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

[james bond]

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.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

 

[epronovost]

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.

 

[sun rise]

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.

 

[PureX]

Human rights are not state issues. So they should not be decided on a state-by-state basis.

 

[Left Coast]

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.

The fetus being alive doesn't "trump the rights of the woman." The issue with abortion is whether the government (at any level) should have to power to force one person to have their body used against their will to keep another person alive. It shouldn't. This point is profoundly obvious when applied to any other situation. Why would we expect pregnant women to endure an injustice none of the rest of us would be satisfied to endure?

 

[columbus]

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

Do you have a verse or two to back this up? I don't think you do.

I'm confident that the authors of the Bible didn't consider the unborn alive. By their primitive understanding, breath equals life and fetal humans don't breathe. So you cannot kill one.
That's one reason that there's nothing resembling a prohibition on abortion in Scripture in the Bible.
Tom

 

[epronovost]

Do you have a verse or two to back this up? I don't think you do.

I'm confident that the authors of the Bible didn't consider the unborn alive. By their primitive understanding, breath equals life and fetal humans don't breathe. So you cannot kill one.
That's one reason that there's nothing resembling a prohibition on abortion in Scripture in the Bible.
Tom

If you look at the deteuronomy it seems that injuring a pregnant women and making her lose her baby wasn't considered murder, but a simple assault crime punishable by a fine should she suffer no other damage. In Hebrew tradition, life began when a baby took its first breath and you were considered dead when you stopped breathing. Ironically this might explain some ''resurrection''.

 

[columbus]

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.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

I've long thought that Roe v Wade was weak rationalization.
The reason I favor legal abortion is wonderfully expressed
in the 13th Amendment.....

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for
crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist
within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

To require someone to undergo full term pregnancy & giving birth
for the benefit of the child sure does look like involuntary servitude.
It also makes compulsory service unconstitutional. (One might argue
that taxation would be prohibited, but that is specifically dealt with
in the 16th Amendment.) Thus, the right to an abortion is a
constitutional right, & under the incorporation doctrine, the states
cannot deny it.

 

[columbus]

If you look at the deteuronomy it seems that injuring a pregnant women and making her lose her baby wasn't considered murder, but a simple assault crime punishable by a fine should she suffer no other damage.

Really, causing a woman to miscarry was more like a property crime against the father.
Their understanding of reproduction was very primitive. They really didn't know where babies came from. They thought a person(male) planted his seed in a vessel(female). If it grew, he owned it, just like he'd own the grain he'd planted in a field. The father owned the fetus.
Tom

 

[epronovost]

Really, causing a woman to miscarry was more like a property crime against the father.
Their understanding of reproduction was very primitive. They really didn't know where babies came from. They thought a person(male) planted his seed in a vessel(female). If it grew, he owned it, just like he'd own the grain he'd planted in a field. The father owned the fetus.
Tom

Note that a father or husband virtually ''owned'' the woman in question too.

 

[Altfish]

Abortion is legal in the UK. That is good.

But, the fact that I support a woman's right to have an abortion does NOT mean I am encouraging it. It should be an option, usually only implemented if all other options have been eliminated. It should be only done in the early stages and very rarely in the later months.
Abortion should be accompanied with improved sex education for all kids; free access to contraceptives, promotion of the likes of Planned Parenthood.
For those women who decide to retain the child and give birth, there should be free clinics and welfare for the child. For women who decide to abort there should be counselling not condemnation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you look at the deteuronomy it seems that injuring a pregnant women and making her lose her baby wasn't considered murder, but a simple assault crime punishable by a fine should she suffer no other damage. In Hebrew tradition, life began when a baby took its first breath and you were considered dead when you stopped breathing. Ironically this might explain some ''resurrection''.

I am too lazy to dig it up right now, but I noticed a change in translation of that verse arose after Roe v. Wade. Now they try to make it look as if the woman went into early labor, but the fetus survived.

 

[columbus]

To require someone to undergo full term pregnancy & giving birth
for the benefit of the child sure does look like involuntary servitude.

I'll agree with you in instances of forcible rape.

But when the parents are consenting adults, requiring a bare minimum of care is no more involuntary servitude than requiring a motorist to compensate a pedestrian they hit is theft. By bare minimum, I mean a healthy gestation and around 20 years of child support. Since the mother does the heavy lifting during gestation, I'll put the main burden of child support on the father.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

I am too lazy to dig it up right now, but I noticed a change in translation of that verse arose after Roe v. Wade. Now they try to make it look as if the woman went into early labor, but the fetus survived.

Scripture should only apply to people who buy into the ancient
translated & re-translated writing of long dead goatherds.
And even for them, it's not government's job to enforce
religious dictates. This is basic 1st Amendment stuff.

 

[columbus]

Note that a father or husband virtually ''owned'' the woman in question too.

I'm well aware that the primitive morals of the authors of scriptures didn't include basic human rights. Women and children were generally chattel, i.e property of a man.
There's lots of reasons I don't consider Scripture a particularly good basis for morality. That's a biggie.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

I'll agree with you in instances of forcible rape.

But when the parents are consenting adults, requiring a bare minimum of care is no more involuntary servitude than requiring a motorist to compensate a pedestrian they hit is theft. By bare minimum, I mean a healthy gestation and around 20 years of child support. Since the mother does the heavy lifting during gestation, I'll put the main burden of child support on the father.
Tom

You introduce the morality of circumstances of conception.
To see conduct as sinful or irresponsible isn't cause to deny
constitutional rights.
Compensation for damage to another is different from requiring
pregnancy to term & birth. It's just payment, which is a function
made obviously different by the 16th Amendment
Furthermore, your placing the support burden on the father is
a violation of the 14th Amendment (equal protection clause).

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

 

[Subduction Zone]

Scripture should only apply to people who buy into the ancient
translated & re-translated writing of long dead goatherds. And
even for them, it's not government's job to enforce religious
dictates. This is basic 1st Amendment stuff.

I agree, my point was that the Christians that changed the translation only showed their own hypocrisy. They don't really care what the Bible says. They want it to say what they want to believe.

 

[Revoltingest]

I agree, my point was that the Christians that changed the translation only showed their own hypocrisy. They don't really care what the Bible says. They want it to say what they want to believe.

Aye, so much Bible learn'n isn't there.