Due to the prolific nature of these forums, poster aggression is advised.
State governments do not have the constitutional authority to govern such things.
I'm taking a class called "Moral and Social Problems".Considering I live in Massachusetts, and the general liberal-ness of the school, I would have thought that the class would be in favour of abortion.Turns out my misconceptions were wrong, and it seems everyone hates abortion unless it is used by someone who was raped because the fetus counts as a person.I feel bad everytime I hear the discussions in the class and whenever I try to say otherwise, they basically look at me like I want to kill babies.Edit: Also possible, though doubtful considering the number of people who spoke up against abortion, that those "Pro-Life" (A bullshit term) supporters are simply louder than those "Pro-Choice".
...my misconceptions were wrong...
Quote from: CrystalmonkeyI'm taking a class called "Moral and Social Problems".Considering I live in Massachusetts, and the general liberal-ness of the school, I would have thought that the class would be in favour of abortion.Turns out my misconceptions were wrong, and it seems everyone hates abortion unless it is used by someone who was raped because the fetus counts as a person.I feel bad everytime I hear the discussions in the class and whenever I try to say otherwise, they basically look at me like I want to kill babies.Edit: Also possible, though doubtful considering the number of people who spoke up against abortion, that those "Pro-Life" (A bullshit term) supporters are simply louder than those "Pro-Choice".Well, I'm having trouble understanding your attitude towards abortion. How can anyone not hate abortion? At very best it can be a neccessary evil, but I can't imagine anyone not hating to have one done. No matter how you parse it, you are destroying a life. That's why it's called "abortion".What's at issue is not whether abortion in itself is a good thing, but whether making it illegal is a violation of the Constitutional rights of the mother.
...The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment....All this, together with our observation, supra, that throughout the major portion of the 19th century prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.
1. A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a lifesaving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.2. The State may define the term "physician," as it has been employed in the preceding paragraphs of this Part XI of this opinion, to mean only a physician currently licensed by the State, and may proscribe any abortion by a person who is not a physician as so defined.
These same people claiming sanctity of human life and abortion is murder, have done nothing to promote adoption...
I'm not disputing the hypocracy -- and worse -- rife within the anti-abortion wing. But I'm looking at it dispassionately from my own private point of view. I think that the reality is that Roe v Wade may get overturned within our lifetime, and there is very little anyone can do about it. At the same time, I doubt abortion will ever be unilaterally banned.Historically, as you and Mr. Blackmun point out, abortion was not considered an evil, and the laws governing abortion reflected that attitude. But what happens when enough people decide it IS an evil? Eventually, those views will be encoded in law. In 1973, 7 of 9 justices accepted the argument that personhood does not extend to the unborn. That seems like a very thin line of defense.
These same people claiming sanctity of human life and abortion is murder, have done nothing to promote adoption.
And I think that it also hinged on the fact that a fetus wouldn't be able to survive up to a certain point without the mother.Oh, I said that phrase on purpose Ivan.No matter what I say, I don't think I could convince the people in my class that a fetus isn't a human. They don't care what I have to say it seems.
As PbS noted, technology muddles the viability argument. It won't be long before children are conceived and grown in a lab. At what point, then, does that fetus become a person?
Quote from: ivanAs PbS noted, technology muddles the viability argument. It won't be long before children are conceived and grown in a lab. At what point, then, does that fetus become a person?I was the first successful invetro-fertilized baby born at my hospital in Michigan.My mom's tubes were pinched and it was the only way for me to be conceived and born. Pre-birth I spent time in an incubator and this was 21 years ago...nor was I the first in the United States.These times are already upon us Ivan.I agree that a legal distinction should be made, but I think it is near impossible to "determine" when life begins. I feel as though I am a continuation of life in this physical world. I recognize my "birthday" as when I exited my mom's vagina right out those labia doors, but I know life was there before this occurred.
Of course we'll draw our boundary to include "The Canyon"; it'll just be one of the non-contiguous states/provinces/whatever we decide to call our subunits.
As for Demosthenes' stance that the states shouldn't have the authority to make that call, I submit that it's the federal government who should not have that authority. The States are the ones who have traditionally regulated domestic and family-related matters, and it seems to me this applies.
In a sensitive area such as this, involving as it does issues over which reasonable men may easily and heatedly differ, I cannot accept the Court's exercise of its clear power of choice by interposing a constitutional barrier to state efforts to protect human life and by investing mothers and doctors with the constitutionally protected right to exterminate it. This issue, for the most part, should be left with the people and to the political processes the people have devised to govern their affairs.
Quote from: pbsaurus Of course we'll draw our boundary to include "The Canyon"; it'll just be one of the non-contiguous states/provinces/whatever we decide to call our subunits.Ha-ha! I just saw this... It'll be like living in Alaska, but warmer. You can keep your political prisoners here!
Total Members: 4968