The Political View of Abortion

[PoliticalChic]

1. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Thomas Jefferson.

a. And based on the above, every conservative is pro-choice.

2. Our nation was founded on the premise that each individual has the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But they don’t become rights by virtue of birth…we are endowed with these rights by our Creator, at the moment of creation.

a. This is a political argument: the form of the Creator invoked by the Founders is irrelevant to the debate. Morality is not a consideration here, so there is no mention of contraception as being right or wrong; one’s use of contraceptives does not infringe on anyone else’s rights.

b. The fact is that our nation, at its very founding, acknowledged that, by virtue of being created, of being conceived, the unborn child, has a right to live. It is not a right that is alienable….even by the child’s mother.





3. Conservatism embraces this brand of pro-choice sentiment: we fully acknowledge a woman’s ability to make choices about her own body, and to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
The choice that operates is this: contraceptives may fail…the decision to engage in sexual intercourse is to accept the possibility that pregnancy may occur. This means the decision to accept all of the responsibilities that may become necessary.

a. When deciding to buy a house, there is the implicit acceptance of future mortgage payments, upkeep, insurance, etc.

b. The choice to which an individual has the right of decision is to have sex or not, rather than to abort or not.

c. No unjust intrusion on the unborn child’s right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is allowed.






4. Based on this position, the obligation of government is to protect the lives of the unborn by restricting access to abortion only to those situations in which the mother’s life is in danger, or to cases of rape or incest.

5. The vast majority of abortions performed in the United States are carried out for reasons that can be broadly categorized as “matters of convenience.” In a study of 27 nations, reasons for abortion services were found to be the following:

a. “Worldwide, the most commonly reported reason women cite for having an abortion is to postpone or stop childbearing. The second most common reason—socioeconomic concerns—includes disruption of education or employment; lack of support from the father; desire to provide schooling for existing children; and poverty, unemployment or inability to afford additional children. In addition, relationship problems with a husband or partner and a woman's perception that she is too young constitute other important categories of reasons.”
Reasons Why Women Have Induced Abortions: Evidence from 27 Countries

b. A 2004 study of American women yielded similar results: “The reasons most frequently cited were that having a child would interfere with a woman’s education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%); that she could not afford a baby now (73%); and that she did not want to be a single mother or was having relationship problems (48%). Nearly four in 10 women said they had completed their childbearing, and almost one-third were not ready to have a child. Fewer than 1% said their parents’ or partners’ desire for them to have an abortion was the most important reason. Younger women often reported that they were unprepared for the transition to motherhood, while older women regularly cited their responsibility to dependents.”
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf

c. We reject the view that inconvenience of a mother’s informed choice outweighs the unalienable right to life of the child she bears by virtue of that choice.






On-demand abortion is antithetical to the ideas and ideals upon which America was built.
Based on “Voices of the Damned,” found in “Reinventing the Right,” by Robert Wheeler, pp. 89-99.

 

[Agit8r]

*rolls eyes*

The Lockean philosophy (what the Declaration was based on) was that people were born as a tabula rasa, and individuality was instilled by nurture.

At least that would be the originalist manner of interpreting it.

 

[Gadawg73]

"For the health of the mother and potential current and future health problems due to this pregnancy an abortion is warranted for this woman"
was bought for about $5,000 for millions of abortions when abortion was "illegal".
Same thing would happen again if abortion was "illegal".
NO DOCTOR anywhere would ever question it.
But we do have millions of big government supporters like Political Chic that would want GOVERNMENT to make the decision of who gets an abortion and who doesn't.
Other than the women with the 5 grand to get one of thousands of willing doctors claiming it was for "the health of the mother" in each and every instance when there is 5 grand on their table.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Of course I am pro abortion. As Karl Marx wrote:

""The Communist Revolution is the most radical rupture with traditional relations. It involves abolishing "eternal truths" and "all religion, and all morality" as well as "abolition of the family".

Abortion helps bring this about.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Constitution does not give fetuses any rights, explicitly.

At the time of the framing of the Constitution, 1st trimester abortion (which was referred to as up until the time of quickening) was legal in the colonies.

It is reasonable to assume that if the Founders had wished to make so specific a change in the common practice of the times,

so as to create personhood and the applicable rights for fetuses, which at that time did not exist,

they would have done so explicitly and specifically. They did not.

It is not a constitutionally defensible argument to claim that 1st trimester fetuses are implicitly protected in the Constitution, therefore it is logical to conclude that a woman's right to that abortion is implicit in the Constitution.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Constitution does not give fetuses any rights, explicitly.

At the time of the framing of the Constitution, 1st trimester abortion (which was referred to as up until the time of quickening) was legal in the colonies.

It is reasonable to assume that if the Founders had wished to make so specific a change in the common practice of the times,

so as to create personhood and the applicable rights for fetuses, which at that time did not exist,

they would have done so explicitly and specifically. They did not.

It is not a constitutionally defensible argument to claim that 1st trimester fetuses are implicitly protected in the Constitution, therefore it is logical to conclude that a woman's right to that abortion is implicit in the Constitution.

"It is reasonable to assume that if the Founders had wished to make so specific a change in the common practice of the times,...."

Wrong, because you still don't have a grasp on the reason for the Constitution.

Its function is not to tell citizens what they can do...it is to tell government what it can do....anything not covered by the enumerated powers is beyond the scope of the federal government.


As the abortion right is not in said powers, it is not within the province of the federal government, and serves as an example of an over-stepping Supreme Court.
This is, and should be, a state decision.


This disagreement serves as an excellent example of the diametrically opposed views of the Liberal big-government serf, you, who looks to government for rights,

....and the conservatives who wrote the Constitution, and those such as myself who endorse individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.


If not for the indoctrination of government schooling, far more would still understand that original view.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"For the health of the mother and potential current and future health problems due to this pregnancy an abortion is warranted for this woman"
was bought for about $5,000 for millions of abortions when abortion was "illegal".
Same thing would happen again if abortion was "illegal".
NO DOCTOR anywhere would ever question it.
But we do have millions of big government supporters like Political Chic that would want GOVERNMENT to make the decision of who gets an abortion and who doesn't.
Other than the women with the 5 grand to get one of thousands of willing doctors claiming it was for "the health of the mother" in each and every instance when there is 5 grand on their table.

"....big government supporters like Political Chic....."


I've regularly found that the dumber the poster, the more quickly they pretend that they know that I believe exactly the opposite of what I say I believe.


And, of course, my premise is borne out in your post.



Considering your constellation of skills, how is it possible for you to decide whether to defecate or to wind your watch?

 

[nodoginnafight]

The Constitution does not give fetuses any rights, explicitly.

At the time of the framing of the Constitution, 1st trimester abortion (which was referred to as up until the time of quickening) was legal in the colonies.

It is reasonable to assume that if the Founders had wished to make so specific a change in the common practice of the times,

so as to create personhood and the applicable rights for fetuses, which at that time did not exist,

they would have done so explicitly and specifically. They did not.

It is not a constitutionally defensible argument to claim that 1st trimester fetuses are implicitly protected in the Constitution, therefore it is logical to conclude that a woman's right to that abortion is implicit in the Constitution.

Well ... you can't argue about the constitution using a quote from the declaration of independence either ....

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Constitution does not give fetuses any rights, explicitly.

At the time of the framing of the Constitution, 1st trimester abortion (which was referred to as up until the time of quickening) was legal in the colonies.

It is reasonable to assume that if the Founders had wished to make so specific a change in the common practice of the times,

so as to create personhood and the applicable rights for fetuses, which at that time did not exist,

they would have done so explicitly and specifically. They did not.

It is not a constitutionally defensible argument to claim that 1st trimester fetuses are implicitly protected in the Constitution, therefore it is logical to conclude that a woman's right to that abortion is implicit in the Constitution.

"It is reasonable to assume that if the Founders had wished to make so specific a change in the common practice of the times,...."

Wrong, because you still don't have a grasp on the reason for the Constitution.

Its function is not to tell citizens what they can do...it is to tell government what it can do....anything not covered by the enumerated powers is beyond the scope of the federal government.


As the abortion right is not in said powers, it is not within the province of the federal government, and serves as an example of an over-stepping Supreme Court.
This is, and should be, a state decision.


This disagreement serves as an excellent example of the diametrically opposed views of the Liberal big-government serf, you, who looks to government for rights,

....and the conservatives who wrote the Constitution, and those such as myself who endorse individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.


If not for the indoctrination of government schooling, far more would still understand that original view.

The right of privacy is in the Constitution. To deny a woman the right to abort a fetus that itself has no constitutional protection is a violation of her privacy right.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why do people who claim not to look to the government for rights want to amend the Constitution to give rights to fetuses?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Constitution does not give fetuses any rights, explicitly.

At the time of the framing of the Constitution, 1st trimester abortion (which was referred to as up until the time of quickening) was legal in the colonies.

It is reasonable to assume that if the Founders had wished to make so specific a change in the common practice of the times,

so as to create personhood and the applicable rights for fetuses, which at that time did not exist,

they would have done so explicitly and specifically. They did not.

It is not a constitutionally defensible argument to claim that 1st trimester fetuses are implicitly protected in the Constitution, therefore it is logical to conclude that a woman's right to that abortion is implicit in the Constitution.

"It is reasonable to assume that if the Founders had wished to make so specific a change in the common practice of the times,...."

Wrong, because you still don't have a grasp on the reason for the Constitution.

Its function is not to tell citizens what they can do...it is to tell government what it can do....anything not covered by the enumerated powers is beyond the scope of the federal government.


As the abortion right is not in said powers, it is not within the province of the federal government, and serves as an example of an over-stepping Supreme Court.
This is, and should be, a state decision.


This disagreement serves as an excellent example of the diametrically opposed views of the Liberal big-government serf, you, who looks to government for rights,

....and the conservatives who wrote the Constitution, and those such as myself who endorse individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.


If not for the indoctrination of government schooling, far more would still understand that original view.

I thought rights exist naturally? Thus the right to an abortion exists naturally.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

Wrong, because you still don't have a grasp on the reason for the Constitution.

Its function is not to tell citizens what they can do...it is to tell government what it can do....anything not covered by the enumerated powers is beyond the scope of the federal government.

The Constitution doesn't tell the government it can ban abortion.

The right of the states to ban abortion can only extend up to the point where such a ban would infringe on some other constitutional right.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I think U.S. law should protect all humans in this jurisdiction.
If you believe a fetus is a human being, then how can you not extend the protection of law?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I think U.S. law should protect all humans in this jurisdiction.
If you believe a fetus is a human being, then how can you not extend the protection of law?

It is impractical, illogical, and irrational to ignore the meaningful differences between a fertilized human egg and a 30 year old man, or a 5 year old kid, or a 1 day old baby.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I think U.S. law should protect all humans in this jurisdiction.
If you believe a fetus is a human being, then how can you not extend the protection of law?

It is impractical, illogical, and irrational to ignore the meaningful differences between a fertilized human egg and a 30 year old man, or a 5 year old kid, or a 1 day old baby.

And we make different rights available to humans at different ages (joining the military, entering into a contract, drinking, voting, running for some public offices ... all have age requirements).

We offer different rights to different ages. That's not what I am reffering to.

The right not to get killed ... or at least the right to this minimal level of protection under the law that says if someone DOES kill you, they get punished ... should there be an age requirement? What should that age requirement be and why?

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Constitution does not give fetuses any rights, explicitly.

At the time of the framing of the Constitution, 1st trimester abortion (which was referred to as up until the time of quickening) was legal in the colonies.

It is reasonable to assume that if the Founders had wished to make so specific a change in the common practice of the times,

so as to create personhood and the applicable rights for fetuses, which at that time did not exist,

they would have done so explicitly and specifically. They did not.

It is not a constitutionally defensible argument to claim that 1st trimester fetuses are implicitly protected in the Constitution, therefore it is logical to conclude that a woman's right to that abortion is implicit in the Constitution.

"It is reasonable to assume that if the Founders had wished to make so specific a change in the common practice of the times,...."

Wrong, because you still don't have a grasp on the reason for the Constitution.

Its function is not to tell citizens what they can do...it is to tell government what it can do....anything not covered by the enumerated powers is beyond the scope of the federal government.


As the abortion right is not in said powers, it is not within the province of the federal government, and serves as an example of an over-stepping Supreme Court.
This is, and should be, a state decision.


This disagreement serves as an excellent example of the diametrically opposed views of the Liberal big-government serf, you, who looks to government for rights,

....and the conservatives who wrote the Constitution, and those such as myself who endorse individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.


If not for the indoctrination of government schooling, far more would still understand that original view.

The right of privacy is in the Constitution. To deny a woman the right to abort a fetus that itself has no constitutional protection is a violation of her privacy right.

"The right of privacy is in the Constitution."

Of course, it is not.

It was first suggested by the man who made Woodrow Wilson our first progressive President.
Brandeis, 1928, imagined a 'right to be left alone.'


It is one of those imagined by a certain variety of judge.
And accepted by folks like you who are, or pretend to be, oblivious to the amendment process.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Constitution does not give fetuses any rights, explicitly.

At the time of the framing of the Constitution, 1st trimester abortion (which was referred to as up until the time of quickening) was legal in the colonies.

It is reasonable to assume that if the Founders had wished to make so specific a change in the common practice of the times,

so as to create personhood and the applicable rights for fetuses, which at that time did not exist,

they would have done so explicitly and specifically. They did not.

It is not a constitutionally defensible argument to claim that 1st trimester fetuses are implicitly protected in the Constitution, therefore it is logical to conclude that a woman's right to that abortion is implicit in the Constitution.

"It is reasonable to assume that if the Founders had wished to make so specific a change in the common practice of the times,...."

Wrong, because you still don't have a grasp on the reason for the Constitution.

Its function is not to tell citizens what they can do...it is to tell government what it can do....anything not covered by the enumerated powers is beyond the scope of the federal government.


As the abortion right is not in said powers, it is not within the province of the federal government, and serves as an example of an over-stepping Supreme Court.
This is, and should be, a state decision.


This disagreement serves as an excellent example of the diametrically opposed views of the Liberal big-government serf, you, who looks to government for rights,

....and the conservatives who wrote the Constitution, and those such as myself who endorse individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.


If not for the indoctrination of government schooling, far more would still understand that original view.

I thought rights exist naturally? Thus the right to an abortion exists naturally.

As does the correct venue, the state, have the ability to restrict same.

"Arkansas law bans most abortions at 12 weeks

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. -- Six days after passing a ban on abortions after 20 weeks' gestation, the Arkansas Legislature approved an even stricter ban.

The House of Representatives and Senate voted March 5 and 6 to override Gov. Mike Beebe's veto to approve the Arkansas Human Heartbeat Protection Act, just as they did Feb. 27-28 to override his veto of the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act."

Exceptions are made for rape, incest, to save the life of the mother or if a "highly lethal fetal disorder" is discovered. It has been called the strictest abortion law in the country."
Arkansas law bans most abortions at 12 weeks | St. Louis Review

 

[PoliticalChic]

I think U.S. law should protect all humans in this jurisdiction.
If you believe a fetus is a human being, then how can you not extend the protection of law?

It is impractical, illogical, and irrational to ignore the meaningful differences between a fertilized human egg and a 30 year old man, or a 5 year old kid, or a 1 day old baby.

Let's explore your position in light of current politics:


1. Barack Obama has appointed Professor Peter Singer as a 'science' adviser. He chose Singer.

2."Obama has chosen preference utilitarians to plan and regulate our healthcare (and many other aspects of our lives). One of those personnel choices is Peter Singer who well expresses Obama’s chilling secular ideology. If you don’t know what this theory is, you need to!
Preference utilitarianism rejects religious-based morality. Its guiding principle makes the President’s war on religion very understandable. The principle allows for freedom of religion until the government says it is not in the interests of the common good."
Obamacare Will Not Value Human Life ? Proof Lies In A Killer Theory | Independent Sentinel


a. "Singer once wrote, "because people are human does not mean that their lives are more valuable than animals." He not only advocates abortion but also killing disabled babies up to 28 days after they are born. In his book "Practical Ethics," he wrote, "When the death of a disabled infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled infant is killed.... Killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Often, it is not wrong at all."
Peter Singer, "Practical Ethics," Cambridge University Press, 1979, p. 191.



3. "Newt Gingrich deflected a question ...by pointing out that Obama voted in favor of a law that protected abortion providers during his term as state senator of Illinois
"You did not once during the 2008 campaign ask why Barack Obama voted in favor of legalizing infanticide," Gingrich said. "If we're going to debate about who is the extremist on this issues, it is President Obama, who, as a state senator, voted to protect doctors who killed babies."
Newt Gingrich Calls Obama An 'Extremist' Who Supported 'Infanticide' At GOP Debate


Clarity is more important here than agreement.

Understand what you are supporting.


Your view of government can be found here: "The principle allows for freedom of religion until the government says it is not in the interests of the common good."

I have no such view of the power of government.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I think U.S. law should protect all humans in this jurisdiction.
If you believe a fetus is a human being, then how can you not extend the protection of law?

It is impractical, illogical, and irrational to ignore the meaningful differences between a fertilized human egg and a 30 year old man, or a 5 year old kid, or a 1 day old baby.

And we make different rights available to humans at different ages (joining the military, entering into a contract, drinking, voting, running for some public offices ... all have age requirements).

We offer different rights to different ages. That's not what I am reffering to.

The right not to get killed ... or at least the right to this minimal level of protection under the law that says if someone DOES kill you, they get punished ... should there be an age requirement? What should that age requirement be and why?

Birth. We agree that a fetus of any age can be killed to protect the life of the mother, so we cannot grant it the right not to get killed.

The 'whole' right not to get killed begins at birth, although somehow somewhere there are probably an exception or two to that.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I think U.S. law should protect all humans in this jurisdiction.
If you believe a fetus is a human being, then how can you not extend the protection of law?

It is impractical, illogical, and irrational to ignore the meaningful differences between a fertilized human egg and a 30 year old man, or a 5 year old kid, or a 1 day old baby.

Let's explore your position in light of current politics:


1. Barack Obama has appointed Professor Peter Singer as a 'science' adviser. He chose Singer.

2."Obama has chosen preference utilitarians to plan and regulate our healthcare (and many other aspects of our lives). One of those personnel choices is Peter Singer who well expresses Obama’s chilling secular ideology. If you don’t know what this theory is, you need to!
Preference utilitarianism rejects religious-based morality. Its guiding principle makes the President’s war on religion very understandable. The principle allows for freedom of religion until the government says it is not in the interests of the common good."
Obamacare Will Not Value Human Life ? Proof Lies In A Killer Theory | Independent Sentinel


a. "Singer once wrote, "because people are human does not mean that their lives are more valuable than animals." He not only advocates abortion but also killing disabled babies up to 28 days after they are born. In his book "Practical Ethics," he wrote, "When the death of a disabled infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled infant is killed.... Killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Often, it is not wrong at all."
Peter Singer, "Practical Ethics," Cambridge University Press, 1979, p. 191.



3. "Newt Gingrich deflected a question ...by pointing out that Obama voted in favor of a law that protected abortion providers during his term as state senator of Illinois
"You did not once during the 2008 campaign ask why Barack Obama voted in favor of legalizing infanticide," Gingrich said. "If we're going to debate about who is the extremist on this issues, it is President Obama, who, as a state senator, voted to protect doctors who killed babies."
Newt Gingrich Calls Obama An 'Extremist' Who Supported 'Infanticide' At GOP Debate


Clarity is more important here than agreement.

Understand what you are supporting.


Your view of government can be found here: "The principle allows for freedom of religion until the government says it is not in the interests of the common good."

I have no such view of the power of government.

If you're going to respond with something that has nothing to do with what I said,

at least as a courtesy, be brief.