HOW will having more poor children end Welfare? NO, they do NOT all get adopted, some stay in the TAXPAYER funded system until they age out. NO, it isn't the easiest thing to get tubes tied....you have to find a doctor willing to do it. It might be easier now but just a few years ago doctors wouldn't tie the tubes of women who hadn't already had kids. Your "efforts" include driving by a clinic?
So using your thug example for comparison, you'd like your state to make shooting someone illegal, but not to investigate dead bodies that appear to have gunshot wounds. Do you see that problem with the logic?
My logic follows what the common practice has been here. If a dead body if found, find out why it's there. If a mom leaves a dead fetus lying around, then this can be investigated. If a mom has an early miscarriage and flushes the baby or buries it in her backyard, then that's on her to discuss this with others or not. If a mom wants to abort her baby out of her personal wants, then let her go do it across the state lines, or whatever. No need to notify Big Brother.
In abortion there is NO "body " to be found. So the ONLY purpose of the law would be to make women's, especially poor women's, life harder.........that is what you want...??? What a "noble" endeavor .......
Until you change your attitude you're highly unlikely to accomplish anything. Just look at the way you worded your posting as an example, referring to those worse off then you as "low lifes". Aside from the first amendment, what gives you the right to cast judgement on others? Just imagine 200 more babies born to crack addicts every month who turn their babies over to the state; you think that you can have 200 willing people to adopt them? Multiply that times the number of hospitals in your state on a weekly basis and then on a national basis and see how nice and large the numbers really are.
Bad people do bad things and that makes them bad. Being so callous as to allow oneself to become pregnant while on very dangerous narcotics and allowing the baby to suffer the effects---then run away to take so as not to be taken to task for harming a fetus/newborn---IS the act of a low-life in my opinion. The law judges such people to be unfit to care for their children in every state. Look at my signature. It IS their fault.
Like I said prior, you're entitled to your opinion, but you are not the moral judge of society nor is the judge. Everyone's life and circumstances are different.
Just showing this case and few others like it---the unborn can be killed with a bat and people can get away with it. Just depends on the state.
Why? It has nothing to do with abortion....it's just a diversion so you don't have to address those INCONVENIENT posts
And Alien anal probes CAN be used as coffee stir sticks to make sure temperatures are adequate. Also...Unicorn farts CA be used to cure bronchitis in wood nymphs if bottled for freshness....but only on Saturdays and Jewish holidays.
Accurately this is a reference to the medical term "fetus" that includes the common usage of the term "unborn baby" that is also the legal definition of a "non-person" under the US Constitution. In response to your signature: That is true but only following viability when the state can "proscribe (prohibit) abortion" and then it can't prohibit the abortion if "it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother." As previously mentioned this relates to the only "progressive" interpretation of the Constitution in Roe v Wade were the application of "potential personhood" was created by the Supreme Court establishing common law. It can also be noted that this refers to "natural viability" that is unchangeable. Rights established, even based upon "potential personhood", are limited to attributes inherent in the person while medical advancements and technology are not inherent in the person. The state cannot prohibit abortions in second trimester (prior to viability) because, as Justice Backmun notes in his decision, the state is limited to regulating the types of procedures used for the abortion. I've mentioned previously the regulations could require "removal intact and unharmed" to prevent any act of aggression against the "pre-born" to placate the (false) arguments of the "anti-abortionists" that spread propaganda that abortion equates to murder because "removal intact and unharmed" is literally the "surgical delivery of the preborn" and not an "abortion" because the medical procedure causes no harm. The problem is that it results in additional costs without benefit because prior to viability the fetus is going to die of natural causes. Here's a challenge I've repeatedly offered to the anti-abortionists. Below is the link to the Roe v Wade decision so provide what explicit quotations of arguments that are incorrect or seriously flawed that would warrant overturning the decision by any future Supreme Court. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113#writing-USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZO For it to be overturned a serious flaw in the decision would require identification and I've read Roe v Wade too many times to count and I can't find that flaw. P.S. I found that "fatal flaw" in the Reynolds v United States (187 where the Supreme Court establishes a precedent and then violates that precedent in the decision. It's the only time I've seen this happen in all of the Supreme Court decisions I've read. See if you can find what I'm referring to just for fun: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/98/145/case.html
Its very clear - Roe permits abortion to be banned after viability with the only exception being "the life of the mother". That's why the abortionists have gone to such exaggerated lengths to make every aspect of pregnancy a threat to the "life of the mother". Roe also permits abortion to be regulated after the first trimester.
Correction to the above: The state cannot prohibit an abortion based upon the "preservation of the life or health of the mother" which makes it clearly evident that the pregnancy doesn't necessarily have to threaten the "life" of the mother but can merely represent a physical or mental health threat. Following the first trimester but prior to viability the state may "regulate the abortion procedure" (i.e. it can regulate what types of medical procedures are used to perform the abortion) but it cannot prohibit the abortion. Once again this was based upon the highly progressive application of the concept of "potential personhood" and as a "progressive libertarian" I agree with this progressive interpretation. It's a fundamental override of the historical legal precedent that "Personhood begins at birth" that was also reviewed in Roe v Wade. The "Potential Personhood" waives the precedent and establishes the logical construction of when, during development, the "person" originates as well as the associated establishment of the Rights of the Person of the "preborn" that cannot infringe upon the established rights of the woman. It addresses and pragmatically resolves the paradox where the rights of the preborn cannot exist in violation of the previously established rights of the woman. From the "Natural Rights of the Person" perspective Roe v Wade exhibits unusual wisdom in resolving a paradox that exists during pregnancy. The problem of "personhood" not being established before birth based upon historical legal precedent was always a valid argument because the "law" cannot establish "personhood" in nature. The "person" in nature must meet "nature's" criteria and Roe v Wade addressed that issue pragmatically by understanding that once the fetus could live outside of the womb as an independent human being then it had progressed enough in it's development to being predominately a "person" where it would also start inheriting the "natural rights" associated with being a person. That's why I've often stated that we can change the "legal precedent" of the "person" that is based upon birth currently by a Constitutional Amendment but in doing so we'd be still be forced to accept the decision in Roe v Wade related to the establishment of the "rights of the person prior to birth" because of the characteristics of natural rights where a conflict cannot exist. Anti-abortionists don't like Roe v Wade because it's not a "religious" decision that would violate the Constitution and instead Roe v Wade a "natural rights" decision based upon the Constitution as it should be.
Something many don't seem to realize is that Roe v Wade protects the Pro-Life advocates. The "Power of the State" to prohibit is also a grant of the "Power of the State" to mandate. If government in the United States has the power to prohibit and abortion then it also has the power to mandate an abortion. A power of government can be used for both "good and evil" and people seem to forget that. Roe v Wade, by imposing severe limitations upon when the state can prohibit and abortion conversely imposes the same restrictions upon the state to mandate an abortion. Without Roe v Wade it could be argued that the United States have the power to impose a "one-child" policy China. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/22/opinion/chinas-brutal-one-child-policy.html Forced abortion is something that doesn't sit well with Pro-Choice advocates and it doesn't sit well with Pro-Life advocates either which is why there's a very high percentage of people that are literally "Pro-Life/Pro-Choice" because they oppose abortion but also oppose granting the power to government to prohibit abortion. The "Anti-Abortionist" (significantly different than "Pro-Life") advocates are literally demanding the granting of a power to government where the government can use that power to either prohibit or mandate abortion and they've not thought this out very well. They demand the rope that can be used to hang themselves.
Insignificant difference. The clear meaning in Blackmuns opinion is that there must be a significant medical risk to the mother, not some type of real or perceived "inconvenience". That's why abortionists have worked so hard so make everything appear to be a risk to the mothers life, and have worked so hard to keep all regulation and oversight out of the abortion decision - contrary to Roe v Wade. BS. Now you are just getting desperate because your wish for unlimited abortion is threatened and you have to attack the messenger in hopes the message will get lost. I have never once in this forum argued against abortion from a religious perspective, I have always argued from a secular perspective that the prime issue is the status of the baby.
The word used by Blackmuns is "necessary" and not "significant" but I would tend to agree that "necessary" would have a correlation to a medical condition with a degree of "significance" associated to it. While I find the use of the word "abortionists" to be disparaging because "Pro-Choice" does not imply "Pro-Abortion" and never has. "Pro-Choice" is a position against government interventionism in a decision that is exclusively the woman's based upon the advice of her doctor and not subject to the subjective opinions of others. Blackmun clearly establishes that it's a medical diagnosis and not a legislative determination with his imposition of the criteria "appropriate medical judgment" effectively denying the government the regulatory authority to define the criteria for what is "necessary" or "not necessary" to authorize the abortion. The attending physician's judgment established by a diagnosis that's unique to the woman is the foundation for the "necessity" of the abortion but the physician doesn't decide if the abortion is necessary. The physician merely provides the diagnosis and recommendation to the woman and it's the woman that ultimately decides if the abortion is necessary based upon the diagnosis and authorizes or determines it's unnecessary and refuses to authorize the abortion. The "necessity" is the decision of the woman based upon the judgment of the physician that provides the diagnosis for the woman to considered in making her decision on whether the abortion is necessary or not. There can be a broad spectrum in the differences in diagnosis. Most people can easily accept the abortion when the diagnosis is "if you don't have the abortion you will certainly die" and few would find any fault with the woman's decision that the abortion is absolutely necessary. But there's the opposite of this where the same diagnosis of "if you don't have the abortion you will certainly die" is not compelling and the woman decides the abortion is unnecessary and chooses not to have it. I'm not a medical person but I've read of these cases that could be the diagnosis of a cancer where the treatment will cause the death of the fetus and the delaying of the treatment until after the birth will result in the cancer advancing until it's untreatable. We don't know if her decision is morally right or wrong even though we often have different moral opinions. If she gives up her life for the child the child will grow up and live their life knowing that they were the cause of their mother's death and that's a horrible fact to live with. Is she right for imposing that guilt upon her child? I don't know and all I know is that it's a no-win decision for the woman. So if we accept this one extreme then how far does it really go in the opposite direction? I can't say what diagnosis would justify the necessity for the abortion and I don't believe anyone can. Not even the woman prior to the moment of having to make that decision can really say because there's a huge difference between a woman answering the hypothetical question about having an abortion and them actually having to make the decision about whether the abortion is necessary or not. Then you cannot disagree with Roe v Wade at all because it is a secular opinion based upon the natural rights of the person but you're conclusion that I "wish for unlimited abortion" couldn't be further from the truth. Opposition to laws of prohibition is not advocacy for that which would be prohibited under the law. John Locke, in his Second Treatise of Civil Government addresses this issue specifically in Chapter II "Of the State of Nature". "Though this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of license." Just because something is lawful does not imply that it's right (a concept that the Republican ideology seems to ignore). I'm opposed to the power of government to prohibit abortion because of the power itself. The "power to prohibit" is the identical "power to mandate" and if our government can prohibit abortion then it also has the power to mandate abortion. I've addressed this specifically in this follow-on post. http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=493595&p=1067071201#post1067071201 The issue of "Liberty does not imply License" repeatedly comes up. There's a thread about if it's "fair" (right) to be intentionally offensive or disparaging just because we have the protected Freedom of Speech that makes it legal. The Constitution provides us with the Liberty (freedom) to be offensive but that Liberty doesn't grant us the "License" to be offensive. The same is true with abortion. The Constitution gives the woman the "Liberty" to have an abortion but not the "License" to have an abortion. We need to protect the Liberty from government infringement and to prevent the exploitation where people use that as a "License" we must share the knowledge of why it would be wrong with them. We need to teach people that "Liberty" is linked to "Responsibility" and establish that a secular moral code in society. The wrong why is to deny legislate an agenda as opposed to addressing the issue intellectually and by example so that society changes. Of course the "anti-abortionists" are actually damaging their own cause by actions like "defunding Planned Parenthood" because they will be cutting off a vital resource in preventing unwanted pregnancies that prevents abortions. What kind of stupid are they? Planned Parenthood is the largest single provider of women's reproductive services that includes birth control and comparatively speaking provides very few abortions when compared to how many unwanted pregnancies it prevents. Instead of an information campaign and promoting birth control to reduce unwanted pregnancies they're nefariously closing abortion clinics. We reduce abortion with positive actions and not with negative actions and the anti-abortionists are employing negative actions in their legislative campaign to deny abortion as opposed to changing society with positive actions. That's the "secular" means of reducing abortion based upon the natural rights of the people/person and that's what Roe v Wade established with a Constitutional foundation for how we should address the issue.
That you cannot comprehend that the Law of the Land is something that We the People are constantly modifying to ensure that the rights of individual legal persons are not infringed is not my problem. As far as your fallacious immoral attempt to deprive women of their reproductive rights goes let's just put this into the appropriate context first. Women are legal persons who have individual rights and no specious conflation of unrelated crimes on your part is going to deprive women of their rights. Here is the pertinent history lesson that applies in this instance. All attempts to legislate "morality" become abject failures because it is arbitrary basis for any law that depends entirely upon a misguided majority imposing their own personal opinions as to what is "moral" on others. The most classic example of failed morality legislation was Prohibition and DOMA ranks right up there alongside it. All attempts to ban abortions are in the same category. You are going to have to come up with a sound legal basis for depriving women of their reproductive rights because your personal sense of "morality" is not enough. Unlike you, I would not shut down this board because I uphold your right to express your opinion no matter how erroneous it might be when it comes to the Law of the Land and the individual rights of naturally born persons.
The "original intent and meaning" of the Constitution included the individual right to an abortion under the 9th Amendment since it was legal at the time the BoR was drafted and subsequently ratified by the states.
The ramifications of granting a fetus constitutional rights equal to those of a natural born person would create some serious legal problems. If a pregnant woman were to commit a crime and be sentenced to jail that would violate the rights of the fetus because it would be incarcerated without due process. Those who oppose abortion don't seem to have a decent grasp on the concept of individual rights and how they work under the Law of the Land.
The "convenience" fallacy? Pregnancy is a life altering reality for women but you want to reduce it to nothing more than an "inconvenience" to be forced to spend the next 2 decades caring and raising a child?
