The Political View of Abortion

[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.

Do you recall citing the Ninth Amendment the other day, about that existence of rights not enumerated in the Constitution?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

If the Founders intended the Constitution to protect the unborn as persons, from the moment of conception,

and if this is the interpretation you agree with,

then you have to believe that abortion is NOT a states' rights issue,

since the states cannot make laws in conflict with the Constitution -

therefore no state could constitutionally allow abortion.

 

[Toronado3800]

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.

First you quoted a nationwide publication then you said it was a states issue.

I feel anti abortion opinions are perfectly valid. Just you can't have it both ways.

Just say in this case you are pro a federal law since you made that first post. No shame in being anti abortion, honest. Just don't paint yourself into a theological corner pretending it is a conservative constitutional view when it is a conservative religious and liberal government view.

Heck, I am thrilled you broke with the libertarians and have this anti abortion opinion.

 

[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.

"....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?

I oppose abortion strongly.
I support women's rights to make the wrong decision even stronger.
NO law ever stops abortion.
All it does is make sure poor women are forced by government to have babies they do not want and in most instances do not know how to care for.
Real world, please grow up, assume your civic duty and join us in it.

 

[OKTexas]

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 to medical privacy was destroyed by the Stimulus and Maobamacare, with the computerized records keeping requirements that are made available to the government. Then throw in the Patriot Act and NDAA and every ones privacy is out the window. So as they say, that dog will no longer hunt.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

*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.

My, that's pat. The Declaration of Independence is based solely on Lockean philosophy.

You find out something new every day.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

You’re free to ‘reject’ whatever you wish, and decide for yourself alone whether or not to have an abortion.

But the right to privacy prohibits you and other authoritarian rightists from attempting to codify that subjective opinion, and foisting personal beliefs upon the Nation as a whole.

It was the intent of the Framers to protect the citizens from the likes of the OP, and allow each citizen to decide for himself the merits of the issue, free from interference by the state.

As to the ‘rights’ of the ‘unborn,’ the Supreme Court was clear and succinct that the rights of the mother alone are paramount:

It is an inescapable biological fact that state regulation with respect to the child a woman is carrying will have a far greater impact on the mother's liberty than on the father's. The effect of state regulation on a woman's protected liberty is doubly deserving of scrutiny in such a case, as the State has touched not only upon the private sphere of the family but upon the very bodily integrity of the pregnant woman…Inasmuch as it is the woman who physically bears the child and who is the more directly and immediately affected by the pregnancy, as between the two, the balance weighs in her favor.

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"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 to medical privacy was destroyed by the Stimulus and Maobamacare, with the computerized records keeping requirements that are made available to the government. Then throw in the Patriot Act and NDAA and every ones privacy is out the window. So as they say, that dog will no longer hunt.

You could have just posted: “I’m not going to contribute anything meaningful to this topic.”

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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?

See post #27.

 

[Agit8r]

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

.

The raving fuktard that wrote that article writes in the same article:

"Peter Singer served as the director of the Brookings Institution’s 21st Century Defense Initiative and as the coordinator of President Barack Obama’s defense policy task force (there you go, that’s going well). He is also close to John Holdren, science czar."

That would be:

P. W. Singer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NOT

Peter Singer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[NYcarbineer]

For you people who don't believe there's a constitutional right of privacy,

do you therefore find nothing unconstitutional in the idea of requiring all gun purchases to be registered and the information therein to be available to the public?

Would that violate your right to privacy, or doesn't that right exist?

The OP insists it doesn't exist, constitutionally. Is she full of shit?

 

[Grandma]

The OP's very full of shit.

She fails to do any historical research that overwhelmingly indicates that not only were fetuses not considered to be persons, but nor were stillbirths nor babies that died before having been baptized.

As late as the early 20th Century male children spent the first 5 years of their lives dressed as girls. This was based on a superstition that as girls are inferior an angry god wouldn't take a male child that appeared female. Denying a child's gender is scarcely identifying him as a person with free will and rights. Girls had no rights.

To this day juvenile law is not the same as adult law. Juveniles are not protected by the same rights as adults.

The Constitution itself states that 'all MEN are created equal..." a rule that was expanded upon with the rule that slaves were considered to be three-fifths of a person. Women have not been granted full equality to this day.

Then there's the First Amendment and the Separation of Church and State clause. Both prevent zealots from forcing their minority point of view on others who disagree with faith-based rules that go against their own beliefs.

So to suggest that some peoples' religious superstitions force a rule that non-sentient fetuses automatically have the same rights as adult males but that pregnant women do not is not only ridiculous, but obnoxious, as are those that make such claims.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

Your educational requirements go far beyond the brevity of this post.

The proof is that you fail to see that the post is a perfect response to the idea that one can destroy a love based on the time from creation.

 

[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.

Do you recall citing the Ninth Amendment the other day, about that existence of rights not enumerated in the Constitution?

Perhaps the great Justice Rehnquist can explain it to you:



"The brief writer’s version
seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal
judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own,
quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s
problems. Once we have abandoned the idea that the authority
of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional is somehow tied
to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted, a
judiciary exercising the power of judicial review appears in a
quite different light.

Judges then are no longer the keepers of
the covenant; instead they are a small group of fortunately
situated people with a roving commission to second-guess
Congress, state legislatures, and state and federal administrative
officers concerning what is best for the country."
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf

 

[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.

If the Founders intended the Constitution to protect the unborn as persons, from the moment of conception,

and if this is the interpretation you agree with,

then you have to believe that abortion is NOT a states' rights issue,

since the states cannot make laws in conflict with the Constitution -

therefore no state could constitutionally allow abortion.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
10th amendment

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

You’re free to ‘reject’ whatever you wish, and decide for yourself alone whether or not to have an abortion.

But the right to privacy prohibits you and other authoritarian rightists from attempting to codify that subjective opinion, and foisting personal beliefs upon the Nation as a whole.

It was the intent of the Framers to protect the citizens from the likes of the OP, and allow each citizen to decide for himself the merits of the issue, free from interference by the state.

As to the ‘rights’ of the ‘unborn,’ the Supreme Court was clear and succinct that the rights of the mother alone are paramount:

It is an inescapable biological fact that state regulation with respect to the child a woman is carrying will have a far greater impact on the mother's liberty than on the father's. The effect of state regulation on a woman's protected liberty is doubly deserving of scrutiny in such a case, as the State has touched not only upon the private sphere of the family but upon the very bodily integrity of the pregnant woman…Inasmuch as it is the woman who physically bears the child and who is the more directly and immediately affected by the pregnancy, as between the two, the balance weighs in her favor.

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

"But the right to privacy prohibits you and other authoritarian rightists from attempting to codify that subjective opinion, and foisting personal beliefs upon the Nation as a whole."


As there is no such right in the constitution, unless one is wearing those special progressive eyeglasses....

....why hasn't it been proposed as an amendment?

You and those who feel that a court decision bears the same authority as an amendment fail to understand the illegality......the people have only agreed to be governed by the Constitution.

 

[lukelk]

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.

stop posting, its really annoying. Abortion should be legal so people like you who their mom is their sister dont exist, oh wait thats right your politics agree with rape and incest, my bad.

 

[Gadawg73]

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.

If the Founders intended the Constitution to protect the unborn as persons, from the moment of conception,

and if this is the interpretation you agree with,

then you have to believe that abortion is NOT a states' rights issue,

since the states cannot make laws in conflict with the Constitution -

therefore no state could constitutionally allow abortion.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
10th amendment

BINGO, you are exactly right.
So just as soon as Roe is overturned it goes back to the states.
Some States will ban it outright, no exceptions.
Some states will ban it with many restrictions
Some states will ban it with few restrictions.
Some states will allow it legally outright.
Some states will allow it legally with many restrictions.
Some states will allow it with few restrictions.
So women that have money that live in a state that bans it outright with no exceptions simply go to a state that allows it outright and have all the abortions they want.

And women that are poor and have no money to leave their state that bans abortion outright with no exceptions are forced by government to have babies they do not want and in most cases they do not know how to care for.

Just like I stated earlier. Real world the way it was before Roe and there will be more states that allow if Roe was overturned and it was returned to the states.

 

[Agit8r]

One of the hazards of imposing "modern" views on historical figures is that it presumes that they WOULD HAVE HAD an opinion about something if alive today, but that such a figure did not express moral outrage over the issue because it did not exist at the time.

I'm sure that it comes as some shock to people who make such presumptions, when they learn that abortion has been around for centuries.

American Creation: The Founding Fathers and Abortion in Colonial America

An exhaustive account of the history of abortion and the Common Law can be found in the majority opinion of Roe v. Wade:

Roe v. Wade

 

[PoliticalChic]

The OP's very full of shit.

She fails to do any historical research that overwhelmingly indicates that not only were fetuses not considered to be persons, but nor were stillbirths nor babies that died before having been baptized.

As late as the early 20th Century male children spent the first 5 years of their lives dressed as girls. This was based on a superstition that as girls are inferior an angry god wouldn't take a male child that appeared female. Denying a child's gender is scarcely identifying him as a person with free will and rights. Girls had no rights.

To this day juvenile law is not the same as adult law. Juveniles are not protected by the same rights as adults.

The Constitution itself states that 'all MEN are created equal..." a rule that was expanded upon with the rule that slaves were considered to be three-fifths of a person. Women have not been granted full equality to this day.

Then there's the First Amendment and the Separation of Church and State clause. Both prevent zealots from forcing their minority point of view on others who disagree with faith-based rules that go against their own beliefs.

So to suggest that some peoples' religious superstitions force a rule that non-sentient fetuses automatically have the same rights as adult males but that pregnant women do not is not only ridiculous, but obnoxious, as are those that make such claims.

Try to rise above your nature, and be less vulgar.
It is unbecoming.



"Then there's the First Amendment and the Separation of Church and State clause."
Further....and this may be easier....try to get an education.
There is no such clause.