Abortion

[phk]

First Trimester and Second Trimester: Pro-Choice on-demand

Third Trimester: Pro-Life ecept for usual exceptions

Oppose parental notification requirements
Oppose spousal notification
Favor federal funding

[Brandon H]

No abortions period (as stated in the Constitution "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property with out due process of law").

In case of rape, while I sympathize with the situation, a child should be killed for the crimes of their father.

In the case of the life of the mother requires a little clarification. Abortion is the intentional killing of the unborn child. If the woman's life is in danger, then the doctor should do everything possible to attempt to save both lives, but accepting the fact that there is a possibility the child could die.

Eventually though the pro-abortion movement will abort itself into extinction. Since someone getting an abortion is pro-abortion, had they not gotten that abortion there would have been a pro-abortion voter in 18 years. If a pro-life woman is pregant and has her child, most likely that child be a pro-life voter in 18 years. And now many post-abortive women as well as doctors who once performed abortions are realizing that abortion is wrong as well as the fact that there is no such thing as a "safe" abortion.

If people who claim to be "pro-choice" were really "pro-choice" then there would be a lot less abortions. Instead most "pro-choice" people don't want people considering abortions to have information that would lead them to make a choice other than choosing to abort their child.

Of course if abortion industry were honest, each state would still have the right to dictate its own laws instead of having to abide by the Judicial Activism of the Surpeme Court. What weren't they honest about? http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42462

[??????????]

bumperoo

[Max Power]

No abortions period (as stated in the Constitution "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property with out due process of law").

In case of rape, while I sympathize with the situation, a child should be killed for the crimes of their father.

WTF? A fetus is not an "unborn child". I'm tired of people and the media using that bullshit. And if you think that the 5th amendment bans abortion, you're wrong. The 5th Amendment is actually about how the trial of a criminal should be carried out.

And about Supreme Court Judicial Activism, you're right!! We'd be a lot better off without activists like Scalia and Thomas!!

[A18]

Um, a fetus is an unborn child biologically. It's not his fault you're too dumb to realize it.

No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property with out due process of law

That refers to government.

[Gabu]

I fully support the post-natal abortion of people who resurrect a dead abortion debate.

[© tweed]

I fully support the post-natal abortion of people who resurrect a dead abortion debate.

This is one of the classic threads.  If each thread in the forum was a novel, this would be one of the top 100 sold every year despite being 60 years old and by an author who is out of the Atlasian scene.

[Max Power]

Um, a fetus is an unborn child biologically. It's not his fault you're too dumb to realize it.

No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property with out due process of law

That refers to government.

1. Yeah, that's right, it's a living human. Right. Hahahaha.

2. No, he said it was stated in the Constitution. You altered the quote, and he was wrong. He was reffering to the fifth amendment, which is about the process of law. But I excuse your stupidity, as you have said things just like that, such as saying that a progressive income tax is worse than slavery, and that Rick Santorum is a socialist. But I forgive you, you don't know any better, it's how you were born.

[Ebowed]

1. Yeah, that's right, it's a living human.

I agree; any living human is, in fact, a living human.

[A18]

1. Yeah, that's right, it's a living human. Right. Hahahaha.

2. No, he said it was stated in the Constitution. You altered the quote, and he was wrong. He was reffering to the fifth amendment, which is about the process of law. But I excuse your stupidity, as you have said things just like that, such as saying that a progressive income tax is worse than slavery, and that Rick Santorum is a socialist. But I forgive you, you don't know any better, it's how you were born.

1. The fact that it is a living human is beyond dispute. An embryo is human, and it is alive. You can continue to be an idiot if you want, or you can realize that just because something is alive and human, doesn't mean it's on the same level as you or me.

2. The fifth amendment to the Constitution is part of the Constitution. You are correct in saying that it does not ban abortion, but rather it bars the federal government from depriving a person of any of those things except in the manner prescribed by law. That's why I pointed it out to him.

[© tweed]

2. The fifth amendment to the Constitution is part of the Constitution. You are correct in saying that it does not ban abortion, but rather it bars the federal government from depriving a person of any of those things except in the manner prescribed by law. That's why I pointed it out to him.

The debate here lies in whether the term 'person' refers to just people who are living, or the unborn too.  Now while I doubt the people who wrote the constitution would have favored the concept of abortion, I doubt that they meant to include the unborn in their definition and that they wrote this amendment to protect the rights of the unborn.

[Max Power]

1. Yeah, that's right, it's a living human. Right. Hahahaha.

2. No, he said it was stated in the Constitution. You altered the quote, and he was wrong. He was reffering to the fifth amendment, which is about the process of law. But I excuse your stupidity, as you have said things just like that, such as saying that a progressive income tax is worse than slavery, and that Rick Santorum is a socialist. But I forgive you, you don't know any better, it's how you were born.

1. The fact that it is a living human is beyond dispute. An embryo is human, and it is alive. You can continue to be an idiot if you want, or you can realize that just because something is alive and human, doesn't mean it's on the same level as you or me.

2. The fifth amendment to the Constitution is part of the Constitution. You are correct in saying that it does not ban abortion, but rather it bars the federal government from depriving a person of any of those things except in the manner prescribed by law. That's why I pointed it out to him.

1. Fine. I'll continue to be an "idiot". Just remember, people are laughing at you.

2. Okay, I though that you were saying that it bans it, which it doesn't.

[A18]

2. The fifth amendment to the Constitution is part of the Constitution. You are correct in saying that it does not ban abortion, but rather it bars the federal government from depriving a person of any of those things except in the manner prescribed by law. That's why I pointed it out to him.

The debate here lies in whether the term 'person' refers to just people who are living, or the unborn too. Now while I doubt the people who wrote the constitution would have favored the concept of abortion, I doubt that they meant to include the unborn in their definition and that they wrote this amendment to protect the rights of the unborn.

First of all, I dispute that the founders would not have favored the concept of abortion. I mean, I don't know, they might all have thought it was terrible, but that's no conclusive proof of that, and it's all irrelevant anyway, as I'll explain.

All the due process clause means is that the government can not deprive any person of life, liberty, or property but through the legislative process. It comes from Magna Carta, and served as a check on the King's power. It requires that the government judge you by its laws, rather than, for example, an executive order.

If a state wanted to, it would be perfectly free to legalize murder of all persons. However, it can't kill anyone except when the law of the land demands it.

Thus, whether the term 'person' should include a fetus or not is really not relevant. Either way, legalized abortion is completely compatible with the Constitution.

BTW, the fifth amendment also deals only with federal government, but the fourteenth amendment incorporates this right against states as well.

[© tweed]

2. The fifth amendment to the Constitution is part of the Constitution. You are correct in saying that it does not ban abortion, but rather it bars the federal government from depriving a person of any of those things except in the manner prescribed by law. That's why I pointed it out to him.

The debate here lies in whether the term 'person' refers to just people who are living, or the unborn too. Now while I doubt the people who wrote the constitution would have favored the concept of abortion, I doubt that they meant to include the unborn in their definition and that they wrote this amendment to protect the rights of the unborn.

First of all, I dispute that the founders would not have favored the concept of abortion. I mean, I don't know, they might all have thought it was terrible, but that's no conclusive proof of that, and it's all irrelevant anyway, as I'll explain.

All the due process clause means is that the government can not deprive any person of life, liberty, or property but through the legislative process. It comes from Magna Carta, and served as a check on the King's power. It requires that the government judge you by its laws, rather than, for example, an executive order.

If a state wanted to, it would be perfectly free to legalize murder of all persons. However, it can't kill anyone except when the law of the land demands it.

Thus, whether the term 'person' should include a fetus or not is really not relevant. Either way, legalized abortion is completely compatible with the Constitution.

BTW, the fifth amendment also deals only with federal government, but the fourteenth amendment incorporates this right against states as well.

Good analysis...So what you're saying is...abortion should be legal based upon the fifth amendment, but state-sponsored abortion should not be?

In that case abortions paid for with federal funds should not necessarily be legal, or at least protected by the constitution, in your view.

[A18]

Well, I'm saying the Constitution allows it. However, the Constitution doesn't require that it be allowed; it simply does not, itself, ban it. I hope that makes sense.

I think the issue should, constitutionally, be left up to the states, as it was in the early days of the republic. Bush's partial-birth ban is clearly unconstitutional, except in federal territories, in which the Congress is permitted to act as a state legislature.

The problem with federal funding is not the due process clause, which is irrelevant. The government is allowed to deprive someone of life, as long as it is done through the legislative process (which appropriating funding is).

The problem is that the powers of the federal government are few and defined. The clause used to justify this kind of activity has been stretched into a pretzel:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

The founders used the word "general" to mean "national, as distinguished from local." Meaning it must be firmly outside the natural sphere of the states (for example, the interstate highway system). Funding for abortions is hardly national, as distinguished from local, and thus, I believe funding for abortions to be constitutional, but only by state and local governments.

[Hitchabrut]

An age-old argument is restored to the national front. Cliche.

[Emsworth]

The Constitution's clauses are meant to restrict the federal government, and in some cases the state government. Astounding as this may seem to some people, it does not restrict the actions of private individuals. Thus, the argument that the Constitution prohibits abortions is highly unsound.

Furthermore, the federal government has no authority to ban abortions. At the same time, I can't think of any satisfactory constitutional argument that prevents states from prohibiting abortions. The issue seems to hinge on whether the ninth amendment is incorporated (assuming that the ninth amendment protects the "right to privacy" in the first place, which is itself debatable). I fear that it is not.

[A18]

The point to the ninth amendment is that just because the Bill of Rights doesn't ban the federal government from doing something, doesn't mean it can do it. This is similar to the tenth amendment, except that the ninth amendment is a rule of construction concerning the Bill of Rights, whereas the tenth is a rule of construction concerning the enumerated powers.

[Emsworth]

The point to the ninth amendment is that just because the Bill of Rights doesn't ban the federal government from doing something, doesn't mean it can do it. This is similar to the tenth amendment, except that the ninth amendment is a rule of construction concerning the Bill of Rights, whereas the tenth is a rule of construction concerning the enumerated powers.

I absolutely agree with that assessment. I can see no reasonable interpretation of either amendment, except as a rule of construction. They are, in effect, implied; their absence from the Constitution would not result in any substantive difference.

[Virginian87]

I'm personally pro-life.  I believe abortion should only be used in matters of rape or other emergency.  I don't believe in someone having multiple abotions whenever they feel like it.  Women should use safe sexual practices so that they are not trying to have abortions every time after sex.  That's just wrong, and people shouldn't be that stupid. 

That said, while I am pro-life, I believe that neither I nor the government should force my views upon others my making abortion illegal.  If some want to have abortions, that's their problem, not mine.  I guess this is kind of a libertarian stance.  I supported the partial-birth abotion ban, and I would be willing to support a law limiting abortion only to times of rape and sexual assault, but not a law to ban it completely. 

Boy that's a prickly issue.  Hope I didn't offend anyone. 

[A18]

1. Fine. I'll continue to be an "idiot". Just remember, people are laughing at you.

2. Okay, I though that you were saying that it bans it, which it doesn't.

Although I don't typically argue with four year olds, I made an exception for Al, so I'll go ahead and at least direct you to the dictionary.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=embryo
An organism in its early stages of development

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=organism
An individual form of life

[MODU]

I am for allowing abortions in cases of rape, incest, or threat to the mothers life.  Outside of that, I'm against it. 

[Rin-chan]

http://www.abortionfacts.com/reardon/statistics.asp

24% have had more than one.  That's sick.  And 95% are not at all satisfied with their choice.  47% had physical complications as a result of the abortion.  47% chose to have an abortion for "social acceptance" reason.

Rin-chan

[Frodo]

The issue of abortion should be left to the purview of the states -it is not for the courts to decide, and never should have been. 

[Ebowed]

Good abortion page:
http://justfacts.com/abortion.htm