A question for the pro-abortion aka pro-choice crowd

[logical4u]

You are talking facts, law and The United States Constitution.
Far over their heads. All they understand is emotion.

Which is fine, provided they don’t try to codify their emotion.

13. Is the opinion of the court always sacrosanct in all matters of morality or, in this context, abortion? Or is there a higher authority than even that of the courts?

Again, the issue is privacy rights, not abortion. An American citizen, a pregnant woman, less than 5 months pregnant, may not have her right to privacy preempted if an abortion statute manifests an ‘undue burden’ on that right (Casey, Ibid.). Each statute and situation is examined in the context of what constitutes an ‘undue burden.’

Per the right to privacy, therefore, the courts have wisely deferred the issue to the individual, her family, and her moral/religious beliefs; the government is completely inappropriate to make such decisions, the involvement of the state in this issue would be disastrous.



Your observation is predicated on a misunderstanding of the judicial process. The courts are not ‘used,’ except by a citizen to find relief from the state when the state violates the citizen’s rights. Judges don’t ‘agree’ or ‘disagree’ with the law, they interpret the law in the context of the facts of the case before them, guided by precedent and relevant case law. Judges who deviate from precedent often have their rulings overturned on appeal. Or if upheld, it’s because the judge made an accurate and compelling case for his decision, affirmed by a higher court.

Any judge who tries to ‘use the law to his own advantage,’ whatever that’s supposed to mean, will rarely be successful upon appeal, if ever.

And then there are those who will offer a court's opinion as the final answer rather than allow an open debate on the subject.

The doctrine of stare decisis provides the needed resolution to a given issue, the courts can not be forever changing precedent to conform to changes in politics; the genius of the Anglo-American judicial tradition of common law is the understanding that after many judges rule the same way over many years, a fundamental truth is realized, providing guidance to future jurists.

Indeed, that an issue such as abortion becomes settled law allows the debate to move to a more appropriate and productive venue for actual resolution.

Let’s assume abortion were again banned, abortions wouldn’t stop, they’d simply move underground; and such a ban would be as much of a failure as Prohibition during the 1920’s or the current failed ‘war on drugs’ today.

Abortion is a difficult and complicated problem, it can’t be ‘solved’ through legislation.

I wonder if they disallow emotion in all moral decisions?

Emotion is rarely beneficial in any decision.

I believe the problem most conservatives have with abortion is the gov't is encouraging it. Planned Parenthood has clinics set-up, a HUGE percentage of their business is abortions. The taxpayer subsidizes that. The taxpayer is paying for abortions (against many religions' beliefs). The gov't pays the salaries of people who promote abortion as an answer to immoral sex, after encouraging immoral sex (an sex ed class in schools does not present the moral side to sex).

There is no way to stop a woman from killing her child (born or unborn). The problem we have: lying to "mothers" about what they are carrying; it is a baby. It will not morph into a giraffe, or a rhinocerous, or a horse, or a kitten. It is a baby. Children should not be encouraged to experiment with sex (a la sex ed) and then be encouraged to murder the result of their experimentation. There is no way to "enforce" a law against abortion. There is a way to discourage "abortion mills" (where many mothers are butchered right alongside their babies, but the press and the left rarely mention that point, you don't need to be a "good" doctor to destroy life), so the taxpayer does not get left holding the bag. You say you are for the freedom of "choice"? Don't you want mothers to make the most informed decision possible?

 

[logical4u]

You are talking facts, law and The United States Constitution.
Far over their heads. All they understand is emotion.

Which is fine, provided they don’t try to codify their emotion.

13. Is the opinion of the court always sacrosanct in all matters of morality or, in this context, abortion? Or is there a higher authority than even that of the courts?

Again, the issue is privacy rights, not abortion. An American citizen, a pregnant woman, less than 5 months pregnant, may not have her right to privacy preempted if an abortion statute manifests an ‘undue burden’ on that right (Casey, Ibid.). Each statute and situation is examined in the context of what constitutes an ‘undue burden.’

Per the right to privacy, therefore, the courts have wisely deferred the issue to the individual, her family, and her moral/religious beliefs; the government is completely inappropriate to make such decisions, the involvement of the state in this issue would be disastrous.



Your observation is predicated on a misunderstanding of the judicial process. The courts are not ‘used,’ except by a citizen to find relief from the state when the state violates the citizen’s rights. Judges don’t ‘agree’ or ‘disagree’ with the law, they interpret the law in the context of the facts of the case before them, guided by precedent and relevant case law. Judges who deviate from precedent often have their rulings overturned on appeal. Or if upheld, it’s because the judge made an accurate and compelling case for his decision, affirmed by a higher court.

Any judge who tries to ‘use the law to his own advantage,’ whatever that’s supposed to mean, will rarely be successful upon appeal, if ever.

And then there are those who will offer a court's opinion as the final answer rather than allow an open debate on the subject.

The doctrine of stare decisis provides the needed resolution to a given issue, the courts can not be forever changing precedent to conform to changes in politics; the genius of the Anglo-American judicial tradition of common law is the understanding that after many judges rule the same way over many years, a fundamental truth is realized, providing guidance to future jurists.

Indeed, that an issue such as abortion becomes settled law allows the debate to move to a more appropriate and productive venue for actual resolution.

Let’s assume abortion were again banned, abortions wouldn’t stop, they’d simply move underground; and such a ban would be as much of a failure as Prohibition during the 1920’s or the current failed ‘war on drugs’ today.

Abortion is a difficult and complicated problem, it can’t be ‘solved’ through legislation.

I wonder if they disallow emotion in all moral decisions?

Emotion is rarely beneficial in any decision.

Then why are we using "emotion" to determine what is in schools and how much is spent on education? Why does the left constantly use "it is for the children", to control the general population?

 

[koshergrl]

They also use it to try to terrify old people into voting the way they want. "Vote this way or social security will END!"

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Then why are we using "emotion" to determine what is in schools and how much is spent on education? Why does the left constantly use "it is for the children", to control the general population?

No idea, this doesn’t make any sense.

All I can tell you is investing in education is indeed a sound investment in the future of the Nation, not just for children. But I have no idea what it has to do with the thread topic.

They also use it to try to terrify old people into voting the way they want. "Vote this way or social security will END!"

Another non sequitur.

Given the fact that overturning Griswold/Roe/Casey and banning abortion again won’t work - in that abortion will continue, it will simply be kept out of sight, out of mind - what can those opposed to abortion do to end the practice?

And overturning Griswold/Roe/Casey would have serious consequences with regard to Americans’ privacy rights, establishing a dangerous precedent of allowing greater government interference in our personal lives.

Overturning Griswold/Roe/Casey, therefore, would have no effect on ending abortion and undermine Americans’ civil liberties.

Rather than prescribing an aspirin for a brain tumor, those opposed to abortion need to think seriously and comprehensively as how to address the social, economic, and educational factors that contribute to unwanted pregnancies.

Bemoaning the loss of ‘morality’ and ‘personal responsibility’ may provide some rhetorical satisfaction for conservatives, but will have no impact on the problem of abortion otherwise.

 

[SigTurner]

Why do women abort their babies?

I understand there may be an ample number of reasons, but what, in your opinion would be the concensus?

I think it's purely for selfish reasons for the most part.

Your thoughts.

Women do not abort babies. They abort ZEFs. Babies are postnatal by definition.

 

[logical4u]

Then why are we using "emotion" to determine what is in schools and how much is spent on education? Why does the left constantly use "it is for the children", to control the general population?

No idea, this doesn’t make any sense.

All I can tell you is investing in education is indeed a sound investment in the future of the Nation, not just for children. But I have no idea what it has to do with the thread topic.

They also use it to try to terrify old people into voting the way they want. "Vote this way or social security will END!"

Another non sequitur.

Given the fact that overturning Griswold/Roe/Casey and banning abortion again won’t work - in that abortion will continue, it will simply be kept out of sight, out of mind - what can those opposed to abortion do to end the practice?

And overturning Griswold/Roe/Casey would have serious consequences with regard to Americans’ privacy rights, establishing a dangerous precedent of allowing greater government interference in our personal lives.

Overturning Griswold/Roe/Casey, therefore, would have no effect on ending abortion and undermine Americans’ civil liberties.

Rather than prescribing an aspirin for a brain tumor, those opposed to abortion need to think seriously and comprehensively as how to address the social, economic, and educational factors that contribute to unwanted pregnancies.

Bemoaning the loss of ‘morality’ and ‘personal responsibility’ may provide some rhetorical satisfaction for conservatives, but will have no impact on the problem of abortion otherwise.

I see. Don't use emotion: it is for the well being of the the nation to invest in children (but it is perfectly acceptable to murder them on a large scale before they are ever born.
Don't mention "morals" or "personal responsibility", but protest the lack of morals on wall street?

Do you even think about what you are saying???

 

[logical4u]

Why do women abort their babies?

I understand there may be an ample number of reasons, but what, in your opinion would be the concensus?

I think it's purely for selfish reasons for the most part.

Your thoughts.

Women do not abort babies. They abort ZEFs. Babies are postnatal by definition.

Ask a pregnant woman what she is carrying. I can guarentee you that she will not say a "ZEF". Because the baby has not reached a particular age, it is okay to MURDER the baby? The corruption of your statement is distasteful.

 

[Gadawg73]

I am adamantly opposed to abortion[...]

Why?

The same reason I oppose most entitlement programs, pollution, laziness, obesity and a thousand other things humans do that I believe are wrong.

 

[Gadawg73]

If abortion is murder as a result of a woman ending her baby's life how come when abortion was illegal women were NEVER prosecuted for it?

 

[Foxfyre]

If abortion is murder as a result of a woman ending her baby's life how come when abortion was illegal women were NEVER prosecuted for it?

Because the woman didn't end the pregnancy. A doctor or back alley quack ended it. And they WERE once prosecuted and/or assessed huge fines when they were caught and, if the offense was egregious enough, had their license to practice medicine revoked.

So if the doctor is taken away, then women will resort to coat hangers or other highly dangerous means to end an unwanted pregnancy. Some will that is true and that is why I prefer to leave abortion as a matter between a woman and a doctor.

But my pro life sensibilities say that a moral society will condemn the senseless destruction of millions of unborn babies for no more reason than the unborn child is an inconvenience to the mother. To legalize abortion for ANY reason at ANY stage of pregnancy says that unborn child is no more valuable than a wart or mole that she has removed. For the government to subsidize abortion or require insurance companies to cover it is to encouage the wholesale slaughter of all those babies and makes no allowance for the conscience of millions of Americans who see that as wholesale murder of millions of lives.

Keep abortion legal for the first trimester but let each community choose whether they want to allow it in their community. Except in immediate medical emergencies to which a doctor has to justify, allow communities to require a court order and a doctor's opinion that the abortion is necessary for any abortion after the first trimester as Roe V Wade saw it.

And we as a moral and just society need to put value back on human life and start driving home to our youth that experimentation with sex can have consequences that are not so easily fixed. And we again need to stop making teen pregnancy a 'normal' and/or 'glamorous' thing' or 'ho hum' thing and instead make it socially undesirable and deemed as irresponsible as it actually is.

And we need to then support women who do become pregant with unwanted children and encourage them to deliver a strong, healthy baby that will then go to a loving home where he or she is very much wanted.

 

[Dragon]

Ask a pregnant woman what she is carrying. I can guarentee you that she will not say a "ZEF".

I'm not sure what a "ZEF" is. But whether she would say she is carrying a baby as opposed to an embryo or fetus depends at least in part on whether she WANTS to bear a child. If she does, then she is likely to refer to the organism within her as a "baby."

But that doesn't mean it is a baby. It means that she hopes it will become one. She is speaking optimistically, not factually.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why do women abort their babies?

I understand there may be an ample number of reasons, but what, in your opinion would be the concensus?

I think it's purely for selfish reasons for the most part.

Your thoughts.

Women do not abort babies. They abort ZEFs. Babies are postnatal by definition.

What dictionary are YOU using?

And what the fuck is a ZEF?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Ask a pregnant woman what she is carrying. I can guarentee you that she will not say a "ZEF".

I'm not sure what a "ZEF" is. But whether she would say she is carrying a baby as opposed to an embryo or fetus depends at least in part on whether she WANTS to bear a child. If she does, then she is likely to refer to the organism within her as a "baby."

But that doesn't mean it is a baby. It means that she hopes it will become one. She is speaking optimistically, not factually.

Uh, no. I didn't "hope" what I was carrying would "become" a baby. I was carrying babies. I have no idea what you produce in YOUR womb, assuming you have one.

And how much a woman tries to distance herself verbally from her offspring because she doesn't want him does not in any way change what he is. Liberals never seem to grasp that their wishful thinking doesn't alter reality.

You really are a freaking lunatic.

 

[koshergrl]

ZEF...that is too funny.

I assume it means "zygote/embryo/fetus".

Fucking pseudo intellectuals.

 

[Dragon]

ZEF...that is too funny.

I assume it means "zygote/embryo/fetus".

Oh, probably so. Whatever.

 

[koshergrl]

I'm sorry, I should have just said your use of acronyms that nobody else recognizes shows you are much, much more intelligent than any of us dumb bunnies.

We're so lucky you've come along to educmancate us.

 

[Foxfyre]

I have lived a fairly long time now and have given birth and know hundreds, perhaps thousands of women who have given birth. And in all those years, I have never heard a single woman say that she hopes what she is pregnant with will become a baby. Every single one says I am pregnant.....with a baby. Not a zygote. Not an embryo. Not a fetus. Not a ZEF. She is going to have a baby.

The problem for pro abortionists is that it isn't a 'baby' or a 'human being' until it is actually born. It may have a fully functioning brain, circulatory system lung function, and be perfectly formed and absolutely capable of living outside the womb, but to hear some of our friends here, it is not a person, not a human being, not a baby so long as any part of it is still inside the mother.

For pro lifers it is all a complete life cycle beginning with conception and culminating, if the person is fortunate, with a death at a far advanced age when the life support functions are too worn out to continue any further. You cannot add a single minute or hour or day or week or month to that, nor subtract any of it to make a person a non person or non human being.

So that baby in the womb is just a very young person, an immature human being. He or she will not be one fraction more capable of viability without the help of more mature humans in the weeks and months following the birth than he or she is viable inside the womb. And counting backwards from birth to conception, what could be left out of any of that process in order for the person to live?

It makes it simple to say the person has no right to live prior to birth. But it sure stretches the limits of moral conscience the way I see it.

 

[Dr Grump]

We're so lucky you've come along to educmancate us.

Going by your posts, somebody needs to...

 

[koshergrl]

Hey I'm not the fake doctor here.

Your side seems to have quite a few.

Why is that, do you think?

 

[jillian]

Hey I'm not the fake doctor here.

Your side seems to have quite a few.

Why is that, do you think?

he's never said he was a real doctor. not ever, hon.

who do you think is "fake"?