This is exactly my point. The issue cannot be resolved between the two sides because the most basic aspect of the issue is where the largest division is between them.

It is also an example of where our approaches differ. I for one, oppose Abortion in general (with some exceptions) because I have yet to see any scientific proof that the embryo/fetus is not a human being, in possession of a soul, feelings etc. Until such proof is available, I choose to err on the side of caution in regard the unborn (this is not to say that I am right and you are wrong, I am merely saying that this is what is right for me).

honestly, I have no idea why people choose to debate this issue, there is no chance at all that the opposition will be swayed, unless of course that opposition has never ever heard your sides point of view before.

I propose that anyone who wants to ban abortion must adopt one of the unwanted children.

Should the country enact a constitutional amendment that would allow states to restrict second- and third-trimester abortions?

No, the states already have the means to restrict these abortions through state legislation. The following article describes how Mississippi has restricted abortions to the point where going out of state has become necessary for many who seek abortions:

Welcome to Mississippi

Whether right or wrong, the power is there for the states. Simply make abortion services unavailable, and voila! End of problem.

[quote=overlandsailor,Mar 7 2005, 11:18 PM]
[quote=A left Handed person,Feb 19 2005, 10:20 PM]As I previously stated, this issue is all about how you value life (A.K.A your opinion).
honestly, I have no idea why people choose to debate this issue, there is no chance at all that the opposition will be swayed, unless of course that opposition has never ever heard your sides point of view before.

[/quote]

Perhaps I'm in a cynical mood today, but I tend to think that we debate abortion because we've got little effect on other, more important social & economic issues.
And that's the LEAST cynical of versions.

If you fix these issues, abortion largely dissappears.

It's also my understanding that very very few doctors will even perform a late-term abortion without a real threat to the mother's life.

And I'll throw out my take on abortion: 'life' starts sometime between conception (but not at conception) and birth, I don't know when. My arguments for legal abortion doesn't require me to know when: 1) If I invite a person into my home, and he becomes unwelcome, I have the right to ask him to leave, and to use force to eject him, if necessary. A similar situation exists for a woman and anything inside her body. I would imagine that knowledge of viable life would temper that reaction in most women, but that's not for me to decide 2) regardless of morality and legality, some women will still receive abortions. I am not of the camp that thinks having an abortion performed should carry a death penalty.

Should the country enact a constitutional amendment that would allow states to restrict second- and third-trimester abortions?
Absolutely not. The current rash of "amendment chasing" for issues of the day (abortion, gay marriage, euthanasia, etc.) drives me absolutely batty. Amendments are typically timeless (with a few obvious exceptions) just as our constitution is and should be revered in just such a fashion. I have yet to see any compelling issue short of the original equal rights for women amendment previously rejected by the states that would remotely warrant such extreme action from the legislative branch. This is especially true when legislative remedies already exist, in particular at the state level.

Aquilla, put your coffee down before reading this, but I think your analysis was dead on with Roe . Roe clearly opened the window for regulation of abortion procedures in the 2nd and 3rd trimesters already due to their very sensible viability test. The fact that Congress seems completely inept at drafting legislation in this area that passes constitutional muster in this area simply makes me snicker. It can be done, I'm thankful that up until this point it simply hasn't.

In spite of this, you can count me in UltimateJoe's constitutional corner. I realize this opinion is in the minority, but in the landscape of the protection of liberty, when existing life and potential life come in conflict, existing life's right to self-determination rules the day in my humble opinion. This is especially poignant when it comes to the decision of how to manage one's own body. This lies at the very core of self-determination.

We can debate until the cows come home whether there truly exists a right of privacy in the constitution. The simplest approach dates back to the very construct of government in a Jeffersonian democracy that has at its core the manifestation of the "social contract". Put simply, humanity entered this contract for the simple desire to be left alone (ie, preserving privacy). In exchange for the larger exercise of self-determination she agrees to to be governed and thus give up a small set of individual liberties sufficient to create an ordered society.

Implicit within this, I would argue, is a simple construct of biological self determination. In order to remain consistent, this would have to be preserved regardless of the viability question. To do otherwise allows that fabric to be continually chipped away at as science advances until a small patchwork exists in this area, if at all. And if we have no liberty to decide how our body is to be managed, what liberty do we really have?

In conclusion, the answer to this question is no at two levels which some may argue are opposing ends of the spectrum. Existing jurisprudence allows for regulation of 2nd & 3rd trimester procedures already and thus any amendment would be redundant and unnecessary. And finally, a larger no is cast against any attempts to codify (particularly by constitutional amendment) restrictions on individual liberties. Especially those that seek to whittle away at self-determination.

Doc

No, for several reasons.

I: The Federal government doesn't have the authority to dictate such a restriction to the rest of the states. That would be amazingly unConstitutional.

II: The Constitution is no the place to enact laws. The Constitution is a document that restricts the government's powers.

III: The Constitution is not a place to write domestic policies into law. Doing that would pretty much ignore what the Constitution is all about.

CP

Yes. Abortions in the first trimester will never be banned in this country in spite of the hard core position in the right to life movement. However, the similarly extreme position of the pro-abortion groups push an equally unpopular position which is that the mother has the "right" to abort her fetus up until the moment of birth.

I believe that the "right to privacy" as somehow created out of the 14th amendment in "Roe vs. Wade" is the worst sort of judicial activism and was a terrible decision. Not only did it bypass the rights of the states (and the people) but it also failed to recognize that at some point in the baby's gestation period, the fetus becomes a viable human being. No right of "privacy" gives any woman the right to kill their child. Not when it's viable and not when it's 2 years old even if it's a "personal and private" matter.

This issue will increase in importance as medical science continues to push the envelope of a "viable" baby. Morally and ethically, this is an issue that our society has to face up to sooner rather than later.

This demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of the Roe vs. Wade decision.

First, it appears that you don't understand how "privacy" was arrived at as something that needed to be protected. So lets look at that first. We can agree that in general everyone has a Constitutional Right of Privacy, in a general sense, right? Now, privacy is one of those ethereal concepts in hte Constitution: everyone believes in it, yet it is not clearly enumerated. The closest we get to any guarantee of such a right is in the 14th amendment: nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. However, starting with the ratification of this amendment it became clear that the state could (and must) protect privacy. Whether or not you agree with this reading is actually irrelevant because the Supreme Court began down this road, and established the legal precedent which is so instrumental to a Common Law system.

Now, where you are taking issue is "personal and private." You are confusing legal concepts here. Roe vs. Wade was struck not to protect a specific right to choose, or to guarantee that people could make private decisions. Rather, what the court was engaged in was a process which is called "Substantive Due Process" (which Hayleyanne could perhaps explain better than I could, but I'll give it a shot anyways... I like my definition of it better anyways.) Substantive Due Process is a legal 'mode' which basically demands that the court look at a right (assuming that it is widely agreed that such a right exists, and note that the right to privacy predated the Roe vs. Wade decision) and determine what exactly is necessary to guarantee that right. In this case, the court considered that for privacy to be protected, a certain "zone of privacy" or a realm into which the government could not extrude except under great duress, is necessary. Naturally, this "zone" included the body. This also was not a new concept; as individual ownership of the body is one of the hallmarks of the Common Law (Hayleyanne and I actually agree on this point.) Without such a zone, our right to privacy amounts to nothing, and therefore we don't have a right to privacy, even if the 14th Amendment (and in parts the 4th) demand it. THAT is what "privacy" means in terms of Roe v. Wade.



The Constitution makes it quite clear that rights enumerated to the people CANNOT be abridged. What it did NOT make clear was that the individual States were also obliged to recognize Constitutionally delineated rights. Because of this, the states were free to (and often did) ignore the Bill of Rights. That was one of the reasons the 14th amendment was drafted. It establishes in concrete terms what the Constitution implied in general: an individual's rights (as specified by the Constitution) are inalienable, and cannot be abridged. Neither the States, nor the people, can enact laws that violate an individuals liberty. The only way that a right can be abridged is through a Constitutional amendment. Now, of course there are 'grey areas,' but these areas are the jurisdiction of the courts. Regardless of the way that some of our members deify the legislature, the court is the correct body for interpretting where one right ends and another begins. Now, in regards to your specific objection: that's just not true. Individual states CANNOT write law restricting the rights of individuals; and since were no state laws that considered a fetus a person, (and I don't know if any have them now), states have no standing to protect 'their rights.' As such, the 14th amendment makes it pretty clear that hte States cannot restrict rights. That has nothing to do with Blackmun, Renquist, or any of the judges who ruled on Roe v. Wade, and everything to do with the most basic understanding of the 14th amendment.

Of course, if we are to accept your "understanding" then a state could for example pass a law stating that men are not allowed to, I don't know, live past the age of 50. Of course such a law would be unconstitutional: but according to your logic, it would be ok because the States (and the democratic bodies therein) have rights paramount to the Federal government. You're ignoring the must fundamental principle of the Constitution I'm afraid: the rights of the individual are paramount, and cannot be violated by the Federal government or the states.



Ok, this leads me to believe that you've never even read Roe vs. Wade. It's nothing to be ashamed of, but you should really go read it. It does exactly what you say it fails to do.

This is from page 164 (I think, the pagination from my source was weird) Roe vs. Wade (found at this site):



So, yeah, you're obviously quite wrong in this part of your argument. If you don't believe me though you can also read the decision's syllabus:



Certainly looks like viability, and the progress of pregnancy is considered. I wonder what decision you were looking at...