Is abortion really wrong?

Brandon9000 wrote:

edgarblythe wrote:
I have plenty of idea, but you would only start a prolonged attack on the parts that I would bring up. But, your arguments would be irrelevant in the light of the legality established already. I'm going to bed.

I'm sure that you could make the most erudite pronouncements about how the Constitution protects the right to an abortion. How clever of you to keep them entirely to yourself.

The sort of discussion you have in mind is an exercise in futility. The Constitution has always been and will always be interpreted to reflect the mores of the present. THe express desires of the framers are given lip service, but current public expectation, as well as politics, determines the final actual practice. The framers knew the world would change, and they expected the Constitution to change also, else they would not have provided the right to amend. Purists will always be disappointed and spend countless hours explaining why the Constitution is being disrespected. Of course, specific language granting a right to abortion is not there. So what? People are smart enough to read between the lines.

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

edgarblythe wrote:
Intrepid wrote:
edgarblythe wrote:
This is a ridiculous discussion we're having. It's like being on an evolutuon or religion thread.

In case you lept before you looked, this IS a religious thread.

Religious for the religious maybe, but we have not been discussing religion.

More of your word games? The fact is this IS a religion thread.

It is posted in the religion forum. It is not specifically a religion based thread. Brandon wants to discuss the Constitution, and others want to discuss doctors. Why people come into a thread looking for every speck of contention they can find, relevant or not, I could never understand.

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
edgarblythe wrote:
I have plenty of idea, but you would only start a prolonged attack on the parts that I would bring up. But, your arguments would be irrelevant in the light of the legality established already. I'm going to bed.

I'm sure that you could make the most erudite pronouncements about how the Constitution protects the right to an abortion. How clever of you to keep them entirely to yourself.

The sort of discussion you have in mind is an exercise in futility. The Constitution has always been and will always be interpreted to reflect the mores of the present. THe express desires of the framers are given lip service, but current public expectation, as well as politics, determines the final actual practice. The framers knew the world would change, and they expected the Constitution to change also, else they would not have provided the right to amend. Purists will always be disappointed and spend countless hours explaining why the Constitution is being disrespected. Of course, specific language granting a right to abortion is not there. So what? People are smart enough to read between the lines.

How about non-specific language granting the right to an abortion? How about a vague hint granting the right to an abortion? How about an indirect suggestion that abortion is a protected right?

0 Replies

Due process, right of privacy. I don't plan to go any further with this infantile banner.

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
edgarblythe wrote:
I have plenty of idea, but you would only start a prolonged attack on the parts that I would bring up. But, your arguments would be irrelevant in the light of the legality established already. I'm going to bed.

I'm sure that you could make the most erudite pronouncements about how the Constitution protects the right to an abortion. How clever of you to keep them entirely to yourself.

The sort of discussion you have in mind is an exercise in futility. The Constitution has always been and will always be interpreted to reflect the mores of the present. THe express desires of the framers are given lip service, but current public expectation, as well as politics, determines the final actual practice. The framers knew the world would change, and they expected the Constitution to change also, else they would not have provided the right to amend. Purists will always be disappointed and spend countless hours explaining why the Constitution is being disrespected. Of course, specific language granting a right to abortion is not there. So what? People are smart enough to read between the lines.

Yes the Framers knew the world would change and provided a mechanism to amend.

But until an amendment deals with the issue of abortion, the idea that there is a 'constitutional' right to abortion is a fantasy.

The Supreme court was unable to cite a constitutional right to abortion as you well know.

If there had been one, it would have been the centerpiece of Roe v Wade. That didn't happen. The court took the easy way out and said that since no prior decision could be cited that established the personhood of the unborn, that they would not do so either.

The Court completely dodged the central issue and decided wrongly ( as they had in Dred Scott ) that an entire class of human beings did not deserve protection as 'persons' under the Constitution.

The same political party applauded both decisions.

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

Due process, right of privacy. I don't plan to go any further with this infantile banner.

What aspect of asking you to back up an assertion you posted is infantile?

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

Those who were defending Scott's sound "logic" are also encoraged to reply.

Changing a definition to fit one's preconceived notions is a form of question begging. It is, therefore, fallacious reasoning.

I'll add that saying someone's reasoning is always wrong is an argumentum ad hominem, while saying that someone's reasoning is always right is a type of an argumentum ad verecundiam. Both are fallacies.

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

Scott777ab wrote:
Eorl wrote:

I see. Wiki's definition of murder does not fit, so you need to make your own. So what, then, is immoral killing Scott? Killing that you, personally, find immoral? But not killing that I find immoral?

You are saying it's moral for you to kill a doctor or a woman that has an abortion...but it's immoral for them to kill a foetus? What do you base that reasoning on Scott?

Those who were defending Scott's sound "logic" are also encoraged to reply.

True or False? They taking of an innocents life is Immoral?
Simple question.
My answer will be based on your answer of this question.

So you wanna play word games. Well, OK, I guess that's better than just shouting your opinion.

My answer is : No, not always true.

Your turn:

True or false: The cold blooded premeditated killing of one human being by another is immoral.

False

The cold blooded premeditated killing of an innocent human being by another is immoral. And sense you have such a warped sense of humanity any futher discussion of Abortion with you is a complete waste of my time. Have fun believing in LEGAL MURDER, you MURDER.

0 Replies

Come on now, Scott... Don't give up on the little babies!

0 Replies

No decision of the Supreme Court in the twentieth century has been as controversial as the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision holding that women have a right to choose to have an abortion during the first two trimesters of a pregnancy. Attorneys for Roe had suggested several constitutional provisions might be violated by the Texas law prohibiting abortions except when necessary to save the life of the mother. The law was said to have been an establishment of religion in violation of the First Amendment, unconstitionally vague (the ground used in Blackmun's first draft of his opinion), a denial of equal protection of the laws, and a violation of the Ninth Amendment (which states that certain rights not specified in the first eight amendments are reserved to the people). The Court in Roe chose, however, to base its decision on the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the so-called "right of privacy" protected in earlier decisions such as Griswold v Connecticut (striking down a ban on the use, sale, and distribution of contraceptives). Deciding HOW to protect the right to an abortion proved as difficult. Justice Blackmun's approach, one clerk at the time said, "As a practical matter, was not a bad decision--but as a constitutional matter it was absurd." Roe's trimester-based analysis generally prohibits regulation of abortions in the first trimester, allows regulation for protecting the health of the mother in the second trimester, and allows complete abortion bans after six months, the approximate time a fetus becomes viable.

It was assumed by most observers of the Court in 1992 that Planned Parenthood v Casey would be the vehicle for for overturning Roe. Instead, three swing members of the Court (Souter, O'Connor, Kennedy) joined in an opinion retaining the core right recognized in Roe while rejecting the trimester-based framework. The three justices used stare decisis to justify their decision. Casey leaves courts to grapple with abortion regulations through application of a new test: Does the regulation in question place an undue burden on a woman's right to choose an abortion? Using this new test, courts have upheld some abortion regulations (such as 24-hour waiting periods) while striking down others.

I took this from a Planned Parenthood site.

0 Replies

That statement plus this restating of my position is my final word. You people can argue the legitemacy of the Supremes' decision all you want. It don't change a thing on the ground.

The Constitution has always been and will always be interpreted to reflect the mores of the present. THe express desires of the framers are given lip service, but current public expectation, as well as politics, determines the final actual practice. The framers knew the world would change, and they expected the Constitution to change also, else they would not have provided the right to amend. Purists will always be disappointed and spend countless hours explaining why the Constitution is being disrespected. Of course, specific language granting a right to abortion is not there. So what? People are smart enough to read between the lines.

0 Replies

Scott777ab wrote:

And sense you have such a warped sense of humanity any futher discussion of Abortion with you is a complete waste of my time. Have fun believing in LEGAL MURDER, you MURDER.

My warped sense of humanity is the generally accepted version throughout the civilised world....not that that makes it "right", but if by "warped" you intend somehow abnormal, or different, then you are wrong....it is you who is largley regarded as "warped".

I'm glad you understand that trying to convince me that abortion is murder and should be punishable by death....by yelling those words at me....is a waste of your time. I should remind you, however, that the law mostly reflects my current position, and that it is you who needs to convince people like me that you are right ..... if you want anything to change.

Honestly, I think your preparedness to kill doctors, women, even children over your perception of a foetus as a person (contrary to medical and scientific evidence) looks a lot more "warped" to me. It is your certainty that makes you dangerous and scary Scott. You haven't told us where this all this certainty and this apparent power of life and death comes from Scott. Perhaps you'd like to now?

I think it's sad that you only want to discuss abortion with people who agree with you. It implies your mind is absolutely closed. Can I suggest you talk to people like "real life", who is entirely on your side, but at least has the capacity to understand a rational argument (even if he ignores it Wink

), to help you see there are better ways getting your point across?

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Eorl wrote:
Those who were defending Scott's sound "logic" are also encoraged to reply.

Changing a definition to fit one's preconceived notions is a form of question begging. It is, therefore, fallacious reasoning.

I'll add that saying someone's reasoning is always wrong is an argumentum ad hominem, while saying that someone's reasoning is always right is a type of an argumentum ad verecundiam. Both are fallacies.

Agreed Joe,

I'll happily learn from those mistakes if I've made them, but I don't see that I have. Feel free to show me otherwise. (I did ad hom Scott earlier with the words "not real bright" but I acknowledged that.)

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

That statement plus this restating of my position is my final word. You people can argue the legitemacy of the Supremes' decision all you want. It don't change a thing on the ground.

The Constitution has always been and will always be interpreted to reflect the mores of the present. THe express desires of the framers are given lip service, but current public expectation, as well as politics, determines the final actual practice. The framers knew the world would change, and they expected the Constitution to change also, else they would not have provided the right to amend. Purists will always be disappointed and spend countless hours explaining why the Constitution is being disrespected. Of course, specific language granting a right to abortion is not there. So what? People are smart enough to read between the lines.

Well, since you seem to have no problem with the Court interpreting the Constitution rather broadly based on present mores, then I certainly expect that if Roe is overturned based on contemporary mores (today's younger generation is MUCH more pro-life than it's parents or grandparents. Perhaps it is the realization that if you were born after 1973, you coulda been toast. Or perhaps it is the increase in medical knowledge of the status of the unborn. Not too many people prior to 1973 had seen their baby, arms and legs moving and bouncing, on a sonogram in the first trimester.) that you should have no problem accepting that as well.

No need to 'read between the lines' in search of some imagined meaning when you can see the baby for yourself in utero. It's a baby, not a blob of tissue, and today's generation is smart enough to see that for themselves.

0 Replies

Don't be a goober all your life, real life.

0 Replies

Thanks for your concern, EB. It's good to know you're looking out for me, my friend.

btw if you have never seen a sonogram in the first trimester, it is really eye opening. Here is a link to one

http://mclewin.com/node/484?PHPSESSID=e818a59c3f18e0c367fbf00113cc384d

with the mother's short description of the baby's movement and her ability to clearly see arms and legs at this early stage (the baby is still miniature, just a few cm long, really, but fully articulated limbs are evident).

Of course by that point, the unborn has already had a beating heart since before the end of the 4th week.

And some more at http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.kiddlive.com/KellieBaby/032306.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.kiddlive.com/KellieBaby/baby.html&h=281&w=400&sz=30&hl=en&start=7&tbnid=P33qkeyF3yflTM:&tbnh=87&tbnw=124&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dsonogram%2B8%2Bweeks%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26safe%3Dactive%26sa%3DN

And some very cool photos (not sonogram) at http://pregnancy.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=pregnancy&zu=http%3A//www.w-cpc.org/fetal1.html

Yeah I know. Passing baby pics around is something that only a goober would do. Oh well.

Hope all the little goobers in your life ( or grand-goobers) are doing well.

0 Replies

The Facts:
a) Abortion is the "abortion" of a human life.
What people are discussing is whether or not Abortion is equal to killing.
b) Abortion is a choice, it is up to the individual to decide.
A2k'ers are also discussing whether or not the choice should be removed.
c) Abortion is useful in the removal of unhealthy, brain-damaged, under-developing fetus's.
It is still being discussed whether or-not this is immoral.

To me, abortion is the extinguishing of an undeveloped soul. It is not killing, as I feel that the un-selfsufficiancy of a fetus voids it from being defined as alive. It is however an extended part of the mothers body with the potential to become a human life. I think it should be up to the individual and the individual alone whether or not to abort. As for utilizing abortion as a means to prevent the birth of a defective infant, I still feel that the medical sector lay the facts in front the individual to make a educated decision.

Yes pictures of disposed infants is horrible, but so is war, and rotten.com. That doesn't stop people from killing others and themselves. No matter how strongly some of you oppose it, like drug prohibition, people still do it.

Abortion beats authorities finding infants in trash cans.

0 Replies

It is the extinguishing of what would have become a person, but was not sufficiently developed. Therefore, you are all wet, Xenoche and others.

0 Replies

I am wet (please clarify, I am noob ok).

We can all harp on about what has'nt yet become of another persons child, or we can just except the fact that its none of our buisiness what an individual does to his or her bodies (i'm I correct, or are the bodies of the general populus property of the state where you reside?).

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

It is the extinguishing of what would have become a person, but was not sufficiently developed. Therefore, you are all wet, Xenoche and others.

No, it is the killing of a developing person that you cannot see.

Funny that Xenoche seems to agree with you and you tell him/her that they are all wet. Shocked

0 Replies

Is abortion really wrong?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know