Centralized healthcare funding has turned out to be more efficient according to the experience of other developed nations. Abortion is healthcare, ergo it should be federally funded. Fetuses don't have minds, and so aren't persons and thus deserve no more rights than any other part of a woman's body. I am not sure what the Supreme Court will do - they aren't always very logical - but I am completely confident of what's right on this issue.
They will probably go after doctors who try to perform abortions. At worst, they may go after women who end up in the emergency room a self attempt to cause a miscarriage. I think that's what countries that have abortion as illegal do.
This is an exceptionally good point and on this we could probably agree on a few points. As noted the "baby" from a natural perspective cannot really exist until it achieves an "independent" status separate from the mother and this begins in the womb at viability. That was what I came to appreciated after reading and rereading Roe v Wade over time. The Court didn't restrict itself to the historical legal precedent of personhood beginning at birth in extending the rights of the person protected by the Constitution and created the classification of "potential person" that it applied at viability. Our discussion has narrowed to the "post-viability" or "late abortion" cases where about 2 1/2% of abortions occur after viability from what I understand where both of us actually have grounds for concern. We seem to agree that if a "necessary" or in your words "significant" medical condition is diagnosed then the abortion is a reasonable medical choice. Your concern, and I would also agree to that concern, is that the abortion shouldn't just be for the "convenience" of the woman. If it's just about "convenience" then my objection would be that the woman had the unrestricted option to have the abortion in the first trimester well before the establishment of the "potential person" (baby in the womb) but for my argument to be valid we have to ensure that the woman has both the availability of the medical services and the advice at that time for her to make a decision. I'm not sure we do enough to provide the knowledge to women of the significance of committing to have a baby when she become pregnant for the first time. Our society is based upon a belief in "informed consent" but are we providing the information at the most critical time for the woman when she should be making a decision? We obviously can't do anything about those cases where the woman might be diagnosed with a serious medical condition like cancer where the treatment would kill the fetus and delaying the treatment would make the cancer incurable and kill the woman - the true life or death decision for the woman to make. The issue I'd have is can we reduce that 2 1/2% number by eliminating the "abortion for convenience" where the abortion could have and should have been performed immediately when the pregnancy was identified. Ensuring the medical services are available and that the woman is well informed about the necessity for making an early decision as opposed to being irresponsible and waiting until after viability could arguably eliminate the post viability "abortion for convenience" that we are mutually opposed to.
Nationwide less than 20% want abortion to be illegal in all circumstances. http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx
Abortions did not require extensive travel during the first half of the 1900's. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1997/05/abortion-in-american-history/376851/
Please state all the federal laws during that time that stated the words "abortion" and "the right to do it" in the same sentence.
Getting pregnant is almost always a voluntary life choice. Any woman wanting to have sex must know she might get pregnant.
That's true but they better get their faces out of their phones and the Batchelor and pay attention or they WILL face execution and jail time and have their "valued " life ruined by this misogynistic administration !
No, a woman could "volunteer" (have sex) a million times and never get pregnant.....didn't you know that?!!! A woman can say, ""I'll have sex AND get pregnant" but that won't get her pregnant.....didn't you know that?!!! You: "Any woman wanting to have sex must know she might get pregnant. " So what! You think she should be punished for the rest of her life for having sex......can that sound reasonable even to YOU!!!?????
Disingenuous attempt to move the goal posts. The absence of Federal laws regulating and/or banning abortions means that it was legal. Contemporary medical texts at the time described potions and remedies for terminating pregnancies. There were even classified adverts for abortificants that would have been illegal if it was banned by federal law. http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_vaul...entury_classified_ads_for_abortifacients.html
BZZZT Wrong again! Consenting to intercourse is not consenting to pregnancy. Still waiting for you to make a cogent legal argument as to why women should be denied their reproductive rights
If you don't want your kids to have an abortion, all you can do is try to educate them on the ways to prevent pregnancy and see to it that they can financially afford to get those ways. No law will prevent them. That is realistic. As to what you can tolerate...apparently your tolerance level for allowing other people to make their own decisions is rather low.
No, the anti-abortion laws were legislative overreach. They were passing laws to implement their own religious views.
Roe focuses on viability. I do not, and the abortion crowd does not any longer for the same reasons Blackmun had such a problem with viability (as discussed in The Brethren, by Woodward). Viability is a very weak argument, is very subjective, changes with changes in medical ability and the economic status of the mother, and there are many analogies between unborn viability and the viability of children and adults, but Blackmun needed "something" for his opinion. I have argued that its absolutely a person at 21 weeks, before that it is unknown but following our society's precepts of "do no harm", innocent until proven guilty, Blackstone, etc. that it must be considered a human at conception until proven otherwise.
Advances in medicine don't affect "natural viability" and natural viability is the only valid criteria because this is addressing natural rights that are based upon nature and not human knowledge, technology, or statutory law. With that established it is true that "natural viability" isn't a precise "day" in the term of pregnancy because it varies between women based upon numerous factors but there could be a way of ensuring the "protected rights of the potential person" if we consider it because I believe it's medically doable. Instead of "abortion" we could require the "surgical delivery" of the "potential person" where the fetus is removed unharmed and intact from the woman. This of course assumes that the doctors would be relatively certain that the surgical procedure would be safe for the woman. Upon delivery the "potential person" instantly becomes a living and breathing "person" that has not been harmed in any manner. Based upon natural viability the obligation is to provide the food, general care, and environment necessary for an infant and then it's just wait to see of the fetus lives or dies. If it lives then it was viable and if it dies then it was not viable. A pretty straight-forward proposition. In the event of death it would be due to natural causes there's no violation of the rights of a person. Assuming no significant increase in risk for the woman by the "surgical delivery" at what would be considered the early "natural viability" stage of the pregnancy then all of the "late term" procedures could be changed from "abortion" to "surgical delivery" to protect the natural rights of the "potential person" in the womb. The only possible objection I can think of is the additional costs that could be substantial but I'd reject that because the Rights of the Person should never be denied just because of the costs to protect them. We can also address the criteria of "necessary" by having the medical community establish a code of ethics in determining if and when the medical diagnosis would result in a recommendation for an "abortion" (perhaps the necessity of a second opinion as well) before the diagnosis and recommendation are given to the woman so that she would have a valid criteria for determining if the abortion was necessary for her. Once again the one thing we can't have is the government making the decision. If the government has the authority to establish "five" criteria for abortion so that all five must be met or the abortion is prohibited then government also has the authority to mandate the abortion if all five criteria are met. The power to prohibit and the mandate are identical. There are ways to avoid granting the government that power and the one question I'd ask everyone that's opposed to abortion is if they're willing to accept mandated abortions by the government because if they want the government to prohibit abortion then they're also giving the government the authority to mandate the abortion. It's like Ronald Reagan said, "Government is not the solution to the problem, government is the problem." We need to leave the ultimate decision with the woman. She's the only qualified person to make the decision. Not even her doctor is qualified to make the decision and is limited to providing the medical facts in the diagnosis (to the best of their ability) and then providing a recommendation to the woman based upon the diagnosis and possible medical options. I can't make the decision for the woman, you can't make the decision for the woman, and the government shouldn't even be allowed to make any medical decision for a person. The government's role is solely and exclusively to provide "protections of the Rights of the Person" and not to make decisions for the person. This is actually addressed in one of the First Principles that our government was created based upon. http://www.americassurvivalguide.com/americas-first-principles.php When our government begins to tell a woman that she's prohibited from having an abortion or when she must have an abortion then it's not protecting her rights, it's violating her rights. It doesn't have that authority under the Constitution.
A human fetus only becomes a legal person AFTER it is naturally born. You have NOT presented any legal basis whatsoever for granting a fetus the same constitutional rights of a naturally born legal person. The fact that you are incapable of presenting any legal basis makes your own position extremely weak.
"natural viability" has absolutely nothing to do with natural rights. Since that was your foundation for your post (as you wrote in your second sentence) I did not read past that sentence. Any arguement based on such a severe non sequitur will be a waste of time to read. And as to "natural viability", if that is your position than almost nobody can survive "naturally". Put a baby, child, or adult in the woods to fend for themselves with no support and 99.99% will die.
I am not making a legal argument. I am arguing the law is wrong and is contrary to American history, social mores, medical morals, and the spirit of justice. The fact that you and the rest of the abortionists limit your argument to "Its the law!" shows you know you have a very weak argument.
In which case you are required to make a legal argument establishing that the "law is wrong". That you cannot proves that the law is Constitutional since it upholds the reproductive rights of women. That fallacy has already been utterly debunked since abortion was legal when this nation was founded. A mere 19% of society don't get to deprive women of their individual rights because that would be morally unjustifiable to society as a whole. Explain exactly how a medical professional denying a woman an abortion that would save her life is a justifiable "medical moral decision" since the doctor has the medical expertise to save her? That is a purely a religious term (Isaiah 28:6) which exposes that your opposition to abortion is based upon your theist beliefs. The Law of the Land upholds Individual Constitutional Rights for We the People. It is the Duty of every American to uphold each other's rights. You want to DEPRIVE women of their individual reproductive right which is why you have an extremely weak position based upon nothing but your theist morality and beliefs as exposed by your own post above.
This is argument for the sake of argument as opposed to rational thinking. No one said without any support or assistance and it's silly to suggest that would be a criteria. In nature the mother (or a surrogate) provides the basic necessities for infant growth such as food and shelter. That does not change. The reasonable assistance that any newborn requires is not denied and to suggest it would be is nonsense. Natural Rights are based upon "Nature Law" for survival of a species and not on advances in science or technology. In this application the "newborn" would be expected to demonstrate it can consume food on it's own and to perform normal bodily functions without the benefits of modern medical science to meet the criteria of "natural viability" that establishes the independence of the person. For example the infant's heart and lungs must function on their own. This would be a reasonable test of viability arguably of limited duration based upon rational criteria. Now that absurdity pretending to be argument has been overcome you can return and read the rest of the opinion. I would suggest the discussion is not to argue intransient positions but instead to share ideas with a commitment to reach a common solution.
Instead of proclamations there needs to be some clarification. The Constitution protects the "Rights of the Person" and the historical "legal precedent" establishes that the "person" originates at birth. The "legal precedent" does not require that it must be a "natural birth" and, in fact, doesn't refer to "natural birth" at all but instead imposes the criteria is fundamentally "outside of the womb" where there is a clear separation between the woman and the child. The obvious problem is that the "legal definition of the person" doesn't necessarily reflect the "natural definition of the person" and it is the "natural definition of the person" that takes precedent when addressing natural/unalienable/inalienable rights. Statutory law (and common law that's created by the courts) can create statutory rights but it cannot create natural rights. Natural Law creates Natural Rights and the statutory laws (and common law) can protect or violate a Natural Right but cannot create that Right. There are obvious discrepancies in our "statutory definition of the person" and the "natural definition of the person" and the Roe v Wade decision addressed that difference. It should be noted that the "person" is a reference to the "independent self" because all natural rights are based upon the self and there is criteria that must be met for all natural rights. "Natural (unalienable/inalienable) rights are inherent in the person, not dependent upon another person, do not violate another person(s) rights, and do not impose an involuntary obligation upon another person(s)." The "anti-abortionists" are technically correct that the "self" originates at conception because the zygote is unique and different than the mother but it is not the "independent self" (person) that has any rights at that point because it is totally dependent upon the mother and is imposing an involuntary obligation upon the mother and any "alleged" rights of the "self" prior to viability would be in conflict with the rights of the mother and therefore cannot exist, That's why the entire issue rests on when "nature defines the person" as opposed to statutory legal precedent that has been inaccurate based upon any serious scrutiny. As I've mentioned several times that was the great wisdom reflected in Roe v Wade that, as a student and advocate for the Natural Rights of the Person, I came to truly appreciate over time. I cannot find a serious flaw in Roe v Wade when addressing it from a Natural Rights/Natural Law perspective. The "potential person" pragmatically addresses when "nature defines the person" with the immergence of the natural rights of the "self" as it gains independence. Bonus discussion: Short lesson in Natural Rights v Statutory Rights (that our schools don't typically teach) We have numerous statutory laws that grant a statutory right as opposed to a natural right. For example the "right to keep and bear arms" is a statutory right and not a natural right. The natural right is the "right of self-defense against acts of aggression" while the "arms" are a not "inherent in the person" that is a mandatory criteria for a natural right. The "arms" provide a statutory means for pragmatically defending one's "self" because of the inherent physical differences between different people. We also have statutory laws that grant a statutory right that violates a natural right. The most glaring example being our "laws of property" where the "title grants ownership" that can allow a person to "possess that which they have no right to possess" under Natural Law. Under Natural Law the "title is the recognition of the right to possess" and does not grant that right to possess. An example of the statutory violation would be when a person acquires land based upon the "title" being given to the person by the government without the person expending any labor dedicated to the use of the land. The government didn't have a "right of property" to the land (governments don't have any "rights") and the issuance of the title by the government was invalid. On the other hand if a person finds unused land and begins to farm that land their labor and use of the land establishes a "right to possess" the land. The "title" would recognize that natural right to possess the land for use. If they stop using the land then they no longer have a natural right to it and they lose the "title" to the land. Finally we also have statutory laws that don't actually protect the natural right because the natural right itself cannot be violated but instead protect the "freedom to exercise" the "natural right" and there are numerous examples. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, are all protections of "Liberty" to exercise the "Natural Right of Thought" of the person. The "Right of Liberty" is actually the Freedom to Exercise a Natural Right. Some people misrepresent that by believing that the Right of Liberty allows a person to do whatever they damn well please so long as their actions don't directly harm another person but that is false. The Right of Liberty does not imply the License to Act but only the Freedom to Exercise a Natural Right.
I appreciate your recognition of natural law. Natural rights have to precede natural law, logically. Without the right, which exists as a property of any potential victim, the law lacks the referent necessary to its qualification as a moral injunction. The order you give makes sense for law derived by fiat where there is a mechanism by which an obligation can be said to be created. But, if you're gonna say something is natural, existing as part of the human condition, you can't also say it is the result of an injunction, as any injunction always has a prior explanation. You can prove this by asking "why" of the law until you get to an irreducible primary. It's an arcane distinction, but I think it's worth noting. Anyway, where are you getting this definition of "person" as an independent self? It's on a slippery slope, as it applies to the baby long after birth and to many adults. Also, where are you getting the idea that precedent establishes personhood as beginning at birth? There is plenty of precedent which assumes personhood prior to birth, from "Commentaries..." for example: " If the child dies subsequently to birth from wounds received in the womb, it is clearly homicide, even though the child is still attached to the mother by the umbilical cord. It has been said that it is not an indictable offence to administer a drug to a woman, and thereby to procure an abortion, unless the mother is quick with child, though such a distinction, it is submitted, is neither in accordance with the result of medical experience, nor with the principles of the common law. The civil rights of an infant in ventre sa mere are equally respected at every period of gestation; and it is clear that, no matter at how early a stage, he may be appointed executor, is capable of taking as legatee or under a marriage settlement, may take specifically under a general devise as a child, and may obtain an injunction to stay waste. Wharton’s American Crim. Law, 537. See Comm. vs. Parker, 9 Metcalf, 263. State vs. Cooper, 2 Zabriskie, 57. Smith vs. State, 33 Maine, 48. An infant is in esse from the time of conception, for the purpose of taking any estate which is for his benefit, whether by descent, devise, or under the statute of distributions, provided the infant be born alive and after such a period of fœtal existence that its continuance in life may be reasonably expected. The right of an unborn infant to take property by descent or otherwise is an inchoate right, which will not be completed by a premature birth. Harper vs. Archer, 4 Smedes & Marsh. 99. Marsellis vs.Halkimer, 2 Paige, Ch. Rep. 35.—Sharswood. " Also notice " Meanwhile, the uncertainty of canon lawyers allowed English law to give its own twist to the concept of animation. In the thirteenth century St. Thomas Aquinas had said that life is manifested principally in two kinds of actions: knowledge and movement. It could be taken to follow that animus, soul, or life, enters the body of the unborn infant when it first moves or stirs in the womb. This became the rule of English law. "Quickening" (literally, "coming to life") was held to occur not at a fixed time after conception, but at the moment when fetal movement is first detected—an event that varies with each pregnancy, but which usually happens near midterm, around the twentieth week. Read more: Abortion - Abortion In English Law - Fetus, Quickening, Homicide, and Century - JRank Articles http://law.jrank.org/pages/445/Abortion-Abortion-in-English-law.html#ixzz4Xp6xQDw2 "
