Abortion: Official discussion v.4

The argument was concerning rights to healthcare involving termination of a pregnancy, OWM, which have no Constitutional basis in the law.

It was a stretch made from Griswold about 'privacy' in using contraceptives within a marriage, which was a stretch in of itself.

The point is that I can't go to the USSC and sue to demand that I receive healthcare because I have a 'right to privacy'.

It doesn't simply involve the mother, as there is a father who's rights aren't taken into consideration at all.

 

Here's a different slant on the Abortion issue: I am willing to assume that men and women own their own bodies and what goes on in their bodies, fine; but does a doctor have the right to perform any procedure on anyone as long as they have that someone's consent?

 

Of course not. Why do you think doctors are sent to jail for helping their patients die. They can't perform procedures that adversely affect a patient's well being.

Although your question got me thinking. A lot of doctors take the Hippocratic oath.

Here's a relavent section,

I will follow that method of treatment which according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patient and abstain from whatever is harmful or mischievous. I will neither prescribe nor administer a lethal dose of medicine to any patient even if asked nor counsel any such thing nor perform the utmost respect for every human life from fertilization to natural death and reject abortion that deliberately takes a unique human life.


Don't get me wrong. I think abortion should purely be the choice of the mother. And the facilities should be available to her should she choose that option. But it's interesting that an oath from so long ago that's passed down through the ages takes such a clear stand on a controversial issue.

 

Darth Mischievous

You are making me repeat myself, and that disappoints me (and if I missed your reply, then I will be disappointed in myself).

First line of the 14th amendment:
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. (emphasis mine)

Although there is no clear cut right to an abortion in the constitution, this amendment clearly states that only those who are born are citizens of the USA. All of the protection, rights, etc, that citizens (like the mother in question) have are not granted to those not yet born. Although when it was made it was probably not intended in this way, if this amendment is to be followed it is clear that the rights of the mother legally trump what rights you might think the unborn legally have.

Jansons_Funny_Twin

The 2ed amendment says that the militia is to be well regulated; that is not the same thing as regulating the right to bear arms (which is says shall not be infringed).

 

Although when it was made it was probably not intended in this way, if this amendment is to be followed it is clear that the rights of the mother legally trump what rights you might think the unborn legally have.

By that same logic, it would be fine to shoot illegal immigrants because they are not citizens under the 14th amendment.

It does not follow that because fetuses are not citizens, murder laws don't apply to them. That would be up to the nature of the murder laws themselves.

 

JediFlyer

DM's argument is that the constitution says nothing relevant to abortions; and I am claiming that is not the case. What you have said hasn't changed that. The 'flaw' in my argument that you pointed out has nothing to do with if something is in any way supported or rejected by the constitution and as such IMO doesn't contribute much to this line of debate.

I said that we should concentrate on if abortion is right or wrong, not the legality of it. Obviously right now that is not what people want to debate. Those two are unfortunately different things.

If all there was was the constitution (the 14th amendment) and no state laws in the way, then as wrong as it may be, it would be legal to shoot illegal immigrants. Anything regarding murder is a state law and those laws only apply to citizens of the state. I pay PA taxes because I am a citizen of PA. I am not held to the state laws of say, Ohio, nor any protections that Ohio gives to only its citizens. Nor am I held to the laws, or given the perks of other countries. Nor are others who are not citizens of America held to the laws or insured the rights that Americans have.

 

Everyone who resides in the United States has the right to life, the most basic human right. Period. Trying to read loopholes into Amendments doesn't change that. If someone who has not yet been naturalized was killed, it would still be a criminal offense - even though they are not included in this amendment.

 

Yep, that added nothing. Please reconsult the Focus Group report for new Senate policy

 

See above.

 

There is a stark difference between the legality of abortion (considering the Constitution itself backs a prohibition on abortion) and the morality of it. I for one believe abortion to be murder, and therefore I am against abortion. I reject the counter-argument that it is merely my "personal beliefs" that I am attempting to force on others, for I also believe killing an adult is murder as well and have not as of yet been accused of oppressing people with that opinion.

Let's face it: all legislation is morality. "Legislating morality" is an oxi-moron. Our founders believed in free speech, and that it was wrong to inhibit it, so they legislated their morality into the Constitution. Our lawmakes think corporate scandal is wrong, so we have laws against it.

 

To make a long story short, I'm against it.

 

It does not follow that because fetuses are not citizens, murder laws don't apply to them. That would be up to the nature of the murder laws themselves.

That's an excellent point, Jediflyer: Murder laws currently do not extend to abortion; therefore, legally, abortion is not murder.

If one is to treat the deliberate election termination of pregnancy as murder, then one needs to prosecute it as such.

That means it is a capital crime, and the mother, who premeditated the act, should be executed, and the physician who performed it should go to jail for the rest of his or her life.

Are we ready for that in the US? I doubt it.

Peace,

V-03

 

I think thats a great idea.

 

I still fail to see any back up for the arguement that abortion is murder.

It's a personal belief. Much like other issues such as pre-marital sex. If you believe it fine. None of you have come up with a shredd of logical backing for others to believe it also.

To me saying you shouldn't have an abortion because it's wrong is exactly the same as saying you shouldn't be gay because it's wrong.

 

Someone used this arguement in the last thread...FID....Knightwriter....some one.

Anyway, the arguement was since pregnancy has the potential to kill a woman, how can we as a society condemn a woman to a possible death by telling her that she can't have an abortion. Now abortion, like all medical procedures, has risk, but it is a risk woman chooses to accept. It's not forced upon her.

I believe its immoral not to have legal abortion. I refuse to tell a woman she has no choice but to accept something that is possiblty fatal to her.

Personally I don't believe a fetus has any rights except what the mother affords it. It's in her body, feeding off her nutrients....ergo, she decides its collect fate.

 

In my opinion, you are misinterpreting the Tenth Amendment completely. The goal of the Tenth Amendment was to give the Federal Government definite powers - which can only be added to by amendment - and to give the States and people indefinite powers, which means everything else. If the federal government does NOT have the power to restrict abortion in the Constitution specifically, then it doesn't have the power. Period. It doesn't matter whether or not abortion was an issue then or not. All powers that the federal government doesn't have according to the constitution go to the States or people.

 

The problem with that argument is that it then makes Roe illegal, as the issue of "yes" or "no" on the legality of abortion would fall to the states exclusively, and not the Supreme Court.

No single amendment or clause of the Constitution can be controlling here; there is a mixture of arguments that can come from a mixture of amendments.

Peace,

V-03

 

The bolded area above is the major issue I have with some people's views on abortion.

"Why force a child upon someone when they're obviously not ready for a child?"

"Why should women have to keep that child to term when their life would be so much better off without it?"


Why?

Because they made the choice to have sex, so they should have to live with those consequences.


How is asking these women to take responsibility for their actions repressing them? They chose to have sex. They knew they could get pregnant if they did it. So why are they all of a sudden the victim if they get pregnant? That just doesn't make sense to me.

And have the government pay for the cost of the pregnancy if abortion is outlawed? WHY?!?!? Unless she was raped IT'S THE WOMAN'S FAULT SHE GOT PREGNANT IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!!

Since when did society sink to such a level that such a thought is even an option? Where did common-sense and the concept of personal responsibility go?

If you really want to help those women and help them better their lives their is a much better way you could do it. It is more difficult, but well worth it in the end:

I firmly believe it should be drilled into the heads of kids from the beginning of puberty on that sex is a natural thing, but that if you feel you are not ready for a child you should not have sex! Protection or not, birth control or not, kids should be taught that unless they are ready to have a child they shouldn't have sex. Abortion shouldn't even be an option, IMO, (unless of rape, danger to the mother's life or incest) because all it does is promote a society where people don't take responsibility for their choices in life.

If all people would take responsibility for their own actions I feel we would have a much better society.

The same goes for men. They are no less responsible for the situation if the woman gets pregnant. If the man isn't ready to have a child, he shouldn't have sex. PERIOD. Then we wouldn't have unwanted pregnancies. We wouldn't need abortions.

Some may say I'm a bit of an idealist. Well, I am.

Of course there are simpler solutions, but simple solutions only have short-term effects. These women getting pregnant when it is the worst thing that could happen in their lives is a short-term problem. There is a much larger issue at play that isn't even being addressed. The hard things to do have much more lasting results, and the hard thing here is learning responsibility and taking responsibility for your life and your actions.

If you really want to help these people, help them learn how to better their own lives by teaching them how to take responsibility for themselves and their actions.

 

I think it would be helpful for you to go back and read (or re-read) the first post of this thread.

 

If you are referring to me--why? I read, and re-read it, and cannot see where I "went wrong".

Have I, in the expression of my views, not done basically what everyone else in this thread has done?

Of course this issue could be debated on a purely legal standpoint, but for me it starts, and ends, at a much more basic level. I am merely expressing that view.

If this is only a thread for discussing the legal issues connected to abortion and no moral issues can be brought into the mix I think it might help if that was made more clear.


Thanks.

 

I have had enough of the regular abortion debate in the past, so I think we should talk about parental notification and late term abortions.

Honestly I don't understand how a girl can go out and have a "surgical procedure" without her parents knowing about it when she can't even DRIVE A CAR! The people that oppose this kind of no-limit abortion are those that are just too scared that they are going to loose it so any limits are bad. They should be scared, so I guess I shouldn't blame them, but even if you don't think that it is murder, why are you so against some kind of reasonable controls?

It is harder to argue the "life begins at conception" ethic because the baby can't survive on it's own (for now, we already have mice that have grown full term without ever entering a womb) but I am going to go find a picture I found of an unborn baby that was operated on with his fist clenched around the doctor's pinky finger. How much different is it from murder if the baby popped out and would start crying instead you just stick a spike in his head before he breaths. It doesn't even make sense to me, it literally boggels the mind.

 

Here here!

 

That's really not a problem for those who wish to see the law upheld. Why do you see it as a problem, V03?

 

Those women can avoid said "possible death sentance" in a very simple way--don't have sex unless you are ready for, and willing to have, a child. Simple.

So a newborn baby that is breast feeding is subject to the whim of the mother? If the mother decides to kill it that is her right?
The baby is "feeding off of her nutrients", so should this be the case?

That child is a seperate being. It may grow inside of the mother and rely on her nutrients for this, but it is a completely different person. Why shouldn't it be afforded the right to live?

Also--why should the developing, growing baby in the womb not be able to have a chance at life just because the woman decides she doesn't want it? The woman decided to have sex, which resulted in the pregnancy. She knew that could happen, yet she decided to have sex anyway. So why should the unborn child have to die because she made a bad choice and got an unfavorable outcome?