Should Abortion Be Made Illegal Based On The State You Live In?

Jack Florey · Jan 30, 2020

columbus said:
As much as I oppose elective abortions I very much against making it a state issue.
If one state has one set of rules, and another state a different set, then everyone has the rights of the least restricted state provided they have the wherewithal to travel there. I think that's a dreadful breach of ethics.

I agree that it makes it a mess of conflicting law. But that would seem to be a practical problem, not an ethical one. The ethical decision is made by each person; whether or not they can implement that decision in the state they live in would be more of an implementation issue (IMO.)

As a example, a state may allow euthanasia or not. That does not really decide one's ethics on the euthanasia issue - just where the person has to go to spend their last days if they decide to avail themselves of it.

james bond · Jan 30, 2020

Subduction Zone said:
As usual you are all over the place. And of course you feel some need to bring in your errant "science" into the discussion.

To start with no one is claiming that a fetus is not alive, so your whole "only life begets life" nonsense is a strawman. Do you understand that? If we can't get past your worst error there is no hope for a meaningful dialogue.

I provided the link. Science has backed up the Bible in that the fetus is alive at conception.

What do you have? Nothing, but your comments which are wrong. It's wrong again as atheists are usually wrong

.

james bond · Jan 30, 2020

epronovost said:
In my country, abortions are legal and free (they are covered by public healthcare) and I live in the Province where they are the more easily available since we have a good network of clinics and I am very happy of it. I think abortions are a necessary if perhapse overused method of birth control. I think access to free abortions if even ''just in case'' have improved social mobility, health and happiness. In Canada, the court judgement that legalised the practice is also a lot stronger than those of the US who, I must admit, are based on a more fragile reasonning.

I'd love to see the libs in the US move to your country. What the topic proposes would influence libs and atheists here to do it. Can you handle it?

james bond · Jan 30, 2020

sun rise said:
My answer is no. I don't want religion mixed with government because I believe that the First Amendment guarantees that there is no state religion.

The attempt is by the far right to impose Christian Reconstructionism aka Theonomy (Rule by God's law) or Dominion theology.

In other words, the far right wants to make the USA's government resemble ISIS/Taliban except using the Bible rather than the Quran.

The right to life for the fetus would trump your argument. It also means repealing the abortion rights.

Revoltingest · Jan 30, 2020

james bond said:
Science has backed up the Bible in that the fetus is alive at conception.

I missed it.
Could you post it again, or state it in your own words.

It's wrong again as atheists are usually wrong .

Just dumb the evidence down so that we dim witted heathens can understand.

shmogie · Jan 30, 2020

james bond said:
First, abortion is a "constitutional" right. However, there isn't strong basis for it.

"Abortion is not a constitutional right according to the strict text of the Constitution, but it has been justified as a constitutional right under the Fourth Amendment’s protection of privacy. In short, the constitutional right to abortion is found not in the Constitution itself, but in a loose reading of it.

This constitutional argument is often used by pro-abortionists. As former U.S. President Barack Obama once asserted, “I remain committed to protecting a woman’s right to choose and this fundamental constitutional right.”1 Obama, once a law professor, should have known that this right doesn’t actually exist ― the Supreme Court literally conjured it out of thin air."

Why You’re Told There’s a Constitutional Right to Abortion

One of the arguments against it is the right of the unborn fetus and when life begins.

Only life begats life, so it appears science backs up the Bible and that life begins at conception.

"Human Life comes into existence in just a fraction of an instant. You have a human egg and a human sperm and their sole purpose in life is to meet each other and fuse, to create a one cell human being."

When Does Life Begin | Just The Facts

"“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
and before you were born jI consecrated you;
I appointed you a prophet kto the nations.” Jeremiah 1:5

Thus, there is a factual case to be made for a fetus' rights.

Thus, these rights could trump the rights of the woman.

Thus, I thought what would be a good start to change.

How can the Supreme Court change this? Does it have to be at their level?

"There are three major ways in which a Supreme Court decision can be overturned.

If the decision is based on a law that Congress has passed, Congress can simply change the law. The Court sometimes has to rule on how they think laws made by Congress apply to certain cases. If Congress thinks the Court has gotten it wrong, they can change the law to make things clearer."

Finally, if anyone can clarify the issues I listed and linked to above, then please add your intelligent comments.

Also, read the poll question before voting. It is asking to make it a state's rights issue in lieu of Fourth Amendment rights.

I voted other, because it is not equality before the law if one may be legally murdered in one state, yet preserved in another.

The pre meditated murder of another is so egregious that it should be nationally banned after the first trimester.

From a legal perspective, it is difficult to make the case that a clump of non specialized cells is a person.

Around the end of the first trimester, the baby is obviously a person, and has the most basic of rights, the right to live.

Roe is a bizarre legal opinion. The only thing good about it is that it recognizes that with medical advancement regarding the baby, the decision might have to change.

We have reached that point. We now know things about the unborn that were impossible to know 50 years ago. How advanced they are in development neuorologically, how they feel pain, how they emote, all of this knowledge paints a totally different picture of the unborn child than in the days of Roe.

A picture that proves that killing the inconvenient unborn child is little different from murdering other inconvenient people, the mental or physically challenged, the homeless, the old.

james bond said:
First, abortion is a "constitutional" right. However, there isn't strong basis for it.

"Abortion is not a constitutional right according to the strict text of the Constitution, but it has been justified as a constitutional right under the Fourth Amendment’s protection of privacy. In short, the constitutional right to abortion is found not in the Constitution itself, but in a loose reading of it.

This constitutional argument is often used by pro-abortionists. As former U.S. President Barack Obama once asserted, “I remain committed to protecting a woman’s right to choose and this fundamental constitutional right.”1 Obama, once a law professor, should have known that this right doesn’t actually exist ― the Supreme Court literally conjured it out of thin air."

Why You’re Told There’s a Constitutional Right to Abortion

One of the arguments against it is the right of the unborn fetus and when life begins.

Only life begats life, so it appears science backs up the Bible and that life begins at conception.

"Human Life comes into existence in just a fraction of an instant. You have a human egg and a human sperm and their sole purpose in life is to meet each other and fuse, to create a one cell human being."

When Does Life Begin | Just The Facts

"“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
and before you were born jI consecrated you;
I appointed you a prophet kto the nations.” Jeremiah 1:5

Thus, there is a factual case to be made for a fetus' rights.

Thus, these rights could trump the rights of the woman.

Thus, I thought what would be a good start to change.

How can the Supreme Court change this? Does it have to be at their level?

"There are three major ways in which a Supreme Court decision can be overturned.

If the decision is based on a law that Congress has passed, Congress can simply change the law. The Court sometimes has to rule on how they think laws made by Congress apply to certain cases. If Congress thinks the Court has gotten it wrong, they can change the law to make things clearer."

Finally, if anyone can clarify the issues I listed and linked to above, then please add your intelligent comments.

Also, read the poll question before voting. It is asking to make it a state's rights issue in lieu of Fourth Amendment rights.

columbus · Jan 30, 2020

epronovost said:
That's not really a ''fail safe'' a fail safe is supposed to be something you can do when things go wrong. You can't retroactively not have sex or use better, more numerous and or more efficient method of contraception.

There is, nevertheless, a fail safe method of preventing pregnancy.
Your semantics don't change that.
Tom

james bond · Jan 30, 2020

It's possible after the 2020 election. Let's review what has happened. I just searched:

"Donald Trump wants exceptions for rape, incest in abortion laws
Kirk A. Bado
USA
President Donald Trump called himself "strongly Pro-Life" in a several tweets late Saturday night while at the same time appearing to challenge key provisions of strict abortion laws recently passed in Republican controlled states.

"As most people know, and for those who would like to know, I am strongly Pro-Life, with the three exceptions - Rape, Incest and protecting the Life of the mother - the same position taken by Ronald Reagan," Trump said on Twitter.

Trump's comments come within days of Alabama passing a near-total abortion ban, putting in place the nation's most restrictive law on the procedure. Unlike other laws restricting abortion, the Alabama law does not make any execptions for instances of rape or incest.

Georgia and Missouri have signed their own restrictive measures to curb abortions in the last week as well.

This is the first time Trump has publicly commented on the recent wave of abortion laws after making the issue of late-term abortions a key part of his State of the Union address month ago. During his address to both chambers of Congress the president criticized efforts in Virginia and New York that would allow women to terminate nonviable pregnancies after 24 weeks."

Donald Trump breaks silence on abortion laws

james bond · Jan 30, 2020

Revoltingest said:
I missed it.
Could you post it again, or state it in your own words.

Just dumb the evidence down so that we dim witted heathens can understand.

We know that life cannot be created outside the cell. With sexual reproduction, all of it takes place inside the cell as the sperm finds the egg.

Here's more evidence for it as again science backs up what the Bible states -- https://www.liveaction.org/news/scientists-say-life-begins-at-conception-with-flash-of-light/.

"For you formed my inward parts;
you knitted me together in my mother’s womb.
I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.
Wonderful are your works;
my soul knows it very well.
My frame was not hidden from you,
when I was being made in secret,
intricately woven in the depths of the earth.
Your eyes saw my unformed substance;
in your book were written, every one of them,
the days that were formed for me,
when as yet there was none of them."
Psalms 139:13-16

Subduction Zone · Jan 30, 2020

james bond said:
I provided the link. Science has backed up the Bible in that the fetus is alive at conception.

What do you have? Nothing, but your comments which are wrong. It's wrong again as atheists are usually wrong .

Providing a link does no good is the source is bad. You used a ridiculous source. And the Bible does not agree with your source.

You are projecting again when you claim that your opposition has nothing.

Lastly I see that you could not admit to your grossest error. That tells us that you are only here to preach and refuse to learn when you screw up.

Revoltingest · Jan 30, 2020

james bond said:
We know that life cannot be created outside the cell. With sexual reproduction, all of it takes place inside the cell as the sperm finds the egg.

Here's more evidence for it as again science backs up what the Bible states -- https://www.liveaction.org/news/scientists-say-life-begins-at-conception-with-flash-of-light/.

"For you formed my inward parts;
you knitted me together in my mother’s womb.
I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.
Wonderful are your works;
my soul knows it very well.
My frame was not hidden from you,
when I was being made in secret,
intricately woven in the depths of the earth.
Your eyes saw my unformed substance;
in your book were written, every one of them,
the days that were formed for me,
when as yet there was none of them."
Psalms 139:13-16

I saw no scientific argument for when human life begins.
And then you cited scripture.
That'll work on fundies like Columbus, but not secular minded folk.

Subduction Zone · Jan 30, 2020

james bond said:
We know that life cannot be created outside the cell. With sexual reproduction, all of it takes place inside the cell as the sperm finds the egg.

Here's more evidence for it as again science backs up what the Bible states -- https://www.liveaction.org/news/scientists-say-life-begins-at-conception-with-flash-of-light/.

"For you formed my inward parts;
you knitted me together in my mother’s womb.
I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.
Wonderful are your works;
my soul knows it very well.
My frame was not hidden from you,
when I was being made in secret,
intricately woven in the depths of the earth.
Your eyes saw my unformed substance;
in your book were written, every one of them,
the days that were formed for me,
when as yet there was none of them."
Psalms 139:13-16

Please, don't make us laugh. Do you know what a reliable source is?

epronovost · Jan 30, 2020

james bond said:
I'd love to see the libs in the US move to your country. What the topic proposes would influence libs and atheists here to do it. Can you handle it?

It would be easier for you to migrate in Hungary, Russia or some middle eastern country of your choice where your values and opinions would be more commonly accepted. The legality of elective abortion up until the end of the first trimester (that's 14-16 weeks) seems to be favored by a majority of Americans. Otherwise, yes, I would welcome a highly educated and financially solid group of migrants. It's a group that can be integrated very easily in addition to all the other immigrants we receive and will continue to receive each year.

5 facts about the abortion debate in America

It Aint Necessarily So · Jan 30, 2020

james bond said:
First, abortion is a "constitutional" right. However, there isn't strong basis for it.

Your opinion.

And you can just stop after writing that abortion is (presently) a right according to the Supreme Court. That's where America is at. It's a right for as long as secularists can hold off the theocrats.

james bond said:
"Abortion is not a constitutional right according to the strict text of the Constitution,

Abortion is considered a constitutional right according to the 1973 Supreme Court. You might disagree with their reasoning.

james bond said:
Obama, once a law professor, should have known that this right doesn’t actually exist ― the Supreme Court literally conjured it out of thin air.

The right does exist ever since that ruling.

james bond said:
One of the arguments against it is the right of the unborn fetus and when life begins.

Irrelevant. The fetus has no rights not granted it by men.

And ending life doesn't enter into the moral calculus of abortion. We kill whenever we fell a cornstalk or step on an ant.

The moral argument does not depend on semantics or definitions. It doesn't matter what you call a fetus - person, life, human being, citizen - the moral status of ending that life don't change for me. Nothing matters except the state of mental development of the conceptus, and its ability to suffer terror and/or physical torment. If the fetus is unable to suffer like that, it is no more cruel or immoral to kill it than ending any other unconscious life.

The only issue for me is whether I prefer empowering pregnant women to control their own lives or prefer turning that choice over to the state to do the church's bidding to impose its religion on a secular nation to please Christians with anti-American, theocratic tendencies. Do I prefer to empower American women or some church using the state as its enforcer. I'm pro-choice for the woman, not the church.

No brainer

columbus · Jan 30, 2020

Revoltingest said:
Hmmm....is this the point where I should call you an fundamentalist
authoritarian theocratic misandrist treasonous poopy head?
Nah....not yet.

Oh c'mon.....
You know what I think about mature alpha daddies, up on their ivory soapboxes in kilts, flailing

Tom

columbus · Jan 30, 2020

shmogie said:
legally murdered

That's an oxymoron.
If a killing is legal, it's not murder.

Murder is a very subjective term. I, personally, consider most capital punishment in the USA to be unjustified killing. But it's legal, so it isn't murder.
Tom

Evangelicalhumanist · Jan 30, 2020

james bond said:
Thus, there is a factual case to be made for a fetus' rights.

Thus, these rights could trump the rights of the woman.

Let's examine just those two points, for starters.

It's one thing to make "a factual case" for a fetus' rights, but how would you guarantee them? Would you, for example, try to find some way to make it impossible for a pregnant woman to drink, or do drugs, or get hit by a bus and die, or commit suicide out of despair for not being able to obtain an abortion?

And to suppose that the fetus' rights "trump the rights of the woman," do you ignore the fact that the woman may have been involuntarily impregnated (rape, just for example -- I've heard it happens), and in having been so victimized, she is now compelled to be further victimized?

There was a movie made in 1963 called "The Cardinal" starring Tom Tryon, Romie Schneider and John Huston. It was nominated for 6 Academy Awards. It involved a Catholic priest, eventually being elevated to Cardinal, denying his sister an abortion even though the doctors made it 100% clear that this would mean the death of his sister. (The Vatican's liaison officer for the movie was none other than Joseph Ratzinger -- later Pope Benedict XVI, now retired.) For some reason, I remember this film particularly well.

QuestioningMind · Jan 30, 2020

james bond said:
First, abortion is a "constitutional" right. However, there isn't strong basis for it.

"Abortion is not a constitutional right according to the strict text of the Constitution, but it has been justified as a constitutional right under the Fourth Amendment’s protection of privacy. In short, the constitutional right to abortion is found not in the Constitution itself, but in a loose reading of it.

This constitutional argument is often used by pro-abortionists. As former U.S. President Barack Obama once asserted, “I remain committed to protecting a woman’s right to choose and this fundamental constitutional right.”1 Obama, once a law professor, should have known that this right doesn’t actually exist ― the Supreme Court literally conjured it out of thin air."

Why You’re Told There’s a Constitutional Right to Abortion

One of the arguments against it is the right of the unborn fetus and when life begins.

Only life begats life, so it appears science backs up the Bible and that life begins at conception.

"Human Life comes into existence in just a fraction of an instant. You have a human egg and a human sperm and their sole purpose in life is to meet each other and fuse, to create a one cell human being."

When Does Life Begin | Just The Facts

"“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
and before you were born jI consecrated you;
I appointed you a prophet kto the nations.” Jeremiah 1:5

Thus, there is a factual case to be made for a fetus' rights.

Thus, these rights could trump the rights of the woman.

Thus, I thought what would be a good start to change.

How can the Supreme Court change this? Does it have to be at their level?

"There are three major ways in which a Supreme Court decision can be overturned.

If the decision is based on a law that Congress has passed, Congress can simply change the law. The Court sometimes has to rule on how they think laws made by Congress apply to certain cases. If Congress thinks the Court has gotten it wrong, they can change the law to make things clearer."

Finally, if anyone can clarify the issues I listed and linked to above, then please add your intelligent comments.

Also, read the poll question before voting. It is asking to make it a state's rights issue in lieu of Fourth Amendment rights.

No. The rights of a collection of cells that have the potential to become an individual should not override the rights of an actual individual.

Evangelicalhumanist · Jan 30, 2020

epronovost said:
Pregnancies aren't punishment either. They are medical conditions.

Why does that seem so odd to me?

I'm not sure that "medical conditions" is the right classification -- I rather think it's more like a "fact of life." And I think that we are justified in trying to alter the "facts" of our lives for our own purposes.

McBell · Jan 30, 2020

1213 said:
I think murder is already illegal. The problem is that some don’t think all people are really humans.

I agree.
Thus the reason the US had a Civil War...

Should Abortion Be Made Illegal Based On The State You Live In?

Should Abortion Be Made Illegal Based On The State You Live In?

Yes, it should come under State's Rights not Roe v. Wade

No

Don't Know

Other (please explain)

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Pragmatic Libertarian

Well-Known Member

yawn <ignore> yawn

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Pragmatic Libertarian

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

yawn <ignore> yawn

yawn <ignore> yawn

"Truth" isn't a thing...

Well-Known Member

"Truth" isn't a thing...

Resident Sourpuss