Is there a right to abortion, and if so, where does the right come from?

I sometimes am drawn to a position in part because the opposition to that position is so poorly, unconvincingly, or obnoxiously articulated. For example, I never cared one way or the other about Trump, but judgmental hysterics in the media calling him a mentally incompetent, Russia-colluding despot, and the snotty elitism of the anti-deplorable HRC and her anti-police allies drove me inexorably into supporting him.



Are Democrats similarly winking at this monstrous abortion bill, knowing it is wrong, because of the political satisfaction it will give them to defeat the people they hate? They can't be this insensitive to babies nearing the day of their birth. They just can't be.

 

I merely responded to your post claiming a 9th month abortion can happen if a doctor says the mother's life is in danger.

So correct, no I don't.
Unless you think doctors are a dishonest profession and will lie. I don't believe they are.
So, it's not so simple to say as you said, 'all it takes to abort in the 9th month is for a healthcare worker to find that the pregnancy could harm a mother’s mental or physical health'.

 

Which is a very very weak argument. You didn't address why in is an argument of a tyrant. Or why might makes right is the only true right any one has and the end of the day, or when poop hits the fan.

I never ever said I don't believe in individual rights. But those rights are given by society and need an enforcement mechanism to create and enforce.

So, now you see how very very weak your argument is? It's simply name calling.

 

Where is it in constitution unborn have any rights?
The 14th Amendment even explicitly states in its words, All born persons...

 

Not if said gov't says we have individual rights and freedoms. But we only have those rights and freedoms to begin with, because a gov't is granting and enforcing any rights we have. So, I have to agree with you statement.

But if no other person's rights or freedoms are infringed, it should be left alone. But that is probably a libertarian view point.

But, going OT here, even the constitution doesn't protect all rights afforded by the constitution. There's several arms restrictions in place when the 2A says bearing arms shall NOT be infringed.
An abortion infringes on no other person's rights. By all legal definitions of words. And all gov'ts must use legal definitions when drawing up laws. Or they should. Because lawsuits have to deal with definitions of words.

 

She should have to prove it and still have a psychiatric review to prove the mental anguish.
But in reality, very very very very few women are going to carry a pregnancy to near full term and then try to get a doctor to rule on behalf of her mental anguish if it isn't real.

 

I would fully suspect 99.999% of women who went 8.75 months into a pregnancy are not going to just want an abortion at that point.
That would seem to be just as dangerous. And yes, many women do get a C section if there's going to be an issue with the delivery of either the mother or future baby.

 

I believe that is a lie.

 

The object of abortion is dead babies not saving babies from being killed. If the mother doesn't want the baby to live for what ever reason then according to the pro-abortion side she should be able to kill it even the moment before birth.

What's the lie?

 

the Constitution doesn't grant rights it protects rights. The DoI which predates the Constitution is EXPLICT and UNAMBIGUOUS.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, ...

The 14th is about citizenship not whether you are a human being with truths that are self evidence. Do only citizens have these fundamental rights?

And note

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Note how it speaks of citizens and who is one but when it comes to basic rights it applies to PERSONS, not just citizens.

 

Nutrients are not "part of the mother" and more than the piece of chicken you ate tonight is not part of you. And do you admit the purpose of the uterus and placenta is to keep the two human beings involved separate now? You know that Biology 101?

 

The is the result of killing the baby, the goal is the dead baby so the mother is no longer pregnant or explain who she gets to no longer be pregnant with killing the baby.

 

Why does it being taxpayer paid for make it more effective? Does it make my blood pressure medicine more effective if it is free?

Why shouldn't women take responsibility for themselves and not have to rely on others? Heck they make the men help pay for it.

 

US: 30,000 Doctors say abortion is never medically necessary to save a mother's life

Medical leaders representing more than 30,000 American doctors said intentionally killing an unborn baby in an abortion is never necessary to save a mother’s life. In
a letter published at The Public Discourse, leaders of the American College of Paediatricians, American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and other medical groups explained their support of the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act.

Pro-abortion politicians said the bill was an attack on “women’s healthcare.” These pro-life doctors rightly responded, “Abortion treats no disease. Pregnancy is not a disease, and deliberately killing the unborn child, by abortion, is not healthcare.” An abortion - “the guarantee of a dead baby” – is never necessary in the rare cases when a mother’s life is in jeopardy late in her pregnancy.

They went on to explain further:

“After 20 weeks fertilisation age, it is never necessary to intentionally kill the fetal human being in order to save a woman’s life. In cases where the mother’s life actually is in danger in the latter half of pregnancy, there is not time for an abortion, because an abortion typically is a two to three-day process. Instead, immediate delivery is needed in these situations, and can be done in a medically appropriate way (labour induction or C-section) by the woman’s own physician. We can, and do, save the life of the mother through delivery of an intact infant in a hospital where both the mother and her newborn can receive the care that they need. There is no medical reason to intentionally kill that fetal human being through an inhumane abortion procedure, e.g. dismembering a living human being capable of feeling pain, or saline induction which burns off the skin, or feticide with subsequent induction."

The doctors went on to say, “There is no scientific or legal reason to distinguish between human beings born after an attempted abortion and human beings born after attempted live birth. These same principles apply in cases in which the human being in utero has a disability or has been given a life-limiting diagnosis, such as anencephaly. Human beings who are disabled at birth deserve the same respect and dignity afforded to able-bodied children at similar gestational ages.”...
https://www.preciouslife.com/news/6...r-medically-necessary-to-save-a-mothers-life/

Abortion is never medically necessary

One of the most common defenses of late-term abortion is the claim that in some cases, abortion is medically necessary. Lately, Americans have been hearing this claim in defense of a law in New York that allows abortions through all nine months of pregnancy. But that claim is based on faulty assumptions about the options available to women who face life-threatening pregnancy complications. The truth, known to thousands of OB-GYNs worldwide, is that there is no situation in which an abortion is medically necessary.

The false idea that late-term abortion is sometimes necessary for “health” reasons has been knit into American cultural discourse since 1973, when the Supreme Court decision in Doe v. Bolton, the companion case to Roe v. Wade, introduced a definition of “health” so sweeping that it effectively eliminated all restrictions on abortion. Today, Americans are so used to hearing that abortion must be legal to protect the health of the mother that it may be difficult to fathom that there are truly no medical situations in which abortion, the direct, intentional killing of a preborn baby, is necessary to save a woman’s life.


But it’s true.

Over a thousand OB-GYNs and maternal healthcare experts joined together to affirm this reality in the
Dublin Declaration, which states: “As experienced practitioners and researchers in obstetrics and gynecology, we affirm that direct abortion – the purposeful destruction of the unborn child -- is not medically necessary to save the life of a woman. We uphold that there is a fundamental difference between abortion, and necessary medical treatments that are carried out to save the life of the mother, even if such treatment results in the loss of life of her unborn child. We confirm that the prohibition of abortion does not affect, in any way, the availability of optimal care to pregnant women.”
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/abortion-is-never-medically-necessary


AMA BACKS 'PARTIAL BIRTH' ABORTION CURB

The American Medical Association yesterday endorsed a bill to restrict "partial birth" abortions just as the hotly contested legislation faces a vote in the Senate, possibly today.

The AMA's announcement marks the first time the nation's largest physicians' organization has taken a position on an abortion bill. Only a week ago the group declined to support or oppose the legislation.

The endorsement comes at a critical time. Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), the bill's Senate sponsor, said he counts 62 "pretty solid" votes for the bill -- five short of the two-thirds needed to override a promised veto by President Clinton. But he said there were six to eight undecided votes that might be swayed by the AMA and claimed that prospects of a veto-proof Senate majority were "improving."..
https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...on-curb/25b1a41c-1217-459b-b739-10cfe659a4be/

 

There has to be rights granted before they can be protected.
If it's so explicit, then women are not included. And black slaves being owned proves the words to be meaningless for they had no unalienable rights as those words were being crafted.
And part of that is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But because we are talking about women, are they not part of the included in the all men are created equal? And that's why they don't have a right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness?

...
“that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” This bold assertion insists that no one life is more valuable than the next, and that—by virtue of sharing the same rights—no individual has the authority to rule over or oppress another.
https://www.freedomworks.org/content/we-hold-these-truths-be-self-evident…

As for the unborn, it is not classified as a person, people, individual, or any other words from the DOI or constitution. But a female who is pregnant is covered. Even if it explicitly says, 'men'.

And given the era these documents were written, I bet they meant men and excluded women. For I believe they chose words very carefully and meant every word that was recorded.

 

...As of 2018, there were over 985,000 practicing physicians in the United States...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicians_in_the_United_States

30,000 of the 985,000 is 3% of the doctors. That's a low percent who make that claim.
And the 30k claim if from an antiabortion group.

edit:
...
Percentage Reason
0.01% The pregnancy resulted from an incestuous relationship
0.15% The woman was raped
0.20% The woman's life was endangered by the pregnancy
0.98% There was a serious fetal abnormality
1.48% The woman's physical health was threatened by the pregnancy
1.88% The woman's psychological health was threatened by the pregnancy
20.4% The woman aborted for social or economic reasons
74.9% No reason (elective)
https://www.abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics/
...
So, there's obviously a medical need for abortions, in spite of what 3% of doctors say.

 

The lie.

 

Ok so you care more about money than preventing abortions. Got it.

 

To answer the question in the opening post.

Any powers not delegated to the Federal Government are reserved to the States and the People.

If the Federal Government has no regulatory power over abortion, and that's how the majority's draft reads, the right to an abortion would flow from the person's individual desire, unless reasonably regulated by the State.

State's cannot simply proscribe conduct based on a whim. The Court would subject any law regulating abortion, that was brought before them by someone who claimed the regulation violated their rights to a
Rational basis review.

Under the rational basis test, the person challenging the law (not the government) must prove either:

• The government has no legitimate interest in the law or policy; or
• There is no reasonable, rational link between that interest and the challenged law.

Courts using the rational basis test will confirm a law that has a conceivable, rational basis. I expect that Dobbs will be returned to the lower Court for evaluation using Rational Basis Review and that Dobbs will be approved by the lower court.

​

Warren (1/1024th) on yesterday's Senate abortion vote flunks basic math and logic: The minority shouldn't be able to block the majority

Old Dishonest Loud and Stupid.​

"The vote was 49/51. The majority blocked the minority".

"Even if Democrats had nuked the filibuster beforehand, they would have lost the vote. I suppose it was inevitable that progressives would arrive at the view that their position is intrinsically the majority position, whatever the Senate roll call or the polls might say."

"Legislation that would effectively allow abortion up to the moment of birth is a 20 percent proposition in the U.S."

"If we want to ponder the Senate’s structural deficiencies this morning, we should start by asking why this vote went 49/51 instead of 20/80."

 

The FBI has shown that they are one of the most biased organizations in the US. Again, not a reliable source.

About a decade ago, there was a local weatherman that was more activist than reporter. All his forecast temperatures were than anyone else's. Further, his historical averages were higher. When one of the rival stations noticed this, they did some research. It turns out that he was replacing the actual temperatures with his original forecast temps. He eventually got fired because he was more Climate Change Activist then he was a Statistician. The point is that with a little slide of hand, the data points can be skewed to be anything the individual wants it to say.

The real problem is in the classification events. How do you tell a criminal activity from a terrorist event? A lot to times, the observers an obvious terror event injects personal bias into the reporting. Take the man in Colorado shooting up a King Sooper grocery store. When he exited the store, the reporters all claimed that he was white and that it was a white supremacy event. On further investigation, the man turned out to be an Arab carrying out a Muslim Terrorist Event. Now, was that event classified by the initial reactions as a white supremacy event, or as a factual religious event. Without access to the databases, we cannot how it was classified.

When you have a protest and a counter protest, how do you tell which one turned the event violent? According to the media, anytime there is a white supremacy group present, everything that happens is always their fault.

For the record, I do not support the whole White Supremacy/Neo-Nazi ideology. But I challenge any supposition that allows bias in its determination of causality.

 

There's nothing weaker than ignoring what someone spelled out for you in plain English and then bleating "weak". I explained to you why it is the Argument of the Tyrant.

When someone explains something to you, READ that explanation when people provide it to you. Don't sit there and pretend they didn't explain it to you. Here it is a second time:

Did putting it in red bold-type help? If you're still having problems we have one last option at our disposal.

As for "might makes right is the only true right"...



Hilarious. You obviously don't have a clue what rights are, and to flog it to the bone and sinew:

WRONG.

Privileges are given by society, not rights. Rights are inherent. Look up the word inherent. Once you've done that, contemplate the meaning of these words:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..."

NOT endowed by society. NOT endowed by government. NEVER endowed by the tyrant.

And it doesn't matter if that "Creator" is God or Nature. William of Ockham dispensed with any such distinctions over 675 years ago. You should read his work sometime, and you can start here if you like:

William of Ockham: Dialogus
LATIN TEXT AND ENGLISH TRANSLATION
http://publications.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/pubs/dialogus/ockdial.html

It's sad to think that the thought of a Medieval friar is more evolved than that of the 21st Century Luddites who still subscribe to the Argument of the Tyrant. As I mentioned here and to ShadowX in another thread, America is full of statist authoritarian boneheads who cling to the Argument of the Tyrant out of ignorance and/or ideology, and our country is all the worse for it.

I see exactly why you're propping up your little straw man...



...and just as privileges aren't rights, pretending that people haven't addressed and explained something to you and propping up straw men are not arguments.

 

Its already down to the states.

 

To an extent.

 

Psychobabble and sophistry.

 

Translation: you can't counter it.