Rape does not justify abortion

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Since the fetus has no right to life, your observation does not apply.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

I know. But I am respectfully disagreeing with both of you when it comes to children or others who have no reasonable means of self defense, and that would include the unborn.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

That is nonsensical. The fetus is not recognized in the Constitution as a person, therefore whatever protecting everyone from the government is supposed to mean wouldn't even apply to fetuses.

 

[westwall]

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.

By protecting the State, I am specifically referring to border protection and other things of that nature that affect the people as a whole. The people within the State are responsible for themselves. Now, we get into the nitty gritty because I also believe that as a social contract "society" as a whole has a responsibility to protect and help those who are not capable of doing that for themselves.

This is where I have a hard time with abortion because logically the unborn are not able to help themselves yet. However, the governments ultimate hammer of mandating abortion is why I err on the side of the individual distasteful as I find that practice to be.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

I know. But I am respectfully disagreeing with both of you when it comes to children or others who have no reasonable means of self defense, and that would include the unborn.

Since the unborn are not specifically referred to in the original Constitution itself, how the unborn are treated has to be interpreted by the Supreme Court, unless/until amendment to the Constitution occurs.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Since SCOTUS disagrees with you, your opinion is not fact.

An opinionated belief is not a statement of fact.

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.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

I am not the one that broke the rules here in the CDZ, am I?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

I know. But I am respectfully disagreeing with both of you when it comes to children or others who have no reasonable means of self defense, and that would include the unborn.

The government does not have a positive duty to protect anyone, but prosecuting the crime of murder is still a legitimate function of government.

 

[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.

That is nonsensical. The fetus is not recognized in the Constitution as a person, therefore whatever protecting everyone from the government is supposed to mean wouldn't even apply to fetuses.

The constitution does not recognize you, or anyone else, as a person. does that mean you have no rights?

 

[jillian]

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.

the ethics are resolved... the supreme court ruled and people should stay out of others' business.

and for the record... no one is pro abortion. we are pro government staying out of our bodies and pro religious zealots keeping to their own concerns.

 

[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.

the ethics are resolved... the supreme court ruled and people should stay out of others' business.

and for the record... no one is pro abortion. we are pro government staying out of our bodies and pro religious zealots keeping to their own concerns.

Neither the government nor the courts dictate what my moral center or sense of ethics will be. And yes, those who want no restrictions of any kind in any form on abortion are pro abortion. Otherwise they would at least be willing to have a conversation about the ethics which involve not just the woman and her right to do with her body what she wishes, but also involves a second life who has no choice in the matter. And that is where the ethics come in.

 

[syrenn]

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.

the ethics are resolved... the supreme court ruled and people should stay out of others' business.

and for the record... no one is pro abortion. we are pro government staying out of our bodies and pro religious zealots keeping to their own concerns.

Neither the government nor the courts dictate what my moral center or sense of ethics will be. And yes, those who want no restrictions of any kind in any form on abortion are pro abortion. Otherwise they would at least be willing to have a conversation about the ethics which involve not just the woman and her right to do with her body what she wishes, but also involves a second life who has no choice in the matter. And that is where the ethics come in.

Its pretty simple FF

Everyone should keep their moral centers and sense of ethics to themselves.



As for the conversation about ethics on a second life..... if you cannot remove the cells before the first trimester.... a nice gentle c section removal... a nice gentle birth....and have it live on its own... giving it ALL the life support you want..... its not viable a life of its own.

 

[Plasmaball]

Do you also support free health care for all?

nope...and he hates regulations and he can't stand police. he's totally laissez faire...

except when it comes to women's bodies.

well so am i, but i demand them be naked.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

the ethics are resolved... the supreme court ruled and people should stay out of others' business.

and for the record... no one is pro abortion. we are pro government staying out of our bodies and pro religious zealots keeping to their own concerns.

Correct, the disagreement concerns the solution, how to end the practice.

 

[Noomi]

How to end abortion? Its not possible. Banning abortion will still mean people will have abortions, they will just go underground - which I think is what the lifers would prefer. We can lower the abortion rate by starting sex education in schools early on, and do what the Netherlands does. They have an extremely low rate of teen births because they have been educated on safe sex, yet conservatives think that the way to prevent teen pregnancy is to tell them not to have sex.

I think we should ask Bristol Palin how well that works.

 

[Foxfyre]

the ethics are resolved... the supreme court ruled and people should stay out of others' business.

and for the record... no one is pro abortion. we are pro government staying out of our bodies and pro religious zealots keeping to their own concerns.

Neither the government nor the courts dictate what my moral center or sense of ethics will be. And yes, those who want no restrictions of any kind in any form on abortion are pro abortion. Otherwise they would at least be willing to have a conversation about the ethics which involve not just the woman and her right to do with her body what she wishes, but also involves a second life who has no choice in the matter. And that is where the ethics come in.

Its pretty simple FF

Everyone should keep their moral centers and sense of ethics to themselves.



As for the conversation about ethics on a second life..... if you cannot remove the cells before the first trimester.... a nice gentle c section removal... a nice gentle birth....and have it live on its own... giving it ALL the life support you want..... its not viable a life of its own.

Should everyone keep their moral centers and sense of ethics to themselves re the mistreatment of children who are born? Of even the mistreatment of animals?

The pro-abortion group does have to make the 'unviable' fetus nothing but meaningless cells and therefore it is okay to discard it without conscience or violation of personal ethics. The pro-life group sees no stage of life as less critical than any other stage of life for any person. We all have to go through the 'unviable fetus' stage if we are allowed to live. So is the mistreatment of that 'unviable fetus' somehow more okay than the mistreatment of the newborn baby who is no less viable without somebody taking care of all its needs?

The pro-abortion group can also love children and can also approve the woman who chooses life for her baby. One can be pro-abortion and still hate the thought of it.
And the pro-life group can understand why abortion is sometimes necessary and chooses not to judge the woman struggling with the trauma of incest or rape. A prolifer can be every bit as pro choice in that regard as is the pro-abortion group.

To the prolifer, the unborn is a human life no matter what stage it happens to be in during any given week or month. None of us become functioning human beings without going through every stage of human life. To the prolifer, a pregnancy represents two lives: the mother and the child she carries. And if one believes it is appropriate to step in to defend a mistreated child or animal, perhaps it is more easy to understand the prolifer who sees the unborn child as also a helpless life worthy of love and concern.

 

[westwall]

Neither the government nor the courts dictate what my moral center or sense of ethics will be. And yes, those who want no restrictions of any kind in any form on abortion are pro abortion. Otherwise they would at least be willing to have a conversation about the ethics which involve not just the woman and her right to do with her body what she wishes, but also involves a second life who has no choice in the matter. And that is where the ethics come in.

Its pretty simple FF

Everyone should keep their moral centers and sense of ethics to themselves.



As for the conversation about ethics on a second life..... if you cannot remove the cells before the first trimester.... a nice gentle c section removal... a nice gentle birth....and have it live on its own... giving it ALL the life support you want..... its not viable a life of its own.

Should everyone keep their moral centers and sense of ethics to themselves re the mistreatment of children who are born? Of even the mistreatment of animals?

The pro-abortion group does have to make the 'unviable' fetus nothing but meaningless cells and therefore it is okay to discard it without conscience or violation of personal ethics. The pro-life group sees no stage of life as less critical than any other stage of life for any person. We all have to go through the 'unviable fetus' stage if we are allowed to live. So is the mistreatment of that 'unviable fetus' somehow more okay than the mistreatment of the newborn baby who is no less viable without somebody taking care of all its needs?

The pro-abortion group can also love children and can also approve the woman who chooses life for her baby. One can be pro-abortion and still hate the thought of it.
And the pro-life group can understand why abortion is sometimes necessary and chooses not to judge the woman struggling with the trauma of incest or rape. A prolifer can be every bit as pro choice in that regard as is the pro-abortion group.

To the prolifer, the unborn is a human life no matter what stage it happens to be in during any given week or month. None of us become functioning human beings without going through every stage of human life. To the prolifer, a pregnancy represents two lives: the mother and the child she carries. And if one believes it is appropriate to step in to defend a mistreated child or animal, perhaps it is more easy to understand the prolifer who sees the unborn child as also a helpless life worthy of love and concern.

I understand your position completely. And for the most part I support it. My concern is governmental power. Giving the government the power to regulate the abortions will lead inexorably to some ultra lefty knucklehead like Paul Erlich getting into power and mandating abortions for everyone he doesn't approve of. That is simply too powerful an argument against government control.

 

[Foxfyre]

Its pretty simple FF

Everyone should keep their moral centers and sense of ethics to themselves.



As for the conversation about ethics on a second life..... if you cannot remove the cells before the first trimester.... a nice gentle c section removal... a nice gentle birth....and have it live on its own... giving it ALL the life support you want..... its not viable a life of its own.

Should everyone keep their moral centers and sense of ethics to themselves re the mistreatment of children who are born? Of even the mistreatment of animals?

The pro-abortion group does have to make the 'unviable' fetus nothing but meaningless cells and therefore it is okay to discard it without conscience or violation of personal ethics. The pro-life group sees no stage of life as less critical than any other stage of life for any person. We all have to go through the 'unviable fetus' stage if we are allowed to live. So is the mistreatment of that 'unviable fetus' somehow more okay than the mistreatment of the newborn baby who is no less viable without somebody taking care of all its needs?

The pro-abortion group can also love children and can also approve the woman who chooses life for her baby. One can be pro-abortion and still hate the thought of it.
And the pro-life group can understand why abortion is sometimes necessary and chooses not to judge the woman struggling with the trauma of incest or rape. A prolifer can be every bit as pro choice in that regard as is the pro-abortion group.

To the prolifer, the unborn is a human life no matter what stage it happens to be in during any given week or month. None of us become functioning human beings without going through every stage of human life. To the prolifer, a pregnancy represents two lives: the mother and the child she carries. And if one believes it is appropriate to step in to defend a mistreated child or animal, perhaps it is more easy to understand the prolifer who sees the unborn child as also a helpless life worthy of love and concern.

I understand your position completely. And for the most part I support it. My concern is governmental power. Giving the government the power to regulate the abortions will lead inexorably to some ultra lefty knucklehead like Paul Erlich getting into power and mandating abortions for everyone he doesn't approve of. That is simply too powerful an argument against government control.

Yes, the role of government can be problematic and of course that has to be part of the conversation. There was a time not all that long ago in America in which abortion on demand, most especially for reasons of birth control, was unthinkable as a legal procedure while ending a medically necessary pregnancy was legal everywhere. Roe v Wade made abortion on demand legal but did leave the state some power to regulate it in the second and third trimesters. And that has been pushed to the limit even to the point of the partial birth abortion in which a perfectly healthy baby can be legally killed if any part of that baby is still in the birth canal. And yes, I know that this is a rare procedure, but it is neverthless legal in some places. In Illinois, a baby that survives an abortion can be legally killed. Such things would be unthinkable 60 years ago. How much longer will it be before the less than perfect baby that is completely born can be legally killed?

And we all know that it will require a change in people's hearts to again appreciate and revere the sanctity of human life before abortion again becomes something that is necessary and rare and no longer socially acceptable as a convenience.

I cannot imagine any interpretation of the U.S. Constitution that would make it possible to require abortions however. When it comes to that we will have no freedoms left and it won't be America any more.

 

[Indofred]

Its pretty simple FF

Everyone should keep their moral centers and sense of ethics to themselves.

Spot on.
For those that don't agree with abortion in the case of rape.
I hope your daughter or wife (or yourself. in the case of a lady) never get raped and have to carry the baby.

For those that think it's up to the woman to decide by herself - I really don't see a problem with that.

The lady concerned has to make all the hard choices in what must be a very difficult time for her.
That in mind, it's up to her, not some daft politician without a clue.

 

[westwall]

Should everyone keep their moral centers and sense of ethics to themselves re the mistreatment of children who are born? Of even the mistreatment of animals?

The pro-abortion group does have to make the 'unviable' fetus nothing but meaningless cells and therefore it is okay to discard it without conscience or violation of personal ethics. The pro-life group sees no stage of life as less critical than any other stage of life for any person. We all have to go through the 'unviable fetus' stage if we are allowed to live. So is the mistreatment of that 'unviable fetus' somehow more okay than the mistreatment of the newborn baby who is no less viable without somebody taking care of all its needs?

The pro-abortion group can also love children and can also approve the woman who chooses life for her baby. One can be pro-abortion and still hate the thought of it.
And the pro-life group can understand why abortion is sometimes necessary and chooses not to judge the woman struggling with the trauma of incest or rape. A prolifer can be every bit as pro choice in that regard as is the pro-abortion group.

To the prolifer, the unborn is a human life no matter what stage it happens to be in during any given week or month. None of us become functioning human beings without going through every stage of human life. To the prolifer, a pregnancy represents two lives: the mother and the child she carries. And if one believes it is appropriate to step in to defend a mistreated child or animal, perhaps it is more easy to understand the prolifer who sees the unborn child as also a helpless life worthy of love and concern.

I understand your position completely. And for the most part I support it. My concern is governmental power. Giving the government the power to regulate the abortions will lead inexorably to some ultra lefty knucklehead like Paul Erlich getting into power and mandating abortions for everyone he doesn't approve of. That is simply too powerful an argument against government control.

Yes, the role of government can be problematic and of course that has to be part of the conversation. There was a time not all that long ago in America in which abortion on demand, most especially for reasons of birth control, was unthinkable as a legal procedure while ending a medically necessary pregnancy was legal everywhere. Roe v Wade made abortion on demand legal but did leave the state some power to regulate it in the second and third trimesters. And that has been pushed to the limit even to the point of the partial birth abortion in which a perfectly healthy baby can be legally killed if any part of that baby is still in the birth canal. And yes, I know that this is a rare procedure, but it is neverthless legal in some places. In Illinois, a baby that survives an abortion can be legally killed. Such things would be unthinkable 60 years ago. How much longer will it be before the less than perfect baby that is completely born can be legally killed?

And we all know that it will require a change in people's hearts to again appreciate and revere the sanctity of human life before abortion again becomes something that is necessary and rare and no longer socially acceptable as a convenience.

I cannot imagine any interpretation of the U.S. Constitution that would make it possible to require abortions however. When it comes to that we will have no freedoms left and it won't be America any more.

The Constitution has allready been circumvented. Our 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 8th have all been abrogated. The fact that a baby can survive an abortion and be left to die in a dark room in IL lets you know just how far down that despicable path we have travelled. IMO, any child that survives an abortion is now fully protected by the laws of the land, unfortunately scumbags like the big O can interpret them any way they wish. Which is why I don't ever want them to have that power.