Abortion as seen through a perspective of civil rights.

Originally posted by kyviecaldges

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by Elton
I think it's a matter of case law (Roe v. Wade) rather than civil rights but possibly you don't have the US Declaration of Independence's "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" until you are born (you certainly are not guaranteed liberty while in the womb).

A civil rights argument to the Supreme Court might be effective, but I'm not a lawyer.

You are right.

You are not a lawyer.

Your argument would NOT be effective.

And your argument has already been settled.
I have told you this about a bajillion times.

The SCOTUS has already decided upon the viability of the fetus.

THAT WAS ONE OF THE DECISIONS MADE IN ROE V. WADE.

And I keep asking if you would have supported Jim Crow laws and yet you don't answer.

reply to post by beezzer

And I keep asking if you would have supported Jim Crow laws and yet you don't answer.

That is because the two concepts have absolutely ZERO in common.

This is your thread chief, remember that.

You are the one who posted a diatribe about an "unborn child's" civil rights.

I am merely answering your questions with correct answers, and like 99.9% of posters who are faced with a correct answer that they do not agree with, you are trying to straw man an argument.
First, what are doing is a logical fallacy.

You are engaging in a logical fallacy.

In case you didn't get that, let me repeat it one more time.

You are embracing a logical fallacy.

The truth is difficult to swallow for haughty, sanctimonious christian types.
I am not saying that you are one of those, but the people that I have run into that are those types have a hard time with the truth.
The one thing in common with them that I do see, is your relentless evasion of a 40 year historic truth.

You can't quote any other case law or statutory law of an incorporated civil right being repealed.

They have only been expanded.

There is a reason for this, but you probably will not like the answer for that either.

The best you can do is try and paint me in a corner using a logical fallacy that in no way is close to relevant.

It's not going to work.
Why is this so difficult for you to accept?

reply to post by kyviecaldges
Because you are not right. I bring up Jim Crow because it was the law back then. Civil rights have not yet been awarded to the unborn because legalised abortion has only been around for 40 + years.

This is relatively new, and I can only hope that the supreme Court will one day reverse Roe v Wade to support the rights to the unborn.

Apparently one version of God has weighed in on this issue:

Abortion

Jewish law not only permits, but in some circumstances requires abortion. Where the mother's life is in jeopardy because of the unborn child, abortion is mandatory.

An unborn child has the status of "potential human life" until the majority of the body has emerged from the mother. Potential human life is valuable, and may not be terminated casually, but it does not have as much value as a life in existence. The Talmud makes no bones about this: it says quite bluntly that if the fetus threatens the life of the mother, you cut it up within her body and remove it limb by limb if necessary, because its life is not as valuable as hers. But once the greater part of the body has emerged, you cannot take its life to save the mother's, because you cannot choose between one human life and another.

Jewish Law

Not saying religion belongs in US law and also not trying to start a smackdown between the Jewish vs. Christian interpretation of God (though I thought they were the same dude?) Just pointing out that the western God apparently considers the unborn to be "potential humans" and values the life of the mother over her unborn child. Works for me.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by kyviecaldges

 

Because you are not right. I bring up Jim Crow because it was the law back then. Civil rights have not yet been awarded to the unborn because legalised abortion has only been around for 40 + years.

This is relatively new, and I can only hope that the supreme Court will one day reverse Roe v Wade to support the rights to the unborn.

Incorporation is the process by which legislation is judicially accepted as a civil right.

I posted a flow chart a while back that explained this process very well.

Roe v. Wade made the decision that abortive medicine is protected by the ninth amendment right to medical privacy.
The decision incorporated a civil right.

You can hope.
Hope is an interesting concept.

It was the very last evil in Pandora's Box that was unleashed onto the world.

But the Supreme Court is not known for contradicting itself.

They don't do it because the very thing that gives it power is the respect that the people of this country give to it.
The reason that it works is because people respect and abide by its decisions.
If the SCOTUS started contradicting itself, then no one would respect it.
And for as much as the right wingers love Chief Justice Roberts, I think that his decision on Obamacare should tell you where he stands on this issue.

It's not gonna happen mate.
Hope is a good thing for the hopeless.
But for a realist it is a waste of time.

reply to post by kyviecaldges
Didn't they contradict themselves on prohibition?

reply to post by beezzer


Just because abortion was "legalized" by SCOTUS in the '70's, that doesn't mean that it was illegal before that. In fact:

Abortion in the United States has been legal in every state since the 1973 Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade. Prior to the ruling, the legality of abortion was decided by each state; it was illegal in 30 states and legal under certain cases in 20 states. Roe established that "the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified, and must be considered against important state interests in regulation."

That's right, 20 states had provisions for abortion before Roe V Wade.

Do you really think prairie doctors didn't perform abortions on young girls that were raped by their cousins, or went for a roll in the hay with the farmer's son? Pffft.

Plato promoted abortions for all women who became pregnant after the age of 40. In the book of Numbers, in the Old Testament, it outlines the way in which a priest is supposed to perform abortions on unfaithful women, in the temple! The Chinese have been performing abortions since 1500 BC.

So please, don't think that NOW is first time the ethics of abortion has ever been thought about.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by kyviecaldges

 

Didn't they contradict themselves on prohibition?

That was done by amendment.
It was not decided by the Supreme Court and it has nothing to do with an incorporated civil right.

We don't have a civil right concerning the right to drink alcohol.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by kyviecaldges

 

Didn't they contradict themselves on prohibition?

Just so ya know...

In 1919, the requisite number of legislatures of the States ratified the 18th Amendment to the Federal Constitution, enabling national prohibition one year later. Many women, notably members of the Women’s Christian Temperance Union, were pivotal in bringing about national Prohibition in the United States of America, believing it would protect families, women and children from the effects of abuse of alcohol.

During Prohibition, people continued to produce and drink alcohol, and bootlegging helped foster a massive industry completely under the control of organized crime. Drinking in speakeasies became increasingly fashionable, and many mothers worried about the allure that alcohol and other illegal activities associated with bootlegging would have over their children.

The Repeal of Prohibition in the United States was accomplished with the passage of the Twenty-first Amendment to the United States Constitution on December 5, 1933.

link to source

Originally posted by beezzer

This is relatively new, and I can only hope that the supreme Court will one day reverse Roe v Wade to support the rights to the unborn.

Nothing is going to stop abortion. Ever.

Making it illegal will only push it back to the "alley butchers".

Even in some countries where it is illegal - - - women have access to abortion ships. This helps demonstrate the extreme women are willing to go to terminate a pregnancy.

Living life is about making decisions. RIGHT OF CHOICE is about the right to make a decision that will have a significant affect on the rest of your life.

Legal abortion protects women from doing something drastic that could be very dangerous - - even life threatening.

Your personal belief can stay right where it is - - with you.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by beezzer

This is relatively new, and I can only hope that the supreme Court will one day reverse Roe v Wade to support the rights to the unborn.

Nothing is going to stop abortion. Ever.

Making it illegal will only push it back to the "alley butchers".

Even in some countries where it is illegal - - - women have access to abortion ships. This helps demonstrate the extreme women are willing to go to terminate a pregnancy.

Living life is about making decisions. RIGHT OF CHOICE is about the right to make a decision that will have a significant affect on the rest of your life.

Legal abortion protects women from doing something drastic that could be very dangerous - - even life threatening.

Your personal belief can stay right where it is - - with you.

Totally agreed.

The decision by the SCOTUS did very much take into account the situation that resulted from the prohibition era ban on alcohol.
It only made those who sought it that much more desperate, which inevitably increased the propensity for criminal behavior.

BTW Annee... I did want to tell you that it must really be a hard experience for a woman.
I don't think that anyone who calls themselves pro-choice would say that they are pro-abortion.

The resulting guilt/personal consequence for making the choice could be greatly minimized if we didn't have sanctimonious judgemental types instilling the "you must feel awful for your decision" mentality in those girls who do so choose.
It's a damned if you do and damned if you don't decision.

Yep, sorry Beezer, you're just gonna have to give up the civil rights angle of this argument. The civil rights of women are going to trump the unborn child. Women have been given the right to take something out of their body that they don't want in there. That right isn't going to be taken away from them now.

I would concentrate on education, education, education to prevent as many unwanted pregnancies as possible.

Originally posted by kyviecaldges

BTW Annee... I did want to tell you that it must really be a hard experience for a woman.
I don't think that anyone who calls themselves pro-choice would say that they are pro-abortion.

It can be a very hard experience to be faced with making this decision. There can be a lot of emotions involved.

It is very important to be honest with yourself on your decision and why you are making it.

The resulting guilt/personal consequence for making the choice could be greatly minimized if we didn't have sanctimonious judgemental types instilling the "you must feel awful for your decision" mentality in those girls who do so choose.

So so true.

I felt bad about being in the situation to have to make a decision. I never felt bad about the decision I made.

Originally posted by kaylaluv

I would concentrate on education, education, education to prevent as many unwanted pregnancies as possible.

Did you know there is a male birth contraceptive that has been sitting on a shelf for years?

Marketing research showed that men were not interested. They did not want to be the one responsible. And they feared it might harm the "Family Jewels".

But - - its OK for women to pump themselves full of chemicals.

I just read a headline about male contraceptives the other day - - maybe they're gonna try again.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by kaylaluv

I would concentrate on education, education, education to prevent as many unwanted pregnancies as possible.

Did you know there is a male birth contraceptive that has been sitting on a shelf for years?

Marketing research showed that men were not interested. They did not want to be the one responsible. And they feared it might harm the "Family Jewels".

But - - its OK for women to pump themselves full of chemicals.

I just read a headline about male contraceptives the other day - - maybe they're gonna try again.

Yes, I think too much responsibility has been put on the woman for too long now. Men need to take more of the responsibility than they have been. Women go through health risks with the birth control pill - why not men take a few risks?

Originally posted by kyviecaldges
reply to post by beezzer

 

And I keep asking if you would have supported Jim Crow laws and yet you don't answer.

That is because the two concepts have absolutely ZERO in common.

This is your thread chief, remember that.

You are the one who posted a diatribe about an "unborn child's" civil rights.

I am merely answering your questions with correct answers, and like 99.9% of posters who are faced with a correct answer that they do not agree with, you are trying to straw man an argument.
First, what are doing is a logical fallacy.

You are engaging in a logical fallacy.

In case you didn't get that, let me repeat it one more time.

You are embracing a logical fallacy.

The truth is difficult to swallow for haughty, sanctimonious christian types.
I am not saying that you are one of those, but the people that I have run into that are those types have a hard time with the truth.
The one thing in common with them that I do see, is your relentless evasion of a 40 year historic truth.

You can't quote any other case law or statutory law of an incorporated civil right being repealed.

They have only been expanded.

There is a reason for this, but you probably will not like the answer for that either.

The best you can do is try and paint me in a corner using a logical fallacy that in no way is close to relevant.

It's not going to work.
Why is this so difficult for you to accept?

edit on 25/8/2012 by kyviecaldges because: (no reason given)

Actually he has a valid point. If you take the position that a situation is moral and acceptable because the SCOTUS has upheld it, then you also, logically, accept other situations that were upheld by SCOTUS. If a SCOTUS decision on abortion is your yardstick for the legality and morality of abortion then, therefore, it would also apply to SCOTUS decisions that upheld Jim Crow or Slavery. After all, the SCOTUS once ruled that owning slaves was a right.

reply to post by Annee


I meant to respond to your post pages ago about how appreciative I was that finally someone else out there had the courage to state that they were a woman who had an abortion. I tend to stay out of these threads because I get really angry having to listen to all these preachy people who think they have cornered the market on morality because they are against abortion.

Raising a child is a huge responsibility. No one seems to want to talk about that and I have to wonder why that is. A child that is born doesn't magically get taken care of and get guaranteed a good life. I believe in quality of life over quantity. I believe a person who cannot honestly care for a child properly should not have one. It is far worse to give a child a terrible life than to keep it from life. Ask any abused, neglected or molested child how many times they wish they were never born. I've been that child. That feeling never goes away. What kind of life is that?

I had an abortion because the man I was with was a closet heroin addict and I had reasonable suspicions that he was also a closet child molester (he had actually been accused of molestation but denied it). I had thought he and I would stay together forever but the more I learned about his true character the more I realized this was not a man I could allow to father my child.

Terminating that pregnancy was the hardest thing I have ever done. It was not about money or convenience. It was not a decision I made lightly. It was an awful but necessary thing I had to do because it was the right thing to do. I stayed awake through the whole thing because I wanted it to be as painful as possible for me as a kind of punishment that I had let this horrible person get me pregnant. I used to think about that pregnancy every day and torture myself with "what if scenarios." What changed that was having my daughter. Bringing a child into the world confirmed what I intuitively knew all along, which was that having a child is an awesome responsibility. It made me understand how irresponsible I would have been had I brought that other pregnancy to term. That child would have had a heroin addict and a child molester for a father. How could I give that kind of life to someone?

I wish pro-lifers would actually BE pro-life and spend their time and energy creating a safe and nurturing world for children to be born into. Once you have created that world then let's talk about whether or not abortion is justified. Until then leave decisions about someone else's pregnancy to the discretion of the parties involved.

reply to post by NavyDoc

Actually he has a valid point. If you take the position that a situation is moral and acceptable because the SCOTUS has upheld it, then you also, logically, accept other situations that were upheld by SCOTUS. If a SCOTUS decision on abortion is your yardstick for the legality and morality of abortion then, therefore, it would also apply to SCOTUS decisions that upheld Jim Crow or Slavery. After all, the SCOTUS once ruled that owning slaves was a right.

This argument is so two years ago man.

Give it a rest.

This is like comparing apples and oranges.

First and foremost, you should probably have done some research into this topic.
Jim Crow laws were the segregation laws that were overturned by the Supreme Court in the Brown vs. Board of Education decision.
I am assuming that you guys are talking about the Dred Scot decision.
Once again, it seems as if you folks just type stuff that appears to be true according to your own personal sensibilities without doing any actual research.

Your argument eventually results in yet another logical fallacy, the reductio ad absurdum.

On one hand, Beezzer states that he hopes that the supreme court reverses itself.

And then on the other hand, he is asking me to state what I believe about, let's say Dred Scot, because as I noted the Supreme Court overturned Jim Crow laws.

The Supreme Court can't be both valid and invalid at the same time.

This is the heart of the reductio ad absurdum logical fallacy.

Look man. You guys cannot win this argument with me.

You can't.

I would give it up. If you want to keep on, then do as you feel, but how can you not see that you have done absolutely zero research into your position?

Originally posted by otherpotato
Apparently one version of God has weighed in on this issue:

Not saying religion belongs in US law and also not trying to start a smackdown between the Jewish vs. Christian interpretation of God (though I thought they were the same dude?) Just pointing out that the western God apparently considers the unborn to be "potential humans" and values the life of the mother over her unborn child. Works for me.

nice try but no one said abortions should not be done if the mothers life is in mortal danger
I see what you are trying to do here
by saying jewish law allows abortions if the mother is in mortal danger you are
implying that the people arguing against abortion think that the mother should die and have the baby
huge back handed straw man

Originally posted by kaylaluv
Yep, sorry Beezer, you're just gonna have to give up the civil rights angle of this argument. The civil rights of women are going to trump the unborn child. Women have been given the right to take something out of their body that they don't want in there. That right isn't going to be taken away from them now.

I would concentrate on education, education, education to prevent as many unwanted pregnancies as possible.

edit on 25-8-2012 by kaylaluv because: (no reason given)

however if the unborn child is given civil rights then everything changes
this is the first time in history that abortion is fought in the law system so it's unprecedented in many ways
also did you know many states only allow abortions in case of mortal danger or rape?
most states won't allow an abortion after 24 weeks
if it is truly a civil right and everyone accepts it as so then why the restrictions?
the truth is even right now if you wan't an abortion you have to qualify for it
it's not as simple as others make it out to be