Wait On That Abortion

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Riot

The debate always swings to talk about when life begins, murder, etc.

But the only question is: does the US government have any right to change the law, to go against what has been legally determined to be Constitutional freedoms, in order to begin controlling it's citizens lives and health, and forcing women to bear babies they do not want?

When W. Bush interfered with Terry Schiavo's death - that was appalling and disgusting. It's the same thing: what reach does the government have into it's citizens private lives? This isn't communist China.

Woa, that's not the only question. Of course the courts and government have the right to change with the times...I'm sure glad they reconsidered Dred Scott for example. I agree that I don't want the government in the bedroom or dictating a person's choice but I'm uneasy saying the government can't change the law. I'm not sure I agree with you on the Schiavo case either.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Woa, that's not the only question. Of course the courts and government have the right to change with the times...I'm sure glad they reconsidered Dred Scott for example. I agree that I don't want the government in the bedroom or dictating a person's choice but I'm uneasy saying the government can't change the law. I'm not sure I agree with you on the Schiavo case either.

Sorry, I meant change this law. Not that government cannot change any law, which is obviously not true.

[joeydb]

Doesn't the government also have an obligation to defend innocent life?

Remember, "the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?"

And of course any law can be changed so long as it doesn't breach the Constitution, which pro-lifers think the current allowance of abortion does.

An unborn child is currently the only victim legally allowed to be killed, no due process necessary, no self-defense situation necessary... it's a real standout among laws.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Doesn't the government also have an obligation to defend innocent life?

Remember, "the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?"

And of course any law can be changed so long as it doesn't breach the Constitution, which pro-lifers think the current allowance of abortion does.

An unborn child is currently the only victim legally allowed to be killed, no due process necessary, no self-defense situation necessary... it's a real standout among laws.

Again, 100 or so posts in this thread and nothing has changed (or will it), how one views abortion is a function of one and only one factor...when one believes life begins. If you believe it begins at conception, you oppose abortion; if you believe at birth, you support a woman's right to make decisions about her body. Someday, that question may be answered...until then the debate will continue as it should.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

how one views abortion is a function of one and only one factor...when one believes life begins. If you believe it begins at conception, you oppose abortion; if you believe at birth, you support a woman's right to make decisions about her body.

Nonsense. That's not true, and it's overly simplistic. I think life begins at conception, I'm not in favor of abortions, but I absolutely defend the right of a woman to choose for herself, without interference from other people, let alone some government forcing her to have a baby she doesn't want.

As an additional aside, that statement takes the argument regarding the legality of abortion and takes it out of the legal realm, and puts it into the scientific realm. First, it does not belong in the scientific realm, because scientists have no standing - jurists do. Secondly, jurists are not scientists, thus haven't the same understandings of the discussion if one is to make it scientific. Third, there are plenty of jurists and legislators that have publicly and clearly said they don't "believe in" science - thus hardly the people to make "scientific" decisions.

Abortion is a question of constitutionality, but not based upon the presumption that a collection of undifferentiated cells has 100% of the rights of a citizen sitting across from you (which is why the anti-abortion crowd has spent decades trying to make a conceptus a "person" with 100% of those rights - see how Joey talks?)

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Riot

Nonsense. That's not true, and it's overly simplistic. I think life begins at conception, I'm not in favor of abortions, but I absolutely defend the right of a woman to choose for herself, without interference from other people, let alone some government forcing her to have a baby she doesn't want.

How then can you justify "Roe"? Does that mean you think the woman's right to an abortion is more important than the life of her unborn?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

How then can you justify "Roe"? Does that mean you think the woman's right to an abortion is more important than the life of her unborn?

Roe is based upon a woman's right to privacy under the Constitution. I agree with Roe, in that a woman's right to an abortion decreases as fetal viability outside the womb is enabled.

Yes, I think in a general way a woman's right to control her own body in all ways superceedes the rights of her unborn child, up to a certain extent, which must encompass a fetus that is viable outside the womb by definition - but it is clearly not black and white after a certain point (greatly determined by fetal viability as an independent organism) and must be assessed on an individual basis.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

And of course any law can be changed so long as it doesn't breach the Constitution, which pro-lifers think the current allowance of abortion does.

But the Supreme Court repeatedly and strongly thinks it does not. Court wins. Too bad.

Take the goal of changing our government into forcing itself into the private lives and healthcare of women elsewhere. Maybe China.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

An unborn child is currently the only victim legally allowed to be killed

A blastocyst is not an "unborn child"

As I've said previously, if one wants to go the inflammatory verbiage route, at least one has be consistent, and cry equally for the "unborn babies" killed when a guy masturbates - and attack in vitro fertilization clinics for being murderers.