Overturning Abortion

[Groo the Wanderer]

[quote name='JClives' post='1133890' date='Dec 2 2006, 11:44 PM']
Because of the statistics. I'll try to find the polls... as I can't remember the ones right off of the top of my head... but from what I remember, amongst thouse religious and unreligous people polled...There is an undeniable coorelation between religion and the pro-life standpoint.
[/quote]

A poll does not establish fact, nor does it establish right or wrong. All it does is to reveal either the bias of the pollster of the vapidness of those being polled.

I get the impression you are of the moral relativist, liberal, tree-hugging, hedonistic, dirty hippy mentality, no?

[track2004]

I just have a few things to say, and I know I'm behind on the argument.


[quote name='Socrates' post='1133432' date='Dec 1 2006, 10:49 PM']
Obviously, you are not very familiar with politics or recent history.

Roe v. Wade has not yet been brought to the SCOTUS to be challenged, so it is not clear exactly how every member would vote.
[/quote]

Check out Webster v. Reproductive Services (1989) and Casey v. Planned Parenthood (1992) which both nearly reversed the Roe decision. Those were both over 10 years ago, but I think it's safe to say that SCOTUS hasn't decided to reverse Roe.

[quote name='Socrates' post='1133432' date='Dec 1 2006, 10:49 PM']
So quote for me where exactly in the U.S. Constitution, abortion is protected as a "right." Actually, don't waste your time, because it's not there.

All these people who keep saying abortion is protected by the Constitution have obviously never the read the Constitution, and are completely ignorant of what it states.

Prior to Roe v. Wade, in 1974, nobody saw abortion as a "Constitutionally protected right," and most states had laws against abortion.

Legally, Roe v. Wade was bad law. It was not based on what the Constitution actually said, but on a pro-abortion liberal agenda. It is a prime example of "judicial activism." (Judges "interpreting" law to fit their own agenda, rather than going by what the law actually says.)
[/quote]

The Constitution is a skeleton of rights on which others are inferred. That's the beauty of it, but also the challenge. Abortion isn't listed somewhere in the Constitution, but lawyers argued that it should be protected/allowed and thus it is. Find a better argument than theirs and you'll win.

Also funny bit mentioning history. Before the 1800s or so abortion was legal everywhere and no one really thought about it. It was just another option if a woman got pregnant. The only real rule was that an abortion had to be administered before the quickening. There were also tons of herbal remidies for "restoring the feminine cycle". So look at that crazy Judicial Activism, striking a law that had been in effect for all of 150ish years.

Another thing. The laws that were set up in most states didn't consider Abortion murder. If a woman got an abortion the doctor was usually prosecuted, not the woman, and it was only punishable by like 5 years in jail. If the mother died during an abortion the doctor was charged with murder proper. The states couldn't say that abortion was murder because none of their statutes treated it as such.

[pcabibi]

[quote name='Groo the Wanderer' post='1133899' date='Dec 3 2006, 01:15 AM']
A poll does not establish fact, nor does it establish right or wrong. All it does is to reveal either the bias of the pollster of the vapidness of those being polled.

I get the impression you are of the moral relativist, liberal, tree-hugging, hedonistic, dirty hippy mentality, no?
[/quote]

relativist... absolutley

tree hugging ... no

Hedonistic... no

Dirty... no

Hippy.... no

french.... no

Do I think you're displaying the actions of a convictionless slug that has to resort to insults if he can't back up his beliefs when they're tested?

Definitley.

[Kosh]

Oh c'mon, 78% of all polls are crooked, 97% of the population knows that.

Oh, and y'know why? Because Religion instils a sense of MORALITY in people that atheism dramatically fails to do.

[pcabibi]

[quote name='Kosh' post='1134031' date='Dec 3 2006, 01:19 PM']
Oh c'mon, 78% of all polls are crooked, 97% of the population knows that.

Oh, and y'know why? Because Religion instils a sense of MORALITY in people that atheism dramatically fails to do.
[/quote]


Ok then... how about we do two polls then.

we will do one here... and one on lets say an athiest or a hippy site as my boy previously mentioned hippy.

and we'll compare which sites have what percentage pro choice and what sites are pro life?

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."

Edited December 3, 2006 by JClives

[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.