• 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!

Abortion and Women's Rights

J

jamesrodom

Active member
Joined
Jan 21, 2018
Messages
489
Reaction score
152
Location
West Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Arguments for keeping abortion safe and legal are usually framed in terms of 'women's rights'.

I think this is a huge tactical mistake. First, it inaccurately implies abortion as something primarily women support and primarily men oppose. In fact, survey research has shown that men and women approve of legal abortion in roughly equal numbers.

Most of all, it's a distraction because it fails to rebut the pro-life argument, which is that fetuses and embryos are 'persons' from the moment of conception deserving of all the rights and privileges normally associated with 'personhood'.

Imagine for a moment that the pro-life argument is correct and that there is essentially no difference between a six-week old embryo and a six-month old baby. No one would speak of a 'woman's right' to kill her six-month old baby, right? But the fact is that there is NO agreement as to when fetuses or embryos become persons, in spite of the pro-life movement's insistence that this happens at the moment of conception.

It's precisely this lack of agreement that speaks to obvious solution: let the individual decide, in accordance with her own conscience, faith, and morals. But just a simple insistence on 'women's rights' isn't very effective, since there are NO absolute rights or freedoms, of ANY kind.
 
Last edited:
jamesrodom said:
Arguments for keeping abortion safe and legal are usually framed in terms of 'women's rights'.

I think this is a huge tactical mistake. First, it inaccurately implies abortion as something primarily women support and primarily men oppose. In fact, survey research has shown that men and women approve of legal abortion in roughly equal numbers.

Most of all, it's a distraction because it fails to rebut the pro-life argument, which is that fetuses and embryos are 'persons' from the moment of conception deserving of all the rights and privileges normally associated with 'personhood'.

Imagine for a moment that the pro-life argument is correct and that there is essentially no difference between a six-week old embryo and a six-month old baby. No one would speak of a 'woman's right' to kill her six-month old baby, right? But the fact is that there is NO agreement as to when fetuses or embryos become persons, in spite of the pro-life movement's insistence that this happens at the moment of conception.

It's precisely this lack of agreement that speaks to obvious solution: let the individual decide, in accordance with her own conscience, faith, and morals. But just a simple insistence on 'women's rights' isn't very effective, since there are NO absolute rights or freedoms, of ANY kind.
Click to expand...

That (bolded above) assertion ignores the SCOTUS decision preventing any state from making that definition before 'viability'. There is also the (accepted legal?) defintion of a person for census purposes. As to whether someone has the right to make personal moral, faith or conscience based decisions to be cariied out by others - why is assisted suicide not a legal 'privacy' right?
 
No person is allowed to use the bodily resources of another for life support. One cannot be compelled to donate blood or bone marrow, even when that person is the only known compatible donor and the potential recipient will die without it. That was determined in McFall vs Shimp. If a born person cannot be forced to provide bodily resources to another born person, then s/he cannot be forced to provide them to an unborn person, should the unborn ever be declared persons. (Unlikely to happen in my country)
 
jamesrodom said:
Arguments for keeping abortion safe and legal are usually framed in terms of 'women's rights'.

I think this is a huge tactical mistake. First, it inaccurately implies abortion as something primarily women support and primarily men oppose. In fact, survey research has shown that men and women approve of legal abortion in roughly equal numbers.

Most of all, it's a distraction because it fails to rebut the pro-life argument, which is that fetuses and embryos are 'persons' from the moment of conception deserving of all the rights and privileges normally associated with 'personhood'.

Imagine for a moment that the pro-life argument is correct and that there is essentially no difference between a six-week old embryo and a six-month old baby. No one would speak of a 'woman's right' to kill her six-month old baby, right? But the fact is that there is NO agreement as to when fetuses or embryos become persons, in spite of the pro-life movement's insistence that this happens at the moment of conception.

It's precisely this lack of agreement that speaks to obvious solution: let the individual decide, in accordance with her own conscience, faith, and morals. But just a simple insistence on 'women's rights' isn't very effective, since there are NO absolute rights or freedoms, of ANY kind.
Click to expand...

Any determination of being a 'person' is a legal one. For anyone under the Constitution.

So yes, this has been very clearly determined. "Agreed upon" by the justice system.

It was determined the same way full equality and recognition of rights were for blacks and women...except that after such legal consideration by the high court...the unborn were not recognized as such.

U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8

(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

(b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
Click to expand...

(I also think it's a bit odd that you dont think that men believe women's rights are very important.)

If you ask any of the pro-life people how equal rights could be implemented for both women and the unborn...you wont get an answer. They will not provide any possible means where women are not reduced back to the role of 2nd class citizen with our rights reduced...superseded by the unborn's.

They wont address the details of the legal aspects at all, just the emotional. And it's nearly impossible to get any of them to admit that legally and practically, the unborn and women cannot be treated equally. They just deny and then drop out of the discussion.
 
Last edited:
Lursa said:
Any determination of being a 'person' is a legal one. For anyone under the Constitution.

So yes, this has been very clearly determined. "Agreed upon" by the justice system.

It was determined the same way full equality and recognition of rights were for blacks and women...except that after such legal consideration by the high court...the unborn were not recognized as such.

U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/8



(I also think it's a bit odd that you dont think that men believe women's rights are very important.)

If you ask any of the pro-life people how equal rights could be implemented for both women and the unborn...you wont get an answer. They will not provide any possible means where women are not reduced back to the role of 2nd class citizen with our rights reduced...superseded by the unborn's.

They wont address the details of the legal aspects at all, just the emotional. And it's nearly impossible to get any of them to admit that legally and practically, the unborn and women cannot be treated equally. They just deny and then drop out of the discussion.
Click to expand...


<<Any determination of being a 'person' is a legal one. For anyone under the Constitution.

So yes, this has been very clearly determined. "Agreed upon" by the justice system.>>

To the extent that any legal definition exists, a 'person' refers to one who has been born. Fetuses and embryos have no legal standing otherwise. Forget abortion: they aren't counted in the census. They can't inherit property. Miscarriages don't result in the issuance of death certificates. Tax deductions can only be taken starting the year a baby was born, not conceived.


<<(I also think it's a bit odd that you dont think that men believe women's rights are very important.)>>

I didn't say that. Please reread what I wrote, with better comprehension in mind.

<<They will not provide any possible means where women are not reduced back to the role of 2nd class citizen with our rights reduced...superseded by the unborn's.>>

I really don't know what your point is. It sounds like your argument is with nature, not pro-lifers. There's a lot to be said legitimately against pro-lifers, but it isn't their fault that women are the ones who get pregnant. There is a misogynist element to the movement, as well as an anti-sex mindset; but otherwise, most pro-lifers aren't really anti-women; they just sincerely believe fetuses and embryos are persons from the moment of conception.
 
jamesrodom said:
<<They will not provide any possible means where women are not reduced back to the role of 2nd class citizen with our rights reduced...superseded by the unborn's.>>

I really don't know what your point is. It sounds like your argument is with nature, not pro-lifers. There's a lot to be said legitimately against pro-lifers, but it isn't their fault that women are the ones who get pregnant. There is a misogynist element to the movement, as well as an anti-sex mindset; but otherwise, most pro-lifers aren't really anti-women; they just sincerely believe fetuses and embryos are persons from the moment of conception.
Click to expand...

LOL Nature handles abortion just fine (miscarriages), but pro-lifers are the ones that are trying to end a woman's right to choose...and that can only happen thru legal means.

So that remains the focus of my discussions, altho I have arguments for other aspects as well.

So yes...pro-lifers are the ones that need to be addressed and educated and convinced to butt out of women's medical decisions because 'they have no legal right' to be involved.
 
jamesrodom said:
<<(I also think it's a bit odd that you dont think that men believe women's rights are very important.)>>

I didn't say that. Please reread what I wrote, with better comprehension in mind.

<<They will not provide any possible means where women are not reduced back to the role of 2nd class citizen with our rights reduced...superseded by the unborn's.>>

I really don't know what your point is. It sounds like your argument is with nature, not pro-lifers. There's a lot to be said legitimately against pro-lifers, but it isn't their fault that women are the ones who get pregnant. There is a misogynist element to the movement, as well as an anti-sex mindset; but otherwise, most pro-lifers aren't really anti-women; they just sincerely believe fetuses and embryos are persons from the moment of conception.
Click to expand...

I did read it. I read this:

jamesrodom said:
Arguments for keeping abortion safe and legal are usually framed in terms of 'women's rights'.

I think this is a huge tactical mistake. First, it inaccurately implies abortion as something primarily women support and primarily men oppose. In fact, survey research has shown that men and women approve of legal abortion in roughly equal numbers.
Click to expand...

I realize that 'in reality' this is the case but what 'I read' was that it's an issue for the pro-life side because it only focuses on women's rights and that is not as important to men.

From what I've read and heard, pro-life supporters overall dismiss women's rights as less important...if important at all...in pretty equal numbers. (which of course is the other side, but also accurate, of your comment on approval.)
 
jamesrodom said:
Arguments for keeping abortion safe and legal are usually framed in terms of 'women's rights'.

I think this is a huge tactical mistake. First, it inaccurately implies abortion as something primarily women support and primarily men oppose. In fact, survey research has shown that men and women approve of legal abortion in roughly equal numbers.

Most of all, it's a distraction because it fails to rebut the pro-life argument, which is that fetuses and embryos are 'persons' from the moment of conception deserving of all the rights and privileges normally associated with 'personhood'.

Imagine for a moment that the pro-life argument is correct and that there is essentially no difference between a six-week old embryo and a six-month old baby. No one would speak of a 'woman's right' to kill her six-month old baby, right? But the fact is that there is NO agreement as to when fetuses or embryos become persons, in spite of the pro-life movement's insistence that this happens at the moment of conception.

It's precisely this lack of agreement that speaks to obvious solution: let the individual decide, in accordance with her own conscience, faith, and morals. But just a simple insistence on 'women's rights' isn't very effective, since there are NO absolute rights or freedoms, of ANY kind.
Click to expand...

You make the mistake of assuming that when a woman says it is her right that she is referring to abortion. That is not the case. Abortion is not a right. Abortion is a decision. And it is a woman's right to make that decision.
 
soylentgreen said:
You make the mistake of assuming that when a woman says it is her right that she is referring to abortion. That is not the case. Abortion is not a right. Abortion is a decision. And it is a woman's right to make that decision.
Click to expand...

Word Salad
 
jamesrodom said:
Word Salad
Click to expand...

soylentgreen said:
You make the mistake of assuming that when a woman says it is her right that she is referring to abortion. That is not the case. Abortion is not a right. Abortion is a decision. And it is a woman's right to make that decision.
Click to expand...

I agree SG. There is no Amendment in the Constitution that declares Abortion being a Right.

And to expand on your point, (I'm trimming this up a bit, but) Roe v Wade, a Texas case, argued before the S.C., was the impetus of a "S.C. Decision", which in turn becomes a "judicial precedent". And that boils down to: In a common law system (any State Court, for example), "judges are obliged" to make their rulings as consistent as reasonably possible with previous judicial decisions on the same subject.

In order to understand Roe v Wade, one must read the Supreme Court's decision. From that 'decision" women's "RIGHT" TO PRIVACY became the central theme of that decision, which is considered to be inherent to the 14th Amendments, Due Process Clause and "Equal Protection Under the Law Clause".

BTW, a Judicial Precedent are "usually" derived from "DECISIONS" rendered by a Circuit Appellate Court or the Supreme Court.

OR: Cases decided by a common law court becomes a precedent, or guideline, for subsequent decisions involving similar disputes. If common law court's decision is disputed and qualifies to be "appealed to a higher court", these lower court rulings can be overturned by a State Supreme court, which can be overturned by an "US Appellate Court". If an Appellate decision ruffles the Supreme Court's feathers, it can overturn an Appellate decision. That's usually the final "precedent" made.
 
Removable Mind said:
I agree SG. There is no Amendment in the Constitution that declares Abortion being a Right.

And to expand on your point, (I'm trimming this up a bit, but) Roe v Wade, a Texas case, argued before the S.C., was the impetus of a "S.C. Decision", which in turn becomes a "judicial precedent". And that boils down to: In a common law system (any State Court, for example), "judges are obliged" to make their rulings as consistent as reasonably possible with previous judicial decisions on the same subject.

In order to understand Roe v Wade, one must read the Supreme Court's decision. From that 'decision" women's "RIGHT" TO PRIVACY became the central theme of that decision, which is considered to be inherent to the 14th Amendments, Due Process Clause and "Equal Protection Under the Law Clause".

BTW, a Judicial Precedent are "usually" derived from "DECISIONS" rendered by a Circuit Appellate Court or the Supreme Court.

OR: Cases decided by a common law court becomes a precedent, or guideline, for subsequent decisions involving similar disputes. If common law court's decision is disputed and qualifies to be "appealed to a higher court", these lower court rulings can be overturned by a State Supreme court, which can be overturned by an "US Appellate Court". If an Appellate decision ruffles the Supreme Court's feathers, it can overturn an Appellate decision. That's usually the final "precedent" made.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Hence why I never addressed any 'right to abortion' either, but discussed our Constitutional rights.

Abortion doesnt need to be a right, see: 9th Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Click to expand...

The rights you mentioned are key here tho. Not to mention a right to liberty, which would be violated if laws were implemented to physically stop women from getting abortions and of course there's the issue of bodily sovereignty, which Canada recognizes as the "right to security of the person."

So anything not called out explicitly in the Constitution is legal (9th A) unless the states can create laws against them "that dont end up violating people's Constitutional rights."
 
Lursa said:
Exactly. Hence why I never addressed any 'right to abortion' either, but discussed our Constitutional rights.

Abortion doesnt need to be a right, see: 9th Amendment:



The rights you mentioned are key here tho. Not to mention a right to liberty, which would be violated if laws were implemented to physically stop women from getting abortions and of course there's the issue of bodily sovereignty, which Canada recognizes as the "right to security of the person."

So anything not called out explicitly in the Constitution is legal (9th A) unless the states can create laws against them "that dont end up violating people's Constitutional rights."
Click to expand...

Right, I didn't want to take my point any further. But for those of us who are regulars (pro-choice) in this forum are clearly aware of the scope of the decision and how it unfolds in various way and is reflected in perhaps four or five Amendments. I know that a few of us have shown the dynamics involved from simply a 14th Amendment perspective, but it's much deeper...as you've stated in your comments above.
 
<<There is no Amendment in the Constitution that declares Abortion being a Right.>>

True, but irrelevant. You really should study your history of the Constitution a little better. Since the 19th Century, it's been widely accepted that the Constitution contains rights guaranteed by implication. Google the word "penumbra".
 
jamesrodom said:
<<There is no Amendment in the Constitution that declares Abortion being a Right.>>

True, but irrelevant. You really should study your history of the Constitution a little better. Since the 19th Century, it's been widely accepted that the Constitution contains rights guaranteed by implication. Google the word "penumbra".
Click to expand...

We covered this. I mentioned the 9th Amendment.

Did you have anything else to debate in your thread?
 
Lursa said:
We covered this. I mentioned the 9th Amendment.

How is the Ninth Amendment relevant here? Be specific.

<<Did you have anything else to debate in your thread? >>

I don't understand the question. My seeder stands as written. Whether anyone wants to "debate" or not is up to them.
Click to expand...
 
jamesrodom said:
Lursa said:
We covered this. I mentioned the 9th Amendment.

How is the Ninth Amendment relevant here? Be specific.

<<Did you have anything else to debate in your thread? >>

I don't understand the question. My seeder stands as written. Whether anyone wants to "debate" or not is up to them.
Click to expand...

OK nevermind then. I dont feel like educating you on the 9th amendment...I posted the relevant quote from it in my post. If you dont understand it, that's not up to me.

And we did debate your OP...you have not done so back. If you dont understand that part, it's also not my concern.
Click to expand...
 
<<OK nevermind then. I dont feel like educating you on the 9th amendment...I posted the relevant quote from it in my post. If you dont understand it, that's not up to me.>>

Translation: I can't. I figured as much.

<<And we did debate your OP...you have not done so back. If you dont understand that part, it's also not my concern.>>

I honestly don't know what you're referring to. I'm new to this particular forum, but I've participated in others for many years. I posted the seeder and some have responded, though almost no one really addressed my remarks directly. That's okay, but do you suppose I'm under some obligation to "do so back"? If I have something to say--and I feel like saying it--I say it. The same is true for everybody.

It's really that simple.
 
Removable Mind said:
I agree SG. There is no Amendment in the Constitution that declares Abortion being a Right.

And to expand on your point, (I'm trimming this up a bit, but) Roe v Wade, a Texas case, argued before the S.C., was the impetus of a "S.C. Decision", which in turn becomes a "judicial precedent". And that boils down to: In a common law system (any State Court, for example), "judges are obliged" to make their rulings as consistent as reasonably possible with previous judicial decisions on the same subject.

In order to understand Roe v Wade, one must read the Supreme Court's decision. From that 'decision" women's "RIGHT" TO PRIVACY became the central theme of that decision, which is considered to be inherent to the 14th Amendments, Due Process Clause and "Equal Protection Under the Law Clause".

BTW, a Judicial Precedent are "usually" derived from "DECISIONS" rendered by a Circuit Appellate Court or the Supreme Court.

OR: Cases decided by a common law court becomes a precedent, or guideline, for subsequent decisions involving similar disputes. If common law court's decision is disputed and qualifies to be "appealed to a higher court", these lower court rulings can be overturned by a State Supreme court, which can be overturned by an "US Appellate Court". If an Appellate decision ruffles the Supreme Court's feathers, it can overturn an Appellate decision. That's usually the final "precedent" made.
Click to expand...

The real point here is that abortion should not even be considered a legal decision . It is not something that should be considered under a criminal act. It is still the case where a woman must seek permission to have an abortion. Which is wrong because it is her right to decide not that of the doctors to give permission for.
 
jamesrodom said:
No, you just seem to lack the simple ability to be clear.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. There was nothing obscure in what i said. Your OP is making the mistake of assuming abortion is a right . Or that women are fighting for a right to an abortion.
 
soylentgreen said:
The real point here is that abortion should not even be considered a legal decision . It is not something that should be considered under a criminal act. It is still the case where a woman must seek permission to have an abortion. Which is wrong because it is her right to decide not that of the doctors to give permission for.
Click to expand...

I agree. Sort of....

In the first trimester - it’s no questions asked.

Any laws or precedent that’s subject to be easily altered or overturned is, in and of itself, built in discrimination against women. That opens the door for legal institutions to gain the ability to tell women how many children that they should or shouldn’t have. Neither governments or religions should ever possess the right to control women’s reproductive roles or health.

I subscribe to Canada’s “zero restrictions” on women’s ability to choose to abort. And there’s clear evidence that Canadian women have over 90 plus percent of their abortions at 12 weeks and under. There’s a higher percentage of Canadian women who are on a regiment of birth control pills or devices than American women, mainly due to access.
 
jamesrodom said:
<<OK nevermind then. I dont feel like educating you on the 9th amendment...I posted the relevant quote from it in my post. If you dont understand it, that's not up to me.>>

Translation: I can't. I figured as much.

<<And we did debate your OP...you have not done so back. If you dont understand that part, it's also not my concern.>>

I honestly don't know what you're referring to. I'm new to this particular forum, but I've participated in others for many years. I posted the seeder and some have responded, though almost no one really addressed my remarks directly. That's okay, but do you suppose I'm under some obligation to "do so back"? If I have something to say--and I feel like saying it--I say it. The same is true for everybody.

It's really that simple.
Click to expand...

How would you know? I used it correctly, I gave the proper reference quote that junior high kids get...but you are the one that doesnt understand it. :doh
 
Removable Mind said:
I agree. Sort of....

In the first trimester - it’s no questions asked.

Any laws or precedent that’s subject to be easily altered or overturned is, in and of itself, built in discrimination against women. That opens the door for legal institutions to gain the ability to tell women how many children that they should or shouldn’t have. Neither governments or religions should ever possess the right to control women’s reproductive roles or health.

I subscribe to Canada’s “zero restrictions” on women’s ability to choose to abort. And there’s clear evidence that Canadian women have over 90 plus percent of their abortions at 12 weeks and under. There’s a higher percentage of Canadian women who are on a regiment of birth control pills or devices than American women, mainly due to access.
Click to expand...

Why still a reserve on after first trimester? It's not as if there is an abundance of women who will change their minds just because they are tired of being pregnant. If presented with a good reason for an abortion it should still remain their decision as to whether they do or not. Telling them that after a certain time they must seek permission is again paternalistic thinking. It is still saying women are not capable of reasoning and making decisions.
 
soylentgreen said:
Why still a reserve on after first trimester? It's not as if there is an abundance of women who will change their minds just because they are tired of being pregnant. If presented with a good reason for an abortion it should still remain their decision as to whether they do or not. Telling them that after a certain time they must seek permission is again paternalistic thinking. It is still saying women are not capable of reasoning and making decisions.
Click to expand...

Agree, and perhaps my previous response to your previous comments are now looking more like we’ve both been saying the same thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom