Post Reply
Page 2 of 23  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 23 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Do we have the right to choose?
7 years ago  ::  Dec 11, 2007 - 2:34PM #11
Fodaoson
Posts: 11,155
The    X (tenth) amendment  reads  Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.  The right to choice , privacy  and a myriad ofothers are coverd by this amendment.    Abortions hould be available, safe and few.  They are a choice but does not involve a child, or a person but a medical condition of the mother
“I seldom make the mistake of arguing with people for whose opinions I have no respect.” Edward Gibbon
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Dec 14, 2007 - 5:01AM #12
lexa_blue
Posts: 327

thaxlord wrote:

How can you bring up a topic such as this one and not bring God into that which he is the only one to allow "life"



Thats just the point, thaxlord.  It is imperative that we not bring G-d into the arguement, because we are not a theocracy.  We are governed by the Constitution, not by a higher power.  One of the most beautiful things about this country is the right to believe, or disbelieve, as you see fit.  The second that you bring G-d into the equation, you have left the realm of discourse that can relate to our legal system.

Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Dec 14, 2007 - 11:05PM #13
BeatificVision
Posts: 17
"Yes, I know, we have the RIGHT to choose whether or not to have an abortion...The question I am posing is whether or not the Constitution grants us the right to have an abortion. Please, leave moral arguments and religious arguments out of this and just focus on the Constitution and what it says/implies."

I would phrase your opening sentance differently: We have the *capacity* to chose abortion.  But the capacity to do something, is quite different from exercising a right, which is quite different from acting rightly.

I also wonder at your prohibition against moral arguments:  what is law, but an expression how a society "should be" ordered?  Law-making is inherently a moral enterprise.  If the law has no moral basis, no reference to something that says "this is the way things are supposed to be", then law is merely the tyranny of the majority--a way for the many, to impose their will on the few.  Rather, law is the laying out, of how we should order our lives as a society, to promote and protect the common good.

To your question on when does a fetus have rights: I think it is first safe to say that all humans have a right to live.  I hope this is not contended.  The issue that often follows, is whether a fetus is a human person.  At this point, some will say: well, we can't be quite sure, this is a theological distinction, or a personal opinion outside the role of governments.  This seems entirely unsatisfactory to me--I mean we're talking about human life here, the thing without which the rest of the law is meaningless.  To get wishy washy at this step is derelict.  In arriving at answer, a couple questions may assist in the analysis:

--How can the reproductive act between a human male and a human female, produce anything other than a human?

--If a fetus is not really a human person, what reason is there for an abortion?

--If DNA uniquely identifies every human person, why should fetuses be excluded from this fact?

--How can a stage of human life not itself be human?

To my mind, this part, at least, is not a mystery: when a sperm (the gamete of a human male), fertilizes an egg (the gamete of a human female), there begins a life which was not there before.  And that life starts immediately to go about its work.  And that life is human.  We were all once there ourselves, and we can recognize this fact without stretching science, or referring to a religion.

I hope you find this helpful.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Dec 15, 2007 - 12:27AM #14
SkyWalker53
Posts: 2,235
[QUOTE=BeatificVision;140436]"

To your question on when does a fetus have rights: I think it is first safe to say that all humans have a right to live.  I hope this is not contended.  The issue that often follows, is whether a fetus is a human person.  At this point, some will say: well, we can't be quite sure, this is a theological distinction, or a personal opinion outside the role of governments.  This seems entirely unsatisfactory to me--I mean we're talking about human life here, the thing without which the rest of the law is meaningless.  To get wishy washy at this step is derelict.  In arriving at answer, a couple questions may assist in the analysis: [/QUOTE]

How can you be talking about "a human life" when clearly a fetus has not yet grown into a baby or even a child? Because the law does not recognize the fetus as a human life, rather a potential human life.

[QUOTE=BeatificVision;140436]"--How can the reproductive act between a human male and a human female, produce anything other than a human? [/QUOTE]

Easily, it can produce a miscarriage, a hydatiform mole, or a defective fetus doomed to die before birth.

[QUOTE=BeatificVision;140436]"--If a fetus is not really a human person, what reason is there for an abortion? [/QUOTE]

To prevent a human from developing.

[QUOTE=BeatificVision;140436]"--If DNA uniquely identifies every human person, why should fetuses be excluded from this fact? [/QUOTE]

Fetus are not excluded just as your hair or fingernail is not excluded.

[QUOTE=BeatificVision;140436]"--How can a stage of human life not itself be human? [/QUOTE]

any developmental stage before brain functioning means no sentience. Human life has sentience.

[QUOTE=BeatificVision;140436]"To my mind, this part, at least, is not a mystery: when a sperm (the gamete of a human male), fertilizes an egg (the gamete of a human female), there begins a life which was not there before.  And that life starts immediately to go about its work.  And that life is human.  We were all once there ourselves, and we can recognize this fact without stretching science, or referring to a religion. [/QUOTE]

Keywords...begins "a life"...it is not sentient life and it causes a severe compromise to the host, the host must have the right to defend itself from such physical distress.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Dec 15, 2007 - 1:03AM #15
angpuppy
Posts: 520
[QUOTE=livelifetothefullest;126526]Yes, I know, we have the RIGHT to choose whether or not to have an abortion.  Actually, I have been going over Roe v. Wade and the opinions of the court quite extensively the past couple of weeks.  The question I am posing is whether or not the Constitution grants us the right to have an abortion.  Please, leave moral arguments and religious arguments out of this and just focus on the Constitution and what it says/implies.  (say/implies may be the answer...)

Thank you.
LLttF[/QUOTE]

I think with the way our constitution was written, its a logical stretch.  The right to privacy isn't in the Bill of rights.  It was argued to be an inferred right, and thus originally was interpreted to extend to privacy in the bedroom of a married couple.  Thus whatever the couple did in the privacy of their bedroom, was none of the court's business, basically.  And thus this was extended to say "none of our business" on the contraceptives thing.  Thus contraceptives were legalized.

Then through proceeding court cases, this was extended to the unmarried, then was stretched to early term abortion and then to abortion in general.

I think it was a stretch that just made it for the contraceptive issue, but went way out of bounds when it tried to associate abortion as somehow being a right to privacy of the bedroom issue.

The other problem with the case is that I disagree with the court's decision on what cases to allow in the courts.  I don't know all the terms, but originally they needed Norma (Jane Doe) for the Roe Vs Wade case as someone filing the case and making a complaint.  Because pregnancy lasts only 9 months and it takes longer than 9 months to go through the courts, it was decided that because the courts decision would affect so many other women, they shouldn't actually need women as examples to draw these cases up with.

This however is dumb for now all the abortion cases aren't presented based on real situations but on hypothetical ones.  As the judge's aren't doctors, this allows for manipulation of data to occur more easily.  Before you would be able to give examples of "In this case of such and such, this happened to this person so this actually can happen and we need to protect against it."

I ultimately believe the courts have made an unconstitutional decision.  This should have been a legislative issue.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Dec 15, 2007 - 5:34AM #16
lexa_blue
Posts: 327

angpuppy wrote:

I think with the way our constitution was written, its a logical stretch. The right to privacy isn't in the Bill of rights. It was argued to be an inferred right, and thus originally was interpreted to extend to privacy in the bedroom of a married couple. Thus whatever the couple did in the privacy of their bedroom, was none of the court's business, basically. And thus this was extended to say "none of our business" on the contraceptives thing. Thus contraceptives were legalized.

Then through proceeding court cases, this was extended to the unmarried, then was stretched to early term abortion and then to abortion in general.



Yes, I think we all agree on that.  Well put.

angpuppy wrote:

The other problem with the case is that I disagree with the court's decision on what cases to allow in the courts. I don't know all the terms, but originally they needed Norma (Jane Doe) for the Roe Vs Wade case as someone filing the case and making a complaint. Because pregnancy lasts only 9 months and it takes longer than 9 months to go through the courts, it was decided that because the courts decision would affect so many other women, they shouldn't actually need women as examples to draw these cases up with.

This however is dumb for now all the abortion cases aren't presented based on real situations but on hypothetical ones. As the judge's aren't doctors, this allows for manipulation of data to occur more easily. Before you would be able to give examples of "In this case of such and such, this happened to this person so this actually can happen and we need to protect against it."



Here, however, is where I disagree.  Courts do take cases based on precidence, as you stated.  If an issue is certain to come up again in the system, the court will take the case regardless of whether or not the decision can be enacted in the original instance.  However, that doesn't mean that you can bring up a hypothetical case that was made up just for the hell of it.  All cases still have to be real, with an actual plaintiff and defendent. 

angpuppy wrote:

I ultimately believe the courts have made an unconstitutional decision. This should have been a legislative issue.



I agree that this should have been a legislative issue--if our system were perfect, all these types of decisions would be legislative: same-sex marriage, abortion, domestic spying, habeus corpus for foreign nationals--all of these could technically be decided by the legislature.  Unfortunately, because of the way we elect our government and the inherent nastiness of our political system, the legislature frankly doesn't have the chutzpah to touch any of this.  Hence, the beauty of an unelected judiciary (yes, some states do elect judges--and that's among the stupider parts of our entire elections system).  Since the judges don't have to worry about politics, they can actually base their decisions on what the law says, instead of how an opponant might twist the ruling into propaganda at some point in the possible future. 

One of the most beautiful things about this country is that, historically, when issues like this have come up, we err on the side of freedom and protection of personal civil rights.  Since there is no compelling evidence that a fetus is an actual biologically viable life, we err on the side of freedom.  We can never answer whether or not abortion is actually constitutional, because the rights that we use to ensure it simply aren't there.  But does that mean that they weren't intended?  We just don't know.

Blessings,
Lexa

Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Dec 15, 2007 - 4:38PM #17
SkyWalker53
Posts: 2,235
The US constitution guarantees the right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. Pregnancy is a huge health issue. The health condition during pregnancy represents a health threat (a severe compromise in health) to the (host) mother. Because of the risks, the continuation of a pregnancy must be elective. It's the termination of a dangerous and difficult medical condition called "pregnancy" and thus the elimination of a dangerous health condition for an individual. This is a US constitutional issue, the right to be healthy and the right to eliminate a threat to one's health is guaranteed by the US constitution.

I can just see the lawsuits that would take off should the right to protect one's health from a potential full term pregnancy be compromised by making the abortion procedure illegal. That would have the same legal consequences of making ruptured appendix extraction illegal.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Dec 15, 2007 - 5:43PM #18
BeatificVision
Posts: 17

How can you be talking about "a human life" when clearly a fetus has not yet grown into a baby or even a child? Because the law does not recognize the fetus as a human life, rather a potential human life.



How can I be talking about a human life, when clearly a newborn has not yet grown into an infant or toddler?  How can I be talking about a human life, when clearly a toddler has not yet grown into a pre-teen or adolescent?  How can I be talking about a human life, when clearly an adolescent has not yet grown into a young adult or adult?  That line of reasoning does not seem to hold water.



Originally Posted by BeatificVision
"--How can the reproductive act between a human male and a human female, produce anything other than a human?"
Easily, it can produce a miscarriage, a hydatiform (sic) mole, or a defective fetus doomed to die before birth.



A pregnant mother miscarries her human child, not an elephant, nor a leaf.  A hydatidiform mole is clearly the result of improper fertilization.  And lastly, I'm not sure how a fetus' fate, changes its nature--we are all doomed to die, and yet we're human.

In any event, these examples miss the big picture:  The point, is that part of the design of the sexual act is the procreation of new humans--it's why so many people contracept, it's why so many people abort.  To deny that the normal result of a human sexual act is somehow not human, is preposterous.



Originally Posted by BeatificVision
"--If a fetus is not really a human person, what reason is there for an abortion?"
To prevent a human from developing.



Huh?  Isn't it a little late for that?  Are you suggesting that there's somehow a magical point at which what wasn't there before (a human), is all of a sudden going to appear?  This sounds very unscientific to me.  And this type of reasoning is what led to partial birth abortions, where literally a baby's body was removed from her mother's womb backwards until the base of the skull was exposed, and then a surgical instrument was jabbed into the brain to suck it out.  Because if the baby's nostrils reached the air, "abracadabra", it was human; but as long as the nostrils remained in the womb it wasn't.  There's no magic happening at birth--we have the science to know that the baby that comes out, is the same one that was there all along.



Originally Posted by BeatificVision
"--If DNA uniquely identifies every human person, why should fetuses be excluded from this fact?"
Fetus are not excluded just as your hair or fingernail is not excluded.



I'm glad we agree on this one--unique DNA indicates a human life.



Originally Posted by BeatificVision
"--How can a stage of human life not itself be human?"
any developmental stage before brain functioning means no sentience. Human life has sentience.



How about, human life is: human + life.  We recognize this fact enough that we protect the unhatched eggs of bald eagles, but we get confused when talking about our own species.



Originally Posted by BeatificVision
"To my mind, this part, at least, is not a mystery: when a sperm (the gamete of a human male), fertilizes an egg (the gamete of a human female), there begins a life which was not there before. And that life starts immediately to go about its work. And that life is human. We were all once there ourselves, and we can recognize this fact without stretching science, or referring to a religion."
Keywords...begins "a life"...it is not sentient life and it causes a severe compromise to the host, the host must have the right to defend itself from such physical distress.



Yes, the keywords are "begins a life".  Without a beginning, there's no middle, and no end.  But once life begins, to end it prematurely is not an issue of personal preference, like chocolate or vanilla.  Nor is human life some sort of disease--disease is malfunction, pregnancy is a proper and normal function.

Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Dec 15, 2007 - 8:10PM #19
udcstb
Posts: 2,778
[QUOTE=BeatificVision;141799]Yes, the keywords are "begins a life".  Without a beginning, there's no middle, and no end.  But once life begins, to end it prematurely is not an issue of personal preference, ...[/QUOTE]

You don't really have your science correct.  I reality, life is a continuum, an unbroken chain going back 3,800 million years.  Yes, the opertional word is "begin" but you must understand there are many many beginnings before and after the moment of fertilization. 

That you have a speculative assumption that a cell is a human being is okay.  Not based on science, but okay. However, you should not impose your biases on those who legitimately believe differently. 

A cell just is not a human being.  Human-ness is much more than biology.
"As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Dec 16, 2007 - 4:43PM #20
BeatificVision
Posts: 17
[QUOTE=udcstb;142111]You don't really have your science correct.  In reality, life is a continuum, an unbroken chain going back 3,800 million years.  Yes, the opertional word is "begin" but you must understand there are many many beginnings before and after the moment of fertilization.[/quote]

Human life may well be a continuum going back over 3,800 million years, but I know I surely haven't been here that long.

[QUOTE=udcstb;142111]That you have a speculative assumption that a cell is a human being is okay.  Not based on science, but okay.[/quote]

Somehow I'm failing to see the speculation, or the assumptions.  I appreciate your approval of my comments, but if you believe there's something lacking in the science or otherwise, please don't keep it a secret as I'm open to discussion and learning.

[QUOTE=udcstb;142111]However, you should not impose your biases on those who legitimately believe differently.[/quote]

Tell that to the millions of my peers who quite literally would have been here today, but aren't.  I think they're the ones who have been "imposed on".  As I suggested in an earlier post, the question of "who is human?" is not in the same category of "do you like chocolate or vanilla?".  It has far-reaching implications morally, legally, and otherwise.  Historically, others have thought it was okay to treat people like property--freeing them was hardly 'imposing biases on those who legitimately believed differently'.

[QUOTE=udcstb;142111]A cell just is not a human being.  Human-ness is much more than biology.[/QUOTE]

I think we agree that human-ness is more than biology.  Which is why when someone says, "it's just a cell", we can say, "I guess so are we".
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 2 of 23  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 23 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook