As the 40th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision approaches, the public remains opposed to completely overturning the historic ruling on abortion. More than six-in-ten (63%) say they would not like to see the court completely overturn the Roe v. Wade decision, which established a woman’s constitutional right to abortion at least in the first three months of pregnancy. Only about three-in-ten (29%) would like to see the ruling overturned. These opinions are little changed from surveys conducted 10 and 20 years ago.
Decades after the Supreme Court rendered its decision, on Jan. 22, 1973, most Americans (62%) know that Roe v. Wade dealt with abortion rather than school desegregation or some other issue. But the rest either guess incorrectly (17%) or do not know what the case was about (20%). And there are substantial age differences in awareness: Among those ages 50 to 64, 74% know that Roe v. Wade dealt with abortion, the highest percentage of any age group. Among those younger than 30, just 44% know this.
The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center, conducted Jan. 9-13 among 1,502 adults, finds that abortion is viewed as a less important issue than in the past. Currently, 53% say abortion “is not that important compared to other issues,” up from 48% in 2009 and 32% in 2006. The percentage viewing abortion as a “critical issue facing the country” fell from 28% in 2006 to 15% in 2009 and now stands at 18%.
However, the public continues to be divided over whether it is morally acceptable to have an abortion. Nearly half (47%) say it is morally wrong to have an abortion, while just 13% find this morally acceptable; 27% say this is not a moral issue and 9% volunteer that it depends on the situation. These opinions have changed little since 2006.
Wide Religious, Partisan Differences over Roe
There continue to be substantial religious and partisan differences over whether to overturn Roe v. Wade , and over the broader question of whether abortion should be legal or illegal in all or most cases. ( For more on attitudes toward abortion, see Public Opinion on Abortion slideshow .)
White evangelical Protestants are the only major religious group in which a majority (54%) favors completely overturning the Roe v. Wade decision. Large percentages of white mainline Protestants (76%), black Protestants (65%) and white Catholics (63%) say the ruling should not be overturned. Fully 82% of the religiously unaffiliated oppose overturning Roe v. Wade .
Half of Americans who attend religious services at least weekly favor completely overturning the Roe v. Wade decision, compared with just 17% of those who attend less often.
Republicans are evenly divided over whether the ruling should be overturned: 46% say it should, while 48% say it should not. By wide margins, Democrats (74% to 20%) and independents (64% to 28%) oppose overturning Roe v. Wade .
There is no gender gap in opinions about Roe v. Wade : Nearly identical percentages of women (64%) and men (63%) oppose reversing the decision.
Age and Awareness of Roe v. Wade
About six-in-ten Americans (62%) know that Roe v. Wade dealt with the issue of abortion. Much smaller percentages incorrectly associate the decision with school desegregation (7%), the death penalty (5%) or environmental protection (5%); 20% do not know.
Among those younger than 30, just 44% know that the case was about abortion; 16% say it dealt with school desegregation, and 41% either say it dealt with another issue (the death penalty or the environment), or do not know. Majorities of older age groups know that Roe v. Wade dealt with abortion.
There also are educational differences in awareness of which issue Roe v. Wade addressed. Fully 91% of those with post-graduate education know it dealt with abortion, as do 79% of college graduates, 63% of those with only some college experience and 47% of those with no more than a high school education.
Identical percentages of women and men (62% each) are aware that Roe dealt with abortion. Nearly seven-in-ten Republicans (68%) answered this question correctly, compared with 63% of independents and 57% of Democrats.
Views of Abortion’s Importance
Slightly more than half of adults (53%) say that abortion is not that important compared with other issues. About a quarter (27%) say abortion is one among many important issues facing the country, while 18% view abortion as a critical issue.
Those who would like to see Roe v. Wade overturned are particularly inclined to view abortion as a critical issue facing the country. Nearly four-in-ten (38%) of those who support overturning the abortion ruling say abortion is a critical issue, compared with just 9% of those who oppose overturning Roe v. Wade . Among those who favor retaining Roe, 68% say abortion is not that important compared with other issues.
Nearly three-in-ten white evangelical Protestants (29%) view the issue of abortion as critical, compared with just 13% of white mainline Protestants and white Catholics. Majorities of white mainline Protestants (61%) and white Catholics (59%) say abortion is not that important compared with other issues. An even higher percentage of religiously unaffiliated Americans (71%) say abortion is relatively unimportant.
Abortion and Personal Morality
Nearly half of Americans (47%) say they personally believe that it is morally wrong to have an abortion, compared with 27% who say it is not a moral issue, 13% who find it morally acceptable and 9% who volunteer that it depends. These opinions have changed only modestly in recent years.
There are deep differences among religious groups, as well as a wide partisan gap, in opinions about the moral acceptability of having an abortion.
Most white evangelical Protestants (73%), as well as 55% of white Catholics and 53% of black Protestants, say it is morally wrong to have an abortion. That compares with 36% of white mainline Protestants and just 20% of the religiously unaffiliated.
A majority of Republicans (63%) view having an abortion as morally wrong, compared with 45% of independents and 39% of Democrats.
Relatively small percentages of people in all religious, partisan and demographic groups say it is morally acceptable to have an abortion. However, nearly half of Democrats say either that having an abortion is morally acceptable (17%) or that it is not a moral issue (31%). Among independents, roughly four-in-ten say it is either morally acceptable (12%) or that abortion is not a moral issue (30%).
Those who favor overturning Roe v. Wade overwhelmingly say it is morally wrong to have an abortion; fully 85% express this view. Opinions about the morality of abortion are more divided among those who oppose overturning Roe . Nearly four-in-ten (38%) say abortion is not a moral issue, while 29% say having an abortion is morally wrong; just 17% of those who favor retaining Roe view abortion as morally acceptable.
Overall, nearly one-in-five Americans (18%) say they personally believe that abortion is morally unacceptable, yet also oppose the Supreme Court overturning its Roe v. Wade ruling.
Views of the Parties on Abortion
The survey finds that 41% say that the Democratic Party can do a better job of representing their views on abortion; nearly as many (36%) say the Republican Party could do better.
Last March, the Democratic Party held a 16-point advantage as better representing people’s views on abortion (47% to 31%). In October 2011, the Democrats led by eight points on this issue (44% to 36%).
http://www.pewforum.org/2013/01/16/roe-v-wade-at-40/
Information about how the survey was conducted can be found by going right to the Pew link
Regardless how one feels about abortion or the Roe case, it did expand women's individual rights and autonomy. Abortion itself is a woman's private and personal decision and no one has the right to say whether a woman can have an abortion or not. Especially since it's no one else's business what a woman chooses to do or why!
Exactly. What many don't know is that Roe is about more than just abortion.
" In 1973, Roe established women’s constitutional right to privacy for an abortion."
"Connecticut’s ban of contraceptive use, the Court said, violated the privacy rights of a marital relationship. That same theory was extended to contraceptive use by non-married people , and with Roe , the court ruled that the fundamental right to privacy encompassed a woman’s right to decide, along with her family and her doctor, whether or not to continue a pregnancy.
If Roe is done away with under the theory that privacy rights don’t exist, this could mean that there is no constitutional right to birth control, either. Cases that came after Roe , including Lawrence v. Texas , which invalidated a Texas law that criminalized sex between two men, were decided on similar premises — and could be similarly imperiled."
" Without that safety net and if more "personhood" laws pass — especially if the Griswold contraception case falls in addition to Roe — we will have ceded scientific ground to unscientific ideological claims. Women might find that IVF and some of the most common forms of contraception are no longer legal in their state because of how anti-abortion legislators claim they work."
Unfortunately , some people get so hung up on abortion, they can't see the bigger picture.
A "beating heart " is not the be all end all. And it's not for you to make that determination for anyone else! So spare me the obvious attempt at an appeal to emotion.
And the key word is established!
The right to privacy is the basis for the 4th Amendment and necessary for personal freedom. If we don't have an inherent right to privacy from government interference then we cannot claim that the government needs to have a warrant sign by a judge to enter our homes and search our private belongings.
You are an emotional thinker.
Actually, the Court was acting on emotion. Their decision did not from anything in the Constitution, just like your obtuse defense of it and Justice Ginsburg blasted them for it!
So Norman, I assume you are opposed to war and capital punishment as well? I am sure your comment history will support that belief.
Ginsburg wasn't on the court in 1973 when Roe was decided.
No, but she did say what she thought about it.
" Before I post the Pew Poll, I want to remind everyone of what Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg famously said about the decision in 1985, calling it "heavy-handed judicial activism" that appears to have provoked, not resolved, conflict!"
The Court was acting on case law.
Weems v. United States (1910)
Meyer v. Nebraska (1923)
Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925)
Olmstead v. United States (1928)
Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942)
Tileston v. Ullman (1943) & Poe v. Ullman (1961)
Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)
Loving v. Virginia (1967)
Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972)
Each case was a step that fleshed out the right to privacy. So anyone pretending that the right to privacy was a figment of the imagination of the Burger Court, they just don't know the jurisprudence.
What does that mean? She can't comment on the decision? Or did someone give you the impression that she was? I don't understand what that means?
Ohhhh....I see, it had to be "fleshed out"
Got it
Good, I'm glad you recognize that there is a process that cases like Heller 'fleshed out' what the 2nd means in our jurisprudence.
Hellooo, Norman..... Did you disappear on me again?
So stop being a war monger.
Then you don't agree with current law, which allows restrictions on abortions after viability.
I don't think anyone is arguing for zero restrictions except maybe a select few. No one that I know would be ok with one done a 81/2 months.
To me it is like the 2nd. There can be restrictions just not an outright ban. On the same token, some states are trying to be so restrictive as there might as well be a ban.
One week, not enough time, eight months to much time.
Just my opinion of course, not everyone feels the same.
The current period of viability is approximately 25 weeks.
Yeah, I meant to make a comparison to the second amendment. In all honesty I think the cut off should be 5 or 6 months. Unless severe deformity, danger to woman, etc.
That's where the federal and state bans on late-term abortion are seriously misguided. Very few if any women would choose to carry a fetus for more than 6 months and then terminate on a whim or as a method of contraception. The vast majority of the women who have late-term abortions are trying to have a kid but something went horribly wrong during the pregnancy and the decision about how to deal with that should be between the woman and her doctor, not a bunch of misogynistic bible-babblers in the legislature. In fact cases like that are why Ireland recently voted to repeal their ban.
True.
i didn't say anything about the law as it pertains to abortion after viability. The law allows for abortions after viability in cases of medical necessity.
You didn't make any distinctions or qualifiers. You said:
Your phrasing indicates support for an unfettered right to abortion. As you said, you made no mention of viability. If that was an oversight, fine. If you support limitations, I'd be interested in hearing what they are and why you support them.
I think it was one of the best decisions they ever made
Agreed.
One of the worst decisions. Ranks with Dredd Scott decision
How can Roe v. wade possibly be as bad as Dredd Scott or Plessy v. Ferguson?
It's what their mind tells them it is. They have no facts to substantiate their inane spewings, so they just regurgitate whatever comes into their mind at the moment no matter how inane it may be to try to prove their agenda.
Really? So you think a decision which recognized and expanded the rights of the woman and her autonomy to be on par with a decision that did the exact opposite? That speaks volumes about you.
I don't know if anyone has found anything unusual in the Poll. I notice that some want to defend Roe on moral grounds as opposed to it's legality.
How about this:
"Among those younger than 30, just 44% know that the case was about abortion; 16% say it dealt with school desegregation, and 41% either say it dealt with another issue (the death penalty or the environment), or do not know. Majorities of older age groups know that Roe v. Wade dealt with abortion."
Isn't that shocking?
Given the state of education today, it's actually not shocking in the least.
That's funny because I notice that some oppose it on moral grounds despite it's legality.
This is a comment from a man on a Fox article in regards to abortion - Tomi Lahren: Pushing to Overturn Roe v. Wade Would Be a 'Big Mistake'
Lahren is pro abortion. So what if she wants to save Roe V. Wade. That decision was a total farce and a wreck of the constitution. NO ONE believed in abortion rightes for hundreds of years!!! No one in America believed in abortion rights from the founding until the radical feminist movement of the early 1900's that was based on the Satanist movement of the time, which by the way, was the early da ys of the homosexual movement as well. It's all tied together.
Sad to see how some people "think"....really women wanting equal rights and the right to vote was due to a Satanist movement? It's scary that people think this way in this day and age.
Let me first say that your moniker and avatar don't go together. If I were you I'd use a brunette in a black dress as my avatar.
Now concerning your comment about the satanist movement. Anyone that conflates the pro-choice movement with a satanist movement is clearly out of his/her mind. We can agree on that. It should also be noted that such person does not represent the Pro-Life movement or those who believe in interpreting the Constitution as it was written.
My moniker is a song by Uriah Heep, my avatar is my dog Shadow.
My point of posting the comment is to show how scary some people are in the way they think.
Point well taken!
My moniker is a song by Uriah Heep, my avatar is my dog Shadow.
Ok
So.....an ironic name much like naming a solid black dog "spot"?
Lol, I had another dog named Shadow many years ago, and I honored him by naming my new dog after him, plus he is my shadow, as he follows me where ever I go.
These kinds of polls reflect what people think about abortion and have nothing to do with whether Roe was correctiy decided. The words of the constitution don’t magically appear or disappear based on whether people do or don’t want the right to an abortion. The role of the judiciary is to interpret the constitution, not re-write it under the guise of interpretation.
Ginsberg was right when she called Roe “heavy-handed judicial activism.” It represents perhaps the most extreme example of judicial overreach in history and should be reversed. If people want a constitutional right to an abortion, then amend the constitution. If there is insufficient support for a constitutional amendment, then each state can permit or prohibit abortion as it sees fit.
Rather than mangle the constitution to turn abortion into a form of birth control, women who live in a state that prohibits abortion, can get their ass out of bed and drive to a state that permits it.
If it was heavy handed it was because of white men and religion refusing to allow women equal rights. The court HAD no other option but to vote this way in order to ensure white men and religion could no longer keep women down.
The same holds true today and that's why the law should not be overturned. White men and religion are still trying to manipulate women's lives. This law has allowed women careers and choices. It also has allowed families to rise out of poverty.
Total baloney. It had nothing whatsoever to do with equal rights. Plus there are at least as many women as men who don’t think abortion should be used as a birth birth control method for bimbos. The court had the right option but didn’t take it i.e, leave it to the states,
Not getting pregnant when you can’t afford it is a good idea but an abortion obviously isn’t the only option. If they’re too stupid to use contraceptives, then they should try keeping their legs closed (proven to be 100% effective). As for men manipulating women, nobody wants to play with a uterus. lol
They waive it like a talisman and it’s supposed to make the opposition disappear.
Really? So it's the rape victim's fault for getting pregnant, or it's the child's fault for getting molested, or it's the women's fault because of the baby's birth defect and it's the women's fault for not being healthy enough to carry and go through the labor?
You're really showing your age with that statement.
You were exactly the type of person that the court envisioned when they passed the law to protect women.
So? What difference does that make?
Who's "pro-abortion" exactly? Not sure there is such a thing. I don't see anyone going out and demanding women have abortions.
Not even a little, especially when you use disingenuous terms like "pro-abortion."
Another very good option is just for women to have sex with other women rather than running the risk of getting pregnant or contracting HIV by having sex with men.
A perfect solution . . . for ending humanity.
Why would that end humanity since women can still have sex with a guy when they want to get pregnant? When they don't want to get pregnant they can just have sex with other women. Easy peasy, and much safer too.
Same thing for men.....those who don't want to run the risk of knocking someone up can just have sex with other guys. It's definitely the responsible thing to do, and aren't conservatives and Christian extremists supposed to be all about personal responsibility? In fact I'm somewhat surprised that the folks who invented primitive Bronze-age superstitions didn't think of that simple solution to avoid unwanted pregnancies, but they didn't seem to be very smart people anyway.
Why would anybody want that stupid arrangement? It’s like spending your time rubbing two plugs or two sockets together when you can’t make electricity without mating a socket to a plug.
What's stupid about it? Most people usually have sex while taking exceptional measures to avoid pregnancy (with unpredictable results), but this solution seems far simpler and is 100% effective. Plus women would be much more likely to avoid the terrible STDs which men transmit.
You could also say the same thing about replacing each other with rubber dolls.
Do you sincerely believe that abortion will result in the extinction of humans, despite the fact that it has been legal for almost 40 years and the US population is still rising? Your emotionally based arguments are not helping you.
Considering there are nearly 8 billion people in the world, it's doubtful humanity is ending anytime soon.
Of course there are other choices besides abortion. The key word there is "choice," as in the woman must be allowed to make that choice for herself, regardless of what it is. It is no one's place to tell her or compel her to choose otherwise or limit that choice.
overpopulation will do that
Her choice was to decline to engage in an act of procreation. Once she engaged in actions to create another life, she doesn’t have a constitutional right to extinguish the life she helped create just because it’s convenient to her. Society can intervene to protect the child and it should be up to each state to decide when.
She also has the choice to continue any pregnancy or not!it seems you want the woman to be punished for engaging in relations.
And you are wrong!
Society has no business in another's personal or medical decisions. And each state can intervene as long as it doesn't conflict with SCOTUS precedent.
Deleted
If that were to happen it would result in the abortion rate rising and more women dying needlessly due to complications from back-alley abortions. Apparently both are important goals of conservatives and the Christian Taliban.
You seem to have no problem punishing the man (father) for engaging in relations. Double standard?
Ridiculous. All she has to do is take her lazy ass to a state that allows abortions and have it performed in the same types of places that do it now.
Well, since women have you as a messiah, I’m sure you can lead them out of back alleys and to a reputable baby killing facility in another state.
Anyone who chooses to have one or performs one. It's easy to be neutral and simply be pro-choice if you never have to make the decision for yourself, but when faced with the decision, you either become pro- or anti- in that situation. That's how any choice works.
I don't understand why people resist this if abortion is just a "healthcare" procedure that has nothing to do with ending the life of a person.
I doubt very many women want to go back to that repressive and benighted era. In fact the vast majority of Americans don't want that so what you and other Christian extremists want is very unlikely to happen. Your views are more fully endorsed in countries like Saudi Arabia and other primitive theocracies where women are the chattel of men.
She can either use contraceptives, keep her legs closed, or go to another state (car, bus, or plane) but taking one of these simple options are, to you, like being forced to live in a primitive theocracy. Since she doesn’t live in a primitive theocracy and isn’t a complete dolt, then she shouldn’t have difficulty with any of the options.
A woman does not become a second-class citizen in her own body when she is pregnant. We are not just breeding vessels for you to make decisions for.
Conservative slut shaming 101. It is our body and only our choice.
The only primitive theocracy are the one that doesn't permit women to make their own medical decisions without the input of the patriarchal state or a mythical religion. Your views are the problem, so stop sticking your nose into other people's lives.
A fetus isn't a person, so drop the emotional fallacies.
The second option definitely reveals a very primitive mindset. Are you a Neanderthal?
It would take something a lot less intelligent than a Neanderthal to think that closing her own legs is not an option.
Exercising an available option does not make one "pro-abortion." No one is going around saying women must have abortions.
That's just it: it's not my nor anyone else's decision to make for anyone else. Neither is it anyone's business. Only the woman in question can make that decision. Regardless of one's position on abortion, no one should interfere with that decision process.
It's up to the woman enduring pregnancy to choose if she wants to continue a pregnancy or not. Choice works as long as she has that choice to begin with.
What do you mean? Abortion is a healthcare procedure. The only persons involves is the woman undergoing the procedure and the medical professional administering the procedure.
(deleted, no value) And it’s only your choice as long as that ridiculous judicial concoction stays in place.
( deleted, CoC) There are plenty of men and women who see things differently than you do and we can vote, on any basis we choose, just as you do. So expect a fight.
Nice ad hom attack. Way to show just how weak your so-called arguments really are!
Sweeping generalization.
It speaks volumes about you that you think women should be denied their choice or rights.
He's not the one advocating for the removal of established rights and choices.
More ad hom attacks.
It seems you lost that fight over 40 years ago. Time to get over it! Besides, rights aren't put to a popular vote.
My response to a comment, in your mind, is an ad hominem attack but the comment to which I was responding is not? It doesn’t get much more one-sided than that. The whole discussion is beginning to degenerate into insults since everything that can be said has been said. I think I’m going out and enjoy what’s left of the day.
That's because it is an ad hom attack, no matter how you try to justify it.
If you think it is, then flag it and let the mods make the determination.
You're the one participating in flinging the insults.
No, it's a factual statement.
Quite the presumption there.
No one needs to justify their reasons for having an abortion. Not to you nor anyone else. The rest is just merely your opinion sprinkled with emotional tripe.
Not having the option to terminate an unwanted pregnancy seems to be a common fact of life in repressive and misogynistic theocracies but not so much in more enlightened countries. Heck, even Ireland recently dumped their nutty ban......I think they've had their fill of theocracy and all the harm it causes to women and children.
The SCOTUS did interpret the constitution when they decided state bans on abortion were unconstitutional. Therefore, abortion became permissible, with certain limitations. So a constitutional amendment is not necessary or likely. As for thinking women can simply go to another state for abortions, that is an extremely naive view that does not take into consideration if a woman has the time, means, finances, or support to do so.
There is nothing in the constitution that address abortion at all. The right was created by the judiciary out of thin air.
An amendment became unnecessary because the Court exceeded its constitutional authority and, effectively, circumvented the process. That’s why the decision should be reversed.
The Court should not be mangling the constitution as a convenience to women who find travel difficult. Either use contraceptives or stop having sex.
The 14th Amendment does.
Funny how you seem opposed to expanding individual rights.
The court acted well within its authority when it deemed bans against abortion unconstitutional. That effectively made abortions legal. So the decision was sound and still is!
What's it like in your black and white fantasy world?
What's wrong with contraceptives?
How is a law expanding rights tyrannical exactly? Expanding rights seems to be the opposite of tyranny.
Not sure how water, faith, or thought is a "life force." Much less relevant to the issue.
What about me?
Not a thing. They're great. But they're also not 100% effective.
Giving someone legal permission to murder their own child should never be considered a “right”
and yes despite the insane twisting by leftists, purposely ending the life of another who is innocent of any wrongdoing is murder
This is part of a civil war that will continue as long as abortion is given legitimacy by government
Except there is no child in an abortion and neither is abortion murder. So your entire argument falls flat on those points alone.
No twisting. just simple legal fact: abortion is not legally defined as murder. Constantly proclaiming that it is only makes you look foolish.
There would be no "war" [such hyperbole] if some people simply minded their own business when it comes to a woman's rights and choices! It's certainly none of your business!
Sounds like you oppose the 9th Amendment too.
My problem is with those who make up law not with those who follow what it says.
Yea, that always works.. LOL Bristol Palin.... case closed.
You are trying to use a person who obviously did not use contraception not abstained from sex as an example to show that contraception and abstainance does not work?
It certainly never works if you never try it. Case reopened.
The law says that there are unenumerated rights which the constitution protects. It's the role of SCOTUS to discern what those rights are. Other such unenumerated rights include the right to be free from a theocratic state government and the right to an attorney when charged under a state's criminal laws.
That doesn’t mean you have an actual right simply because it’s unenumerated. The 9th amendment was intended to protect rights at the state level from the federal government not prohibit the states from extending or withdrawing rights. That’s probably why you don’t find anyone arguing cases under the 9th amendment. But you go ahead and try it.
You completely missed the point, which is, that abstinence does NOT WORK... And has been pointed out several times already, contraception DOES fail.
They are not 100% effective.
The courts don't make up laws, despite what your ignorance of constitutional interpretatioin leads you to believe. Many of your problems would be solved by your learning the basic concepts of political science and US history.
What law was made up? Point it out in the law books!
(deleted)
Just like a liberal court can make up law, pretending to interpret it, a conservative court can say that the foundation for the decision never existed and reverse position (as it should do). The intelligent decision in Roe would have been to say that the constitution doesn’t address abortion at all and leave the matter to the states under the 10th amendment. The idiotic way was to do what was done and politicize the court. Now conservatives want more conservative judges on the bench to undo the decision. No doubt liberals will reciprocate when able and we will have a court of ideologues, all appointed for life. Surely, even you don’t think this is the way to go.
Your death-wishing is noted.
Abortion was a state issue but it was appealed and the SCOTUS chose to hear it. The right to privacy existed before the SCOTUS hearing.
Note it next to your support for killing fetuses.
Most Americans support that. So do our constitution and our laws. Only loony theocrats oppose it.
IOW, invent a pretext for overturning a well established ruling. You could use your bizarre and fallacious "reasoning" to overturn the 13th amendment to the Constitution since there was no "foundation" on which to abolish slavery. Try again. It's hilarious to watch you people twist yourselves, reason, history and facts into tinier and tinier knots of idiocy.
If you are looking for black letter law then we wouldn't need the Supreme Court to make a decision on constitutionality. It is illogical for a Supreme Court justice to claim that there are a textualist because a textualist judge could only vote no if the words don't appear, or the decision would have already been made by a lower court. If it wasn't word for word in the Constitution then it would be wrong, but a country cannot operate on that level of extreme binary thinking. The internet would not be permissible under a textualist interpretation, so if you are a textualist then you must leave the net. The same goes with TV. The 2nd Amendment would only apply to National Guard members because it only permits a trained militia member to have a gun.
The Constitution isnt an absolute list of rights and freedoms but instead is a statement of ideas and a limitation on the power of the government. The basic concept of freedom is that we have the right to act unless there is a compelling reason for the state to say that we cannot. If you believe that Roe is wrong then what is the compelling state interest to ban abortion and weaken our right to privacy from government interference into our most intimate decisions? Just saying that you don't approve isn't a legally sufficient reason.
None of that is true. The legislature makes the law, not the court. Whether we’re talking about the constitution or a statute, the role of the court should be to interpret the intent of the provision not what judges want it to say. Intent is normally determined from the words. If that’s ambiguous (often the reason for involving the court), then the court looks to the legislative history or other aides in determining the meaning. If a court sits and decides what it thinks is fair rather than just determining the intent of the provision at issue, then the court is functioning like a super legislature and acting unconstitutionally. All that really does is politicize the court and each side will look for judges who make political decisions rather than legal ones. Presidents will appoint ideologues and, because the decision was not legally sound in the first place, subsequent courts will be more willing to overturn it.
The Constitution is not a guide or a suggestion. It is a legal document that contains rights and the limits of those rights are determined from the meaning of the words contained in them similar to a contract. If nine judges can essentially change the meaning as they see fit, then the process of constitutional amendment is undermined and, to me, we have become subject to rule by unelected judges who serve for life. I absolutely don’t want that no matter which way the court swings.
I don’t need a compelling reason. If the right isn't in the constitution (and it isn’t), then it should be left to the states pursuant to the 10th amendment. States can do as they chose and those who don’t like it can either change the law in that state or move to another one.
Well said.
Unfortunately, that infamous decision is now the law of the land, not on it's own, but because of the later ruling which enshrined it as well as reducing it to it's core. That was the Planned Parenthood vs Casey ruling. A ruling loaded with farcical prose, mostly by Reagan Justices Kennedy & O'Connor, preserved Roe for good, BUT has given some room for States to set some important limitations on the earlier broad piece of judicial legislation.
Roe can be overturned or chipped away.
That would likely result in higher abortion rates than we have today.
Why?
I don't know the specific mechanism but that's what we observe statistically - the abortion rates are lowest in states and countries which have the best access to legal abortion. We see the same pattern historically where abortion rates tend to decline after it's legalized (despite an initial spike resulting from better data collection after it becomes legal).
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(11)61786-8/abstract
What does that have to do with whether Roe is based on a legally sound interpretation of the constitution?
Overturning is nearly impossible possible because the Casey ruling upheld it. However Casey diluted it significantly. Under Roe the state could not regulate abortions in the first trimester whereas under Casey the state can regulate abortions in the first trimester, or any point before the point of viability, and beyond as long as that regulation does not pose an undue burden on an abortion:
" JUSTICE O'CONNOR, JUSTICE KENNEDY, and JUSTICE SOUTER concluded in Part IV that an examination of Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 , and [p837] subsequent cases, reveals a number of guiding principles that should control the assessment of the Pennsylvania statute:
(a) To protect the central right recognized by Roe while at the same time accommodating the State's profound interest in potential life, see, id. at 162, the undue burden standard should be employed. An undue burden exists, and therefore a provision of law is invalid, if its purpose or effect is to place substantial obstacles in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability.
(b) Roe's rigid trimester framework is rejected. To promote the State's interest in potential life throughout pregnancy, the State may take measures to ensure that the woman's choice is informed. Measures designed to advance this interest should not be invalidated if their purpose is to persuade the woman to choose childbirth over abortion. These measures must not be an undue burden on the right.
(c) As with any medical procedure, the State may enact regulations to further the health or safety of a woman seeking an abortion, but may not impose unnecessary health regulations that present a substantial obstacle to a woman seeking an abortion.
(d) Adoption of the undue burden standard does not disturb Roe's holding that, regardless of whether exceptions are made for particular circumstances, a State may not prohibit any woman from making the ultimate decision to terminate her pregnancy before viability.
(e) Roe's holding that,
subsequent to viability, the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother is also reaffirmed. Id. at 164-165. Pp. 869-879.
The hatred of conservatives stems from their attempts to trample the rights of everyone but WASP males.
The hatred of progressives stems from their attempts to trample the rights of everyone that opposes them.
Whose rights are being trampled by Roe v Wade or any other supposedly liberal decision? You do not have the right to not be criticized for your speech/opinions, because that concept would destroy the idea of free speech rights.
I don't care if you criticize me, so take your best shot at me.
Your idea that we only have an expectation of the right to privacy would not play well if I said that you only have the expectation of religious freedom, free speech or the right to own a gun. Maybe we could say that you have the right to own a gun, but if you took it outside the house or loaded it would be a federal crime.
Why do you and other conservatives feel the need to chip away at the rights of others and give the government more power over our personal lives? Do you think that other people have too many rights and too little rights for yourself?
Given that many conservatives are nosy and theocratic busy-bodies I can understand why they're universally despised.
Some states do attempt to chip away at Roe. or at the very least, attempt to circumvent it.
The rights to free speech and and religion as well as the right to bear arms are clearly set forth in the Bill of Rights. You will not see the right to abortion listed anywhere in the document.
Why do you and other liberals see what isn’t there and then spend all your time demanding that others see it too?
Whose rights would be trampled if you killed a baby the minute it was born? Or the minute before? Or two years later?
You're dodging epistte's question.
Answer: The baby’s rights. Who says the baby does or doesn’t have rights? The state. Why can’t the mother kill her baby if she wants to? Murder is illegal. Who says murder is illegal? The state.
It’s a ‘baby’ after it’s grown enough to exit the womb.
It’s the same baby one minute after exiting the womb as it was the minute before or the week before or the month before that.
Roe is not written in stone and, if liberals thought it was, they wouldn’t be shitting bricks about the next Supreme Court Justice. They know full well that Roe is a judicial concoction and that it can be reversed, all at once or (more likely) cleverly unraveling it a little at a time. The justices are appointed for life so there’s no rush.
If that’s your picture and you want to argue that you were no different than a wad of snot, I won’t aegue with you.
I wonder if you should peel and devein those before you eat them?
I am male and I am white and I am conservative but I am not Anglo-Saxon nor I am I Protestant. I also do not want to strip others of their rights.
Guess that blows your statement all to hell doesn't it.
It has rights as soon as it's born.
What's your point? Yes, murder/infanticide is illegal. Abortion is not. Neither is there a baby involved in an abortion. So you're trying to compare apples to oranges here.
Wrong! it's a baby after it exits, not before. before then, it's a fetus.
Not likely to happen. Never in the entire history of the court have rights been rescinded once recognized or granted.
Your religious beliefs end at the tip of your nose, and not in our uterus or our bedrooms!
Women always had a "constitutional right" to an abortion until the mid 1800s. It is not the constitution that needs amended. It is the thinking of the religious zealots, the misogynists, and various other holier than thou, better than you busybodies who believe that they were born with a mandate to control a uterus other than the one they were born with.
It would be beneficial if the "constitutionalists" would acquaint themselves with the history of the US. Washington, Jefferson and their contemporaries lived during a time when there was no restrictions on a woman's access to abortion. Those men did not involve themselves in writing a document to legislate the uterus.
Total nonsense. Women NEVER had a constitutional right to abortion. Abortion is not mentioned in the constitution AT ALL nor did anybody EVER think about the issue when drafting it. The fact that it may not have been outlawed in any particular state does not mean that getting an abortion was a constitutional right by default. People could have drowned kittens and no state may have prohibited it but that does not mean you ever had a constitutional right to do it. Abortion was not a “constitutional” right until judges on the Supreme Court re-wrote the constitution by pretending to be interpreting it. If states want to outlaw killing babies, then they should be able to do it under the 10th amendment.
It'd be even more beneficial if women who want to control their own bodies to the point of killing babies had used that control to close their legs. Then their mouths would be closed now and we’d all be happier.
It's cook out time, be back in a few
now that's something most can agree on. Happy eating!
Those who have a religious objection should wait until the judgement day they say is coming and let it be handled then
What Do Americans Really Think About The Roe V Wade Decision?
Personally I think IF the government makes women stop having abortions the government needs to step in and take care of any child the woman wanted to abort for the rest of its life. Either that or keep the hell out of it.
I can go along with that.
How about if you CHOOSE to HAVE kids--you support them ON YOUR OWN?
wouldn't it be wonderful if any and all birth control was 100 percent effective ? Then you could CHOOSE to HAVE sex and not have any unwanted consequences ever. At this point in time that's not always the case you can't choose to have 100 percent protected sex, LOL, unless you are alone.
Until then abortion ends unwanted consequences.
If the government takes that option away the government should take steps to take care of those babies whom the parents can not or will not take care of.
One or the other, if the government wants the unwanted babies, let the government take full control of them or let the mothers keep control and STFU about it.
What is your opinion in this situation.
Married couple....wife works minimum wage job, husband going to college....wife gets pregnant, goes on welfare, husband graduates college a year later, finds a job and they go off welfare.
I don't have a problem with abortion. I think it is a poor choice for b/c, but if you are using other forms and fail, get an abortion.
But if you choose to stay pregnant or get pregnant on your own, then pay for what YOU choose.
When people can afford kids, by all means, have them if they choose.
But just because you are poor doesn't mean you should procreate at others' expense.
It works well enough (the vast majority of the time) to do part of that. Thus we had the sexual revolution and sex became part of the instant gratification which became so ingrained in modern culture. It's so easy to find a willing partner which leads us to the inevitable consequences: Zero population growth among the established first world western societies and the sad fact that men no longer feel the need to be accountable to their female sex buddies.
Yes indeed! Why should anyone have to take responsibility for their own actions.
Well the scenario I posted was about me. I used the safety net when I needed it the most and then got off it when I didn't need it. So according to you I should have starved while being pregnant rather than get help.
Taking responsibility takes many forms. Aborting an unwanted baby may be more responsible that having one that you have no way of taking care of. Unless you live their life, dont judge others to harshly. Cause what goes around comes around.
I said nothing of the sort.
What I advocate for is people paying for things THEY CHOOSE to do.
I don't choose for you to get pregnant.
I shouldn't have to pay for YOUR choice.
Sorry, I didn't realize that pro-choice meant YOUR choice to have others pay for YOU.
Your right. Judging people harshly is the job of the left. I forgot
And what I really think about your situation is that you and your partner should have waited to get pregnant until you could afford it.
Or get an abortion.
LOL
Evidently, You never met my mom.
You can't have it both ways and that's what you seem to want...you want to force women to carry to term but if they are poor oh too damn bad, starve or live on the streets, but don't use my taxes to pay for your choices.....sad way of thinking. I don't have a say in how my taxes are used and neither do you, that's life and too damn bad.
It is amazing how some here feel they are qualified to play God and usurp the right to judge others that only belongs to their avowed Maker. While they crow long and loud about their own piety, they seem to feel that they have the right to judge others they deem inferior to themselves.
Hypocrisy is strong with them.
That is a LIE.
I have never said I was against abortion. I have never claimed women should be forced into giving birth.
Prove it since you claim it.
You can't win by telling lies about WHAT I THINK or have SAID.
That is so true.
Today is my late son's birthday, the one I was pregnant (I was on the pill and we still used condoms....oops) with when I went on welfare.
So you know what you can do with your opinions. If this gets flagged so be it.
Who gave you authority over my uterus....NO ONE. My uterus, my choice. Don't like it too damn bad.
What would be amazing is if that attitude was only on here. I see it everyday all over.
Agreed. It never ceases to amaze me that those who are so busy telling everyone else how to live their life, never seem to have time to take a long look at their own and see how imperfect they are themselves. Because as much as they like to see themselves as qualified to sit at the right hand of their God, they may not themselves be fit to pass through the Pearly Gates. And our world is full of those who push their own religious beliefs when they themselves do not really live by them.
LOL... Yep I guess it seems they're just too busy, busy mainly just being miserable assholes. Judging others distracts them for a time. I judge it to be this way........LOL
Bigotry and Bias are two very strong emotions, and words that can be used as very harmful weapons against others.
Before anyone chooses to use those weapons, they should first take a long, unbiased look in their own mirror. If they see absolute perfection there, then fine. But, as no human is perfect, if they see themselves as being perfect, then they are the ones who need self reflection and redemption.
If you don’t want any level of risk and responsibility, don’t have sex. Otherwise be an adult and accept life’s responsibilities
that is very unrealistic
Most Christian preachers are, and hypocrites as well, who preach the words of the almighty out of one side of their pious mouth, and act the opposite intheir own life.
Most people do accept life's responsibilities and abortion is one of them when an unintended pregnancy occurs.
Another of life's responsibilities is to mind your own business and let others make their own decisions on these issues, but I doubt that any theocrat is capable of doing that.
“Most Christian preachers are, and hypocrites as well, who preach the words of the almighty out of one side of their pious mouth, and act the opposite intheir own life.”
Really. You have personal knowledge of the more than 800,000 ordained ministers in the US?
certainly there are hypocrites, heretics and phonies in the body of Christ. And some of us have engaged in exposing and rebuking them, because we don’t want them numbered among us. But your claim is ludicrous.
Just say no doesn't work.
Reality called and said that they haven't heard from you for a long time and asked me to check on you to see if you needed anything.
What's false about it? Abortion is probably the best option when an unintended pregnancy occurs; it's certainly far safer than carrying to term. That doesn't mean everyone is obligated to go that route but that's what the freedom to choose is all about.
Really? Name one woman, other that Mary, that has abstained from sex of any kind and has gotten pregnant .
The concept of just say no ignores basic human biology and millions of years of evolution. It doesn't work in practice because our sex drive cannot be turned off or ignored. We are sexual creatures that are designed to breed. You cannot ignore that.
The idea of the Virgin Mary as the mother of Jesus is a myth that was stolen from previous religions.
I never said it was easy did I. It may not be easy but it is not impossible. And you have nothing answered my question. Name someone that has abstained from sex and became pregnant. Just one (artificial insemination does not count). Are you also going to try and tell me that every priest, religious brother and nun has secretly had sect since taking their vows of celibacy?
The pregnancy rate in those situations would be much higher if they weren't sex-segregated but it does show how effective sex with your own gender is at preventing unwanted pregnancies. More bible-babbling Christian extremists should consider that option since they oppose abortion.
I guess ill pitch in my 2 cents on this just say no thing. I don't think it ignores biological urges , it is in contradiction to those urges.
and I cannot nor will I try to refute the science of it. What I can say from my own personal experience is that it is an individual choice of will the individual control their urges or will they let those urges control them.
But what I can say about just saying no , is that it has worked for me now for over 7 years, but like I said it is based on the individual.
It's worked well for abstinence-only advocates like Bristol Palin too.
And just how would you know that. Do show your proof. Be sure to wash you hands after you make up that stat and pulling out of your assistance.
like I said , whether or not it works depends on the individual , for me it works , so I cant knock it , others it may not or couldn't work for. such is life.
So in your worldview people just animals with no personal will or ability to exercise self control?
thats hardly surprising
The idea of the Virgin Mary as the mother of Jesus is a myth that was stolen from previous religions.
This groundbreaking news. Where is your press conference with this reversal of history?
Was Jesus a myth copied from Paganism
Atheists are so desperate to deny Jesus they will grab onto any non authoritative source like the Divinci Code and treat it is fact rather than actually engage in substantive research
As Bart Ehrman, atheist professor of Religious Studies at UNC, has said:
“The alleged parallels between Jesus and the “pagan” savior-gods in most instances reside in the modern imagination: We do not have accounts of others who were born to virgin mothers and who died as an atonement for sin and then were raised from the dead (despite what the sensationalists claim ad nauseum in their propagandized versions).”
While this idea may stop is in our tracks at first glance, when we dig deeper we find that these “parallels” are made up to such an extent as to be simply embarrassing. Jesus is not a knock-off of pagan god stories, and this is a basic fact of history. Let’s take a quick look at Mithra, Dionysus, and Horus, all of whom are claimed to have born of a virgin, killed, buried, and resurrected from the dead.
Mithra had absolutely no virgin birth. In fact, Mithra was not born in a literal sense, he emerged out of a rock. Mirtha was only born metaphorically, not literally. Mithra even emerged out of this rock as an adult, not as a baby. Mithra has no real mother, no virgin birth, no manger.
Dionysus also was not born from a virgin mother. There are several different mothers for this god depending on which source you read, but the most common story is that Dionysus was born from Zeus having sex with Semele:
“And Semele, daughter of Kadmos was joined with him [Zeus] in love and bare him a splendid son, joyous Dionysos,–a mortal woman an immortal son. And now they both are gods.” – Hesiod, Theogony. 940 ff (trans. Evelyn-White) (Greek epic C8th or 7th B.C.)
Nothing virginal about this story, or any of the others pertaining to the birth of Dionysus.
As for Horus, he also had no virgin birth. Isis had sex with Osiris after reassembling his body parts which were torn apart and scattered over Egypt. As egyptologist and professor at the university of Arizona Dr. Richard Wilkinson has written,
“Through her magic Isis revivified the sexual member of Osiris and became pregnant by him, eventually giving birth to their child, Horus.”
Historian and professor Françoise Dunand writes,
“AFTER HAVING SEXUAL INTERCOURSE, IN THE FORM OF A BIRD, WITH THE DEAD GOD SHE RESTORED TO LIFE, SHE GAVE BIRTH TO A POSTHUMOUS SON, HORUS.”
Which god are you referring to? If an atheist has an abortion is she playing goddess?
Yes
Yes
The Sumerian god Tammuz,
Indeed, it is. However, it should be promoted realistically. Merely expounding endless Bible verses and personal beliefs is not going to work for most people who are faced with the hard choice to make. Being responsible is to have the abortion before the heartbeat arrives if one is wanted or necessary. All calling the person who chooses to have the abortion a murderer, or worse, is seriously over stepping the right of the Mother to make her choice, and usually ends in great uncalled for emotional and mental duress for the Mother. It is not anyone's call to make but the woman carrying the embryo.
When a woman realizes that she is pregnant it is usually within the first 3 months or less. If she already knows that she does not, or cannot, keep the child, then she should not wait any longer to have the abortion unless it is a threat to her health to do so.
Playing God at any time is certainly not anyone's right, no matter who they are.
That's when conservatives intervene and make that right to an abortion as difficult as possible to exercise.
No one cares about your uterus. Seriously.
If you have a guest in your home, the law will prosecute you if you assault or kill him. It has nothing to do with your home and everything to do with the life of the person within. If we could figure out a way to grow new people without doing it in utero, you'd never hear from anyone again about your uterus.
Sorry, but the patriarchy and the right wing extremists of the world didn't invent the process of reproduction. It is what it is and Nature has put a special responsibility on women. It's not anybody's fault.
And the best part is that women also have the special responsibility to decide whether to carry a fetus to term or to terminate it. No one else can do that.
A poor analogy since the person in the home is already a person and presumably invited. So if a host doesn't want that person in their home, then they can throw them out. So using your analogy, a woman can do the same with the fetus she's hosting.
Immaterial. What a woman does with her uterus is none of your business!
It's your fault if you try to take away a woman's rights and autonomy regarding her uterus or reproductive options.
That is my position. If the government decides that every pregnancy should be brought to term, then it is responsible (physically and financially) for every pregnancy that is brought to term. No exceptions. All children should be children of the state, if you think the government should have the final say on pregnancy that is.
You have it twisted
the role of government is chain government from infringing on your natural rights, and to protect property from injustice from others and foreign invaders.
Part of that is exact justice against those who harm another who is innocent of wrongdoing
abortion is the murder of an innocent who is guilty of harming no one
Oh boy, what do magic fairies have to say about the matter?
Okay?
And once again we are back to the crux of the issue, who's rights matter more? Those of the mother or those of the fetus? I choose the mother, fuck the fetus.
There it is. The typical leftist thought. It is never their fault or their responsibility. Other people are required to be responsible and take care of their issues.
Straw man. You frame the question wrong since we who oppose murder of the innocent view neither life as superior, but equal.
it is the pro abortion folks like yourself who value one life as superior to another
Given that the abortion rate is much lower today than it was at the time Roe was decided it seems your "iffy" argument is both unrealistic and erroneous. It also means that women's lives are better today as a result.
Not when it comes to protection under the law. All human life should be equal under the law as the Constitution states
when does your bible say it is alive?
My point exactly - women who have unwanted kids are less likely to be married and less likely to get an adequate education. That's why abortion is a good option which benefits women and their families in the long run.
Apparently not for women though, right?
According to the bible, when the baby takes it's first breath. Thumpers want to move that goalpost back to the moment of injection,... er, conception. Apparently they're tasked by their creator to regulate the sex lives of those that don't follow their beliefs. Meh, at least there's the 2nd amendment if and when the 1st ever stops working.
It seems that abortions are at their lowest rate since Roe vs Wade.
S. Abortion Rate At Lowest Recorded Point
Number of abortions per 1,000 women ages 15-44
Source: Guttmacher Institute
Credit: Katie Park/NPR
I’ve never said that nor do I believe that. Lying about the views of others is not an argument
Ok, then you are pro-choice.
Nonsense. Murder of the innocent is never a right of mankind
Agreed....murdering the innocent is the exclusive right of invisible sky fairies.
Repeating that lie doesn't make it true!
The government generally isn't forcing people to have sex (with or without protection) and there is no shortage of eager couples ready to adopt newborn babies.
Great that should always be given as an option, I'm sure it usually is.
Many feel the fault with the Roe opinion is on the privacy issue, but that was settled in Griswold v Connecticut, and I agree with it. As much as people talk about originalism and respecting the wishes of the Constitution's framers, I don't see judicial activism at all in finding a right to privacy in the Constitution. The 9th Amendment alone should allow for it.
In other words, there's nothing in the Constitution granting authority to the government related to privacy (or abortion for that matter), so the people retain that right. Ask random people on the street if they think they have a right to privacy and I would guess that 99% of them would say they do. It's common sense.
Factor in 1st Amendment rights to speech, religion, and association, 5th and 14th Amendment rights to life, liberty, and property, and 4th Amendment right to be secure in your person, even 3rd Amendment right to be free from having troops quartered in your home, and I don't know how you argue against a right to privacy. The very concept of individual liberty that America has always championed speaks to a fundamental right to privacy.
My complaint with Roe is that privacy should not be the issue. The issue should be the rights (if any) of the unborn child. Its the sole reason that anyone considers this a moral issue at all. It's the reason even liberals like Barack Obama say that abortion "should be rare." Anyone who says abortion should be rare understands that the unborn life has value like that we would find in any born person.
For centuries, the unborn have had legal rights in property and, to a lesser extent, in tort. The standard of viability for homicide/abortion is based on a centuries' old concept of "quickening." In other words, if you could feel the baby moving inside the mother, there was something wrong with damaging that life or ending the pregnancy.
I think this was fine for the times, but modern medical science has opened our eyes to facts about life in the womb that we could not have known before. We no longer have to rely on a kicking fetus to tell us life is present. That should, at minimum, open our minds to reconsidering the issue. But in Roe - and later in Casey -, the court relied on precedent, so we ended up with this "viability" standard. The Court basically ignored modern medicine. And I would be fine with the Court staying out of the medical field if it hadn't invented the quickening/viability standard in the first place.
Practically, speaking, what's needed is for Congress to take notice of when life begins.
The jurisprudence on the rights of the unborn is fraught with all sorts of contradictions, whether it's on the abortion issue, homicide, property, or tort. For example:
Several years ago in California (Keeler v Superior Court), the state high court threw out an indictment against a man who intentionally murdered the nearly full term (about 35 weeks) fetus his ex-wife was carrying (basically, he stomped her belly and fractured the child's skull). Based on legal precedent, the court held the man could not be prosecuted for killing a person. However, if the child had lived long enough to be extracted from the mother and then subsequently died of the injuries, he legally could have been indicted for murder. There is much in the law that ignores medical science and good old common sense.
Practically, speaking, what's needed is for Congress to take notice of when life begins.
Never will the rights of a fetus have dominion over the rights of a woman. In essence you want to force women to be breeders against their will.
That's what we will get if Roe is ever overturned. It's sad how some people are perfectly fine with that too.
It's impossible to have an actual, sensible conversation when you assign the most evil motivation possible to the person you're talking to. I am in no way endorsing the idea that women be forced to breed against their will. Such a statement is deeply stupid.
No, what's sad is that you go along with such a stupid comment. See above.
No! I expect that woman tare responsibility for their actions. If a woman is not prepared to be a mother she can take appropriate birth control measures or stay out if the sack. Don't go on about how BC can fail. The failure rate is less than 0.3% and that is just for only using the pill.
My son was a pill/condom oopsie. So don't tell me about the failure rate, I lived it.
One has to wonder how they would feel if they had to face the aspect of their own wife, daughter or Granddaughter losing their own life without an abortion that would save their life. It would seems that by the adamant verbal objection to abortion, they would still object to it if it meant the death of one of their own.
However, if they would put the life of their own first, who are they to deny other women the same right to choose how to live their own life.
They have no right to play God, no matter how much they think they do.
I guess you're not familiar with history then, when abortion was illegal and that situation is exactly what transpired.
As usual, your guesses are wrong.
Being "forced to breed" would, necessarily, involve forced intercourse or some other variety of forced insemination. I don't know when (outside of slavery) that has ever been legal in this country.
I LOVE how the father is completely absent in this scenario. ALL the blame and responsibility falls on the woman, as though she conceived by herself. Lol fucking perfect!
Nobody is being forced to be a breeder. A woman can use contraceptives or she can choose to keep her legs closed. And if, for some reason she can’t do either, then she can go to a state that permits abortion if her state bans it.
No guess. just simple fact.
If a woman became pregnant, regardless of the circumstances, then she would in effect be forced to breed and carry the pregnancy to term regardless if she wanted to or not. That's the logical conclusion of bans against abortion.
If a woman wants an abortion but is not allowed, then she is in effect being forced to breed against her will.
Contraceptives are not 100% effective and abstinence is 0% realistic.
Again unrealistic and completely ignores the woman's situation or circumstances.
That’s absurd. If she’s too stupid to avoid getting pregnant, or if it was unavoidable, then she can go to another state.
And mangling the constitution just to make abortion convenient should be 100% off the table.
She can handle herself without involving the Supreme Court.
Oh, I see you're a fan of the 'aspirin between the knees' form of birth control. Never liked that one much myself!
The failure rate for "the pill" is 0.3 % pretty darn close.
Yet if a man does not want to be a father and not have fatherhoods financial responsibilities, that is the only choice you give him.
Yeah.....why not tell that to Bristol Palin, who has had kids out of wedlock, yet, who loudly preaches abstinence to others.
It doesn't matter if it's 0.00001%. A failure still means an unintended pregnancy can occur and a woman might want/need an abortion.
The man is not the one getting pregnant, so he has no say. But it seems you confuse child bearing with child rearing. Those are two different things.
Considering I have already addressed that statement, it seems I'm just talking to a wall now.
Yeah, we get it you don't like the idea of women having individual rights and autonomy over their choices and body.
Apparently not, especially when it involved fighting legal bans against abortion.
Nag. The man had absolutely nothing to do with it. He wasn't even there when she got pregnant. There is nothing of his that is part of that baby.
I see you completely missed the point.
And again you are wrong
Why should I care about her?
Who better to show them what the consequences might be if they don't?
No we just disagree. Or you can view it as two walls talking if it makes you feel better.
She has complete power to use contraceptives and close her own legs. I encourage her to pick one.
See above. Also she can evade the ban in her state by going to another state.
Many of us who are pro life have done exactly that
The right to terminate a pregnancy guarantees that we will not be forced to carry a child against our will, but you oppose abortion.
What a misogynist, christian sharia-like thing to say. And you just go on as if you know all about women and their reproductive physiology. The ONLY thing you know about this is how to SLUT SHAME. Your commentary is all about every perspective except the fucking person who has to live it. If you think women will go back to those old days, which I still remember, be prepared for an all out war of the sexes. Can't believe your patronizing sexism and ignorance on this subject.
You are not pro-life., You are forced birth because you oppose programs that guarantee care for the same child after the 3rd trimester. You only seek to control the mother's actions.
I'll just leave this here for others to read,
And I can’t believe that you’re making this the responsibility of everyone but the one person who is actually responsible i.e. the woman. I don’t really give a shit what women go back to. The constitution stays what it says.
That's the stat for the pill's efficacy in ideal circumstances. Real word data is more like 91% effective, which means that 9 out of 100 pill users get pregnant each year.
Am I missing the sarcasm of this post or is Arkpdx sincerely saying what I suspect that he is?
your argument is a straw man. I oppose government involvement in our lives at any age
no one unless raped is forced to have sex. Until a few decades ago when leftist ideology infected our country, we used to believe in personal responsibility. That means you must bear the responsibility for your choices. And with pregnancy that means carrying to birth and then keeping the child, letting another family member raise the child or give the child up for adoption. But there is no justification for mudering the child as a result of your choices.
and yes men bear equal responsibility
I take it there's no abortion scripture to quote. Why is that?
There is
THOU SHALL NOT KILL!
Yup, but, life begins at first breath as well. That's the problem with quoting the buy bull; virtually everything the buy bull says is contradicted somewhere else in the buy bull.
Uh huh, and if 100 million people have sex tonight, using the pill, how many unplanned pregnancies will result?
Maybe, just maybe, I will have more respect and consideration of your comments once you grow up and stop attempting to put down other people's beliefs .
-The bible says all of mankind's history can be traced back to one particular couple. We KNOW this is not true.
-The bible says all language diverged at the tower of Babel, where God got afraid that the tower would reach heaven and caused everyone to speak different languages so they couldn't finish the project. I'm not even going to comment on this one, think about it yourself and tell me what YOU think, ok?
The bible says 'God' flooded the entire earth covering every mountain top with water [about 5 miles deep] Do you believe this?
Arky, buddy, I could fill half the comment section on a seed with this stuff. The bible is chock full of false history and ludicrous nonsense from cover to cover. Have you ever actually READ it? I have, twice.
if something that might have been was removed before it became functioning what was really lost?
You logically cannot say that you oppose any government involvement in our lives and then claim that abortion is murder. You want to stand on both sides of the fence. Either the government cannot prevent her from having an abortion or they can.
That always gets me. The Roe decision was for freedom. Some advocate restriction.
If you don't care about her why do you care about a fetus?
Actually there is at least one but it's pro-abortion and found in Numbers 5:11-31. The bible-babbling Christian extremists prefer to ignore that verse.
Why should anyone have any respect for other people's silly and misogynistic superstitions? Respect is earned and from what I can tell these particular superstitions deserve nothing but contempt and ridicule.
Speak for yourself!
Disagree all you want. It doesn't change the fact that your views are quite simplistic and naive.
I'm the one talking to a wall.
She also has the power to choose to utilize abortion if she wants. Who is anybody to try and prohibit that power?
Looks like I'm talking to a wall again, especially since I already addressed that multiple times.
Then why do Christians own guns?
It doesn’t say though shalt not defend yourself. And you can always shoot to wound.
I said that abortion is not a constitutional right. That is so no matter what she does or doesn’t do. In that sense, she is irrelevant.
Hunting, target shooting, self protection collecting all come to mind .
I’m sure you think the government should be involved in preventing murder, especially your own, yet you think there’s something wrong with preventing the murder of defenseless babies. You’re on both sides of the fence yourself.
So opposing abortion is like embracing Mussolini’s fascism? Ok, then supporting abortion is like a cruel Viking tradition where a child is not a person until the naming ceremony, nine days after birth, and could be left to die from exposure for any number of reasons, including the parents just don’t want another mouth to feed.
Who cares. you're obviously and factually wrong!
How misogynistic! The woman doesn't matter. That's what you're saying.
If Roe is reversed, then feel to go before state legislatures and say women who oppose baby killing are misogynists and think women don’t matter.
Why wait, I'll say it now. Women who oppose other women having the full rights to decide what is best for their personal health and welfare DO NOT RESPECT WOMEN. Nobody, male or female should have a right to control the health of another. Why the hell do you think we would take the loss of rights from another woman? We aren't stupid enough to support people who work against us just because they are female, so if that is the plan, those women better get ready for some blowback, and it won't be pretty.
Stop trying to force a particular interpretation of christian sharia on us.
Go ahead. I enjoy a good cat fight. I suggest mud wrestling. lol
By all means, educate me on how the American government forced women to have sex, get pregnant, and make babies.
Do you understand how a woman gets pregnant? Or did you sleep through the 6th grade? Generally speaking, it starts with a choice. The choice to have sex. No force required. Little known fact (sarcasm): the primary side effect of sexual intercourse is . . . wait for it . . . pregnancy! Most people who have sex, know this.
And the choices continue with the choice whether to carry a fetus to term or to flush it out. That's the best part about living in a free and secular society rather than a nutty and misogynistic theocracy.
Who's killing babies? If you know anyone, feel free to contact the authorities. Otherwise, spare me the melodrama!
I already explained it to you. I guess you're a poor learner!
Do you understand a woman doesn't have to remain pregnant if she doesn't want to?
Thinly veiled add hom attacks only hurts your "argument."
And that choice continues on even if pregnancy occurs.
There's also the choice to have an abortion. No force is required either. Although, it seems some would love to force women to endure a pregnancy even if they do not want to.
Once the liberals who support the judicially concocted constitutional right to kill babies are excreted from the Court, then states can decide whether they want baby killing facilities within their jurisdiction.
Killing babies isn't a right. So your entire argument falls apart.
There is no constitutional right to privacy that guarantees people the right to use contraceptives. The court made the right up as though it were a super legislature and then imposed it on all 50 states under the guise of interpreting the constitution. Does that mean I want the state in my bedroom? Of course not. Banning contraceptives is just as ridiculous then as it is now but the solution is to change the law in that state or move to another state if you don’t like the law.
The 9th amendment didn’t preserve a right to privacy because there was no such right to preserve. The bill of rights was really a series of amendments intended to limit federal, not state, power. The issue, when they were drafting the bill of rights, was whether enumerating rights meant that only those enumerated rights were preserved. The 9th amendment says that they aren’t an exclusive list of preserved rights. But that doesn’t mean that people have some right to privacy (or other rights) against the state simply because it’s not enumerated. That view would create a nonsensical system in which people could challenge virtually any state law as an abridgment of a right protected by the 9th amendment.
I agree that the issue in abortion should not be a right to privacy (which was created by judicial overreach) but rather the rights of the unborn. But that has to be balanced against the rights of the mother. However, I disagree that Congress has the power to define when life begins. Nothing in the constitution grants this power to Congress. Since it was never a power granted to Congress (implicitly or explicitly), it should be a matter left to the states pursuant to the 10 amendment.
Do people have a right to medical privacy?
I certainly have an expectation of privacy but not a constitutional right to it. That doesn’t stop states from protecting privacy nor does it stop Congress from doing it (where they have power to do so).
So you would agree that the government has every right to publicly publish your entire medical history? Or that businesses have every right to base hiring and firing decisions on a person's publicly available medical history?
Obviously, I disagree.
If you don't have a right to use them, then why is it ridiculous to try ban them?
You actually can challenge any state law. At issue will be what is fundamental and what is not when it comes to our rights. Privacy seems pretty fundamental. In such cases, the government almost always loses. But even where the right is not fundamental, the individual can still defeat the law if he can show the government lacks a rational basis for infringing on the law. Our system is not non-sensical, but our courts are very busy adjudicating cases like this.
As a matter of which branch of government, it has to be the legislative branch. If Congress were to take action, it would be strongest as a Constitutional amendment. Absent that, I agree you can make an argument that the states could make the determination on their own. I'm not sure that would hold up, though, because . . .
Yes, but several decisions by the Supreme Court have extended the restrictions of the Bill of Rights to the states via the 14th Amendment. Called the "Incorporation Doctrine" this includes the 1st, 2nd, and 4th Amendments in total, and most of the 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendments. So, not only does this extend the right to privacy against state governments, but probably also the federal government's concept of what a person is. I say that because (I think all) of these rights deal with the rights of a "person" or "people." So, for example, if the federal system says African Americans are "people," individual states don't get to redefine their status. For that reason, I don't think Congress even needs a new amendment, just an ordinary resolution signed into law by the president.
It’s not a constitutional right. But the government or a business can’t do it if it’s barred by federal or state law.
But you agree that they have the right to do so if they decide to? They have every right to make your medical history public?
The government has no compelling state interest to publish your medical history. The only reason this has ever surfaced was because of the left’s fascist insistence on government regulation which produces intrusion
as to business. Business should have the right to hire or fire for any or no reason at all. Anything else is totalitarianism
States and Congress take these steps because they are protecting information that - as a practical matter - is no longer private because it has been shared with someone else (like a healthcare provider or an insurance company). Thus restrictions are actually being placed on the speech of those individuals (something that would normally be legally impossible) in protection of our right to privacy.
I don’t have a constitutional right to use them but that doesn’t mean I support the state banning them. If the state bans it, then change the law.
Nobody, to my knowledge, has ever successfully challenged a state law under the 9th amendment. Privacy is a reasonable expectation but is not a constitutional guarantee. Our system would only be nonsensical if, as I explained, the 9th amendment were used to undermine state law.
Yes it has to be the legislative branch and no it doesn’t have to be Congress. Congress does not have authority to make laws for states unless that power is expressly delegated to Congress under the constitution.
That doctrine is flawed but inapplicable when there was no right of privacy to extend.
Congress can define what a person is for the purpose of any matter delegated to it.
For the purpose of argument, I’ll note that the 8th amendment prohibits the federal government from imposing (on people) cruel and unusual punishment. If Congress picks when life begins (as you want them to) and says that life/personhood begins at conception but the court says that the unborn’s rights must somehow give way to a right of privacy or some other phantom right, has the Court effectively imposed a cruel and unusual punishment on children by saying that women can kill them if they would be a hassle to support?
My point is that it’s not a constitutionally protected right and a legislature (state or local) can choose to protect it, which I want them to do.
The 4th Amendment is based on that inherent right to privacy. If we only have an expectation of privacy then where is the line drawn and who gets to make that decision? Are there other rights that you would like us to surrender to either the government or your church? What do you or anyone else lose by protecting the inherent right to privacy?
Is it highly ironic to watch conservatives fight to take away our freedoms and then they declare themselves to be patriots for doing it. Conservatives oppose freedom and seek to create a powerful state to enforce their own ideas because they prefer control over individual rights for others.
The 4th amendment guarantees the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. It’s a protection against arbitrary arrest and seizure of property. Whether it’s arbitrary or not is based on the circumstances so officers get warrants. To me that has nothing to do with abortion but to answer your question, I’d draw the line at the intent of the amendment/law and not go beyond it.
government has no compelling state interest in preventing abortion
You dont believe that we have the innate right to privacy with our bodies and our intimate decisions? Should we have to ask the government if we can have sex or approve our medical decisions before we can be treated by a Dr? How much of our personal freedom and autonomy do you see to take away?
Do you have any concept of the horrendous legal precedent that your idea would be establishing? Do you think that we can have too much privacy or freedom from government interference?
What I said is that we don’t have a constitutional right to it. I not say that, in the absence of a constitutional right, we should have no rights at all. State and federal legislatures should be thendorum for that discussion, not the courts.
If you read what I said above, then you might see how I have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about.
What is the constitutional role of the courts in your scenatio? What happens if the legislatures pass an unconstitutional law? Does Congress get to deternmine what our rights are?
Answering that basic question is kryptonite to conservatives.
Congress makes law, the executive enforces the law, and the court interprets the law consistent with the intent of the legislature. If the law is unconstitutional, then the court should strike it down but not just because the judges don’t personally like it.
Given that you're one of those folks who thinks the government should be free to treat LGBT folks as 2nd-class citizens, your views on contraception, abortion and other matters of personal privacy aren't surprising at all.
By the way Rick Santorum shares the same views as you. Good thing that theocratic fruitcake is no longer part of our secular government.
How does the court strike down the law if your take their legal opinions out of it? You are proving that you are more and more ignorant of the law with every reply.
What is the compelling state interest to prohibit abortion?
Which of those arguments are constitutionally valid?
Sure they do. Sanctioning murder of innocent life is the mark of a barbarous society
YOU are not God. YOU need to stop trying to play God and making judgement calls YOU are not qualified to make. YOU have not right to judge anyone here on earth or otherwise. Look in the mirror to see how perfect YOU are.
Live your own life and stop trying to tell everyone else how to live theirs, which is not YOUR call to do.
When are you going to chastise the liberals here that constantly judge others here on Earth or otherwise. Is it OK for the left to judge because they have similar views as your own?
delete
Your talking points are not surprising,
or the people. and if left to the people as the last part of the 10th amendment says, then it is a personal choice
So you are ok with people breaking the law as long as they are of your political persuasion?
Abortion is not murder so drop the emotional hyperbole.
Your own bible says that a baby is not alive until it breathes air. Genesis 2.7.
When I see it I will certainly address it no matter what side its on. There are some on Both sides that are guilty of playing their hate filled word games and think they have the right to sit in judgement of those that don't walk in lock step with their own views and beliefs. Neither side is without guilt. I don't read every article/seed posted on NT, but the ones that I do read, and see those who think they sit at the right hand of God and are thus entitled to usurp the right to judge others, I will call it out.
God is quite capable of doing his own work and don't need the help of anyone here. So those who think they are special helpers of God should take a long look in their own mirror and realize God is supposed to be perfect, but, Man is not. And if they were that perfect, they would not still be here on earth.
I'll believe that when I see it.
What ever floats your boat. I don't have to answer to you or anyone else here other than Perrie and/or the Mods.
What civil liberties do you have in mind? There was a warrant signed by a judge for the search of Cohen's residence. If that warrant was illegal, then any evidence gained will be inadmissible as fruit of the poisonous vine.
I didn't see that you stated much at all.
A couple things here, a) there is no such thing as an unborn child, that is an oxymoron, and b) who's rights outweigh the others? Does a life form that has never taken a breath, never had a conscious thought, never truly been alive have more right than a grown, living, breathing conscious woman? This really is the crux of the issue, you have one person growing inside of another, who's right's take precedence? For me, it is the woman's.
There is nothing it can be but an unborn child. My son was exactly the same after he was born as he was the week before. That’s why viability is an issue. Even before viability, it’s hard to view a fetus as no more significant than snot.
Oxymoron by definition.
Completely, factually, biologically, untrue. I am not the same as I was even 1 second ago. And it seems like you are trying to argue the definition of words, which have defined meaning. If that meaning doesn't fit your narrative, too fucking bad.
Nope! Not even close.
Meh, not my fault you don't know the definition of words.
I would suggest you actually look up the definition of oxymoron. After you do do come back and tell how your statement fits.
It's not a child until it's born.
Nope. The week before, he was a fetus.
How is it an issue? Abortions are generally allowed up to the point of viability.
Ture. it's looks more like an uncooked piece of shrimp. But it's only "significance" is what the woman in question decides it to be.
Terminology, I understand, is important. Call it what you like as long we understand what we are talking about. I think when I say "unborn child" you understand very well what I am referring to.
An unborn child may not inhale atmosphere into his lungs, but he certainly engages in respiration, i.e. taking in oxygen, supplying it to developing organs and muscles, and subsequently expelling carbon dioxide. It gets the oxygen from the mother. It also has a beating heart and brain activity. What else do you need to be alive? If we were talking about you, that would be enough even if you were connected to a machine that took care of the breathing for you.
As for conscious thought, I can't begin to guess how you would define or measure a thing like that, but a fetus in the womb has the brain structure for thought and has been shown to respond to stimuli. On the other hand, a newborn may not be "self-aware" but I doubt you'd be ok with terminating that life on such a basis.
If we were talking about equivalent rights, i.e. life vs. life, I would likely agree with that. But those are rarely the actual stakes. More commonly, it's the woman's right to comfort and convenience versus the child's right to live. That should be an easy win for life.
Oxymoron: a figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction. A contradiction in terms. (ex: unborn child).
Yep, Thrawn's statement fits perfectly!
no he was not, he was still hooked up and receiving nutrition.
Can a person be ordered to provide bone marrow to save another person's life?
Can a person be forced to be a blood doner?
Yawn, again, not my fault you don't know the definition of certain words.
So does a bacterium.
Key word there is "developing."
Sounds like a parasite.
A few cardiac cells or neurons hardly constitutes significant "activity."
The issue isn't whether an embryo/fetus is alive or not.
Except if we were talking about him (or anyone else) that is based on the assumption that he is already born and autonomous.
Even a single cell can "respond" to a stimuli. But there is certainly no conscious thought, especially if the brain has not developed.
Terminating newborns is already illegal. The issue revolved around before they get to that point.
Except there is no child yet in a pregnancy and neither does it have rights, much less any which trumps the mother's rights!
Are you different in a way that should warrant a change in legal status?
I guess you’ve never looked at medical dictionaries
Fe·tus
ˈfēdəs/
noun
noun: fetus; plural noun: fetuses; noun: foetus; plural noun: foetuses
an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception.
synonyms:embryo, unborn baby/child
"an ultrasonic photo of the fetus"
Hearing the Fetal Heartbeat
Doctors use several different methods to listen to the fetal heartbeat. About 3 weeks, one day after fertilization, when the heart first begins to beat, the sound of the little heart is too soft to hear. Very soon thereafter, they can see the motion using ultrasound technology.
1 F. Gary Cunningham, Paul C. MacDonald, Norman F. Grant, et al., Williams Obstetrics, 20th ed. (Stamford: Appleton and Lange, 1997), 30.
Sorry but the words unborn and child are not not contradictory except maybe in the Dictionary of Lame, Incorrect Definitions for Libereral to Use"
So you didn't actually look up the definition. Afraid to be shown you are wrong again?
If your argument is that respiration is irrelevant, don't tell me. I didn't try to use it (or the lack of it) as justification for abortion.
A 5 year-old is developing, too. Are you going to use that as grounds for terminating life?
Then you need to learn the definition of parasite and why it doesn't include babies. Here:
Why Babies Aren't Actually Parasites
***
You are arbitrarily, without justification, deciding that some undefined level of brain development or activity is insufficient. I was responding to the justification for abortion that the unborn child has "never had a conscious thought." Not only was this undefined, we were offered no way of assessing the truth of the claim.
My issue is whether or not the life has value because it is a person.
Why should that matter? And will the level of autonomy matter? I notice you tried to equivocate on the matter of conscious thought by suggesting that some level was relevant.
How do you know if you can't define what it is?
The debate is not over what is illegal. It's over what should be illegal.
But there are:
The legal consequences of using drugs while pregnant
Believe it or not, unborn children have also had property rights for centuries.
a new born baby is required to be "hooked up" to mom periodically for nourishment .Are you implying that you would be OK with terminated it's life until it is weened
Not all mothers breastfeed.
as long as it is hooked up and taking from the mother it is like giving blood
I guess you have never read the bible, which says life begins at first breath.
And you're not supposed to name boys until 8 days after birth and girls until at least 30 days after birth, given that the great sky fairy wants a high infant mortality rate.
I reasonably argue that life begins after the first breath
A woman who has been living for many years has the right to comfort and convenience and deserves it
Under that argument a spontaneous miscarriage would be a crime. Fetal personhood is a religious idea that has been struck down by the courts.
Is that why he created a thread satirizing flat-earthers?
How does a personal, private decision burden anyone? How are you in any way burdened by whether or not an abortion takes place?
How does an abortion burden our neighbors?
Comprehensive sex ed and free long-term contraception are the best ways to achieve a reduction in abortion rates but the vast majority of conservatives oppose those sensible strategies and prefer the moronic moralistic nonsense which has been proven not to work, like "abstinence only."
Looks like you don't even know the meaning of the word oxymoron.
neither did you apparently.
You certainly don't seem to mind being wrong. Over and over again.
Keep your head buried in the sand then.
Abortion is a woman's right and no one else's business. That's justification enough.
A strawman argument. How typical when you have no valid argument to give and instead rely on appeals to emotion or absurd situations like that.
A parasite feeds off its host, much like an embryo/fetus does. And it doesn't necessarily increase fitness, as pregnancy has many possible complications which negatively affect the woman's health. So "parasite" is a rather apt description. or are you going to try to argue semantics now?
Which is why "brain activity" itself is not sufficient justification to prohibit abortion. So attempting to use "brain activity" (or heartbeat) as an excuse to prohibit abortion fails. Abortion is a legal right. no one needs to justify having an abortion to you or anyone else!
Except you are wrong and it is not a person. If you want to believe it's a person, that is your own belief/opinion. Whether it has "value" or not is not up for you to decide for anyone else!
Because an individual with rights and protections is recognized at birth.
You're the one who initially brought up the idea of brain activity. I certainly don't use it as some sort of litmus test.
Conscious thought is a high order brain function. the brain must be sufficiently developed first for there to be conscious thought.
With regards to abortion, that matter has already been settled. Seems like you want to set back the legal clock.
That involves public/maternal health issues. It does not specifically relate to "fetal rights."
The only such reference I can find is the Transfer of Property Act of 1882, which is applicable in India. So that has no relevance or legal effect or jurisprudence here. Any property, money, or other asset to be provided to the unborn must go through an appointed trustee first. In other words, the unborn does not automatically own property or other assets. So your statement is quite irrelevant in regards to abortion rights.
The issue isn't whether "life" begins or not with regards to abortion. Some people seem to get too hung up on the term "life," as if that's the only argument they can make. Too bad it falls flat.
Not at all. Whatever gave you that idiotic idea? While the flat earth nonsense is not pertinent to a discussion on abortion, I did write an article comparing flat earthers to creationists. Anyone feel free to check it out here :
It's not a baby until birth. before birth, it's an embryo/fetus. That's science. To claim otherwise is based off emotion. As are the arguments against abortion that focus on "life," or a "heartbeat," ect..
Stopping unwanted pregnancy is a worthy goal. However, abortion also stops an unwanted pregnancy too.
NO! you are pushing the start time to suit you position
Thanks for the shout out.
Yes I did look it up and know very well what it means.
ox·y·mo·ron
ˌäksəˈmôrˌän/Submit
noun
noun: oxymoron; plural noun: oxymorons
a figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction (e.g., faith unfaithful kept him falsely true ).
Now, show the contradictory terms.
"Unborn child." I can't make it any clearer than that.
"Unborn child" are not contradictory words That is means words that have an opposite meaning .( Deleted, again )
That is how an intelligent and interconnected society acts. I don't have children in public schools and yet I pay for them because an educated society is a public good. Helping people not have kids that they don't want and can't afford by a pragmatic and proven means is also a public good. Elective abortion is a public good because the abortion is cheaper than a live birth and doesn't burden the family with a child that they cannot support. Its just pragmatic financially.
I do what I can.
Uterine personhood is a religious idea that is unsupported in the law or even in the Bible. Why are you so interested in abortion when you will never get pregnant? Is it a common conservative belief that women are to be controlled and owned as breeding livestock and sex toys?
Which is one reason why it's such an idiotic idea too.
That sure does seem to be a common affliction for male bible-babblers, doesn't it?
Hum
And yet anti-abortion nuts and Christian extremists like Rick Santorum and Tony Perkins do that every day when they say that there is no right to abortion and no right to sexual privacy. Both of those theocratic and superstitious freaks have said that Griswold was wrongly decided, as were all subsequent decisions dependent on it including Roe v Wade, Eisenstadt v Baird, Lawrence v Texas, Romer v Evans, Windsor v US, Obergefell v Hodges, Planned Parenthood v Casey, Carey v. Population Services, etc. There are a ton of things which Americans take for granted as basic human rights and basic rights within a family which bible-babbling Christofascists want to do away with. Most folks simply have no clue about the real impact of the Griswold case.
I'm not concerned with what they think. I can do my own legal analysis without their help. Ruth Bader Ginsburg has also said Roe was poorly decided. Different people have different reasons.
Ginsburg is an ardent defender of the right to an abortion.
She was only afraid crap like this would happen.
You can be an ardent defender of abortion, and - if you're an honest judge - acknowledge that the opinion supporting it stands on shaky ground. Nothing wrong with that. There's a few cases I feel that way about.
Then you need to stop trying to find ways to attack that decision. Christian conservatives are the problem but you want to blame everyone else for your own actions. I will not be forced to obey your fictional mythology.
That's a very dishonest misrepresentation of Ginsburg's views. Her issue with Roe is one of political strategy in terms of securing majority public support before establishing the right to an abortion.
It's also one of the very few areas where I think she's flat wrong. If that same logic were applied to an issue like mixed-race marriage then the court should not have ruled for that until 1992 at the very earliest. But it's the role of the courts to defend the civil rights of persons, not merely to echo the majoritarian sentiment of the public.
What do I think? I think the decision to have a child is up to the potential mother and no one but her. I think abortion until the point of viability should be legal in all cases, period.
Considering the case that actually governs abortion law is Casey (which did away with Roe's reasoning), I think the fact that asking people about Roe demonstrates the worth of the poll.
There are really only 4 types of people who think the right to an abortion lie in the 14th Amendment.
(1). People who've never read the Constitution and have heard that's where the right is located so that's what they say.
(2). People who don't speak English or simply lack the functional literacy to understand the words used in the Amendment so they just say that's what it means without having a clue.
(3). People who believe the right to an abortion exists and think that the 14th is as good as place as any to place it. They really don't care about the text of the Constitution, they just want the result.
(4) People who can't think for themselves and ignore their own capacity for reason and defer to others in authority. If 5 justices say the First Amendment requires us to tithe for the Baptist Church, it must be true!
It's simply impossible to argue in good faith that the text of the 14th Amendment addresses abortion.
You forgot to mention the SCOTUS, which is the final authority on the matter.
No, I didn't.
"People who believe believe the right to an abortion exists and think that the 14th is as good as place as any to place it. They really don't care about the text of the Constitution, they just want the result." covers the Court. If you've read the decisions, you know the Court struggled for years to decide where the "Right to privacy" covering abortion exists. First it was hidden in the emanations of and penumbras of the 5th. then it was the locate din the ninth. When that didn't work they decided, well, we have to get our stories straight and it might as well be in the 14th. The court's own history demonstrats the issue isn't covered by the 14th.
It's obvious the preferred result was chosen and reasoning was reverse engineered to support it.
Good choice then!
Good choice then!
Sure, if you hate the Constitution.
Just don't bitch when the Constitution "evolves" in ways you don't like.
Really? Where does it say that in the Constitution
“You seem . . . to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so . . . and their power [is] the more dangerous, as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.” (Thomas Jefferson Letter to William Jarvis, Sept. 28, 1820)
What gives you the moral, ethical, or even legal right to tell someone else what they can do with their own bodies? You do understand that slavery was abolished a long time ago, right?
This is their new angle. That the law is not sound. They think that it should be abolished and up to the states. They are just trying anything they can and they think this new option is the winner.
The end game is the same. They try to say, I could care less about abortion, it's just the law is flawed.
Bullshit. They are trying to twist and turn every word to fit their agenda.
I tend to avoid the weekly abortion cheerleading seeds because they are so predictable and pointless. But in for a penny, in a for a pound.
Once again, I’m amazed by the pro abortion responses manage to combine both incredible vapidity and close mindedness. I honestly don’t know how the pro abortionists are so simple minded that they think this some sort of telling response. I get the echo chamber effect, but damn, it’s like they are trying to be as unpersuasive and ignorant as possible. If that’s the goal, Well done!
I object to the placing of a blade in the skull of human capable of feeling pain. I think it’s monstrous so many blithely cheer on the painful killings of humans in the name of “rights.” I have the right to object to the murder of humans just like I have the right to object to the placing of other humans In bondage. It’s narrow minded arguments like yours that slaveholders used to justify slavery. Change a word here and there, and abortionists and slaveholders make the same argument to deny the humanity of those they hurt.
Judging by the quality of arguments that the abortionists , I assume they suffer from some sort of cognitive dissonance that prevents them from dealing with the reality of what they are saying. It boggles the mind when they talk about rights, they always manage to overlook the human getting a knife jammed in his skull. I guess it’s similar to how the Germans just didn’t realize what has happening in death camps. Easier to offer silly platitudes then address the murder.
IF you cant figure out why some people object to the killing of innocent humans for convenience , I feel sorry for you.
That's what people have been saying since 1973. There's literally nothing new about it.
So then yes, it sounds like you are for personhood for a fetus.
Yeah, I think it's bad to stick sharp objects in the brains of humans capable of feeling pain.
but, no I don't believe the federal government has the power to outlaw abortion.
I get your stance. You think it is a zero sum game and only states have the right to decide.
Not every one agrees with you.
Not at all. I like individual rights, as granted or otherwise implied under the Constitution.
The Constitution is not some static document.
I already said the 14th Amendment.
This is where I stopped reading because there is no such thing as "pro-abortion". No one is going door to door asking people to come on down for an abortion. There are no commercials on telly singing the praises of getting an abortion.
It does not say specifically in the Constitution that we have the right to cut our hair, get a tattoo, have tonsils or gall bladder taken out but we have the right to do so
Those are not rights. They are privileges
Rights, as stated by Jefferson, are "inalienable" because they were endowed by our Creator. They are inalienable, which means they can never be revoked by anyone. Because we live in a society in which the rights of others also have to be respected, our rights can be curtailed or limited, but never revoked.
Privileges are granted by governments or other organizations. Because privileges are not inalienable, they can be revoked. For example, driving a car is a privilege.
Making decisions for your own body is a personal right, can you please give an example where church or politicians can usurp the rights of any male health decision. Why the hell do you treat a small part of a woman differently than any other person? Why is a uterus different than the penis, which has no rights subverted? The ignorance from anti-choice people is staggering, and they actually want to control female healthcare decisions!
a woman has as much right to not be pregnant as she has to be pregnant
If members of certain religions have right to refuse blood transfusions, how can right to end pregnancy be denied?
That is a personal decision about your own life, not the life of another. JWs are not allowed to deny transfusions for their children
if adult JWs are give a choice how can you deny others a similar choice?
Sorry but Christian sharia law prohibits both:
making abortion illegal is start of Christian sharia laws
Religious extremists that think they can take away an established right from those that don't share their beliefs need to give up one of their rights. I nominate the complete removal of their tax exempt status. We would soon see if their self righteous anti-choice agenda trumps their greed. In defense of the US Constitution and secular government, I will support unlimited retaliation against those that attempt the unconstitutional imposition of any unwanted religious dogma upon Americans that are free not to join their religion or any other.
Remind you of any other group that you support say those that would like to see our 2nd amendment rights severely restricted or repealed?
Ignorance is not bliss.
take away tax exempt status would not change anything but which IRS forms are used.
99.9% of churches and ministries would show a loss for the year if treated for tax purposes like a business.
and as usual leftists don’t think through this suggestion. Treating ministries like any other business also means opening up access to tax credits and subsidies.. I doubt you want that and I know most ministries don’t either
and of course that means taking away the tax exempt status in fairness to unions and organizations like planned parenthood
Unions and Planned Parenthood aren't religious organizations.
They are tax exempt. So you want to discriminate within tax exempt organizations
Only the ones trying to unconstitutionally impose their unwanted religious dogma on others in a secular America.
That response makes no sense. Typical.
That is a nice personal attack that you have there.
I do not believe abortion is the murder of an unborn child, and why should you have the right to force your OPINION on all women?
Then you presumably also have no objection to late-term or partial birth abortions, correct?
I don't. What amazes me about anti-abortion nuts is that they've apparently never considered why a woman would carry a fetus for more than 6 months and then seek an abortion. At best these heartless creeps simply don't care about the tragic circumstances which happen to some women while they're trying to have a kid, so rather than letting her and her doctor figure out the best way to deal with that circumstance they like to interfere and make life even more difficult for the woman.
I don't. Those are already allowed in cases of medical necessity.
[deleted]
Why do you think that women don't have the right to make their own medical decisions without your input?
All I said was that women don’t have a constitutional right to an abortion. Just because you think women should be able to do whatever they want with their unborn children doesn’t make the constitution re-write itself.
As Charger pointed out, by that logic you have no constitutional right to a hair cut either.
The concept of freedom says that we have the right to act unless there is a compelling state interest to ban it. What is the compelling state interest to prohibit abortion and allow the states to violate that personal privacy?
it wasn't an issue of being Constitutional because it was legal in every state.
And you are wrong, both legally and factually.
It's their bodies, their choice, and their autonomy. So yes, they can do whatever they want (within defined legal limits).
I think the same about you.
Roe was the product of judicial activism. If the Court reverses Roe, and turns things rightside up again, then you can debate baby killing in each state.
Looks like you'll have to do that in your own private bizarro-universe.
I’d be fine if you could mangage to stay in yours.
Except the law says I'm right. You, not so much.
Spare us the "judicial activism" broken record routine.
People will riot in the streets.
Who's debating baby killing exactly? What state is even considering that?
I will . . . right after you spare me the broken record routine about a woman’s constitutional right to chose.
A pussy hat riot is easily controlled.
Good, then there’s no reason for Roe and it can be overturned.
Why doesn't a woman have the right to make her medical decisions without the interference of you, your religious beliefs or a patriarchal state?
I want equal input into your medical decisions, so please post all of your medical records and your doctor's names and addresses.
A woman does have the constitutional right to shoes, even if you don't think so or don't like it! That's a simple legal fact!
Wow, just wow.
Sure there is: women's rights, their autonomy, their privacy, and their health. That is kind of why it was decided in the first place. Sad that you don't think women are entitled to those things.
Roe has already faced numerous challenges over the years and it has only been reinforced. I also mentioned that there is no point in the history of the court where rights have been rescinded once granted. So keep dreaming.
Making abortions illegal does noting zero nada zip to reduce demand for termination services. The demand for abortions is caused by unwanted pregnancies more often than not unwanted because the woman already has too many children to provide for. Three things are known and proven to dramatically reduce demand for terminations. Those three simple things are:
1. Provide all children comprehensive sex education to all children prior to puberty.
2. Provide easy access to all forms of birth control to all sexually active persons.
3. Provide easy access to women's health services such as provided by Planned Parenthood.
The demand for terminations could easily be almost eliminated. Why don't we start there? Someone?
At least not in the immediate instance, but over time it actually results in higher demand for abortion for various reasons. That's why countries which prohibit it have higher real abortion rates than countries which permit it.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(11)61786-8/abstract
Correct. The abortion rate is higher in Mexico and Czechoslovakia where abortion is mostly illegal than in the US. That is because there are more unwanted pregnancies. Why do those most opposed to legal terminations oppose what is proven to practically eliminate the demand for terminations? Those most opposed to legal terminations should support things proven to decrease demand but they generally do not. We tried making abortions illegal and that was an abject failure. Again, making abortions illegal does not on damn thing to stop the demand for abortions. Nobody is pro-abortion but everyone should be for legal options...
Exactly. Not only do anti-abortion nuts oppose the things proven to reduce abortion rates (like comprehensive sex-ed and free long-term contraception) but they tend to advocate the very things which drive abortion rates higher, like "abstinence-only" programs. I'm sure there's some kind of loony logic in there somewhere but it sure ain't apparent.
Never ceases to amaze me that the right wing is always screaming about more personal freedoms and a less intrusive government....but as soon as the abortion debate comes up, then all the sudden they want the government to IMMEDIATELY step in and make it illegal... Wonder why that is? Oh wait, it's because they only want more personal freedoms for males, not females.
Eliminating abortion would not result in a new freedom for men.
NO but will take a freedom from us
I am about to go out on a limb here and be quite frank, but here goes.
To many liberals, as long as they can kill their babies, then they are good.
To many conservatives, they know that their mother, sisters, aunts, etc, would not want to abort a baby, unless carrying it to term would be harmful to the mother, and if someone else wants to kill their baby, then so what, do it. It does not affect them.
This whole decision was based on emotion, just as the argument for and against it is today.
How do those conservatives know for sure what their female relatives would want when the choice is about them and why shouldn't they get to decide what they want for themselves at the time it is their decision?
I never said they can't decide for themselves. They have every right to. Traditionally, when the matriarch or patriarch of a family leans one way ideologically, not politically, then most of the rest of the family will do the same.
I think I am agreeing with you. Are you for freedom of choice?
I am. Never really passionate about it.
Is that what liberals really think? Or is that what you tell yourself liberals think so you can justify your hatred? My guess is that it's the later.
Ok,this article is locked. Seeder hasn't been available for 24 hours and several hundred comments later
the article is too large and loading very slowly
while the insults and the flags are flying too fast and furious.