• 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!

What's Wrong with this Picture?

...

Roe v Wade specifically says the health of the mother MUST be balanced against the right to life.

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 162 ("We repeat, however, that the State does have an important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant woman, whether she be a resident of the State or a non-resident who seeks medical consultation and treatment there, and that it has still another important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life.").
...

Wrong...

The first trimester states will have no say regarding elective abortion.
After the first trimester states may take a compelling interest in the life of the mother but not the potential life of the unborn.
States may take compelling interest in the potentiality of human life after viability.


From Roe part X


With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in the health of the mother, the "compelling" point, in the light of present medical knowledge, is at approximately the end of the first trimester. This is so because of the now-established medical fact, referred to above at 149, that, until the end of the first trimester mortality in abortion may be less than mortality in normal childbirth.


It follows that, from and after this point, a State may regulate the abortion procedure to the extent that the regulation reasonably relates to the preservation and protection of maternal health. Examples of permissible state regulation in this area are requirements as to the qualifications of the person who is to perform the abortion; as to the licensure of that person; as to the facility in which the procedure is to be performed, that is, whether it must be a hospital or may be a clinic or some other place of less-than-hospital status; as to the licensing of the facility; and the like.

This means, on the other hand, that, for the period of pregnancy prior to this "compelling" point, the attending physician, in consultation with his patient, is free to determine, without regulation by the State, that, in his medical judgment, the patient's pregnancy should be terminated.
If that decision is reached, the judgment may be effectuated by an abortion free of interference by the State.

With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the "compelling" point is at viability.
This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion [p164] during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.
 
Last edited:
Where does the Constitution say it does not include the unborn?

...

From Roe part IX

Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to "person." The first, in defining "citizens," speaks of "persons born or naturalized in the United States." The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. "Person" is used in other places in the Constitution: in the listing of qualifications for Representatives and Senators, Art. I, § 2, cl. 2, and § 3, cl. 3; in the Apportionment Clause, Art. I, § 2, cl. 3; [n53] in the Migration and Importation provision, Art. I, § 9, cl. 1; in the Emolument Clause, Art. I, § 9, cl. 8; in the Electors provisions, Art. II, § 1, cl. 2, and the superseded cl. 3; in the provision outlining qualifications for the office of President, Art. II, § 1, cl. 5; in the Extradition provisions, Art. IV, § 2, cl. 2, and the superseded Fugitive Slave Clause 3; and in the Fifth, Twelfth, and Twenty-second Amendments, as well as in §§ 2 and 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only post-natally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application. [n54] [p158]

All this, together with our observation, supra, that, throughout the major portion of the 19th century, prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.
[n55] This is in accord with the results reached in those few cases where the issue has been squarely presented. McGarvey v. Magee-Womens Hospital, 340 F.Supp. 751 (WD Pa.1972); Byrn v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp., 31 N.Y.2d 194, 286 N.E.2d 887 (1972), appeal docketed, No. 72-434; Abele v. Markle, 351 F.Supp. 224 (Conn.1972), appeal docketed, No. 72-730. Cf. Cheaney v. State, ___ Ind. at ___, 285 N.E.2d at 270; Montana v. Rogers, 278 F.2d 68, 72 (CA7 1960), aff'd sub nom. Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S. 308 (1961); Keeler v. Superior Court, 2 Cal.3d 619, 470 P.2d 617 (1970); State v. Dickinson, 28 [p159] Ohio St.2d 65, 275 N.E.2d 599 (1971). Indeed, our decision in United States v. Vuitch, 402 U.S. 62 (1971), inferentially is to the same effect, for we there would not have indulged in statutory interpretation favorable to abortion in specified circumstances if the necessary consequence was the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection.
 
I just love it when a guy tells me all about the dangers of pregnancy. ;)

And I am a woman who had severe pregnancy complications and risked my life to give birth.
I feel each woman who is pregnant should have the choice ( as early during pregnancy as possible but before viability ) to choose to have an abortion if they if wish not to risk continuing the pregnant until childbirth.



Any pregnancy complication can become life threatening.

About 8 percent of all pregnancies carry the risk of death due to preeclampsia,eclampsia, HELLP syndrome and other variants of the syndrome. Each one of the 8 percent who gets those syndromes may end up dying.

We never know when a pregnancy might take a turn and become life threatening to someone we love.


Another 1 to 2.5 percent of pregnancies are ectopic pregnancies which are also life threatening.

So about 1 out 10 pregnancies can be life threatening just from 2 of the many types of life threatening complications.... eclampsia variants and ectopic pregnancies.

My daughter had HELLP syndrome with her pregnancy and she was very close to death when they performed the emergency
C section.


She went to the ER a few weeks before her due date because she was getting a horrible pain in her back just below her ribs which was caused because her liver was being damaged from the HELLP syndrome.

Usually there is pain the upper right part of the abdomen but her pain was in the back because her liver was stressed.


Her OB/GYN was shocked when her test results came back showing she had HELLP syndrome. She had just seen him a couple days before and everything with the pregnancy appeared fine then.
My daughter was one the up to 8 percent of women in the US who every year developes 'preeclampsia, eclampsia, or a related condition such as HELLP syndrome." Thankfully she was not one of the roughly 300 women who do die every year but she was one of the roughly 75,000 women every year who are counted as near misses.

Every year in the U.S., up to 8 percent, or 300,000, of pregnant or postpartum women develop preeclampsia, eclampsia, or a related condition such as HELLP syndrome.

Roughly 300 women die, and another 75,000 women experience “near misses”—severe complications and injury such as organ failure, massive blood loss, permanent disability, and premature birth or death of their babies.
Usually, the disease resolves with the birth of the baby and placenta. But, it can occur postpartum—indeed, most maternal deaths occur after delivery.

Beyond Downton Abbey: Preeclampsia Maternal Deaths Continue Today - The Daily Beast

Now many woman want to continue a pregnancy and give birth. They hope the pregnancy and childbirth will go well.

During my first pregnancy my kidneys were damaged and my life was at risk but I wanted to give birth so I continued my pregnancy knowing I might never live to see my little one or even know if I had a boy or girl.

But after my personal experiences I could never support a law or a country that would require a woman risk her life and not allow access to an abortion.

On the other side of the coin I would never support a law or a country that would force a woman to have an abortion even if the fetus were so malformed it would cost taxpayers millions of dollars in medical costs.
 
Yes, Minnie, I'm familiar with your "wee ones" and all the rest of it because you've shared it all so many times. I too have "war stories" to tell, one, in fact, that is even more tragic than yours. Oh, and pre-eclampsia, gestational diabetes, and blah-blah-blah.

But that's not the ordinary experience, as I've said more than once. And the fact is that most of the "wee ones" that are aborted are not malformed and are not putting their mothers' lives at serious risk. We both know this.
 
I just love it when a guy tells me all about the dangers of pregnancy. ;)

You don't love it, you ignore it, in arrogant, juvenile obstinance to the truth. There is a very obvious denial among the anti-abortion crowd that cry over zygotes but won't shed a single tear for a traumatized girl who must wade through a sea of abusive morons to rid herself of a threat to her future, physical and financial. They refuse to see reality as it is and acknowledge that in any other situation where the threat of physical harm were as great, they would permit a man to defend himself. There is no righteous shame in their twisted moralizing. They charge ahead against women and against good sense, like some misogynist Don Quixotes, holding up dead fetuses as their call to arms.

The right-wing clown car is full of the dangerously self confident, running over people- in this case women- in blind, pious ambition.
 
I haven't "moralized," and you don't know the difference between your opinion and truth.
 
lol..another Facebook meme going around the far right sphere.

14519849_10210528719796959_4560599330650377823_n.jpg


Anyone out there ever see a fetus in diapers?

I haven't "moralized," and you don't know the difference between your opinion and truth.

Interesting you bring up truth.

Do you think picture remotely an accurate depiction of a fetus?
 
Interesting you bring up truth.

Do you think picture remotely an accurate depiction of a fetus?

Depends on the fetus's gestational age. Are you saying that an 8 or 9-month old fetus doesn't look like the baby in the picture?
 
Yes, Minnie, I'm familiar with your "wee ones" and all the rest of it because you've shared it all so many times. I too have "war stories" to tell, one, in fact, that is even more tragic than yours. Oh, and pre-eclampsia, gestational diabetes, and blah-blah-blah.

But that's not the ordinary experience, as I've said more than once. And the fact is that most of the "wee ones" that are aborted are not malformed and are not putting their mothers' lives at serious risk. We both know this.

And I too have more tragic stories too.
My daughter and I are the stories of "near misses."
The stories of " there but for the Grace of God go I".

When I had 2 little ones younger than 3 my husband's cousin died during childbirth leaving behind a new infant and a toddle who no longer has his mother.

Each woman needs to be able to form her own decision whether she wishes to chance contining a pregnancy.
I will not support a law that gets between her and her doctor even when/if all indications are the pregnancy appears normal.

I will not take the responsibility of playing with another persons life's decisions.

Those decisions are best left to her, her doctor, and her beliefs.
 
Depends on the fetus's gestational age. Are you saying that an 8 or 9-month old fetus doesn't look like the baby in the picture?

It certainly wouldn't have on a pair of diapers.
 
You call abortion an "attack" and a fetus "innocent" and you think I'M the one using hyperbole. You can't use the language of violence to describe a medical procedure and you can't use the rhetoric of judgement to describe a fetus. The way you choose to engage on this issue is as dishonest, deluded and as emotionally hysterical as imaginable.

I'm disgusted by the way you ignore the female risk of life-long injury and death, inherent in pregnancy. Why on earth do you continue to frame this issue in a way that is so ignorant and dismissive of women? Where do you think fetuses come from, heaven? They don't. Real women risk EVERYTHING in pregnancy. Deal with reality for once.

The reality is that in the US there is rarely lifelong injury and death. The fear would be unreasonable unless there is someone other medical condition.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
From Roe part IX

You conveniently ignored what I just quoted of Roe that SCOTUS said the government had just as much interest in the child's right to live as the governments interest in the woman's health.

Judges seeing not assurance that there is no right pre-natal is not the Constitution stating there is no right.

In Roe they said potential life. Which puts that last part bolded in context, which is saying they would not have ruled in favor of abortion if it necessarily took a life.

We have a much better understanding now. We know for a fact it takes a life.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Interesting you bring up truth.

Do you think picture remotely an accurate depiction of a fetus?

Developmental wise, there is literally no difference between a prenatal human 8 months into pregnancy and a newborn human.

So yeah, denying it's a human extremely late into pregnancy is essentially claiming also a newborn is not a human.

I'm quite sure that's one of the main points of that meme.

We are know where you are does not determine what you are.
 
Last edited:
You conveniently ignored what I just quoted of Roe that SCOTUS said the government had just as much interest in the child's right to live as the governments interest in the woman's health.

Judges seeing not assurance that there is no right pre-natal is not the Constitution stating there is no right.

In Roe they said potential life. Which puts that last part bolded in context, which is saying they would not have ruled in favor of abortion if it necessarily took a life.

We have a much better understanding now. We know for a fact it takes a life.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

We knew even back then through the scientific method that abortion takes a human's life. Roe v Wade needs to be thrown out the window and redone. It's not a good legal clutch that some pro choicers want to hide behind with.
 
We knew even back then through the scientific method that abortion takes a human's life. Roe v Wade needs to be thrown out the window and redone. It's not a good legal clutch that some pro choicers want to hide behind with.

Obviously not. Because it is still debated to this day whether it's a life or not. Roe v Wade is actually not that bad, it's what it has been turned in to. If the mother has a reasonable concern for her life or serious injury she should be able to make that decision with her doctor. I am very pro-life, and that seems very reasonable. The problem is all these other justifications that have come from it to justify abortion for any reason.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
You conveniently ignored what I just quoted of Roe that SCOTUS said the government had just as much interest in the child's right to live as the governments interest in the woman's health.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

In the Roe SCOTUS decided the doctors and woman's right to privacy regarding abortion took priority before the unborn was viable.

SCOTUS than decided that states could take an compelling interest in the potentiality of human life at /after viability.

It does not matter when human life starts the states cannot take a compelling interest before viability when the woman or legal guardian is seeking it before viability.
 
Last edited:
We knew even back then through the scientific method that abortion takes a human's life. Roe v Wade needs to be thrown out the window and redone. It's not a good legal clutch that some pro choicers want to hide behind with.

Yes, they knew an unborn was human but that is irrelevant, since an unborn is not yet a person.
The right to privacy was established long before Roe.
The right to privacy regarding reproduction takes precedence over the states rights before viability which is the point where the unborn has gestated enough that it can survive birth and live outside a womb even if it needs artificial help such as an infant CPAP and/or a neo natal unit.
 
You're wrong. It doesn't matter whether YOU think the risk is real, if a woman does, that's enough for me. I trust women to make reproductive choices. Objectively, many women have, and continue to, die in childbirth. Even if it's one in a million, I'll defend their right.

Besides, we hava a law in Colorado called the "make my day" law. Even though I've never known anyone who was killed by an intruder, the men of this state reserve the right to kill someone, if they FEEL threatened. Yet, I've known two women who died in childbirth and those same gun nuts would reatrict abortion rights absolutely. Property rights are, apparently, more important than the very lives of women.

So, spare me the bull**** about pregnancy being harmless to women, I know better. Only by lying as you have can this nation's woman haters continue this horrible, stupid and immoral campaign againt the human rights of women.

Very few issues are as clearly the result of open bigotry as the abortion debate. The anti-feminism is glaring, not only in what you say, but in what you gloss over.
 
In the Roe SCOTUS decided the doctors and woman's right to privacy regarding abortion took priority before the unborn was viable.

SCOTUS than decided that states could take an compelling interest in the potentiality of human life at /after viability.

It does not matter when human life starts the states cannot take a compelling interest before viability when the woman or legal guardian is seeking it before viability.

Not according to what I quoted nor what you quoted.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
You're wrong. It doesn't matter whether YOU think the risk is real, if a woman does, that's enough for me. I trust women to make reproductive choices. Objectively, many women have, and continue to, die in childbirth. Even if it's one in a million, I'll defend their right.

Besides, we hava a law in Colorado called the "make my day" law. Even though I've never known anyone who was killed by an intruder, the men of this state reserve the right to kill someone, if they FEEL threatened. Yet, I've known two women who died in childbirth and those same gun nuts would reatrict abortion rights absolutely. Property rights are, apparently, more important than the very lives of women.

So, spare me the bull**** about pregnancy being harmless to women, I know better. Only by lying as you have can this nation's woman haters continue this horrible, stupid and immoral campaign againt the human rights of women.

Very few issues are as clearly the result of open bigotry as the abortion debate. The anti-feminism is glaring, not only in what you say, but in what you gloss over.

In no other circumstance do we allow one to take the life of another without legal consequence on mere unfounded fear.

A woman has the right to her health. She does not have the right to kill another. That is stupid, immoral, and a lie. So is claiming people hate women because they believe in the right to life. The anti-logic is glaring, not only in what you say but what you gloss over.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Not according to what I quoted nor what you quoted.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The Justices decided with Roe v Wade decision to weigh the woman's right to privacy regarding reproductivity and the state's interest regarding the potentiality of human life.

They decided the state's could take a compelling interest in the potentiality of human life after the 6 month.

Casey decided the state's could take a compelling interest at/after viability was reached.

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of abortion. It was decided simultaneously with a companion case, Doe v. Bolton. The Court ruled 7–2 that a right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion, but that this right must be balanced against the state's two legitimate interests in regulating abortions: protecting women's health and protecting the potentiality of human life.[1] Arguing that these state interests became stronger over the course of a pregnancy, the Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the third trimester of pregnancy

Later, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), the Court rejected Roe's trimester framework while affirming its central holding that a woman has a right to abortion until fetal viability.[2] The Roe decision defined "viable" as "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid."[3] Justices in Casey acknowledged that viability may occur at 23 or 24 weeks, or sometimes even earlier, in light of medical advances.[4]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade
 
Last edited:
In no other circumstance do we allow one to take the life of another without legal consequence on mere unfounded fear.

In no other circumstances do we allow anyone to be forced to have their body used for life support against their will. One cannot be compelled to donate blood or bone marrow, which carries far less risk than pregnancy.
 
In no other circumstance do we allow one to take the life of another without legal consequence on mere unfounded fear.

A woman has the right to her health. She does not have the right to kill another.

If that "another" is a threat to her life, she does, and pregnancy is unpredictably fatal to many women and always has been. Women should have the right NOT to be killed by their fetuses. If you disagree with that, you don't give a **** about human rights for anyone, including fetuses.

That is stupid, immoral, and a lie. So is claiming people hate women because they believe in the right to life. The anti-logic is glaring, not only in what you say but what you gloss over.

I don't gloss over anything. I fully and willingly accept that a fetus dies every time an abortion is performed. It is the anti-abortion crowd who makes their living ignoring the threat to women. Why? Because their Jesus book told them that women are inherently cursed by god and they deserve it.

As long as the anti-abortion side of the argument is dominated by people who believe in sky daddies and curses, they will have no understanding that human rights are not, and should not be, relative to your gender. Their tradition of misogyny resonates through modern culture like a bad religion hangover that so many seem unwilling to cure. On PRINCIPLE, of all things, these idiots enslave women to their biology. That shows how ****ed up their principles are.
 
In no other circumstance do we allow one to take the life of another without legal consequence on mere unfounded fear.

A woman has the right to her health. She does not have the right to kill another. That is stupid, immoral, and a lie. So is claiming people hate women because they believe in the right to life. The anti-logic is glaring, not only in what you say but what you gloss over.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Sure we do... all the time.

We allow parents, husbands, spouses, partners in civil unions, people with power of medical decisions.. to remove people from lifesupport. Which is definitely "taking their life".

We allow physicians to prescribe medications that will hasten someone death (which is definitely "taking someones life) in order to keep them more comfortable.

We allow physicians and family to withhold life sustaining medications, water, and food.. in order to hasten death.. (definitely killing someone)...
 
Back
Top Bottom