Rape does not justify abortion

[Quantum Windbag]

and some of us wouldn't be alive but for reproductive choice.

and some of us wouldn't have had very wanted children via in vitro or other means if the radical right's 'personhood' laws were in effect.

for the upteenth time... no one is wise enough to make moral choices for others. so those choices should be left between the woman and her doctor.

we are not idiots who can't make decisions but for the dictates of a bunch of religious extremists who think they're more moral than the rest of us.

Abortion helps people get born? How?

By the way, I am not making moral choice for others, I am attempting to prevent people from making immoral choices to kill others.

i don't think it's immoral. i think it's immoral to force a woman to have a child she doesn't want. i think it's immoral to then say that she's on her own and you don't support any type of daycare, education assistance and job training for her. i think it's immoral to make a woman have a child who might look like the person who raped her. i think it's immoral to let a woman die because you won't terminate a pregnancy that is killing her.

You think killing is moral, and giving birth is immoral. Gotta say, I haven't hear that argument before.

Not.

If abortion is a moral issue the arguments are all on the side of people who against it unless you are arguing that it is immoral to have to large a population on this planet. Since you also reject the premise that government can tell women not to have children, you don't have a consistent enough position to attempt to argue morality and abortion.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A fetus is not a child. You guys don't decide for the woman who has been raped, or forced to have sex with a family member, of is in mortal danger.

You can your opinion but you don't decide anything for anyone.

Roe v. Wade.

A woman does not need to justify anything to obtain an abortion. It is her body and she has absolute rights over her body.

She doesnt have rights over her child's body.

And no. She doesnt have an absolute right over her body. None of us do. There are alot of things we cant do to our body.

You don't mind the government deciding what the women does with her body when we are discussing illegal drugs, what's the difference?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If the fetus's right to life is already established and protected by the Constitution,

why the support for a constitutional human life amendment to the Constitution, to do the same?

If you believe the first part of the above, then no amendment is needed. If you believe the amendment is needed,

then you're acknowledging that there is no such fetal right to life in the Constitution.

Which is it?

If the right to liberty is already established by the constitution why did we need an amendment making the point that it couldn't be denied?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Since Constitutional law has established that the fetus is not a person, any references to a person in the Constitution do not apply to fetuses.

Constitutional law once established that a man was not free simply because he lived in a place where slavery is illegal. You are going to have to do better in your defense of abortion.

Yes, and the Constitution was amended to change that. You're claiming the fetus is already protected as a person in the Constitution;

you are dead wrong.

The very same amendment I cited to prove that the constitution protects life already says that freedom is protected. Maybe the real problem here is that judges can't read.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Slightly off topic:

I just have to give some big props to Quantum. My position is (as I admitted) logically inconsistent. Quantum's is perfectly consistent. He and I disagree for that reason, but so what?

He isn't a bitch about it. He makes a damn fine logical argument and fields what shows up.

Good stuff, Quant.

Thanks.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Doesn't have to because it is the truth.

Why do you think Ryan and Akin co-sponsored the evil person hood legislation.

Having read almost twelve of your posts, all you offer is your opinion, which is fine, but not evidence and not probative.

The law is the law, and you have to provide a case.

You haven't.

You keep saying [a fetus is not a person], yet we are over 100 posts into this thread and not a single person has provided one bit of evidence to support that position.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Doesn't have to because it is the truth.

Why do you think Ryan and Akin co-sponsored the evil person hood legislation.

Having read almost twelve of your posts, all you offer is your opinion, which is fine, but not evidence and not probative.

The law is the law, and you have to provide a case.

You haven't.

You keep saying [a fetus is not a person], yet we are over 100 posts into this thread and not a single person has provided one bit of evidence to support that position.

The same reason we fought a war over slavery, some judges prefer making stuff up to actually reading what the Constitution of the United States says.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are merely sputtering and muttering. Stop the stuttering. Give us a solid case of evidence for your point of view, because your opinion means nothing.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You are merely sputtering and muttering. Stop the stuttering. Give us a solid case of evidence for your point of view, because your opinion means nothing.

Unlike every single person who entered this thread to contradict me, I actually made a case.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You have made no case.

You disagree with abortion over all, understood.

Who cares?

 

[Noomi]

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.

Your argument fails in the first two words - a person. A fetus is not a person.

You keep saying it, yet we are over 100 posts into this thread and not a single person has provided one bit of evidence to support that position. What does that say about your argument?

Have you provided evidence to suggest that a fetus is a person? Or have you just said that since it is human, it then must be a person?

If so, then a corpse in the ground for 100 years must also be a person.

 

[oldernwiser]

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.

With respect, I know from firsthand experience that you can be a bit obtuse. So let me see if I'm tracking you here.

By your citation, I'm going to assume that you're referring to the CHARGE of rape which, if left unindicted, would render the subsequent abortion based on the act an unprotected right. And since a charged rapist is innocent until proven guilty, any attempt by a pregnant woman to abort her fetus would not be something protected by the constitution and further, assumes the guilt of the rapist prior to his trial.

Did I interpret your meaning correctly?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Your argument fails in the first two words - a person. A fetus is not a person.

You keep saying it, yet we are over 100 posts into this thread and not a single person has provided one bit of evidence to support that position. What does that say about your argument?

Have you provided evidence to suggest that a fetus is a person? Or have you just said that since it is human, it then must be a person?

If so, then a corpse in the ground for 100 years must also be a person.

Funny thing, my argument is that a fetus is alive, not that it is a person. You are the one hung up on the person thing, and even brought up the argument that fetuses are not legally defined as persons. I pointed out that corporations are legal persons and asked you what your point is. I am still waiting for the answer to that.

What makes a pile of bones a person, or even human?

 

[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.

With respect, I know from firsthand experience that you can be a bit obtuse. So let me see if I'm tracking you here.

By your citation, I'm going to assume that you're referring to the CHARGE of rape which, if left unindicted, would render the subsequent abortion based on the act an unprotected right. And since a charged rapist is innocent until proven guilty, any attempt by a pregnant woman to abort her fetus would not be something protected by the constitution and further, assumes the guilt of the rapist prior to his trial.

Did I interpret your meaning correctly?

Nope.

 

[Noomi]

You keep saying it, yet we are over 100 posts into this thread and not a single person has provided one bit of evidence to support that position. What does that say about your argument?

Have you provided evidence to suggest that a fetus is a person? Or have you just said that since it is human, it then must be a person?

If so, then a corpse in the ground for 100 years must also be a person.

Funny thing, my argument is that a fetus is alive, not that it is a person. You are the one hung up on the person thing, and even brought up the argument that fetuses are not legally defined as persons. I pointed out that corporations are legal persons and asked you what your point is. I am still waiting for the answer to that.

What makes a pile of bones a person, or even human?

So you believe that because it is alive, it deserves more rights than the woman?

 

[rdean]

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.

Ever notice how Republicans want to protect the fetus. But lose interest shortly after birth. And never care about the mother. It's so strange.

 

[Indofred]

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.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

The 5th Amendment mandates due process in the context of a potentially punitive action taken by a jurisdiction pursuant to loss of liberty or life; the 5th Amendment does not apply the due process requirement to private entities, including private citizens. As a private citizen, therefore, a woman is free to seek an abortion for whatever purpose, free from government interference, free from a requirement to ‘justify’ her actions as a private citizen protected by the right to privacy.

 

[FA_Q2]

I have to say that the point in the OP has been somewhat lost.

Rape, in no way shape or form, can justify an abortion. The idea is silly. You have a right to life UNLESS you were conceived in such and such manner. The idea that there are people that want to ban abortion but leave an exemption for rape is asinine on its face. This, however, has nothing to do with the legality of abortion in any sense of the matter either.

The idea that a woman has an inherent right to abort at any time is asinine as well and it is illegal in many places right now. There is no one challenging most of those laws because they are fair and reasonable. The concept that life should get rights at conception (because weather or not you want to admit it, it is SCIENTIFIC FACT that life does begin at conception) is no more crazy than the idea that life does not get any rights till it is born. There is nothing that is inherently different from a baby at +1 second than there is with a baby at -10 seconds. There is a line to be drawn and despite all the naysaying that the state does not have a say in this matter, it clearly does. Not only does it have a say, it exercises that say right now in current law.

Abortion should not be illegal. Abortion should not be legal under any and all circumstances either. There should be fairly clear ‘time’ requirements. The interesting thing is that it certainly seems the VAST majority of people understand this and agree. I have not really met anyone that actually backs legal, late term abortions as I have not really met anyone that really wants to make abortion illegal. The unborn should, and do, have some rights.

I have to say that the point in the OP has been somewhat lost.


The only thing "losing" is yours and religions tired old mantra that people like you should have a say in the personal choices women make with their bodies. You do not have a say thanks to the peoples right to elect representatives that appointed and confirmed a supreme court which upheld a womans right to privacy. Rape just puts a finer point on it. We are not going backward to a time when zealots like yourself could stone a woman to death for even THINKING she had the right to choose. Babies are not dying because of abortion. Your religion is. Thank GAAAWWWDDDD!!

Did you even bother to read what I typed? Did you get to the first sentence and totally go berserk? I made ZERO reference to any ‘religious’ position, mostly because I am an atheist. Nor did I say that I was against a woman’s right to choose. I SPECIFICALLY STATED THAT I SUPPORT A WOMAN’S RIGHT TO CHOOSE. Further, your position that the state has no say in a woman’s right to choose is CURRENTLY FALSE or did you miss that part too? We are in the CDZ, kindly follow the rules and actually respond to the post you are quoting or go somewhere else.

I am not a zealot as you called me but it seems that you are acting like one. Stop projecting and address the points I brought up if you actually support overturning laws that currently exist in regulation abortion.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

The 5th Amendment mandates due process in the context of a potentially punitive action taken by a jurisdiction pursuant to loss of liberty or life; the 5th Amendment does not apply the due process requirement to private entities, including private citizens. As a private citizen, therefore, a woman is free to seek an abortion for whatever purpose, free from government interference, free from a requirement to ‘justify’ her actions as a private citizen protected by the right to privacy.

Except that this is false. There are currently laws on the books that limit abortions after a specific gestation period and they are constitutional. Roe vs. Wade did NOT say all bans on abortion were illegal. It did say that there might be lines where such a ban can be imposed and it is up to the sates to create those lines. Sure, total bans ARE unconstitutional; however bans on late term abortions, so far, are not.