Abortion

woiyo wrote:

Yet, those moral beliefs that one has the right to kill their own child prior to birth was thrust upon this nation at the Federal Level.

This is a 2 way street and goes against what in my view is States Rights issue.

Why should people in the State of S. Dakota be forced to amend their laws to satisfy the State of California?

You have not supported your view that imposing "moral beliefs" of some of the people on all of the people within the boundaries of some state is a "states rights" issue. The Supreme Court has rejected your view of "states rights" in a multitude of decisions. If your view prevailed, then it would be constitutionally permissible for each and every state to segregate the races, to prohibit interacial marriages, to institute discrimination among different classes of persons, and to prohibit consensual sexual relations between two adult persons of the same gender.

The decision to bear or beget children is a liberty interest that belongs to a woman and she has a right to make that decision privately and without undue interference by the government. NO STATE (not California; not South Dakota) has any "state right" to deny or disparage the liberty interests of the people within its boundaries unless the state has a rational, important, or compelling interest that is served by doing so. A state purpose of imposing the "moral beliefs" of some of the people on all of the people can never constitute a legitimate state interest that would justify depriving all of the people of their liberty interests.

0 Replies

I'm not an attorney and this is not a court of law.

So humor me for a moment and explain why certain states can have a death penalty while others vote not to have one and the Feds are fine with that.

Yet, the Feds feel that is a woman wants to kill it's unborn child that supercedes a States decision to not permit it.

Seems to me the US Supreme Court sometimes rules in favor of States Rights and somethimes they do not.

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

I'm not an attorney and this is not a court of law.

So humor me for a moment and explain why certain states can have a death penalty while others vote not to have one and the Feds are fine with that.

Yet, the Feds feel that is a woman wants to kill it's unborn child that supercedes a States decision to not permit it.

Seems to me the US Supreme Court sometimes rules in favor of States Rights and somethimes they do not.

1. We are a nation of laws.

2. The United States Constitution is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. That means the Constitution trumps any state or federal law that is contrary to the Constitution.

3. The United States Constitution does NOT prohibit the death penalty; it prohibits cruel and unusual punishments and excessive fines.

4. As a general rule, the people of every state, through their elected representatives in their state legislatures, may define the elements of crimes through duly enacted criminal laws and determine the punishment for violating the law. However, state laws may not circumvent or contradict the Constitution because the Constitution is supreme.

5. The state does not have the "right" to deprive any person within its jurisdiction of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. See the Fourteenth Amendment. Due process of law consists of protection against unreasonable or abitrary substantive and procedural denials or deprivations of individual life, liberty, or property interests.

6. Inasmuch as the death penalty in and of itself is not unconstitutional, some states may elect to punish especially heinous crimes through the death penalty and other states may elect NOT to punish especially heinous crimes through the death penalty. The state decision is most likely the result of a cost/benefit analysis. Imposing the ultimate and most severest penalty known to man--the death penalty--requires costly and extensive substantive and procedural "due process" under the Fourteenth Amendment. Some states simply do not have the tax base necessary to support the costs associated with the death penalty and choose to spend their state tax dollars on other public interests.

7. Regardless of the punishment that may be imposed for crimes, the state legislature may not criminalize conduct that is constitutionally secured from infringement by arbitrary or unreasonable laws. Again, see the Fourteenth Amendment.

8. In Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court ruled that a state may not criminalize (prohibit under the penalties of law) the marriage between a black person and a white person. The individual right to marry the person of one's choice is a liberty interest that may not be infringed unless the state has a compelling interest that is served by the state infringement. The fact that some people might find the marital union between black and white persons to be morally reprehensible is not a legitimate state interest that justifies the criminal prohibition.

9. The individual right to determine one's own procreative destiny is a liberty interest that may not be infringed unless the state has a compelling interest that is served by the state infringement. The fact that some people might find the abortion of nonviable fetuses to be morally reprehensible is not a legitimate state interest that justifies the criminal prohibition against abortions. Once the fetus is viable, the state's interest in protecting potential life is compelling enough to justify the prohibition against abortions EXCEPT when necessary to save the life or health of the woman. Prior to viability, however, the decision to continue or terminate a pregnancy belongs to the woman alone in consultation with her doctor.

10. The individual right of an adult to engage in consensual and private sexual relations with another adult may not be infringed uless the state has a compelling interest that is served by the state infringement. The fact that some people might find sexual relations between two consenting adults of the same gender to be morally reprehensible is not a legitimate state interest that justifies the criminalization of their conduct. The ruling majority of a state may not impose their moral beliefs on others through the operation of state laws.

0 Replies

DTOM,

Quote:

you know that contraception is not 100% effective 100% of the time.

Abstinence works 100% of the time.
If you choose to be sexually active,then you choose to accept the consequences,including children.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

DTOM,

Quote:
you know that contraception is not 100% effective 100% of the time.

Abstinence works 100% of the time.
If you choose to be sexually active,then you choose to accept the consequences,including children.

If one chooses to be sexually active and one's birth control fails and a pregnancy results, a woman must accept the consequences of the unwanted pregnancy and determine for herself whether to continue or terminate that pregnancy. However, if the pregnancy progresses to the point where a viable fetus exists and the life or health of the mother is not jeopardized by the continued development and birth of that fetus, then yes--once a child is born, both the mother and father have legally enforceable duties and rights.

0 Replies

Why?
If the father has no control on if the baby is allowed to be born or not,then why should he be forced to have any other responsibility?

I have no control or say on you having an abortion or not,so why should I be forced to pay if I dont want to?

After all,its your body,not mine.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

DTOM,

Quote:
you know that contraception is not 100% effective 100% of the time.

Abstinence works 100% of the time.
If you choose to be sexually active,then you choose to accept the consequences,including children.

As if it's any of your bloody business what people do. We are not required to obey your stupid rules. If you want to be abstinent, be my guest. Matter of fact, It's too bad you didn't, because now you have poisoned the world with your offspring. I think you are a perfect example of what happens when fathers breed with their daughters!!

If one gets pregnant, one solution is to have it aborted, regardless of what MM thinks. The world could give a **** what MM thinks.

Anon

0 Replies

Anon-Voter wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
DTOM,

Quote:
you know that contraception is not 100% effective 100% of the time.

Abstinence works 100% of the time.
If you choose to be sexually active,then you choose to accept the consequences,including children.

As if it's any of your bloody business what people do. We are not required to obey your stupid rules. If you want to be abstinent, be my guest. Matter of fact, It's too bad you didn't, because now you have poisoned the world with your offspring. I think you are a perfect example of what happens when fathers breed with their daughters!!

If one gets pregnant, one solution is to have it aborted, regardless of what MM thinks. The world could give a **** what MM thinks.

Anon

Apparently,you do give a ****.
After all,you responded,didnt you.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Why?
If the father has no control on if the baby is allowed to be born or not,then why should he be forced to have any other responsibility?

I have no control or say on you having an abortion or not,so why should I be forced to pay if I dont want to?

After all,its your body,not mine.

A woman's decision to determine her own procreative destiny does not require your manly approval or disapproval based on your financial concerns. Many states attempt to discourage abortions that would otherwise take place due to financial considerations through their "informed consent" requirements by informing the pregnant woman that the father must legally support the child and the state will enforce that obligation. Don't pay your support obligations if you don't want to and, by all means, take your "I told her to get an abortion" defense to court.

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

I'm not an attorney and this is not a court of law.

So humor me for a moment and explain why certain states can have a death penalty while others vote not to have one and the Feds are fine with that.

Yet, the Feds feel that is a woman wants to kill it's unborn child that supercedes a States decision to not permit it.

Seems to me the US Supreme Court sometimes rules in favor of States Rights and somethimes they do not.

States rights are only important when you've been outvoted (2000 elections). The Bush Administration appears to not only love big government, but big budgets, and Federal control in all things!

Anon

0 Replies

DTOM writes

Quote:

ah-hah! so there it is. what you've just said is basically; "people have no business engaging in sex unless it's for the purpose of having a child".

No, but that's the sort of straw man I would expect most Lefties to build out of what I did say. Most uncharacteristic of you though, my friend.

What I've said is not even basically but absolutely it is my opinion that people have no business engaging in sex unless they are prepared to accept the responsibility for any consequences of that choice. There is a huge difference beween that and what you just said.

Quote:

if you don't believe in having an abortion, don't have one. it's that easy.

In my opinion, you cannot make a moral choice about abortion without making a moral choice about whether that involves a separate life and without making a moral choice about ending a life that you helped to begin. Once you put a passenger in your car, you are no longer just responsible for your own safety and well being but you have accepted a moral responsibility for the safety and well being of that passenger as well. I think most prolifers are thinking about two lives at stake in this case, not just one.

And I think most prolifers would agree with me that they are convicted that the unborn child is deserving of life, nurture, care, concern as is the born child. In other words, the unborn child is a human being too but simply a very young one.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Why?
If the father has no control on if the baby is allowed to be born or not,then why should he be forced to have any other responsibility?

I have no control or say on you having an abortion or not,so why should I be forced to pay if I dont want to?

After all,its your body,not mine.

I'm gonna have to agree with this. It seems like a bit of a double standard to me. When it comes to the abortion, "it's the woman's body" and the man has no say, but once the baby is born, all of a sudden, it takes two to tango.

For the record, I would never ditch my responsibility as a father, but not because some court says so. It's because I'm a man and it's the right thing to do.

0 Replies

IronLionZion wrote:

echi wrote:
IronLionZion wrote:
Of course it's human. So are my nail clippings. It is not sentient. This is pretty much unanimously agreed upon by, like, all scientists/sane people everywhere.

Is that your argument, then? These people that you look up to say it's so, and you just agree? C'mon, man. Try a little harder, eh?

You need to go back to analogy school.

I did not make an analogy, and you did not provide any evidence or reason to support your position.
Just wondering, ILZ, are you rasta?

0 Replies

hmmm... foxy, here's what you first said:

Foxfyre wrote:

Most pro-lifers I think put the responsibility for that squarely on the heads of the parents who have no business risking pregnancy unless they can provide a child with what s/he needs.

followed by;

Foxfyre wrote:

DTOM writes

Quote:
ah-hah! so there it is. what you've just said is basically; "people have no business engaging in sex unless it's for the purpose of having a child".

No, but that's the sort of straw man I would expect most Lefties to build out of what I did say. Most uncharacteristic of you though, my friend.

and then echoed your original comment;

Foxfyre wrote:

What I've said is not even basically but absolutely it is my opinion that people have no business engaging in sex unless they are prepared to accept the responsibility for any consequences of that choice. There is a huge difference beween that and what you just said.

you don't see how that can be taken ? in your statement, the lone consequence is to bear a child. however, in reality, the choice to make the tuff decision to terminate the pregnancy is also a consequence.

it still comes across as, "don't have sex unless you are 100% willing to have a child".

and in the life of a person of faith, or whatever, that's a fine outlook; "go forth and multiply".

that is your right.

but it gets dodgy when a person of a particular faith insists that everyone believe as s/he does and be bound by those guidelines.

your faith, your rules. be my guest. the difference between the pro-life and the pro-choice view of things is this;

pro-choice indicates just that. "you have the choice and you are the one to make it".

if you don't believe in abortion, do__ not__ have__ one.

the pro-life view is; " i do not believe in abortion. therefore, you should not and i will insist that you do not and moreover will physically restrain you from doing so. you will live by my rules of religion."

please explain to me why, realistically, i or anyone else should be forced to live out my life under the yolk of someone else's religion. not just on this issue, but on any of the plethora of wedgey little numbers currently in play.

that certainly is not democracy or freedom of religion. that looks more like theocracy.

now, just for the info value, i'm linking to the latest polls on abortion. they are somewhat revealing as to how many different ways the issue gets viewed.

but the quick version is that only about 26% or so are in favor of total ban on all abortion. not a majority by any stretch is it ?

http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

0 Replies

I wanted to give my views on abortion before reading others thoughts on the subject, otherwise I'd end up with everyone elses thoughts in my head after 42 pages of thoughts and not my own.

In the religion & spirituality abortion thread I stated that god has a way of showing one extreme in the face of another and therefore all life is considered sacred and part of gods plan. This is a nice ideal however this doesn't take a look at the real world, to say there is never a situation where an unborn child would be best is narrow minded. To view the subject from a real world stand point and go beyond idealist theories it's best to look at it from someone put in this situation of unprecedented uncertainty. First I would look at the case in the present legal system where a mother and/or father decide that an abortion is in fact the correct course of action. I've known individuals who have been faced by this decision and although they were never open in the slightest about this, I know it's something which had effects lasting years. One case involved two very close friends of mine who were great together even if their relationship was strung together with disfunction. As good of a couple they may have appeared to be on the outside, on the inside after practically living with them for some time, I saw just how mentally and physically abusive the relationship could get. Finding myself involved in this situation was quite difficult to deal with and I would have considered myself a full grown adult at the time. Eventually I found out about a previous abortion between them and could see the effect it had on each of them in their own way. The question comes to mind of whether this disfunction was the cause of the abortion or a consequence, knowing them both intimately following this event and knowing some of their relationship before I can guess that it was the cause. A child brought into this would have simply been a burden on it's self and everyone around it, perhaps it took an abortion (maybe even two) along with a little of my own intervention to make these two realize just how wrong they were for each other regardless of the good times. Each of them have moved on since, and each is in a relationship with another who is undoubtedly their soul mate. One I know for sure has two kids and is married, the other I believe has children on the way.

Now lets put ourselves in the shoes of someone who decides an abortion is not the correct action to take, one can only imagine what it must be like to go through this process. Our entireexistencee, countless years of natural selection and survival of thefittestt have brought us to be for the sole purpose of procreation, several specialized brain chemicals related to bonding attachment lust love etc etc. With all of these chemicals at work and our entire lives worth of upbringingcomingg to a head you can imagine this is something one wouldn't take lightly. Being in a situation where this is a serious consideration isn't easy whether there is a choice to be made or not. What affect could this deliberation have on the mother, child and perhaps father? Should She/They decided to go ahead everything is just fine isn't it? Well this is something I've recently found myself wondering, is it possible that the mind set of a potential family going into the creation of a life is just as important as the life being created it's self? Could the pressing decision have lasting effects following the birth regardless of how strongly and passionately one decides for life. What if the value of a life is the only thing on a mothers mind rather then a question of life, how rather then if.

Posing the question to those in desperate circumstances of whether or not a life should be created causes undue stress and creates unconscious resentment while potentially bringing the life long struggle of reaffirming whether doing what you knew was right actually was the correct action. So if theres times when one situation calls for one situation just as strongly as the next calls for the other, whats the solution? Well the only solution which I can think of is beyond controversial and i'm not even certain it's one which I can condone. Take the choice out of the confused and frightened persons hands and put it into anothers. Remove this burden from a potential artists hands and put it into anothers who doesn't need them for the delicate task of molding a life. Highly trained individuals who can consult a potential families well-being and given those certain circumstances induce a miscarriage. This leaves the weight of ending a life off an already heavy shoulder and leaves no room for doubt to the sanctity of existence for anothers mind facing a life long task. I have countless issues with this idea, so many that I can't even put them together. Still I believe this is another potential alternative if even left to a simple ideal.

0 Replies

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

hmmm... foxy, here's what you first said:

Foxfyre wrote:
Most pro-lifers I think put the responsibility for that squarely on the heads of the parents who have no business risking pregnancy unless they can provide a child with what s/he needs.

followed by;

Foxfyre wrote:
DTOM writes

Quote:
ah-hah! so there it is. what you've just said is basically; "people have no business engaging in sex unless it's for the purpose of having a child".

No, but that's the sort of straw man I would expect most Lefties to build out of what I did say. Most uncharacteristic of you though, my friend.

and then echoed your original comment;

Foxfyre wrote:
What I've said is not even basically but absolutely it is my opinion that people have no business engaging in sex unless they are prepared to accept the responsibility for any consequences of that choice. There is a huge difference beween that and what you just said.

Quote:

you don't see how that can be taken ? in your statement, the lone consequence is to bear a child. however, in reality, the choice to make the tuff decision to terminate the pregnancy is also a consequence.

it still comes across as, "don't have sex unless you are 100% willing to have a child".

Sure I can see how that can be taken as you took it, but it would be taken that way only by those who want to change the premise of the statement instead of what it actually is. But for this issue, then yes, unless you are 100% willing to accept the consequence of conceiving a child, don't have sex. That does not mean that you cannot implement family planning or take measures to postpone children. But I have two wonderful kids both conceived while using birth control and both entirely unplanned and unwanted at the time they were conceived. It happens. So we dealt with it and each is one of my greastest joys.

So my counsel to all is to prepare yourself for the responsibilities of adulthood, including an unexpected little bundle of joy, before getting naked with some guy or gal. That does not translate into not using birth control to hopefully delay the blessed event.

Quote:

and in the life of a person of faith, or whatever, that's a fine outlook; "go forth and multiply".

that is your right.

but it gets dodgy when a person of a particular faith insists that everyone believe as s/he does and be bound by those guidelines.

your faith, your rules. be my guest.

And here you build another strawman for in no place in my argument did I express religious faith or a 'go forth and multiply' mentality as any basis for my views on this subject, nor did I in any way even suggest that anyone be bound by the guidelines of my (or anybody else's) faith.

Or are you one of those who thinks that only the religious have moral values? Or that only people of faith express them? Or that people of faith can't express them because if they do they cram their religious faith down everybody else's throat?

Quote:

the difference between the pro-life and the pro-choice view of things is this;

pro-choice indicates just that. "you have the choice and you are the one to make it".

if you don't believe in abortion, do__ not__ have__ one.

the pro-life view is; " i do not believe in abortion. therefore, you should not and i will insist that you do not and moreover will physically restrain you from doing so. you will live by my rules of religion."

please explain to me why, realistically, i or anyone else should be forced to live out my life under the yolk of someone else's religion. not just on this issue, but on any of the plethora of wedgey little numbers currently in play.

that certainly is not democracy or freedom of religion. that looks more like theocracy.

I am certain this is your view of the pro life view. I think you would have a hard time pulling any of that out of anything I've said. You really are fixated on the religion thing aren't you. Do you think that is why most pro-abortion-rights people are so prejudicial and so uncomplimentary toward prolifers? It's the religion they hate? If so, how do you explain the agnostics and non-religious who oppose abortion? Or the many religious who support abortion rights?

Do you know any pro lifers who think abortion for any reason or at any time should be outlawed? I suppose there may be some out there, but I've never met one.

And in your entire argument here, you carefully skirted the point of mine. The issue for pro lifers is that once a baby is on the way, there are two lives to consider, not one. And as yet, I have yet to meet any pro-abortion person--I know, I know, you all prefer to be called pro-abortion-rights or pro choice instead of pro-abortion--who is willing to even discuss that component. They either want to reduce all pre-born people into 'clumps of cells' or refuse to admit a forming human being is a person, or they just skirt and avoid that discussion as you just did.

Quote:

now, just for the info value, i'm linking to the latest polls on abortion. they are somewhat revealing as to how many different ways the issue gets viewed.

but the quick version is that only about 26% or so are in favor of total ban on all abortion. not a majority by any stretch is it ?

http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

As for a ban on all abortions, I'll refer you to my earlier comment on that.

And for your edification, I'll leave you with this site:
http://www.visembryo.com/baby/

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

The issue for pro lifers is that once a baby is on the way, there are two lives to consider, not one. And as yet, I have yet to meet any pro-abortion person--I know, I know, you all prefer to be called pro-abortion-rights or pro choice instead of pro-abortion--who is willing to even discuss that component. They either want to reduce all pre-born people into 'clumps of cells' or refuse to admit a forming human being is a person, or they just skirt and avoid that discussion as you just did.

People REFUSE to accept your thesis that a fetus is a person because it's not true. What you blindly accept as an unsupportable fact is, in reality, a fiction. Ask anyone who has had a miscarriage: Did she flush a person down the toilet, report the death of a person to law enforcement authorities, and apply for a death certificate? I think not. What was flushed was the remnants of what might have been a potential for life, but not a person.

0 Replies

"People REFUSE to accept your thesis that a fetus is a person because it's not true."

Make that SOME PEOPLE. You don't speak for everyone.

0 Replies

woiyo:

I suppose SOME PEOPLE can crack an egg in a bowl and throw some flour on top and call it a cake. But it's not a cake.

I don't speak for everyone, just those people with some measurable amount of common sense.

0 Replies

I also suppose some people have the arrogence to think they created science and are the definitive word on when life begins.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know