Tweet
This is an abortion thread that I am starting with the intention of sticking to entirely factual arguments, with as few appeals to emotion as possible. This cuts both ways; shut up about the coat hangers, and don't tell us how early a fetus can wiggle its fingers either. I'm not discussing any one particular method of abortion either; this is abortion IN GENERAL. Not women's rights, not the particular methods that appear gruesome, but the validity of the action itself as an institution. If you wish to tell me what a cold-blooded ***** I am, please start your own thread. Hopefully we can keep a reasonable argument going for at least a page or two before the eye-rolling smileys start to predominate.
With that said, I'd like to branch out my earlier argument, that the constitutional right to abortion simply does not exist. Abortion is never mentioned in the constitution or any of the amendments, nor are there any references to any subject even vaguely related to it or which can be construed by a reasonable person to include abortion. The Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision is ostensibly valid because of the principle of judicial review, which allows them to declare laws unconstitutional, i.e. that said laws VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF. With no actual constitutional backing, RvW is no more worthy of recognition than a statement by the CIA approving a new drug for human use. RvW excersized powers that the SCOTUS never had, and is therefore in my opinion invalid.
Secondly, "it's the woman's body." Except it isn't, technically. The fetus is genetically distinct from the woman and biologically predisposed to become an independent human being over time. Barring miscarriage, which is the exception not the rule, the fetus will become an infant, which will in turn keep growing until it dies one way or another as a child, adolescent, etc. The fetus is a foreign body within the woman; however, it is distinct and given time will become a man or woman. Note that the fetal form of a human being and the adult form are inarguably the exact same lifeform at different stages of development. It's simple birds and bees. It is the immature form of a lifeform, "just a clump of cells" that will become an infant.
I would argue that an unwanted child is analogous to an unwanted houseguest from a legal perspective. It may cause immense inconvenience, but until it endangers your own life you are not within your rights to kill it. Or shouldn't be, anyway.
Just as a final reminder, I don't want to hear about back-alley abortions. This discussion is of the principle of the act itself.
With that said, I'd like to branch out my earlier argument, that the constitutional right to abortion simply does not exist. Abortion is never mentioned in the constitution or any of the amendments, nor are there any references to any subject even vaguely related to it or which can be construed by a reasonable person to include abortion. The Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision is ostensibly valid because of the principle of judicial review, which allows them to declare laws unconstitutional, i.e. that said laws VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF. With no actual constitutional backing, RvW is no more worthy of recognition than a statement by the CIA approving a new drug for human use. RvW excersized powers that the SCOTUS never had, and is therefore in my opinion invalid.
Secondly, "it's the woman's body." Except it isn't, technically. The fetus is genetically distinct from the woman and biologically predisposed to become an independent human being over time. Barring miscarriage, which is the exception not the rule, the fetus will become an infant, which will in turn keep growing until it dies one way or another as a child, adolescent, etc. The fetus is a foreign body within the woman; however, it is distinct and given time will become a man or woman. Note that the fetal form of a human being and the adult form are inarguably the exact same lifeform at different stages of development. It's simple birds and bees. It is the immature form of a lifeform, "just a clump of cells" that will become an infant.
I would argue that an unwanted child is analogous to an unwanted houseguest from a legal perspective. It may cause immense inconvenience, but until it endangers your own life you are not within your rights to kill it. Or shouldn't be, anyway.
Just as a final reminder, I don't want to hear about back-alley abortions. This discussion is of the principle of the act itself.
I dont have an opinion on this.. theres the libertarian argument vs the right of life and how you define that. Can either side convince me?
Also, if you think abortion methods are bad, you should see a baby who's been needlessly brought to term, whose skull is full of fluid (where a brain should be) that needs to be "shunted" every once in a while. Not pleasant. But we're not supposed to get into procedures and stuff in this thread, so I'll drop it.
Comment