Are you too blind to see that your freedom of expression on this topic fundamentally circumvents that very freedom that you express? Heard of shoot yourself in the foot? If we continue to limit people's freedoms, particularly when we can solve the problem other ways, then what freedoms do we have left? We mind as well live in China.
Yeah, I hear there are no inspections of or speed limits imposed on rickshaws... No one is limiting freedom of expression here. I am trying to save lives; you are trying to make safe destructive behavior.
The existence of the bill of rights proves that liberty, in the context of the constitution, does not imply freedom from government control of all actions. The BoR enumerates rights that must not be infringed, and killing unborn babies is not one of them. There are laws in place already that protect even fetuses (as evidenced in the Peterson case). There is no right to kill babies, so outlawing abortion would not be unjustly infringing on that non-existent right. No one is being unjustly deprived of their liberties, under any definition. No one is telling women what to do with their bodies. They can get piercings, tattoos, etc. They can get a face lift. They can pig out and get fat under the guise of "eating for two." What they cannot do is infringe on the rights of the other person that is growing inside of them, or at least once Roe is overturned they won't be able too. Anyone that wants to get an abortion better do it in the next couple of years, because I am reasonably certain that your time is running out.
i think he used the word fiat because of the tortured analysis of the constitution. of reading in a right that wasn't there to then justify this decision. again...even lawyers and law professors i know who are very pro-choice (perhaps more so than you) think Roe is a horribly written opinion. it's just bad.
And what are you going to do about that determined little swimmer that outwits any barrier thrown up? How does your education solve the dilemna for that little, strong swimmer? Education can, at best, alleviate the problem not solve it.
And the same can be said about your solution...alleviate but not solve, however... Law = ONLY American solution since law does not cross boarders. Marketing + Education = world-wide affect since American marketing extends beyond our physical boarders. (eg...Hollywood, McDonalds, music, clothes, etc etc etc) So since they are both incomplete solutions, why not go for the one the CLEARLY does not conflict with constitutionally provided rights?
non-existent right? Here are the rights: We have a right to Liberty. We have a right to Life. We have a right to Justice. Those were defined by the framers as basic human rights and should ALWAYS be protected at all costs. ...oh, and you can't selectively protect just one...they ALL must be protected. American die all the time to preserve freedom and justice.
Well, I find his usage of the word fiat amusing. A fiat is EXACTLY what it is...and as it should be. "reading in a right that wasn't there?" Again, do you know what Liberty means...it is to protect the citizens against undue interference or control from the government. Outlawing abortion would be a DIRECT conflict of Liberty, IMO. Roe V Wade IS NOT LAW...it is anti-law. ie...no law is necessary. The constitution itself is sufficient enough. A law was passed and Roe V Wade overturned an existing law. Regardless of how horribly written it is, the basic principal that upholds Liberty is what is being protected. There are NO pro-abortion laws...just like there are no "I'm allowed to eat laws." Eating is a basic human right. That is what it is about. You always speak of Roe V Wade as though it IS a law. It isn't a law...it is just an interpretation of our existing rights. I may be wrong but I'm pretty sure about that.
Saving innocent babies lives is more about saving babies lives than reducing the abortion rate. That is a secondary, statistical effect. It's the life affirmation that is important. And saving babies lives will do nothing about ending unwanted pregnancies.
The point is that a prohibition against abortion does not infringe on life, liberty, justice, property, the pursuit of happiness, or any other right enumerated in the constitution or anywhere else. There was one opinion that granted a right to abortion, and it is apparently widely regarded as a poorly written one at that. Abortion's legality has nothing to do with any of the things you listed, except for the baby's right to life.
I thought Fiat was a small Italian car? I'm wondering Mad Max do you have more opposition to Roe because it allows abortions or are you against the idea that there is a right to privacy? Under the 9th Ammendment the Constitution implies that there are rights that aren't specifically enumerated and the right to privacy to me seems to make sense especially interms of the right to control one's body. I can see a situation where there is still a recognized right to privacy and a ban on abortion under the view that a fetus is a person. Further I think with things like blood and tissue transfusion and transplants a right to privacy is essential for reasons beyond the abortion.
In the 19 plus pages of this thread I don't think I can recall any women posting on this thread. It is kind of sad that its only we men here who are debating an issue that we will never need to use.
As a lawyer who practices in the federal courts daily, I know what the role of the judiciary is. It is to apply the Constitution and to give clarification where needed. It is NOT to add elements that do not clearly exist and it is NOT to strip regulatory powers from state governments for anything other than the powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution. In fact, the document states that all powers not enumerated are reserved to the states. That is what they did. In that regard, they blew it. The Constitution should be viewed for what it was...a carefully negotiated contract between the states. The Amendment process is the means to renegotiate the contract, not judicial metaphysics.
Sorry for the double post, but I couldn't resist. Can you point me to the caluse in the Constitution which says anything about liberty? It wasn't about outlawing abortion. The alternative was to leave it with the states. That is where abortion should be dealt with if you read the Constitution. The court did not want that result, so they made the law fit the facts. Wrong. It is law. It is primary authority to be used in court and is subject to the principles of stare decisis. Were it not law, I could feel free to simply ignore it. If you are equating having an abortion to having lunch, you've got real problems. You're wrong. If you bother to read Roe and read the Constitution, you will see that the right to privacy they hang their judicial hats on is NOT actually in the Constitution. They used hacksaw analysis to carve it out of whole cloth and usurp state power.
I'm not a lawyer and I haven't stayed at a Holiday Inn Express nor do I play one on TV, but I googled "murder in utero" and found that the definition of this was decided at the state level. There is no uniform treatment of that crime as I understood what I read. Refman, can you comment on that?
You're more eloquent than you claim not to be. Even if we disagree on Evolution, I can understand and respect your views. I also like to thank the participants and the civility kept in this thread. I haven't thought about abortion to this extent, mostly because polarization and vitriol discourages any true thought. Addressing your quote, what the other side has been promoting is better education. Some through sex, others through better values. Wouldn't it be great to have a national program to pound in the definition of motherhood you mentioned? Sex is a drug like any other. It's the opiate of life. Pregnancies will make these people crash harder than any drug dependancy. In order to educate these children, we need a different approach. We're witnessing a moral backlash from Republican voters because they feel those values are eroding. Why does religion have to come into play? I believe non-Christian Democrat voters react quickly to the 'family values' ploy the Republican leadership has maintained because of their close alliance with the fundamental Christians over the past 30 years. Those Democrats won't budge on an issue like strengthening families even if they privately support it to guard against the slippery slope of eroding the freedom of religion/nonreligion. These issues are all related because the conflict in religious morality vs secular morality. Without morality, there is no law, right? Yet there's a difference in opinion on whether you need religion to enforce morality. I don't necessarily mean relative moralism because our culture has evolved from religious roots to secular underpinnings. Many people believe in American fostered fundamental rights without basing it on religion, but like religion, many will disagree with each other's interpretation. There hasn't been compromise because we've become polarized in politics, and the current state of religion in politics is a farce... it's part of a well organized opinion poll. One thing that makes the prospect of human cloning disgustingly unethical is the process itself. To sum it up, you get an egg, take out it's DNA, put in your target DNA, shock it a little, and it becomes an embryo. What then becomes the definition of sentient human life? If we break it down to DNA independent of the mother, she could very well impregnate herself. If an egg can become an embryo with the proper motivation, this shatters the belief that an embryo is unique because of the union between sperm and ova. I wish science's ethical commitees were ironclad, but once they make a decision, like the Death Penalty, the burden of proof is on the defense. Since we don't know for sure when spiritual life begins, we'll likely never know things go wrong to change it. In other words, it'll take the willingness of society to change it's ethics, just like it'll take the willingness of society to reduce unwanted pregnancies and respect the impact of abortion to the point where it isn't a quick fix. This thought is only idealism. Our culture already places a premium on science and government intervention as quick fixes. Ultimately, human moral problems require human answers. It sounds like a case for religion, but religion is only one means. People in religion could cause more problems if we're want to look at it as a quick fix. We need a revolution. This is the best hypothetical I can put out: Let's assume that the fetus gains rights and abortion is banned. So is the woman charged with manslaughter if she miscarries from natural processes? An embryo/fetus could deform, corrupt, or terminate at any stage of pregnancy. Most miscarriages happen even before the woman notices she's pregnant. When people claim on this thread that embryos/fetuses will absolutely become humans, they discount that natural process. The slippery slope with the Roe decision has been stated. Now let's assume that the slippery slope has reversed after abortion is banned. So what if the woman, not wanting the child, decides to abuse her body in unimaginable yet legal ways? She drinks, smokes, pops prescription pills, ODs on vitamins, whatever. She eventually miscarries. Is she charged with murder? Or is it a case by case basis like paedophilia, where those who choose to report the crime will enforce the law, even if other people slip under the radar? That would be square one all over again. This time there aren't any neat statistics to support anything. If the mother's life is in danger, why does her life take precendence over the child's? The act of giving consent to sacrifice her life over the child's assumes that she naturally has that right. We could say that the mother will have more chances of childbirth, therefore her life takes precedence, yet the assumably healthy child will have opportunities as well, if it lives. If we assume that the mother could take care of herself better than the newborn, then that argument supports the pro-choice side. I guess that's why people force their views in black and white. The pro-choice side will leave the origin of the spiritual being to future advances because then it gives them the leeway to promote freedom to the individuals we can't disprove. It delineates murder from murdering unborn children. There is no moral dispute in the former, but there is moral dispute on the latter. Ultimately, I can't condone government intervention because the strategy is remnicent of Capital Punishment. It's the idea that our human moral dilemmas can be solved by the hand of the government. Perhaps you are right that the ultimate judgement is between the abortioners and their God. My influence on that struggle will be something other than forcing legislation.
Invisible Fan- Very well thought out response. Thank you for drawing me back in. I would just share my heart that a deep and genuine love for a mother and a deep and genuine love for a baby are not mutually exclusive. There are many definitions for the word love. It can be a cheap word that politicians use to sway or it can be an unspoken word only seen in sacrificial and giving actions on behalf of people who gain nothing personally by its expression. And everything in between... At some point in time life has meaning to people in different measures and love has many definitions. I have five children, I have felt the kicks and movements of each one inside my wife. I helped my wife with the housework and took extra care of her. We shared the experience and prepared for a very special gift. I can only say that love grew inside of me and a baby grew inside of her. I must contrast that picture with the frightened young girl who is only 15 yrs. old. She comes from an abusive home, fatherless, her mother works 2 jobs and they are at the poverty level. She is pregnant and in trouble because her mother doesn't need one more problem. This young girl is a victim in so many ways of the selfish choices of others and a system that demands success without support, love and compassion. Yes, she made a bad choice and yes she now lives with the consequences. But as I talk to her and try to earn her trust, as my wife and I show her a love that doesn't hold her to the world's expectations, there grows inside my heart a love for her as if she were my own child. I cannot help but feel a great need to show compassion and feel a great responsibility to be a part somehow of a solution to what I have become as a human. Life. How do you place a value on it? Where courts and governments and BBS pundits make clear choices I must look at life and think. As I have looked into the eyes of two mothers, my own wife and a frightened little girl, I realize the world needs help. As I have seen two babies, one born and placed into my arms and the other in a bag in a clinic, dead- I wonder what has become of us? The answer may be in heaven, where little babies are given life and broken mothers find peace.
Yes it does. Once again... Liberty: freedom from undue governmental control. The government does NOT have the right to control a woman's body. Period. ...and the Supreme Court already ruled as such. You may not like how the ruling was worded but they ruling itself stands by the basic principals on the constitution about basic human rights.
Are you too blind to see that we could accomplish much more reduction of abortion rates if we worked together rather than fighting each other?
