It's Plessy v Ferguson for Abortion

[untermensche]

We don't subject basic human rights to the democratic process.

What a woman does with things growing in their body is not the business of government.

Unfortunately it's not that cut and dried. It's a grey issue.

You defend the government with it's tentacles stretching into the wombs of women.

Some libertarian.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Unfortunately it's not that cut and dried. It's a grey issue.

Actually it is. Roe v Wade isn't some sort of make believe thing that hippies daydream about. It is the law of the land. Casey v Planned Parenthood came and allowed restrictions, but up to a certain point. We passed that point about a few years ago. The laws are unconstitutional. It really is pretty black and white, unless you want to ban abortion.

And they overruled Plessy v Fergus, something like 100 years later? They can overrule it. The right to abortion was a very sketchy proposition for it. But people don't believe in some of the enumerated powers either when it comes to some things. If Woolworths doesn't want to serve blacks it should be able to do that under the freedom of association.

 

[dismal]

Tip: Overturning Roe v. Wade would not ban abortion but remove the issue from the extra-democratic process and send it back into the democratic process

What Democratic process are you referring to? The one where the 3 wolves outvote the 2 sheep on what is for dinner?

Democracy needs to be limited to only those decisions which can be ethically decided by a majority, to those decisions which are ethically agnostic or at the very least ethically ambiguous. You are proposing that we let democracy decide on a subject that is NOT ethically ambiguous.

You don't seem familiar with our system of laws. It has nothing whatever to do with what you or anyone else imagines is "ethically ambiguous". We have a democratic system to decide what is and isn't legal, regardless of whether select internet commenters find it unethical or ethically ambiguous. We also have a Constitution that puts certain limits and boundaries on what the legislative system may do.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Unfortunately it's not that cut and dried. It's a grey issue.

You defend the government with it's tentacles stretching into the wombs of women.

Some libertarian.

It's interesting because on the other thread I was criticized for not allowing the parents to decide if their kid gets fluoride or not. The southernors thought the same thing about their slaves. I'm actually pro-choice but I know that the area of abortion is very grey.

 

[Malintent]

It would be nice if we, as a country, could settle on a reasonable happy medium between the two polarizing ends...

Most European countries have such a compromise but it is much more restrictive than situation in the US. The problem in the US is that you have extremists on both side. Ones think a zygote has full personhood, the others think abortion for any reason up to the time of delivery is fair game.

I am of the opinion that abortion should be permitted up to the age of 18.

 

[untermensche]

You defend the government with it's tentacles stretching into the wombs of women.

Some libertarian.

It's interesting because on the other thread I was criticized for not allowing the parents to decide if their kid gets fluoride or not. The southernors thought the same thing about their slaves. I'm actually pro-choice but I know that the area of abortion is very grey.

This is a song and dance. And a dodge.

The question is: Who controls a woman's body?

The woman or the government?

It is only grey if you think the government should have the control.

 

[dismal]

Don't you mean we don't subject rights that are enumerated in the Constitution to the democratic process?

The right to bear arms, the right to offensive speech, things like that?

No.

Human rights supersede the Constitution.

There were some who didn't want a Bill of Rights, because they thought that some ignoramuses would conclude that they were the only rights protected.

Ah, a good old fashioned 9th and 10th amendment man. It warms my heart.

Now lets get serious about limiting the federal government to its enumerated powers. Goodbye expansive welfare clause, goodbye expansive commerce clause, goodbye almost every Supreme Court ruling expanding federal power since the Roosevelt Administration. Goodbye social security, goodbye medicare, goodbye Obamacare. Goodbye EPA, goodbye department of education. The Constitution is back.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Actually it is. Roe v Wade isn't some sort of make believe thing that hippies daydream about. It is the law of the land. Casey v Planned Parenthood came and allowed restrictions, but up to a certain point. We passed that point about a few years ago. The laws are unconstitutional. It really is pretty black and white, unless you want to ban abortion.

And they overruled Plessy v Fergus, something like 100 years later? They can overrule it.

One thing to take note with the Supreme Court is that when they usually overrule themselves, they do so to enhance, extend rights, not to retract them.

 

[coloradoatheist]

It's interesting because on the other thread I was criticized for not allowing the parents to decide if their kid gets fluoride or not. The southernors thought the same thing about their slaves. I'm actually pro-choice but I know that the area of abortion is very grey.

This is a song and dance. And a dodge.

The question is: Who controls a woman's body?

The woman or the government?

It is only grey if you think the government should have the control.

Except we don't feel that way. As a parent you are under higher obligation than you are as a non-parent. Where's Derec and forcing a male to pay for 18 years of child support?

 

[untermensche]

No.

Human rights supersede the Constitution.

There were some who didn't want a Bill of Rights, because they thought that some ignoramuses would conclude that they were the only rights protected.

Ah, a good old fashioned 9th and 10th amendment man. It warms my heart.

Now lets get serious about limiting the federal government to its enumerated powers. Goodbye expansive welfare clause, goodbye expansive commerce clause, goodbye almost every Supreme Court ruling expanding federal power since the Roosevelt Administration. Goodbye social security, goodbye medicare, goodbye Obamacare. Goodbye EPA, goodbye department of education. The Constitution is back.

The Constitution is not a pair of handcuffs limiting the government from behaving morally.

It's biggest defender, Hamilton, immediately exceeded the powers within the Constitution with his national bank, and other policies.

- - - Updated - - -

This is a song and dance. And a dodge.

The question is: Who controls a woman's body?

The woman or the government?

It is only grey if you think the government should have the control.

Except we don't feel that way. As a parent you are under higher obligation than you are as a non-parent. Where's Derec and forcing a male to pay for 18 years of child support?

More song and dance.

You think the government has a place within the body of women.

That is the only way to see THIS issue, not other issues, as grey.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

No.

Human rights supersede the Constitution.

There were some who didn't want a Bill of Rights, because they thought that some ignoramuses would conclude that they were the only rights protected.

Ah, a good old fashioned 9th and 10th amendment man. It warms my heart.

Now lets get serious about limiting the federal government to its enumerated powers. Goodbye expansive welfare clause, goodbye expansive commerce clause, goodbye almost every Supreme Court ruling expanding federal power since the Roosevelt Administration. Goodbye social security, goodbye medicare, goodbye Obamacare. Goodbye EPA, goodbye department of education. The Constitution is back.

I'm certain, at any moment, you are going to show what your short diatribe above has to do with a woman's obvious right to her own body.

I find it incredible that we have laws and Constitutional review on this subject, and for some reason, some people seem to think it doesn't matter when it comes to abortion. Sure... Roe v Wade and Casey v Planned Parenthood... but SOCIAL SECURITY ISN'T IN THE CONSTITUTION!!!!

 

[coloradoatheist]

Ah, a good old fashioned 9th and 10th amendment man. It warms my heart.

Now lets get serious about limiting the federal government to its enumerated powers. Goodbye expansive welfare clause, goodbye expansive commerce clause, goodbye almost every Supreme Court ruling expanding federal power since the Roosevelt Administration. Goodbye social security, goodbye medicare, goodbye Obamacare. Goodbye EPA, goodbye department of education. The Constitution is back.

The Constitution is not a pair of handcuffs limiting the government from behaving morally.

It's biggest defender, Hamilton, immediately exceeded the powers within the Constitution with his national bank, and other policies.

- - - Updated - - -

This is a song and dance. And a dodge.

The question is: Who controls a woman's body?

The woman or the government?

It is only grey if you think the government should have the control.

Except we don't feel that way. As a parent you are under higher obligation than you are as a non-parent. Where's Derec and forcing a male to pay for 18 years of child support?

More song and dance.

You think the government has a place within the body of women.

That is the only way to see THIS issue, not other issues, as grey.

It's interesting since the first 5 of the 6 enumerated pwoers of the Legislature deal with how the government handles money and there was an argument over whether or not the government could have a bank.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What Democratic process are you referring to? The one where the 3 wolves outvote the 2 sheep on what is for dinner?

Democracy needs to be limited to only those decisions which can be ethically decided by a majority, to those decisions which are ethically agnostic or at the very least ethically ambiguous. You are proposing that we let democracy decide on a subject that is NOT ethically ambiguous.

You don't seem familiar with our system of laws. It has nothing whatever to do with what you or anyone else imagines is "ethically ambiguous". We have a democratic system to decide what is and isn't legal, regardless of whether select internet commenters find it unethical or ethically ambiguous. We also have a Constitution that puts certain limits and boundaries on what the legislative system may do.

Yet, for some reason you seem to follow this statement with "You left off a bunch of things (rights) that actually are in the Constitution." when the Constitution specifically addresses that omission of a right isn't a specification that such a right doesn't exist.

You are no closer to demonstrating that women don't have a Constitutional right to their bodies.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Ah, a good old fashioned 9th and 10th amendment man. It warms my heart.

Now lets get serious about limiting the federal government to its enumerated powers. Goodbye expansive welfare clause, goodbye expansive commerce clause, goodbye almost every Supreme Court ruling expanding federal power since the Roosevelt Administration. Goodbye social security, goodbye medicare, goodbye Obamacare. Goodbye EPA, goodbye department of education. The Constitution is back.

The Constitution is not a pair of handcuffs limiting the government from behaving morally.

It's biggest defender, Hamilton, immediately exceeded the powers within the Constitution with his national bank, and other policies.

- - - Updated - - -

This is a song and dance. And a dodge.

The question is: Who controls a woman's body?

The woman or the government?

It is only grey if you think the government should have the control.

Except we don't feel that way. As a parent you are under higher obligation than you are as a non-parent. Where's Derec and forcing a male to pay for 18 years of child support?

More song and dance.

You think the government has a place within the body of women.

That is the only way to see THIS issue, not other issues, as grey.

The grey area is what are the rights of a fetus, at what point does a parent have an obligation to feed, house, and clothe their offspring? As Malintent said, why can't a parent abort a child up until 18? Do you believe parents have an obligation to feed their children?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The grey area is what are the rights of a fetus, at what point does a parent have an obligation to feed, house, and clothe their offspring? As Malintent said, why can't a parent abort a child up until 18? Do you believe parents have an obligation to feed their children?

Are you seriously making an argument trying to say a fetus and child are equivalent? A fetus has no rights. A fetus is unborn. A fetus can't be issued a social security card or a long form conception certificate. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that suggests a fetus counts as a citizen and can be included in a census.

 

[coloradoatheist]

The grey area is what are the rights of a fetus, at what point does a parent have an obligation to feed, house, and clothe their offspring? As Malintent said, why can't a parent abort a child up until 18? Do you believe parents have an obligation to feed their children?

Are you seriously making an argument trying to say a fetus and child are equivalent? A fetus has no rights. A fetus is unborn. A fetus can't be issued a social security card or a long form conception certificate. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that suggests a fetus counts as a citizen and can be included in a census.

That's the difference of the two sides in the argument. One side thinks they do, one side doesn't. 150 years ago the same thing was said about blacks.

 

[untermensche]

The grey area is what are the rights of a fetus, at what point does a parent have an obligation to feed, house, and clothe their offspring? As Malintent said, why can't a parent abort a child up until 18? Do you believe parents have an obligation to feed their children?

A fetus has rights as soon as it is viable and not living within the body of another person.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Are you seriously making an argument trying to say a fetus and child are equivalent? A fetus has no rights. A fetus is unborn. A fetus can't be issued a social security card or a long form conception certificate. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that suggests a fetus counts as a citizen and can be included in a census.

That's the difference of the two sides in the argument. One side thinks they do, one side doesn't.

They don't count for census, don't have social security cards or conception forms. Fetuses are not people. You can try to argue otherwise, but it is foolishness.

150 years ago the same thing was said about blacks.

Except blacks are people, fetuses aren't. People are clearly covered by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

 

[coloradoatheist]

The grey area is what are the rights of a fetus, at what point does a parent have an obligation to feed, house, and clothe their offspring? As Malintent said, why can't a parent abort a child up until 18? Do you believe parents have an obligation to feed their children?

A fetus has rights as soon as it is viable and not living within the body of another person.

That is the whole crux of the argument and where the two sides disagree.

 

[prideandfall]

There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that suggests a fetus counts as a citizen and can be included in a census.

likely because when the constitution was written they didn't know that a fetus existed - which gives some kind of indication about the dangers of adhering with rigid ideological fervor to a governmental framework written over 200 years ago.