Why do those who oppose abortion hate it

Gonzo Rodeo said:

I am pro-choice, but this argument has always rung hollow with me. Using the same logic, we should justify bank robbery, because people are still going to try it and people can get hurt during bank robberies.

Click to expand...

The govt has a legitimate interest in prohibiting robbery. On the other hand, the govt has no legitimate interest in prohibiting abortions.

sangha said:

No, no, and your question makes no sense

Click to expand...

1. So, it would be logical based upon your answer, for instance, that instead of having the consequence from having sex and getting pregnant and not allowing the mother to abort thus enslaving her, that society should simply kill them both.

2. What DO you consider the higher, and the highest, freedom of those living? 3. Or do you not have any opinions on freedoms and are just talking out of your ass?

4. Cannot understand English? 5. Here, let me help you out. Do you consider the level of freedom of a mother to take her own child's life above the freedom of the child to live?

There, we clear? Do you feel you are in the loop now?

Gaugingcatenate said:

1. So, it would be logical based upon your answer, for instance, that instead of having the consequence from having sex and getting pregnant and not allowing the mother to abort thus enslaving her, that society should simply kill them both.

2. What DO you consider the higher, and the highest, freedom of those living? 3. Or do you not have any opinions on freedoms and are just talking out of your ass?

4. Cannot understand English? 5. Here, let me help you out. Do you consider the level of freedom of a mother to take her own child's life above the freedom of the child to live?

There, we clear? Do you feel you are in the loop now?

Click to expand...

1) No that is not logical

2) I do not hierarchize freedoms

3) Wrong on both counts

4) Your insult only proves you inadequacies in addressing the issue

5) There is no such thing as an unborns freedom to live. You should stop assuming I accept the absurd illogical beliefs of the anti-freedom crowd

So no, *we* are not clear. I am clear. You are not

sangha said:

1) No that is not logical

2) I do not hierarchize freedoms

3) Wrong on both counts

4) Your insult only proves you inadequacies in addressing the issue

5) There is no such thing as an unborns freedom to live. You should stop assuming I accept the absurd illogical beliefs of the anti-freedom crowd

So no, *we* are not clear. I am clear. You are not

Click to expand...

What a load.

You won't explain yourself, never do, and give minimalist answers precisely because you know your answers are faulty and without logic. So you give no reasoning [what a laugh] whatsoever. Real question is, are you actually ever equipped to debate or only to throw incessant aspersions?

You are clear alright, clearly full of crap. No reasoning=no credibility.

Gaugingcatenate said:

What a load.

You won't explain yourself, never do, and give minimalist answers precisely because you know your answers are faulty and without logic. So you give no reasoning [what a laugh] whatsoever. Real question is, are you actually ever equipped to debate or only to throw incessant aspersions?

You are clear alright, clearly full of crap. No reasoning=no credibility.

Click to expand...

your post was self-referential projection

sangha said:

your post was self-referential projection

Click to expand...

You need to up date your ad hom library, the usual suspect lame ones have gone way past their stale date. They were always ineffective, now just comical.

No reasoning = no credibility. Good luck with that.

sangha said:

The govt has a legitimate interest in prohibiting robbery. On the other hand, the govt has no legitimate interest in prohibiting abortions.

Click to expand...

That's not the majority opinion in Roe v Wade, unfortunately.

sangha said:

Just read Roe v Wade

Click to expand...

Perhaps you should. This is one of those cases where the wiki article does a nice job of summing up the crux of the matter:

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 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]

Click to expand...

Removable Mind said:

States don't deserve the power to roughshod over women's reproductive roles.

Click to expand...

States have inherent power as sovereigns to makes laws and policies regulating the public health, safety, and welfare.

Anti-abortion laws are denying the right of individual women to decide how many children that they choose to have "or not have".

Click to expand...

Nothing in the Constitution guarantees any such right. And of course laws regulating abortion do no such thing. Even in a state that prohibited abortion outright, any woman would be free to have as few or as many children as she wanted.

States can't enact any laws that they want because of the US Constitution's Supremacy Clause.

Click to expand...

That is true but irrelevant. If you know of a decision in which the Supreme Court held a state abortion law unconstitutional for violating the Supremacy Clause, please share it with the rest of us.

States that enact anti-abortion laws are violating women's rights found in several US Constitution Amendments, not just the 14th Amendment

Click to expand...

So you assert. Why don't you back your assertion up by telling us which other parts of the Constitution the Supreme Court has held state abortion laws to violate? The Fuzzy Bunnies Clause? The Icky and Yucky Clause? The Just be Nice Clause, maybe? Provide specific cases and quotations.

Making abortion illegal could be a stand alone piece of a state's legislature. But not without the SC's blessing.

Click to expand...

Are you trying to say a state could enact a law completely prohibiting abortion, but that it would pass constitutional muster only if the Court overruled Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood? If so, that is correct. Even if the Court does overrule Roe and change Casey, as I expect it to within the next few years, I doubt even one of the fifty states would prohibit abortion outright.

matchlight said:

States have inherent power as sovereigns to makes laws and policies regulating the public health, safety, and welfare.



Nothing in the Constitution guarantees any such right. And of course laws regulating abortion do no such thing. Even in a state that prohibited abortion outright, any woman would be free to have as few or as many children as she wanted.



That is true but irrelevant. If you know of a decision in which the Supreme Court held a state abortion law unconstitutional for violating the Supremacy Clause, please share it with the rest of us.



So you assert. Why don't you back your assertion up by telling us which other parts of the Constitution the Supreme Court has held state abortion laws to violate? The Fuzzy Bunnies Clause? The Icky and Yucky Clause? The Just be Nice Clause, maybe? Provide specific cases and quotations.



Are you trying to say a state could enact a law completely prohibiting abortion, but that it would pass constitutional muster only if the Court overruled Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood? If so, that is correct. Even if the Court does overrule Roe and change Casey, as I expect it to within the next few years, I doubt even one of the fifty states would prohibit abortion outright.

Click to expand...

ML...I'm going to make this brief. No government, state or federal, should tell women how many children they should or shouldn't have.

I'm not going to waste my time leading you through the Constitution (again) to point out every way it protects women's reproductive roles. This ain't our first rodeo.

However, I'm going to begin and end here with "one" example.

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965),[1] is a landmark case in the United States in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Constitution protected the use of birth control. The case involved a Connecticut "Comstock law" that prohibited any person from using "any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception."

By a vote of 7–2, the Supreme Court invalidated the law on the grounds that it violated the "right to marital privacy", establishing the basis for the right to privacy with respect to intimate practices. This and other cases view the right to privacy as a right to "protect[ion] from governmental intrusion."

Although the Bill of Rights does not explicitly mention "privacy", Justice William O. Douglas wrote for the majority that the right was to be found in the "penumbras" and "emanations" of other constitutional protections, such as the self-incrimination clause of the Fifth Amendment. Justice Arthur Goldberg wrote a concurring opinion in which he used the Ninth Amendment in support of the Supreme Court's ruling. Justice Arthur Goldberg and Justice John Marshall Harlan II wrote concurring opinions in which they argued that privacy is protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Byron White also wrote a concurrence based on the due process clause.

Click to expand...

As far as abortion itself - denying women the right to abortion - again - is also governments attempting to roughshod over women's reproductive roles using laws to violate a variety of rights with the goal of telling women many children they should or shouldn't have. You know this to be a fact without me wasting my time copying and pasting case law.

Failing to understand that "right to privacy is inherent to the Constitution" leaves you cognitively stuck. It is a necessity, a catalyst that without it, a fair portion of the Constitution would be worthless.

Back to square one. :roll:

Removable Mind said:

ML...I'm going to make this brief. No government, state or federal, should tell women how many children they should or shouldn't have.

Click to expand...

Irrelevant to the topic of abortion.

I'm not going to waste my time leading you through the Constitution (again) to point out every way it protects women's reproductive roles.

Click to expand...

Translation: there is nothing in the text of the Constitution that supports your argument.

Gonzo Rodeo said:

That's not the majority opinion in Roe v Wade, unfortunately.

Click to expand...

In Roe v Wade, SCOTUS found that the govt does have legitimate interests in things such protecting the mothers health, protecting an individuals privacy,etc but that no legitimate govt interest was served by banning abortion

Gonzo Rodeo said:

Perhaps you should. This is one of those cases where the wiki article does a nice job of summing up the crux of the matter:

Click to expand...

Your quote refers to regulating abortion for purposes such as protecting womens health and the potentialty of human life. It says nothing about the govt having any legitimate interest in banning abortion.

regulating <> banning

Gonzo Rodeo said:

As a person who used to be pro-life, I can tell you that it's not about hating women having a choice.

The pro-life camp believes that the unborn are classified as people, and that these people enjoy the same rights their mothers have. Just as a mother cannot legally neglect or otherwise cause her born baby to death, even though it is totally dependent on her, she also cannot cause her unborn to death simply because it is dependent on her.

The law makes it a little more confusing since a fetus has been considered person "enough" to bring a murder conviction against the mother's assailant that caused a miscarraige. How can that be, if the fetus isn't a person (in the eyes of the law)?

In that context, it's not at all hard to see the pro-life position, not when you understand their (what I believe to be misplaced) belief that a fetus of any stage is a sovereign entity with its own rights.

It's not about hate, unless you could call it "hatred for those who murder children". But why do pro-choice advocates always go to the hate card?

Click to expand...

The law has nothing to do with making a fetus " person enough" for charges against a person who causes a woman to have a miscarriage during a Crimea like act against the woman.

The law is about state's rights or federal rights protecting a non persons ( the fetus ) rights.

State's can and often do protect non persons rights...such as animal cruelty laws and laws that protect corporations.

minnie616 said:

The law has nothing to do with making a fetus " person enough" for charges against a person who causes a woman to have a miscarriage during a Crimea like act against the woman.

The law is about state's rights or federal rights protecting a non persons ( the fetus ) rights.

State's can and often do protect non persons rights...such as animal cruelty laws and laws that protect corporations.

Click to expand...

Right. But killing an animal isn't considered murder, whereas there have been cases (in California of all places) where a man killed a pregnant woman and was convicted of two counts of murder.

That only works if the fetus is a person in the eyes of the law. Because of that, it gets very confusing.

sangha said:

Your quote refers to regulating abortion for purposes such as protecting womens health and the potentialty of human life. It says nothing about the govt having any legitimate interest in banning abortion.

regulating <> banning

Click to expand...

We weren't just talking about bans, so you can walk that goal post right back to where it was thank you very much.

Gonzo Rodeo said:

Right. But killing an animal isn't considered murder, whereas there have been cases (in California of all places) where a man killed a pregnant woman and was convicted of two counts of murder.

That only works if the fetus is a person in the eyes of the law. Because of that, it gets very confusing.

Click to expand...

My cousin who is a retired State Surpreme Court Justice explained it to me this way:


Individual states are allowed to determine what does and doesn't qualify as fetal homicide (not all states have feticide laws and in those states that have laws , the laws differ ) except in the case of abortion (prior to viability). In the case of abortion the federal government has taken that authority away from the states fetal homicide with the rulings in Roe v Wade and in Planned Parenthood v Casey.


To many people it appears to be a double standard but it is actually just a case of State governments and the Federal government having different definitions of fetal homicide.

In the case of abortion, federal law trumps state law.