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

Dems were demagoguing and fear-mongering the issue of abortion long before 2009 and they could have codified Roe if it was important to them as they said it was. It simply wasn't a priority, and now that their glutes are exposed they want to pretend it's the most important thing in the world to them again. Same old song and dance...

BTW, I've been watching what both sides have been doing and Dems should think about getting behind Sens. Collins and Murkowski's bill to codify Roe instead of pandering to the extreme Left with dog and pony shows that don't have a prayer of actually getting passed. Collins and Murkowski submitted their bill three months ago and.....not a single Democratic co-sponsor to be found....

A national law would have gone a long way towards putting this issue to rest, because social conservatives in the GOP would have to find 60 votes in the Senate to pass it. Those opportunities rarely come along....

They want to drag everyone into a government-run HC system as Harry Reid confessed in a serendipitous fit of "progressive" candor, but first they had to assault people's self-proprietorship with their individual mandate, so attacking self-proprietorship became more important than defending self-proprietorship.

This is what happens when people have no principles, and a lot of Republicans are no better or different. We've been talking a lot about the DOI and quoting the lofty ideals expressed in the Preamble...

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. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men...

...but I guess the Rs and Ds in Washington have forgotten our government's raison d'être - to secure our rights. It wasn't instituted to abdicate its duty to uphold our rights or run roughshod over our rights or gradually erode them until there is nothing left of our rights....

They had a lot to gain from their entitlement-based vote-buying power grab, and the individual mandate was far and away the worst of it. As former justice Kennedy correctly pointed out, the mandate fundamentally altered the relationship between the individual and the government, and it did that by giving the government proprietorship over us. There's should have been howls of outrage and indignation from every quarter, but....

But we didn't get here overnight, and this situation with Roe is just part of the greater slow motion train wreck that's been unfolding before our eyes for years. Like I said, this is what happens when people have no principles, and look at us now. When we have no principles, we just take turns getting screwed.

 

As I pointed out:

"Person" or "persons" appears 98 times in the Constitution. "Baby," "child," "fetus," "mother," and "woman" aren't mentioned."​

The Founding Fathers weren't protecting fetuses.

Rightwing extremists are perpetrating a huge fraud by claiming they're strict constructionists of the Constitution. Liars for Jesus.

 

DON'T CARE.

 

Codifying Roe v. Wade wouldn't have put the issue past us. I'm giving odds anti-abortion types will try for a national law once Roe is gone. You can bet a number of blue states will refuse to enforce the law.

I think you're going to find women won't put up with this anti-women rightwing religion crap.

Women are the churchgoers. When the rightwing religious types figure out they're slitting their god-fearin' throats by attacking women, they'll change their tune as they did over mixed race marriage.

Democrats didn't have 60 votes.

As long as you're a guy

You watch the extreme rightwing change their tune from "let states decide" to trying to pass a national law against abortion.

I only hope I get on a jury where they're trying to sue or get someone locked up.

 

There is no evidence the FFs concerned themselves with abortion.

 

No you did not.

 

According to you, the words are men and explicit and unambiguous to men.

 

They concerned themselves with LIFE from the start of it's creation and the human beings inherent right to that life, that self evident truth.

 

Why the dodge?

What is YOUR opinion of legal abortion? Are you for it or against it?

If you can't even state your core opinion on abortion clearly and concisely why are you even here discussing it?

 

I have not waivered as it shows we ALL have a right to life from our conception. If you want to argue women do not go ahead and stand that ground.

 

As I pointed out

Person = an individual human being. You are attempting to make distinctions without merit.

Your personhood, your humanity, your life and your right to it are not created by the Constitution nor the government. They are above and beyond both.

 

MY CORE OPINION IS THAT I DON'T CARE ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. I AM MALE SO I WILL NEVER BE PREGNANT.

 

No it doesn't, just says MEN.

 

I've already pointed out how things would be better now if they had in 2009, and things would be better if people got behind the Collins-Murkowski bill.

Well, Democrats have already pushed their own extremist/absolutist legislation, so Republicans might follow suit, but I get the impression they are content to relegate abortion to the states. We'll see...

The pro-abortion types won't but the anti-abortion types will. Somewhere in between you'll find the women who aren't single issue abortion voters and have other priorities.

Don't get your hopes up...

They did - that's how they got O'Care passed. Codifying Roe just wasn't a priority....

If you think the government doesn't violate men's rights, including the right to determine the disposition of their own children, you are very much mistaken.

They might, but it won't be passing any time soon....

I'd make it clear before I was even seated on the jury that I would nullify, and if I did get seated I would be as discreet as possible about keeping my word (check your state laws). You wouldn't be doing yourself or the defendant any favors making spectacle of yourself and your position. Save that for the Political Forum.

 

Does God and Jesus really have anything to do with this?

If you believe that our unalienable rights are endowed to us by our Creator, then you believe that only our Creator can take those unalienable rights away from us. No man has that power. No man has that authority. To contend and presume otherwise is blasphemy.

 

As I said you are free to stand that that ground that women do not have a right to life.

 

SO WHAT. BEING A MALE DOES NOT RESTRICT ONE FROM BEING ABLE TO STATE AN OPINION.

Do you support unrestricted availability of abortion?

 

Yes and explained why it applies to women which you apparently disagree. Oh well.

 

With three cites.

 

I DON'T CARE ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.

 

No, you did not.
All your posts are still here and accessible.

You claim the preamble is explicit and unambiguous.
Then claim use of men is a generic term.
Your words, not mine.

 

I tend to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal, with spill over to each side. I find myself hated equally by both. My typical saying is that republicans want to control what I do with my body and democrats want to control what I do with my wallet.

 

Obviously they do not work the same otherwise, they would just tell a woman to use BC pills only and never have a need for the specific Plan B pill. It's PRIMARY function is to prevent pregnancy, not to prevent ovulation. It fulfills it's primary function by causing three conditions to be covered simultaneously, something regular birth control pills do not do.

If the egg dropped she was fertile, to start with. Even if she was only so for that month, she was fertile. Secondly, you are still avoiding the whole primary argument of the majority of the anti-abortion movement; Life begins at conception. Are you, at the least, taking a stand that life begins at another point? If so when? Otherwise, if life begins at conception, which is before implantation, then anything that prevents implantation by default causes the offspring to be aborted. It's an abortion. For that matter, an IUD is also a abortion device. And IF BC does the exact same thing as Plan B, that is to say, prevents an already fertilized egg (life begins at conception!) from implanting, then it is an abortion drug as well.

Never claimed the cells were individual human beings. I claimed that they were individual human lifeforms. Each cell is human in nature and each cell is living. Human life. So the reality is, especially since you felt the need to change my words from lifeform to being, it is the status as a being becomes the deciding factor not life. So then let's progress this line by my asking you for your criteria for a given lifeform to have the status of a being.

If we have a single cell being at the beginning, then what prevents the other individual cells from obtaining personhood? Why is one cell a being and another is not? I guess we are back at the criteria for the status of being (which you may have addressed previously if you are responding to each paragraph/part)

I think that you are going to need to quantify huge here. I do know that there is a big movement to ensure that women have a choice, but as pointed out before, there is no huge movement to push women to have abortions (we'll leave off the to save their life cases for this argument), which is what pro-abortion would be. Again, pro-abortion is an anti-choice position. Pro-choice means that you don't get to tell the woman whether she can't have one, nor that she must have one.

Since baby is a stage of development that is post birth, the only reason to use the term outside the accurate form is to invoke an emotional response, which is indicative of a lack of a true argument. If your argument is solid and valid, then it will stand even without your use of the "baby" applied outside that stage.

Secondly, keep in mind that the mother does not have the choice, in and of itself, of terminating her offspring. The right of bodily autonomy will have that result, at least at this stage of medical knowledge and technology, but that is not the right in and of itself. If she did have that right towards her genetic offspring, then if she had her offspring gestating in a surrogate's womb, via IVF, then she would have the right to terminate it regardless of the surrogate's feelings on the matter. But she does not, because that would be the violation of the surrogate's bodily autonomy. And do please keep in mind, that the odds of an occurrence is irrelevant to whether a right exists or not. If no one manufactured arms, leaving none for a person to bear, the right to bear arms would still exist.

Finally, the legal argument is about choice. This includes the choice to not have an abortion. In order to have that choice, the option to have an abortion must be available. Furthermore, there is also the fight to stop those who would make abortion to save the woman's life illegal. We even had a senator or representative (I forget which) who tried to argue that an entopic pregnancy could just be put into the womb and implanted. Maybe someday we will have that ability, but we are not there yet. These people would require a woman who has had the fetus die in utero, but didn't miscarry, keep it in there until labor set in. We have already seen countries in South America put woman on trial for natural miscarries, and there are those here who want to follow that example. Do you feel that every miscarriage needs to be investigated like a criminal case?

I have yet to state my personal position on abortion, and I have no need to, because it is irrelevant. I can be personally against Satanism the religion (either Leveyan or true satanic), but still be supportive of their right to maintain the legality to practice that religion. Your question on whether someone is personally anti-abortion or not, is a red herring and has no actual bearing on the issue.

 

Incorrect. Pro-abortion means that you want a woman to get an abortion whether she wants it or not. Anti-abortion means that you want a woman to not get an abortion, whether she wants it or not. Both are anti-choice positions. Pro-choice on the other hand means that the woman chooses for herself regardless of what you want. The term "you" is used in the generalized fashion throughout this statement.

 

Nope. Pro-abortion means pro legalized abortion. Anti-abortion means anti legalized abortion.

"Pro-Choice" and "Pro-Life" are merely anodyne euphemisms that each side has adopted for itself for a variety of reasons, from an attempt to portray their position in the most positive light to an unwillingness to face and admit the negative aspects of their position to an inability to form and present a moral and intellectual argument in favor of their position. You commonly see the situation in reverse when people attack their opponents' position and euphemisms and "pro-choice" is portrayed as pro-killing babies and "pro-life" is portrayed as pro-authoritarianism, etc., and, of course, both sides have been tarred as fascists even though they are quite capable of expressing perfectly reasonable arguments on behalf of their position.