• 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!

How is Being Anti-Abortion Strict Constitutionalist?

Lursa said:
You are totally correct. Some of it is pure intentional deception to try and stop abortion but alot is ignorance of the reality and science. WHich they are happy to use and there are too many Americans of the same level of (lack of) knowledge.

The 'fetal pain at 20 weeks' attempts at legislation are the same thing...based on bull**** and ignorance (not sure of the ratio there :)). The fetus doesnt have the capacity to feel pain at 20 weeks for one thing and 2nd, there is no need for the unborn to feel any pain at all during any abortion. Lethal injection/anesthesia is used...just like for any medical procedure. Drs are not monsters for God's sake, no matter how the pro-life side often likes to portray them.

So those campaigns for that legislature are totally built on bull**** that many people just buy into.
Click to expand...

Also, that "heartbeat" stuff is a pure appeal to emotion. The right HATES "appeal to emotion", but that's their MO.

There are "Christian" websites that cheer people who murder those docs. They think the bible tells them to kill. :(
 
<alt>doxygen said:
I'd tend to agree with most of that.

Do you think that in the light of the 4th amendment states can write legislation that extends "personhood" to an egg that was fertilized 1 microsecond ago? I don't.
Click to expand...

Maybe. Legally speaking, it might also depend on how common law treated the concept of personhood, and how person was originally understood to mean in the Constitution and/or State Constitutions.
 
Lursa said:
Rights are something for the individual to exercise. Every person is entitled to that.

The unborn has zero 'rights' that they can exercise independently. Every single one (right) is dependent on the mother. That dependency proves they are not entitled to rights. They cant exercise any rights independently.

Once born, the baby can start to exercise rights independently...like breathing to live, and/or others can support the baby's needs.
Click to expand...
I think the unborn are entitled to some rights, just as a new born is entitled to some rights. I don't think that changes simply because of a two-inch positional change from inside, to outside, the vagina. I think your reliance on dependency is unreasonable, as we are all dependent on something or someone for our lives long after our births.
 
maxparrish said:
Depends on how you define an "anti-abortion" judge and "strict constructionism". While "strict constructionism" is an arcane laymen's term for a set of various judicial methodologies, the most common constitutional and legal argument is NOT over "anti-abortion" or "pro-abortion", it is over whether or not there is A RIGHT to abortion to be found in the federal constitution. Judicial conservatives say there is not (and I agree). Similarly in most State constitutions I doubt there is to be found "a right to abortion".

That does alone does not make one "anti-abortion" because one is still free to oppose a federal or state law banning abortions. For example, in my view, its none of the federal governments business and states should not make abortions illegal up to 20 weeks).

In sum: I am an originalist who (in theory) would overturn Roe v. Wade, and likely declare any federal law on abortion as unconstitutional. It's a state matter to be decide by the legislature of each state (and I'd oppose banning abortion in my state).
Click to expand...

I see it as a civil rights matter, protecting women from abusive states, just like the Jim Crow thing.
 
Lursa said:
... and 2nd, there is no need for the unborn to feel any pain at all during any abortion. Lethal injection/anesthesia is used...just like for any medical procedure. Drs are not monsters for God's sake, no matter how the pro-life side often likes to portray them....
Click to expand...

I'm not sure you want to use "lethal/pain injection" for an intentional killing as a demonstration of a doctor's humanity; not unless you think the doctor is humanely executing a murderer on death row.
 
Last edited:
DarkWizard12 said:
I think the unborn are entitled to some rights, just as a new born is entitled to some rights. I don't think that changes simply because of a two-inch positional change from inside, to outside, the vagina. I think your reliance on dependency is unreasonable, as we are all dependent on something or someone for our lives long after our births.
Click to expand...

Yet my point was that the unborn...are unable to exercise a single right individually, without dependency. None.

And you can accord no rights to the unborn without superseding some or all (up to her life) of a woman's rights.

Why do you value the unborn more than women?

I value the unborn, but I value women more.

Once you start according rights to the unborn, both cannot be treated equally. The fact that the unborn cannot exercise a single right independently is clear evidence that it is not 'equal' to any born person.
 
maxparrish said:
I'm not sure you want to use "pain injection" for his intentional killing as a demonstration of a doctor's humanity; not unless you think the doctor is humanely executing a murderer on death row.
Click to expand...

So when a doctor is performing a late term abortion of a severely defective fetus and chooses to do so using anesthetic (in the injection)...that is inhumane? Or when doing so to save the mother's life?

That's only needed in late term abortions, which are almost never 'elective.'

97.5% of all abortions take place early and consist of painlessly flushing a pea-sized embryo/fetus from the womb.
 
Lursa said:
So when a doctor is performing a late term abortion of a severely defective fetus and chooses to do so using anesthetic (in the injection)...that is inhumane? Or when doing so to save the mother's life?

That's only needed in late term abortions, which are almost never 'elective.'

97.5% of all abortions take place early and consist of painlessly flushing a pea-sized embryo/fetus from the womb.
Click to expand...

Except, of course, when the killing is unavoidable. None the less, to speak of it (lethal/pain) injections as a humane solution for avoidable abortion is not wise, and very tone deaf as to how it sounds.
 
maxparrish said:
Except, of course, when the killing is unavoidable. None the less, to speak of it (lethal/pain) injections as a humane solution for avoidable abortion is not wise, and very tone deaf as to how it sounds.
Click to expand...

It's not the solution to anything except relieving pain. The abortion is going to occur anyway. I was explaining that it's a lie that there is fetal pain involved in abortions.
 
Lursa said:
Yet my point was that the unborn...are unable to exercise a single right individually, without dependency. None.
Click to expand...
So? My point is that I don't care if they're dependent or not. The unborn stills has rights.
And you can accord no rights to the unborn without superseding some or all (up to her life) of a woman's rights.

Why do you value the unborn more than women?

I value the unborn, but I value women more.

Once you start according rights to the unborn, both cannot be treated equally.
Click to expand...
Talk about strawmanning to death. We live in a time of science, and you're telling me that giving the unborn rights would HAVE to supersede the mother's rights? You're telling me that, by affording rights to the unborn, that means I don't value women? No. This is a strawman. We can have common sense regulations on abortion, and allow as many babies the right to life as possible, without devalueing women. Sure, I'm sure people like you would see it otherwise, but that is not my thinking. Perhaps if women valued themselves enough to not be total whores to begin with, abortion wouldn't be much of a concern, and we could use abortion as the medical procedure it was intended, only to be used in necessary complications.

In the words of hillary clinton, abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare". An easy way to do this is to ensure that a legal abortion is only used when necessary, and no more.
 
DarkWizard12 said:
So? My point is that I don't care if they're dependent or not. The unborn stills has rights.

Talk about strawmanning to death. We live in a time of science, and you're telling me that giving the unborn rights would HAVE to supersede the mother's rights? You're telling me that, by affording rights to the unborn, that means I don't value women? No. This is a strawman. We can have common sense regulations on abortion, and allow as many babies the right to life as possible, without devalueing women. Sure, I'm sure people like you would see it otherwise, but that is not my thinking. Perhaps if women valued themselves enough to not be total whores to begin with, abortion wouldn't be much of a concern, and we could use abortion as the medical procedure it was intended, only to be used in necessary complications.

In the words of hillary clinton, abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare". An easy way to do this is to ensure that a legal abortion is only used when necessary, and no more.
Click to expand...

Factually, the unborn does not have rights. You have not explained why they should have rights. I gave a solid reason why not.

And of course it means all that. Have you thought it thru...what it would take for the govt to make abortion illegal in order to protect the rights of the unborn? A woman would lose her Constitutional rights to privacy and due process. ALL women would, pregnant or not.

I see now that, since you call women who need abortions 'whores' that you have a very disturbing and limited perception of the issue (65% of all women who get abortions were using contraception, and most already have at least one child) and very disrespectful as well. It's a complete disregard for a woman's right to a future and self-determination. YOU would demand those exact same things instead for the unborn while taking it from the woman.

This is also a fact, altho one that almost no pro-life person ever admits to:

If you think the mother's will should be overcome to give birth, you do not value both equally. You are valuing the unborn over women.
 
DarkWizard12 said:
So? My point is that I don't care if they're dependent or not. The unborn stills has rights.

Talk about strawmanning to death. We live in a time of science, and you're telling me that giving the unborn rights would HAVE to supersede the mother's rights? You're telling me that, by affording rights to the unborn, that means I don't value women? No. This is a strawman. We can have common sense regulations on abortion, and allow as many babies the right to life as possible, without devalueing women. Sure, I'm sure people like you would see it otherwise, but that is not my thinking. Perhaps if women valued themselves enough to not be total whores to begin with, abortion wouldn't be much of a concern, and we could use abortion as the medical procedure it was intended, only to be used in necessary complications.

In the words of hillary clinton, abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare". An easy way to do this is to ensure that a legal abortion is only used when necessary, and no more.
Click to expand...

Abortion has been dropping in frequency every year for decades as people become more educated about how to avoid unwanted pregnancies. If ending abortion was the goal of conservatives, I don't think they would oppose education and in some cases contraception. It's almost as if they just want to control other people's sex lives.:roll: Like, I dunno - gays, single people...
 
<alt>doxygen said:
Abortion has been dropping in frequency every year for decades as people become more educated about how to avoid unwanted pregnancies. If ending abortion was the goal of conservatives, I don't think they would oppose education and in some cases contraception. It's almost as if they just want to control other people's sex lives.:roll: Like, I dunno - gays, single people...
Click to expand...

It’s a religious sexual conduct control issue - pretty much sustained in South American countries. Catholic Church controls the government.

It like an inquisition of sorts where women who have abortions face serious jail time. Male dominance is the game. Strong Arm mentality has survived a long time in these types of countries. Even Ireland has forced women to be subservient to church and men.
 
Removable Mind said:
It’s a religious sexual conduct control issue - pretty much sustained in South American countries. Catholic Church controls the government.

It like an inquisition of sorts where women who have abortions face serious jail time. Male dominance is the game. Strong Arm mentality has survived a long time in these types of countries. Even Ireland has forced women to be subservient to church and men.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree.

Lower levels bow to all above:
God
Elder/leader/pope/whatever...
Pastor
Man/father
Woman/mother
Kids

Submission is key, and a clue as to why there are so many authoritarian minds in this group.
 
Josie said:
The question is whether an unborn human is a person. We've certainly had a history of not all humans being declared "persons." Those humans were thought of as property which is parallel to the pro-choice mantra today: "This is MY body -- don't tell me what to do with MY body." I don't foresee unborn humans ever being declared persons.
Click to expand...

Human empathy is expanding, and science is increasingly allowing us to peer into the womb. :) Many in the 1850s never saw slavery ending, either.
 
cpwill said:
Human empathy is expanding, and science is increasingly allowing us to peer into the womb. :) Many in the 1850s never saw slavery ending, either.
Click to expand...

That's very true. Here's to hope.
 
cpwill said:
Human empathy is expanding, and science is increasingly allowing us to peer into the womb. :) Many in the 1850s never saw slavery ending, either.
Click to expand...

You’re such an optimistic.
 
Lursa said:
Factually, the unborn does not have rights. You have not explained why they should have rights. I gave a solid reason why not.
Click to expand...
Oh yea, tell me more about that legality and ****. Yea, you guys have the upper hand, for now....I'm aware.

the unborn should have rights because it's self evident. It's life. There's no getting around it. You can rationalize all you want to but, you know, the best criminals can rationalize their actions.
And of course it means all that. Have you thought it thru...what it would take for the govt to make abortion illegal in order to protect the rights of the unborn? A woman would lose her Constitutional rights to privacy and due process. ALL women would, pregnant or not.
Click to expand...
Well, I would know that it would depend on the state, and not the federal government. So, no, Abortion would not be made illegal overnight, despite what emo reporters on MSNBC will tell you.

You'll still have a right to privacy. You want to get a back alley abortion in secret, it's on you, and I wouldn't recommend you tell anyone, were to be illegalized in your state.
I see now that, since you call women who need abortions 'whores' that you have a very disturbing and limited perception of the issue (65% of all women who get abortions were using contraception, and most already have at least one child) and very disrespectful as well. It's a complete disregard for a woman's right to a future and self-determination. YOU would demand those exact same things instead for the unborn while taking it from the woman.
Click to expand...
So you're saying 35% of abortions could have been prevented, had 35% of women had the sense to get a condom from a gas station bathroom?

I don't care about your moral outrage. Yes, I have a complete disregard for a woman's right to kill babies, and disrespect those who do that, and I don't care what sad story you come up with, save for those who would have died from giving birth. Yea, there's not a much worse person than one who would kill a baby, and i don't care if you have a vagina. It's wrong, and wrong is always wrong no matter what the law says.
This is also a fact, altho one that almost no pro-life person ever admits to:

If you think the mother's will should be overcome to give birth, you do not value both equally. You are valuing the unborn over women.
Click to expand...
The existence of your rights do not depend on your choice to kill someone else. That's a fact that the pro-abortion crowd will never admit to.
 
Last edited:
Kal'Stang said:
You don't. :shrug: When it comes to abortion vs anti-abortion one side or the other is going to gain greater Rights than the other.
Click to expand...

Exactly. By giving rights to an embryo or fetus it would be necessary to diminish the rights of the pregnant woman. How does that constitutionally stand up.
 
WCH said:
A woman can't prostitute herself...a woman can't kill herself. Where is that privacy?
Click to expand...

Actually the right to privacy covers several zones of privacy.

From the following Live Science article:


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.

For example, the Supreme Court first recognized that the various Bill of Rights guarantees creates a "zone of privacy" in Griswold v. Connecticut, a 1965 ruling that upheld marital privacy and struck down bans on contraception.
Click to expand...

Read more:


From the following Live Science article:



https://www.livescience.com/37398-right-to-privacy.html
 
Last edited:
Lursa said:
Rights are something for the individual to exercise. Every person is entitled to that.

The unborn has zero 'rights' that they can exercise independently. Every single one (right) is dependent on the mother. That dependency proves they are not entitled to rights. They cant exercise any rights independently.

Once born, the baby can start to exercise rights independently...like breathing to live, and/or others can support the baby's needs.
Click to expand...

Apparently rights are considered Tribal by the hard right Christians.
 
DarkWizard12 said:
Oh yea, tell me more about that legality and ****. Yea, you guys have the upper hand, for now....I'm aware.

the unborn should have rights because it's self evident. It's life. There's no getting around it. You can rationalize all you want to but, you know, the best criminals can rationalize their actions.

Well, I would know that it would depend on the state, and not the federal government. So, no, Abortion would not be made illegal overnight, despite what emo reporters on MSNBC will tell you.

You'll still have a right to privacy. You want to get a back alley abortion in secret, it's on you, and I wouldn't recommend you tell anyone, were to be illegalized in your state.

So you're saying 35% of abortions could have been prevented, had 35% of women had the sense to get a condom from a gas station bathroom?

I don't care about your moral outrage. Yes, I have a complete disregard for a woman's right to kill babies, and disrespect those who do that, and I don't care what sad story you come up with, save for those who would have died from giving birth. Yea, there's not a much worse person than one who would kill a baby, and i don't care if you have a vagina. It's wrong, and wrong is always wrong no matter what the law says.

The existence of your rights do not depend on your choice to kill someone else. That's a fact that the pro-abortion crowd will never admit to.
Click to expand...

Can’t wait for all of the pro-life taxpayers to cry about having to pay out the wazoo for the exponential numbers of Unwanted babies being born.
 
Removable Mind said:
Can’t wait for all of the pro-life taxpayers to cry about having to pay out the wazoo for the exponential numbers of Unwanted babies being born.
Click to expand...

As they say, we'll cross that bridge when we get there. There is at least 1 or 2 decades left on RvW, it's simply not going to happen overnight, even if the majority was 9-0 prolife.
 
DarkWizard12 said:
As they say, we'll cross that bridge when we get there. There is at least 1 or 2 decades left on RvW, it's simply not going to happen overnight, even if the majority was 9-0 prolife.
Click to expand...

Seems like the hard right want a 9 member Mullah not a Supreme Court.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom