Abortion

[jd-inflames]

Tipsy, start making shorter posts. I'm not reading an essay to pick out maybe 2 valid points on something that is still not going to change my opinion.

 

[Tipsy]

Tipsy, start making shorter posts. I'm not reading an essay to pick out maybe 2 valid points on something that is still not going to change my opinion.

I tried to do a short post but if I do that then you don't understand what I am talking about, like when you said:

I'm failing to see how that is breaking that bill at all

Also, if you don't like reading my posts then why bother arguing against them. All I have seen you give is your opinion, all I have given, with the exception when I say it is my opinion and carries no weight, is the solid facts from the United States government.

To quote the "How to debate thread" (http://www.battleforums.com/showthread.php?t=37222)

Now, debating, real debating is a time consuming thing. It is something that you have to enjoy in order to do it right, or to even do it at all. It's time consuming in the area tht you have to research, find fact, find evidence, and find evidence that not only furthers your case, but also debunks your opponents case. Time consuming that you much also type up your arguements. Time consuming that you have to do it, again and again, just for one debate.

It is up to you to read it, but if you don't then don't bother debating either.

 

[jd-inflames]

I've only debated one point you've made. The rest I've let stand.

 

[Undead Cheese]

@Cheese: Consequence always seems more like a negative reaction than positive.

I don't care how the word makes you feel. A consequence is merely the result of an action or condition, and there is absolutely no reason why it has to be bad.

 

[Tipsy]

I've only debated one point you've made. The rest I've let stand.

I'm yet to see how you've addressed in any way how abortion is unconstitutional other than your 'I don't understand'.

If you aren't seeing this clearly, I'll say it clearly. It does not matter what your opinion or my opinion is on the matter. It only matters what the laws of the country you live in are. Your opinion if shared by others can change laws to make abortion legal or illegal, but at the moment the constitution clearly states that the posterity has the same rights as we do. Your opinion holds no weight against the laws of the country you live in because you can think anything you want, but it doesn't make it okay by law.

Now stop getting completely off topic, and address the topic at hand or don't bother posting at all. I await your answer on why abortion is or is not constitutional. And don't just say 'Your wrong" or "It is constitutional", back up whatever you say with something that actually holds weight.

 

[Shagolas]

Look, no matter how much we're calling each other names and putdowns it doesn't change our views. Let's discuss this the civil way:

This topic all depends on your view of what is human. Is an egg human? Sperm? Zygote? ( my gosh I would hope that you don't think sperm is considered human)

Most people that are for abortion are really for the choice, not abortion itself.

 

[Undead Cheese]

Is an egg human? Sperm? Zygote? ( my gosh I would hope that you don't think sperm is considered human)

From what I've seen the only people who have even pointed that out as a possibility are the supporters of abortion trying to create an inconsistency in the pro-life argument that simply does not exist. Sperm and eggs have absolutely zero potential for becomming human beings by themselves, as each of them only possess 23 of the necessary 46 chromosomes a human needs.

Other than that, the stages that take place in the womb are normal processes of development during the human lifespan, and thus should be considered part of it. These developments are no different than those that take place during infancy, adolescence, and throughout a human's entire lifespan. Their genetic code is identical to grown humans; they are merely at a different stage of development. Descrimination by age or physical characteristics is outlawed by the constitution.

 

[Shagolas]

Personally I'm still unsure.

Just pointing out things for debate though. The fetus while still inside the womb although in development I don't think is considered human. Perhaps after the 3rd trimester or something... *shrugs*

 

[B)ushid(o]

Opinions w/ bits of facts sprinkled in

1. A fetus is not a full human until it has a large majority of definite physical human characteristics that are fully or near-completely grown. If you bring a five month old fetus into the world, it's life won't sustain. It's bodily functions are not developed enough to do the complex tasks required to live.

2. A fetus is supported completely by it's mother. In fact, the mother plays such a large role during the initial stages of pregnancy a fetus could pass as an extension of the mother. Now, if the mother dies, the fetus dies, but if the fetus dies, the mother is likely to live. Now, connect the dots, if the fetus is an extension of the mother, shouldn't the mother be able to decide the fetus' fate?

3. A fetus isn't exactly entitled to United States law, either, in my opinion. There is no proof that the fetus is a living being, in the law. There are no records of the fetus' existence beyond a few medical documents of pregnancy. No birth certificate, library card, student ID, nada, nothing. It's existence does not appear in the official population census'. The fetus has no name, no facce, no identity. Cases involving double murder of a mother and fetus do contradict this, however.

If you can't gether the information from my statements above, I support abortion up to the third trimester where a fetus' physical human traits are getting detailed.

 

[Tipsy]

3. A fetus isn't exactly entitled to United States law, either, in my opinion. There is no proof that the fetus is a living being, in the law. There are no records of the fetus' existence beyond a few medical documents of pregnancy. No birth certificate, library card, student ID, nada, nothing. It's existence does not appear in the official population census'. The fetus has no name, no facce, no identity. Cases involving double murder of a mother and fetus do contradict this, however.

I will once again quote a legal document:
"...holds these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;"
I do not see anywhere in here where it says 'all men are born equal'. The constitution specifically says 'created' not 'born'. It means what it says. Just because you have a different color skin or condition does not mean that your unalienable rights just magically go poof. I talked more specifically about this when I talked how the 9th and 14th ammendment applied to the court decisions. Regardless of whether or not you agree with my interpretation of the constitution, it is obvious whether you are for abortion or not that the ammendments used to justify Rode vs Wade were used in the exact opposite way of how they were suppose to. The fourteenth ammendment was used to help justify abortion while it was made to protect people from gaining equal rights and the due process guarenteed by the consitution for all people, being more specifically to help the african americans. I am talking about an argument very similar to the one being used by Bush as he put it in his own words, "I support legislation to extend 14th Amendment protections to unborn children". The key to the whole argument of abortion in the United States in is it legal or not is how it is seen by the law, not whether the unborn child can support itself or not.

1. A fetus is not a full human until it has a large majority of definite physical human characteristics that are fully or near-completely grown.

As for physical human characteristics on the outside, click the link "Why I Voted For Bush" in my signature. If you are referring to the inside of a human, then I guess nobody is guarded by the constitution until they hit the age when they stop developing, normally somewhere between the age of 20 and 23.

If you bring a five month old fetus into the world, it's life won't sustain. It's bodily functions are not developed enough to do the complex tasks required to live.

Does that also mean if someone cannot live on their own due to some medical problem that they have no right to live. Since I was already on politics I'll use Dick Cheney as an example. His body cannot physically sustain itself and it needs help of our medical technology (his pacemaker) to live. One of the key rights to our country is that we all have rights regardless of our condition.

Just pointing out things for debate though. The fetus while still inside the womb although in development I don't think is considered human. Perhaps after the 3rd trimester or something... *shrugs*

If the argument of 'it is inside the womb' is used then I don't see any difference between 'removing' a baby in any of the three trimesters. If you argument of 'it is not fully developed' is used than a mother should be able to 'remove' their child from existence until they are fully developed, as I said before normally between the ages of 20 to 23.

 

[Undead Cheese]

1. A fetus is not a full human until it has a large majority of definite physical human characteristics that are fully or near-completely grown. If you bring a five month old fetus into the world, it's life won't sustain. It's bodily functions are not developed enough to do the complex tasks required to live.

A fetus is genetically identical to a human, and because of this they can be considered human. Merely because they are at a different stage of development does not mean they should not be entitled to basic rights. As you know, the constitution prevents discrimination based on race, sex, religion, age, etc.

2. A fetus is supported completely by it's mother. In fact, the mother plays such a large role during the initial stages of pregnancy a fetus could pass as an extension of the mother. Now, if the mother dies, the fetus dies, but if the fetus dies, the mother is likely to live. Now, connect the dots, if the fetus is an extension of the mother, shouldn't the mother be able to decide the fetus' fate?

*reposts 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?

Answer: NO!

3. A fetus isn't exactly entitled to United States law, either, in my opinion.

I disagree.

There is no proof that the fetus is a living being, in the law.

Please elaborate.

There are no records of the fetus' existence beyond a few medical documents of pregnancy. No birth certificate, library card, student ID, nada, nothing. It's existence does not appear in the official population census'. The fetus has no name, no facce, no identity.

According to this logic:
If, theoretically, all of my information was deleted in some fluke computer crap-out (birth records, social security, etc.), and I suffered from a case of amnesia, this would somehow make me dead?

Cases involving double murder of a mother and fetus do contradict this, however.

Yup... I guess the baby is only alive when it's convenient. :rolleyes

 

[Lizardbreath]

A fetus cannot legally be covered IMO until the third trimester. Where, if it is born it could survive outside of the mother's womb. During the second trimester I believe the skull never fully finishes enclosing so therefore if it was introduced into the world it would not function and therefore doesn't give it the legality to be covered by law. The only thing I am going to say though. Is god gave man the power to decide for themselves. If man was supposed to stop a fetus (notice I use the word fetus not child) from being born (meaning living and breathing) then he would have instructed so in the bible.

 

[Sogeking]

Of course, if god had only said not to have premarital sex or commit adultry, there wouldnt be much of a problem with abortion.

 

[Tipsy]

A fetus cannot legally be covered IMO until the third trimester. Where, if it is born it could survive outside of the mother's womb. During the second trimester I believe the skull never fully finishes enclosing so therefore if it was introduced into the world it would not function and therefore doesn't give it the legality to be covered by law. The only thing I am going to say though. Is god gave man the power to decide for themselves. If man was supposed to stop a fetus (notice I use the word fetus not child) from being born (meaning living and breathing) then he would have instructed so in the bible.

First off, what makes them so different than humans, other than us being in a different state of development than them. Also, please read my thread about how the 14th ammendment was wrongfull used in the case that justified abortion. And finally, I have already said that it doesn't really matter what stage they are in because if you read the preamble it says:

"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,"

Look at it clearly and pick out one phrase... ""to ourselves and our posterity"

If you don't know what posterity means, it means, and this is directly from the dictionary "all future generations". Explain to me how that a fetus is not a future generation.

Read the thread, if you don't, then don't post.

Of course, if god had only said not to have premarital sex or commit adultry, there wouldnt be much of a problem with abortion.

Or the more simple commandment that says, "thou shall not kill", guess he shouldn't have added that in either.

 

[Lizardbreath]

I did read the thread tipsy and I read what you wrote about our posterity. A fetus is not posterity because it is not a human being (at least until the third stage) and therefore is not covered by the 14th ammendment. The constitution was written in a time when abortion was not even around and they put that in talking about children etc. Not unborn fetuses. Its a good argument though; but it probably won't fly in the supreme court just because of the argument that I have just stated.

 

[Tipsy]

I did read the thread tipsy and I read what you wrote about our posterity. A fetus is not posterity because it is not a human being (at least until the third stage) and therefore is not covered by the 14th ammendment. The constitution was written in a time when abortion was not even around and they put that in talking about children etc. Not unborn fetuses. Its a good argument though; but it probably won't fly in the supreme court just because of the argument that I have just stated.

Iff that was my only argument, that you would be right. But unfortunately in another part of the thread I stated the rest, which I am guessing you didn't read. Looks like I'll go through how abortion was justified in the first place. Read this part of my post from last page again:

"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." (Quote from the supreme court justices)
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 [edit: insert other name here], 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.

 

[Lizardbreath]

If the supreme court already stated that your argument was wrong then why are you even bothering to argue a mute point? Obviously I read your argument and discarded it because it sucked.

 

[Sogeking]

the supreme court also at one time felt that it was ok to own black as slaves and that they could be treated more or less like farmyard animals...does that mean they are right?

 

[Tipsy]

Obviously I read your argument and discarded it because it sucked.[/QUOTE]
Well it is unfortunate that you think 'it sucked' because my argument is actually legally sound. Try and find problem with it without trying to change the definition of the word posterity, or trying to say that because a Supreme Court justice said it, it must be true. Because Roe vs Wade legalized abortion, doesn't mean that Roe vs Wade is justified because Roe vs Wade said abortion was legal - It cannot justify itself. Please respond with something that is definitive and not completely broad and opinionated such as 'it sucked'. Tell me why you think it sucked, because it seems to me that it is legally sound.

And as TBS said, the Supreme Court isn't infallible, they are there to overturn unconstitutional decisions.

 

[Lizardbreath]

According to your argument you stated that "Posterity", meaning future generations, was protected under the constitution. You're right but by posterity what do you mean?When the constitution was written there was no abortion. It was intended for future generations. But not fetuses. A fetus until the third trimester cannot survive on its own, without the mother. And is not protected under the constitution. If that were the case then every time I jerked off (don't laugh) I would have killed over billions and billions of children at a time. The constitution protects people..its Present Citizens. Not future, or would be, citizens. If that were the case we would have to physically name every fetus and get it a conception certificate and have legal proof that it exsisted as a citizen. Which you can in no way prove.