• 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?

calamity

calamity

Privileged
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
160,900
Reaction score
57,844
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Please show me where in the Constitution there is any verbiage stating unborn things have ****ing Rights?

I'll wait.

Anti-abortion judges are radicals legislating from the bench. So, don't try to blow smoke up my ass by saying that judges who go out of their way to protect the unborn are strict constitutionalists. They are not. So, stop lying.
 
calamity said:
Please show me where in the Constitution there is any verbiage stating unborn things have ****ing Rights?

I'll wait.

Anti-abortion judges are radicals legislating from the bench. So, don't try to blow smoke up my ass by saying that judges who go out of their way to protect the unborn are strict constitutionalists. They are not. So, stop lying.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you know that the debate around abortion revolves around whether or not a ZEF is/should be considered a person or not. So, since the Constitution does mention "person" (US Constitution 58 times) it is valid to say it may be a constitutional issue.

Note: Not picking a side in the above. Just noting facts is all. I'm pro-choice myself when it comes to legalities. I'm also fully aware that every time the Constitution mentions "person" it is always in reference to a person that has already been born...never to anyone not born.
 
Kal'Stang said:
I'm sure you know that the debate around abortion revolves around whether or not a ZEF is/should be considered a person or not. So, since the Constitution does mention "person" (US Constitution 58 times) it is valid to say it may be a constitutional issue.

Note: Not picking a side in the above. Just noting facts is all. I'm pro-choice myself when it comes to legalities. I'm also fully aware that every time the Constitution mentions "person" it is always in reference to a person that has already been born...never to anyone not born.
Click to expand...

The whole argument is based on privacy. The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy nor does it enumerate power to grant or deny personhood. [by the US government]

If Roe v Wade is challenged it will be whether it is unconstitutional or not.
 
Kal'Stang said:
I'm sure you know that the debate around abortion revolves around whether or not a ZEF is/should be considered a person or not. So, since the Constitution does mention "person" (US Constitution 58 times) it is valid to say it may be a constitutional issue.

Note: Not picking a side in the above. Just noting facts is all. I'm pro-choice myself when it comes to legalities. I'm also fully aware that every time the Constitution mentions "person" it is always in reference to a person that has already been born...never to anyone not born.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is always to the born.

I would also like to know how you give full rights to an embryo or fetus without diminishing the rights of the pregnant woman.

Example. A woman has medical problems including pre-eclampsia. She is not actively dying but her condition could change without notice.....Her doctor tells her that the fetus is too premature to survive, but maintaining the pregnancy is a serious health threat. He lets her know there is a chance for a chance to get the pregnancy to a safe delivery point, just not a good one - and he cannot assure her safety. In the "fetus is a person" world....since the woman is not actively dying she very possible would be refused the abortion. Making the life of the unborn more important - and having more rights than the pregnant woman. In the REAL world, waiting to treat a patient until they are in the throws of death is usually downright dumb. It is always better to treat the patient before organs start failing if possible.

The scenario where a woman would lose the ability to make a choice in treatment that would remove a threat to her body? That makes her rights subordinate to the fetus.
 
I don't know if it being anti abortion makes you a constitutionalist but if the unborn have no rights why do you get charged with 2 counts of murder when you kill a pregnant woman?
 
lefty louie said:
I don't know if it being anti abortion makes you a constitutionalist but if the unborn have no rights why do you get charged with 2 counts of murder when you kill a pregnant woman?
Click to expand...

Is that what Unborn Victims of Violence Act says?
 
WCH said:
The whole argument is based on privacy. The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy nor does it enumerate power to grant or deny personhood. [by the US government]

If Roe v Wade is challenged it will be whether it is unconstitutional or not.
Click to expand...

Actually it does.

Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

In Roe v. Wade the Court considered that the body of a woman, i.e. her "person," was protected under the Fourth Amendment right to privacy via the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.

In order to prevent a woman from having an abortion, one must in effect "seize" her body by law to forbid the action from occurring. Otherwise she might take action (intentionally falling down stairs, trying to "dig it out" herself, taking "potions," or seeking an illegal abortionist) to abort herself. Then claim it was simply a miscarriage. All these things were being done, under pain of criminal law before Roe v. Wade, and they would continue had that decision not been rendered.

Women have a right to control their bodies. The issue is, when does the growing ZEF become legally (not morally or religiously) a human being worthy of the same Constitutional and legal protections as the mother?

Some argue at inception, others like myself when the fetus has enough traits to grant humanity coupled with viability.
 
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.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Actually it does.

Fourth Amendment:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

In Roe v. Wade the Court considered that the body of a woman, i.e. her "person," was protected under the Fourth Amendment right to privacy via the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.

In order to prevent a woman from having an abortion, one must in effect "seize" her body by law to forbid the action from occurring. Otherwise she might take action (intentionally falling down stairs, trying to "dig it out" herself, taking "potions," or seeking an illegal abortionist) to abort herself. Then claim it was simply a miscarriage. All these things were being done, under pain of criminal law before Roe v. Wade, and they would continue had that decision not been rendered.

Women have a right to control their bodies. The issue is, when does the growing ZEF become legally (not morally or religiously) a human being worthy of the same Constitutional and legal protections as the mother?

Some argue at inception, others like myself when the fetus has enough traits to grant humanity coupled with viability.
Click to expand...

So personhood is on both sides of the argument.

Still doesn't give the federal government the power to decide.
 
Last edited:
calamity said:
Please show me where in the Constitution there is any verbiage stating unborn things have ****ing Rights?

I'll wait.

Anti-abortion judges are radicals legislating from the bench. So, don't try to blow smoke up my ass by saying that judges who go out of their way to protect the unborn are strict constitutionalists. They are not. So, stop lying.
Click to expand...

The 5th Amendment:

“No Person shall … be deprived of LIFE, liberty, or property, without due process of law”.

The 14th Amendment:

“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”.
 
hanger4 said:
The 5th Amendment:

“No Person shall … be deprived of LIFE, liberty, or property, without due process of law”.
Click to expand...
Two fails here: a fetus is not a person and the amendments apply to the government. Unless the government is performing the abortions, you have no leg to stand on there, even if a fetus was a person--which of course it is not.

The 14th Amendment:

“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”.
Click to expand...
Again, you show that you have no idea what the amendments protect and from who they protect us from.


Major fail post. Not that I am surprised.
 
calamity said:
Please show me where in the Constitution there is any verbiage stating unborn things have ****ing Rights?

I'll wait.

Anti-abortion judges are radicals legislating from the bench. So, don't try to blow smoke up my ass by saying that judges who go out of their way to protect the unborn are strict constitutionalists. They are not. So, stop lying.
Click to expand...

You're right, they're not constitutionalists, they're fanatics. Even their buy-bull doesn't say that fetuses are a protected class. They're about controlling women, nothing more.
 
calamity said:
Please show me where in the Constitution there is any verbiage stating unborn things have ****ing Rights?

I'll wait.

Anti-abortion judges are radicals legislating from the bench. So, don't try to blow smoke up my ass by saying that judges who go out of their way to protect the unborn are strict constitutionalists. They are not. So, stop lying.
Click to expand...

As stupid as pro-life people are, I'm afraid you have this somewhat backward. It's legislatures around the country that are trying to ban abortion, not judges. Judges are blocking abortion bans because they violate the rights of women. Roe vs Wade was a legal decision by the courts that prevented states from banning abortion, but judges themselves can't ban abortion. Now a pro-life judge would argue that there is nothing in the constitution that guarantees a woman the right to abort, and therefore it is up to the states legislatures to make that decision. They would be wrong, but that would be the argument being made from a judicial standpoint.
 
Josie said:
The question is whether an unborn human is a person.
Click to expand...
No, actually it's not. It's a question of what right does it have to be there, and what right does the government have to know it's there.

A person can be killed for invading your property. If you can kill a person because they step on your land, then you can definitely kill a person who's invading your body.
 
hanger4 said:
The 5th Amendment: “No Person shall … be deprived of LIFE, liberty, or property, without due process of law”.
Click to expand...
First, this is a restriction on the government, not the people.

Second, self-defense of one's life, liberty, or property is a justification for killing someone. A fetus is most definitely infringing on the life, liberty, and property of the mother.

hanger4 said:
The 14th Amendment: “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”.
Click to expand...

Again, this is a restriction on states, not people.

In fact, Murder is not even a federal crime. Each state has their own laws against murder, and each of those states has exceptions in the case of self-defense. If you can have a legitimate fear from someone trying to enter your home that could justify shooting them, then there is no question that you can and should have a legitimate fear of someone entering your body.
 
WCH said:
So personhood is on both sides of the argument.

Still doesn't give the federal government the power to decide.
Click to expand...

You're right. It prevents any government from deciding. That's the whole point. That's why it's called pro-CHOICE. It's none of the governments business, and the choice must be left entirely up to the woman.
 
calamity said:
Two fails here: a fetus is not a person and the amendments apply to the government. Unless the government is performing the abortions, you have no leg to stand on there, even if a fetus was a person--which of course it is not.


Again, you show that you have no idea what the amendments protect and from who they protect us from.


Major fail post. Not that I am surprised.
Click to expand...

Life begins at conception, that's not in question. The question is the definition of person;

1) a human being regarded as an individual.

Zygote, fetus are just names of development stages of the human life.

The amendments limit the feds and one of those limits is depriving life.
 
hanger4 said:
Life begins at conception, that's not in question. The question is the definition of person;

1) a human being regarded as an individual.

Zygote, fetus are just names of development stages of the human life.

The amendments limit the feds and one of those limits is depriving life.
Click to expand...

Citizenship begins at birth--not at conception.

You Fail again
 
MrWonka said:
First, this is a restriction on the government, not the people.

Second, self-defense of one's life, liberty, or property is a justification for killing someone. A fetus is most definitely infringing on the life, liberty, and property of the mother.



Again, this is a restriction on states, not people.

In fact, Murder is not even a federal crime. Each state has their own laws against murder, and each of those states has exceptions in the case of self-defense. If you can have a legitimate fear from someone trying to enter your home that could justify shooting them, then there is no question that you can and should have a legitimate fear of someone entering your body.
Click to expand...

The states have prohibitions on the taking of innocent life.
 
MrWonka said:
As stupid as pro-life people are, I'm afraid you have this somewhat backward. It's legislatures around the country that are trying to ban abortion, not judges. Judges are blocking abortion bans because they violate the rights of women. Roe vs Wade was a legal decision by the courts that prevented states from banning abortion, but judges themselves can't ban abortion. Now a pro-life judge would argue that there is nothing in the constitution that guarantees a woman the right to abort, and therefore it is up to the states legislatures to make that decision. They would be wrong, but that would be the argument being made from a judicial standpoint.
Click to expand...

I'm jumping ahead to "constitutionalists" on SCOTUS reversing Roe.
 
WCH said:
The whole argument is based on privacy. The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy nor does it enumerate power to grant or deny personhood. [by the US government]

If Roe v Wade is challenged it will be whether it is unconstitutional or not.
Click to expand...

Explicitly? No it doesn't. But a person would have to be a fool to try and argue that the relevant parts are talking about something other than privacy. Not to mention arguing against it, and some how winning, would upset countless rulings based on privacy. The effects would be devastating and extremely FAR ranging.
 
year2late said:
Yes, it is always to the born.

I would also like to know how you give full rights to an embryo or fetus without diminishing the rights of the pregnant woman.
Click to expand...

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.
 
hanger4 said:
The states have prohibitions on the taking of innocent life.
Click to expand...

Right, but it's not actually innocent since it's inflicting pain on the mother, invading her property, and restricting her liberty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom