Jane Roe going to Supreme Court.....

[dilloduck]

Below is a summation of the 14th amendment under which the Supreme Court effectively legalized aboortion.

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV. In other words, the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances. A violation would occur, for example, if a state prohibited an individual from entering into an employment contract because he or she was a member of a particular race. The equal protection clause is not intended to provide "equality" among individuals or classes but only "equal application" of the laws. The result, therefore, of a law is not relevant so long as there is no discrimination in its application. By denying states the ability to discriminate, the equal protection clause of the Constitution is crucial to the protection of civil rights.

Prior to this decision there was no right to have an abortion for ANYONE and a law DID exist that made abortion illegal. Since the laws of nature make it impossible for a man to have an abortion, this law was seen as discriminitory towards women and ruled unconstitutional.

What the judges failed to take into consideration was that when 2 people enter a contract to have sex that equal application of the law should be extended to the mother AND the father and it is on THIS issue is where Roe v Wade should be overturned.

Forget argueing when life begins ! We can't even figure out when humans began and it only serves to confuse the issue. Forget the biology and size of the matter to be aborted for the very same reason! Women only have to right to abort because judges wrongly interpreted the 14th amendment by neglecting to extend equal APPLICATION of the law to men AS WELL AS women.

Men have limitations on what they can do with the body they were born with yet these judges seem to feel as if women shouldn't. Are men to be subjected to the arbitrary decision of a woman in order to be a father? This certainly flies in the face of mans' right to pursue happines. If a woman chooses to abort to be happy then perhaps men should have this right too instead of parenting being forced on them by the whims of a woman. Paying to support a child that the father often never gets to see is certainly an inconvenience caused ONLY by his phyical make-up.

The right to be a parent, while not specifically delineated in the constitution, can certainly argued to be God given and inalienable as it is only through a combination of male and female matter that birth OR abortion is even possible.
The fact that the fetus is nurtured in the womans womb is not by her choice but by the design of nature and men must live by this law of nature as well.

The right of women to exclusively have an abortion on demand as granted by the Supreme Court DISCRIMINATES against a mans' right to do the very same thing to the very same matter at question.

Again I ask you, would pro-abortion people be willing to extend the right of choice to a man if they believe so firmly that all people should have equal rights? The answer is a resounding NO with the reasoning being only that the "matter" is growing inside of the woman by natures' design. Murder for the sake of convenience apparently is a right that women feel is EXCLUSIVELY theirs'. Discrimination is OK if nature made you differently?
See if you can sell that one to all those who are created "differently" !

The Supreme Court created a situation where a law is applied in a discriminatory fashion. If both sexes are not allowed the right to decide on parenthood than NIETHER should have it !

 

[CivilLiberty]

Why doesn't it surprise me that you would declare a discussion over because YOU were no longer interested. Maybe you should not let your emotions cloud your ability to reason. I would think a communicator as yourself would know this already

I've made my points and you've made yours. I've pointed out the faults in your logic, but now we're repeating ourselves.

Perhaps you merely have neglected to set your emotions and ego aside long enough to understand the truth in what I say. (btw--I'm from a blue county)

I am still human and suffer the faults of emotional reactions like everyone else. I did clarify after the fact.

not additional--EQUAL

That both sexes should have equal rights

They have equal rights. They each have control over their own bodies. Giving a man control over the woman's body would be to give him ADDITIONAL rights.

I've already laid out the options that they have

And who are you to dictate their options?

Courts let murderers go too but it doesn't make it right !

Our court system, though it has flaws, works pretty well. What alternate system do you propose?

The right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness is indeed a law. Pro- abortionist just want it to apply to only women in this case. The sole right to abort is not only imaginary but sexist.

An abortion is a selfish act carried out by women giving NO thought the fetus nor the father. It's discriminitory !!

No it isn't.



A

 

[CivilLiberty]

Um, 40 days is still in the first trimester CL. Don't be deliberately obtuse....snip...I guess I should have said over 99% of surgical abortions occur after 40 days after conception. Since we are now speaking of surgical abortions and most people don't even know they are pregnant to make the choice to abort until after 40 days into a Pregnancy it is clear that almost all abortions occur 40 or more days after conception. At that point a Fetus has brain activity and a heartbeat. Thus a central nervous system and "alive" by your previous declared position of brain activy = life.

I'm not being obtuse, you stated that most abortions occurred in the second trimester, which is false. 80% happen in the first trimester.

It's not a fetus till the third month, and even then the brain stem is primitive at best. the brain centers that control even the most basic life functions such as breathing don't develop until the 6th month.

At the 4th month, the fetal brain is about the size of a hazelnut - smaller than that of a cat, and far less developed. This primitive brain has not developed into an individual person, nor has it developed the nervous centers needed for sustaining life.

Since you have stated earlier that brain activity is where you make the cut are you willing to propose that we should stop over 99% of surgical abortions or are you going to attempt to change your position in midstream?

I never made the statement that "brain activity" is where I make the distinction - if anything I said brain development. There is a very significant difference.

And again, 80% of surgical abortions happen in the FIRST trimester, which means the FIRST 3 months.


Andy

 

[CivilLiberty]

Below is a summation of the 14th amendment under which the Supreme Court effectively legalized aboortion.

Do you have a cite for this statement or did you just make it up?


A

 

[no1tovote4]

I'm not being obtuse, you stated that most abortions occurred in the second trimester, which is false. 80% happen in the first trimester.

It's not a fetus till the third month, and even then the brain stem is primitive at best. the brain centers that control even the most basic life functions such as breathing don't develop until the 6th month.

At the 4th month, the fetal brain is about the size of a hazelnut - smaller than that of a cat, and far less developed. This primitive brain has not developed into an individual person, nor has it developed the nervous centers needed for sustaining life.

I said nothing of the sort. I said that most surgical abortions occured after 40 days. Earlier you said brain function was your cut-off point and I simply pointed out that brain function begins at 40 days and therefore by your definition it was human life. Now you are defining it as functional central nervous system.

I never made the statement that "brain activity" is where I make the distinction - if anything I said brain development. There is a very significant difference.

And again, 80% of surgical abortions happen in the FIRST trimester, which means the FIRST 3 months.


Andy

When asked when human life begins you stated "A few undifferentiated cells with no brain stem? Not a human being." This led me to believe that you assert that when the embryo developed a brain stem, ergo brain activity, they were in your estimation human.

And as I pointed out 40 days is certainly the FIRST Trimester and therefore my statement was not FALSE as you asserted, therefore in my estimation you are deliberately changing my statement from something that was not false into something that is false in an attempt to deny my point which is certainly a logical fallacy if not obtuse.

 

[dilloduck]

Do you have a cite for this statement or did you just make it up?


A

why---do you have a problem with it or am I doing research for your column for ya? http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/equal_protection.html

 

[dilloduck]

I've made my points and you've made yours. I've pointed out the faults in your logic, but now we're repeating ourselves.

You've only tried

I am still human and suffer the faults of emotional reactions like everyone else. I did clarify after the fact.

Thanks for admitting to your mistake

They have equal rights. They each have control over their own bodies. Giving a man control over the woman's body would be to give him ADDITIONAL rights.

No--a woman has control over a mans body after the birth of the child should she choose to allow it to live.

And who are you to dictate their options?

Part of the American government

Our court system, though it has flaws, works pretty well. What alternate system do you propose?

same system with special attention paid to reforming it !

No it isn't.

I love this refutation in particular---very convincing ! :cof:

 

[no1tovote4]

I love this refutation in particular---very convincing ! :cof:

No it isn't.

:tng:

 

[dilloduck]

No it isn't.

:tng:

is too---is not ----is too----is not gotta love it !

 

[elephant]

is too---is not ----is too----is not gotta love it !

What if I interpret the equal rights part of this argument as THE SEX? Both the man and the woman have the right to participate in the actual sex that results in conception. Before the sex, both parties can negotiate anything they want and both make a decision whether or not to participate. They are treated fully equally.

After that the 'right' to carry a fetus to term and bear a child is uniquely female. That 'right' cannot be negotiated. The state can respect a man's 'right' to want to bear children, but he cannot - it is biological. Your rights (about delivering a child or abortion or whatever might follow) stop when the sex begins. Why? It is not your 'right' to have sex. That is why you negotiated before the act.

Example - It is usually obligatory for a football stadium to have seating for physically challenged people, as to not discriminate against who can buy their product. One cannot sit there if one is not physically challenged. When you purchase your tickets you know this to be true, before the fact, and make a decision if this is 'fair' before you buy. The seats are there and you cannot have them, ever.

Maybe you should start by thinking about this simpler and most likely less controversial example.

Just a thought.

 

[dilloduck]

What if I interpret the equal rights part of this argument as THE SEX? Both the man and the woman have the right to participate in the actual sex that results in conception. Before the sex, both parties can negotiate anything they want and both make a decision whether or not to participate. They are treated fully equally.

After that the 'right' to carry a fetus to term and bear a child is uniquely female. That 'right' cannot be negotiated. The state can respect a man's 'right' to want to bear children, but he cannot - it is biological. Your rights (about delivering a child or abortion or whatever might follow) stop when the sex begins. Why? It is not your 'right' to have sex. That is why you negotiated before the act.

Example - It is usually obligatory for a football stadium to have seating for physically challenged people, as to not discriminate against who can buy their product. One cannot sit there if one is not physically challenged. When you purchase your tickets you know this to be true, before the fact, and make a decision if this is 'fair' before you buy. The seats are there and you cannot have them, ever.

Maybe you should start by thinking about this simpler and most likely less controversial example.

Just a thought.

I would if I thought being a woman was some sort of handicap as some would have us believe ! Poor things would have to be pregnant for a whole 9 months if abortion was illegal. They shouldn't have to go through all that because of a silly little mistake !

 

[CivilLiberty]

why---do you have a problem with it or am I doing research for your column for ya? http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/equal_protection.html

That's not the cite I was talking about. You don't need to cite references to constitutional annotations for me, I'm well aware of the meaning and interpretation of the amendments.

I wanted a cite on your contention that ROE was based on the 14th, and your interpretation of ROE as stated in that post.


A

 

[CivilLiberty]

What if I interpret the equal rights part of this argument as THE SEX? Both the man and the woman have the right to participate in the actual sex that results in conception. Before the sex, both parties can negotiate anything they want and both make a decision whether or not to participate. They are treated fully equally.

After that the 'right' to carry a fetus to term and bear a child is uniquely female. That 'right' cannot be negotiated. The state can respect a man's 'right' to want to bear children, but he cannot - it is biological. Your rights (about delivering a child or abortion or whatever might follow) stop when the sex begins. Why? It is not your 'right' to have sex. That is why you negotiated before the act.

Nicely stated.

Example - It is usually obligatory for a football stadium to have seating for physically challenged people, as to not discriminate against who can buy their product. One cannot sit there if one is not physically challenged. When you purchase your tickets you know this to be true, before the fact, and make a decision if this is 'fair' before you buy. The seats are there and you cannot have them, ever.

This disabled thing has gone too far - yes, such seats should be available, but if they are not purchased by disabled by the time the game starts, then they should be open to anyone.

Braille at the drive through ATM?? PLEASE!


A

 

[CivilLiberty]

...would have to be pregnant for a whole 9 months if abortion was illegal. They shouldn't have to go through all that because of a silly little mistake

You're right, they shouldn't.

A woman should not be forced to carry for 9 months if she decides against it, and terminates in the first 3 months, as provided by law.


A

 

[Annie]

You're right, they shouldn't.

A woman should not be forced to carry for 9 months if she decides against it, and terminates in the first 3 months, as provided by law.


A

well then, she shouldn't take a chance on pregnancy, if that is not what she wants. D'oh! Don't post bs about condoms. IF she has the final SAY, then she should make sure pregnancy does not occur. R*E*S*P*E*C*T as the song goes....

 

[dilloduck]

What if I interpret the equal rights part of this argument as THE SEX? Both the man and the woman have the right to participate in the actual sex that results in conception. Before the sex, both parties can negotiate anything they want and both make a decision whether or not to participate. They are treated fully equally.

After that the 'right' to carry a fetus to term and bear a child is uniquely female. That 'right' cannot be negotiated. The state can respect a man's 'right' to want to bear children, but he cannot - it is biological. Your rights (about delivering a child or abortion or whatever might follow) stop when the sex begins. Why? It is not your 'right' to have sex. That is why you negotiated before the act.

Let me get this straight--Males can negotiate to have sex with a woman but cannot negotiate to share the rights to what may be created by this union? How about a no-fault clause for the man to be free from any consequences of this sexual encounter ? Bet that goes over like a lead balloon. Why are so many people willing to cede the future of our society, country and race to the female gender ?

It gets down to this--a woman has been granted more freedom because she has the right body parts ??? Being hit in the balls is a hate crime that can only be committed by a woman??? Nonsense.

 

[dilloduck]

You're right, they shouldn't.

A woman should not be forced to carry for 9 months if she decides against it, and terminates in the first 3 months, as provided by law.


A

God forbid anyone should have to be responsible for pregnancy---except men of course.

 

[Annie]

Let me get this straight--Males can negotiate to have sex with a woman but cannot negotiate to share the rights to what may be created by this union? How about a no-fault clause for the man to be free from any consequences of this sexual encounter ? Bet that goes over like a lead balloon. Why are so many people willing to cede the future of our society, country and race to the female gender ?

It gets down to this--a woman has been granted more freedom because she has the right body parts ??? Being hit in the balls is a hate crime that can only be committed by a woman??? Nonsense.

You and I seem to agree mostly on these points. Radical idea: Neither man nor woman should get in position of conceiving a child, if they don't want to take responsibility for such.

If you don't feel comfortable discussing, well guess you shouldn't get naked.

 

[Avatar4321]

You're right, they shouldn't.

A woman should not be forced to carry for 9 months if she decides against it, and terminates in the first 3 months, as provided by law.


A

The problem is no one forces a woman to get pregnant in the first place. She puts herself in the position to get pregnant. As much as people like to pretend, you cant change the consquences of poor choices. And you deffinately shouldnt be allowed to terminate a life because you want to get out of a tough situation you put yourself in because of poor actions.

The American people have never passed a law allowing Abortion. Legal Abortion is the creation of the Supreme Court. Roe v. Wade needs to be overturned so the people can create their own laws not Judges.

 

[elephant]

Let me get this straight--Males can negotiate to have sex with a woman but cannot negotiate to share the rights to what may be created by this union? How about a no-fault clause for the man to be free from any consequences of this sexual encounter ? Bet that goes over like a lead balloon. Why are so many people willing to cede the future of our society, country and race to the female gender ?

Yes and no – just not after the fact. This seems pretty clear – as a part of your negotiation you could get married, for example. This would increase your bargaining power with the woman who you are negotiating to have sex with. I imagine there are cases where a women being deemed not of sound mind, has been forced by the state to have a child that the father wants to have. I am assuming she was pregnant before she went crazy. I imagine you could also have a very elaborate pre-nuptial agreement limiting or increasing your responsibility to any embryos conceived, etc. I am not suggesting these negotiations take place in a frat house basement 15 minutes before you get lucky. I am only saying the negotiations are possible.

You could simply negotiate to not participate in any activities that would lead to conception. That seems pretty easy.

It gets down to this--a woman has been granted more freedom because she has the right body parts ??? Being hit in the balls is a hate crime that can only be committed by a woman??? Nonsense.

I am still thinking about this one. The answer could very well be – yes, the world is unfair.