As it was for blacks under Jim Crow, the South leads in denying women reprod. rights-

no it wasn't

the first example of the right to privacy was established in 1965 in Griswold v. Connecticut, prior to that the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 9th Amendment have all been seen as privacy rights.

The First Amendment protects the privacy of beliefs
The Third Amendment protects the privacy of the home against the use of it for housing soldiers
The Fourth Amendment protects privacy against unreasonable searches
The Fifth Amendment protects against self-incrimination, which in turn protects the privacy of personal information
The Ninth Amendment says that the "enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." This has been interpreted as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments.

 

As I said earlier, my argument does not rest on location, but on fetal development (specifically, when the brain could support personhood). Since you offer no evidence for the claim that our self-aware soul inhabits the body at the moment of conception, maybe we can discuss this aspect that you brought up earlier.

The very existence of the UVVA means that the supporters of that law (pro-life) recognize and acknowledge that no existing law in the United States grants personhood or citizenship to a fetus before actual birth. We have accepted, for centuries, that personhood begins at actual birth. The UVVA does not grant the fetus personhood. It just creates a new law that allows the government to punish an individual who (against the will of the pregnant woman) does harm to the fetus. The UVVA, in effect, protects the rights of the mother (or her family) who have lost something they consider valuable. It does not create or protect any rights of the fetus itself. That is why the UVVA provides no penalty for abortion.

 

you obviously came in in the middle, my point being if it is all about protecting women and having babies hurts women, then why not sterilize the poor girls to protect them, sarcastic tone should be obvious.

 

In a 7-2 decision written by Justice Harry Blackmun (who was chosen because of his prior experience as counsel to the Mayo Clinic), the Court ruled that the Texas statute violated Jane Roe's constitutional right to privacy. The Court argued that the Constitution's First, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual's "zone of privacy" against state laws and cited past cases ruling that marriage, contraception, and child rearing are activities covered in this "zone of privacy." The Court then argued that the "zone of privacy" was "broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." This decision involved myriad physical, psychological, and economic stresses a pregnant woman must face.

Because abortions lie within a pregnant woman's "zone of privacy," the abortion decision "and its effectuation" are fundamental rights that are protected by the Constitution from regulation by the states, so laws regulating abortion must be sufficiently "important." Was Texas's law sufficiently important to pass constitutional muster? The Court reviewed the history of abortion laws, from ancient Greece to contemporary America, and therein found three justifications for banning abortions: "a Victorian social concern to discourage illicit sexual conduct"; protecting the health of women; and protecting prenatal life. The Court rejected the first two justifications as irrelevant given modern gender roles and medical technology. As for the third justification, the Court argued that prenatal life was not within the definition of "persons" as used and protected in the U.S. Constitution and that America's criminal and civil laws only sometimes regard fetuses as persons deserving protection. Culturally, while some groups regard fetuses as people deserving full rights, no consensus exists. The Court ruled that Texas was thus taking one "view" of many. Protecting all fetuses under this contentious "view" of prenatal life was not sufficiently important to justify the state's banning of almost all abortions.


which of ther other precedents you site apply only to women??????

 

you have studied a lot about abortions

 

What is the difference in development of a full term baby 1 second before birth and 1 second after? Is its brain any more developed, is its mental capacity any different?

 

Post 144, which you must've missed, gives you your answer.

 

*shrug* That constitution might not exist without the people who were drafted, fought and died for it. Registering for the draft is very much enforced.

If you believe otherwise, ignore it. Then try and get a driver's license in states like Virginia, a federal student loan, federal job training, or apply for a government job. Or just call the FBI, provide your name and address, then announce you are choosing to ignore that federal law.

(feel free to inform them of your opinions on constitutional law)



​

 

No I read all the comments.

Your idea (even sarcastically) takes away that very important thing called consent, sterilizing takes away a woman's choice to consent to whether she wants to allow pregnancy to harm her or not.

- - - Updated - - -

That was not your assertion, your assertion was "the right to privacy was arbitrarily discovered in 1973" which as shown is not correct.

- - - Updated - - -

Not just abortions but personal rights in general.

 

There is no draft in the USA, people are required to register so that a draft can be readily resumed if needed .. but as it stands the draft does not exist.

 

The difference that the law recognizes is that the fetus is part of the woman (a subject of her domain) 1 second before birth. So, in that respect location is important (but that is not the basis of my argument, that is more likely the basis of all those laws that consider the fetus a non-person until the moment of birth).

For all we know the ancients might have been right. Maybe the soul enters the body with the "first breath of life." At that point we know the brain is developed enough to support a self-aware soul. We cannot be sure of that much earlier in the pregnancy (but that gets into ground we already covered).

 

*shrug* Same can be said of a presidential election.



​

 

Irrelevant to the discussion.

 

Yes, it is irrelevant that we are not currently conducting a draft or a presidential election. Regardless of whether it's happening at the moment, the law does allow and require each.

Our laws require duties of those who choose to become and remain citizens. Duties that have and will require great sacrifice. That said, the choice of what duties we require are up to the people. This nation is a partnership, and while there are logistic challenges to sharing ownership of this land with 319 million partners the ultimate decision is ours. As is the consequence of not asking enough of ourselves.



​

 

You did not answer the question. I did not ask about the law or something metaphysical such as a soul, but about something quite measurable. What is the difference in brain development, mental capacity, reasoning ability, between a 36 week old baby 1 second before birth and 1 second after?

The answer is "there is no difference", and the only reason some people refuse to admit it is that it puts a great big hole in the pro-abortion stance.

 

There is a one second difference in most things involving law. A spouse, convicted felon, adult....etc all become what they are within one second because of law.

 

The draft is not a legal reality as it stands in the US today, what ever happens in the future is irrelevant to today.

 

I'm sorry you couldn't find post 144 (how convenient for you ) but here it is and it still answers your question:

"""" The difference between a fetus at 34 weeks and 1 second before being born and a baby 1 second after being born is that the born baby is no longer causing injury to the female, add to that-that there are also physical differences in the way the heart works and how blood is transported around the body, and how waste material is removed, and how the lungs work .. do I need to add more?

Whether the fetus has personhood status from conception or not is irrelevant to the legality of abortion. """"



............. and the only reason some people refuse to admit it is that it puts a great big hole in the Anti-Choice stance......glad to help

 

I thought (from your earlier posts) that you did not accept the premise that brain development mattered, so if you are asking about 1 second before or after birth, you are just talking legal definitions.

Do you agree, now, that brain development is the key indicator of personhood/spirit/soul? If that is the case, there is a point in the third trimester when the brain has developed enough to support self-aware thought. Before that point, personhood is impossible. After that point, personhood is possible (so we could give the fetus the benefit of the doubt).

For all we know, it might be the increased oxygen level (with that first breath of life) that triggers the final connection that binds a person to the body. I cannot prove it is so, but YOU cannot prove it is otherwise. That is the great big hole in the pro-life stance.

 

The draft is a legal reality, it's just not happening at the moment. Like a presidential election.

I don't agree that the future is irrelevant. Those of us who intend to live into the future, plan and prepare for it today.



​

 

As I have repeatedly written, brain development is not the aspect that matters in determining personhood.

You are the one arguing that birth is a critical factor in granting personhood, and that brain development is a second factor. Then you must have some factual aspect to back up your position. How does the brain change at birth?

As your post above shows, you have no basis for your belief, the brain does not change in any measurable way in the 1 second before birth and the 1 second after birth, you believe it simply because you do not want to challenge your pro-abortion stance.

And there is the great big difference between pro-life and pro-abortion. To a pro-life person, since there is no definitive way to determine when a baby becomes a person, we follow the moral and legal precedents of our society and compassionately and rationally give the baby the benefit of the doubt and balance the rights of the mother and the baby. Pro-abortionists go the other way and refuse to entertain the thought that the baby might be a person, in the interests of selfishness they discard rational thought and social precedent so they can abort a possible human being in order avoid embarrassment.

 

Sorry you can't comprehend the difference between born and Unborn....it is simple ...


Anti-Chocers do NOT "balance the rights"" of the woman and fetus .

They give the fetus MORE rights than anyone else including the woman it's in.


Now do prove that Anti-Choicers NEVER do anything selfish. But bear in mind that "selfish" is not wrong...

 

Provide the legislation that shows the draft in still in force please, until then it is not a legal reality.

 

That is a pile of horse crap, I am pro-choice and have absolutely no issues with the unborn being seen as persons from conception after all it would just make ALL abortion restrictions obsolete and as such abortion would be legal at any time, for any reason and the state having to pay for it, but of course I remember you were to scared to debate that with me.

 

(1) If brain development is not the significant aspect in determining personhood, please explain what is? I can predict that if you could take Joe's brain, put it in Bill's body, and revive Bill, Bill's body would then be inhabited by Joe's personhood (i.e. self-aware mind/spirit/soul). What do you claim to be the significant aspect in determining personhood and what is your evidence?

(2) I say that precedent has been established in the past for considering the newborn a person at actual birth. I claim that it might be reasonable to give the fetus the benefit of the doubt and assume that it could be a person as early as the point when the brain has the physical capacity for meaningful thought (within the third trimester). I can justify that based on medical science.
Reference: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-does-consciousness-arise/

Note: I do not claim the brain changes at the moment of birth. I claim that you have no evidence to support personhood before the brain is capable of meaningful thought. Meaningless EEG patterns and primitive instinctual reflexes do not count as meaningful thought, especially if they can happen before the brain has developed enough to perform meaningful thought. So now that you have seen the scientific support for my threshold, where is the scientific support for your threshold?

So to recap:
- Actual birth is the most obvious point to declare the newborn a "person"
- I am willing to give the fetus the benefit of the doubt once the brain is developed enough to make self-awareness (which some call spirit or soul) possible in a physical body.