Polls have consistently shown that a large majority of Americans favor restrictions on second- and third-trimester abortions. For example, a poll from two years ago showed that Americans favored restricting second-trimester abortions by a 68 to 25 percent margin. The poll also showed that the public favored third-trimester abortion restrictions by an 84 to 10 percent margin.

http://www.publicagenda.org/issues/angles_...ntrimesters.jpg

However, "pro-life" forces have made little effort to leverage the public opposition to middle-term and late-term abortions by trying to enact legislation aimed at reducing abortions after the first trimester. I would like to propose that we change the debate from an all-or-nothing confrontation to a question of when in pregnancy abortion should be restricted.

The first step to enacting restrictions would be either reversing Roe v. Wade or enacting a constitutional amendment to partially overturn it. The amendment I am proposing would not require states to restrict second- or third-trimester abortions, but would simply permit states to do so.

Incidentally, France does not allow abortions after the first trimester.

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

I propose that public policy toward most second- and third-trimester abortions be similar to public policy toward rape and child molestation because abortion, like rape and child molestation, is- effectively- a form of sexual violence.

Abortion is a form of sexual violence because it involves "physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing" (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=violence) that is motivated by a desire to engage in hedonistic sexual intercourse without concern for the possible procreative consequences of sexual intercourse. Studies have consistently shown that the vast majority of abortions kill unborn babies who were created as a result of sexual intercourse that was engaged in despite the fact that at least one of the participants knew that a pregnancy would not be welcome.

http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/chs/abrpt/2003abrpt.pdf
(PDF File, Page 21-22)

My suggestion is that, in the event of an abortion, only the father of the baby be punished (as opposed to the mother or the doctor).

Because rape and child molestation are banned, later-term abortions should also be banned. Society has a duty to suppress sexual violence.

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

First I will say I think the abortion issue is the single item that seems to divide American politics. And, secondly that I’m a guy and I can’t get pregnant and I believe all life is precious without religious ties.

Here in Puerto Rico people are 99.9% religious and abortion isn’t spoke of and downs syndrome children are as normal as polio children were in the 1950’s in America. In fact, all persons with disabilities have public head of line rights at the cash register in all stores here and the majority are downs folks with their parents or guardian.

My moral role model is the philosopher Epititus who was born with crippled legs as a downs syndrome child just a couple decades after the recorded birth of Jesus and he possessed superior intelligence to become famous in the field of philosophy for nearly 2,000 years. I contend the so-called partial birth abortion is selective destruction of life for the comfort of the parents and should be illegal. Consider if parents could determine a child would grow up to be gay at the same stage they likewise may be eliminated supporting the “comfort” of the parents.

To answer the question for debate directly I think decisions the Supreme Court make such as Roe v. Wade should be submitted to congress for democratic determination and not legislated by the SC. Life should be defined by science and congress and the morality of ending it as I also disagree with capitol punishment. In Korea a child is one-year-old 100 days after being born indicating the child has been alive for one year at that point. Likewise, the probability of ending the life of a genius that may solve environmental and health problems is increased with indiscriminate ending of life and therefore is unnatural.

Should the country enact a constitutional amendment that would allow states to restrict second- and third-trimester abortions?
First of all it's a waste of time to try this. If 13 state legislatures vote no, it won't pass.

Even if it could pass, if someone wanted an abortion they could just cross into another state that allowed it. It doesn't make much sense that the government respects, a woman's right to control her own body only in some states, or on the other side, a fetus's right to not be killed after a certain period of time, only in some states. And how exactly do you make sure abortions aren't being preformed in the second trimester?

A constitutional amendment like this just muddies the waters of legality. Its main thrust is to make abortion more difficult instead of having a firm moral basis rooted in civil liberties. It doesn't settle anything Abortion-wise and as soon as it was passed the pro-life movement would be itching to ban abortion outright. Let's leave wishy washy political antagonism out of the constitution.

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


I answered no because a constitutional amendment isn't required for such restrictions - at least, not under Roe v Wade. A properly written statute would suffice.

You know, sometimes I wonder how many people involved in the abortion debate on a national scale have ever actually read the Roe V. Wade decision. Based on some of the things the talking heads on both sides of the issues have said, I'd bet not many of them. I would encourage people here interested in the abortion issue to read it. You can find it here. It's lengthy to be sure, but it is also an exquisite decision. It is quite obvious that the Supreme Court agonized over this decision, and within the decision, they left room for society to maneuver as medicine advanced and our scientific knowledge increased. Throughout the decision is the stated acknowledgement that the state has an interest in protecting the unborn. From the decision......



And later on.....




I would contend that based on these two cited passages from the Roe V. Wade decision, and others not cited here a constitutional amendment isn't necessary to restrict second and third trimester abortions. There is plenty of room within the framework of Roe V. Wade for state legislatures to write abortion law and for it to withstand court challenges.

Here is an illustration of what is wrong with late-term abortions. A woman in England, nearly 6 months pregnant, tries to abort unsuccessfully, the kid is born alive, saved by 7 weeks of intensive care (taxpayer-funded!) and then they give the kid back to his mother. His "mother" who has tried to kill her baby, now is entrusted with rearing him to adulthood. And he's off to a grand start, having managed to somehow live despite efforts to kill him. How do you explain this to a kid later in life? Absolutely sick.


All that said, I am against a constitutional amendment. We should repeal Roe v. Wade and leave it up to the states.

I find this position disingenuous no matter who it comes from. Either people have a right to abortions or not... and the individual states cannot abridge people's rights. That's the whole purpose of the Bill of Rights.

Now, abortion itself is a tricky question, one without easy answers. But a cop-out like "let the States decide," is absurd in any RIGHTS debate. Should the states have been permitted to decide on questions of a poll-tax, or misegination laws? Of course not. When someone does suggest "let the states decide" they are either against abortion and unwilling to state it directly and in the terms of a proper legal/moral/ethical discussion, or they have a profound misunderstanding of the way the United States Constitution works.

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

No. As it stands abortion is still a right, and as such the individual states have no right to abridge it. Introducing an amendment that makes rights dependent on which state you are in is a horrendous miscarriage of the principles of the Constitution. More importantly, restricting abortion is (IMHO) wrong, and for one simple reason. The State (be it federal or state level) has no right to interfere with the INTERNAL biology of human beings. This right is of course moderated... but giving up any more progress in this area would be a step backwards. Lets look at the MOST IMPORTANT passage in the Roe vs. Wade decision...



For the individual rights enumerated in the Constitution to have ANY meaning there must be an area in which people are free to excercise them. If this area does not include the body, then where does it start, or end?

There is no absoulte right to privacy, or abortion contained either in the Constitution, nor implied in Roe V. Wade. Indeed, Roe V. Wade specifically opens the door to state regulation of abortion by recognizing that the state does have a compelling interest in protecting potential life. Once again, from Roe V. Wade.....



Ultimate Joe raises the following question:



I would answer that question that within the context of Roe V. Wade the court clearly recognized that potential life also has rights. I would further argue that the court recognized that the state had a compelling interest in protecting the rights of the unborn. It would seem to me that the most fundamental of those rights would be the basic right to life.

I'm going to disagree -

I'm no constitutional scholar, but I read this as:
- there is no right to abortion in the constitution
- there is no prohibition of abortion in the constitution
- therefore this matter is reserved to the states respectively, or the people

As to your case law citations, I recognize that the precedent currently confers a "right" to abortion, but disagree in the current "Roe = abortion is a right" application of the law. Specifically noting what Aquilla posted from the decision.

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

No. Without religion, I don't think there is really any decisive way to argue the debate one way or another. This issue is all determined by how you individually value life. I choose to think of an embryo as a non-human (an organ of a sort). Therefore I don't find abortion of any sort immoral.

I'm going to take a bath for this, and I hate baths. Nonetheless...



Your reading is incorrect. Abortion isn't spelled out in the Constitution, but Roe vs. Wade determined that abortion IS protected under the auspices of the 14th Amendment, with limitations. As such the individual states' discretion extends only so far as Roe vs. Wade allows.

Of course, this still doesn't go to the more fundamental "should" question...

But I've already made my feelings on THAT matter known.

Thank you all for participating in my thread.



I agree that a constitutional amendment would face nontrivial challenges. However, with 68 percent support in the general population, it is likely that 80-100 percent of the states have majorities that favor restricting second-trimester abortions. I make that estimation based on two rationales. First, groups tend to deviate from the mean less than individuals. Second, supporters of legalized abortion tend to be concentrated in a few large states like California and New York. I would expect that state legislatures would tend to vote based on popular opinion in the state. So I think an amendment would have a reasonable chance of success.

A constitutional amendment would certainly be a better use of political capital than partial birth abortion bans. Partial birth abortion bans are a complete waste of time because they are destined to be overturned by the courts.



Even if that was a problem, I still think it would be worthwhile to proscribe later-term abortions.

However, my suggestion is that states ban the purely hedonistic sexual intercourse that leads to abortion rather than abortion itself, and that only the men be punished. Studies show that the vast majority of abortions result from casual, uncommitted sexual activity, so enforcement would entail getting cooperation from a woman or a doctor who has little vested interest in the perpetrator. In fact, many abortions result from men abandoning or abusing women, so they might be quick to collaborate with police. The perpetrator would not have the opportunity to avoid prosecution by briefly leaving the state.



Why not? What is wrong with allowing individual states to regulate their own affairs based on the unique values of the residents of the state? Does not our federalism make us stronger and more united?



Many states currently restrict post-viability abortions, so I would expect that the enforcement mechanisms used for those abortions would simply be extended. I am no law enforcement expert, though.



They are now. So?

You have it on the head of the nail. Yet another question of does democracy and common law rule or the King?

This is specifically why I stated earlier that science and government should define life. And, life being equal to citizenship should deserve protection under the constitution.

It is a “moral decision” and a decision requiring the measure of the majority’s moral approval. The constitution doesn’t mean squat if it doesn’t represent the majority because the laws are made by the majority. If the majority thinks it is OK for a six month old to be allowed morally to give oral sex to an adult since no injury is incurred then it should be law. If the majority of society thinks the act is immoral then the adult should go to jail caught in the act of the immoral act. How can words on a piece of paper or the judgment of a judge consider otherwise? Immoral is in the eyes of the majority!

Would science finding a Martian sole survivor in the womb of a dead Martian say potential viable Martian life or dieing Martian tissue faced with the equation of life on mars or end of life on mars?

Ok, guess I will have to join this discussion now.

As a VERY non-religious man, and a pro-life man I think I can argue against abortion from a non-religious prospective.

First, in all but a few cases (that could be handled separately) the desire for abortion is to remove the consequence of ones own actions. In other words, everyone wants to play, but no one wants to pay. This is the personal responsiblity issue of Abortion to me. With the exception of the small amount of abortions due to rape (I consider Incest to be Rape), and the small amount of Abortions performed due to health risk to the mother, Abortion is used as a post-conception form of birth control by those who were irresponsible enough to engage in unprotected sex that resulted in the pregnancy.

Now, that is really a side note to me. My REAL problem with abortion is ignoring the civil rights of the unborn. Since science has yet to prove that an unborn child is or is not a human life with consciousness and feelings, I choose to err on the side of caution and consider the unborn to be a life.

I would rather err in favor on the helpless unborn then err in the favor of those who made the personal decision to engage in unprotected sex that resulted in a pregnancy.

Those are the abridged forms of my two primary positions on the issue. Please note, that unless you re-arrange a few letters, the work "God" never enters into them.

As for the question on the table here:

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

I do not feel this is needed as I believe that the states already have this right under Roe V. Wade, as had be detailed by several other posters here.

I would support such a ban in my state, for one, because I personally oppose abortion, and two, the longer into a pregnancy you get the more likely that the unborn child will actually have a conscious awareness, feelings, sense of self, etc.

Unfortunately, I believe this *is* one of those rare all or nothing questions. If there is a constitutional amendment that prevents fetal homicide during the second and third trimester, then what about the first semester? Abortion in the first trimester is tacitly endorsed? Does life get placed in the baby on a certain day in the second trimester magically?

When a doctor or woman is "suspected" of having a second trimester abortion, how do we verify that the abortion was carried out during the first or second trimester? Will doctors need to keep ultrasound or other non tamperable evidence around for investigators to inspect?

Abortion is the taking of an innocent life (though nearly always the intent isn't bad), but a half *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** compromise won't do. While it may save thousands of lives in the short term, in the long term we might have more deaths. Regardless, if such an amendment was presented I'd be supportive of it cause it is a step in the right direction and I suppose it's wrong to do fuzzy math with human lives.

Ol Sarge:

Giving the majority anything they want, can threaten the minority. Therefore safe guards must be instituted in order to the prevent a oppression of the minority (via The constitution and courts). For Example If gay marriage is legalized:

-The opposition (Something like 70% of the population) will be minutely irked.
-The pro side (something like 30% of the population) will be minutely relieved.
-Finally the people who are actually affected (gays) will lead significantly happier lives.

This is a clear representation of the majority oppressing the minority. It is also a example, of why principle morality can be a detrimental philosophy.

Abortion is a entirely different kind of issue however (because it deals with life, not some dislike of a concept that doesn't effect you). Are liberal courts entering an issue that they have no business being involved in? Yes. However judiciary neutrality is thing of the past, and don't pretend that Republicans haven't appointed biased judges to.

overlandsailor:

I disagree with the assertion that sex is immoral. Its a natural part of being a human being. Unless it hurts someone, there is nothing wrong about it.

Since science has yet to prove that an unborn child is or is not a human life with consciousness and feelings, I choose to err on the side of caution and consider the unborn to be a life.

Animals have consciousness and feelings to, but thats besides the point. I hereby express the opinion that a embryo is not a human being (because it cannot/does not live outside of the mothers womb). You can say that my reasons are irrelevant, but thats an opinion isn't it?

I appreciate the many interesting posts. I hope to eventually respond to many of them, but it may take a while and the resulting sub-debates may take place over a long period. I will try to send personal messages to people when I respond to their posts.

In this post I wish to respond to this grossly inaccurate belief that Roe v. Wade permits states to restrict second- and third-trimester abortions.



Not knowing Aquilla very well, I will presume that his use of this passage results from honest ignorance rather than willful gross misrepresentation. (I rarely use emphasis, but this is an exceptional situation.) The above passage is the Supreme Court's paraphrase of the position of the National Right to Life Committee and other right-to-lifers, not the position of the Supreme Court itself.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getc...l=410&invol=113

The following is the actual holding of the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade.

1. A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a life-saving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.

(\b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.
© For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life [410 U.S. 113, 165] may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

2. The State may define the term "physician," as it has been employed in the preceding paragraphs of this Part XI of this opinion, to mean only a physician currently licensed by the State, and may proscribe any abortion by a person who is not a physician as so defined.

In Doe v. Bolton, post, p. 179, procedural requirements contained in one of the modern abortion statutes are considered. That opinion and this one, of course, are to be read together. 67

What the holding makes clear is that states cannot enact laws designed to protect the unborn except for viable fetuses. Viability never occurs until at least twenty-two weeks gestation (out of forty weeks of pregnancy) and may never occur at all. (More about this point later.)

In the Casey decision of 1992, the Court reemphasized that states could not pass any laws designed to extend protection to pre-viability fetuses.

"...a provision of law is invalid...if its purpose or effect is to place substantial obstacles in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability."

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getc...us/505/833.html

In the Danforth decision, the Court made clear that states could not impose an arbitrary time in pregnancy in which viability is assumed to have occurred and therefore abortions are proscribed. In other words, a state cannot restrict third-trimester abortions per se.

"It is not a proper legislative or judicial function to fix viability, which is essentially for the judgment of the responsible attending physician, at a specific point in the gestation period."

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getc...ol=428&invol=52
(Holding 2)

There are a couple of other significant problems with Roe's allowance of post-viability abortion restrictions, but I will leave them for later discussion.

My ultimate point is the following: Roe v. Wade prohibits states from imposing restrictions on either second trimester or third trimester abortions.

If you had read the introductory post or even the poll question, you would have seen that my proposal does exactly what you support- leave the matter up to the states.

Well, I don't know you at all, but recognizing the fact that you are new to this forum and out of respect for those who have participated and built this forum into what it is, I will allow your attacks on my veracity and/or intelligence to slide. For now. I have no interest in seeing this thread closed because I think it is a good thread, an important one with important questions raised in the abortion debate. Questions I will add that were posed by you.

Just to recap here, the question you raised dealt specifically with second and third term abortions and whether or not a constitutional amendment was required to "restrict" them. My answer was no, a constitutional amendment was not required because the Roe V. Wade decision did not prevent such restriction by the state at all. Indeed, such a right by the state to restrict or regulate such abortions was acknowledged in the opinion delivered in Roe V. Wade. That opinion, parts of which I quoted was indeed delivered by the Supreme Court and is contained in both my link to the decision and the one you cited from Findlaw. They are indeed the same opinion and indeed the postion of the court. Your claim that it is simply a "paraphrase of the position of the National Right to Life Committee and other right-to-lifers, not the position of the Supreme Court itself." is to be kind - flawed. The court writes opinions and dissents for a reason. And that reason is to provide a sense of the court on what the law truly is. In the case of Roe V. Wade I believe it was to form a guideline to the state on what kind of legislation would be appropriate for abortion law. I find it disingenious on North Star's part to discount my citations of an opinion in Roe V. Wade and then turn around and cite a citation from an opinion Planned Parenthood v. Casey.....




Once again, opinions are written for a reason. That reason is that holdings of the Supreme Court deal specifically with the law at hand. In Roe v. Wade, it was a specific Texas state statute dealing with abortion and in agreeing to hear the case the court agreed to make a decision on that specific case and that specific law. Reduced to it's simplest form, the holdings could be a yes or no, constitutional or not, guilty or not guilty, and that would be it. Instead the court takes on a greater burden to expand on their decision and provide a sense of the court and thus the law. They write opinions and attempt to spell out what their legal sense behind their ruling truly is. It is from these opinions that new law can be crafted that will accomplish the intended goal and pass Constitutional muster. Oh well, enough for now with Supreme Court 101 and onward.....



You have provided absolutely no evidence whatsoever to sustain this argument. Roe V. Wade absolutely gives the state (federal or states) the power to regulate abortions, particularly in the second and third trimester. This claim to the contrary flies in the face of the facts I have presented. However, I suspect NorthStar has a different agenda based on this from one of his previous posts......



One must wonder why NorthStar posed the question for debate......



which deals specifically with second and third-trimester abortions then argues about first-trimester abortions.......

I will leave that answer to the reader.

There may be experts on Constitutional law lurking if not participating in this forum. I am thankful that there is no such educational requirement in order to be an active member here. Whether this quote from Aquilla is wrong or right, I submit that this should open the door for the states to make the determination that second and third trimester abortions, with the exception of those that specifically harm the mother, are to be illegal. Also, if the fetus is viable at the time of his/her departure from the womb, measures to keep the child alive and promote healing be undertaken immediately, whether the mother wants to keep the child or not.

(If the mother does not want the baby, why should she have to keep him or her? In my state, an infant can be dropped off at a fire station, a hospital or a police department, no questions asked.)


Regardless of what science says about children in the womb being likened to an unborn cow or pig or whatever, a human pregnancy produces a human being! Just because our unborn progeny have to grow their organ systems does not make them any less human. Science has been less than enlightened about things in our world and universe before, but it isn't until new research comes in that scientists are willing to change their stances.

Should the fact that a woman (or her husband) does not want a baby to hold and love stop that new life from coming into the world? I think that it is a tremendous waste to discard our own offspring because they aren't convenient or might constitute a hardship.

(Babies are not meant to be convenient. They are the future of our own species. Allowances should be made for the least able to care for themselves precisely because they cannot care for themselves. And forget the "burden on society"--when certain members of our society copulate without a thought to anything but the heat of the moment they are not showing fiscal responsibility any more than moral responsibility. I'd much rather invest my tax dollars in caring for infants than stoking the fire of foreign wars. Characterizing the issue solely (or even mainly) in terms of dollars and cents is crass and mercenary.)

Sure, but what could such a right mean if a person is subject to having his or her limbs ripped from his or her body- as happens in an abortion? What could such a right mean if babies can be subject to having scissors plunged into their skulls or being burned to death with saline solution? If a right to bodily autonomy means anything, how could it not apply to the act of abortion?

Or are you saying that the right to bodily autonomy is limited to protecting against state actions? If so, why? And would you not at least agree that taxpayer-funded abortions (which are prevalent) are wrong?

The right to bodily autonomy does not apply to the decision to abort because the woman could usually have avoided the situation by simply not getting pregnant in the first place. In addition, I think that the problem would be completely avoided if the state proscribed hedonistic sexual intercourse rather than the act of abortion itself.

But again, Aquilla quoted Roe v. Wade out of context. If you read the context of the quote, you will see that the Court was simply paraphrasing the position of pro-life amicus briefs to give context to the decision. Here is how that section of the decision begins: "Three reasons have been advanced to explain historically the enactment of criminal abortion laws in the 19th century and to justify their continued existence." Look the passage up for yourself and see how Aquilla is being dishonest. Make sure to look up footnote 45.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getc...l=410&invol=113

Aquilla appears to be a pathological misquoter. For example, in his most recent post he falsely attributed the following quote to me and then used it to make an ad hominem attack against me.

"If there is a constitutional amendment that prevents fetal homicide during the second and third trimester, then what about the first semester? Abortion in the first trimester is tacitly endorsed? Does life get placed in the baby on a certain day in the second trimester magically?"

I will plead a Mea Culpa on mis-attributing a quote from CatchPhrase to NorthStar. For that, I apologize. Although, given NorthStar's first post in this thread referring to his proposed amendment or the overturning of Roe V. Wade as a "first step", my mistaken quote was not a terribly egregious error......

NorthStar's claim that my first quote from Roe V. Wade essentially paraphrases the postion of an amici in the case is also correct. However, it is perfectly within context of the decision given the futher citations I have provided here from that decision. The Supreme Court agreed with the postion that the state has a compelling interest in protecting the rights of the unborn, and indeed the Roe V. Wade decision supports that interest. My argument is that abortion statutes written to conform within the guidelines established in Roe V. Wade would serve the purpose of restricting second and third-trimester abortions and be able to withstand Constitutional challenges. A Constitutional Amendment would not be required to do this, and that is the question posed by NorthStar for this debate.

One need not overturn a previous court ruling on an issue in order to craft legislation that accomplishes the goal. There is precedent for this sort of thing, one need only look at the history of death penalty rulings to see how it works. When the court publishes a ruling, the "findings" portion of that ruling, the part of Roe V Wade cited by NorthStar, speak specifically to the details of the case and law in dispute. However, the opinion portion of the ruling contains a more general discussion on the sense of the court concerning the broader issue at hand. This is where one looks for guidelines on how to craft legislation that will found Constitutional by the court should it be challenged. This is precisely what happened with the death penalty following the Furman v Georgia decision, and it would be possible for much the same thing to happen in the case of abortion and Roe V. Wade. My primary purpose in participating in this debate in this thread is to "expose" the "dirty little secret" about Roe V. Wade that neither of the extreme sides of the abortion debate really want to talk about.

Once again, I would urge those here who are interested in this issue to actually read the Roe V. Wade decision, use either the link I provided earlier on, or use NorthStar's link - they are the same decision. Once you have read that decision you will understand that the extremes on both sides of this issue have not been representing Roe V. Wade for what it truly is.

But what about the argument that I submitted in Post #2? It was not based on religion, but rather on how society treats sexual violence.

Are you supportive of laws against sexual violence? If you are, how can you be opposed to laws against abortion?



Maybe I am nitpicking here, but second- and third-trimester unborn babies are not "embryos" but rather fetuses.

The problem that I have with this argument is that, if accepted, it creates a justification for discrimination. What is stopping a rapist from justifying his crime on the basis that he "chooses" to think of a woman as a "non-human?" What is stopping a child molestor from justifying his crime on the basis that he "chooses" to think of children as "non-humans?" What is stopping a racist from justifying his actions on the basis that he "chooses" to think of African-Americans as "non-humans?" I would argue that we need a better rationale for discriminating against the unborn than arbitrary bigotry, otherwise we create a justification for unacceptable moral decisions.

I think people should do some research into the lesser known yet equally important Supreme Court case Webster v. Reproductive Health Services



We have to understand that Roe v. Wade ONLY sets up the woman's CHOICE for an abortion on the basis of privacy. For instance, if a 3rd party assailant attacked a pregnant woman and killed the fetus...it would be murder ala the Violence Against Unborn Victims Act.

I still don't understand the pro-abortion argument. Do we know for sure when life begins? Do we know if it begins at conception or birth? the answer is NO. So if we dont know...how could we possible conceive that it is ok to kill a possibly living human?

I guess we must ask ourselves if there is reasonable doubt as to when life begins. When a jury goes in to decide a 1st degree murder case...it must be proven BEYOND a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime. There has to be reasonable doubt in everyone's minds as to when life begins. So i, like many, believe that it is foolish to say that we should terminate a possible life.

Let me set up a situation. Lets say you have a room...and i place you outside the room, sit you at a desk with a big red button. Now i go up to you and tell you that there is a chance that a 3 year old child is in this room...and if you press that red button, you will kill him/her. Now if there was even the slightest possibility that a child IS in the room...would you push the button knowing you are terminating a life? Answer me that.

The problem I have with your argument here, Leder, is that it attempts to frame this debate in rather stark "either or" type terms and I think the issue of abortion in general is far more complicated than that. In the two hypotheticals you presented there were no "competing interests" involved. The case of a person in a criminal trial and the imposition of the "reasonable doubt" standard involves a single person's rights and seeks to insure those rights are protected. Should that level of proof result in an individual being aquitted there would be arguably (and I don't want to go there in this thread) no harm to any other resulting from that acquittal. In your second case of the button and the room, the way you framed it offered me no compelling reason to push the button whether there was a child there or not. Why would I want to push the button? There is no conflict there.

Not so simple in the case of the abortion decision, and I'm hardly "pro-abortion" at all. However, I do recognize that the woman involved in the decision has rights that the state is compelled to respect and protect as well as the rights of the potential life in her womb. Roe V. Wade clearly recognized these competing interests. Once again, from the decision......



There is a tightrope here that can't be traversed simply by erring on the side of caution. Indeed, there is no side of caution, no safe way out of this debate.

You've got to remember that this "organ of a sort" has half of Mom's DNA and half of Dad's. It has eyes and a beating heart after a very short time, heck--it even sucks its thumb within a few weeks. These things all differentiate it from a tumor or an organ that would have exclusively Mom's DNA or DNA from a virus or disease. The lowest age of viability outside the womb for a fetus is now at 20 weeks gestation. Outside the womb the fetus is called a "baby."

The more science learns and develops new technologies, the more apparent it becomes that life starts a lot sooner than was imagined before. That is why it is so important to restrict abortions of the second and third trimester to those that absolutely must be done to spare the life of the mother.

Ok, to start with I am pro-life (it is just not my most important issue at this time). Now that that is clear, I have reviewed this several times to ensure no errors have occurred, and I think I am ready to continue.

I am not trying to be insulting, or degrading but this argument simply does not pass the smell test IMHO. The slippery Slope argument is used alot in debates. Occasionally it is valid, more often then not it isn't, and sometimes it is such a leap that it causes people to disregard any argument made by the person using it into question.

This is potentially such a case. What stops us from "choosing" to consider others as non-human for whatever reason? Nothing. Sociopaths do it all the time. What stops us for successfully using this choice as a legal defense for a crime? Common sense and the law.

The difference between the unborn and the born (regardless of my opinion on the matter) is just that. One is born, and thus breathing, feeding, etc on their own (they are still doing this in an independent fashion even when the help of an adult is needed due to their age or lack of ability), whereas the unborn are surviving due to physical connections to the mother. One is exposed to the world. One is limited to the world from within the Womb.

Legally, we have decided that the rights of the born trump the unborn. I personally disagree. However, it is a reach at best to suggest that our courts or our society would ever extend this "non-human" argument to the born.

Side Note: IMHO the real purpose of debate is not to sway the other side (it happens, but it is terribly rare), the purpose is to educate and potentially sway non-participants who are paying attention. Many folks are simply lurking rather then participating. I like to call these people members of America's Moderate Silent Majority. To reach these people requires a reasonable argument. Arguments that can be seen by most to be extremely unreasonable are more likely to push those lurkers to the other side then sway them to your own cause.

PS: When I spell-checked this post, I inadvertently corrected a mis-spelling within the quoted text above. This was not done as an attempt to mis-represent the person I quoted or insult them. It just happened, and i really do not see a reason to take the time to go back to the post and correct the quote back to the original mis-spelling.

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

Absolutely not. This is merely a ploy to remove a woman’s right to any abortion. Late term abortions are rare, and are only done in cases where there are gross birth defects or woman’s health or life is at risk. The conservative religious right anti-choice faction engages in lurid hyperbole to give a false impression that women are butchering babies in the womb “just because”. They offer up gruesome photos of chopped up fetuses as evidence of what is happening now, when late-term abortions have not been performed in such a way for years. And just to make it more horrific, they stamp it with an inflammatory term; “partial-birth abortion”. No doubt about it, it sounds hideous, and nothing any sane person would consider supporting. BUT




These procedures are rare, and ironically, in most cases, are done on women who want a child. All the hype and hoopla is merely a smokescreen while the anti-choice groups work toward their goal: outlawing all abortions.

This is a gross mischaracterization. There are many pro-choice activists (myself included) who are against partial-birth abortions. I thought this was common knowledge, but if required, I can secure this information for you.

Look if you`re going to have legislation it need to be fair...

How can a mother, and a mother ONLY decide this? If she has the baby the father can be held responsible and forced to pay for the child, but the woman can decide WITHOUT the father`s consent whether or not the child is WORTH keeping?

How is that fair? If women want all the rights and not let the father in on the decsion, then they should carry the responsibility. Otherwise the father should have to sign off on aborting the child. (This of course assuming the right to abort)

Now how is it that a pregnant women can be murdered and the murderer is charged with "double-homicicde" but if the woman aborts it`S legal?

The laws make no sense. I`m not arguing one way or another Im just saying the law needs to be consistent.

I'd tread very lightly on equating justice between the sexes and childbirth my friend. REAL lightly. I participated in the birth of both of my children as the Lamaze "coach" and I can attest that when it comes to the process of delivering a child, there ain't no such thing as "justice". That's not a concept I'd bring up with any woman who has ever given birth.

Still though, you do raise a interesting question that might make for a good debate in another thread dealing with father's rights in the abortion issue. There are likely some fruitful areas to be explored there, but that is pretty much off-topic for this thread I'd think.

Interesting point. So then, let me ask this. Would you support such an amendment if it specifically exempted cases of "gross birth defects" (which I am not sure I would agree with) and cases where the woman's life were in jeopardy (which I would agree with if there was a legal test that held the doctor responsible for the distinction established as well) from the ban?

If not, then perhaps there is more then one smoke screen at work in this debate.

I disagree. And using the term “partial birth abortion” only shows an antipathy toward the procedure. I stand by my opinion that banning late term abortions is a first step in banning ALL abortions. The late term procedure is done so rarely, the only purpose in bringing it up is to inflame emotions and weaken pro-choice laws.

No. As I have stated, the push to “outlaw” late term abortions is a smokescreen for the push to ban all abortions, and I wouldn't support any legislation that carries that risk. Roe v Wade already addresses the issue. No further legislation is required.

The Bias of your source aside, I have to ask: If you truly believe that this form of abortion is rarely used, and when used is done so for reasons such as gross birth defects and health risk to the mother alone, I can't understand why you would opposed the use of an Amendment that made exemptions for these types of late term abortions.

You use a slippery slope argument here. I've never been a fan of these types of arguments, other then the rare cased that they can be applied.

In this case, they really cannot. An Amendment, written specifically to ban late term abortions could never be applied to all abortions, unless people allowed extremely cryptic and obscure language in it, which I highly doubt would happen. How far would such an obscurely written amendment really get when it comes to ratification by the individual states once the pro-choice people went on the media enmasse?

So, to make that next step, the pro-life people would have to pass another law or Amendment banning all Abortion. At which time that could be successfully fought by those opposed to such a ban.

I fail to see the logic in fighting a ban of anything on the grounds that it will cause or lead to the ban of something else that is not named in the original ban.

You would need to successfully pass another constitutional amendment to ban abortion entirely, even after a late term abortion ban amendment was passed.

Call it whatever you like. I call it a hidden agenda.


When has any legislation been written “clearly and concisely”? Lawyers can and will nitpick every word and nuance to further a particular goal. The terms “health” or “danger” can be picked apart like a dead zebra by a bunch of hyenas. I don’t know if you consider this source any more acceptable, but for example:

Ok that is a reasonable argument, and I would be wary myself of how something like a constitutional amendment was worded. However,

Hypothetically, lets say that the constitutional Amendment was written clearly enough that there was no question that it would ban abortions in 2nd and 3rd trimesters and only in cases that do no involved gross birth defects, or risks to the life of the mother.

Now, in this hypothetical, the legal wording is beyond question and beyond manipulation. So clearly in fact that even Planned Parenthood and the ACLU publically admitted that it could not be taken to mean anything else or manipulated to later ban all abortions (I know it is a stretch, but humor me here ).

If this was the case, would you then support it, or would you still oppose it?

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

No, call me crazy but I think a constitutional ban on abortion seems a bit over done. Legislation restricting abortion passed by the states or Congress seems more appropriate.

I share the much of OS's sentiment on abortion. I've always felt that abortion (excluding the most dire and special of circumstances) is a dangerous and irresponsible form of "contraception". I mean really, if you choose not to wear a condom, make sure your woman is on birth control. (or if you're that good at it...pull out!)

In any event, I've felt that if you're old enough to have sex, you had better be prepared to accept the responsibility that come with the inevitable result of having sex.

I also believe that, excluding the special circumstances again, you wait any extended length of time to have an abortion, you need to have a talking to. Either your gonna have the kid or not, you dont need to wait six months to decide.

To address DaffyGrl's concern that this is hidden agenda to outlaw all abortion, I think that if they thought they could get away with it, they would have already. The GOP has had the House since '94. I think they're just trying to push an agenda of "responsible abortion".

Aquilla was right in stating that this is a complicated issue. There will be no agreement using an either or stance on either side. I believe that if some sort of resolution is reached, it will be made by placing time restrictions on the practice, Something I believe can be agreed upon.

As a side note, I recall seeing a political cartoon in my Government class in high school that made quite the impression on me. Theres a man and a pregnant woman standing near eachother and it goes something along the lines of, " this man won't support his child; he's a dead-beat dad, this woman doesn't want to support her child; she's pro-choice.

You’re trying to paint me into a corner here with an implausible scenario, but I’m going to say no. I still don’t believe the government and the constitution should get involved in what goes on between a woman and her doctor, and in this I am in agreement with the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Northstar:

On your second post.

I disagree with the assertion that sex is immoral. Its a natural part of being a human being. Unless it hurts someone (and as could be presumed, I don't consider a embryo/fetus a someone), there is nothing wrong about it.

The problem that I have with this argument is that, if accepted, it creates a justification for discrimination. What is stopping a rapist from justifying his crime on the basis that he "chooses" to think of a woman as a "non-human?" What is stopping a child molestor from justifying his crime on the basis that he "chooses" to think of children as "non-humans?" What is stopping a racist from justifying his actions on the basis that he "chooses" to think of African-Americans as "non-humans?"

Abortion has been legal for at least 20 years, and none of that has occurred (so basically your wrong). Your "if we let this happen, just imagine what could be next" argument is by no means a new conjecture. Its been used throughout history, and has rarely been right. Example:

Vietnam War! If we loss communism will conquer Asia.

This argument was used as justification for the deaths of thousands.

Heres a slightly more powerful synonym to your argument:

If we start considering blacks humans, just imagine whats next! Whats to stop us from deciding that Panda's are humans to!

A.K.A, it just doesn't work that way.

As for reasons for not considering an embryo/fetus a human:

I hereby express the opinion that a embryo/fetus is not a human being (because it cannot/does not live outside of the mothers womb). You can say that my reasons are irrelevant, but thats an opinion isn't it?

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


I re-state the question posed for debate in this thread to remind people of the specific topic at hand - second and third trimester abortions and should an amendment to the US Constitution be passed that would restrict them. I remind people of this because I see this debate heading in the same direction that the national debate on abortion has taken. And, that is unfortunate.

On a national scale it seems to me that those with the extreme positions on abortion have taken center stage and in doing so managed to turn the debate into a black or white, yes or no issue with Roe V. Wade in between. The perception on the part of many who take neither extreme position seems to be that if you agree with the Roe V. Wade decision, you are for abortion and if you disagree with it, you are not and there is no place in between. Thus, many stay out of this debate. This is an unfortunate thing in my opinion because I believe it does a dis-service to an extremely important issue facing our nation. Even beyond the issue of abortion, I believe it colors the debate on a wide host of other Constitutional issues because the abortion debate commands center stage and becomes the de facto litmus test for a large number of candidates under consideration for appointment to the federal judiciary. Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. or John Marshall would have a difficult time being confirmed as even district court judges in today's atmosphere depending on their stand on a single ruling, albeit it an important one, Roe V. Wade.

I raise Roe V. Wade and it's associated rulings in this thread because in the end, that's what it's really all about. That's why the idea of a Constitutional Amendment was raised as opposed to a simple statute. As I have stated repeatedly in this thread, there is abolutely no need to overturn Roe V. Wade either directly, or indirectly through a Constitutional Amendment process to craft responsible, sensitive and moral abortion law - law that would be supported by the vast majority of the people who fall somewhere in between the extremes in this debate. People like me. All it takes to write such law is to consider what the court said in Roe V. Wade and follow the guidelines. What's so difficult about that? These legislatures are full of lawyers, surely one would think they would be capable of understanding what a statute has to say in order to pass a Constitutional challenge.

The State of Nebraska wrote a law that banned Partial Birth Abortion, or the D&X procedure that was overturned by the Supreme Court in Nebraska v. Carhart. Why? From that decision.....



Ok, so fix it. Re-write the statute to include a provision for the health of the mother and draw a clear distinction between the D&E procedure and the D&X procedure. What's so difficult about that? It's not rocket science. Except I forgot one thing.....

Not only are there a lot of lawyers in our state legislatures, there are also a whole lot of politicians there as well. Therein lies the problem I think because those politicans are swayed by the extreme groups on both sides of the issue. For those of us who support responsible abortion law that respects the rights of the mother and those of the unborn child, it's pretty frustrating.

OK, yes in a sense I guess I was trying to paint you in a corner. Not so I could pounce, but just to cut to the chase. After all the arguments about late term abortions, the bottom line is, you are pro-choice and feel that no one has a right to tell you, or any other woman what they can do with their body.

The reason you and I will never see eye to eye on this one, is that you see the issue as being between two people, a woman and her doctor. I see this issue as being between three people, a woman, her doctor and her baby.

Who's right here? We'll have to wait and see. Someday, somehow we will know for sure if the unborn child is really a sentient being, or not. No way to know for sure now.

This is why debating abortion is simply impossible. All those willing to "debate" already see the subject of the discussion as a thing, or as a person. How can anyone debate an issue when the very core or base of the issue is in question?

I appreciate the apology. How about if we agree to not address each other or refer to each other's posts until we gain each other's trust?

What I do not appreciate is how the moderators and administrators have handled the issue. Please see the Comments and Suggestions section for details.

OS, the problem with the example you offer is all the crap that would go along with it. Let's say a woman's health is in jeopardy, she is 8 months pregnant when this is discovered, she needs an abortion. Does she have time to go through the courts to gain permission for this? Or do you think any doctor out there will take the chance that the government determines there wasn't enough health risk, and will slap him with fines/jail time/loss of license? This is strictly an issue between doctor and patient. Otherwise you really are putting the unborn above the born. Not to mention that it is ridiculous to pass laws to force someone to let another organism grow in their body. Last thing we need is childbirth at gunpoint.

I intend to continue to debate in this thread and any other thread that piques my interest and address thoughts, ideas, issues and claims without regard to who advances them.

Now, back to the actual topic.......



Your concerns are echoed by the court in Casey. In that decision, the Supreme Court further refined rulings made in Roe V. Wade to provide more detailed guidelines on crafting state law. From that ruling.......