Abortion

[opaltiger]

Guys, please read my link. :( It explains in fascinating ways why "the foetus has a right to life" is not a be-all and end-all argument when it comes to abortion.

 

[Rose]

And wow, babies can remember things for ten minutes and then forget them. So they're a blank slate for ten minutes and then get erased. Makes all the difference, clearly.

They don't forget them, it's like a movie. If they forgot it then no one would ever be able to remember the heart beat, or fetal position, so in that way it does still technically make a difference. Once you remember something you never truly forget it.

 

[opaltiger]

Two points: first, the vast majority of abortions take place before the 30th week (that's seven months in, you realise?), and second, I would be extremely skeptical of people who claim to remember the womb, or even anything under about a year of age. The brain is very, very good at inventing memories it thinks you should have.

 

[Rose]

Two points: first, the vast majority of abortions take place before the 30th week (that's seven months in, you realise?), and second, I would be extremely skeptical of people who claim to remember the womb, or even anything under about a year of age. The brain is very, very good at inventing memories it thinks you should have.

I was just simply stating that for the full nine months a fetus is not completely incapable of thought.The argument was that for nine months the fetus had no thought, but it does.

 

[Butterfree]

No, really, the actual argument was that when a fetus is aborted, it has no mind activity. The nine months figure was an off-hand simplification introduced into the debate by Ruby, not MD.

 

[Rose]

But MD used it, and carried it on, I'm just simply stating no matter who originally stated it, the initial statement in itself is untrue.

 

[Harlequin]

In the UK, the upper age limit for abortion is 24 weeks old. This is before the 30th week.

So, um...?

 

[Rose]

I am just saying that to say a something carried the full term of nine months does have the capability, of thinking. Even then it has been recorded to exhibit brain activity at 22 weeks.

 

[Vladimir Putin's LJ]

Hey the GOP is basically redefining what rape is.

Oh dat wacky GOP!!

 

[Flora]

Hey the GOP is basically redefining what rape is.

Oh dat wacky GOP!!

Other types of rapes that would no longer be covered by the exemption include rapes in which the woman was drugged or given excessive amounts of alcohol, rapes of women with limited mental capacity, and many date rapes.

...what. They're just gonna say "oh, you got drugged and "raped" and you're pregnant because of it? Too bad, that doesn't count as rape, you have to pay!" That second one is incredibly worrying as well; if a woman has a limited mental capacity, she probably wouldn't be able to pay for the abortion or to raise a child.

Way to go, GOP. Way to go.

 

[Dinru]

Not to mention, there's not even anything about severe tokophobia or anything like that.

Because phobia's aren't visible as anything bout how the person reacts to them, therefore, they don't exist! /sarcasm

 

[Dannichu]

Relevant:

"Having an abortion does not increase the risk of mental health problems, but having a baby does, one of the largest studies to compare the aftermath of both decisions suggests."

 

[Aobaru]

An interested tidbit: my constitutional law professor (as previously referenced in the Separation of Church and State thread) has met and talked with Norma McCorvey, aka Jane Roe. Apparently, she's an ex-lesbian, pro-lifer now. Interesting.

Also, here's a short essay I wrote on Roe v. Wade.

As most of us know, Roe v. Wade is the infamous Supreme Court decision that determined that states cannot restrict a mother's access to abortions during all nine months of pregnancy. I would like to posit my concurrence in part of the decision of the Court, but also explain how it went too far in its decision.

The main question before the Court was whether the right to privacy, as previously established in Griswold v. Connecticut, included the right for a woman to procure an abortion. (In Griswold, the Court held that “marital privacy” overrode Connecticut’s law banning contraceptives. This case was the first to establish a right to privacy.)

Justice Blackmun, writing the majority opinion, answered the question before the Court in the affirmative, thus adding another specific right to the general right to privacy. (This right is commonly called “a woman’s right to her body” or “right of reproduction”.)

I will briefly introduce the reasoning behind the Court’s decision.

The Court based its decision on three things: (1) legal precedent (Griswold v. Connecticut); (2) the Ninth Amendment, which states citizens have other rights than the ones listed in the Constitution (fundamental rights); and (3), most importantly, the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process clause, which prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without certain steps being taken to ensure fairness.

I fully support Justice Blackmun’s assertion that (1) reproductive rights are a fundamental right as defined by the Ninth Amendment, (2) due process protects fundamental rights on the federal, state, and local levels, and (3) that the right to privacy fully protects reproductive rights. (Imagine the government telling you whether or not you could have a baby; the image should remind one of China’s authoritarian law allowing only one baby per family.) As Justice Blackmun stated: “Few decisions are more personal and intimate, more properly private, or more basic to individual dignity and autonomy, than a woman's decision.”

It is at this point, however, that Justice Blackmun leaves the arena of Constitutional interpretation and enters into full-blown legislation. Instead of ending the opinion once the issue at hand had been addressed, he goes on to create his own standards for when the States should allow and disallow abortion. Instead of letting the States decide in which trimesters to allow, regulate, and prohibit abortion, Justice Blackmun creates sweeping regulations out of thin air, with no concern for the Constitution at all. As liberal prosecutor Archibald Cox wrote, “[Roe’s] failure to confront the issue in principled terms leaves the opinion to read like a set of hospital rules and regulations. . . . Neither historian, nor layman, nor lawyer will be persuaded that all the prescriptions of Justice Blackmun are part of the Constitution.”

A more proper decision would have been: “Yes, abortion is an individual, fundamental right and thus should not be completely disallowed, but this Court recognizes differences in opinion exist and, as such, we remand to the individual States the ability to allow, regulate, and prohibit abortion as they see fit.”

This decision allows for both reproductive rights (most laws worldwide provide for legal abortion up to around 20 weeks) and federalism (the States set their own abortion standards).

 

[opaltiger]

A more proper decision would have been: “Yes, abortion is an individual, fundamental right and thus should not be completely disallowed, but this Court recognizes differences in opinion exist and, as such, we remand to the individual States the ability to allow, regulate, and prohibit abortion as they see fit.”

I wonder, do you hold the same position on marriage equality?

 

[Pwnemon]

Um, yes?

The constitution is very limited on what the federal government can and cannot do, and none of Article One section eight mentions domestic ethical issue regulation, with the tenth amendment then securing this right only to the states.

 

[Tailsy]

I don't think opaltiger was asking you, Pwnemon.

 

[Aobaru]

I wonder, do you hold the same position on marriage equality?

Let me preface this by saying that as a LGBT teen, I am completely for marriage equality.

However, in strictness, the answer is no. I don't believe marriage is a natural, fundamental right; it's more of a legal contract. Do I believe it should be allowed for LGBTs? Absolutely. Gender requirements should be taken out of marriage completely. But, is it protected as a fundamental right? I don't believe so.

That being said, I do think there are some constitutional arguments for gay marriage, namely the Equal Protection clause, but that's another discussion.

The constitution is very limited on what Congress can and cannot do, and none of Article One section eight mentions domestic ethical issue regulation

Fixed this for you. Article I applies only to the legislature.

the tenth amendment then securing this right only to the states.

The problem is, you can't legislate fundamental rights. This applies to the federal and state governments. We could easily say that parental rights aren't explicit in the Constitution and are therefore reserved to the States to control. But what's stopping a state from coming up with a bill that says once you have your baby, the state takes it and raises it for the first five years? Or, since contraceptive rights aren't explicit either, what's stopping a state from banning condoms or the pill? Whether it's the state or federal government, the State DOES NOT have the right to control individual liberty, and I believe several parts of the Constitution provide for this.

 

[opaltiger]

Ignoring for the moment what it actually says in the constitution, do you genuinely believe states should be allowed to restrict marriage equality rights/abortion rights as they see fit, even if you acknowledge that doing so represents discrimination against a certain group?

EDIT: You say the Fourteenth Amendment might be used to argue in favour of federal marriage equality. Why could it not also be used to argue in favour of abortion rights?

 

[Aobaru]

Ignoring for the moment what it actually says in the constitution, do you genuinely believe states should be allowed to restrict marriage equality rights/abortion rights as they see fit, even if you acknowledge that doing so represents discrimination against a certain group?

Well, if you ignore the Constitution it kind of makes the whole argument about state regulation moot, so... :\ But say hypothetically, the federal government doesn't exist, only the separate states. In that case, yes, it would be up to the states to determine marriage rights. Of course, I would actively support gay marriage in my state, but you have to remember marriage isn't a natural right like sexual or reproductive freedom; it's a completely man-made institution.

EDIT: You say the Fourteenth Amendment might be used to argue in favour of federal marriage equality. Why could it not also be used to argue in favour of abortion rights?

Erm... I said Equal Protection could possibly be used in favor of marriage equality. It says "no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." To me, that means no discrimination based on anything. Meaning you can't offer a legal institution like marriage to only a select demographic (man-woman couples). Abortion is only for one demographic: women. The only way I could see Equal Protection invoked relative to abortion is if a transsexual got pregnant and was denied an abortion, or something similar.

 

[opaltiger]

Meaning you can't offer a legal institution like marriage to only a select demographic (man-woman couples). Abortion is only for one demographic: women.

Abortion isn't the point. Reproductive freedom is. Denying women access to abortions is denying them reproductive freedom.