• 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!

More Abortions Are Good For Society

Easy. The unborn children can be grouped. Yes, abortion is genocide. But I've yet to hear a liberal bold enough to admit it.

First off, I'm not a liberal. Do pay attention to the info under the person's avatar to the left of their posts.

Second, nobody is trying to eliminate all of the unborn. Abortion is individual women deciding they do not want to be pregnant.
 
Easy. The unborn children can be grouped. Yes, abortion is genocide. But I've yet to hear a liberal bold enough to admit it.
Are you being ridiculous on purpose or are you just unknowingly dumb?

Abortion is not genocide. However, what you are asking for is the nationalisation of child birth. A government program for breeding does not sound "Very Conservative" to my ears. Ever thought of changing your label to "Socialist"? :D
 
That is rather cute since you are the one who - just like them - asks the government to step in and limit and the things in society that you personally do not like. A true conservative knows that a large problems that exist in society are spiritual rather than political and thus believe they should be handled on the local level and that they are to be solved organically rather than politically.

You are Statist who wants the State to limit abortions. Abortions will never stop with the pen of the government. Abortion can only vanish from existence if culture change in a direction that allows it. This means you should be the change you want to see and stop caring too much about what other people are doing.

Abortion is not a problem.

It is stupid, if as a statist, he believes that that would end legal abortions. Many states would still allow it and the women in the states where it's illegal would just go there. And there's no way those states could stop it.
 
Easy. The unborn children can be grouped. Yes, abortion is genocide. But I've yet to hear a liberal bold enough to admit it.

No they cannot for 'genocide,' since all unborn are not targeted. (None are targeted as a matter of fact, it's an individual decision) As a matter of fact, our society in general encourages the birth of children, with maternity leave from work, subsidies for maternity care and hospitalization, the celebration of births, etc etc etc.

So...you are still wrong and intelligent people dont admit anything stupid or ignorant once they've been informed.

You have been informed of the facts on abortion many times now by many people...which category do you fall into?
 
It is stupid, if as a statist, he believes that that would end legal abortions. Many states would still allow it and the women in the states where it's illegal would just go there. And there's no way those states could stop it.
I doubt he supports individual states to have individual laws on this matter. As far as most Pro Lifers wish, child birth should be nationalised.

My view is that the market is the source of prosperity and thus it would be rather hypocritical for me to oppose the free market innovation of abortion. Consentual sex is a peaceful exchange of pleasure and I would never support politicians who ask to step in and nationalise sexual relations and offspring. Abortion can only be a question for the parties involved in the individual case.

Women have a unique biological function that is child birth and it is highly perverted for the State to exploit their powers by regulating a woman's control over her own biological functions.

Extramarital sex can only be regulated by culture and only fought by the individual. It is simply not realistic to demand legislations and the only reason Pro Life-politicans figt for it to become law is not because they "care about the unborn", but because they need an excuse to expand their power.

Easy. The unborn children can be grouped. Yes, abortion is genocide. But I've yet to hear a liberal bold enough to admit it.
No, it is not genocide. By your logic, car accidents and bath tub drownings are genocides too then.
 
Last edited:
First off, I'm not a liberal. Do pay attention to the info under the person's avatar to the left of their posts.

Second, nobody is trying to eliminate all of the unborn. Abortion is individual women deciding they do not want to be pregnant.

Okay fair enough (but as I said before to the other guy, I will still lump you in with the liberals since you are in agreement with them on this issue of abortion. But don't you think we should give these unborn children a fighting chance? Exactly what do we value in this society if we don't value our unborn children? Do we really value "convenience" of the mother over a human life? That's more of a rhetorical question to reflect on. And that's NOT a joke.

It's really simple, at least in my book. There is almost nothing more detrimental to society than abortion. As with many genocides throughout history, killing and death are not best practices if you want to be taken seriously as a compassionate person or if you want to be viewed as a humanitarian.

Total body autonomy, government intrusion, privacy, right to do whatever you want, etc are there to distract us from the horrific death toll and true motives of the abortion industry. And if you can actually properly identify the motives of the abortion industry, you will be able to see where I am coming from.

Sex without consequences, right?

Again, we know when life is created. And we know that an embryo has distinct DNA of their own. As far as I am concerned, the moment of conception is from when we should start protecting our children.

What's the end goal of abortion?
 
Last edited:
It's really simple, at least in my book. There is almost nothing more detrimental to society than abortion.

That's your personal opinion.

Now...please list any negative effects of abortion on society, to support your opinion?

(Also note what is bolded. So 'not' on individuals)
 
Okay fair enough (but as I said before to the other guy, I will still lump you in with the liberals since you are in agreement with them on this issue of abortion.
No, problem Statist. As long as you scream for government expansion to regulate the body functions of individuals, I will lump you together with the Statists. :)

But don't you think we should give these unborn children a fighting chance? Exactly what do we value in this society if we don't value our unborn children? Do we really value "convenience" of the mother over a human life? That's more of a rhetorical question to reflect on. And that's NOT a joke.
No. That is why the goal should be to ensure no woman gets unwillingly pregnant and to this there are two very easy solutions; (1) abstinence or (2) contraception and birth control.

Abortion should be legal because we would not want to see a black market for that.

It's really simple, at least in my book. There is almost nothing more detrimental to society than abortion.
Almost?

As with many genocides throughout history, killing and death are not best practices if you want to be taken seriously as a compassionate person or if you want to be viewed as a humanitarian.
Oh, stop it.

Total body autonomy, government intrusion, privacy, right to do whatever you want, etc are there to distract us from the horrific death toll and true motives of the abortion industry. And if you can actually properly identify the motives of the abortion industry, you will be able to see where I am coming from.
You seriously think that women (and couples) who choose abortion do it because they are genocidal maniacs?

Again, we know when life is created. And we know that an embryo has distinct DNA of their own. As far as I am concerned, the moment of conception is from when we should start protecting our children.
Yes, there is a very easy way for you to create this society - By minding your own business. If you do not want sex before marriage and/or sex without reproduction, that is fine. However, it is not fine to demand government to force your ideals onto everybody else... Unless you are a Statist and altruist of course. Which you are. :)

What's the end goal of abortion?
To terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
 
That's your personal opinion.

Now...please list any negative effects of abortion on society, to support your opinion?

(Also note what is bolded. So 'not' on individuals)

Okay, so for me... How do I come to the conclusion that abortion is detrimental to society?

Excellent question, in fact, it's the crux of this entire thread. First off, I think it cheapens life. And devalues the sanctity of life. And I wont go into much detail here, but for sure we can get into that later.

It means we can snuff out a flame because we want to focus on our career, or our relationship or just ourselves for that matter. Or if we are not quite ready (i.e. convenience) or prepared, or if you would prefer to spend your savings on a new car rather than your unborn child, you can do that too. To me, this is a betrayal of family values. A completed women is a grandmother with a loving family. The bond between mother and child is like no other, and yet we advise women against achieving this goal? That seems so far out of place in my opinion.

One problem is that conservatives and liberals don't see eye to eye on the finality of abortion. (I'm generalizing now, not talking about any of you guys or gals in particular. And don't get me wrong, you do bring some good arguments to the table.) But the main reflection that sticks with me seems to be the value of a life. People in agreement with abortion tend to see the value of life as contingent on the mother's point of view. If you don't like your child, abort it. If you love your child, keep it. Things like this. Life should me measured by a standard, not a double standard.

This is a double standard, and I personally feel like we are giving women a very overwhelming and confusing choice, that has serious implications, far beyond what your local planned parenthood is going to tell you about. And we can get into those specific "ramifications" a little bit later.

I have to go eat dinner, but I will say that society applies a lot of pressure to do one thing or the other, and women just find themselves in the crossfire of a much larger issue. And sadly, many potential mothers regret aborting their own children. It can have a lasting effect, and a ripple effect. Larger than even you may know.
 
Okay, so for me... How do I come to the conclusion that abortion is detrimental to society?

Excellent question, in fact, it's the crux of this entire thread. First off, I think it cheapens life. And devalues the sanctity of life. And I wont go into much detail here, but for sure we can get into that later.

It means we can snuff out a flame because we want to focus on our career, or our relationship or just ourselves for that matter. Or if we are not quite ready (i.e. convenience) or prepared, or if you would prefer to spend your savings on a new car rather than your unborn child, you can do that too. To me, this is a betrayal of family values. A completed women is a grandmother with a loving family. The bond between mother and child is like no other, and yet we advise women against achieving this goal? That seems so far out of place in my opinion.

One problem is that conservatives and liberals don't see eye to eye on the finality of abortion. (I'm generalizing now, not talking about any of you guys or gals in particular. And don't get me wrong, you do bring some good arguments to the table.) But the main reflection that sticks with me seems to be the value of a life. People in agreement with abortion tend to see the value of life as contingent on the mother's point of view. If you don't like your child, abort it. If you love your child, keep it. Things like this. Life should me measured by a standard, not a double standard.

This is a double standard, and I personally feel like we are giving women a very overwhelming and confusing choice, that has serious implications, far beyond what your local planned parenthood is going to tell you about. And we can get into those specific "ramifications" a little bit later.

I have to go eat dinner, but I will say that society applies a lot of pressure to do one thing or the other, and women just find themselves in the crossfire of a much larger issue. And sadly, many potential mothers regret aborting their own children. It can have a lasting effect, and a ripple effect. Larger than even you may know.

Sorry, I need concrete data or issues or consequences. Your opinions on it arent valid arguments...at least no opinions that arent based on the former.

Your opinion of family values is mostly abhorrent to me anyway so of course I wouldnt want to see them imposed on America and dont see that as a valid 'negative' on society either.

So...what can you show of 'documented' negative effects of abortion on society?

IMO, your opinion of abortion devalues all women's lives. A life is more than a heartbeat...it's the entirety of a life...love, hope, sacrifice, feelings, health, failure, struggle, success, passion, contributions to society, responsibilities to family, church, community, society, etc.

I believe in quality of life, not quantity.
 
Okay fair enough (but as I said before to the other guy, I will still lump you in with the liberals since you are in agreement with them on this issue of abortion.

Which would be very rude of you. Would you like being called a liberal because you advocate for govt intrusion into our personal lives? A true conservative is against that.



But don't you think we should give these unborn children a fighting chance?

Why should I? There are more than enough people on the planet - in fact there are too many.


As with many genocides throughout history, killing and death are not best practices if you want to be taken seriously as a compassionate person or if you want to be viewed as a humanitarian.

Sez who? Once again, abortion is not genocide.



Total body autonomy, government intrusion, privacy, right to do whatever you want, etc are there to distract us from the horrific death toll and true motives of the abortion industry. And if you can actually properly identify the motives of the abortion industry, you will be able to see where I am coming from.

*Yawn*


Sex without consequences, right?

The consequence of sex is an orgasm.


Again, we know when life is created. And we know that an embryo has distinct DNA of their own. As far as I am concerned, the moment of conception is from when we should start protecting our children.

Feel free to apply that to your pregnancies. Oh, wait....



What's the end goal of abortion?


To terminate pregnancy.
 
No, problem Statist. As long as you scream for government expansion to regulate the body functions of individuals, I will lump you together with the Statists. :)
Does Life Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness mean anything to you ? Or is it death, oppression and pursuit of sadness? Apparently the latter, considering you are okay with the slaughter of 60,000,000 children, without batting an eye.

No. That is why the goal should be to ensure no woman gets unwillingly pregnant and to this there are two very easy solutions; (1) abstinence or (2) contraception and birth control.
I agree with this, however, we have seen multiple instances of women actually using abortion as their preferred method of birth control. This is a very disturbing revelation. Because it means Planned Parenthood is onboard for multiple abortions for the same mother (ironically they have quotas in place for actual volume of abortions per month) Maybe it's the money they are after? And since when does "healthcare" kill people?




Abortion should be legal because we would not want to see a black market for that.
Abortion IS the black market. Butchering unborn children and then selling their internal organs to the highest bidder constitutes a below the belt move, and we can pin desecration of a corpse on them as well.

Yes, short of an apocalypse, abortion is the most devastating force in American history. And the end of days is closer than you think... (coronavirus is a biological weapon, sole purpose is to END constitutional rule in America. - America will never recover from this. And you can take that to the bank.

Oh, stop it.
I'm being perfectly honest. Any objective thinker knows that a true humanitarian doesn't support the murder of unborn children.

You seriously think that women (and couples) who choose abortion do it because they are genocidal maniacs?
The onus is on the abortion industry and planned parenthood. The blood is on their hands. Most mothers/couples are not genocidal maniacs, however, abortion does make the mother a killer and the father guilty by association. That doesn't sound like a very positive "silver bullet" we were promised by the abortion lobbyists who said abortion would solve a great deal of problems in our nation.

Yes, there is a very easy way for you to create this society - By minding your own business. If you do not want sex before marriage and/or sex without reproduction, that is fine. However, it is not fine to demand government to force your ideals onto everybody else... Unless you are a Statist and altruist of course. Which you are. :)
You have to remember, the founding fathers were totally opposed to abortion. Being the true conservative and constitutionalist that I am, it's fair to make the statement that abortion goes against the very foundations of our society.

To terminate an unwanted pregnancy.

No, it's the killing they are after. They could care less about the mother, who's a victim and a killer all at the same time.

If you think getting an abortion is more enriching than having a child you are woefully mistaken.
 
Last edited:
Okay, so for me... How do I come to the conclusion that abortion is detrimental to society?

Excellent question, in fact, it's the crux of this entire thread. First off, I think it cheapens life. And devalues the sanctity of life. And I wont go into much detail here, but for sure we can get into that later.

It means we can snuff out a flame because we want to focus on our career, or our relationship or just ourselves for that matter. Or if we are not quite ready (i.e. convenience) or prepared, or if you would prefer to spend your savings on a new car rather than your unborn child, you can do that too. To me, this is a betrayal of family values. A completed women is a grandmother with a loving family. The bond between mother and child is like no other, and yet we advise women against achieving this goal? That seems so far out of place in my opinion.

One problem is that conservatives and liberals don't see eye to eye on the finality of abortion. (I'm generalizing now, not talking about any of you guys or gals in particular. And don't get me wrong, you do bring some good arguments to the table.) But the main reflection that sticks with me seems to be the value of a life. People in agreement with abortion tend to see the value of life as contingent on the mother's point of view. If you don't like your child, abort it. If you love your child, keep it. Things like this. Life should me measured by a standard, not a double standard.

This is a double standard, and I personally feel like we are giving women a very overwhelming and confusing choice, that has serious implications, far beyond what your local planned parenthood is going to tell you about. And we can get into those specific "ramifications" a little bit later.

I have to go eat dinner, but I will say that society applies a lot of pressure to do one thing or the other, and women just find themselves in the crossfire of a much larger issue. And sadly, many potential mothers regret aborting their own children. It can have a lasting effect, and a ripple effect. Larger than even you may know.

Night Rider says, "I need to stop expounding on women's confusion about choices and how they have fallen prey to Planned Parenthood's evil propaganda that women's lives matter. They have cheapened our world by frivolously aborting our precious little flames of innocent life instead of achieving their natural role in society. I have to stop telling you how they have betrayed our family values, because, my wife, a completed women, has put my dinner on my table. "

Just one question: Has any women ever decided your life's role as a male as completely and as thoroughly as you have just done for all women?
 
....... we have seen multiple instances of women actually using abortion as their preferred method of birth control. This is a very disturbing revelation. Because it means Planned Parenthood is onboard for multiple abortions for the same mother (ironically they have quotas in place for actual volume of abortions per month) Maybe it's the money they are after? And since when does "healthcare" kill people?

No , you have absolutely not see multiple cases of women using abortion for birth control. This is vicious propaganda from the anti-abortion mill. Women are not the vacuous air heads you seem to think they are and they are using abortion thoughtfully and responsibly. And unless you can find honest reliable documented proof that mis-using abortion in this way is wide spread you can stf up, because you don't know what you are talking about. Mouthing crap you know are lies is dishonest, hypocritical and irresponsible, all the things you accuse women of being when they don't fulfil your idea of their natural role.
 
You have to remember, the founding fathers were totally opposed to abortion. Being the true conservative and constitutionalist that I am, it's fair to make the statement that abortion goes against the very foundations of our society.

You are as clueless about history as you are about your attitude towards women. Abortion was acceptable and practiced until "quickening" up until the mid-19th century. It became illegal when male doctors discovered how lucrative obstetrics could be. Midwives had long practiced both birthing and abortion and were cutting into the doctors business. Eventually the AMA made midwifery illegal also.
 
Last edited:
Does Life Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness mean anything to you ? Or is it death, oppression and pursuit of sadness? Apparently the latter, considering you are okay with the slaughter of 60,000,000 children, without batting an eye.
It means nothing to me since I am not even American.

I agree with this, however, we have seen multiple instances of women actually using abortion as their preferred method of birth control. This is a very disturbing revelation. Because it means Planned Parenthood is onboard for multiple abortions for the same mother (ironically they have quotas in place for actual volume of abortions per month) Maybe it's the money they are after? And since when does "healthcare" kill people?
Yes, Planned Parenthood should be defunded asap.

I'm being perfectly honest. Any objective thinker knows that a true humanitarian doesn't support the murder of unborn children.
I am not a humanitarian though.

You have to remember, the founding fathers were totally opposed to abortion. Being the true conservative and constitutionalist that I am, it's fair to make the statement that abortion goes against the very foundations of our society.
I am not interested in what your superheroes wrote in their book.


If you think getting an abortion is more enriching than having a child you are woefully mistaken.
No one has ever claimed that it is.
 
Easy. The unborn children can be grouped. Yes, abortion is genocide. But I've yet to hear a liberal bold enough to admit it.
Except people are not trying to kill all unborn at all. Not even close. Genocide is trying to kill all of a group specifically.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
Okay, so for me... How do I come to the conclusion that abortion is detrimental to society?

Excellent question, in fact, it's the crux of this entire thread. First off, I think it cheapens life. And devalues the sanctity of life. And I wont go into much detail here, but for sure we can get into that later.

It means we can snuff out a flame because we want to focus on our career, or our relationship or just ourselves for that matter. Or if we are not quite ready (i.e. convenience) or prepared, or if you would prefer to spend your savings on a new car rather than your unborn child, you can do that too. To me, this is a betrayal of family values. A completed women is a grandmother with a loving family. The bond between mother and child is like no other, and yet we advise women against achieving this goal? That seems so far out of place in my opinion.

One problem is that conservatives and liberals don't see eye to eye on the finality of abortion. (I'm generalizing now, not talking about any of you guys or gals in particular. And don't get me wrong, you do bring some good arguments to the table.) But the main reflection that sticks with me seems to be the value of a life. People in agreement with abortion tend to see the value of life as contingent on the mother's point of view. If you don't like your child, abort it. If you love your child, keep it. Things like this. Life should me measured by a standard, not a double standard.

This is a double standard, and I personally feel like we are giving women a very overwhelming and confusing choice, that has serious implications, far beyond what your local planned parenthood is going to tell you about. And we can get into those specific "ramifications" a little bit later.

I have to go eat dinner, but I will say that society applies a lot of pressure to do one thing or the other, and women just find themselves in the crossfire of a much larger issue. And sadly, many potential mothers regret aborting their own children. It can have a lasting effect, and a ripple effect. Larger than even you may know.

Not allowing abortion to be a choice cheapens life to being about time alive rather than our experiences, how that time is spent, the meaning of the life. Surviving is not in itself living.

How about the person prefers to ensure their other children have enough food, a place to live, clothing, diapers, a mother who actually can see pend time with them? Those are all considerations made when it comes to abortion. Do you think the life of an unborn who could die after most abortions are normally done anyway and take the mother with him/her is more important than those other children or the mother herself?

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
Which would be very rude of you. Would you like being called a liberal because you advocate for govt intrusion into our personal lives? A true conservative is against that.





Why should I? There are more than enough people on the planet - in fact there are too many.




Sez who? Once again, abortion is not genocide.





*Yawn*




The consequence of sex is an orgasm.




Feel free to apply that to your pregnancies. Oh, wait....






To terminate pregnancy.
Not all sex ends in orgasm. Unfortunately.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
You are as clueless about history as you are about your attitude towards women. Abortion was acceptable and practiced until "quickening" up until the mid-19th century. It became illegal when male doctors discovered how lucrative obstetrics could be. Midwives had long practiced both birthing and abortion and were cutting into the doctors business. Eventually the AMA made midwifery illegal also.

Actually, abortion was never acceptable ( at least up until 1973 when the abortion lobbyists lied to Norma McCorvey who intern lied to the supreme court, who, incidentally, never aborted her child, moreover, Norma became a staunch defender of unborn children for the latter half of her life, but I digress...). At least if we are going by US history. It was considered a heinous misdemeanor. You've also misinterpreted the data. You know how conservatives misjudge Sanger for being "racist" based on her poor choice of words relative to blacks? Well it's clear that's not what she meant. And this is where pro choice people have a serious disconnect, relative to the founding father's interpretation of the moral and ethical consequences of abortion. The "quickening" was the first sign of life and the first indicator that a child is on the way.

Another way to put it? The founding father's wanted unborn children to be protected from their first sign of life in the womb to their dying breath. And I don't mean "dying breath" as from the tools of an abortionist, but their dying breath as when they are old and have lived a long and purposeful life, totally protected from some who would prefer to rob them of that god given right to life.
 
Actually, abortion was never acceptable ( at least up until 1973 when the abortion lobbyists lied to Norma McCorvey who intern(sic) lied to the supreme court, who, incidentally, never aborted her child, moreover, Norma became a staunch defender of unborn children for the latter half of her life, but I digress...). At least if we are going by US history. It was considered a heinous misdemeanor. You've also misinterpreted the data. You know how conservatives misjudge Sanger for being "racist" based on her poor choice of words relative to blacks? Well it's clear that's not what she meant. And this is where pro choice people have a serious disconnect, relative to the founding father's interpretation of the moral and ethical consequences of abortion. The "quickening" was the first sign of life and the first indicator that a child is on the way.

Another way to put it? The founding father's wanted unborn children to be protected from their first sign of life in the womb to their dying breath. And I don't mean "dying breath" as from the tools of an abortionist, but their dying breath as when they are old and have lived a long and purposeful life, totally protected from some who would prefer to rob them of that god given right to life.

So why didn't they make abortion illegal?
 
Another way to put it? The founding father's wanted unborn children to be protected from their first sign of life in the womb to their dying breath.

Yeah? Where is that evidence?
 
Actually, abortion was never acceptable ( at least up until 1973 when the abortion lobbyists lied to Norma McCorvey who intern lied to the supreme court, who, incidentally, never aborted her child, moreover, Norma became a staunch defender of unborn children for the latter half of her life, but I digress...). At least if we are going by US history. It was considered a heinous misdemeanor. You've also misinterpreted the data. You know how conservatives misjudge Sanger for being "racist" based on her poor choice of words relative to blacks? Well it's clear that's not what she meant. And this is where pro choice people have a serious disconnect, relative to the founding father's interpretation of the moral and ethical consequences of abortion. The "quickening" was the first sign of life and the first indicator that a child is on the way.

Another way to put it? The founding father's wanted unborn children to be protected from their first sign of life in the womb to their dying breath. And I don't mean "dying breath" as from the tools of an abortionist, but their dying breath as when they are old and have lived a long and purposeful life, totally protected from some who would prefer to rob them of that god given right to life.

Mis-interpreted what data? There isn't any data here, only some weird mix of Sanger, Founding Fathers, and Norma McCorvey all of whom you seem to think lived contemporaneously.
 
Yeah? Where is that evidence?

One of the most authoritative sources for learning law during the founding era was William Blackstones Commentaries on the Laws of England. Blackstone, a distinguished English jurist, was so well-liked by the founding fathers that he was the second most frequently cited thinker in the American political writings of the founding era. American law students studied his work so religiously that Thomas Jefferson wrote to a friend that “Blackstone is to us what the Koran is to the Muslims.”

Blackstone affirmed in his Commentaries that an individual’s right to life is an “immediate gift of God.” This right to life is legally binding “as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother’s womb.” Per Blackstone,

“For if a woman is quick with child, and by a potion, or otherwise kills it in her womb; or if any one beat her, whereby the child dies in her body, and she is delivered of a dead child; this, though not murder, was by the ancient law homicide or manslaughter. But at present it is not looked upon in quite so atrocious a light, though it remains a very heinous misdemeanor.”

Interestingly, Blackstone also explains that fetuses “in the mother’s womb” are legally considered “to be born.” Thus, the law considered a fetus to be his or her own person, independent of the mother.

From these commentaries, the founding fathers learned that any abortion perpetrated after the stirring of an infant in the mother’s womb was a “heinous misdemeanor.”

American courts upheld this traditional common law approach in characterizing abortion as a misdemeanor. Founding father James Wilson, a signatory of the Declaration of Independence and original U.S. Supreme Court justice, taught his law students that,

“With consistency, beautiful and undeviating, human life, from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law. In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb. By the law, life is protected not only from immediate destruction, but from every degree of actual violence, and, in some cases, from every degree of danger.”

Similarly, St. George Tucker, a Madison judicial appointee and professor of law at the College of William and Mary, explained in his celebrated legal treatise on American law that it is “a great misprision [misdemeanor]” to “kill a child in its mother’s womb.”

Laws in American states criminalized abortion from the beginning. For example, Virginia law outlawed the practice of using “potion” to “unlawfully destroy the child within her [womb].” These laws were crafted by many of the same individuals who framed the Constitution.

It is therefore inconceivable that the framers intended constitutional protections for abortion as a “fundamental right.” Indeed, the framers believed the opposite. From their perspective, the unborn child has a fundamental right to life, a right that would be infringed by an abortion that ends his or her life.
A “fundamental right to abortion” does not exist in the Constitution or its amendments. It is the height of intellectual dishonesty to argue that the authors of the Constitution and its amendments intended to protect abortion under some vague and unwritten “right to privacy.” That so many courts and judges have for so long upheld a legal doctrine antagonistic to the Constitution reveals the rogue nature of the modern judiciary.


Full Source Can be Found here:
Is abortion constitutional? Let’s ask the founders – Family Policy Institute of Washington
 
Back
Top Bottom