[W:183]Let's have a real discussion about abortion

[Patriotic Voter]

After countless petty arguments that break down into personal attacks in almost every abortion thread, we are long overdue for real, constructive discussions here. That means no matter how you feel about every pregnant citizen's right to have a legal abortion, you must avoid letting emotions rule and totally ignore the facts. Emotions are great, but facts always come first. If your opinions are based on emotions, they are worthless because there are no facts to support them. Yes, I am talking to the anti-choicers here, but pro-choicers have to do their part too. On both sides, the rule is, "If you can't prove it, you're wrong."

With all of that said, let's begin. The United States Constitution is very clear that zygotes, blastocysts, embryos, and fetuses have no rights and all girls and women have the rights to privacy, bodily autonomy, and lifestyle choices. This can't be denied. Also undeniable are the definitions of murder and homicide, which have always been limited to killing born humans for malicious reasons in both English dictionaries and books about law. So the abortion debate is not about if the right to have abortions does exist, but everything else - sociology, biology, maternity, crimes, and personal finance.

 

[maquiscat]

Re: Let's have a real discussion about abortion

Also undeniable are the definitions of murder and homicide, which have always been limited to killing born humans for malicious reasons in both English dictionaries and books about law.

I am going to make one correction here. And feel free to show me otherwise. But homicide is not necessarily killing with malicious reason. Accidental homicide can occur. Homicide is simply the killing of another human being. But yes, it does only include the born within that definition.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk

 

[Phys251]

Re: Let's have a real discussion about abortion

After countless petty arguments that break down into personal attacks in almost every abortion thread, we are long overdue for real, constructive discussions here. That means no matter how you feel about every pregnant citizen's right to have a legal abortion, you must avoid letting emotions rule and totally ignore the facts. Emotions are great, but facts always come first. If your opinions are based on emotions, they are worthless because there are no facts to support them. Yes, I am talking to the anti-choicers here, but pro-choicers have to do their part too. On both sides, the rule is, "If you can't prove it, you're wrong."

With all of that said, let's begin. The United States Constitution is very clear that zygotes, blastocysts, embryos, and fetuses have no rights and all girls and women have the rights to privacy, bodily autonomy, and lifestyle choices. This can't be denied. Also undeniable are the definitions of murder and homicide, which have always been limited to killing born humans for malicious reasons in both English dictionaries and books about law. So the abortion debate is not about if the right to have abortions does exist, but everything else - sociology, biology, maternity, crimes, and personal finance.

The underlined phrase is where prolifers fail every single time. They get so caught up in the emotions of "protecting an 'innocent life'" that they refuse to:
-Acknowledge that their prolife-ism ends immediately at birth
-Does not address the underlying reasons for abortions
-Does not take proactive, non-punitive steps to decrease abortions

If prolifers would do these three things, just these three things, I might give their arguments a chance again.

 

[weaver2]

Re: Let's have a real discussion about abortion

After countless petty arguments that break down into personal attacks in almost every abortion thread, we are long overdue for real, constructive discussions here. That means no matter how you feel about every pregnant citizen's right to have a legal abortion, you must avoid letting emotions rule and totally ignore the facts. Emotions are great, but facts always come first. If your opinions are based on emotions, they are worthless because there are no facts to support them. Yes, I am talking to the anti-choicers here, but pro-choicers have to do their part too. On both sides, the rule is, "If you can't prove it, you're wrong."

With all of that said, let's begin. The United States Constitution is very clear that zygotes, blastocysts, embryos, and fetuses have no rights and all girls and women have the rights to privacy, bodily autonomy, and lifestyle choices. This can't be denied. Also undeniable are the definitions of murder and homicide, which have always been limited to killing born humans for malicious reasons in both English dictionaries and books about law. So the abortion debate is not about if the right to have abortions does exist, but everything else - sociology, biology, maternity, crimes, and personal finance.

The pro-choice people that post on this topic have provided supportable reasons why having a choice is rational and intelligent for everyone concerned. Most of us do not call names unless completely exasperated by the insistence of old white conservative Christian men that women who get abortions are murderers that should be denied rights enjoyed others. So good luck but don't expect anything very civil from the anti-abortion people.

 

[Integrityrespec]

Re: Let's have a real discussion about abortion

After countless petty arguments that break down into personal attacks in almost every abortion thread, we are long overdue for real, constructive discussions here. That means no matter how you feel about every pregnant citizen's right to have a legal abortion, you must avoid letting emotions rule and totally ignore the facts. Emotions are great, but facts always come first. If your opinions are based on emotions, they are worthless because there are no facts to support them. Yes, I am talking to the anti-choicers here, but pro-choicers have to do their part too. On both sides, the rule is, "If you can't prove it, you're wrong."

With all of that said, let's begin. The United States Constitution is very clear that zygotes, blastocysts, embryos, and fetuses have no rights and all girls and women have the rights to privacy, bodily autonomy, and lifestyle choices. This can't be denied. Also undeniable are the definitions of murder and homicide, which have always been limited to killing born humans for malicious reasons in both English dictionaries and books about law. So the abortion debate is not about if the right to have abortions does exist, but everything else - sociology, biology, maternity, crimes, and personal finance.

You have a high opinion of your belief that women should be able to abort unborn babies based on it being the right thing. Well, killing unborn babies is not the "right thing" to do and your moral compass is f'd up.

 

[btthegreat]

Re: Let's have a real discussion about abortion

After countless petty arguments that break down into personal attacks in almost every abortion thread, we are long overdue for real, constructive discussions here. That means no matter how you feel about every pregnant citizen's right to have a legal abortion, you must avoid letting emotions rule and totally ignore the facts. Emotions are great, but facts always come first. If your opinions are based on emotions, they are worthless because there are no facts to support them. Yes, I am talking to the anti-choicers here, but pro-choicers have to do their part too. On both sides, the rule is, "If you can't prove it, you're wrong."

With all of that said, let's begin. The United States Constitution is very clear that zygotes, blastocysts, embryos, and fetuses have no rights and all girls and women have the rights to privacy, bodily autonomy, and lifestyle choices. This can't be denied. Also undeniable are the definitions of murder and homicide, which have always been limited to killing born humans for malicious reasons in both English dictionaries and books about law. So the abortion debate is not about if the right to have abortions does exist, but everything else - sociology, biology, maternity, crimes, and personal finance.

Well lets correct this right now. You are confusing what is the law which is not really under debate, with what ought to be the law, which should always be on the table for debate. Roe v Wade is constantly being re-examined as judges explore its boundaries with new generation of jurists having their say to the 1972 decision. the definitions of murder and homicide are sitting in state statutes just like every other crime as legislators add, subtract or reword details in the revised criminal statutes. New crimes defining providing abortion, facilitating abortion, etc can be outside the framework of homicide or murder charges. They get changed, modified and amended a hundred times every legislative session. no reason this topic should not excluded from the process. The question becomes which direction do our representatives move and how much leeway with SCOTUS provide for them to wiggle in. And then we have administrative law/ regulations and liability under tort actions outside the criminal purview which also supposedly reflect our changing values and priorities. No reason Abortion clinics, doctors, and pro life protesters should be immune from those pressures. the mere fact that Roe exists is virtually meaningless when courts are designed to respond to public pressure over time, and an amendment process is provided for the entire document.

Nothing in this issue is a given.

So now you can add back the law to your long list of debatable topics.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

Re: Let's have a real discussion about abortion

You have a high opinion of your belief that women should be able to abort unborn babies based on it being the right thing. Well, killing unborn babies is not the right thing to do and your moral compass is messed up.

First of all, women never kill babies when they want their pregnancies to end. They ask doctors to do it for them. This way, the embryo or fetus is humanely killed in a safe enviorment by a trained professional. Even if the way you wrote it was true, that would mean she shot herself between her stomach and crotch. Of course, such an act would be murder/suicide as a result of internal bleeding, so I can't imagine a woman trying to kill her fetus that way.

Nowhere in my first post did I even imply women should have abortions or it is the "right thing" just because my morality differs from yours. To the contrary, I was very specific that any law forcing a pregnant woman to carry her unwanted fetus to term would be unconstitutional. Based on this fact, banning abortion is immoral even if in her case she should choose not to have one.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

Re: Let's have a real discussion about abortion

Well lets correct this right now. You are confusing what is the law which is not really under debate, with what ought to be the law, which should always be on the table for debate. Roe v. Wade is constantly being re-examined as judges explore its boundaries with new generation of jurists having their say to the 1972 decision. The definitions of murder and homicide are sitting in state statutes just like every other crime as legislators add, subtract or reword details in the revised criminal statutes. New crimes defining providing abortion, facilitating abortion, etc can be outside the framework of homicide or murder charges. They get changed, modified and amended a hundred times every legislative session. no reason this topic should not excluded from the process. The question becomes which direction do our representatives move and how much leeway with SCOTUS provide for them to wiggle in. And then we have administrative law/ regulations and liability under tort actions outside the criminal purview which also supposedly reflect our changing values and priorities. No reason Abortion clinics, doctors, and pro life protesters should be immune from those pressures. the mere fact that Roe exists is virtually meaningless when courts are designed to respond to public pressure over time, and an amendment process is provided for the entire document.

Nothing in this issue is a given.

So now you can add back the law to your long list of debatable topics.

OK so let's say "constitutional" right. No matter what changes are made in this area as you pointed out, Section 1 of the 14th Amendment will never be repealed; neither will the 9th Amendment, which was also used in the Roe vs. Wade decision. We can also apply - based on patient confidentiality laws - the 4th Amendment, whch keeps medical records private. What changes would you propose that do not exceed these constitutional limitations?

BTW the ruling happenedd in 1973.

 

[Bok Tuklo]

Re: Let's have a real discussion about abortion

Both sides of the issue rely too heavily on dehumanization.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

Re: Let's have a real discussion about abortion

Well lets correct this right now. You are confusing what is the law which is not really under debate, with what ought to be the law, which should always be on the table for debate. Roe v. Wade is constantly being re-examined as judges explore its boundaries with new generation of jurists having their say to the 1972 decision. The definitions of murder and homicide are sitting in state statutes just like every other crime as legislators add, subtract or reword details in the revised criminal statutes. New crimes defining providing abortion, facilitating abortion, etc can be outside the framework of homicide or murder charges. They get changed, modified and amended a hundred times every legislative session. no reason this topic should not excluded from the process. The question becomes which direction do our representatives move and how much leeway with SCOTUS provide for them to wiggle in. And then we have administrative law/ regulations and liability under tort actions outside the criminal purview which also supposedly reflect our changing values and priorities. No reason Abortion clinics, doctors, and pro life protesters should be immune from those pressures. the mere fact that Roe exists is virtually meaningless when courts are designed to respond to public pressure over time, and an amendment process is provided for the entire document.

Nothing in this issue is a given.

So now you can add back the law to your long list of debatable topics.

OK so let's say "constitutional" right. No matter what changes are made in this area as you pointed out, Section 1 of the 14th Amendment will never be repealed; neither will the 9th Amendment, which was also used in the Roe vs. Wade decision. We can also apply - based on patient confidentiality laws - the 4th Amendment, whch keeps medical records private. What changes would you propose that do not exceed these constitutional limitations?

BTW the ruling happenedd in 1973.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

Re: Let's have a real discussion about abortion

Both sides of the issue rely too heavily on dehumanization.

I do not dehumanize embyros. Nobody can convince me a zygote is a new, separate human life. The difference is in word games: when should we start calling that new life a human being instead of just human?

 

[Bok Tuklo]

Re: Let's have a real discussion about abortion

I do not dehumanize embyros. Nobody can convince me a zygote is a new, separate human life.

What species are they?

 

[btthegreat]

Re: Let's have a real discussion about abortion

OK so let's say "constitutional" right. No matter what changes are made in this area as you pointed out, Section 1 of the 14th Amendment will never be repealed; neither will the 9th Amendment, which was also used in the Roe vs. Wade decision. We can also apply - based on patient confidentiality laws - the 4th Amendment, whch keeps medical records private. What changes would you propose that do not exceed these constitutional limitations?

BTW the ruling happenedd in 1973.

No, I thought I was pretty clear that the constitutional right to privacy, the foundation of Roe, is not sitting in cement any more than Miranda has cemented a right to have basic civil liberties explained upon arrest. The Origins and History of the Right to Privacy. It was described first in a dissents by Justice Brandeis in 1928 and Justice Harlan in 1961. It got its 'majority' in 1965 under Griswold. These are all moving targets, that swing in a very very slow deliberate political breeze. As more conservative Presidents and Senators reflect the tastes and opinions of the public in their appointments from jurists that reflect a different cultural bias, so too, these are eventually reflected in these decisions. That is why it is important not to let them stick around and pack the court.

The confidentiality laws may have an indirect foundation in the notion of 'privacy' as a value and priority in our society, but its all a reflection of public policy as directed by statutes, that I fully endorse by the way. The fourth amendment has nothing to do with containing the business practices of some insurance company or doctors office. Its just a law like any other. It could be erased by a simple majority of legislators and a presidential signature as easily as it arrived.

Let me be clear. I am not proposing any changes either in the interpretation or application of this right of privacy as a constitutional doctrine, or Roe, or even public policy in statutes. I am saying that its all always up for debate in a dynamic republic. Maybe we ought to discuss extending that woman's right to her own body beyond that 3 trimester test in Roe!

I am pro choice, but that does not mean I think we should shut up about the law or the constitution and just discuss economics or social implications of abortion. That is just not how these things work! Those debates need to happen and we need to win them.

 

[Decypher]

Re: Let's have a real discussion about abortion

Roe Vs Wade is not going anywhere. Same as the 2nd amendment. People can bang their head against the wall all day long if they like but that isn’t changing.

One solution could be what we have with the death penalty. It’s one of these hot button issues like abortion and guns. Some states have the death penalty and some don’t. So some states could have abortion and no guns and some states could have the opposite.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

Re: Let's have a real discussion about abortion

What species are they?

Homo sapiens, of course. What else?

 

[Patriotic Voter]

Re: Let's have a real discussion about abortion

Roe Vs Wade is not going anywhere. Same as the 2nd amendment. People can bang their head against the wall all day long if they like but that isn’t changing.

One solution could be what we have with the death penalty. It’s one of these hot button issues like abortion and guns. Some states have the death penalty and some don’t. So some states could have abortion and no guns and some states could have the opposite.

I have seen abortion opponents try to compare it to the death penalty before, but it makes no sense. A more logical one is euthanasia, which is legal in some states.

 

[Integrityrespec]

Re: Let's have a real discussion about abortion

First of all, women never kill babies when they want their pregnancies to end. They ask doctors to do it for them. This way, the embryo or fetus is humanely killed in a safe enviorment by a trained professional. Even if the way you wrote it was true, that would mean she shot herself between her stomach and crotch. Of course, such an act would be murder/suicide as a result of internal bleeding, so I can't imagine a woman trying to kill her fetus that way.

Nowhere in my first post did I even imply women should have abortions or it is the "right thing" just because my morality differs from yours. To the contrary, I was very specific that any law forcing a pregnant woman to carry her unwanted fetus to term would be unconstitutional. Based on this fact, banning abortion is immoral even if in her case she should choose not to have one.

Your opinion is based on someone else's opinion of what the "law" should be. Once upon a time we had a law that said it was ok to own another person and do with them as you like. Abortion is sort of like that. According to your opinion a woman owns that "fetus" and can do with it what ever she likes. Chose to kill it or to let it live. We wisely did away with that law that allowed us to own other people and do with them whatever we wanted. Hopefully we will get rid of the current one that allows us to "own" another person, (born or not).

 

[lurchadams]

Re: Let's have a real discussion about abortion

After countless petty arguments that break down into personal attacks in almost every abortion thread, we are long overdue for real, constructive discussions here. That means no matter how you feel about every pregnant citizen's right to have a legal abortion, you must avoid letting emotions rule and totally ignore the facts. Emotions are great, but facts always come first. If your opinions are based on emotions, they are worthless because there are no facts to support them. Yes, I am talking to the anti-choicers here, but pro-choicers have to do their part too. On both sides, the rule is, "If you can't prove it, you're wrong."

With all of that said, let's begin. The United States Constitution is very clear that zygotes, blastocysts, embryos, and fetuses have no rights and all girls and women have the rights to privacy, bodily autonomy, and lifestyle choices. This can't be denied. Also undeniable are the definitions of murder and homicide, which have always been limited to killing born humans for malicious reasons in both English dictionaries and books about law. So the abortion debate is not about if the right to have abortions does exist, but everything else - sociology, biology, maternity, crimes, and personal finance.

Nope!

 

[Bok Tuklo]

Re: Let's have a real discussion about abortion

Homo sapiens, of course. What else?

Beats me. I believe they are human.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

Re: Let's have a real discussion about abortion

Your opinion is based on someone else's opinion of what the "law" should be. Once upon a time we had a law that said it was ok to own another person and do with them as you like. Abortion is sort of like that. According to your opinion a woman owns that "fetus" and can do with it what ever she likes. Chose to kill it or to let it live. We wisely did away with that law that allowed us to own other people and do with them whatever we wanted. Hopefully we will get rid of the current one that allows us to "own" another person, (born or not).

It is not my opinion at all. It is an absolute fact that cannot be disputed. Also, we are not talking about laws. This is all about the United States Constitution. If you know the 13th Amendment surely you also know the 14th Amendment because they were both written to make black people American citizens with the same rights as whites.

Can you repeat to me Section 1 of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution?

 

[vegas giants]

Re: Let's have a real discussion about abortion

Beats me. I believe they are human.

Dead humans after the abortion.....or get your money back

 

[weaver2]

Re: Let's have a real discussion about abortion

You have a high opinion of your belief that women should be able to abort unborn babies based on it being the right thing. Well, killing unborn babies is not the "right thing" to do and your moral compass is f'd up.

Women kill unborn babies. They are murderers, Their moral compasses are fooked up.

What a nice intelligent, supportable, emotionless and thoughtful opening to a discussion on abortion. :fueltofir

 

[Scrabaholic]

Re: Let's have a real discussion about abortion

Your opinion is based on someone else's opinion of what the "law" should be. Once upon a time we had a law that said it was ok to own another person and do with them as you like. Abortion is sort of like that. According to your opinion a woman owns that "fetus" and can do with it what ever she likes. Chose to kill it or to let it live. We wisely did away with that law that allowed us to own other people and do with them whatever we wanted. Hopefully we will get rid of the current one that allows us to "own" another person, (born or not).

First of, zefs aren't persons. FACT.

Second, it seems that anti choicers want to own pregnant women....

 

[Robertinfremont]

Re: Let's have a real discussion about abortion

The underlined phrase is where prolifers fail every single time. They get so caught up in the emotions of "protecting an 'innocent life'" that they refuse to:
-Acknowledge that their prolife-ism ends immediately at birth
-Does not address the underlying reasons for abortions
-Does not take proactive, non-punitive steps to decrease abortions

If prolifers would do these three things, just these three things, I might give their arguments a chance again.

There is one good thing about abortion that none of us can deny. It severely curtailed the crime rate among blacks. We can clap loudly for that.

 

[Robertinfremont]

Re: Let's have a real discussion about abortion

It is not my opinion at all. It is an absolute fact that cannot be disputed. Also, we are not talking about laws. This is all about the United States Constitution. If you know the 13th Amendment surely you also know the 14th Amendment because they were both written to make black people American citizens with the same rights as whites.

Can you repeat to me Section 1 of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution?

Why then since the 14th amendment was made our law in 1868 did so many states have anti abortion laws? Seems they then could cite the 14th. Why didn't they?