Abortion

[Tipsy]

Keeping in mind the idea that abortion is murder isn't concrete.
From your perspective it is murder, and to others it can be something else.

Explain to me against the hard facts against how abortion is not murder in the United States. You should be familiar with this:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America,"

Read that over carefully and then focus on one word, posterity. The definition of posterity is:
"1 : the offspring of one progenitor to the furthest generation
2 : all future generations"

How is killing the 'unborn babies', the 'future generations', or put in the constitution, 'posterity', not a breach of constitutional rights? So here we are, the future generations, being the unborn babies, are guaranteed by the constitution "common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty". More specifically, the common defense. Sending a fetus to jail with its' mother is defending the fetus, which is guaranteed by the constitution. The definition of defense is "the act of defending" and defending is "to drive danger or attack away from". I am pretty sure that keeping the fetus alive is driving the danger of death away from it. Please tell me how abortion is not against the constitution. If you answer any single question from this post, tell me why the 'posterity' all of a sudden doesn't have the rights that it is given in the quote above. Don't tell me, "oh, because roe vs wade says so", tell me how from the constitution abortion isn't murder. Roe vs Wade according to the preamble in itself is unconstitutional.

Edit: Since I know your going to address it, I might as well tell you about how Roe vs Wade is unconstitutional. Here is a quote from Justice Blackmun:

"This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.""
This decision gave women the constitutional right to have an abortion, but this decision breaches the constitution from what I have said above. Now to take a closer look at this, look at the 14th amendment (section 1).

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

If you look through here you see absolutely nothing about the right of privacy. This 'privacy' comes from Griswold vs Connecticut. What came from this was, and I quote from a paper released about this:

"There are unmentioned, yet fundamental rights within the Constitution
The lack of a specific mention of a certain right doesn't mean it does not exist.
These unmentioned, fundamental rights, can not be restricted, and the 14th Amendment applies this restriction to the states.
The right to privacy was one of these rights which is not mentioned, but implied within the Constitution."

So let me summarize what you have seen so far. This is comparing the literal words in the preamble that protects the future generations of Americans, some of which are unborn babies, against a very loose interpretation from what has come from various trials.

Okay, so the Roe vs Wade was only considered to have abortion legalized because of what was released from Griswold vs Connecticut. So now let's look at why this came out with privacy rights. The ninth amendment was what was used by Griswold to justify his case. The ninth amendment states:

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"

The decision of declaring the difference of 'potential' and 'full' human life it is an obvious breach of the ninth amendment. And if you don't remember, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, life is one of those. Life is extended to these unborn babies and gives them a unalienable right to life.
The Ninth Amendment was used to justify this 'right to privacy' which somehow extends to abortion makes no sense. Just because the baby is inside the womb doesn't magically mean that they don't have rights, this justification used from the ninth amendment completely contradicts what the ninth amendment is and was made for. And there is more of how this decision makes absolutely no sense. Remember when we used to have slaves? The blacks in America were not 'full persons'. The fourteenth amendment was used to say that unborn babies were not 'full persons', which is the exact argument the fourteenth amendment was made to counter! I beg of you lights, tell me how abortion is not murder in the United States, for I have looked over the rights we have, both "ourselves and our posterity" and I can't see how abortion being murder is a matter of perspective in the United States.

I am only asking for consistency. If you cannot kill an unborn, you cannot force it into prison, even if still in the womb. Remember it has the same rights as a newborn child.

You want consistency, well give me some first. In Roe vs Wade, Blackmun said:
"We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer"
Yet then he seperates different stages of pregnancy into trimesters which give rights to unborn babies in later stages. Roe vs Wade is full of contradictions from Blackmun and other justices who decided abortion to be legal and then there is where they breach the constitution. How about since consistency here, after all, that is all I ask for.

From your perspective it is murder, and to others it can be something else

Yes, it can be not murder to any person who does not believe in the rights given to us by our constitution.

 

[Undead Cheese]

men can do whatever they want with their sperm. everytime a man jacks off isnt he then killing thousands of potential babies?

No, he isn't. Sperm have absolutely zero potential for becomming babies unless they fertilize an egg.

Keeping in mind the idea that abortion is murder isn't concrete.
From your perspective it is murder, and to others it can be something else.

When the brain and heart start functioning and you end that functioning, you have just comitted muder. This really shouldn't be a point that's up for debate.

An unborn's death or life while in the womb is no different, as far as awareness goes.

So? If I kill you while you're sleeping you won't be aware of it. Does that entitle me to do so?

Putting it up after it is born doesn't solve the problem of while it is still in the womb. The baby is still in prison.

The purpose of prison is to restrict the lives of felons. Since the baby is still in the womb, prison does not affect it.

I am only asking for consistency.

What you're asking for isn't consistent, though.

If you cannot kill an unborn, you cannot force it into prison, even if still in the womb.

Yes, you can. That's like saying a pregnant woman can't walk into a porno shop because the child inside of her is still under 18. The surroundings outside of the womb do not affect the child while it is still inside the womb.

 

[Lights]

Yes, you can. That's like saying a pregnant woman can't walk into a porno shop because the child inside of her is still under 18. The surroundings outside of the womb do not affect the child while it is still inside the womb.

Damn. :/
WELL GEEZ I NEVAR THOUGHT ABOUT IT THAT WAY BEFORE
You got me there.


What I am saying about the murder not being decided, is not that if the fetus is being exterminated, but if it is baby or a bunch of underdeveloped cells being exterminated. Some think a baby has all the rights at conception and others at birth.

 

[Undead Cheese]

Some think a baby has all the rights at conception and others at birth.

The problem with setting a definite point in time at which the child is given rights is simple. What characteristic entitles one the right to live, or, I should say, the right to continue to live? Is it neurological activity? A heartbeat?

Should the child not be considered "alive" simply because it is connected to its mother via the umbilical cord, thus granting the mother the right to terminate its existance? In that case, what about this scenario?:

A mother successfully gives birth to conjoined twins, whom for the purpose of simplicity shall be named Bob and Steve. Now, all is going well and both children are healthy; however, Steve's life depends on the use of Bob's liver. Because of this, should Bob be entitled the right to separate himself from Steve, even if it means Steve will die?

 

[captaindry]

When the brain and heart start functioning and you end that functioning, you have just comitted muder. This really shouldn't be a point that's up for debate.
.

But, usually the heart doesn't begin beating until the 5th week and the brain does not begin to function until the eighth week, so it is possible to get an abortion without committing murder, by your definition.

 

[Tipsy]

But, usually the heart doesn't begin beating until the 5th week and the brain does not begin to function until the eighth week, so it is possible to get an abortion without committing murder, by your definition.

That still doesn't justify abortions in the United States (read my post above).

 

[Sogeking]

But, usually the heart doesn't begin beating until the 5th week and the brain does not begin to function until the eighth week, so it is possible to get an abortion without committing murder, by your definition.

There can ben parallels seen between what you say here, and what big corporations do.

your saying that its not alive BEFORE 5 weeks in...well, a company isnt technically a company untill it passes inspection and gets its practicing liscence. Just as its starting to get together, a bigger corporation takes it out because they dont want competition.

maybe its not the same reason, but if the company was any bigger, it could survive on the government or whatever just long enough to get off the ground and into the industry. Likewise, if you let a child develop, it will turn into a stable human being(unless there are defects. And yes, there are defects in buisness...drug lords for example)

 

[Undead Cheese]

But, usually the heart doesn't begin beating until the 5th week and the brain does not begin to function until the eighth week, so it is possible to get an abortion without committing murder, by your definition.

And, if you've read any of my other posts, you'd know that I have no real objection to abortions carried out within the first 10 weeks.

 

[jd-inflames]

Do you remember your first two months of life? No? Should that fact have granted your mother the right to jam a knife into your skull during that period in your life?


Yes, it is her choice to do whatever she wants with her body. She chose to have sex, fully understanding the potential consequences of this action regardless of the contraceptive(s) used. As is applied to the rest of society, your rights are limited to the point where they do not infringe on any other person(s) rights.


No, in that case she shouldn't have had sex.


Here's a contraceptive that's 100% effective: not having sex.


No, it doesn't simply "happen." The woman willingly chose to have sex and thus accepted any consequences that may occur as a result of her actions (not applicable in the instance of rape, in which case I support abortion)


Those "inconvenient things" only happen as a result of actions the persons involved chose to perform. (again, not applicable in the instance of rape)


Just like you said, that's your opinion. Unless you can tell me that, without a doubt, 100% of adopted persons would prefer death over what they were given, then you have absolutely no right to make that decision for them.


I guess she shouldn't have had sex...


I guess she shouldn't have had sex...


I guess she shouldn't have had sex...


I guess she shouldn't have had sex...


If the woman was raped or will not survive child birth, then I'll support abortion in those cases.


I'd say no later than 10 weeks into the pregnancy.

Judging by that response, even if you hadn't of stated numerous times "she shouldn't have had sex"...that tells me one thing right there...VIRGIN!!!

Why pass up some of the better things in life? I'm not one of those pigs who think sex is everything, but I do like showing the second highest peak of emotion to the women I care deeply for. (If you are wondering why I said second, I believe sleeping next to someone is the highest, because it is the most trusting when you are the most vulnerable)

I have a friend, Kitty on CursedProphets for those of you who go there, whos sister was born when her mother was both on BC, had a condom, and used spermacide. Like I said, it happens. You shouldn't live your life a prude just to avoid having children.

Lesson in point, don't be afraid of sex. Be afraid of women. They are the devil.

 

[Undead Cheese]

Why pass up some of the better things in life?

I'm not telling anyone to pass up the better things in life, but, apparently unlike you, I see that there are consequences for people's actions, and I feel they need to be responsible human beings and face them. Sex is a gamble, and there is always the chance that it will produce a child. Is it the child's fault that you had sex? No! So why should it be the one that's punished?

You can't just go to Vegas, bet all of your money on a hand, lose, and then not pay your debts.

 

[jd-inflames]

I would like for you to criticize my actions. Seriously.

I've gotten one girl pregnant twice, wanted the children at the time, but right now I can't stand her and am glad (as horrible as that sounds ) that she had miscarriages.

Another girl I've gotten pregnant once and was very distraught that she lost the child, because not only did I want the child VERY much, but I was more than happy to have it with her.

In my actions, I expected a reaction, and didn't regret them at all. I was prepared to face the reaction, and DEFINATELY would never call it a consequence. I don't feel that having children is a punishment for having sex, but an added bonus. Of course, once I have the "litter" size of my choice I intend on getting "fixed", but you know how that goes.

I'm not the only person in the world who feels like that.

But those who accidentally get pregnant, they should have the right to.

If we were intended on taking care of children just because we had sex, sex wouldn't be pleasurable. And don't think that our population would drop to the point of extinction if it wasn't, either. Procreation is part of nature and would happen whether we enjoyed it or not. Not sure how much "pleasure" you think is involved in childbirth (For those who disagree with this philosophy)

Oh, let me add this little story, beings I just saw my cousin yesterday. He just turned 16 and found out he had a one year old daughter. Of course, the girl he had the kid with is 15. You would think that having a kid would "grow them up" a bit, but no. My aunt is taking care of it and my cousin and that thing he's with don't take care of their baby girl at all, which pisses me off more than you believe. This is a prime example of when I think that abortion would have been the best thing to do. And don't say adoption, I've already cleared my opinions on that one and it is definately not changing.

 

[Tipsy]

First off, I am still waiting for anyone who thinks abortion is right or wrong to tell me how it is not constitutionally wrong in the United States. I very clearly showed that the constitution was made not only to defend us, but our posterity as well.

Why pass up some of the better things in life? I'm not one of those pigs who think sex is everything, but I do like showing the second highest peak of emotion to the women I care deeply for. (If you are wondering why I said second, I believe sleeping next to someone is the highest, because it is the most trusting when you are the most vulnerable)

So basically your argument is 'if it feels good do it'. That is all I see in your argument. So let's change the circumstances and give an extreme example like I do in all my examples. Let's pretend that I get my peak of emotion when I kill people. Should I be able to kill people just because I feel like getting this sort of emotional high? Don't tell me that doing this is infringing on the rights of others because if we can break the constitution because if we can reject the exact and literal wording of it by saying just because it says posterity it doesn't mean it, why can't we ignore the word ourselves and be able to kill the people who are outside instead of inside their mother's womb.

If you want me to go into my opinion about abortion I will, but as for what is above, that is all solid facts based against the constitution of the United States.

 

[jd-inflames]

Murder = crime.

Sex = legal.

Your argument is crap, sir.

 

[Undead Cheese]

and DEFINATELY would never call it a consequence. I don't feel that having children is a punishment for having sex, but an added bonus.

consequence =/= punishment; they're not interchangable.

Consequence: Something that happens as a result of one's actions (can be bad or good)
Punishment: Something that happens as a result of one's actions to repremand them (bad)

This is a prime example of when I think that abortion would have been the best thing to do.

That's fine with me so long as it's within the first 10 weeks, but beyond that I don't care about her comfort. Her comfort does not override the baby's right to live.

 

[Tipsy]

Murder = crime.

Sex = legal.

Your argument is crap, sir.

To put it in blatent terms as you did:

Not defending our posterity = unconstitutional
Murder = unconstitutional

If you bothered to read my post that you quoted, why can't I ignore the word 'ourselves' in the constitution when two words later the word 'posterity' is ignored.

Read my post 8 or 9 up. (post 81 in this thread)
Comprehend what you read before you dismiss it.

 

[jd-inflames]

@Cheese: Consequence always seems more like a negative reaction than positive. Perhaps the word, "REACTION" would be better suited for this argument if you want to win my heart over, ok?

@Tipsy: That's a lot of work =/

Oh, and what difference does it make if the pregnancy is aborted 10 weeks or 8 months? It's still an unborn fetus.

 

[Tipsy]

@Tipsy: That's a lot of work =/

Oh, and what difference does it make if the pregnancy is aborted 10 weeks or 8 months? It's still an unborn fetus.

My opinion on the matter is there is no difference, I think it is murder either way, but my opinion won't solve anything so I'll go back to the facts of Roe vs Wade. I put this in my long post above, but I'll say it again here. Blackmun said, "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer" yet he still goes ahead and seperates pregnancy into trimesters. Also, to answer this I'll go back to the constitution. I also put this in the post above but I'll say this here again. If you believe that an unborn fetus is only 'potential' life, and not 'full' human life then that breaks the ninth ammendment of our constitution. To be more specific: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people".

 

[jd-inflames]

I'm failing to see how that is breaking that bill at all...and that guy you quoted really needs to learn how to get to the point, his first few words were good then he started trailing. All I got was "let's not judge what counts as life and a fetus" or something.

It normally takes a woman a few weeks to discover she is pregnant. And if she really needs to think that hard to decide whether or not she wants to abort it, she probably should.

And I don't see how abortion is murder at all. In most cases, abortion is doing that poor fetus a favor.

After all, there are many things FAR worse than death.

 

[Tipsy]

I'm failing to see how that is breaking that bill at all...and that guy you quoted really needs to learn how to get to the point, his first few words were good then he started trailing. All I got was "let's not judge what counts as life and a fetus" or something.

The guy I quoted was the leading Justice in the Roe vs Wade case. As for how it is breaking the ninth ammendment I'll go back into the detail from my other post because everything I am saying is in there.

Read this section of my post above:
"This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."
This decision gave women the constitutional right to have an abortion, but this decision breaches the constitution from what I have said above. Now to take a closer look at this, look at the 14th amendment (section 1).

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

If you look through here you see absolutely nothing about the right of privacy. This 'privacy' comes from Griswold vs Connecticut. What came from this was, and I quote from a paper released about this:

"There are unmentioned, yet fundamental rights within the Constitution
The lack of a specific mention of a certain right doesn't mean it does not exist.
These unmentioned, fundamental rights, can not be restricted, and the 14th Amendment applies this restriction to the states.
The right to privacy was one of these rights which is not mentioned, but implied within the Constitution."

So let me summarize what you have seen so far. This is comparing the literal words in the preamble that protects the future generations of Americans, some of which are unborn babies, against a very loose interpretation from what has come from various trials.

Okay, so the Roe vs Wade was only considered to have abortion legalized because of what was released from Griswold vs Connecticut. So now let's look at why this came out with privacy rights. The ninth amendment was what was used by Griswold to justify his case. The ninth amendment states:

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"

The decision of declaring the difference of 'potential' and 'full' human life it is an obvious breach of the ninth amendment. And if you don't remember, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, life is one of those. Life is extended to these unborn babies and gives them a unalienable right to life.
The Ninth Amendment was used to justify this 'right to privacy' which somehow extends to abortion makes no sense. Just because the baby is inside the womb doesn't magically mean that they don't have rights, this justification used from the ninth amendment completely contradicts what the ninth amendment is and was made for. And there is more of how this decision makes absolutely no sense. Remember when we used to have slaves? The blacks in America were not 'full persons'. The fourteenth amendment was used to say that unborn babies were not 'full persons', which is the exact argument the fourteenth amendment was made to counter! I beg of you lights, tell me how abortion is not murder in the United States, for I have looked over the rights we have, both "ourselves and our posterity" and I can't see how abortion being murder is a matter of perspective in the United States"

 

[Undead Cheese]

And I don't see how abortion is murder at all. In most cases, abortion is doing that poor fetus a favor.

After all, there are many things FAR worse than death.

In your opinion, perhaps, but that doesn't mean you should trump over the baby's right to live.