It's Plessy v Ferguson for Abortion

[coloradoatheist]

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.

Blacks were 3/5ths of a person and could be sold treated, whipped, killed, etc.

 

[prideandfall]

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.

the crux of the disagreement being one side is using rational metrics based on tangible evidence and the other is shitting their pants over emotional delusional and god fantasy.

not exactly what you'd call an evenly matched debate in terms of viable governmental policy.

 

[untermensche]

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.

The side that argues with this are the religiously deluded.

It is not a rational position.

 

[Jarhyn]

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.

And as I've said before, it is the realm of idiots, cowards, and lawyers to hide behind *legality* in matters of ethical rights. Our courts exist in a large part because people realized a long time ago that such 'as it is so shall it ever be' thinking is idiotic.

And for the record, it's not that I find it unethical to ban abortions, it *actually is unethical in reality* as a product of what we are and the reality we live in. Your desire to let men legislate female biology does real and substantial damage to my ability to continue surviving in the universe as well as every other person on the planet. It isn't something arguable, it is merely reality and if you don't like that fact, your only option is to remove yourself from reality or stop deluding yourself.

 

[coloradoatheist]

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

the crux of the disagreement being one side is using rational metrics based on tangible evidence and the other is shitting their pants over emotional delusional and god fantasy.

not exactly what you'd call an evenly matched debate in terms of viable governmental policy.

Both sides place a fetus as somewhere in between things. There is no answer on when human life begins because even most people don't stomach it after about 7 months.

 

[dismal]

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!!!!

A woman does not have a right to do what she wants with her body. She can't sell it. She can't put crack in it. She can't work for $6 per hour with it. She can't refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding with it if she bakes cakes for other weddings. There are probably a million things the government prevents a woman from doing with her body.

Also, Social Security clearly is not an enumerated power of congress. Serious 9th and 10th amendment guys like we have at this forum would surely know this and be appropriately outraged.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

Blacks were 3/5ths of a person and could be sold treated, whipped, killed, etc.

Constitutionally, blacks were 3/5's of a person for census. That was about it though. Nothing in the Constitution made slavery compulsory. In fact, the original constitution, the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the States. And they wouldn't until starting around the 1880's when the 14th Amendment would start being applied to a right here and there over the next century.

And of course, as is with abortion on the conservatives, we have swung very far off the topic of "What is the law". The law says a woman can have an abortion and states are not allowed to create an "undue burden" which is to mean a law is not allowed to have "the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus".

This is the law of the land. This is being violated.

 

[arkirk]

The Supreme Court has ruled several things are above the "democratic process". The right to privacy, the bedroom, and a woman's body are among these things.

You left off a bunch of things that actually are in the Constitution.

I am concerned that when the Constitution really does not have anything to say about something (for instance abortion) people with religious affiliations tend to jump in and try to dictate human behavior. The Constitution does not say, "anything this document does not cover is the territory of fundamentalist Christian interpreters of their religious dogmas." It does not say that, and even if it did, we should not be allowing religious fundamentalists to place their religious ideas in charge of women's bodies. It is really about that simple. This abortion issue has to die. It is nobody's business if a woman's actions conform to Catholc dogmas. The establishment clause of the constitution clearly states that, but fundamentalists keep dragging papal arguments for women's salvery to whatever happens to take up residence in a woman's womb. I think there needs to be some restraining of this tampering with a woman's privacy and right to medical care in general.

 

[dismal]

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

the crux of the disagreement being one side is using rational metrics based on tangible evidence and the other is shitting their pants over emotional delusional and god fantasy.

not exactly what you'd call an evenly matched debate in terms of viable governmental policy.

Well then, it should be easy to pass laws doing the rational thing through the democratic process instead of irrationally pretending the Constitution prohibits it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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!!!!

A woman does not have a right to do what she wants with her body. She can't sell it. She can't put crack in it. She can't work for $6 per hour with it. She can't refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding with it if she bakes cakes for other weddings. There are probably a million things the government prevents a woman from doing with her body.

And how do these red herrings apply to Griswold v Connecticut, Roe v Wade, and Casey v Planned Parenthood?

 

[dismal]

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.

Blacks were 3/5ths of a person and could be sold treated, whipped, killed, etc.

Constitutionally, blacks were 3/5's of a person for census. That was about it though. Nothing in the Constitution made slavery compulsory. In fact, the original constitution, the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the States. And they wouldn't until starting around the 1880's when the 14th Amendment would start being applied to a right here and there over the next century.

And of course, as is with abortion on the conservatives, we have swung very far off the topic of "What is the law". The law says a woman can have an abortion and states are not allowed to create an "undue burden" which is to mean a law is not allowed to have "the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus".

This is the law of the land. This is being violated.

Which law are you referring to?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

Blacks were 3/5ths of a person and could be sold treated, whipped, killed, etc.

Constitutionally, blacks were 3/5's of a person for census. That was about it though. Nothing in the Constitution made slavery compulsory. In fact, the original constitution, the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the States. And they wouldn't until starting around the 1880's when the 14th Amendment would start being applied to a right here and there over the next century.

And of course, as is with abortion on the conservatives, we have swung very far off the topic of "What is the law". The law says a woman can have an abortion and states are not allowed to create an "undue burden" which is to mean a law is not allowed to have "the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus".

This is the law of the land. This is being violated.

Which law are you referring to?

Constitutional Law.

 

[dismal]

A woman does not have a right to do what she wants with her body. She can't sell it. She can't put crack in it. She can't work for $6 per hour with it. She can't refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding with it if she bakes cakes for other weddings. There are probably a million things the government prevents a woman from doing with her body.

And how do these red herrings apply to Griswold v Connecticut, Roe v Wade, and Casey v Planned Parenthood?

I think you need to put on robes enter the star chamber and divine the penumbras formed by emanations to answer questions like that. Maybe sacrifice a goat or two.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Blacks were 3/5ths of a person and could be sold treated, whipped, killed, etc.

Constitutionally, blacks were 3/5's of a person for census. That was about it though. Nothing in the Constitution made slavery compulsory. In fact, the original constitution, the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the States. And they wouldn't until starting around the 1880's when the 14th Amendment would start being applied to a right here and there over the next century.

And of course, as is with abortion on the conservatives, we have swung very far off the topic of "What is the law". The law says a woman can have an abortion and states are not allowed to create an "undue burden" which is to mean a law is not allowed to have "the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus".

This is the law of the land. This is being violated.

Which law are you referring to?

Constitutional Law.

What section are you looking at?

I can't find that in my copy of the Constitution.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And how do these red herrings apply to Griswold v Connecticut, Roe v Wade, and Casey v Planned Parenthood?

I think you need to put on robes enter the star chamber and divine the penumbras formed by emanations to answer questions like that. Maybe sacrifice a goat or two.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Blacks were 3/5ths of a person and could be sold treated, whipped, killed, etc.

Constitutionally, blacks were 3/5's of a person for census. That was about it though. Nothing in the Constitution made slavery compulsory. In fact, the original constitution, the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the States. And they wouldn't until starting around the 1880's when the 14th Amendment would start being applied to a right here and there over the next century.

And of course, as is with abortion on the conservatives, we have swung very far off the topic of "What is the law". The law says a woman can have an abortion and states are not allowed to create an "undue burden" which is to mean a law is not allowed to have "the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus".

This is the law of the land. This is being violated.

Which law are you referring to?

Constitutional Law.

What section are you looking at?

I can't find that in my copy of the Constitution.

Well, you got me there. Ho Ho! You so clever.

But in all seriousness, do you care to actually talk about the subject or are you just going to continue trying to do whatever it is you are doing?

 

[dismal]

I think you need to put on robes enter the star chamber and divine the penumbras formed by emanations to answer questions like that. Maybe sacrifice a goat or two.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Blacks were 3/5ths of a person and could be sold treated, whipped, killed, etc.

Constitutionally, blacks were 3/5's of a person for census. That was about it though. Nothing in the Constitution made slavery compulsory. In fact, the original constitution, the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the States. And they wouldn't until starting around the 1880's when the 14th Amendment would start being applied to a right here and there over the next century.

And of course, as is with abortion on the conservatives, we have swung very far off the topic of "What is the law". The law says a woman can have an abortion and states are not allowed to create an "undue burden" which is to mean a law is not allowed to have "the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus".

This is the law of the land. This is being violated.

Which law are you referring to?

Constitutional Law.

What section are you looking at?

I can't find that in my copy of the Constitution.

Well, you got me there. Ho Ho! You so clever.

But in all seriousness, do you care to actually talk about the subject or are you just going to continue trying to do whatever it is you are doing?

What would "talking about the subject" look like to you?

Everyone showing up and regurgitating the one allowable view expressed in the OP over and over?

 

[ronburgundy]

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

Which the same as allowing the democratic process to decide whether a particular county wants to reinstate slavery or strip women or blacks or gays of their right to vote.

Constitutional protections of basic personal liberty are far more important than the majority rule, and should not be subject to the whims of the democratic process.

 

[untermensche]

the crux of the disagreement being one side is using rational metrics based on tangible evidence and the other is shitting their pants over emotional delusional and god fantasy.

not exactly what you'd call an evenly matched debate in terms of viable governmental policy.

Well then, it should be easy to pass laws doing the rational thing through the democratic process instead of irrationally pretending the Constitution prohibits it.

The right of privacy can be induced from the Constitution.

Why does a person have a right against unreasonable search unless they have an inherent right to privacy from the government?

 

[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

Which the same as allowing the democratic process to decide whether a particular county wants to reinstate slavery or strip women or blacks or gays of their right to vote.

Constitutional protections of basic personal liberty are far more important than the majority rule, and should not be subject to the whims of the democratic process.

The Constitution says we can't have slavery or deny blacks the right to vote. You should read it some time. I find knowing what the Constitution says to be an effective tool in debates about what the Constitution says.

 

[dismal]

Well then, it should be easy to pass laws doing the rational thing through the democratic process instead of irrationally pretending the Constitution prohibits it.

The right of privacy can be induced from the Constitution.

Yes, if one puts on appropriate robes enters the star chamber and divines the penumbras flowing from the emanations. I mentioned this earlier.

The right to be safe against unreasonable searches, however, is specifically mentioned. No penumbras flowing from emanations needed.

 

[funinspace]

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.

Are you really arguing that there is no grey legal/constitutional area in the abortion issue, even up to the point of 5 minutes before the normal delivery of a healthy baby? The SC seems to disagree with that idea, as they have struggled over and over again to find a legal framework that is stable relative to the third trimester. In 2007, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.

FWIW, my view is that restricting abortions after somewhere around 20-24 weeks is not unreasonable, excepting for health of the mother.