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

[Dr.Drock]

Some people feel ANY form of contraceptive is abortive. That's wrong. Here is such a statement from "pro-life" physicians.

do oral contraception cause abortion?

This is my concern over the "pro-life" movement. It is NOT just abortion they are targeting. It is contraception too. Margaret Sanger was opposed to abortion, and the birth control movement was always, in her time, about making contraception more readily available to women to reduce the abortion rate.

Possible Post-conceptional Effects of Hormonal Birth Control


CMDA holds firmly that God is the Creator of life, that life begins at conception, and that all human life is of infinite value. We support measures to protect life from its earliest beginnings.





Yikes......................

 

[Montrovant]

The brain, the thought processes, the personality all exist in the original DNA once the egg and sperm have joined.

No, the information necessary to create them exists. They themselves do not, anymore than a blueprint is a house.



While it is difficult to pin this down precisely, there is no reasonable doubt that none of these things are possible without an active cerebral cortex. Therefore, at no point prior to the development of the cortex does the embryo/fetus feel pain or experience comfort.



While this is true, it is not relevant.

Here's what I'm really saying here. The identification of the self with the biological organism is an illusion. "You" are an emergent property, a product of the behavior of your body's brain. "You" did not exist until your brain began behaving, and who "you" are changes as your brain's behavior changes due to various things.

(Someone who believes in the "soul" might modify these statements somewhat, but would still agree that the self and the biological organism are not the same thing.)

The only thing that exists from conception is the biological organism that, ultimately, will generate a person through the activity of its brain. The person cannot exist without the brain being functional. Thus, until the brain is functional, the person DOES not exist.

We need to develop a culture that if a woman is unable to provide what the child needs or she does not want the child, she is still willing to give him/her a life and a chance for a loving couple to adopt the child at birth. A sacrifice on her part? Absolutely but she would commended for doing the right thing and she could hold her head up and be proud forever more.

As I said, wanting alternatives to abortion is not the same as wanting to outlaw it. If you want to argue for a cultural milieu that encourages a pregnant woman to bring the child to term and offer it up for adoption, I have no problem with that. Anything that increases options is a good thing.

I have at no time supported or advocated outlawing abortion at the federal level. I 100% support those who as a matter of conscience would ban abortion clinics in their own communities or ban abortion outright, though I think more reasonable people would leave the decision to a woman and her doctor.

It is your prerogative to say that the developing baby is not a person until it has a functioning cortex and thereby salve your conscience or justify whatever. But for me and I think most pro lifers, we see that time before that developed cortex as just as important and critical for a human being to be able to live and realize his/her full potential, and that ALL aspects of human development are necessary and cannot be dismissed or relegated as irrelevent in the process.

You seem to be strongly advocating for abortion on demand for any reason at least in early pregnancy.

I am advocating for a culture that recognizes, respects, and reveres life at all stages and does not casually kill off the most innocent and helpless of humanity simply because it is inconvenient.

Why do you have to add this? Why can't you simply say it is his prerogative to say that without adding anything about salving conscience of justification? Instead of a reasonable discussion, that makes it sound as though you simply want to insult his position.

I point this out not because it is such a glaring example, but because you otherwise seem to be making calm, reasonable posts. Do you think it is not possible to honestly hold the opinion that before brain development, a fetus is not a person? Do you think such an opinion can only be formed in response to feelings of guilt, or out of a need to justify murder?

With an emotionally explosive issue like abortion, I enjoy seeing reasonable discussion, and you and Dragon are providing some here. I just felt the need to bring this up so that it hopefully continues that way (and the same goes for Dragon, please don't end up getting insulting! ).

 

[Foxfyre]

No, the information necessary to create them exists. They themselves do not, anymore than a blueprint is a house.



While it is difficult to pin this down precisely, there is no reasonable doubt that none of these things are possible without an active cerebral cortex. Therefore, at no point prior to the development of the cortex does the embryo/fetus feel pain or experience comfort.



While this is true, it is not relevant.

Here's what I'm really saying here. The identification of the self with the biological organism is an illusion. "You" are an emergent property, a product of the behavior of your body's brain. "You" did not exist until your brain began behaving, and who "you" are changes as your brain's behavior changes due to various things.

(Someone who believes in the "soul" might modify these statements somewhat, but would still agree that the self and the biological organism are not the same thing.)

The only thing that exists from conception is the biological organism that, ultimately, will generate a person through the activity of its brain. The person cannot exist without the brain being functional. Thus, until the brain is functional, the person DOES not exist.



As I said, wanting alternatives to abortion is not the same as wanting to outlaw it. If you want to argue for a cultural milieu that encourages a pregnant woman to bring the child to term and offer it up for adoption, I have no problem with that. Anything that increases options is a good thing.

I have at no time supported or advocated outlawing abortion at the federal level. I 100% support those who as a matter of conscience would ban abortion clinics in their own communities or ban abortion outright, though I think more reasonable people would leave the decision to a woman and her doctor.

It is your prerogative to say that the developing baby is not a person until it has a functioning cortex and thereby salve your conscience or justify whatever. But for me and I think most pro lifers, we see that time before that developed cortex as just as important and critical for a human being to be able to live and realize his/her full potential, and that ALL aspects of human development are necessary and cannot be dismissed or relegated as irrelevent in the process.

You seem to be strongly advocating for abortion on demand for any reason at least in early pregnancy.

I am advocating for a culture that recognizes, respects, and reveres life at all stages and does not casually kill off the most innocent and helpless of humanity simply because it is inconvenient.

Why do you have to add this? Why can't you simply say it is his prerogative to say that without adding anything about salving conscience of justification? Instead of a reasonable discussion, that makes it sound as though you simply want to insult his position.

I point this out not because it is such a glaring example, but because you otherwise seem to be making calm, reasonable posts. Do you think it is not possible to honestly hold the opinion that before brain development, a fetus is not a person? Do you think such an opinion can only be formed in response to feelings of guilt, or out of a need to justify murder?

With an emotionally explosive issue like abortion, I enjoy seeing reasonable discussion, and you and Dragon are providing some here. I just felt the need to bring this up so that it hopefully continues that way (and the same goes for Dragon, please don't end up getting insulting! ).

Yes I could have. Possibly even should have. But when somebody tries to tell me that isn't a person, a human being, developing in the womb at whatever stage it may be, it is a matter of conscience for me to argue for the sanctity of life. I can't just shrug it off and think it doesn't make any difference if others teach that it isn't a life at all.

And I tip my hat to Dragon for a reasoned and competent debate. And maybe he isn't one that doesn't justify abortion by claiming that it isn't a life being destroyed. But his argument sure did appear to be making that argument.

Again, I see circumstances in which abortion is the moral choice and I don't presume to judge people on their choices when I don't know the circumstances. But I never EVER want us to become a culture who doesn't recognize that as ending a life, and it should never be acceptable for it to be done casually or as a matter of convenience.

 

[Dragon]

I have at no time supported or advocated outlawing abortion at the federal level. I 100% support those who as a matter of conscience would ban abortion clinics in their own communities or ban abortion outright, though I think more reasonable people would leave the decision to a woman and her doctor.

You know, it's this sort of thing that makes me wonder about you sometimes. Banning abortion at the federal level would be unconstitutional. Nobody is advocating for that, for that reason; the federal government simply doesn't have authority over this -- it's not one of the enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8. Not even a reasonable interpretation of the commerce clause. Anyone who wants abortion banned is going to do it at the state level, which does have that responsibility.

So if you would not support outlawing abortion at the federal level, but would support doing this at the state and/or local level, then you support banning abortion at the only level of government where that is even possible.

It is your prerogative to say that the developing baby is not a person until it has a functioning cortex and thereby salve your conscience or justify whatever.

Or protect a crucial component of a woman's right to self-determination. There's no need to insert insults in such a mealy-mouthed fashion.

But for me and I think most pro lifers, we see that time before that developed cortex as just as important and critical for a human being to be able to live and realize his/her full potential, and that ALL aspects of human development are necessary and cannot be dismissed or relegated as irrelevent in the process.

And for me, and I think for most people who have a grasp of logic and reasoning, the above statement is a perfect example of a vague generality that doesn't really say anything at all, being presented as if it implies something that it doesn't, without coming right out and saying so and thus opening oneself up to rebuttal.

You seem to be strongly advocating for abortion on demand for any reason at least in early pregnancy.

I am absolutely advocating for a right of abortion on demand in early pregnancy. I believe that the right of a woman to control her own reproductive function is a very basic and important right, and should only be set aside for an OVERWHELMING reason. I believe strongly that losing the right of abortion would be a terrible, terrible harm to women, that itself requires strong justification before we should even consider it.

I would compromise or sacrifice that right in order to prevent murder, but to call the termination of pregnancy in its early stages murder is sheer hyperbole.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Its none of your business why they do it, it isn't your body, or your choice.

Who's body is it?

Can we confirm with a DNA test?

 

[Foxfyre]

I have at no time supported or advocated outlawing abortion at the federal level. I 100% support those who as a matter of conscience would ban abortion clinics in their own communities or ban abortion outright, though I think more reasonable people would leave the decision to a woman and her doctor.

You know, it's this sort of thing that makes me wonder about you sometimes. Banning abortion at the federal level would be unconstitutional. Nobody is advocating for that, for that reason; the federal government simply doesn't have authority over this -- it's not one of the enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8. Not even a reasonable interpretation of the commerce clause. Anyone who wants abortion banned is going to do it at the state level, which does have that responsibility.

So if you would not support outlawing abortion at the federal level, but would support doing this at the state and/or local level, then you support banning abortion at the only level of government where that is even possible.

It is your prerogative to say that the developing baby is not a person until it has a functioning cortex and thereby salve your conscience or justify whatever.

Or protect a crucial component of a woman's right to self-determination. There's no need to insert insults in such a mealy-mouthed fashion.

But for me and I think most pro lifers, we see that time before that developed cortex as just as important and critical for a human being to be able to live and realize his/her full potential, and that ALL aspects of human development are necessary and cannot be dismissed or relegated as irrelevent in the process.

And for me, and I think for most people who have a grasp of logic and reasoning, the above statement is a perfect example of a vague generality that doesn't really say anything at all, being presented as if it implies something that it doesn't, without coming right out and saying so and thus opening oneself up to rebuttal.

You seem to be strongly advocating for abortion on demand for any reason at least in early pregnancy.

I am absolutely advocating for a right of abortion on demand in early pregnancy. I believe that the right of a woman to control her own reproductive function is a very basic and important right, and should only be set aside for an OVERWHELMING reason. I believe strongly that losing the right of abortion would be a terrible, terrible harm to women, that itself requires strong justification before we should even consider it.

I would compromise or sacrifice that right in order to prevent murder, but to call the termination of pregnancy in its early stages murder is sheer hyperbole.

But you see I don't take the Constitution piecemeal and apply it where it is ideologically convenient and throw it out when it is inconvenient. I read the Constitution as giving we the people the right to determine what sort of society we will have short of violating the unalienable rights of another person. I wouldn't vote to outlaw all abortion in my state, but the people should have the right to do that if they want to do that. And if they did, I would have the right to choose to live under that law or move elsewhere.

I do trust the American people, however, to make the right choice most of the time, so a few radicals or extremists would be unlikely to have much effect on the rest of the people any more than the radicals and extremists of the Founders' day--and there were a number of communities of them--had much effect on the rest of the people.

If the people's conscience dictates that the life of the unborn is as precious and defensible as the mother who got pregant, then they have the right to protect that life however they see fit short of violating her rights. She has no constitutional right to an abortion. So yes, if the people of Podunk Junction don't want abortions in their town, they should have the right to say no abortions just as the state has the right to say yes to a death penalty or no to a death penalty and the people of that state live under that law.

Podunk Junction, however, does not have the right to tell the woman that she cannot go elsewhere for an abortion nor any right to prosecute her if she gets one lawfully someplace else.

 

[Dragon]

But you see I don't take the Constitution piecemeal and apply it where it is ideologically convenient and throw it out when it is inconvenient. I read the Constitution as giving we the people the right to determine what sort of society we will have short of violating the unalienable rights of another person.

If that's what you think, then you don't understand it at all. A lot of the Constitution is determining the functions of the federal government and the precise political machinery for carrying out those functions. Included in this is what powers the federal government will have, and what powers will be left in the jurisdiction of the states. The federal government simply cannot outlaw abortion, setting aside the Roe decision and its reliance on the Bill of Rights -- even before that decision abortion was never outlawed at the federal level. Everyone understood that that was not one of the powers delegated to the federal government; it was a power reserved to the states.

"Taking the Constitution piecemeal and applying it where it is ideologically convenient and throwing it out when it is inconvenient" is a complete straw man, by the way. What I'm saying isn't even controversial.

I wouldn't vote to outlaw all abortion in my state, but the people should have the right to do that if they want to do that. And if they did, I would have the right to choose to live under that law or move elsewhere.

I disagree, for the same basic reason that I don't believe that a state government should be able to establish a religion, impose state censorship, or outlaw the Roman Catholic Church, no matter what the people would vote to do. Some rights should be protected and set aside from the option of government infringement.

 

[Foxfyre]

But you see I don't take the Constitution piecemeal and apply it where it is ideologically convenient and throw it out when it is inconvenient. I read the Constitution as giving we the people the right to determine what sort of society we will have short of violating the unalienable rights of another person.

If that's what you think, then you don't understand it at all. A lot of the Constitution is determining the functions of the federal government and the precise political machinery for carrying out those functions. Included in this is what powers the federal government will have, and what powers will be left in the jurisdiction of the states. The federal government simply cannot outlaw abortion, setting aside the Roe decision and its reliance on the Bill of Rights -- even before that decision abortion was never outlawed at the federal level. Everyone understood that that was not one of the powers delegated to the federal government; it was a power reserved to the states.

"Taking the Constitution piecemeal and applying it where it is ideologically convenient and throwing it out when it is inconvenient" is a complete straw man, by the way. What I'm saying isn't even controversial.

I wouldn't vote to outlaw all abortion in my state, but the people should have the right to do that if they want to do that. And if they did, I would have the right to choose to live under that law or move elsewhere.

I disagree, for the same basic reason that I don't believe that a state government should be able to establish a religion, impose state censorship, or outlaw the Roman Catholic Church, no matter what the people would vote to do. Some rights should be protected and set aside from the option of government infringement.

Disagree all you want. You either believe that the federal government is the proper entity to assign what sorts of societies we must have. Or you believe that the Constitution was intended to secure the rights of the people and then the federal government would leave the states and local communities alone to govern themselves. If we are not free to govern ourselves, we have no guaranteed freedom at all.

 

[Dragon]

Disagree all you want. You either believe that the federal government is the proper entity to assign what sorts of societies we must have. Or you believe that the Constitution was intended to secure the rights of the people and then the federal government would leave the states and local communities alone to govern themselves. If we are not free to govern ourselves, we have no guaranteed freedom at all.

That doesn't even make sense.

The Constitution was intended to strengthen the federal government. That was its purpose. Absent that purpose, we would still have the Articles of Confederation instead. The limitations implied in the enumerated powers have nothing to do with protecting the rights of the people.

On the other hand, the affirmative limits contained in the Bill or Rights do. And those limits definitely restrict the ways in which we may "govern ourselves." We may not to do so, on any level of government, in a way that abridges the rights of individuals as protected by law.

As the law currently stands, no state government is free to outlaw abortion except in the third trimester of pregnancy, because this would violate basic rights under the Constitution -- not a right to abortion per se, but a right to privacy and for the government not to intrude on personal medical decisions. This is exactly the same sort of restriction that prevents any state from banning a religion or imposing censorship. You may disagree with the specifics of the right protected by the Roe decision. You may believe that it is not a right, or that it was extended improperly by the Court. But to disagree with the principle that democratic governance is subject to limits in order to protect people's rights, is to open the door to tyranny.

 

[Gadawg73]

Disagree all you want. You either believe that the federal government is the proper entity to assign what sorts of societies we must have. Or you believe that the Constitution was intended to secure the rights of the people and then the federal government would leave the states and local communities alone to govern themselves. If we are not free to govern ourselves, we have no guaranteed freedom at all.

That doesn't even make sense.

The Constitution was intended to strengthen the federal government. That was its purpose. Absent that purpose, we would still have the Articles of Confederation instead. The limitations implied in the enumerated powers have nothing to do with protecting the rights of the people.

On the other hand, the affirmative limits contained in the Bill or Rights do. And those limits definitely restrict the ways in which we may "govern ourselves." We may not to do so, on any level of government, in a way that abridges the rights of individuals as protected by law.

As the law currently stands, no state government is free to outlaw abortion except in the third trimester of pregnancy, because this would violate basic rights under the Constitution -- not a right to abortion per se, but a right to privacy and for the government not to intrude on personal medical decisions. This is exactly the same sort of restriction that prevents any state from banning a religion or imposing censorship. You may disagree with the specifics of the right protected by the Roe decision. You may believe that it is not a right, or that it was extended improperly by the Court. But to disagree with the principle that democratic governance is subject to limits in order to protect people's rights, is to open the door to tyranny.

The Constitution was intended to protect individual rights. Abortion was legal in the British colonies before it and after the Constitution was written.
If states want to pass strict abortion laws now they should be able to. But as I have pointed out correctly time and time and time again, that will do NOTHING to stop abortion for those that can afford one.
Some states would have strict no abortion.
Spme states would have strict no abortion with some exceptions.
Some states would have abortion with some strict no abortion.
Some states would allow it outright.

So the undisputed FACT of allowing each state to have their own abortion laws does this:
Women that want an abortion in a state that allows it have one. Women that have $$$ in a state that bans abortion outright simply get in a car or a plane and go to the state that allows it.
And poor women that do not want their baby and live in a state that forces them to have the baby end up having the baby THAT THEY DID NOT WANT AND DO NOT KNOW HOW TO CARE FOR.
Facts are a bitch to those that want more government power all the while they claim the high moral ground.

 

[SigTurner]

No, no one ever told me that cutting that umbilical cord ACTUALLY makes a child a "physically individual being",

Well, now you know. I guess you learn something new everyday, don'tcha?

probably because it's only "actual" in your own deluded mind. But by all means, if you can show me that written anywhere scientific or factual, feel free to produce it.

No, it is actual and in reality. Indeed, it is even empirically verifiable! I suppose no one ever told you that the placenta (and I'll assume that you know what the term "placenta" means) is composed of both fetal and maternal tissue. Hence, when the umbilical cord is cut, the fetus is now completely individuated from its host.

What you believe is happening symbolically is of no interest to me whatsoever. The superstitious mumbo-jumbo of scientific primitives has no place in a discussion of killing children in a supposedly civilized world.

Shirley, I do not care a whit if the cutting of the umbilical cord is of any interest to you, symbolically or otherwise.

What is it about leftists that they don't understand the word "scientific"?

By "scientific" do you mean something akin to Creationism?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1TWyR8cpsc]Family guy, evolution and creationism - YouTube[/ame]

What boggles my mind is that you think this crap constitutes science. Ooh, the baby isn't attached any more! It's suddenly alive at that moment!

You seem to be confused over the meaning of the term "attached". Just so you know, it does not mean "alive". Yes, "attached" and "alive" are two entirely different words with entirely different meanings.

Apparently, Siamese twins are neither of them alive or individual human beings because they're attached to someone else.

Interesting point, when you really think about it. Are conjoined twins truly individual from one another?

I'm still waiting for you to figure out that because you can spew garbage like this doesn't make it scientific or proof of anything except that you're so biologically ignorant, you should be legally barred from ever having sex, for the good of the gene pool.

Hah!... Considering your apparently apocryphal geneology (...yes, you do seem like a feral orphan who was raised by wolves), for all either of us know, I could be your father.

Now, wouldn't that be embarassing! (for me)

 

[koshergrl]

I have at no time supported or advocated outlawing abortion at the federal level. I 100% support those who as a matter of conscience would ban abortion clinics in their own communities or ban abortion outright, though I think more reasonable people would leave the decision to a woman and her doctor.

You know, it's this sort of thing that makes me wonder about you sometimes. Banning abortion at the federal level would be unconstitutional. Nobody is advocating for that, for that reason; the federal government simply doesn't have authority over this -- it's not one of the enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8. Not even a reasonable interpretation of the commerce clause. Anyone who wants abortion banned is going to do it at the state level, which does have that responsibility.

So if you would not support outlawing abortion at the federal level, but would support doing this at the state and/or local level, then you support banning abortion at the only level of government where that is even possible.

It is your prerogative to say that the developing baby is not a person until it has a functioning cortex and thereby salve your conscience or justify whatever.

Or protect a crucial component of a woman's right to self-determination. There's no need to insert insults in such a mealy-mouthed fashion.

But for me and I think most pro lifers, we see that time before that developed cortex as just as important and critical for a human being to be able to live and realize his/her full potential, and that ALL aspects of human development are necessary and cannot be dismissed or relegated as irrelevent in the process.

And for me, and I think for most people who have a grasp of logic and reasoning, the above statement is a perfect example of a vague generality that doesn't really say anything at all, being presented as if it implies something that it doesn't, without coming right out and saying so and thus opening oneself up to rebuttal.

You seem to be strongly advocating for abortion on demand for any reason at least in early pregnancy.

I am absolutely advocating for a right of abortion on demand in early pregnancy. I believe that the right of a woman to control her own reproductive function is a very basic and important right, and should only be set aside for an OVERWHELMING reason. I believe strongly that losing the right of abortion would be a terrible, terrible harm to women, that itself requires strong justification before we should even consider it.

I would compromise or sacrifice that right in order to prevent murder, but to call the termination of pregnancy in its early stages murder is sheer hyperbole.

It's no more unconsitutional than banning slavery, or making it illegal for husbands to rape their wives, or banning murder of any other sort.

What is UNCONSTITUTIONAL is bypassing the will of the people to establish a law that allows millions of babies to be slaughtered. Not only is it unconstitutional, it's a non-law that supports human rights violations, and the passing of it marked the beginning of the lessening of the greatness of America. We've been going downhill ever since.

 

[koshergrl]

PS, Jackass..when has killing ever been a constitutional RIGHT?

 

[koshergrl]

"Roe v Wade is undoubtedly one of the Supreme Court's most controversial decisions. Handed down in January of 1973, the Court declared, by a vote of 7 to 2, that abortion was a right guaranteed by the Constitution under an implied right to privacy.

Justice Harry Blackmun, the author of the majority opinion, stated that the Constitution does not explicitly mention a right to privacy but, "in varying contexts the Court or individual justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right." The right to an abortion was then considered an extension of this privacy right. As Blackmun stated,"This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." This decision made it unconstitutional for any state to restrict abortion in most circumstances.*

Because of this decision, I continually hear pro-choice advocates claim that my, and other's, opposition to Roe is uninformed and misplaced, since Roe gave women a "constitutuinal right" to an abortion. However, Roe v Wade, the very case which made abortion a constitutional right, is in fact, not based in the Constitution. The Court's decision is riddled with contradictions, law-making decisions (which the Court is not supposed to do), and rather strange Constitutional interpretations.

Let's start with the Fourteenth Amendment -- how does it supposedly relate to Roe? The Fourteenth Amendment deals with procedural limitations regarding life, liberty, and property. While we are guaranteed such rights without government interference, the government can indeed infringe upon our life, liberty or property as long as it gives notice and an opportunity to be heard. This amendment was also used to extend the Bill of rights to states as well as Congress, but it was not intended to add concrete rights to the Constitution. Nowhere, in fact, does the Constitution mention privacy, which is invaded by any government action and certainly any criminal statute. So where do privacy rights come from?

In 1965, a person named Griswold challenged an essentially dead and unenforced Connecticut law which made it a criminal offense for a married couple to buy contraceptives. However, since appellate courts will not hear challenges to statutes in the abstract, someone had to actually be arrested for violating the law for the law to be challenged. In what some say was a scenario set up specifically to challenge and overturn this law, Griswold was convicted of buying contraceptives and fined. Griswold could then challenge the constitutionality of the statute on appeal.

In the case of Griswold v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court struck down this Connecticut law, holding that the Constitution actually created substantive rights which were so "fundamental to the principles of liberty" that they could not be restricted by government. The Constitution does not mention contraception or privacy, but the Court declared that the other rights in the Constitution contained a "penumbra" of implied rights, and the general right to privacy was determined to be one of these rights. The statute prohibiting use of contraceptives was then voided as an infringement of the right of marital privacy

This right of privacy was developed from the First, Third, Fourth and Fifth Amendments. A concurring opinion cited the Ninth Amendment ("The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people") to support the assertion that the Constitution protects certain penumbral rights, despite the lack of a specific provision in the Constitution. ** Griswold was the first case that created a right relating to reproduction without naming a specific clause in the constitution.

But how would the Court determine these unmentioned, yet constitutional, >rights? The Court decided that the Constitution must evolve, and that the Court was free to consider current public opinion when deciding whether a right was sufficiently "fundamental" to deserve constitutional protection.

So, in summary, the Court in Griswold decided that:

1. There are unmentioned, yet fundamental rights within the Constitution
2. The lack of a specific mention of a certain right doesn't mean it does not exist.
3. These unmentioned, fundamental rights, can not be restricted, and the 14th Amendment applies this restriction to the states.
4. The "right to privacy" was one of these rights which is not mentioned, but implied within the Constitution.

Now, back to Roe. Blackmun decided that a "right of personal privacy...does exist under the Constitution" and this personal privacy "right" creates a limited right to have an abortion, especially in the first trimester when the fetus was not viable. Blackmun found that the state interest in protecting life did not override the limited right to an abortion until third trimester, when the fetus is most certain to be a viable person; since 90% of abortions occur in the first trimester, abortion became an almost total "constitutional right." Remember: this opinion was not grounded in any constitutional text, but instead on one broad interpretation after another. Blackmun also cleverly used the word "under" as opposed to "in" when referring to the privacy right, and only claimed it to be a limited right (balanced against the state interest) to somewhat mask the fact that the actual text of the Constitution does not support the Court's opinion, and even the Griswold decision did not go as far as allowing an abortion. Blackmun could not use the rationale of Griswold; Justice White, who was in the majority in Griswold, did not believe that abortion was private in the sense that contraception was. Three new court appointees, moreover, disagreed with Griswold. So Blackmun argued that the 14th amendment words "due process" went further than the penumbra of the Bill of Rights, and created rights "implicit in the scheme of ordered liberty". From this, he developed a limited right to an abortion.

It's debatable whether there is indeed an implied right to privacy in the Constitution, but regardless of one's opinion on that, it seems tenuous and irresponsible of the Court to expand this right to the right to terminate the life of the unborn. After all, the right to privacy doesn't expand to many other areas in a woman's life, but somehow, without specific justification, it extends to the right to have an abortion? In addition, the idea that the right to an abortion is a "constitutional" right begs the question: are there then constitutional rights that apply only to certain groups of people? After all, this "right" to abort certainly does not extend to men, so does this mean that women have fundamental rights that men do not? Should men then, have a Constitutional right that applies to them, but excludes women? What other rights beside privacy are "implied" by the Constitution, if any? And what is "private" about an abortion--is it any more private than infanticide? Is there any government intrusion that does not invade privacy? Many jurists, including Justice Ginsburg, have already hinted that a better argument would be the equal protection clause; criminalizing abortions penalizes only women, since only women become pregnant, and forcing her to carry the child to term without just compensation would be (argualby) and unconstitutional burden. But the gender issue (as I have noted) can be argued the other way also, and was never discussed in Roe or Griswold.

One might also argue that the earlier decision to consider public opinion in determining these unmentioned rights aided in the decision to extend privacy rights to cover abortion, but aside from the fact that the climate in 1973 did not strongly support a Constitutional right to an abortion,*** even if people were clamoring for a constitutional right to abort, the idea that the Court decides how to interpret the Constitution on what they deem to be "popular opinion" contradicts the original purpose of the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights detailed fundamental rights, and judicial review (the power of the Court to overturn acts of Congress, as established in Marbury v. Madison (1803)) helped ensure that these rights were extended to all people. Without such review, it would be possible for the majority to vote to infringe on the fundamental rights of a political or religious minority. Public opinion is relevant to deciding what the states meant when they ratified amendments; for example, libel laws are considered constitutional because states had them when they ratified the 1st amendment, and thus the people did not intend free speech to cover knowingly false statements. The Constitution has a procedure for adding amendments, and if public opinion supported abortion rights, the people (through their elected officials) could add such an amendment (public opinion regarding women's rights almost led to ratification of the ERA at about the same time as Roe). But the Court in Roe usurped this prerogative and, citing "public opinion", amended the constitution by creating a right that most constitutional scholars agree does not exist. The Supreme Court is actually supposed to protect people FROM majority opinion; for example, it will uphold unpopular demonstrations as protected free speech, or protect suspected criminals from a biased trial.

In addition, prior to 1973, the Court had always used liberty as a legal term, but in Roe, liberty was described in psychological, sociological, and economic terms. "The unwanted child," Blackmun avowed, would cause a woman psychological stress, and impose family responsibilities and economic hardships. He therefore concluded that the woman had a "liberty interest" protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.

The problem with defining liberty in such a way seems obvious wanting psychological stress or the imposition of family responsibilities be applied to any number of situations? Couldn't a born child, or even a difficult relative also interfere with this definition of "liberty"?

The argument for such examples would be that obviously, someone's privacy right wouldn't override the right of someone to live, since such an application would allow for the abuse of others, so long as it was done in private. Ah, but the Court got around this too, by labeling the unborn as less than fully human, and asserting that the Constitution only protects "post-natal" life. This meant that the state could not weigh the child's privacy right against the mother's, only the state interest in protecting potential life.

First, it would seem apparent that the unborn was not specifically mentioned at the time because the framers of the Constitution did not have adequate medical knowledge to know what we do now about the biology of the unborn; or, they assumed that it would be clear that the unborn was covered, since they didn't deem it necessary to specify that each stage of a person's development was constitutionally protected. The Court seemed perfectly content to ignore these very real possibilities, and placed the liberty of the woman above the unborn's right to live. "

"The right to life? Yes, the right to life - ever heard of that? It's one of those unalienable rights that's mentioned in the nation's charter, the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration of Independence states that "all men are created equal" and are endowed by their Creator with the certain unalienable rights, one being the right to life. The Declaration is clear that this right belongs equally to all human beings. Thus, under this definition of the right to life, there can be no distinction based upon whether human life is "potential" or full. Yet, that is the core distinction of Roe v Wade, and it directly contradicts the right to life retained by the people according to the Ninth Amendment! So ironically, the Ninth Amendment was used to justify a newly found, unmentioned right to privacy that magically extends to the right to abort, when in fact, denying the unborn rights based on the fact that the unborn is inside, rather than outside the womb, contradicts the Ninth Amendment! In addition, the Court used the Ninth Amendment to justify this unmentioned right to privacy, yet then turned around and denied the unborn rights because the unborn child was not specifically mentioned! So how can we say that we have a constitutional right to privacy that extends to abortion even though it is not mentioned in the Constitution, and then turn around and deny rights to another human because the unborn wasn't specifically mentioned!? Roe actually extended this nonexistent right, saying the 14th amendment went even further than the Bill of Rights.

It gets better. Justice Blackmun also cites the "fact" that "the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense" to justify denying rights to the unborn. First, that "fact" is not accurate. The unborn child was, and is still treated in certain tort and negligence law as a person. Secondly, we seem to be going back in time a bit, when we arbitrarily decided that some people are not "full persons."

"Recall the 1857 Dred Scott v. Sanford decision, which declared that slavery could not be prohibited by Congress in any territory of the U.S. and that African Americans were not full persons and not afforded the same rights as "full persons." Sound familiar? President Lincoln argued that the slaves were persons, not possessions, and that their unalienable right to liberty was protected by the Declaration of Independence unborn. To add to the irony, after the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, came the Thirteenth (1865) and Fourteenth (1868) Amendments, all which overthrew slavery and the erroneous Dred Scott Supreme Court decision. The Fourteenth Amendment...how ironic. One of the Amendments which helped overturn Dred Scott is now used to further the "non-person" argument -the same argument the Amendment was created to prevent! How can the Supreme Court use the Fourteenth Amendment to help justify denying the unborn unalienable rights when this Amendment was supposed to protect people from such selective rights attribution? It would seem obvious that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment implicitly included the unborn child in the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. "



Roe V Wade - The Unconstitutional Decision

 

[Foxfyre]

Disagree all you want. You either believe that the federal government is the proper entity to assign what sorts of societies we must have. Or you believe that the Constitution was intended to secure the rights of the people and then the federal government would leave the states and local communities alone to govern themselves. If we are not free to govern ourselves, we have no guaranteed freedom at all.

That doesn't even make sense.

The Constitution was intended to strengthen the federal government. That was its purpose. Absent that purpose, we would still have the Articles of Confederation instead. The limitations implied in the enumerated powers have nothing to do with protecting the rights of the people.

On the other hand, the affirmative limits contained in the Bill or Rights do. And those limits definitely restrict the ways in which we may "govern ourselves." We may not to do so, on any level of government, in a way that abridges the rights of individuals as protected by law.

As the law currently stands, no state government is free to outlaw abortion except in the third trimester of pregnancy, because this would violate basic rights under the Constitution -- not a right to abortion per se, but a right to privacy and for the government not to intrude on personal medical decisions. This is exactly the same sort of restriction that prevents any state from banning a religion or imposing censorship. You may disagree with the specifics of the right protected by the Roe decision. You may believe that it is not a right, or that it was extended improperly by the Court. But to disagree with the principle that democratic governance is subject to limits in order to protect people's rights, is to open the door to tyranny.

The Supreme Court should not have the right to make law nor are they infallible gods who are the supreme authority of the land. All you have to do is look at some really abysmally bad rulings the Supreme Court has handed down over the decades. Any court at any time could overturn Roe v Wade which pro-abortionists would consider to be an abomination and which the extremist pro lifers consistently lobby for. I would be happy for the Supreme Court to strengthen and clarify it as a guideline for the federal government, but not as a mandate for the states or local communities. It isn't a bad decision. It is simply so loose as to allow rampant abuse by the pro abortionists.

As for your notion that the Constitution was to strengthen the federal government, you have a very different understanding of history and the Founders intent than I do. And rather than derail the thread in that direction, I'll just leave it at that.

 

[Gadawg73]

Disagree all you want. You either believe that the federal government is the proper entity to assign what sorts of societies we must have. Or you believe that the Constitution was intended to secure the rights of the people and then the federal government would leave the states and local communities alone to govern themselves. If we are not free to govern ourselves, we have no guaranteed freedom at all.

That doesn't even make sense.

The Constitution was intended to strengthen the federal government. That was its purpose. Absent that purpose, we would still have the Articles of Confederation instead. The limitations implied in the enumerated powers have nothing to do with protecting the rights of the people.

On the other hand, the affirmative limits contained in the Bill or Rights do. And those limits definitely restrict the ways in which we may "govern ourselves." We may not to do so, on any level of government, in a way that abridges the rights of individuals as protected by law.

As the law currently stands, no state government is free to outlaw abortion except in the third trimester of pregnancy, because this would violate basic rights under the Constitution -- not a right to abortion per se, but a right to privacy and for the government not to intrude on personal medical decisions. This is exactly the same sort of restriction that prevents any state from banning a religion or imposing censorship. You may disagree with the specifics of the right protected by the Roe decision. You may believe that it is not a right, or that it was extended improperly by the Court. But to disagree with the principle that democratic governance is subject to limits in order to protect people's rights, is to open the door to tyranny.

The Supreme Court should not have the right to make law nor are they infallible gods who are the supreme authority of the land. All you have to do is look at some really abysmally bad rulings the Supreme Court has handed down over the decades. Any court at any time could overturn Roe v Wade which pro-abortionists would consider to be an abomination and which the extremist pro lifers consistently lobby for. I would be happy for the Supreme Court to strengthen and clarify it as a guideline for the federal government, but not as a mandate for the states or local communities. It isn't a bad decision. It is simply so loose as to allow rampant abuse by the pro abortionists.

As for your notion that the Constitution was to strengthen the federal government, you have a very different understanding of history and the Founders intent than I do. And rather than derail the thread in that direction, I'll just leave it at that.

Overturn Roe it immediately goes back to the states.
Women with $$ get an abortion in a state that allows it even if they live in one that bans it.
Women with no $$$ are forced to have a baby THEY DO NOT WANT AND DO NOT KNOW HOW TO CARE FOR.
Nothing changes much. Women with $$ HAVE ALWAYS had abortions in America. Roe did nothing to change that.
All Roe did was allow poor women to have abortions in the states they lived in and did not force wealthy women to travel to a state that would still allow it or has a doctor that will always put "in the best interest of the health of the mother" as the reason in a state that "banned" it.
Reality. NO LAW ever stops abortion. I hate abortion but the facts have to be known.

 

[Foxfyre]

That doesn't even make sense.

The Constitution was intended to strengthen the federal government. That was its purpose. Absent that purpose, we would still have the Articles of Confederation instead. The limitations implied in the enumerated powers have nothing to do with protecting the rights of the people.

On the other hand, the affirmative limits contained in the Bill or Rights do. And those limits definitely restrict the ways in which we may "govern ourselves." We may not to do so, on any level of government, in a way that abridges the rights of individuals as protected by law.

As the law currently stands, no state government is free to outlaw abortion except in the third trimester of pregnancy, because this would violate basic rights under the Constitution -- not a right to abortion per se, but a right to privacy and for the government not to intrude on personal medical decisions. This is exactly the same sort of restriction that prevents any state from banning a religion or imposing censorship. You may disagree with the specifics of the right protected by the Roe decision. You may believe that it is not a right, or that it was extended improperly by the Court. But to disagree with the principle that democratic governance is subject to limits in order to protect people's rights, is to open the door to tyranny.

The Supreme Court should not have the right to make law nor are they infallible gods who are the supreme authority of the land. All you have to do is look at some really abysmally bad rulings the Supreme Court has handed down over the decades. Any court at any time could overturn Roe v Wade which pro-abortionists would consider to be an abomination and which the extremist pro lifers consistently lobby for. I would be happy for the Supreme Court to strengthen and clarify it as a guideline for the federal government, but not as a mandate for the states or local communities. It isn't a bad decision. It is simply so loose as to allow rampant abuse by the pro abortionists.

As for your notion that the Constitution was to strengthen the federal government, you have a very different understanding of history and the Founders intent than I do. And rather than derail the thread in that direction, I'll just leave it at that.

Overturn Roe it immediately goes back to the states.
Women with $$ get an abortion in a state that allows it even if they live in one that bans it.
Women with no $$$ are forced to have a baby THEY DO NOT WANT AND DO NOT KNOW HOW TO CARE FOR.
Nothing changes much. Women with $$ HAVE ALWAYS had abortions in America. Roe did nothing to change that.
All Roe did was allow poor women to have abortions in the states they lived in and did not force wealthy women to travel to a state that would still allow it or has a doctor that will always put "in the best interest of the health of the mother" as the reason in a state that "banned" it.
Reality. NO LAW ever stops abortion. I hate abortion but the facts have to be known.

Yep. Women with dollars can have an in home washing machine. Women without dollars go to mom's house or go to a laundromat. Women with dollars can afford to own a car. Women without dollars walk or take the bus. Women with dollars can buy steak and potatoes at a restaurant or supermarket. Women without dollars make do with hamburger or the local soup kitchen. That's the way the world is and has always been.

But regardless, Roe definitely allows abortion for those in the first trimester as a matter between the woman and her doctor no questions asked. I support that as a reasonable compromise between the two camps.

After the first trimester, the state can have interest. But the Doe v Bolton case that followed pretty well extended abortion on demand to the entire nine months and opened the door for the unconscionable partial birth abortion procedure.

Ironically, both Roe and Doe, the 'plaintiffs' in those cases, are now both staunchly pro life and would never participate in such cases should they be asked to do so now.

And I wonder if those seven Supreme Court Justices would have changed their opinion if they had even dreamed of the horrendous results that have come from it?

Since Roe v Wade became law in 1973, more than 50 million babies have been killed in the womb. That averages out to about 1.2 million per year or more then 3,300 per day. Human lives snuffed out before they ever had a chance to live.

As a society, if we do not revere and protect and defend the lives of the most helpless among us, we lose our conscience, our sense of right and wrong, our humanity.

We can do better.

 

[Gadawg73]

The Supreme Court should not have the right to make law nor are they infallible gods who are the supreme authority of the land. All you have to do is look at some really abysmally bad rulings the Supreme Court has handed down over the decades. Any court at any time could overturn Roe v Wade which pro-abortionists would consider to be an abomination and which the extremist pro lifers consistently lobby for. I would be happy for the Supreme Court to strengthen and clarify it as a guideline for the federal government, but not as a mandate for the states or local communities. It isn't a bad decision. It is simply so loose as to allow rampant abuse by the pro abortionists.

As for your notion that the Constitution was to strengthen the federal government, you have a very different understanding of history and the Founders intent than I do. And rather than derail the thread in that direction, I'll just leave it at that.

Overturn Roe it immediately goes back to the states.
Women with $$ get an abortion in a state that allows it even if they live in one that bans it.
Women with no $$$ are forced to have a baby THEY DO NOT WANT AND DO NOT KNOW HOW TO CARE FOR.
Nothing changes much. Women with $$ HAVE ALWAYS had abortions in America. Roe did nothing to change that.
All Roe did was allow poor women to have abortions in the states they lived in and did not force wealthy women to travel to a state that would still allow it or has a doctor that will always put "in the best interest of the health of the mother" as the reason in a state that "banned" it.
Reality. NO LAW ever stops abortion. I hate abortion but the facts have to be known.

Yep. Women with dollars can have an in home washing machine. Women without dollars go to mom's house or go to a laundromat. Women with dollars can afford to own a car. Women without dollars walk or take the bus. Women with dollars can buy steak and potatoes at a restaurant or supermarket. Women without dollars make do with hamburger or the local soup kitchen. That's the way the world is and has always been.

But regardless, Roe definitely allows abortion for those in the first trimester as a matter between the woman and her doctor no questions asked. I support that as a reasonable compromise between the two camps.

After the first trimester, the state can have interest. But the Doe v Bolton case that followed pretty well extended abortion on demand to the entire nine months and opened the door for the unconscionable partial birth abortion procedure.

Ironically, both Roe and Doe, the 'plaintiffs' in those cases, are now both staunchly pro life and would never participate in such cases should they be asked to do so now.

And I wonder if those seven Supreme Court Justices would have changed their opinion if they had even dreamed of the horrendous results that have come from it?

Since Roe v Wade became law in 1973, more than 50 million babies have been killed in the womb. That averages out to about 1.2 million per year or more then 3,300 per day. Human lives snuffed out before they ever had a chance to live.

As a society, if we do not revere and protect and defend the lives of the most helpless among us, we lose our conscience, our sense of right and wrong, our humanity.

We can do better.

It comes as no surprise that many women regret having abortions.
But no one forced them to. Personal responsibility takes a back seat to excuses and the current Roe and Doe PR is more excuse than taking responsibility for one's actions.
You can not fix dumb ass. NO LAW stops abortion.
And, most importantly, no rhetoric either. Our society in America has allowed abortion since inception. The anti abortion era did not start until the 1800s.

 

[Foxfyre]

Overturn Roe it immediately goes back to the states.
Women with $$ get an abortion in a state that allows it even if they live in one that bans it.
Women with no $$$ are forced to have a baby THEY DO NOT WANT AND DO NOT KNOW HOW TO CARE FOR.
Nothing changes much. Women with $$ HAVE ALWAYS had abortions in America. Roe did nothing to change that.
All Roe did was allow poor women to have abortions in the states they lived in and did not force wealthy women to travel to a state that would still allow it or has a doctor that will always put "in the best interest of the health of the mother" as the reason in a state that "banned" it.
Reality. NO LAW ever stops abortion. I hate abortion but the facts have to be known.

Yep. Women with dollars can have an in home washing machine. Women without dollars go to mom's house or go to a laundromat. Women with dollars can afford to own a car. Women without dollars walk or take the bus. Women with dollars can buy steak and potatoes at a restaurant or supermarket. Women without dollars make do with hamburger or the local soup kitchen. That's the way the world is and has always been.

But regardless, Roe definitely allows abortion for those in the first trimester as a matter between the woman and her doctor no questions asked. I support that as a reasonable compromise between the two camps.

After the first trimester, the state can have interest. But the Doe v Bolton case that followed pretty well extended abortion on demand to the entire nine months and opened the door for the unconscionable partial birth abortion procedure.

Ironically, both Roe and Doe, the 'plaintiffs' in those cases, are now both staunchly pro life and would never participate in such cases should they be asked to do so now.

And I wonder if those seven Supreme Court Justices would have changed their opinion if they had even dreamed of the horrendous results that have come from it?

Since Roe v Wade became law in 1973, more than 50 million babies have been killed in the womb. That averages out to about 1.2 million per year or more then 3,300 per day. Human lives snuffed out before they ever had a chance to live.

As a society, if we do not revere and protect and defend the lives of the most helpless among us, we lose our conscience, our sense of right and wrong, our humanity.

We can do better.

It comes as no surprise that many women regret having abortions.
But no one forced them to. Personal responsibility takes a back seat to excuses and the current Roe and Doe PR is more excuse than taking responsibility for one's actions.
You can not fix dumb ass. NO LAW stops abortion.
And, most importantly, no rhetoric either. Our society in America has allowed abortion since inception. The anti abortion era did not start until the 1800s.

But up until Roe v Wade, a community who valued the sanctity of life and did not want abortions in their community did not have to have them. I am not saying that abortion should not be legal in the first trimester or under specific circumstances after that.

I am saying that if we believe in freedom, we won't force people to condone and/or allow what they believe to be the murder of millions of babies.

The Founders intended the people themselves to govern themselves and form whatever sort of society they wished to have short of denying a person his/her unalienable rights.

 

[Dragon]

It's no more unconsitutional than banning slavery

That WAS unconstitutional, which is why it required a constitutional amendment (the 13th).

or making it illegal for husbands to rape their wives, or banning murder of any other sort.

Neither rape nor murder is illegal at the federal level. Both of those are a state responsibility, not a power delegated to the federal government. They are illegal in every state, but there is no federal law against murder or rape.

What is UNCONSTITUTIONAL is bypassing the will of the people to establish a law that allows millions of babies to be slaughtered.

Sooo -- in your view, the federal government operating outside its designated limits is perfectly constitutional, while the Supreme Court using its designated powers to interpret the law is not, when you happen to dislike its ruling.

I guess "constitutional" for you means "what Koshergirl likes." Got it.