USMB Abortion poll

[Redfish]

Since abortion always impacts our elections, here is a new poll on the subject.

I am pro life ......the mother's .

She owns her body including the uterus.

The decision to abort belongs exclusively to her and, if she chooses, her health care provider.


.

that's your opinion, and you have a right to express it. Many disagree with you and they also have the right to express their opinions.

Personally I believe that the mother does not have the right to kill her child before or after birth.

This is why we have a democracy and why everyone gets to vote. Sensitive issues like this should be decided by society as a whole, not dictated by one side or the other. The majority opinion should always prevail in a free society.

Mr Dumb ass states " the majority opinion should always prevail in a free society"

How can a society be free if it depends on majority opinions?

Isn't tyranny by the majority tyranny nevertheless?

Did the Jews in Germany have rights or were they REQUIRED to die because the majority of Germans decided they were enemies of the state?

We elect presidents by majority vote, we elect governors and representatives by majority vote, we enact laws by majority vote, we decide on tax rates and amendments by majority vote, supreme court justices are selected by majority vote. The majority opinion always prevails in a free democratic state.

What you want is tyranny by a minority. Maybe North Korea would be a good fit for you.

the holocaust was not a majority movement, it was done by a small minority of Germans who controlled the country with an iron fist. Your historical knowledge is sorely lacking.

The Constitutional Republic (1787) set up by the Founding Fathers protect the rights.

The people have the right to elect elected officials but the election does not affect the rights CONSTITUTIONALLY protected.

Laws are enacted by the majority and are Constitutional so long as they do not transgressed upon those rights and authorized by the Constitution.


.

what you fail to grasp is that minority rights were put in place by majority vote. The majority opinion was, and still is, that minorities should have equal rights. The majority opinion was the basis of our constitution.

 

[Redfish]

. . . . How many potential siblings were sacrificed for your mother's beliefs?

Against the rules, is it not. No attacking family?

no attack, simply a question

The question was clearly an attack.

not for you to decide.

I can make a conclusion, yes, based on your words and their obvious intent. I am glad to see you are back tracking, though.

not back tracking at all. my question was not an attack. the other poster claimed that his/her mother was pro-choice. I asked him/her if he/she knew how many potential siblings his/her mother had "chosen" to eliminate. I also told him/her that he/she was lucky that he/she was not one of the "chosen" ones.

 

[Redfish]

Fetuses are not the equivalent to human beings in terms of the Constitution. Such a concept is not recognized. You are saying that a fetus has the same right as its mother. Show me in law that is so. Hint: you cannot.

Really? then why is someone who kills a pregnant woman charged with TWO counts of murder?

 

[Chuz Life]

Fetuses are not the equivalent to human beings in terms of the Constitution. Such a concept is not recognized. You are saying that a fetus has the same right as its mother. Show me in law that is so. Hint: you cannot.

Really? then why is someone who kills a pregnant woman charged with TWO counts of murder?

The threshold is even lower than that. There have several cases now where the mother survived and only the child was killed.

Still a murder charge.

Also, there is at least one case where the pregnant girl supposedly asked her boyfriend to stomp on her belly to force a miscarriage. They were both charged with the child's death.

 

[Chuz Life]

The next time that a case comes before the Supreme Court that directly challenges Roe. When asked to prove that an abortion kills a child and the question becomes whether or not a child in the womb is a person or not. . . All the prolife lawyers need do is point to our existing fetal homicide laws for that reference.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Fetuses are not the equivalent to human beings in terms of the Constitution. Such a concept is not recognized. You are saying that a fetus has the same right as its mother. Show me in law that is so. Hint: you cannot.

Really? then why is someone who kills a pregnant woman charged with TWO counts of murder?

The threshold is even lower than that. There have several cases now where the mother survived and only the child was killed.

Still a murder charge.

Also, there is at least one case where the pregnant girl supposedly asked her boyfriend to stomp on her belly to force a miscarriage. They were both charged with the child's death.

Very limited and applicable only to third parties. Won't work kids.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The next time that a case comes before the Supreme Court that directly challenges Roe. When asked to prove that an abortion kills a child and the question becomes whether or not a child in the womb is a person or not. . . All the prolife lawyers need do is point to our existing fetal homicide laws for that reference.

The nexus is the mother's right of privacy. Your side will have to prove (1) that a fetus is entitled to 14th amendment proctions and (2) those are at least equal to the mother.

 

[JakeStarkey]

As Valeries has written in the CSZ Abortion thread:

the supreme court has ruled and reaffirmed that the unborn do not meet the constitutional definition of persons.

the question of a fetus being inhuman was never considered by the court because the biology is obvious.

 

[Chuz Life]

When we already have criminals doing time in prison for the murder of prenatal chilren, the case is easily made that they have a right to not be murdered by anyone.

Including their own mothers.

 

[g5000]

Third Trimester: only in cases of rape, incest, where the mother's life is at stake, or birth/genetic defect.

In what situation would a rape victim wait until the third trimester?

 

[JakeStarkey]

When we already have criminals doing time in prison for the murder of prenatal chilren, the case is easily made that they have a right to not be murdered by anyone. Including their own mothers.

Abortion is a medical procedure. You would have to get the procedure listed as attempted murder. Good luck.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Third Trimester: only in cases of rape, incest, where the mother's life is at stake, or birth/genetic defect.

In what situation would a rape victim wait until the third trimester?

Immaterial.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

When we already have criminals doing time in prison for the murder of prenatal chilren, the case is easily made that they have a right to not be murdered by anyone.

Including their own mothers.

So how many mothers are in jail?

 

[Chuz Life]

When we already have criminals doing time in prison for the murder of prenatal chilren, the case is easily made that they have a right to not be murdered by anyone. Including their own mothers.

Abortion is a medical procedure. You would have to get the procedure listed as attempted murder. Good luck.

You mean like we did once already with the medical procedure known as partial birth abortion then. Yeah. . . No shit.

 

[Chuz Life]

When we already have criminals doing time in prison for the murder of prenatal chilren, the case is easily made that they have a right to not be murdered by anyone.

Including their own mothers.

So how many mothers are in jail?

If abortions were already illegal, we wouldn't be going through the process of getting them recriminalized. Would we?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

When we already have criminals doing time in prison for the murder of prenatal chilren, the case is easily made that they have a right to not be murdered by anyone.

Including their own mothers.

So how many mothers are in jail?

If abortions were already illegal, we wouldn't be going through the process of getting them recriminalized. Would we?

So in order to do that, it would have to be taken to the Supreme Court to reverse a previous decision. Are you going to lead the charge?

I didn't think so. When you want to make a point of "murder" you bring up court ruling that favor your opinion, but when we point out that it's not murder according the Supreme Court, you reject it.

So the bottom line is you side with opinion of courts only when it favors your position on abortion, but don't when it doesn't.

 

[Chuz Life]

When we already have criminals doing time in prison for the murder of prenatal chilren, the case is easily made that they have a right to not be murdered by anyone.

Including their own mothers.

So how many mothers are in jail?

If abortions were already illegal, we wouldn't be going through the process of getting them re-criminalized. Would we?

So in order to do that, it would have to be taken to the Supreme Court to reverse a previous decision. Are you going to lead the charge?

I wish and I think I could do as good a job as anyone else could. But no and that's not the way it is likely to go down anyway.

The most likely way that the Supreme Court will be compelled to revisit Roe will not be from a direct / confrontation from someone like me.

It's most likely going to come from attorneys in the form of an appeal. Several cases under our Fetal Homicide laws have already been tried and upheld by the lower courts. So far, the Supreme Court has decided NOT to hear the arguments in any of those appeals. . . where the convicted 'murderers' have appealed to the Supreme Court to overturn their convictions on the basis that the fetal homicide laws conflict with Roe.

Sooner or later, the Supreme Court will decide to rule on one of those appeals and they will invite arguments (likely on both sides) to decide the issue.

 

[BreezeWood]

So, when we have one law that recognizes a child in the womb as a person/ murder victim. . . but says they are not to be protected if their mother wants them dead. . .

I can't help but see that as contrary to what the Constitution requires.

the subject is what an individual chooses to do to themselves is not the same as when someone else chooses to do the same "to" someone without their consent is unlawful, is all the law is saying.

.

There is arguably more than one person involved where abortions are concerned.

.
no there is not, as stated before there is no difference from sanctioned abstention from sex and abortion the result is the same.

.

 

[Borillar]

I can only logically support abortions in cases where they can be legally and Constitutionally (even if not morally) justified to save the pregnant woman's life.

This would include cases where an abortion is deemed necessary by medical doctors to defend a mother's life and would (conditionally) include most cases where the woman was raped.

In conjunction with the above, medical doctors would be LEGALLY required to do everything they can do to preserve and protect any and all of the lives they are presented with.

Mother's life always takes precedence.

What legal and Cosntitutional basis do you have to support the claim that the "mother's life always takes precedence?"

The way I read it, the Constitution says that "all persons" are entitled to the "equal protections" of our laws.

So, what's the right thing to do in such a case? Let the mother die? Let both the mother and fetus die? Or abort the fetus to save the mother?

 

[Borillar]

When do the unborn babies get their rights? So some dumbass woman is too stupid to use proper birth control and she gets pregnant.

Murder is the solution for her stupidity. Hell, why not wait till the kid is 5-6 years old and kill him then? Why not wait till he graduates High School and off him then?

Sorry, but the options are not realistic. You lefties believe that a "fetus" (that term makes it less "personal" to you) isn't a "human" until it's born. That nonsense has been disproven by medical science, but you will not accept it.

So, since the idiot couldn't use simple birth control, and since the "rights" of the mother trump the "rights" of the unborn, the mother should be able to kill the child forever. Hell, why not? That would be right up your alleys, wouldn't it?

The fetus does not have legal personhood until birth. After birth, the child has rights. Not before. Don't know why this is such a difficult concept to understand.