• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

14 States Passed Laws Making it Harder to Get an Abortion

Actually, that's not even true. It was rule that she has a right to privacy, which doesn't make sense at all, as if abortions aren't happening right out in the open and many people publicly talk about it.

You either do not understand what Constitutional right to privacy really is or you are pretending not to understand it.

Constitutional rights


The right to privacy often means the right to personal autonomy, or the right to choose whether or not to engage in certain acts or have certain experiences.

Several amendments to the U.S. Constitution have been used in varying degrees of success in determining a right to personal autonomy:

The First Amendment protects the privacy of beliefs
The Third Amendment protects the privacy of the home against the use of it for housing soldiers
The Fourth Amendment protects privacy against unreasonable searches
The Fifth Amendment protects against self-incrimination, which in turn protects the privacy of personal information
The Ninth Amendment says that the "enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." This has been interpreted as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments.

The right to privacy is most often cited in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, which states:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


However, the protections have been narrowly defined and usually only pertain to family, marriage, motherhood, procreation and child rearing.

- See more at: Right to Privacy: Constitutional Rights & Privacy Laws
 
1.)By the mother scheduling an induction.
2.)I disagree that it doesn't matter.
3.)You also are OK with infringing on the woman's rights once the 24 week period is reached (20/21 weeks in your personal POV).
4.) Why are you OK on that account but all of the sudden it is way worse to add a little bit more time on it?
5.)In the case of there being serious medical complications I support abortion, so that isn't an issue.
6.) As far as dying, that's a very small % and people living their lives every day do more dangerous things than being pregnant, like driving. Currently there is a 0.0185% chance of death at 800 deaths a year and there was probably something more involved there, like not having proper screening/care or the person had other medical issues. More people die even from falling down stairs.
7.) So you're still making a comparison if a very low probability vs a 100% guaranteed death.

1.) so if its her choice theres nothign really to "support" though right?
again I would refer to medical science here and the reason for wanting to induce here would matter also. Im guessing it would be very circumstantial.
2.) you can disagree but thats not how rights and law work. They disagree with you. I dont get to temporary trespass, or steal, or rape or assault etc etc
3.) No im not "ok" with it I simply recognize the fact that it has to be done no matter what and I pick somethign close to equal.
If I never allow the woman that violates her rights, of I pick any times frame that also violates hers rights. I go for the middle instead of being one sided. I go for respecting BOTH lives not just one.
4.) again im not ok with it and it has nothgin to do with time. That is again the strawman you are trying to paint the position into and it doesnt work. (the little more time could mean death)

Like I explained it becomes about viability and when the baby is actually viable i choose to give more weight to the baby, it could now now be somethign for sure.

WHat would you have me do, ALWAYS violate the woman's rights and NEVER respect them and ALWAYS choose the baby making the woman a lesser as soon as she conceives? no thanks . . id never support that as i said. Viable already born person vs a ZEF, baby, unborn that could abort itself as fast as it conceived .. yeah thats a no sell for me. Its completely illogical.

also legally theres no justification for it

5.) problem is your serious is subjective as would be anybody's
6.) % doesnt matter if theres force. I cant through you out of a plane against your will and say because you are a skydiving champ and teacher with two chutes that the percentage was nil so i did nothign wrong.
You are talking things that are a choice, not force.
7.) you can look at it that way if you want but thats not it at all, its about RIGHTS and trying for somethign EQUAL. Those facts cant be changed.
You want to use force, viloate a womans current legal and human rights and have it mostly one sided . . i could never support that, i could never force that on others and do that to women.
 
Last edited:
2.) you can disagree but thats not how rights and law work. They disagree with you. I dont get to temporary trespass, or steal, or rape or assault etc etc

That's exactly how rights and laws work in our system. You get enough people on your side and you get to make the laws that define rights.

WHat would you have me do, ALWAYS violate the woman's rights and NEVER respect them and ALWAYS choose the baby making the woman a lesser as soon as she conceives? no thanks . . id never support that as i said. Viable already born person vs a ZEF, baby, unborn that could abort itself as fast as it conceived .. yeah thats a no sell for me. Its completely illogical.

You're already violating her rights. You just chose and support that violation to be arbitrarily set at viability. So somehow it's way worse to have that same violation exist for 24 weeks longer than what you already support. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
 
Right. Like the reality of a baby surviving at 21 weeks.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Actually the youngest preemies to ever survive worldwide were 21 weeks 5 days and 21 weeks 6 days gestation.
They are considered medical miracles.

The changes of preemies younger than 23 weeks gestation surviving ( with technological help ) more than a few days are so rare and the major disabilities so high most US hospitals only encourage comfort care for preemies born earlier than 23 weeks.
They wrap the preemie in a warm blanket and keep it comfortable until it expires on its own.
 
1.)That's exactly how rights and laws work in our system. You get enough people on your side and you get to make the laws that define rights.
2.)You're already violating her rights. You just chose and support that violation to be arbitrarily set at viability.
3.) So somehow it's way worse to have that same violation exist for 24 weeks longer than what you already support.
4.) That doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

1.) what?
A.) laws do not define rights thats 100% backwards. Are you from america and how old are you
B.) if you were following along the comment about "thats not how rights and laws works" was about your suggestions of "temporary violations"
2.) Yes I am to yeild to other rights, theres nothign arbitrary about it has its been explained like 6 times lol You didnt answer my question though.

What would you have me do always violate her rights and ALWAYS make her a lesser and not do somethign that trys to go for equal rights even though thats impossible?
Why would I ever do that unless I think womens rights are meaningless compared to the ZEF.
3.) its not "somehow, its very logic based on facts, rights and how they work and viability.
4.) DOesnt have to make sense to you, not understanding its obviousness would be your issue that I can only try to help you with.

Why does it make sense to you to ALWAYS violate her rights then? and not try somethign in the middle, try somethign equal?
 
Last edited:
Yet we cannot do recreational drugs or have assisted suicide or, or...

The zones of privacy include but are not limited to motherhood,procreation and child rearing

Assisted suicide is a states issue.
Oregon has had assisted suicide for years and I think 2 other states recently passed assisted suicide laws.

ETA:

I guess its 3 more states now.
Oregon became the first state to legalize assisted suicide for terminally ill, mentally competent adults in 1994, followed by Washington and Vermont. The Montana Supreme Court has ruled that physicians may prescribe lethal drugs to the competent terminally ill.Oct 5, 2015
 
Last edited:
Yet we cannot do recreational drugs or have assisted suicide or, or...

Assisted suicide is legal here in Canada and our Prime Minister is going to legalize marijuana. BTW, it's not actually illegal to use the drugs here, though possession *is* against the law.
 
Assisted suicide is legal here in Canada and our Prime Minister is going to legalize marijuana. BTW, it's not actually illegal to use the drugs here, though possession *is* against the law.

I'm just giving other examples that fall under the same criteria. There are plenty of others that would also qualify that the government prohibits as well.
 
I'm just giving other examples that fall under the same criteria. There are plenty of others that would also qualify that the government prohibits as well.

As I stated those examples may fall under States rights so take it up with the individual states.

The US Supreme Court left assisted suicide up to the states.


In two cases from 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that physician-assisted suicide is not a protected liberty interest under the Constitution. However, the rulings in Vacco v. Quill and Washington v. Glucksberg left the door open for states to permit physician-assisted suicide.

Supreme Court Rulings - Physician Assisted Suicide - Right to Die
 
Yet we cannot do recreational drugs or have assisted suicide or, or...

What does recreational drugs have to with depriving protections of marriage, family, procreation , or child rearing?
 
So the court decided to make it states' rights in one case but not on others, even though they would fall under the same criteria. That makes sense and doesn't seem arbitrary at all.

Due process is protected under the 14th amendment , since assisted suicide is not a protected liberty the Supreme Court left it up to the states.
 
I'm just giving other examples that fall under the same criteria. There are plenty of others that would also qualify that the government prohibits as well.

What does the govt prohibit that if not done the person may have a myriad of side effects, some that may last for the rest of the person's life, great discomfort and pain and possibly even death?
 
What does the govt prohibit that if not done the person may have a myriad of side effects, some that may last for the rest of the person's life, great discomfort and pain and possibly even death?


Exactly, the first law in the US regulating abortion was actually an anti poision law.
And it only regulated it after quickening which was around the 4th month of pregnancy.


In 1821 Connecticut passed the first law in the United States barring abortions after “quickening” .
These were were usually performed by administering poison to the woman after the fourth month of pregnancy.
 
Last edited:
Due process is protected under the 14th amendment , since assisted suicide is not a protected liberty the Supreme Court left it up to the states.

Neither is abortion, under that same criteria.
 
Neither is abortion, under that same criteria.

Actually , the right to privacy is . Family, child rearing, and procreation including contraception and elective abprtion before viability are included in right to privacy.



There were several cases regarding the right to privacy which set the precedence for the Supreme Court decision regarding Roe v Wade. Including the precedents I listed below.



Weems v. United States (1910)

In a case from the Philippines, the Supreme Court finds that the definition of "cruel and unusual punishment" is not limited to what the authors of the Constitution understood under that concept.

Meyer v. Nebraska (1923)

A case ruling that parents may decide for themselves if and when their children may learn a foreign language, based upon a fundamental liberty interest individuals have in the family unit.

Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925)

A case deciding that parents may not be forced to send their children to public rather than private schools, based on the idea that, once again, parents have a fundamental liberty in deciding what happens to their children.

Olmstead v. United States (1928)

The court decides that wire tapping is legal, no matter what the reason or motivation, because it is not expressly prohibited in the Constitution. Justice Brandeis' dissent, however, lays the groundwork for future understandings of privacy.

Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942)

An Oklahoma law providing for the sterilization of people found to be "habitual criminals" is struck down, based on idea that all people have a fundamental right to make their own choices about marriage and procreation.

Tileston v. Ullman (1943) & Poe v. Ullman (1961)

The Court refuses to hear a case on Connecticut laws prohibiting the sale of contraceptives because no one can demonstrate they have been harmed. Harlan's dissent in Poe, however, explains why the case should be reviewed and why fundamental privacy interests are at stake.

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)

Connecticut's laws against distribution of contraceptives and contraceptive information to married couples are struck down, with the Court relying on earlier precedent involving the rights of people to make decisions about their families and procreation as a legitimate sphere of privacy.

Loving v. Virginia (1967)

Virginia law against interracial marriages is struck down, with the Court once again declaring that marriage is a "fundamental civil right" and that decisions in this arena are not those with which the State can interefere unless they have good cause.

Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972)

The right of people to have and know about contraceptives is expanded to unmarried couples, because the right of people to make such decisions exists due not simply to the nature of the marriage relationship. Instead, it is also due to the fact that it is individuals making these decisions, and as such the government has no business making it for them, regardless of their marital status.

Roe v. Wade (1973)
The landmark decision which established that women have a basic right to have an abortion, this was based in many ways upon the earlier decisions above. Through the above cases, the Supreme Court developed the idea that the Constitution protects a person's to privacy, particularly when it comes to matters involving children and procreation.
 
Back
Top Bottom