Legalized Abortion
is a Civil Liberties centric issueIf the issue at hand was explicitly abortion...
Forums > If the issue at hand was explicitly abortion...
If the issue at hand was explicitly abortion...
If the title of this article suggested that it was meant to be strictly about abortion, how would everyone respond to it?
I know that I would still be in favor of this, not because I am for the killing of fetuses, but because I think that people have the right to make a judgment about whether or not one should get an abortion without having the government hand you an opinion. The Supreme Court has decided that this is a right that women have, based on the 1st Amendment's inferred right to privacy. The states are free to make restrictions on abortion, such as after how long it cannot be performed, or how minors must go about obtaining one, but they cannot outlaw it.
As a tangent, what about the "day after pill" that allows women to chemically abort a fetus within three days of conception by using a mix of natural hormones (though at an unnatural time and in unnatural quantities).
I believe that Bill Clinton said it best when he said: "Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare."
The fourteenth amendment explicitly contains a right to life. Rights that are explicitly stated in the Consitution need to be protected more than those that are merely implied. And doesn't abortion invade a fetus' privacy as well? Life is a fundamental right- without it, all our other rights are meaningless.
The core of the issue is whether or not Constitutional rights apply to the unborn. The distinction between born and unborn is arbitrary. It is a man-made construct- both are equally human. In the past, whenever we have denied rights to a certain group of humans- such as women, or non-white people- the results have been atrocities. Abortion is also an atrocity, and it's time that it ended.
I have also heard "Safe, legal, and rare." But the past 34 years have proven that legality does not bring rarity with it- there are more than 1.3 million abortions in the United States every year. It doesn't necessarily bring safety with it, either: the maternal death rate from illegal abortion began declining long before Roe v Wade, and after Roe v Wade, the rate of decline didn't change at all. See graph- http://abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_27.asp#illegal.
Unfortunately this issue is very divisive. Most people are not willing to consider the other side and the issue has become a political device. Many people put their support behind a candidate because they vow to outlaw abortion. They cling to this one issue when they enter the polling booth. I believe that the pro life candidates will always attempt to fall short of outlawing abortion because the issue gets voters to the polls. By the way, pro choice does not mean pro abortion.
Yeah, I definitely agree with Bill Clinton. And in response to the "right to life" argument: the "right to life" implies that there is a life at stake--a life involving consciousness. An embryo or even a fetus is no more than a cluster of cells. If this was about killing a living baby, I would feel differently. I don't support abortion, but the government has absolutely no right to tell a woman what she can or cannot do to her body. If you can't trust a woman with a choice, how can you trust her with a child?
The facts are clear. Abortion ends a human life, and human life is suposed to be protected by the Constitution. Proof of life - without the abortion, a human life would persist. You can try to argue it hasn't technically started yet, but that is simply illogical. Something clearly has started. If it isn't life, what is it? Does the argument pass the kindergarden test - can the argument for "choice" be understood a preschooler? Children know the bump in mommy's belly is a baby, it is only the less innocent adults who want to call it something else. With enough "education" we all could be so cold. To say it is "no more than a cluster of cells" is like saying the mass between your ears is no more valuable or useful than a turnip. There is huge money in legalized abortion, and it is time we recognized it for what it is, a business. Why does the left protect everything but the unborn? Money, big money...and thanks for the link Mariam... http://abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_27.asp#illegal.
Amendment XIV Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. With this reading of the 14th amendment I believe that the argument about protecting a fetus from death is no long applicable. It appears to me that a fetus or unborn child is not covered in the constitution because it has neither been born an American citizen nor has be naturalized.
krajeda says:
"The facts are clear. Abortion ends a human life, and human life is suposed to be protected by the Constitution. Proof of life - without the abortion, a human life would persist. You can try to argue it hasn't technically started yet, but that is simply illogical. Something clearly has started. If it isn't life, what is it? Does the argument pass the kindergarden test - can the argument for "choice" be understood a preschooler? Children know the bump in mommy's belly is a baby, it is only the less innocent adults who want to call it something else. With enough "education" we all could be so cold. To say it is "no more than a cluster of cells" is like saying the mass between your ears is no more valuable or useful than a turnip. There is huge money in legalized abortion, and it is time we recognized it for what it is, a business. Why does the left protect everything but the unborn? Money, big money...and thanks for the link Mariam... http://abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_27.asp#illegal.
"
Krejeda, if i thought an abortion was the ending of a human life, i
would only be for it in an instance where the mother's health
became a risk. HOWEVER. a fetus does not, nor will it ever
constitute life itself. Life can be defined by what it takes for a
living organism to exist, and it basic biological terms the fetus
is too attached to its host (the mother via the umbilical chord) to
survive on its own so in this essence it is more like a virus which
is defined as a nonliving organism that often portrays the
qualities of a living organism. in some cases a very late term
abortion could give birth to a premature bably who could be
nourished back to health but those are outlawed anyway for that
very reason. so an early fetus is nothing more then a human entity,
like a hand, or leg, and rights are not extended to the entities
them self.
avicoh1 says:
"Yeah, I definitely agree with Bill Clinton. And in response to the "right to life" argument: the "right to life" implies that there is a life at stake--a life involving consciousness. An embryo or even a fetus is no more than a cluster of cells. If this was about killing a living baby, I would feel differently. I don't support abortion, but the government has absolutely no right to tell a woman what she can or cannot do to her body. If you can't trust a woman with a choice, how can you trust her with a child?"
Actually, it is about killing a living baby. And if you can't trust
a woman with a child, then just give the child up for adoption.
This is turning into an argument about differing beliefs in science, religion and the argument of what constitutes a human life. Abortions are going to be performed whether they are legal or illegal. Health and safety of undisputably living should be the first and only priority for the federal governmnet. Niels and Clinton have already said it best.
ffdesmond says:
"Amendment XIV Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. With this reading of the 14th amendment I believe that the argument about protecting a fetus from death is no long applicable. It appears to me that a fetus or unborn child is not covered in the constitution because it has neither been born an American citizen nor has be naturalized."
I think you should go back to the 5th grade and bone up on your language skills. But in the mean time, let's break that Section down like an educated reader should.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." Well said... please notice the period indicating a completed statement, and the term "citizens", as these will be useful details. Moving on, "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;" Oh yes, I love that part, and the excitement now is palitable isn't it! But wait, no period here... humm, what does that silly looking symbol mean? Is it a colon, or a semicolon... who really knows for sure. What matters is that it means get ready for more on the subject (of what laws the states may not make or enforce). And the sentence so continues, "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Now suddenly it isn't just "citizens", but extending to "persons", those added (and noticably more fundimental) rights and protections from the state... curious indeed.
Did the authors make this destinction on purpose? Oh, sure we can argue all day whether they did or didn't, but don't throw the Constitution at me and think I'll suddenly see abortion as a protected right of the mother. I read a little differently, and I beleive more carefully, what that document says.
Krejada thank you for critically interpreting that amendment, So many of us liberals can't read
But what about the part that says "all persons born yatta yatta yatta..." which allows these rights to be granted. My fragile mind hurts from the confusion it brings.
Would such a humble and just god as yourself please enlighten me, i know not how to tie my own shoes at times without guidance and only got to college because of my dashing good looks and the pity of my instructors..
Condescending jackass.
Now: let's take their "logic" to its logical conclusion.
Since an embryo is human and alive it must be saved at all costs. Now, follow the logic: sperm and ova are human and alive, so bang! No contraception. Since hair is human and alive, no more haircuts. No fingernail trimming, no tonsillectomies, no appendectomies which save thousands of lives annually, no gall bladder removals. Rotten and abcessed teeth -- leave em in. Let's party like it's 1499!
The funniest part of all this is that the evangelicals base this on their credo that the Bible is the literal word of God and must be obeyed. Read Numbers, chapter 5: it is a prescription for...abortion! If a husband suspects his wife of conceiving another man's child, he drags her by the hair to the priest, who makes her drink bitter waters, which makes horrible things happen between her legs -- the abortion. Contrariwise, if she did not commit adultery, she is allowed to carry her child to term.
Numbers:
12
If any man's wife go aside, and commit a trespass against him,
13 And a man lie with her carnally, and it be hid from the eyes of her husband, and be kept close, and she be defiled, and there be no witness against her, neither she be taken with the manner;
17 the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel; and of the dust that is in the floor of the tabernacle the priest shall take, and put it into the water:
19 And the priest shall charge her by an oath, and say unto the woman, If no man have lain with thee, and if thou hast not gone aside to uncleanness with another instead of thy husband, be thou free from this bitter water that causeth the curse:
20 But if thou hast gone aside to another instead of thy husband, and if thou be defiled, and some man have lain with thee beside thine husband:
21 Then the priest shall charge the woman with an oath of cursing, and the priest shall say unto the woman, The LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell;
22 And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen.
24 And he shall cause the woman to drink the bitter water that causeth the curse: and the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter.
25 Then the priest shall take the jealousy offering out of the woman's hand, and shall wave the offering before the LORD, and offer it upon the altar:
26 And the priest shall take an handful of the offering, even the memorial thereof, and burn it upon the altar, and afterward shall cause the woman to drink the water.
27 And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people.
28 And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed.
Making abortion illegal will have the same effect that making drugs illegal has, namely no effect on those who want to get abortions, an increase in cost and a decrease in safety to those who want abortions, and a stronger criminal element. Oh but what of the postitives, well, we will see fewer abortions from those people who are on the fence about getting an abortion, although this won't lead to any significant curtailing on the loss of "life" because for every moderate fetus not aborted you'll lose an adult to complications from a dirty and illegal abortion. Oh well, but they were a dirty murderers anyways, not some confused teenager or victim of sexual abuse or person who just couldn't physically or mentally handle childbearing so in the end net gains for those who want to criminalize it.
krajeda, well I guess I should thank you for the reading lesson, fortunately I have thick enough skin to withstand the onslaught from asshole conservatives. If you want to go down this route, fine, let us just decide when life begins is it when the heart beats or when the person gains consciousness. Then if you want to go down the road of the beating heart then is it murder to pull the plug on a brain dead patient? Unfortunately this leads us down the wrong road and away from the issue at hand. So, in closing it is my belief that the constitution protects a mother even in the instance of letting her get rid of an unwanted child, while it does not necessarily protect an unborn fetus. And finally people may say I need to go back to the 5th grade but at least I can spell "believe". Ass
First of all I don't think the government,either on federal or state level,need to decide if abortions should be legal or illegal.It is strickly a moral issue and we cannot control peoples morals.Secondly,I believe very strongly that if you play,you should pay.Abortion in my opinion should be avalible to those with serious health risks,either to the mothers or the fetus,victims of rape,incest,or any type of sexual crime,and not turned to as an answer because someone thinks it will interfer with their career or way of life.If the later is the case,then I think those type of people need to find a better way to avoid that situation,learn to keep their legs shut,or live with the consequenses!!!!!!!
What I am saying is ,if you play,you should pay.Simple as that.You don't go a spending spree with a credit card and not make the payments do you?People aren't allowed to break the law without paying the price of such actions are they?So why should someone who engages in sexual activity and gets pregnant have the option to terminate?They were dumb enough to get into that situation,they should be willing to face up to what a night of fun could cost them!!!Plus,as I said it is a moral issue,and no matter my personal beliefs on the matter,doesn't give me or anyone else the right to tell people what to do on this subject!I just think that they should common sense and not get into those situations.But as Confusious say "Common sense is not so common"!!!!
