vauge

Source: Yahoo News

LiberalFINGER

I say this is outstanding. What we have here is a judge that is willing to look at things that he finds repugnant and still go over it with a fine toothed comb.

WKL815

I'm glad you posted this, Vague. I realize I'm late to this party, but I was thinking about it and thought I'd post my thoughts.

Again, I find this ruling an inconsistent unreasonable application of law. I know, "Big Surprise".

Even when the death penalty is doled out to convicts of heinous crimes, we no longer put them in front of firing squads or gas chambers or guillotines. We end their lives with little pain and blood comparative to this procedure.

If a baby's life is to be ended in-utero, in keeping with our laws, it should be humane. This "gruesome, brutal, barbaric and uncivilized" procedure is not necessary to saving the woman.

These people are quite simply afraid of providing any kind of legally sanctioned empathy to the unborn for fear of the compassionate tide that it may turn.

vauge

Abso-flippin-lutely!
It is truely sick that there are dual standards between murder and abortion.

I love the way you write. Have you ever had anything published?

WKL815

Thanks. Nope re: published. Thank you though. I was cursed with the ability to put words together in writing, but in person, I blank on words a lot and am not nearly so eloquent. Now you know my secret. =) I'm like W =).

I wrote a letter about my views on the constitutionality of abortion and have mailed it to about 20 senators, court watchdog groups, Democratic committees and support groups, the Seattle PI and The New York Times.

vauge

Would you mind sharing?

I am thinking of putting an "articles" system together with various positions on topics.
That is exactly the type of shtuph that would be awesome to put in it.

WKL815

It's long and it's kinda like my elucidation on the issue with a subsequent argument. My name is Traci in WA if you do use it. Thanks for asking:

This letter is about abortion. I suspect the nation will soon become embroiled in this issue making it imperative that we all come to some common starting point.

I am a conservative person, but I have no religious affiliation at all. I am 26, married for 7 years with a 3 year old daughter.

I have never been outspoken for or against abortion. I grew up in the 80’s and 90’s. I have always been aware of the abortion issue, synonymous with the phrases “right to choose” and “pro-choice”. As a young girl I never really thought about the issue passionately one way or another, but I did know that it would never have been an option for me. I would see anti-abortion bumper stickers like “It’s not a choice, it’s a child” which I struggled to understand. “Of course, it’s a choice,” my head would say, yet I remained perplexed knowing I was obviously missing some point because the thought of abortion just didn’t seem right either.

Then, I had my daughter – a beautiful experience – a beautiful child very much wanted. I tried to think about the abortion issue in a different way to advance my understanding, but I just couldn’t wrap my mind around how anyone who’d had a baby could contemplate an abortion. Again, though, I never questioned another’s right to make that choice – until now.

October 12th, during the town hall debate, President Bush – without even saying the word and without me even knowing at the time the powerful change of argument he had just unfurled in my mind – spoke to the abortion issue in such a way as to lift the fog of incongruent thoughts.

I sat there listening to him answer the Supreme Court question. He talked about strict interpretation. Party line. Check. Then, I saw true emotion flicker through his face and his breathing changed and I could tell that I should listen to what he was about to say because it was important to him. He turned back to the people, to me, and spoke about the Dred Scott case explaining how it was an example of liberal interpretation of the constitution by refusing to acknowledge a black man’s rights based on the 3/5ths clause. I paused my TiVo, turned to my husband and told him, “Oh my. That was about abortion.”

I was pretty pleased with myself for having decoded his message, but I wanted to make sure that his interpretation of the Dred Scott case and my understanding were correct. So as any 20- something would do, I went online to research. I visited various sites on the Dred Scott case and read through the constitution and its amendments. I soon validated my understanding of that moment in history: Some judge looked at a man of color in his court room and refused to acknowledge that man as a person, instead calling him property, not a citizen, and therefore, not afforded basic rights under the constitution. The injustice of this interpretation, this “reasoning”, left me with an uneasy feeling that all of sudden powerfully intensified as I saw how it was the same reasoning behind the pro-choice stance: By saying it’s a woman’s right to end a pregnancy, you have to disclaim unborn babies as persons, viewing them instead as property.

I do not believe unborn babies are property.

The Feminists did a good job indoctrinating my peers and me into the “it’s a right” club. Their catch phrase dug itself into my mind as though it were an unquestionable right, which I now see that it’s not. This is why I could never think or express my views on abortion before. The “It’s a right” argument masterfully, yet dishonestly stops one from thinking about the baby by focusing on the woman. But, no person’s right trumps someone else’s right – there is a limitation of rights amendment. The case for abortion is not for a woman’s unquestionable right to choose, period. But it is for when does that right go away because in exercising it – she would be denying the right to life of the baby she is carrying.

------

How does one conclude unborn babies are persons? Here’s my stab at it: To begin, I looked for definitions of the word “person” and was delighted to see that nowhere did it offer “breathing” as a pre-requisite, and most often, the word “human” is invoked. The word “human” reciprocally invokes “person”. Next, let me relay a lovely logical statement I read about the use of the word “fetus” a few days ago; “Fetus” is a stage of life of a human, just like “neonate”, “infant”, “toddler”, “adolescent” or “adult”. “Fetus” is not a term used in place of “human”. Fetus is a stage of being a human which is a person, thus, a fetus is a person. It seems silly to me to have to prove that an unborn baby is a person. Many people just intuitively know this.

But before I go further, let me tell you what I don’t think are sound reasonings to pin down the personhood of an unborn baby. Obviously, but with all due respect, the Christian belief that ensoulment takes place at conception has no place in a reason-based discussion. There’s also an argument using science, and that is that the DNA is unique at conception and therefore it is a person worthy of allowing to grow to be born. I respect this concept, but it is unrealistic to ask people whom can barley conclude a 5 month gestational aged baby is a person to acknowledge that an infinitesimal and unorganized number of cells makes a person. Personally, I wish that at least we could all agree to grant personhood to an unborn human being as soon as he or she has brain activity of any kind and has physical sensory.

I now look to the 14th amendment to argue that abortions at least past the fetus stage (or earlier as science may eventually prove), are illegal and should be banned.

The 14th Amendment, Section 1 states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.

The framers of the 1868 amendment said, “…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” It does not say “citizen” or “persons born”, it says only “person”. Any person has a right to life unless there is due process of law.

So here is my argument, which to me seems rather simplistic. Does it all really hinge on defining a person as it seems to me to be the case? Again, I went to the internet to research the Roe v. Wade case to see if I was oversimplifying or not seeing all arguments.

As a result of my research of the actual opinion of the Justices in the Roe v. Wade case, I became even more incensed. The entire opinion does hinge on the disregard of an unborn baby as a person.

Justice Blackmun begins his opinion by discussing what he pronounces to be relatively new restrictive criminal abortion laws that came to pass from statutory changes effected in the latter half of the 19th century. He then goes on to discuss the differences between common law, and English and American statutory laws prior to that time. He noted the latter two often viewed abortion before quickening as a misdemeanor and afterwards, manslaughter.

It could be and should be argued that the stricter restrictions of abortion Justice Blackmun laments are in direct correlation with the passing of the 14th amendment. An amendment which was constructed as a response to the depravity that blacks faced when they were refused their rights and considered merely property. I am certain that the intent of the public and politicians in the latter half of the 19th century was to ensure that all humans were protected under the constitution regardless of their form or origin so that callous disregard for human life was never again in constitutional limbo.

So how did the Justices conclude that unborn babies/fetuses were not persons as of 1970? In an example of completely unreasonable and false justification of an action, he claims that the action itself (of abortion) throughout the 19th and 20th centuries was proof that a fetus wasn’t regarded as a person and therefore the termination of their lives should be allowed to continue in a freer way. What type of reasoning bases the quantity of an action as justification for its constitutionality? Poor reasoning, that’s what type. Justice Blackmun then goes on to cite Jewish, Protestant and Renaissance Roman Catholic dogmas as further evidence!!!!!!!!!!!!! What happened to secular law!? What happened to science and reason. How is it that the progressive stance in the 1970s and now is dependent on going backwards in time when little was known about the prenatal experience and on antiquated religious views of when life begins?

If our constitution is supposed to grow with us as a society as intended, then we should be bringing facts of science, technology and reason into our interpretations in order to do ourselves justice. The unborn are not specifically excluded, and it is quite clear to me and many other citizens that there is ample proof that they are deserving of their personhood and constitutional right to life.

We have an undeniably righteous basis from which to demand a social policy change. Maybe not for eradicating abortion completely, but certainly for limiting greatly its position as an unquestionable right.

vauge

This was so increadible, I had to get the system up right now.

There should be a new link above called Articles.

WKL815, you should have permission to post in it.

Would you post this in the letters section?

Pacridge

OK. so like here's the deal. I got pregant. You know because nobody told me you could get preggers if ya, like, you know, did it standing up and all. And anyway I like just kinda forgot about being, ya know, preggers and all, for like, gezz I don't know must've been like four months maybe five?, I don't know. Life's just so hard and all. Anyway now I want an abortion. That's OK, right?

I'm sorry, as anybody whose read my crap on here knows, I'm a fairly liberal guy. But this abortion stuff bothers me. Not all the time. There's times when maybe it can't be avoided, I'm certain there are. But partial birth abortions? Give me a F**king break here people. There are tons of groups out there that are willing to help these women through whatever mess they got themselves into and killing a human just because it hasn't been born yet doesn't quite fly.

WKL815

I'm so glad you understand, Pacridge. I hope there are more liberals like you...and I bet there are. We could take this country to a whole new place if we put party alignments aside and do what is really right and really American.