Quote:
Zygote, embryo, fetus, newborn, infant, toddler, pre-teen, teenager, adult and geriatric are different stages of growth, and hence we have different names for them.
In any event, it does little else but have both sides dig in their heels. It certainly doesn't address the problem.
|
What "does little else but have both sides dig in their heels"?
What "certainly doesn't address the problem"?
Quote:
As a Christian I refer to the word of God:
blah, blah, blah, blah, blah-blah, blah.
|
Well, I'm not a Christian; we have in this country a little thing called Separation of Church and State, which makes religion irrelevant when it comes to determining public policy.
What do
I care if your God promotes abortion? The whole Bible is full of misogyny, which I can quote chapter and verse if you'd like, although I'd rather save that for another thread rather than derail this one.
Quote:
Assuming the Pro-Choice position, it is my goal to protect a woman’s right to medical privacy as decided in Roe-V-Wade.
For the purpose of this discussion I define victory as my opponent’s inability to provide an argument which could yield real, tangible results typical of the Pro-Life position, which would alter a woman’s current legal right to medical privacy.
|
Well, it's not exclusively
about a "right to medical privacy" anymore; the 1992 case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey emphasized the right to abortion as grounded in the general sense of liberty protected under the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, rather than being grounded exclusively in the "right to privacy".
Quote:
|
The only way to impose upon a woman's current Constitutional right to medical privacy is to show a "compelling state interest" in the protection of a pre-viable ZEF.
|
Women's right to murder their unborn is currently protected not only under their "constitutional right to medical privacy", but also under their generalized right to "liberty", their right not to have any undue burdens placed on their access to abortion. Abortion has been recognized since PP vs Casey as not an exclusive "medical privacy" issue, but as a form of "liberty" protected by the due process clause.
Pfft. As if.
Anyway, the answer to this is a "Human Life Amendment", which has been proposed in different variations a number of times; more than 330 different proposals of a Human Life Amendment have been introduced in Congress over the years, in fact. All have been unsuccessful, but with the recent addition of several new conservative prolife judges to the Supreme Court, perhaps the time is ripe to try again.
Here's a version of a possible "Human Life Amendment" proposed by a group called the Ultimate Coalition for Unborn Children:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all persons are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are the Right to Life, that is, the Right to not have one’s life taken from them....
The word "person" shall apply to all human beings, regardless of race, color, creed, religion, citizenship, ancestry, national origin, sex, age, health, function, or condition of dependency, at all stages of biological development from conception until natural death.
No person shall deprive another person of life by assisting or aiding in their suicide. No person shall deprive an unborn person of life; provided, however, that nothing in this amendment shall prohibit a law allowing justification to be shown for only those medical procedures required to prevent the death of either the pregnant woman or her unborn offspring as long as such law requires every reasonable effort be made to preserve the life of each.
No designated funds are required to implement this amendment.
If this amendment to the Constitution were adopted, it would protect women as well as their unborn children from victimization by oppressive sexist, pro-abortion factions.
It should be noted that women were not initially considered citizens under the constitution either (nor were blacks of either gender), and still
aren't; the 14th Amendment, passed in 1868 with the intent of redressing this wrong, guaranteed all "persons" the right to "equal protection under the law." However, the
second section of the amendment used the words "male citizens," in describing who would be counted in determining how many representatives each state gets in Congress.
Similarly, the
15th Amendment in 1870 extended voting rights to all men, but not to any women (it calls for the rights of citizens not to abridged or denied "on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude"; it still, to this day, permits voting rights to be denied on the basis of gender).
As women still battle to this day to be recognized as full citizens with equal rights and protections under the constitution, so must they seek equality for
all citizens, especially their own children.
Real feminism ought to condemn all forms of discrimination and oppression- whether the oppression is against women, men, minorities, the handicapped, or the unborn.
Devaluing of one category of human life (the unborn) leads to the devaluing of
all human life... starting with women, who are
already held to be of lesser value than men.
Quote:
|
I invite you to give citation in Roe-V-Wade where SCOTUS addresses Roe's claim of being oppressed and discriminated against
|
Of course they don't "address it"; why should they give a crap if Norma McCorvey, age 21, was a ninth-grade dropout on her third pregnancy, an abused child who had spent time in reform school, was raped as a teenager and married an abusive husband at sixteen, had been homeless, drug- and alcohol-addicted, ultimately lost custody of all of her children, and was in the process of coming out as a lesbian?
It's so much
easier for both SCOTUS and society at large to simply encourage Norma to kill her child, as if that's the solution to everything, rather than address and correct the real injustices that had battered and oppressed her from the moment she herself was born.
Norma did not, in fact, ever have an abortion, however. And today, she's
glad.