Is Abortion a Moral Right?

[prometeus]

That's a lie, you have promoted abortion from the day I was aware of you on this forum.

That's a nice sweet take you gave there but dang that isn't what you have portrayed on this forum.

Wow just wow. What a bunch of ..........................................................nuff said.

I am curious, when did she encourage you or any member here to have an abortion or suggested that abortion is the answer to every or any pregnancy? And since she did not why do you have to lie and post such utter crap?

 

[year2late]

I personally believe the whole lack of respect for human life in our society on a general note stems from women and men who decided to define life in such a cheap way.

The only human life I see most prolifers (at least the noisiest ones) show concern for are the zygote, embryo, or fetus. If folks think there is such a need to save the life of the preborn....why is there little concern for decent healthcare access for the born person?

 

[iguanaman]

I do not oppose abortions up to 12 weeks.

I agree that it is definitely naive, but the whole plane crash scenario is. One of my favorite poems says something like "we have to save ourselves the futility of making fun of God, because that guy hasn't talked, in like, ever."

Do you think a women who has just found out that her baby has no brain should be denied and abortion if she is 13 weeks pregnant? Why can't this decision be between a woman and her doctor?

https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/birthdefects/anencephaly.html

 

[soylentgreen]

I've been reading and listening to a lot of different things lately that really invoke some thinking. The question "Is abortion a moral right?" really stands out.

But to really get into that, I think the you have to ask the question, is the fetus inside a woman, no matter how far along, a life?

Of course it is a life. I am not sure what a moral right is. Do you mean is it a morality that should be legalised?

As for the question is abortion a moral right, the answer is no. Abortion is not a right it is a decision. And the real question is who gets to make that decision. The answer of which is the only person who should make that decision is the woman who is pregnant.

 

[FutureIncoming]

A fetus, left to it's own fruition, will become more.

PROVED FALSE. It is an extremely common ERROR of abortion opponents to think that human mental development proceeds as inevitably as human physical development, when there are no genetic flaws or other interferences. The proof of that error was discovered in Romania in the 1980s. Human mental development depends on Nurture, not Nature. And since ALL the relevant Nurture happens after birth, at no point prior to birth is it possible for an unborn human to qualify as a person deserving rights. (Technically, it takes a bunch of months after birth for such qualification to even begin to happen, except that Existing Law arbitrarily grants "legal person" status to newborn humans, a Law that existed long before the relevant scientific facts about personhood were discovered.) And if you don't believe in the power of human Nurturing, then you should study the stories of Koko the Gorilla and Chantek the Orangutan.

 

[matchlight]

And on what premise, principle or authority would a state have the right to ban abortion?

As the Supreme Court has made plain in many decisions dating back at least to the late 1800's, states have inherent authority as sovereigns to make laws and policies regulating the public health, safety and welfare. The Court has usually referred to that inherent state authority as the "police (as in 'policy,' not the cops) power." States enact countless laws regarding all sorts of matters as an exercise of their police power, including, from their beginnings until Roe in 1973, laws regulating abortion.

 

[minnie616]

As the Supreme Court has made plain in many decisions dating back at least to the late 1800's, states have inherent authority as sovereigns to make laws and policies regulating the public health, safety and welfare. The Court has usually referred to that inherent state authority as the "police (as in 'policy,' not the cops) power." States enact countless laws regarding all sorts of matters as an exercise of their police power, including, from their beginnings until Roe in 1973, laws regulating abortion.

The Supreme Court decided in Roe vs Wade that medically abortion before viabilly is now safer than childbirth.

From Roe vs Wade edited:

States can create laws to protect citizens from harmful practices, and it can ban medical procedures that are harmful. When abortion was initially banned by most states, it was a dangerous procedure. Medically, it is now safer than childbirth. Therefore there is no longer a good reason for states to ban it as a medical practice.

Roe v Wade - edited text

 

[prometeus]

As the Supreme Court has made plain in many decisions dating back at least to the late 1800's, states have inherent authority as sovereigns to make laws and policies regulating the public health, safety and welfare. The Court has usually referred to that inherent state authority as the "police (as in 'policy,' not the cops) power." States enact countless laws regarding all sorts of matters as an exercise of their police power, including, from their beginnings until Roe in 1973, laws regulating abortion.

But how is any of that relevant to abortion? The fetus is not recognized as part of the public, abortion is safe and not a health hazard, there is no safety issue and everything you listed is intended for the public good.

 

[matchlight]

The Supreme Court decided in Roe vs Wade that medically abortion before viabilly is now safer than childbirth.

From Roe vs Wade edited:



Roe v Wade - edited text

I did not claim that protecting the public safety was the only basis for a state to regulate abortion. Older cases listed public morals as a fourth basis of the police power. Morality having become outmoded, though, that basis has in more recent cases been folded into public welfare, which had dealt mostly with property. The police power is now said to encompass the "public health, safety and welfare," with welfare usually taken to include public morality, which it has become gauche to speak of by itself.

 

[straykatz]

I've been reading and listening to a lot of different things lately that really invoke some thinking. The question "Is abortion a moral right?" really stands out.

But to really get into that, I think the you have to ask the question, is the fetus inside a woman, no matter how far along, a life?

Is an egg a chicken before it hatches?

 

[JayDubya]

Is an egg a chicken before it hatches?

The organism inside the larger egg structure - note once again, something not present in human embryology - is certainly a member of Gallus gallus domesticus. Yes, that is "a chicken."

A young chicken is not an adult chicken. If that was your point, it is not very profound.

 

[JayDubya]

The Supreme Court decided in Roe vs Wade that medically abortion before viabilly is now safer than childbirth.

From Roe vs Wade edited:



Roe v Wade - edited text

Yet more evidence that Blackmun and his fellow six corrupt / and retarded friends had no clue.

It's very dangerous, after all, for the victims.

 

[matchlight]

But how is any of that relevant to abortion? The fetus is not recognized as part of the public, abortion is safe and not a health hazard, there is no safety issue and everything you listed is intended for the public good.

You asked "on what premise, principle, or authority" a state would have the right to ban abortion. I answered you by explaining the states' inherent police power, which was the basis for all state laws that prohibited or restricted abortion before 1973, and which today is still the basis for state laws which regulate abortion within the constitutional limits the Supreme Court has imposed.

In some states, a majority may believe that it benefits the public welfare to restrict abortion, or even to ban it outright. If so, I believe those states should be free to enact laws which give effect to that belief, just as any state should be free to allow abortion of demand, if a majority there believes that benefits the public welfare. That is the rule which applies to the countless thousands of mundane state laws regulating all sorts of matters which raise no Fourteenth Amendment issue.

Like many other people, I do not believe that abortion involves the Fourteenth Amendment at all, and that whatever the Supreme Court has said to the contrary is an unconstitutional fabrication that deserves no one's respect. Even the Court itself has been unwilling, for 25 years now, to support the Roe Court's claim that abortion is a fundamental right.

 

[FutureIncoming]

The organism inside the larger egg structure - note once again, something not present in human embryology - is certainly a member of Gallus gallus domesticus. Yes, that is "a chicken."

THAT'S NOT THE ONLY WAY TO IDENTIFY A CHICKEN. In terms of a modestly different species, there is this famous declaration:

When I see a bird that walks like a duck and swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck.

SO: Can a bird inside an egg act like a chicken? NOPE! It is therefore more technically accurate to call the fetal bird a "chicken under construction", much like an unborn human is a "baby under construction" --provably so very different from an ordinary baby that it should never be called a baby. YOU are more similar to an ordinary baby than an unborn human! Therefore we should be more willing to call you a baby, than to call an unborn human a baby, right?

A young chicken is not an adult chicken.

AND A CHICKEN UNDER CONSTRUCTION IS PROVABLY RATHER DIFFERENT FROM EVEN A YOUNG CHICKEN. It is getting its nourishment from the yolk sac in the egg, after all, not from eating/digesting food found on the ground.

If that was your point, it is not very profound.

THAT POINT WAS MORE PROFOUND THAN THE CHERRY-PICKED AND FACTUALLY INCOMPLETE BLATHER THAT YOU SPOUTED.

 

[FutureIncoming]

Yet more evidence that Blackmun and his fellow six corrupt / and retarded friends had no clue.

FALSE. They knew what they were talking about. No matter what rationale they used to conclude unborn humans are not persons with rights, that rationale is totally supported by another Constitutional thing, a Legal Precedent regarding the lack-of-personhood-of-unborn-humans more than 220 years old, the Census, which mandates that all persons must be counted (except Indians not taxed), but pregnancies have never been counted as persons in any Census, from the first one in 1790, the time of the Founding Fathers, onward to the 2010 Census.

It's very dangerous, after all, for the victims.

AND SWATTING FLIES TENDS TO BE VERY DANGEROUS FOR FLIES. Big deal! What makes one very-common animal entity more important than some other very-common animal entity? Stupid Prejudice? Tsk, tsk!

 

[straykatz]

The organism inside the larger egg structure - note once again, something not present in human embryology - is certainly a member of Gallus gallus domesticus. Yes, that is "a chicken."

A young chicken is not an adult chicken. If that was your point, it is not very profound.

Isn't the fetus inside a larger structure - the female body?

 

[JayDubya]

Isn't the fetus inside a larger structure - the female body?

:shrug: Still a distinct organism of the species Homo sapiens, a human being.

 

[prometeus]

You asked "on what premise, principle, or authority" a state would have the right to ban abortion. I answered you by explaining the states' inherent police power, which was the basis for all state laws that prohibited or restricted abortion before 1973, and which today is still the basis for state laws which regulate abortion within the constitutional limits the Supreme Court has imposed.

The inherent police power of the states is not limitless and it is solely intended for the wellbeing of the people of the state. That states have the power to regulate abortion is undeniable and it serves a good purpose to ensure the safety of abortions as of any other medical procedure.

to support the Roe Court's claim that abortion is a fundamental right.

In as much as "government" has no specific power or reason to ban abortion and all powers and and rights not delegated to "government" are retained by the people, then is is not unreasonable to say that it is a right. Moreover, since no state nor the federal government recognizes the early term fetus but women are recognized, it follows that it is their right to gestate when and as many times as they wish, not as some would impose on them.

 

[Removable Mind]

Facts are babys can now successfully live outside the mother at 22 weeks. If a baby can survive with out the mother is not considered life?
On fetuses less then 22 weeks at some point technology is only going to get better and the younger the age will be for survivel. If a women doesnt want to have a baby i think she should be forced to make that decision in the early stages of pregnancy not mid way throu. Of course keeping the life of the mother in mind.

Plus genetic testing for down syndrom and other disabilites can be tested for as early as 4 weeks.

Link please. Out of 6 million pregnancies a year, how many of those are born at 22 weeks and survive?

Speaking of FORCE....

I think all males born need to be forced by government to have a reversible vasectomy as soon as its mature enough after birth and can only be reversed after legally married and has the wife to sign a release form to reverse the vasectomy.

How's your uterus and ovaries doing today?

 

[JayDubya]

The inherent police power of the states is not limitless and it is solely intended for the wellbeing of the people of the state. That states have the power to regulate abortion is undeniable and it serves a good purpose to ensure the safety of abortions as of any other medical procedure.

In as much as "government" has no specific power or reason to ban abortion and all powers and and rights not delegated to "government" are retained by the people, then is is not unreasonable to say that it is a right. Moreover, since no state nor the federal government recognizes the early term fetus but women are recognized, it follows that it is their right to gestate when and as many times as they wish, not as some would impose on them.

I've lost tracks of how many times I've pointed out the critically fatal flaw in this "argument" of yours, yet you still make it.

By the same standard the constitution does not explicitly mention abortion, it also does not mention other homicides, nor rape, nor assault, nor theft, nor embezzlement, nor a litany of other things we criminalize at state and federal levels.

You have never had a rebuttal for this and keep making this assertion anyway. It's rather pitiable.

 

[JayDubya]

I think all males born need to be forced by government to have a reversible vasectomy as soon as its mature enough after birth and can only be reversed after legally married and has the wife to sign a release form to reverse the vasectomy.

Misanthropy is expected from a neomalthusian.
Authoritarianism is expected from a leftist.
Misandry is expected from a pro-abort.

Was this plan of yours supposed to be surprising somehow?

 

[Removable Mind]

Is an egg a chicken before it hatches?

Well, whatever the answer is: the components of both are good to eat inside or outside the shell.

But by mere appearance - the embryo of a chicken (yummy, yummy) isn't a chicken. There is a significant lack of development of the contents of an egg up to the point that it's capable of laboring its way out of the shell. NOW we have a little bitty baby chicken, which isn't yet mature enough to consume.

Ever read Jonathan Swifts' "A Modest Proposal"?

 

[Removable Mind]

Misanthropy is expected from a neomalthusian.
Authoritarianism is expected from a leftist.
Misandry is expected from a pro-abort.

Was this plan of yours supposed to be surprising somehow?

Leftist? Sorry, Jay, I'm right handed. As for the rest of your comments I'd have to say... :no:, you're wrong.

 

[JayDubya]

Leftist? Sorry, Jay, I'm right handed. As for the rest of your comments I'd have to say... :no:, you're wrong.

Unless you are posting as a fraudulent persona, by your words I am correct on all statements. :shrug:

 

[Removable Mind]

Isn't the fetus inside a larger structure - the female body?

Don't rattle Jay with the facts. Facts often disturb him.