CONSTITUTIONAL. Oh thats right, it doesnt prove anything. And no matter how you spin it, the Constitution has PLAINLY stated the word BORN, or naturalized. There is nothing about being in a mother's womb. Pro-lifers may not like it, but there it is. Stop trying to misinterpret the words intentionally, its getting tiresome.
Geez,
I guess you should be glad I didn't show the "after" pictures. I know, I wouldn't do it though because the truth about what happens to these innocent babies would be too much for people who cowardly hide behind the letter of the law rather than live by the word of it!
And just so you don't think that I'm only a man of emotion, let us explore the premise of the "born or naturalized" quote you all have been taking and marching around with, beating like gospel. Let's explore what it means to only protect those that are born and naturalized within the United States. I live in California (currently Southern California) and here we have the largest population of illegal immigrants in the whole of the United States. People who were not born and not naturalized in the United States. That's right, they were not born here. And they were not naturalized here. Am I to infer from your debate on baby killing that it's also perfectly okay to run up to any illegal immigrant and maim them, then rip their body apart in a blood driven frenzy and drop them off in a bio-hazardous trash can? Please set me straight if I'm wrong but aparently from your argument we can all absolve ourselves of responsibility if the persons we kill aren't born or naturalized in America.
Anti-lifers might not like it, but there it is. Stop trying to misinterpret the words intentionally, it's getting tiresome.
Edited to add: I was an Anti-lifer myself until one semester in school when a very liberal teacher I had for a Biology showed me a bunch of stereoscopic pictures taken from within the womb. These pictures were layered stereoscopic images giving the best representation of actual life in the womb, I was overwhelmed by the beauty and complexity of this highly organized miniature baby snuggled within the protection of a mother's womb, a mother that would never kill him or her.
QUOTE(Beladonna @ Aug 16 2003, 07:21 AM)
Roe v. Wade wasn’t based on the segment of Amendment 14 that some are trying to base their argument.
Roe vs. Wade was based on a woman’s right to privately seek contraceptives. That ruling was then extended to include the constitutionally protected right to have an abortion in the early stages of pregnancy--that is, before viability--free from government interference.
The Constitution doesn’t define a fetus. The Constitution doesn’t define life.
There is no constitutional authority to kill the unborn. There is a flawed interpretation of what a woman has the right to do in private.
[
Roe vs. Wade was based on a woman’s right to privately seek contraceptives. That ruling was then extended to include the constitutionally protected right to have an abortion in the early stages of pregnancy--that is, before viability--free from government interference.
The Constitution doesn’t define a fetus. The Constitution doesn’t define life.
There is no constitutional authority to kill the unborn. There is a flawed interpretation of what a woman has the right to do in private.
[
The constitution, IMO, neither protects the unborn (no need to requote the 14th) nor guarantees a right to abortion. I find the reasoning of Roe vs. Wade seriously flawed, and the construction of this privacy right as judicial activism. IMO, abortion should be a state, not a federal, issue.
Of course the question only addresses rather the unborn is protected by the constitution. On this question the 14th clearly states that no it is not. Now if we want to ask if abortion is protected under the constitution that is a much more complex debate. As a strict constructionist I say it is not. Clearly the USSC disagrees.
Johnlocke, if you cant see the difference between taking a human life (undisputed) and abortion, there is no help for you. The topic of the thread is whether or not abortion is Constitutional, NOT whether or not its OK to kill immigrants. So stop trying to misconstrue and take the debate off topic with you irrationalities.
And again, your pictures have nothing to with how abortions are Constitutional. Your propaganda only cheapens your already poorly constructed arguments.
And again, your pictures have nothing to with how abortions are Constitutional. Your propaganda only cheapens your already poorly constructed arguments.
QUOTE(kimpossible @ Aug 16 2003, 07:01 PM)
Johnlocke, if you cant see the difference between taking a human life (undisputed) and abortion, there is no help for you. The topic of the thread is whether or not abortion is Constitutional, NOT whether or not its OK to kill immigrants. So stop trying to misconstrue and take the debate off topic with you irrationalities.
And again, your pictures have nothing to with how abortions are Constitutional. Your propaganda only cheapens your already poorly constructed arguments.
And again, your pictures have nothing to with how abortions are Constitutional. Your propaganda only cheapens your already poorly constructed arguments.
Kim,
Actually I only posted those pictures to prove that they were so much more than just little viruses or warts growing inside of us. That there is a very clear distinction between a mass of cells with stolen and replicated DNA and a growing child in your womb! Having proven that I made the claim that being human life, does entitle them to basic liberties whether or not the constitution applies to people who were merely "born and naturalized" in the United States which eveyone already knows. So you see my "poorly constructed argument" was a very sofisticated systematic attack broken down into levels to draw you in hook, line and sinker! People need to realize that just because the supreme court doesn't consider a baby in the womb a human being, that doesn't make it constitutional. In fact I can point out the fact that the Supreme Court for years upheld the constitution at a time when slaves were 3/5 of a human being. Am I to believe that Black Americans are worth 3/5 of a whole human??? Well if the supreme court says so!
When the Constitution was written, slaves and women were not considered people--is it any wonder that an unborn child would not be considered a person?
That did not stop attempts at including former slaves and women from seeking and fighting for recognition by our government, to have property rights and the right to vote and hold office. At the time they were ridiculed and staunchly opposed, but they stuck with it until they succeeded. So why shouldn't we defend those who cannot speak for themselves?
An unborn child has a heart that beats early on. The DNA signifies that unborn child as human, a product of no other mammal and a future citizen of this country, if s/he is fortunate enough to be born alive here. I would suggest that the amniotic sac and the placenta are the baby's domain until birth. There are laws in the offing that prosecute women for drinking or otherwise ingesting things that hurt the unborn child. Why? The emotionless reasoning is that the child will become dependent on the taxpayers' money for hospital bills until s/he either recovers or dies if we don't protect her/him. The emotional reasoning I will not discuss here.
Why do we protect, or try to protect, some unborn children by passing these laws, but we don't protect the very lives of these unborn children when the mother chooses elective abortion? It is inconsistent.
And I also believe that it should be a matter for the states to decide. I know that some people will not like this post, but I really feel strongly about it, not to condemn, but to invite others to consider a different viewpoint.
That did not stop attempts at including former slaves and women from seeking and fighting for recognition by our government, to have property rights and the right to vote and hold office. At the time they were ridiculed and staunchly opposed, but they stuck with it until they succeeded. So why shouldn't we defend those who cannot speak for themselves?
An unborn child has a heart that beats early on. The DNA signifies that unborn child as human, a product of no other mammal and a future citizen of this country, if s/he is fortunate enough to be born alive here. I would suggest that the amniotic sac and the placenta are the baby's domain until birth. There are laws in the offing that prosecute women for drinking or otherwise ingesting things that hurt the unborn child. Why? The emotionless reasoning is that the child will become dependent on the taxpayers' money for hospital bills until s/he either recovers or dies if we don't protect her/him. The emotional reasoning I will not discuss here.
Why do we protect, or try to protect, some unborn children by passing these laws, but we don't protect the very lives of these unborn children when the mother chooses elective abortion? It is inconsistent.
And I also believe that it should be a matter for the states to decide. I know that some people will not like this post, but I really feel strongly about it, not to condemn, but to invite others to consider a different viewpoint.
[quote=Beladonna,Aug 16 2003, 08:21 AM] Nu Marx said:
[quote]Make no mistake, a fetus is NOT life. [/quote]
Perhaps Nu Marx, YOU are the one who needs to educate yourself on the fetus. I would suggest starting with the basics, like the definitions:
[/quote]
You're going to educate me? Ok, let's see.
[quote]Life 1 a : the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body b : a principle or force that is considered to underlie the distinctive quality of animate beings c : an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction[/quote]
Ok, well, how this pertains to the U.S. Constitution, I don't know.
[quote]Organism 1 : a complex structure of interdependent and subordinate elements whose relations and properties are largely determined by their function in the whole 2 : an individual constituted to carry on the activities of life by means of organs separate in function but mutually dependent : a living being[/quote]
What is this, sixth grade science class or a debate concerning the constitutionality of abortion? Hmmmmm....
[quote]Fetus: an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically : a developing human from usually three months after conception to birth [/quote]
Ah-ha! There we go! Some relevancy! "An unborn or unhatched..." So, by unborn, you mean to say is has yet to be born, correct? And as such is not a U.S. citizen, therefore has no rights under U.S. law.
[quote]Then you should take the time to explore this site:
http://health.discovery.com/convergence/ul...nses/touch.html
After this maybe you will understand that a fetus is alive, is a life.
[/quote]
Uhhh...no, actually I don't understand that. Probably because it isn't true. Two paragraphs describing how a fetus responds to touch tells me that by 8 weeks, it has started to develop its nervous system. Nothing more.
[quote]I challenge you to bring back one shred of evidence that indicates a zygote, embryo or fetus are not alive.[/quote]
No, I don't think so. I don't have to because the question of when life begins is not scientifically proven, and has nothing to do with the constitutionality of abortion. Some people say it begins at conception, some say it begins at birth, and some say it begins at some point in between. It doesn't matter because the U.S. Constitution does not recognize people until birth, or naturalization.
[quote]Roe v. Wade wasn’t based on the segment of Amendment 14 that some are trying to base their argument. [/quote]
I have not said that Roe v. Wade was based on the 14th Amendment. All the 14th Amendment does is say that you are not a U.S. citizen until you are born or naturalized. It has nothing to do with a woman's right to choose.
[quote]There is no constitutional authority to kill the unborn.[/quote]
But under the Constitution, the unborn have no right to be protected as a citizen anyway so it doesn't matter.
[quote]There is a flawed interpretation of what a woman has the right to do in private.[/quote]
How so? Who flawed the interpretation? Why is it flawed? Are you saying the government has the right to interefere with the private lives of its citizens? You're a little vague here.
[quote]There is a beautifully written statement; tucked away in what is considered this country’s organic law, that provides all of us the fundamental right to the most basic thing – life. We should all take another look at it.[/quote]
Yes, let's have a look see...
[quote]We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.[/quote]
Ahhhh....a quote from the Declaration of Independence. How nice. Too bad it has nothing at all to do with the U.S. Constitution.
[quote]Make no mistake, a fetus is NOT life. [/quote]
Perhaps Nu Marx, YOU are the one who needs to educate yourself on the fetus. I would suggest starting with the basics, like the definitions:
[/quote]
You're going to educate me? Ok, let's see.
[quote]Life 1 a : the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body b : a principle or force that is considered to underlie the distinctive quality of animate beings c : an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction[/quote]
Ok, well, how this pertains to the U.S. Constitution, I don't know.
[quote]Organism 1 : a complex structure of interdependent and subordinate elements whose relations and properties are largely determined by their function in the whole 2 : an individual constituted to carry on the activities of life by means of organs separate in function but mutually dependent : a living being[/quote]
What is this, sixth grade science class or a debate concerning the constitutionality of abortion? Hmmmmm....
[quote]Fetus: an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically : a developing human from usually three months after conception to birth [/quote]
Ah-ha! There we go! Some relevancy! "An unborn or unhatched..." So, by unborn, you mean to say is has yet to be born, correct? And as such is not a U.S. citizen, therefore has no rights under U.S. law.
[quote]Then you should take the time to explore this site:
http://health.discovery.com/convergence/ul...nses/touch.html
After this maybe you will understand that a fetus is alive, is a life.
[/quote]
Uhhh...no, actually I don't understand that. Probably because it isn't true. Two paragraphs describing how a fetus responds to touch tells me that by 8 weeks, it has started to develop its nervous system. Nothing more.
[quote]I challenge you to bring back one shred of evidence that indicates a zygote, embryo or fetus are not alive.[/quote]
No, I don't think so. I don't have to because the question of when life begins is not scientifically proven, and has nothing to do with the constitutionality of abortion. Some people say it begins at conception, some say it begins at birth, and some say it begins at some point in between. It doesn't matter because the U.S. Constitution does not recognize people until birth, or naturalization.
[quote]Roe v. Wade wasn’t based on the segment of Amendment 14 that some are trying to base their argument. [/quote]
I have not said that Roe v. Wade was based on the 14th Amendment. All the 14th Amendment does is say that you are not a U.S. citizen until you are born or naturalized. It has nothing to do with a woman's right to choose.
[quote]There is no constitutional authority to kill the unborn.[/quote]
But under the Constitution, the unborn have no right to be protected as a citizen anyway so it doesn't matter.
[quote]There is a flawed interpretation of what a woman has the right to do in private.[/quote]
How so? Who flawed the interpretation? Why is it flawed? Are you saying the government has the right to interefere with the private lives of its citizens? You're a little vague here.
[quote]There is a beautifully written statement; tucked away in what is considered this country’s organic law, that provides all of us the fundamental right to the most basic thing – life. We should all take another look at it.[/quote]
Yes, let's have a look see...
[quote]We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.[/quote]
Ahhhh....a quote from the Declaration of Independence. How nice. Too bad it has nothing at all to do with the U.S. Constitution.
QUOTE(Nu Marx @ Aug 16 2003, 08:16 PM)
Ahhhh....a quote from the Declaration of Independence. How nice. Too bad it has nothing at all to do with the U.S. Constitution.
Tell me this, what does a communist know of the constitution or anything of independence, let alone it's Declaration?
Numarx, perhaps you could elaborate on my posts and set me right! Probably not though.
Okay, just kidding, I wouldn't want to seem inflamatory.
QUOTE(johnlocke @ Aug 16 2003, 05:00 PM)
Okay, just kidding, I wouldn't want to seem inflamatory.
Maybe not inflammatory but definitely unconstructive and too personal. Debate the ISSUES, please.
Mrs P,
I went back and looked at the Alan Guttmacher Institute report and it indicates the following:
I could be wrong but I don't think most women go to an abortion clinic when they spontaneously abort. I certainly didn't.
The Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI) is a nonprofit organization focused on sexual and reproductive health research, policy analysis and public education. AGI publishes Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, International Family Planning Perspectives, The Guttmacher Report on Public Policy and special reports on topics pertaining to sexual and reproductive health and rights. The Institute's mission is to protect the reproductive choices of all women and men in the United States and throughout the world. It is to support their ability to obtain the information and services needed to achieve their full human rights, safeguard their health and exercise their individual responsibilities in regard to sexual behavior and relationships, reproduction and family formation.
You asked if I know of any women who are friends or acquaintances that have had abortions. No, I don't.
Listen, my stance has never been to outlaw abortion. Abortion is a necessary procedure. However, in my opinion, we have moved passed necessary abortion to birth prevention. We need to have serious discussion, as we are here about what we can do as a nation to minimize the need for the procedure. Women who have been granted this right to privacy need to exercise more responsibility, in my opinion.
We also need to look to that document which is used to base the decision to give women reproductive rights and see if we can find a right or two in there for men because, without his sperm she wouldn't be exercising that right and on top of that if she decides to bring to term will be financially responsible for 18 or more years.
I went back and looked at the Alan Guttmacher Institute report and it indicates the following:
QUOTE
Most abortions in 2000 were performed at clinics (93%); this figure increased from 90% in 1996. (Physicians' offices where more than 400 abortions were provided have been categorized as clinics.)
Slightly more than half of clinics (25% of all providers) were specialized abortion clinics, defined as those where at least half of patient visits are for abortion services. Such clinics provided 71% of abortions in 2000, about the same proportion as in 1996 (70%). Caseloads are largest at abortion clinics: Three-fourths provided at least 1,000 abortions in 2000, while only 7% of other providers did so. The remaining clinics, in which the majority of patients receive services other than abortion, made up 21% of providers and performed 22% of all abortions in 2000.
Slightly more than half of clinics (25% of all providers) were specialized abortion clinics, defined as those where at least half of patient visits are for abortion services. Such clinics provided 71% of abortions in 2000, about the same proportion as in 1996 (70%). Caseloads are largest at abortion clinics: Three-fourths provided at least 1,000 abortions in 2000, while only 7% of other providers did so. The remaining clinics, in which the majority of patients receive services other than abortion, made up 21% of providers and performed 22% of all abortions in 2000.
I could be wrong but I don't think most women go to an abortion clinic when they spontaneously abort. I certainly didn't.
The Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI) is a nonprofit organization focused on sexual and reproductive health research, policy analysis and public education. AGI publishes Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, International Family Planning Perspectives, The Guttmacher Report on Public Policy and special reports on topics pertaining to sexual and reproductive health and rights. The Institute's mission is to protect the reproductive choices of all women and men in the United States and throughout the world. It is to support their ability to obtain the information and services needed to achieve their full human rights, safeguard their health and exercise their individual responsibilities in regard to sexual behavior and relationships, reproduction and family formation.
You asked if I know of any women who are friends or acquaintances that have had abortions. No, I don't.
Listen, my stance has never been to outlaw abortion. Abortion is a necessary procedure. However, in my opinion, we have moved passed necessary abortion to birth prevention. We need to have serious discussion, as we are here about what we can do as a nation to minimize the need for the procedure. Women who have been granted this right to privacy need to exercise more responsibility, in my opinion.
We also need to look to that document which is used to base the decision to give women reproductive rights and see if we can find a right or two in there for men because, without his sperm she wouldn't be exercising that right and on top of that if she decides to bring to term will be financially responsible for 18 or more years.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.