Rape does not justify abortion

[westwall]

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.

Here's where I break with conservatives. The government that states you may not have an abortion has also stated that it can tell you you must have an abortion. Witness China.

Maximum individual rights requires that abortion be a legal option for the mother. I find abortion used as birth control to be extremely disgusting, however I would rather have that issue than having government dictate who can and who can't have children.

 

[Katzndogz]

There's no right to privacy in the Constitution.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

SCOTUS has decided this for you.

Appeals to authority are not a valid argument.

That said, feel free to go back and point out where I said that they didn't. What I have consistently argued is that SCOTUS is fallible, and have provided examples of things they got wrong that we now know were clearly unconstitutional despite the rationalization of the court.

My original argument is that rape does not justify an abortion and that the government has a positive duty to protect all lives, even the inconvenient ones. Can you tell me what makes that silly?

 

[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.

Here's where I break with conservatives. The government that states you may not have an abortion has also stated that it can tell you you must have an abortion. Witness China.

Maximum individual rights requires that abortion be a legal option for the mother. I find abortion used as birth control to be extremely disgusting, however I would rather have that issue than having government dictate who can and who can't have children.

Government has a positive duty to protect life, yes or no?

 

[jillian]

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.

Here's where I break with conservatives. The government that states you may not have an abortion has also stated that it can tell you you must have an abortion. Witness China.

Maximum individual rights requires that abortion be a legal option for the mother. I find abortion used as birth control to be extremely disgusting, however I would rather have that issue than having government dictate who can and who can't have children.

Government has a positive duty to protect life, yes or no?

When the governmental interest exceeds my own in exercising dominion over my own body.

And Roe set the timeline for that...... No matter how much you think you should impose your religious beliefs on others

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Here's where I break with conservatives. The government that states you may not have an abortion has also stated that it can tell you you must have an abortion. Witness China.

Maximum individual rights requires that abortion be a legal option for the mother. I find abortion used as birth control to be extremely disgusting, however I would rather have that issue than having government dictate who can and who can't have children.

Government has a positive duty to protect life, yes or no?

I don't think anybody has argued that government should ever have the power to dictate who can and can't have children. At the state and local levels, it should have the power to ensure that any children produced are properly cared for and that can include removing a child from a home in cases of abuse, neglect, or inability to care for the child and placing the child in a safe environment. If we go with strict interpretation of original intent, the federal government is not constitutionally authorized to get involved in such matters.

So ultimately it all comes down to whether the unborn chld is consideredto be a life subject to the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Or whether it is a throwaway at the whim or decision of the mother. It is an even stickier wicket in states in which a murder of a pregnant woman counts as a double murder.

The pro abortion group desperately wants the unborn child to be nothing more than a mass of cells and to be entirely considered a throwaway if that is what the woman wants to do. Many think that if any part of the child is yet inside the birth canal, the child should be killed with impunity or an aborted baby that continues to live after the procedure should be killed or allowed to die. These are serious ethical issues for a whole lot of us.

And until those ethics are fully resolved, this will continue to be a volatiile and emotional issue.

 

[westwall]

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.

Here's where I break with conservatives. The government that states you may not have an abortion has also stated that it can tell you you must have an abortion. Witness China.

Maximum individual rights requires that abortion be a legal option for the mother. I find abortion used as birth control to be extremely disgusting, however I would rather have that issue than having government dictate who can and who can't have children.

Government has a positive duty to protect life, yes or no?

No. Government has a duty to provide safety for the State. Individual life is the responsibility of the individual. The courts have repeatedly found this to be true.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I understand that is your opinion, and I and more than t0% of Americans think it is silly.

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

SCOTUS has decided this for you.

Appeals to authority are not a valid argument.

That said, feel free to go back and point out where I said that they didn't. What I have consistently argued is that SCOTUS is fallible, and have provided examples of things they got wrong that we now know were clearly unconstitutional despite the rationalization of the court.

My original argument is that rape does not justify an abortion and that the government has a positive duty to protect all lives, even the inconvenient ones. Can you tell me what makes that silly?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Government has a positive duty to follow the Constitution.

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.

Here's where I break with conservatives. The government that states you may not have an abortion has also stated that it can tell you you must have an abortion. Witness China.

Maximum individual rights requires that abortion be a legal option for the mother. I find abortion used as birth control to be extremely disgusting, however I would rather have that issue than having government dictate who can and who can't have children.

Government has a positive duty to protect life, yes or no?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Here's where I break with conservatives. The government that states you may not have an abortion has also stated that it can tell you you must have an abortion. Witness China.

Maximum individual rights requires that abortion be a legal option for the mother. I find abortion used as birth control to be extremely disgusting, however I would rather have that issue than having government dictate who can and who can't have children.

Government has a positive duty to protect life, yes or no?

When the governmental interest exceeds my own in exercising dominion over my own body.

And Roe set the timeline for that...... No matter how much you think you should impose your religious beliefs on others

That was a yes or no question about the government having a positive duty to protect life, not an invitation to rationalize your dislike of that duty.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Here's where I break with conservatives. The government that states you may not have an abortion has also stated that it can tell you you must have an abortion. Witness China.

Maximum individual rights requires that abortion be a legal option for the mother. I find abortion used as birth control to be extremely disgusting, however I would rather have that issue than having government dictate who can and who can't have children.

Government has a positive duty to protect life, yes or no?

I don't think anybody has argued that government should ever have the power to dictate who can and can't have children. At the state and local levels, it should have the power to ensure that any children produced are properly cared for and that can include removing a child from a home in cases of abuse, neglect, or inability to care for the child and placing the child in a safe environment. If we go with strict interpretation of original intent, the federal government is not constitutionally authorized to get involved in such matters.

So ultimately it all comes down to whether the unborn chld is consideredto be a life subject to the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Or whether it is a throwaway at the whim or decision of the mother. It is an even stickier wicket in states in which a murder of a pregnant woman counts as a double murder.

The pro abortion group desperately wants the unborn child to be nothing more than a mass of cells and to be entirely considered a throwaway if that is what the woman wants to do. Many think that if any part of the child is yet inside the birth canal, the child should be killed with impunity or an aborted baby that continues to live after the procedure should be killed or allowed to die. These are serious ethical issues for a whole lot of us.

And until those ethics are fully resolved, this will continue to be a volatiile and emotional issue.

I know I didn't ask about that.

 

[Luissa]

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.

In your opinion.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Here's where I break with conservatives. The government that states you may not have an abortion has also stated that it can tell you you must have an abortion. Witness China.

Maximum individual rights requires that abortion be a legal option for the mother. I find abortion used as birth control to be extremely disgusting, however I would rather have that issue than having government dictate who can and who can't have children.

Government has a positive duty to protect life, yes or no?

No. Government has a duty to provide safety for the State. Individual life is the responsibility of the individual. The courts have repeatedly found this to be true.

Finally, someone answered the question. I asked the question specifically to find out where you stand on the libertarian scale, thanks.

 

[Luissa]

And the right to life is where? If that was true, we wouldn't have the death penalty.
Do you support the death penalty?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

In your opinion.

That was not an opinion, it was a statement of fact.

 

[Foxfyre]

Government has a positive duty to protect life, yes or no?

I don't think anybody has argued that government should ever have the power to dictate who can and can't have children. At the state and local levels, it should have the power to ensure that any children produced are properly cared for and that can include removing a child from a home in cases of abuse, neglect, or inability to care for the child and placing the child in a safe environment. If we go with strict interpretation of original intent, the federal government is not constitutionally authorized to get involved in such matters.

So ultimately it all comes down to whether the unborn chld is consideredto be a life subject to the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Or whether it is a throwaway at the whim or decision of the mother. It is an even stickier wicket in states in which a murder of a pregnant woman counts as a double murder.

The pro abortion group desperately wants the unborn child to be nothing more than a mass of cells and to be entirely considered a throwaway if that is what the woman wants to do. Many think that if any part of the child is yet inside the birth canal, the child should be killed with impunity or an aborted baby that continues to live after the procedure should be killed or allowed to die. These are serious ethical issues for a whole lot of us.

And until those ethics are fully resolved, this will continue to be a volatiile and emotional issue.

I know I didn't ask about that.

Yeah, in a way you did. Your question is: "Government has a positive duty to protect life, yes or no?"

Westwall is one of my favorite all time posters at U.S.M.B., but I disagree to a point that protecting life is the sole responsibility of the individual which would suggest that government has no role in that. How does one 'make safe the state' if that does not focus on the safety or well being of the people that government is supposed to serve? Almost all laws related to public safety have in mind the physical well being or threat to human life for the individual.

And then bringing that forward to the thesis of this thread, we still have to resolve whether the unborn child is a human life or it isn't.

 

[JakeStarkey]

An opinionated belief is not a statement of fact.

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.

In your opinion.

That was not an opinion, it was a statement of fact.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I don't think anybody has argued that government should ever have the power to dictate who can and can't have children. At the state and local levels, it should have the power to ensure that any children produced are properly cared for and that can include removing a child from a home in cases of abuse, neglect, or inability to care for the child and placing the child in a safe environment. If we go with strict interpretation of original intent, the federal government is not constitutionally authorized to get involved in such matters.

So ultimately it all comes down to whether the unborn chld is consideredto be a life subject to the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Or whether it is a throwaway at the whim or decision of the mother. It is an even stickier wicket in states in which a murder of a pregnant woman counts as a double murder.

The pro abortion group desperately wants the unborn child to be nothing more than a mass of cells and to be entirely considered a throwaway if that is what the woman wants to do. Many think that if any part of the child is yet inside the birth canal, the child should be killed with impunity or an aborted baby that continues to live after the procedure should be killed or allowed to die. These are serious ethical issues for a whole lot of us.

And until those ethics are fully resolved, this will continue to be a volatiile and emotional issue.

I know I didn't ask about that.

Yeah, in a way you did. Your question is: "Government has a positive duty to protect life, yes or no?"

Westwall is one of my favorite all time posters at U.S.M.B., but I disagree to a point that protecting life is the sole responsibility of the individual which would suggest that government has no role in that. How does one 'make safe the state' if that does not focus on the safety or well being of the people that government is supposed to serve? Almost all laws related to public safety have in mind the physical well being or threat to human life for the individual.

And then bringing that forward to the thesis of this thread, we still have to resolve whether the unborn child is a human life or it isn't.

I asked the question because I agree with him, and he is right.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

An opinionated belief is not a statement of fact.

In your opinion.

That was not an opinion, it was a statement of fact.

The right to privacy does not trump the right to life is not a statement of opinion, it is a fact.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

It's clear you've lost the argument when all you have are immature smartass replies to respond with.

The fetus is not a person according to constitutional law. A woman has a clear indisputable right of privacy that the Supreme Court has determined conveys to her the right to an abortion in the first trimester.