Let us cut the crap.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap


What factual arguements exist about abortion? So you can say: at 7 months a fetus can fell pain..so what? So can a 50 year old man, and that 50 year old man has no right to live either. While in the pre-amble it may speak of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the state has the right to take life, has the right to deputize people to take life..in essence, there is NO right to life for any human being. THe very fact that people speak about it using the US constitution is meaningless...that constitution governs 5% of humanity. The vast, vast majority of abortions happen in the third world. If anyone claims this is a universal issue, then a non-universal matter like the consitution of one single state means nothing.

That is what it simply boil down to: all rights are conditional, creation of human society, not in any way distinct from social existence. So as I said, I agree wityh Freako: abortion should be a simple legislative matter, and any debates about the either-or nature of the debate are totally faith based, be it a religious or secualr faith one uses as their justification.

Oh, and get the stick out of your butt, and learn what is condecension and what is not, BOY. (note, that was it)

The STATE can take someone's life only in a few well-defined circumstances.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
Now we define the guy on life support as 'alive' if he has significant brain activity. I don't see anything wrong with this definition - if the fetus has no significant brain activity then it is not aware and not conscious.

Yes, but assuming nothing goes wrong, the fetus will in the future have significant brain activity, but the guy on life support will not.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
"With that said, I'd like to branch out my earlier argument, that the constitutional right to pizza simply does not exist. Pizza 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 pizza. 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 food for human use. RvW excersized powers that the SCOTUS never had, and is therefore in my opinion invalid."

If pizza is legal, then constitutionally why shouldn't abortion be?

RvW said that any law prohibiting abortions was unconstitutional. Elok's point is that this is absurd - it isn't mentioned in the Consitution. Now, this doesn't mean that Congress is REQUIRED to prohibit abortion - but overturning RvW would mean that Congress COULD prohibit abortion.

[Ben Kenobi]

Theben:

In this country and in this day, abortion is legal, and tolerated by the majority of citizens.

How do we know? Have we asked the people what they believe? Have they had an opportunity to espress their views in a national referendum? NO.

I can't think of an article or amendment allowing for abortion.

Then why do we permit abortion?

Not having a baby is less strenuous on the resources of parents and society.

Strenuous in the short term. Much less so in the long term, for both the mother an society. Without children, a society has no future, no resources to operate.

Also abortion removes a large section of the criminal underclass.

It also kills Beethoven. How can you tell looking at a child today whehter he or she will become a criminal?

[Ben Kenobi]

Murdoch:

Reread my statement. I use the word 'arbitrarily'. I'm trying to smoke out Gepap. Society has the right to define personhood. They do not have the right to do so arbitrarily.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Ned:

You fail to understand my critique. All pregnancies have a marginal risk of death, though hardly substantial. Does this mean that everyone has the right to kill someone just because their life may be at risk?

If someone approaches you with a black object in his hand, does that give you the right to shoot him in the head, killing him? No.

A better wording of your policy would be to name the specific conditions, of which the only one common is ectopic pregnancy. I agree that where we have an ectopic pregnancy that because we cannot save both lives, we ought to save the one that we can, the mother. At this point in time, we cannot save the life of the unborn child in this situation.

It's not about a balance of lives, but that we can save one life rather than letting two die.

We are getting closer to an agreement on general principles, it appears. You do seem to be recognizing that there are a balance of rights involved. This is progress.

And, do not get me wrong. I think the probability of real harm to the mother must be more than a slight risk. We agree on that.

Also, I strongly object to the Supremes formulation that "health" includes the risk that the mother will use a coat hanger. That formulation removes health as a basis for leaving the decision to the doctor and patient, almost forcing the statute-drafter to list all possible health risks. That should not be necessary.

[Kuciwalker]

No more unwanted pregnancies, except the odd f-up.

Think about that statement again

[Ned]

Originally posted by skywalker


RvW said that any law prohibiting abortions was unconstitutional. Elok's point is that this is absurd - it isn't mentioned in the Consitution. Now, this doesn't mean that Congress is REQUIRED to prohibit abortion - but overturning RvW would mean that Congress COULD prohibit abortion.

Prior to RvW, Congress said nothing on the issue because it was considered to be a matter for the states. This remains, IMHO, a state matter outside the perview of Congress.

[Kuciwalker]

Whatever. Replace "Congress" with "state legislatures" in my post, if you want. What I meant was that it was a legislative decision, not a constitutional one.

[Ned]

Sky, agreed.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
UR:

And how do you know that an unborn child will not recognise himself in the womb?

I did not make such a judgement. If you can indeed show that fetuses are sentient, they will be considered as persons.

[Elok]

Originally posted by GePap
I must wonder where the hell you draw your implications from..cause they seem to come out of left field-must be that anti-Kane side of you.
Abortion is part of reproductive policy, just like defining what is murder or not is part of crimnal policy..and if people start trying to decide that policy should be base don moral absolutes that do NOT exists, then one is basing policy on a foundation of smoke..and what happens to such edifices? Personally, I prefer policy to come from more sensible realms.
THe fact is that Roe v Wade was a problematic decision, becuase it turned the aboriton battle into a constitutional ojne instead of a legislative one, which it should not be. I support the ability of women to get abortions..is it a right? NO, no more than there is some nebulous "right to life".

Eh, that's a little more lucid. Thank you. Were you not saying anything but that abortion isn't denied by the Constitution either? If so, JtB beat you to it, and I never said so in the first place anyway. Well, I don't think I did...I believe that abortion is a form of temporal discrimination more than anything else. I would, however, say that it IS primarily a question of whether it is murder or not. The only reason for not allowing abortion would be the belief, which I deem correct, that human rights begin at conception.

[Theben]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
How do we know? Have we asked the people what they believe? Have they had an opportunity to espress their views in a national referendum? NO.

We know 'cuz the law's on the books. And yes, despite what you think the majority does tolerate abortion, even if they don't like it.

Then why do we permit abortion?

The constitution is not the limit of our freedoms. I hope you don't wish this was the case.

Strenuous in the short term. Much less so in the long term, for both the mother an society. Without children, a society has no future, no resources to operate.

Immigrant workers will serve.

It also kills Beethoven. How can you tell looking at a child today whehter he or she will become a criminal?

The Chicago Tribune ran an article a few years ago linking a significant decrease in the rate of crime to abortion. Face it, poor unwanted kids run a greater risk of becoming criminals.

EDIT:

ABORTION, REDUCED CRIME LINKED STUDY SUGGESTS 1970S LEGALIZATION HELPED LEAD TO '90S CRIME DROP:[CHICAGOLAND FINAL Edition]
Karen Brandon, Tribune Staff Writer. Chicago Tribune. Chicago, Ill.: Aug 8, 1999. pg. 1

Abstract (Article Summary)
Steven Levitt, a University of Chicago economist, and John Donohue III, a Stanford University Law School professor, conclude that legalized abortion may explain as much as half of the overall crime reduction the nation experienced from 1991 to 1997.

sky: Doesn't it make that statement all the more accurate?

[Kuciwalker]

Yes, I just thought it was amusing

[Elok]

Originally posted by Theben
The Chicago Tribune ran an article a few years ago linking a significant decrease in the rate of crime to abortion. Face it, poor unwanted kids run a greater risk of becoming criminals.

You could argue the same for minorities; in both cases, it's not genetics but a hostile environment that causes the problem. Abortion is a very slapdash solution to societal ills. It sweeps the long-term consequences of widespread ignorance, perversion and misogyny under the carpet instead of fighting the problems themselves. It works in much the same way that taking an aspirin might help you ignore the pain caused by a brain tumor. I suspect the only reason we go with the crappy quick-fix in this case is to avoid the arduous alternative of broad, meaningful societal change.