Let us cut the crap.

[chequita guevara]

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.

No, but there is an implied right to privacy in the Constitution. No unwarranted searches and seizures withut probable cause. No one may be forced to testify against themselves. Spouses cannot testify against one another in criminal trial. The state may not interfere with a defendent and his legal counsel. Again and again, the Constitution says that the state may not simply intrude into the affairs of citizens. Obviously, there is an implied right to privacy. And that's what RvW was about.

[st_swithin]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
St. Swithin:

Not potentially living. If the unborn were already dead, why would one need an abortion? You are either dead or living.

Good point. What is the unborn? If the unborn is a person, then she too has the right to do what she would with her body.

I'm cheap. Why should I have to pay for a child for the rest of my life? There is no reason to assume that an abortion has no benefits for men. It's a way to have sex without ever having to worry about a baby, and best of all, you don't have to have the surgery or wear a condom. What could be better for men?

It takes two to make a baby. This is why the man has a responsibility to take care of his lover, and her child. So if you say the man ought not to have any say, why should he stick around?

Hey, no one forced you to have sex. One of the consequences of sex is pregnancy. Therefore your analogy is moot. No one is forcing a woman to get pregnant.

Why work for a better world if you've already given up? Why bother with taking care of these kids, when the irresponsible woman should have had an abortion? Abortion is corrosive to care for children, it is only when it is no longer an option that people will start to seriously consider funding alternatives such as adoption.

My biggest problem with abortion is that there is any issue whatsoever. It should be easily accessible, stigma-free, and solely the woman's decision, yet there are still people who oppose this procedure as if it were a personal affront, and then offer no other solutions other than to argue their moral standpoint (which is an ultimately useless waste of time).

The only person who should be making the decision about having/not having an abortion is the pregnant woman herself. The man has no obligation to stick around - why would he? I agree - he's off the hook - it's just the way it works.

If there is a discussion about abortion, it ought to be among women and health care professionals, and it ought to be about how to help those who may have been through it or may be considering it, and how to best serve their needs.

As far as living or dead, I feel that if an entity can't survive on its own without the aid of a physiological connexion to another entity, it ain't alive yet. It's a parasite, or symbiote or whatever nice PC term you want to use.

To paraphrase Max Cannon:
I once had a hamster and she gave birth to five little babies. The next day, I noticed she'd eaten two of her little babies. What the heck - had a couple myself.

[Az]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


I have never seen any cites to that effect. But if that's the case, I completely agree.

[Kuciwalker]

No, but there is an implied right to privacy in the Constitution. No unwarranted searches and seizures withut probable cause. No one may be forced to testify against themselves. Spouses cannot testify against one another in criminal trial. The state may not interfere with a defendent and his legal counsel. Again and again, the Constitution says that the state may not simply intrude into the affairs of citizens. Obviously, there is an implied right to privacy. And that's what RvW was about.

You have a right to privacy, but a) this doesn't apply if the fetus is a person, because then it isn't private, and b) this probably doesn't apply even if the fetus ISN'T a person, because I don't really see how it's any more of an invasion of privacy than, say, what the FDA does. Btw, I just realized, couldn't they regulate it under "interstate commerce" anyways?

DISCLAIMER: I am not saying that the fetus is a person. I have no opinion on abortion - don't flame me about it. I just think RvW was an awful decision because it is a legislative, not constitutional, issue.

[Elok]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
No, but there is an implied right to privacy in the Constitution. No unwarranted searches and seizures withut probable cause. No one may be forced to testify against themselves. Spouses cannot testify against one another in criminal trial. The state may not interfere with a defendent and his legal counsel. Again and again, the Constitution says that the state may not simply intrude into the affairs of citizens. Obviously, there is an implied right to privacy. And that's what RvW was about.

"Without probable cause" being the three key words here. If one citizen is whacking another, it's entirely the government's business no matter where it happens. Or "future citizen."

I've still never heard a good explanation of why it matters that the kid hasn't matured to a certain point. I repeat, it is unarguably the same lifeform at a different stage of development. There's no magic fetus fairy that swaps it for a baby the second before it hits the birth canal. Fetus=immature human being. Cold fact.

[Kuciwalker]

There's no magic fetus fairy

Don't tell the children!

[Az]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


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

there is no real difference between the newly born and the later fetus. The head begins to grow after birth, and it does rapidly so, but in the first week or so, there is no difference.

[Ben Kenobi]

I feel that if an entity can't survive on its own without the aid of a physiological connexion to another entity, it ain't alive yet. It's a parasite, or symbiote or whatever nice PC term you want to use.

St. Swithin:

Let's look up the definition of the word parasite, since I hear at least 6 or 7 shots fired using that word.

"Organism that lives on or in an organism of a different species and obtains nutrients from it ."(B79 - associated terms)"

http://212.187.155.84/wnv/Subdirectories_for_Search/Glossary&References_Contents/KeywordsContents/p/parasite.htm

Now, I ask if the unborn child is not human, than what is it? A dog, a cat or what? It must have some species. If the unborn child is human, it cannot be a parasite by virtue of being of the same species.

Secondly, what gives the woman the right to do what she wants with her own body? Isn't she just the chattel of the male and a part of his property? You dismiss moral concerns so blithely yet you fail to admit that all your arguments make similar moral assumptions.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ned:

You do seem to be recognizing that there are a balance of rights involved. This is progress.

Actually I deny a balance of rights even in the case of an ectopic pregnancy. Read what I said again.

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.

In one circumstance, an ectopic pregnancy. All others do not drive one to favour abortion over the other options.

That should not be necessary.

It's not that complicated. Just list one health risk, an ectopic pregnancy, and ban all other abortions. Not difficult to formulate this policy.

[Ben Kenobi]

Theben:

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 I suggest you re-read the laws. The people did not vote on the law, but 1 justice ruled in favour of Roe. That's the whole point we have just been discussing, that the people need to have a say, and just letting the justices pontificate, will not represent the people.

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

Bob'n'weave. If it is not in the constitution, than why should we permit abortions?

Immigrant workers will serve.

But aren't we exporting abortion services around the world? If everyone has an abortion, that's it for all of us.

WRT to the tribune article, I ask again, how do you know whether the unborn child that you are giving a death sentence will or will not be a criminal? It's like the death penalty, without a trial, and without proof that a crime has been committed!

How many of these crimes cited by the Tribune deserve the death penalty?

[Ben Kenobi]

If you can indeed show that fetuses are sentient, they will be considered as persons.

UR:

First you need a better definition of sentient, then recognition of self in a mirror.

Secondly, even when one is not looking in a mirror, you are still sentient. It's like being a lawyer. You do not stop being a lawyer even when you are not currently functioning as a lawyer. The same is with sentience. The unborn child may not currently be sentient, but has the capacity to attain sentience, from the genetic code instructions obtained at conception.

[Q Classic]

you know, i think women would be a lot more receptive to the idea of not getting abortions if the man who impregnated her had to wear a chastity belt until she gave birth.

the misery and physical suffering, i think, would even out.

[Ned]

Q Cubed, are you suggesting that women and abortions during a second or third trimester in order to avoid "misery and physical suffering?"

[Az]

I want to echo Ned's question.

[Q Classic]

pfft. you should know that comment was facetious and not serious...