Overturning Abortion

[son_of_angels]

First of all, in reference to the first amendment,

The protection given in that amendment simply applies (1) to the Congressional legislative process itself and (2) to the federal government. There is no implication on the ability of a religion to affect or influence policy, and therefore the first amendment does not prohibit laws that have a religious motivation, only the imposition of religious practices or to specifically "establish" a religion (like the Church of England) or to prevent the free exercise of that religion. As for speech and the press, the coalesce into a dogma of "freedom of expression," but this freedom of expression is, ordinarily, restricted to the realm of ideas and opinions, not even the free formulation of opinions (which WOULD emphasize a constitutional right to "privacy"), except to extraordinarily apply to religion.

The 9th and 10th amendment would not apply here either. First, because the right to an abortion was never, historically retained by the people of the United States. Consider the earlier forms of the Hippocratic Oath, and earlier laws against abortion both at the state and federal level. If it cannot be proven that there was a continuous assumption of this as a right reserved to the people, the amendment doesn't apply. Secondly, the tenth amendment would imply the exact opposite. The states have ALWAYS exercised authority over the legality of abortion, and therefore has constantly been reserved to the states. Wherefore, what is business is it of the "Supreme Court" to impose legislation contrary to the rights of the state and the Constitution?

Finally, the fourteenth amendment does in fact guarrantee equal protection under the law, which makes State law have to provide for the protection of its citizens equally, whatever state they are from. All this implies that the people simply have the right, as American citizens, for example, not to be prosecuted in one state for something they did in another state. While this could lead to gross injustice, it does imply that if, for example, in one state it was illegal to commit an abortion, but someone did it in another state, they should be prosecuted in the state in which it is illegal. It also gives each state the responsibility for extraditing criminals. Finally, it guarrantees a certain level of protection to all citizens under the law, but this would even be contrary to abortion (as the protections for the child would also be involved). Who is the Supreme Court to render an opinion regarding the personhood of an unborn child? This is why civil law REQUIRES religious opinion to define such basic terms.

[Kosh]

[quote name='JClives' post='1134063' date='Dec 3 2006, 01:57 PM']
You have to understand an extremely high percentage of athiests are normal law abiding citizens.

When it comes to morals... I'll quote Elayne Boosler:

"When the sun comes up, I have morals again."
[/quote]
there is a difference between obeying the laws and being a good person.

That is a useless way to view morality. Whats the point of only being good if good things happen?

[pcabibi]

[quote name='Kosh' post='1134115' date='Dec 3 2006, 04:12 PM']
there is a difference between obeying the laws and being a good person.

That is a useless way to view morality. Whats the point of only being good if good things happen?
[/quote]

You're definition of a good person is different than the next mans.

It's perfectly acceptable to deal in abosolutes when you are governing yourself. It's unacceptable when you're dealing with governing a democratic nation. And that's what this debate is about, not about what you or the church thinks is moral.

[Kosh]

What do you mean its unacceptable to deal with absolutes in government??! When the government has a law against stealing, it means that the government considers stealing to be wrong in any and all cases!! Same with murder! Or ANY law the government makes!

Sheesh.

[pcabibi]

[quote name='Kosh' post='1134125' date='Dec 3 2006, 04:24 PM']
What do you mean its unacceptable to deal with absolutes in government??! When the government has a law against stealing, it means that the government considers stealing to be wrong in any and all cases!! Same with murder! Or ANY law the government makes!

Sheesh.
[/quote]

No it's not lol... there are all seprate laws distiguishing different types of stealing... like petty theft, grand larsony... there are even seperate laws on murder, such as self defence.... if you kill someone in self defence then it's not considered murder.

Edited December 3, 2006 by JClives

[Kosh]

As to stealing, even though there are different types of stealing, the government does make laws against all of them.

Sorry, we should agree on a definition of murder. And if you're killing someone in self defense and you think thats not murder then why are you bringing it up? 0.o

Sorry if I'm getting sorta emotional, I've been tired. I'm enjoying this debate.

[pcabibi]

[quote name='Kosh' post='1134135' date='Dec 3 2006, 04:37 PM']
As to stealing, even though there are different types of stealing, the government does make laws against all of them.

Sorry, we should agree on a definition of murder. And if you're killing someone in self defense and you think thats not murder then why are you bringing it up? 0.o

Sorry if I'm getting sorta emotional, I've been tired. I'm enjoying this debate.
[/quote]

I'm bringing it up because pro-lifers, by definition, are against self defence.

[Kosh]

No....that doesn't work...killing in self defense is totally okay...not the BEST option, but if you have to then its fine...

[Farsight one]

[quote name='JClives' post='1133515' date='Dec 2 2006, 01:39 AM']
Alot of right wingers overlook the first ammendment. While I have alot of respect for those who champion the pro-life cause... You have to understand that the pro-life stance is a religious stance
[/quote]Where do you get the idea that the pro life stance is a religious one? I know athiests that are adamantly against it. Yes, most religious people are pro life. There IS a a correlation between the two, but ability to be pro-life is not exclusive to religious people. Therefore, it is not a religious stance. A religious stance is something more like "The God of Abraham is the one true God."

[pcabibi]

[quote name='Kosh' post='1134141' date='Dec 3 2006, 04:42 PM']
No....that doesn't work...killing in self defense is totally okay...not the BEST option, but if you have to then its fine...
[/quote]

So if the mother is in danger of loosing her life in pregnancy... then it's ok to have an abortion?

alot of pro-lifers will disagree with you. Hence the problem in dealing with absolutes.

[Kosh]

Okay

Killing in self defense is not killing an innocent person. Killing an innocent person is ALWAYS wrong. An unborn is an innocent person.

So no, deliberately killing the baby is wrong.

Other medical precedures which indirectly kill the baby and save the life of the mother are okay, because the point is NOT to kill the baby, and the death of the baby is an unintended cause.

[pcabibi]

[quote name='Kosh' post='1134151' date='Dec 3 2006, 04:52 PM']
Okay

Killing in self defense is not killing an innocent person. Killing an innocent person is ALWAYS wrong. An unborn is an innocent person.

So no, deliberately killing the baby is wrong.

Other medical precedures which indirectly kill the baby and save the life of the mother are okay, because the point is NOT to kill the baby, and the death of the baby is an unintended cause.
[/quote]

You didn't answer my question though. If the Pregnancy ... the prospect of immenent Birth... will put such a strain on the mother's body, that it will probably kill her... that she doesn't have the right... out of SELF PRESERVATION... to choose to either terminate her own life or the baby's life?

Edited December 3, 2006 by JClives

[Kosh]

You're suggesting the mere PROSPECT of birth will kill the mother? I think thats rather...unlikely, to put it kindly.

[pcabibi]

[quote name='Kosh' post='1134155' date='Dec 3 2006, 04:56 PM']
You're suggesting the mere PROSPECT of birth will kill the mother? I think thats rather...unlikely, to put it kindly.
[/quote]

so that's you're final answer? avoidence of the question?

[Kosh]

You want an answer?

Abortion is always wrong.

[pcabibi]

[quote name='Kosh' post='1134157' date='Dec 3 2006, 04:59 PM']
You want an answer?

Abortion is always wrong.
[/quote]

But it's ok to kill in self defence?

I would feel bad for any woman living under that system... being that they don't have the muscular strength to be able to effectively kill in self defence, and being that they can't even save thier own life in pregnancy... when the dead beat dad can just up and leave with no consequenses.

[Kosh]

QUOTE(Kosh @ Dec 3 2006, 04:52 PM)

Okay

Killing in self defense is not killing an innocent person. Killing an innocent person is ALWAYS wrong. An unborn is an innocent person.

So no, deliberately killing the baby is wrong.

Other medical precedures which indirectly kill the baby and save the life of the mother are okay, because the point is NOT to kill the baby, and the death of the baby is an unintended cause.






Now I have to go, talk to you later.

[pcabibi]

[quote name='Kosh' post='1134159' date='Dec 3 2006, 05:04 PM']
QUOTE(Kosh @ Dec 3 2006, 04:52 PM)

Okay

Killing in self defense is not killing an innocent person. Killing an innocent person is ALWAYS wrong. An unborn is an innocent person.

So no, deliberately killing the baby is wrong.

Other medical precedures which indirectly kill the baby and save the life of the mother are okay, because the point is NOT to kill the baby, and the death of the baby is an unintended cause.
Now I have to go, talk to you later.
[/quote]

We're going in circles lol. If the baby is threating the mother's life... allbeit unintentional... it doesn't make the baby innocent.

[track2004]

Most of the time a natural birth is more dangerous to a woman's health than an abortion early in the preganacy is.

[Socrates]

[quote name='JClives' post='1133881' date='Dec 2 2006, 11:52 PM']
the First Amendment's "establishment" of a religion implied sponsorship, financial support, and [b]active involvement in religious activity.[/b] The Courts have ALWAYS held that the First Amendment reaches far past the classic 18th century establishments of church and state. Just look at past court cases... Walz vs Tax Comm in 1970... or Everson vs the Board of Education in 1947. BOTH were before Roe vs Wade. Walz vs Tax Comm was to obtain public funds for the aid and support of various private religious schools. . . . while Everson vs the BOE was about introducing religious education and observances into the public schools. Both avenues were decided to be closed by the Constitution.[/quote]
A number of points.
First off, (remote as it may seem to us young'uns) "since 1947" is not the same as "ALWAYS." As I pointed out earlier, courts did not begin interpreting the first amendment this way until around the mid-20th Century (circa 1947). The U.S Constitution had already been around for over 150 years before then. In the 20th Century, there was a rather drastic change in the way many federal judges began "interpreting" Constitutional law. I would argue this was the beginning of a great corruption. And even in 1947, hardly anyone would have argued for a "constitutional right" to abortion. Almost everyone at that time regarded abortion as a horrific crime. (Ask your grandma or granddad.)

And if you want to argue that past Supreme Court decisions are the infallible and final say on issues, you might want to remember the Supreme Court's infamous Dredd Scott decision (1856), which ruled that black slaves were legally property, not persons.

Secondly, allowing the states to have laws against abortion hardly qualifies as forcing people to sponsor or participate in a particular religion! Abortion concerns the taking of the life of a human being, something which certainly should be under the jurisdiction of civil law if anything is!

Laws against abortion cannot honestly be compared with, say, laws requiring everyone to attend Catholic Sunday mass, or make donations to the United Methodists.

[quote]The morality of certain Americans is not the issue here. It's the freedom of the individual. The point that there are athiests against abortion is just as insignificant as the fact that there are christians whom are pro choice; because, if you were to look at the statistics of who is pro life and who is pro choice... you will notice a staggering divide with religion being the common denominator. You can't take exeptions to the rule as evidence because democracy is based on majorities. [/quote]
Agreed, it is whether innocent human life ought to be legally protected, not what percentages of Americans believe certain things.

And "choice" is really a weak argument. If "freedom of the individual" is the ultimate principle, then one could argue against any laws whatsoever, as law by its definition puts limits on human choices. The law does not respect the "freedom" of individuals to rob banks or commit murders. When you think about it, "freedom of choice" could be used to legalize any crime whatsoever.

And whether more atheists or religious folk agree with a certain idea is completely irrelevent to anything. The very fact that there are [i]any[/i] pro-life atheists, shows that abortion law is not something dependent upon religious beliefs or affiliation with a particular church.
What are you suggesting here, that to decide whether a law is constitutional, we take a poll, and that the law should only be interpreted in a way that more atheists than religious folk agree with??

And if you're going to talk about "democracy" (likewise nowhere mentioned in the Constitution), why should the opinions of atheists be the only ones that count?

[quote]It's not that simple. I agree that life should be preserved. However, I also agree that individual choice should be preserved. Abortion is a totaly different animal because it is no way as simple as walking up behind someone and sticking a knife in thier back. If an individual chooses to walk up to someone with mallice and end his life, one must be prepared for the harsh consequenses of the justice system. You can't liken a women that either made a drunken mistake, was raped, or is in danger of having a pregnancy terminate her life... to someone that intentionally stabbed, shot, poisoned or asphixiated another human being out of mallice. The mindstate is 100% different and therefore is not murder. It's not the right decision... but it's definatley not murder. It's inside of HER body. For a man... assuming you are a man... to have a Pro-life standpoint on this is purely religious and/or philisophical. And with the establishment cases I've cited above... it has already been determined that in this society... the religious and philisophical thoughts of others do not and should not take precedence over the rights of an individual. [/quote]
I went over the point of "individual choice" before. Anyone who freely chooses to commit any crime makes an "indivual choice." "Choice" is more a slogan than a coherent principle. (Most "pro-choicers" would make limits on choices in areas other than abortion.)

And abortion is wrong because of its objective reality - that it takes the life of an innocent human being - not because of the "mindset" of the person having an abortion.
And it is not such a "totally different animal" than other murders as you might think.
Not everyone who kills another person does it because he is some monster of evil.
Someone may kill someone because he "made a drunken mistake" or because someone has seriously wronged him and he sees no other way of fixing the situation, or any number of other reasons.
Someone might kill someone after suffering horrible abuse at his hands.
Yes, such matters can be mitigating factors in the law, but should not be a reason to declare a universal "right to murder" nor legalize "killing for hire" businesses.
Your arguments here are based on emotion, no logic.

Yes, I'm a man, but that is in fact irrelevent to this argument.

The fact is that the most adament and active pro-lifers I know are women, and there are many women in the pro-life leadership. Many of these pro-life women are mothers themselves, and there are even a number who have had abortions themselves in the past and regretted their "choice."

I believe the statistics are that more women than men are actively involved in the pro-life movement.
Stereotyping prolifers as a bunch of misogynistic, uncaring males is simply false pro-abort propaganda, and if you'd spend any time in the pro-life movement, you'd quickly see how false it is.
It is a straw man and an ad hominem, which does not in fact address the issues.

[quote]This is such a bogus speculation because if I used your logic in my arguement... it would look something like this...

"No where in the constitustion does it outline unborn embryo's as being a soverign person or citizen"

While it's true... you can't take those facts as gospel, because the founding fathers were a little bit more concerned with building a democracy where all PERSONS and CITIZENS had the freedom of choice and the right to life, than to outline abortion rights and restrictions. An embryo at that stage doesn't even have enough braincells to even know what a choice is... let alone make one.
there is no right outlined in the constitution that specifically protects your ability to sit in your house naked and pour spagetti O's over your head either. But it's implied. Granted it doesnt' involve human life, and I understand you taking the life standpoing... but to say that just because abortion isn't SPECIFICALLY outlined in the constitution is totally inane, because none of the prividges we have as a result of our rights are specifically outlined.
Again, you have failed to proove why that's important. Such a superficial "interpretation" isn't even up for discussion.[/quote]
One can "imply" whatever he likes out of the constitution, but that does not make good law. (Why is it that pro-abortion people go into fits whenever it is said that a SCOTUS nominee beleives in strict interpretation of the Constitution?)

There was absolutely nothing in the amendments you gave which even hinted at a universal "right" to abortion. (Other than using generalizations so broad they could be used to legalize whatever one wanted).

And the argument about a fetus having braincells to know what choice is or make one could also be used to justify killing young infants already born (as pro-abortion philosopher Peter Singer does, in fact). Most would agree that little babies are not developed enough to make moral choices or understand philosophical concepts.
If a right to life depends on mental ability, where do we draw the line?

[quote]Good debate Soc I'm enjoying this [/quote]
Thanks. While I seriously disagree 100% with almost everything you've said, I thank you for at least keeping this an actual civil [i]debate[/i], rather than a stupid insult match, as is want to happen on debates on this topic. Anyways, I've got to run, but I'll be back . . .