Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Please expound. As I read that it only really refers to the state placing an undue burden on obtaining an abortion, not that a state cannot outlaw late term abortions. That is the point that I was speaking to as the rights of the mother are essentially overridden IF the state outlaws a late term abortion.
That is the context in which I was speaking because IF an abortion is outlawed because of the fetus age (late term) AND the woman retains a right to abort out of privacy rights THEN the fetus right to life has essentially overridden the womans right to an abortion.
In this or one of the many abortion threads is a citation from Casey referring to the womens privacy rights prior to viability.
The Casey Court abandoned the first trimester provision in Roe replacing it with the undue burden doctrine the goal was to allow states more flexibility with regard to regulating abortion. The Casey Majority also wanted to allow for a development of privacy rights/abortion jurisprudence to guide lower courts, establish settled and accepted case law on the issue, and to shield the Supreme Court from never-ending appeals with regard to every variation of the controversy.
This was a very wise action by the Court which has worked out well, an example of this is the Courts refusal to review a personhood ruling by the Oklahoma Supreme Court.
Prohibitions of late term abortions are therefore Constitutional, but are predicated on the states legitimate concern for the health and wellbeing of the mother and unborn child once viability is realized, not the unborn childs rights per se, as ones rights do not manifest until after he is born.
Fortunately decisions like Casey are merely judicial findings and can be reversed by another court.
Abortion is the murder of a human being. It is as wrong as Adam Lanza was in choosing to administer post birth abortions to 20 children. Now, the second question is whether or not abortion is always wrong, or whether there might be some extenuating circumstances that would justify abortion. The way someone whose life is threatened has the right to off that intruder in their homes.
When the right to abortion was being debated in the 1970s the issue was providing desperate women a way to end their pregnancies as soon as they found out they were pregnant. DESPERATE women. The Roe decision reflected this. On demand in the first trimester, medically necessary in the second trimester and only to save the life of the mother in the third trimester. There was never supposed to be such a thing as late term abortion on demand. Post birth abortion was murder that could be prosecuted as a conspiracy between the doctor, the mother and any assisting personnel to commit murder.
Whatever abortion WAS, it isn't that way anymore. Today it is a grotesque celebration of bloodletting for the sake of bloodletting. The issue has nothing to do with desperate women but killing a living child, breathing on its own by cutting it's spinal cord immediately after birth. That we actually have people that find justification for this shows just how sick and evil we have become. Take the living child, give it medical care and tell the woman to go have a back alley abortion. At that stage, the use of a rusty coat hanger is appropriate. The child has been born.
In your personal subjective opinion, which is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant.
And the Constitution protects society from the likes of you, your extremism and ignorance.
The Constitution says nothing about a woman's right to murder her child, nor does it impose an obligation on someone else to help her. In Roe, the Justices did not find a right to abortion or even a right to privacy. They made it up. They made it up on the spot, and called it a penumbra right. Relying on the Constitution is misplaced and meaningless.
It doesn't matter. Abortion is going to remain a choice, and thats that.
Quit shoving your religious beliefs down our throats.
It does matter and quit shoving your progressive bullshit down our throats....if you want to suck a dick, go ahead....dont keep me from making fun of you.
In your personal subjective opinion, which is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant.
And the Constitution protects society from the likes of you, your extremism and ignorance.
The Constitution says nothing about a woman's right to murder her child, nor does it impose an obligation on someone else to help her. In Roe, the Justices did not find a right to abortion or even a right to privacy. They made it up. They made it up on the spot, and called it a penumbra right. Relying on the Constitution is misplaced and meaningless.
The Constitution says nothing about a right to self-defense, or the right of an individual to own a handgun.
But its there nonetheless.
Since before Marbury, and per the original intent of the Framers, the courts determine what the Constitution means, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review, which predates the Constitution; and where the Founding Generation fully expected the courts to interpret the law and determine its meaning.
The Constitution and its case law is not a cafeteria plan, if you reject the right to privacy then you must also reject the right of the individual to own a handgun, as the latter is just as made up.
Last, abortion is not murder, ignorance of the difference between civil law and criminal law seems to be epidemic among conservatives.
Except that the right to privacy and the ability to abort IS a constitutional question (as expressed in Roe vs. Wade) as I read it. That right expressed in the constitution can only really be challenged or limited by another right in the constitution. I would cite that as the general right to life that would bind all other rights together. In that context, the childs right to life would, indeed, be protected by the constitution.That is not entirely true. The constitution does not make any distinction at all about who does and does not get rights and at what time they do. Children are not delineated in the constitution yet it is quite clear that a child does not enjoy the full rights that an adult does. No court case supports your supposition that a fetus enjoys no constitutional protections. That is the legal basis for most late term abortion bans which do exist and are quite constitutional. Clearly, fetuses do obtain SOME protections. The debate is at what point does a fetus right to life overcome the womans right to do what she wants with her body. At some point that can and does occur.
I said 'as far as the Constitution is concerned' for a reason. The Constitution allows the states in some circumstances to protect the fetus, but on the other hand, it allows the states to choose not to.
My statement was that the Constitution in no way protects the rights of a fetus as a person. It doesn't, otherwise it would not defer that decision to the states.
Grated there is no actual phrase to point out or line that I can bring up BUT that does not mean that the constitution is completely silent on the subject. In that same manner, you have espoused all types of different laws based on lines like the general welfare clause and the commerce clause. Somehow, you have construed all those meanings from one line statements but then refuse to admit that the constitution provides some protections to the unborn, something that the courts have never stated either.
You might think that I am reading too far into the constitution by placing a general right to life in there but I do not agree with that sentiment. Either way though, the question is rather moot as the constitutional rights afforded to the unborn are in no way to mean that the right to abort is absolute or should override the right to life. As I have stated many time, not even the court is crazy enough to go that far. There is a point in which the right of a woman to control her body is overridden by the right of the child to live. That is enshrined in CURRENT law.
[One of the things that drives me nuts about this kind of debate though is that many on the pro-choice side (of which I am a part of) simply REFUSES to call a spade a spade and admit that they are killing a person.
So, anyone figure out yet that if you were not born with it, then it by definition is not an organ of your body?
So, anyone figure out yet that if you were not born with it, then it by definition is not an organ of your body?
It's a part of a woman's body which makes it her property, like every other part of her body.
Firstly, let me make clear that I have made a major booboo.That was a wonderful read. It's refreshing to run into an intelligent debate here. I agree we are both coming from a scientific perspective.
Except Siamese twins are not separate people. They literally are not separable. They are conjoined people. Interesting term, don't you think? Not-separate plural people. Why is that? Because nearly every human culture values the mind above all else. If a person had one head but multiple pairs of legs, we'd say it was one person. Two heads means two people because the mind is what we value. As do zombies. It's why this society has no problems slaughtering animals for food.The fact that it survives separate from the mother but dependent on her furthers this in the same way that Siamese twins are separate people but have identical DNA.
Nevertheless, this gets into rather murky ethical territory that most people on this forum can't even begin to comprehend, but I'm reluctantly willing to discuss with you despite onlookers: why do we value babies or fetuses who do not yet possess such consciousness? Forget law, let's stick to ethics. I'll come back to science shortly.
I'll remove us from the topic slightly with a thought experiment. Say there are two dogs of the same age and breed facing certain doom, and only one could be saved. Now one of the dogs belongs to a family that loves it, and the other is a stray. Even though neither dog possesses consciousness, the decision of which to save is blatantly clear. That reasoning, combined with the potential for consciousness, is why we protect babies in this society. More notable is the fact that such potential for consciousness is held valuable to vastly different degrees for each person, which is ultimately the underlying issue being debated in every abortion discussion.
That might be the ultimate example but it is irrelevant what example is used. Either way, that organism is its own organism and distinctly not human. I will admit that I am at the end of my understanding of biology here as I am no biologist but, as I understand it, mitochondria ARE separate autonomous organisms that have simply lost the ability to survive without the host:OK so let's return to the science:
Excellent point, but I would disagree by bringing up symbiosis here. Bacteria serve purpose in our intestines. We can survive without them, but we do better with them. If we want to see the ultimate one-cell organism symbiosis, we need but look at our own cells. Mitochondria, the cellular organelle that provides energy found in every cell, has completely different, non-human DNA. It divides separately of the greater cell in which it resides, and is in every way a ghost of what was once a completely separate organism. But now it's not separate. It cannot be removed without both counterparts dying.To understand this line of logic better, what would you consider a bacteria that lives within a human hosts’ stomach? That is clearly not ‘part’ of the host. It is a parasite (and I must point out that no matter how much emotion that word might bring into this debate - parasite is the most accurate way to describe a fetus). That parasite is unique in its existence. It is clearly a singular organism that is not a human. Its designation as a bacterium of a specific kind is found in its DNA, its individual status is found in the fact that it operates individually.
A fetus fits all the same criteria that a bacterium does. Why then are we so hesitant to ascribe it the same exact status as that bacterium.
So let's return to gut bacteria. Are they separate or separable? Yes, they can be removed without dying. Do they serve a purpose to the host? The good kind, sure. Are Siamese twins separate or separable? Is a fetus? If the answer is no, it does not fit the same criteria as the bacteria. Does it more closely approximate mitochondria?
Nor do I but if you have just one cell then that is a person (at least to me) as any other definition speaks to me as a philosophical matter and NOT a scientific one. If we were to define human then, what would your definition be?I disagree here, mostly because I don't see human cells and human beings as the same.Lastly, I acknowledge that it is one more step in the developmental process. What I reject is that concept that developmental process starts with something other than a unique individual human. I am somewhat confused as to how you can state that it starts any other way. We do not start as a rock, lizard or another mammal. We start as a human, progress through the various developmental stages as a human and then die as a human. At no point along that entire chain are you not human nor at any point in time are you not a unique individual.
Except its autonomy and DNA (at least that of the embryo). Just because it is similar to other embryos does not make it an individual human. On that scale, we would all look alike to an alien race with extremely similar makeups. That does not mean we would cease to be individuals. Your statements ‘beg the question’ (oh yes, I went thereCancer creates unique human cells, but clearly cancer is not a human being. Nor does the uniqueness of the DNA actually matter, as we would both admit normal twins as two separate individual human beings. But one cell, while human, is neither a person, nor unique. It has the potential to become unique, but as I mentioned, potential is what the debate is all about. At the one-cell stage, it expresses the exact same proteins and markers as every other human embryo. There is literally nothing actively unique about it.
) at what point does it become a ‘human’ then. One cell is not enough but is 100, 100K, 10^100000? Where is that line? If it is other things than what exactly is it that you must have before you are considered ‘human.’I would call that ‘person.’I see your stance on the matter, but I believe here is where we disagree. I see the human being part as something that is developed over time, without clear biologic borders.
So in summary: one cell not unique, uniqueness actually irrelevant, fetus not separate individual, embryos human genetically but not yet human beings.
So, anyone figure out yet that if you were not born with it, then it by definition is not an organ of your body?
It's a part of a woman's body which makes it her property, like every other part of her body.
Yeah, so is her nose/vagina/mouth but prostituion and drug use are illegal....so is necrophila and beastiality and incest.....
Your question makes no sense in relation to the quoted statement. IF you worded it as thus:Is it currently unconstitutional for an individual state to legalize abortion at any time before birth if that state so chose?
Person was a bad word to use. I meant HUMAN. Most pro-choice people refuse to call it a HUMAN. They want to lessen the gravity of the decision of killing someone, another human, in the developmental stage by referring to it as an embryo. That is a correct term, but it is still human, a HUMAN embryo.[One of the things that drives me nuts about this kind of debate though is that many on the pro-choice side (of which I am a part of) simply REFUSES to call a spade a spade and admit that they are killing a person.
The fetus is not a person. That's why you see so many people at the state and federal level trying to pass legislation or amend constitutions to declare it to be a person.
If it were already a person such amendments would be superfluous.
Your question makes no sense in relation to the quoted statement. IF you worded it as thus:Is it currently unconstitutional for an individual state to legalize abortion at any time before birth if that state so chose?
Is it currently constitutional for an individual state to ban abortion at any time before birth if that state so chose?
Then that would make sense as that is what I was talking about. Nowhere did I state that abortion was unconstitutional. What I DID state is that banning abortion in the late stage of a pregnancy IS constitutional and therefore, at some point, the womans right to privacy is OVERRIDDEN. This is cold hard fact as band have been upheld.
Person was a bad word to use. I meant HUMAN. Most pro-choice people refuse to call it a HUMAN. They want to lessen the gravity of the decision of killing someone, another human, in the developmental stage by referring to it as an embryo. That is a correct term, but it is still human, a HUMAN embryo.[One of the things that drives me nuts about this kind of debate though is that many on the pro-choice side (of which I am a part of) simply REFUSES to call a spade a spade and admit that they are killing a person.
The fetus is not a person. That's why you see so many people at the state and federal level trying to pass legislation or amend constitutions to declare it to be a person.
If it were already a person such amendments would be superfluous.
It's a part of a woman's body which makes it her property, like every other part of her body.
Yeah, so is her nose/vagina/mouth but prostituion and drug use are illegal....so is necrophila and beastiality and incest.....
If the fetus is part of a woman's body, and if the fetus has no standing or rights as a person,
then a woman has every right to remove it or have it removed from her body.
If there's no right to privacy in the Constitution, as some of you continue to insist,
then
1. it would not be a violation of anyone's privacy to have all guns registered and the registry made public.
2. it would not be a violation of anyone's privacy if some provision of Obamacare made public your medical records (as some have claimed it might)
Anyone disagree?
If there's no right to privacy in the Constitution, as some of you continue to insist,
then
1. it would not be a violation of anyone's privacy to have all guns registered and the registry made public.
2. it would not be a violation of anyone's privacy if some provision of Obamacare made public your medical records (as some have claimed it might)
Anyone disagree?
Yes there is a right to privacy, but it doesnt apply to everything. If someone kills their spouse in their home, do they have a right to privacy or does the murder supercede that? Inquiring minds want to know.
Ok there is a right to speech , yet people like you want people fired for calling people fags.....so reconcile that with me
Yeah, so is her nose/vagina/mouth but prostituion and drug use are illegal....so is necrophila and beastiality and incest.....
If the fetus is part of a woman's body, and if the fetus has no standing or rights as a person,
then a woman has every right to remove it or have it removed from her body.
Really so people can opt to have their heart removed? Funny I though suicide was illegal, maybe it's just me.
If there's no right to privacy in the Constitution, as some of you continue to insist,
then
1. it would not be a violation of anyone's privacy to have all guns registered and the registry made public.
2. it would not be a violation of anyone's privacy if some provision of Obamacare made public your medical records (as some have claimed it might)
Anyone disagree?
Yes there is a right to privacy, but it doesnt apply to everything. If someone kills their spouse in their home, do they have a right to privacy or does the murder supercede that? Inquiring minds want to know.
Ok there is a right to speech , yet people like you want people fired for calling people fags.....so reconcile that with me
Since the fetus does not have personhood status constitutionally, the right of a woman's privacy to abort is not in conflict with any other rights, therefore, the privacy right prevails.
In the case of later term abortions, the court ruled that the states can intervene on behalf of the fetus.
Yes there is a right to privacy, but it doesnt apply to everything. If someone kills their spouse in their home, do they have a right to privacy or does the murder supercede that? Inquiring minds want to know.
Ok there is a right to speech , yet people like you want people fired for calling people fags.....so reconcile that with me
Since the fetus does not have personhood status constitutionally, the right of a woman's privacy to abort is not in conflict with any other rights, therefore, the privacy right prevails.
In the case of later term abortions, the court ruled that the states can intervene on behalf of the fetus.
Well now that the court has told us I feel better...are you crazy?
Ok first of all women cant just remove organs....and this "organ" as you call it is another person, because if you dont do anything to it, it will grow into another poster on this board....without any special help or assistance, so yes it's a person.
I mean the courts ruled at one time that blacks weren't people, so we're talking principal not legality.....because if the courts ruled that you can shoot gay people at will, I'm sure you wouldnt back that and neither would I.
And again the right to privacy is for your reputation, not to kill kids. If you want to look up at gay sex on the internet, or if you want to get treated for syphilis, those should be private...but if you want to kill kids......nope.
