Rape does not justify abortion

[Luissa]

We all have a right to life, even if you don't believe that rights come from the government the right to life is written into the constitution.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

If the purpose of government is to protect the rights of those who cannot defend themselves because no one is less capable of defending their rights than an unborn child. Rape is a horrific crime, we all know that, but it does not justify anyone taking away the rights of an innocent person.

In your opinion it doesn't, let's leave that choice up to the woman who was raped.

 

[HUGGY]

When Roe was passed, I had a conversation about it with a woman whose opinion I respected. A wise and respected Judge. While I was for Roe as a reasonable compromise for competing rights she saw it differently As she said, once it becomes legal to abort a baby before it's born, it will be legal to abort it while it's being born. Then it will be legal after it's born. If it is legal to abort their baby, it will be legal to abort yours. I laughed at her. That was the silliest thing I ever heard. But that was before partial birth abortion and post birth abortion. Before abortion started being a defense to murder.

Her point was we should not be passing laws without looking at where those laws will eventually end up. It took me years, but I now agree with her.

It took me about ten seconds to read your reply and have an instant urge to take two ice picks and jam them in my eyes. Seriously. Is that the purpose of this clean zone? People can come within this bubble and say the most willfully ignorant crap and THAT is supposed to be EQUAL to a responsible debate?

I'm not trying to be difficult or rude but honestly, this forum does not promote reasonable debate. It is a refuge for insanity with no rebuttle. I hope in pointing this out that I have in no way offended the tender sensibilities of some of you.

 

[Luissa]

When Roe was passed, I had a conversation about it with a woman whose opinion I respected. A wise and respected Judge. While I was for Roe as a reasonable compromise for competing rights she saw it differently As she said, once it becomes legal to abort a baby before it's born, it will be legal to abort it while it's being born. Then it will be legal after it's born. If it is legal to abort their baby, it will be legal to abort yours. I laughed at her. That was the silliest thing I ever heard. But that was before partial birth abortion and post birth abortion. Before abortion started being a defense to murder.

Her point was we should not be passing laws without looking at where those laws will eventually end up. It took me years, but I now agree with her.

I challenge you to talk to women who live in countries where abortion is illegal.

No matter what the argument is, it is easy to prove more women die from illegal abortions than legal. And bringing up post birth abortions, is straying from the subject of the debate. But I would like numbers on how much this actually happens.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Opinionated comments without support.

Also note than "fetal homicide" requires an attack on a host mother. The fetus does not exist independently, either in law or in nature.

Historically abortion has never been a popular choice, until now. Even when practiced, it was considered repugnant, until now.

Have times changed people so much that abortion is honored, respected, desired? We will see because it is all democrats have left.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Man Beats Pregnant Ex-Girlfriend Trying To Kill The Baby | Women's Self Defense Federation

How was this man charged in the murder of an unborn child?

Alleged impaired driver charged in crash that killed woman's unborn baby | abc13.com

Should we have one set of laws for one and another for someone else? If the drunk driver who killed the fetus proved that the woman was on her way to have an abortion is he still guilty of murder?

‘Fetal murder’ laws are not ‘personhood’ legislation per se. Although such laws are predicated on an alleged crime meant to harm an ‘unborn,’ this is in reality an attack on actual natural person, the mother. Even where these laws might specify the “’unborn’ alone,” such an attack will always involve the mother.

 

[NYcarbineer]

When the Constitution was written children were so necessary that convenience abortions were few, very far between and the women considered insane and confined. Confined, as in confinement. Or are you unfamiliar with the term confinement and how it was used in the 18th century?

That is absolutely false. Just made-up garbage.

In the American colonies in the 18th century, the general Protestant view of abortion was that it was considered allowable up until the time of quickening,

 

[NYcarbineer]

We all have a right to life, even if you don't believe that rights come from the government the right to life is written into the constitution.

If the purpose of government is to protect the rights of those who cannot defend themselves because no one is less capable of defending their rights than an unborn child. Rape is a horrific crime, we all know that, but it does not justify anyone taking away the rights of an innocent person.

You also have to consider the rights of the mother.
She's been violated by some bastard but some would ask her to continue that violation for a minimum of the following 9 months and probably a lot longer.

The woman had no say in her fate and that's easily reason enough for her to have total say in the aftermath.

OK, lets consider the rights of the mother. Which right does a mother have that trumps the right of anyone else to live?

Until you establish with an argument that actually involves facts and evidence that the fetus is a person with constitutional rights equal to the mother's, which you haven't,

there is no 'anyone else' in the above statement.

 

[Liability]

You also have to consider the rights of the mother.
She's been violated by some bastard but some would ask her to continue that violation for a minimum of the following 9 months and probably a lot longer.

The woman had no say in her fate and that's easily reason enough for her to have total say in the aftermath.

OK, lets consider the rights of the mother. Which right does a mother have that trumps the right of anyone else to live?

Until you establish with an argument that actually involves facts and evidence that the fetus is a person with constitutional rights equal to the mother's, which you haven't,

there is no 'anyone else' in the above statement.

Carbuncle, as always, conveniently ignores the fact that IF we cannot precisely and scientifically (yet) define when human life begins, that also entails (logically) that we cannot say that it doesn't begin shortly after conception. And since we cannot do that (at least not validly) then the argument in favor of protecting the zygote errs on the side (if it errs at all) of caution and life.

 

[dnsmith35]

We all have a right to life, even if you don't believe that rights come from the government the right to life is written into the constitution.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

If the purpose of government is to protect the rights of those who cannot defend themselves because no one is less capable of defending their rights than an unborn child. Rape is a horrific crime, we all know that, but it does not justify anyone taking away the rights of an innocent person.

In your opinion it doesn't, let's leave that choice up to the woman who was raped.

I doubt anyone wants to limit what a woman does with her body, SO LONG AS THEY DON'T KILL THE INNOCENT HUMAN LIFE WITHIN HER. That said, the USSC reached way out in left field to remove from the states one of the rights granted by the 10th Amendment. State legislatures are closer to their constituents and know better what is good for them than fed.

 

[JakeStarkey]

SCOTUS ended the states from trumping a woman's right to control her life.

 

[Luissa]

We all have a right to life, even if you don't believe that rights come from the government the right to life is written into the constitution.



If the purpose of government is to protect the rights of those who cannot defend themselves because no one is less capable of defending their rights than an unborn child. Rape is a horrific crime, we all know that, but it does not justify anyone taking away the rights of an innocent person.

In your opinion it doesn't, let's leave that choice up to the woman who was raped.

I doubt anyone wants to limit what a woman does with her body, SO LONG AS THEY DON'T KILL THE INNOCENT HUMAN LIFE WITHIN HER. That said, the USSC reached way out in left field to remove from the states one of the rights granted by the 10th Amendment. State legislatures are closer to their constituents and know better what is good for them than fed.

And a woman knows what is better for them more than the state.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The Constitution does not recognize the right to life of a fetus.

The constitution is not meant to recognize the right to life of a specific class of people, it is meant to protect everyone from the government.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

To the 'a fetus is not a person' argument, I would ask those holding that conviction to show me a single soul who was not first a zygote, then an embryo, then a fetus, etc. Show me how that is not an essential stage of a human life. And then explain how killing it is not ending a human life.

It's not an argument, it's a fact. "Personhood" is not a theological question, nor is it a biological question. It's a legal question, a socially-determined point at which legal protections, rights, and privileges are afforded. And legally a fertilized egg is not a person; attempts to change that have failed.

A constitutional amendment that would have defined a fertilized egg as a person failed on the ballot in Mississippi on Tuesday, dealing the so-called “personhood” movement another blow.

The state votes on the "personhood" amendment, which would designate a fertilized egg as a person.

Mississippi would have become the first state to define a fertilized egg as a person, a measure which was aimed at outlawing abortion in the state but, opponents contended, would have led to all kinds of unintended consequences.

In the end, those concerns won out in a strongly anti-abortion state. The amendment trailed 59 percent to 41 percent with more than half of precincts reporting. The Associated Press has said it will fail.

“Personhood” supporters had tried to pass a similar measure in Colorado in 2008 and 2010, but voters in that state rejected it more than two-to-one both times.

Whether or not you are a person is not a legal question. The legal aspect of person comes from the necessity of applying rights that are inherent in individuals to organizations of people, not from a need to define people as persons. That makes your argument that personhood is not a theological or biological question specious.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

We all have a right to life, even if you don't believe that rights come from the government the right to life is written into the constitution.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

If the purpose of government is to protect the rights of those who cannot defend themselves because no one is less capable of defending their rights than an unborn child. Rape is a horrific crime, we all know that, but it does not justify anyone taking away the rights of an innocent person.

In your opinion it doesn't, let's leave that choice up to the woman who was raped.

Do we leave the choice of whether or not to kill the rapist up to the woman? Why not?

 

[Luissa]

The Constitution does not recognize the right to life of a fetus.

The constitution is not meant to recognize the right to life of a specific class of people, it is meant to protect everyone from the government.

Hence Roe V Wade, and the right to privacy.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Constitution does not recognize the right to life of a fetus.

The constitution is not meant to recognize the right to life of a specific class of people, it is meant to protect everyone from the government.

Thus SCOTUS recognized the need to protect women from the state.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You also have to consider the rights of the mother.
She's been violated by some bastard but some would ask her to continue that violation for a minimum of the following 9 months and probably a lot longer.

The woman had no say in her fate and that's easily reason enough for her to have total say in the aftermath.

OK, lets consider the rights of the mother. Which right does a mother have that trumps the right of anyone else to live?

Until you establish with an argument that actually involves facts and evidence that the fetus is a person with constitutional rights equal to the mother's, which you haven't,

there is no 'anyone else' in the above statement.

There is always someone else involved in an abortion. if there wasn't there would be no argument that hospitals provide abortion services.

 

[JakeStarkey]

We are talking about your silly statement, QWB, not hospitals or hospital services.

SCOTUS has decided this for you.

OK, lets consider the rights of the mother. Which right does a mother have that trumps the right of anyone else to live?

Until you establish with an argument that actually involves facts and evidence that the fetus is a person with constitutional rights equal to the mother's, which you haven't,

there is no 'anyone else' in the above statement.

There is always someone else involved in an abortion. if there wasn't there would be no argument that hospitals provide abortion services.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

SCOTUS ended the states from trumping a woman's right to control her life.

The strange thing is that they didn't. They never tried to stop the government from telling women, or men, that recreational use of drugs is a criminal act. They don't even prevent the government from interfering between a woman, or a man, and her doctor when it comes to prescribing drugs that they don't like.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The Constitution does not recognize the right to life of a fetus.

The constitution is not meant to recognize the right to life of a specific class of people, it is meant to protect everyone from the government.

Hence Roe V Wade, and the right to privacy.

The right to privacy does not trump the right to life. If it did I could kill someone in my house and the government could not come in and find evidence.