If Abortion becomes illegal in the US

[invest07]

Should Roe v Wade be overturned in the future, there will be a reshuffling of the abortion industry but I doubt there will be a serious reduction in the number of abortions.

Remember that Roe V Wade made abortion legal for the entire country. Should this be overturned, the decision will revert to the states. This will be a huge financial boon to California and Massachusetts as the abortion mills will relocate to these states.

Abortions will still be available but not in every state.

coyote has made several arguments supporting abortion. I will make only one opposing this heinous and barbaric medical procedure:

ABORTION KILLS.

 

[palerider]

Should Roe v Wade be overturned in the future, there will be a reshuffling of the abortion industry but I doubt there will be a serious reduction in the number of abortions.

Remember that Roe V Wade made abortion legal for the entire country. Should this be overturned, the decision will revert to the states. This will be a huge financial boon to California and Massachusetts as the abortion mills will relocate to these states.

Abortions will still be available but not in every state.

coyote has made several arguments supporting abortion. I will make only one opposing this heinous and barbaric medical procedure:

ABORTION KILLS.

If Roe is overturned because personhood for the unborn is established, abortion will not be legal in any state. As justice Blackmun stated in the Roe decision, if personhood is established the lives of the unborn will be protected by the 14th amendment and no state will be able to deny unborns the right to live without due process for each and every one.

 

[top gun]

palerider;19081]You are obviously not familiar with either the constitution or how our legal system works.

Is that what I said? If I said that, then bring the words forward.

WOW... All that BS about the way the documents were written! All that colon/semicolon, which word could be interpreted in what sentence BS. All that how the unborn child had to be covered and no way was it able to be legally established that the the unborn wasn't covered! Don't remember saying any of that?

Pale I'm not going to go back an pull up every post you made saying all the documents covered the unborn. It's undeniable that is your position and your posts constantly went like this...

Since no specific group is excluded, then all groups are included. That is what is ment by the term EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE when people talk about the 14th amendment. The only mention of being born is to clarify that people who are born here are US citizens and as citizens they enjoy certain rights and responsibilites that non citizens don't...

But Justice Blackmun with his lifetime of training as a lawyer and working with great experience in Constitutional law as a Supreme Court Justice and after thorough review addressed that chapter & verse by saying the following...

Justice Blackmun noted that there was no consensus in law when life (i.e. human personhood) begins.

He cited a number of references to "person" in the U.S. Constitution. But he found that: "...in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application."

He concluded: "In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense."

I'd say a direct finding from a Supreme Court Justice qualifies as "legally established and documented". What part of Justice Blackmun's very pointed explaination are you not getting? NOT COVERED!

Clearly you have never read the Roe decision. You may google it for the parts that the pro choice crowd likes, but you clearly haven't read it. Justice Blackmun hinged the entire decision on the personhood of the unborn. He said:

Read it! I've posted most of it!

If the suggestion of personhood is established, the case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the 14th Amendment.

That's the whole point! The time of personhood is established at when the fetus is viable. Hence the current allowance for abortion up to that point.

That "suggestion" has not only been established, but there is a growing body of precedent to support it and the number of individuals who sit in jail today for killing an unborn is growing all the time. You can only be charged for murder or manslaughter if you kill a person.

That's just another anti-choice Gestapo apples to oranges argument. You have both. A woman has the right not to be forced to carry a child to term against her will for the plethora of reasons we've discussed. However if another person kills the mother & the fetus or even just the fetus there is allowance to bring charges because the woman was trying to have a child and some other person ended that against her will.

The majority are as uneducated as you. So what? In the eyes of the law, if you are a human being, you are a person. It is as simple as that. When Roe was decided an argument could be made that the unborn were not human beings. That argument is no longer possible.

Forget about me... The United States Supreme Court is uneducated??? You are truly a desparate man. And saying all this new evidence has come up is poppy cock and you know it. At the time of the decision everyone knew "whatever you want to call it" was living and the outcome of not having an abortion would be delivering a child. I'll post yet again...

The abortion debate has heated up since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973. However, few if any new scientific or medical findings have surfaced that might define when personhood starts. (2004)[/B]

Most reject the belief that the presence of a unique DNA code converts the egg into a human person. They note that a skin scraping of a child or adult contains a very large number of living, single cells; each has the same unique human DNA code as does the human from which it came. Scottish scientists removed a cell from the mammary tissue of a sheep, inject it into a sheep ovum whose DNA has been removed, and produce "Dolly," a cloned sheep who is genetically identical to her "parent." This same procedure has been replicated for many other mammals. A sample from a human skin scraping, or from a swab of the inside of the mouth, or a hair follicle contains the same type of human DNA information as does a zygote. They presumably should both be given the same status. Skeptics might argue that since we don't consider a hair follicle, etc. to be a human person, we should not look upon zygotes as persons either. A zygote has no limbs; no head; no brain; no ability to see, hear, smell, taste or touch; no internal organs, no self-consciousness, no ability to think, reason, sense its environment, etc. Even at the age of one month, a human embryo cannot be distinguished from the embryo of a cat or dog. Three things make us human persons: the ability to think, a moral sense, and our physical appearance. The zygote exhibits none of these.

I think we've both vented our opinions and I remain very supportive of The United States Supreme Court decision. Women truly need this option. I'll check back on you from time to time to see if Roe has been overturned. It's like I said though... seriously you're just setting yourself up for major disappointment.

 

[palerider]

... All that BS about the way the documents were written! All that colon/semicolon, which word could be interpreted in what sentence BS. All that how the unborn child had to be covered and no way was it able to be legally established that the the unborn wasn't covered! Don't remember saying any of that?

I said that they cover everyone, not just the unborn and not just the born.

Justice Blackmun noted that there was no consensus in law when life (i.e. human personhood) begins.

He cited a number of references to "person" in the U.S. Constitution. But he found that: "...in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application."

He concluded: "In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense." [/COLOR]

And that was in 1972. At that time, there were no people sitting in prison having been charged for murder and manslaughter for killing an unborn child. At that time, there was no precedent. 35 years and a whole lot of precedent have passed under the bridge since then.

I'd say a direct finding from a Supreme Court Justice qualifies as "legally established and documented". What part of Justice Blackmun's very pointed explaination are you not getting? NOT COVERED!

You are in denial top gun. Blackmun said:

"If the suggestion of personhood is established, the case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the 14th Amendment.”

In the time since Roe, the suggestion of personhood has been established and a bucket full of precedent has established. You can not be charged and sentenced for manslaughter or murder unless you kill a person. The people who are in jail right now, having been charged, tried and sentenced for killing unborns are there because they killed persons.

Read it! I've posted most of it!

There is a fundamental difference between cut and paste and reading for comprehension.

In a later case that challenged Roe, justice Oconnor noted that Roe was on a collision course with itself as it depended upon medical technology at any particular time it was challenged

That's the whole point![/B] The time of personhood is established at when the fetus is viable. Hence the current allowance for abortion up to that point.

You clearly aren't paying attention. You CAN NOT be charged for murder or manslaughter unless you KILL A PERSON. People are in prison today for killing unborns having been sentenced for both murder and manslaugher. Precedent has been established. Your argument has failed top gun and the best you can do is parrot the decision. You have been completely unable to defend it.

That's just another anti-choice Gestapo apples to oranges argument. You have both. A woman has the right not to be forced to carry a child to term against her will for the plethora of reasons we've discussed. However if another person kills the mother & the fetus or even just the fetus there is allowance to bring charges because the woman was trying to have a child and some other person ended that against her will.

All rights are secondary to the right to live. And the fact remains that you can not be charged for murder or manslaugher unless you have killed a person. Many on the pro choice side went to the mat for law to be written that would punish people who killed an unborn child. They didn't think their actions through. Whether they like it or not, whether you like it or not, precedent has been established for the personhood of the unborn and justice Blackmun, way back in 1972 saw the handwriting on the wall when he said that if personhood is established, Roe falls. Well welcome to the 21'st century where personhood has been firmly established.

Forget about me... The United States Supreme Court is uneducated??? You are truly a desparate man. And saying all this new evidence has come up is poppy cock and you know it. At the time of the decision everyone knew "whatever you want to call it" was living and the outcome of not having an abortion would be delivering a child. I'll post yet again...

That was 1972. A whole lot has changed since then. You may live in a time warp where nothing new is ever learned (a distinct possibility) but the world has moved on.

And yes, people knew that unborns were alive, but a case could be made that they were not human beings. The Roe decision, however, was based on the argument that unborns were not human beings and therefore not persons. If you can argue that unborns aren't human beings, then do it.

I think we've both vented our opinions and I remain very supportive of The United States Supreme Court decision. Women truly need this option. I'll check back on you from time to time to see if Roe has been overturned. It's like I said though... seriously you're just setting yourself up for major disappointment.

Yes, you have vented opinion and completely failed to defend the decision in any way. You have merely parrotted it as if that represented any sort of defense. I have put forward an argument that you have completely failed to argue against beyond parroting the obvious which is no argument at all.

I really didn't expect much more from you though, so you didn't dissappoint.

 

[top gun]

palerider;19123]I said that they cover everyone, not just the unborn and not just the born.

But you were again wrong... all you have to do is read the decision. UNBORN NOT COVERED.

And that was in 1972. At that time, there were no people sitting in prison having been charged for murder and manslaughter for killing an unborn child. At that time, there was no precedent. 35 years and a whole lot of precedent have passed under the bridge since then.

Means nothing. Those laws were implemented many, many years ago and there's been no change. There will be no change because you can, as we do, have both. 35 years and the woman's right to choose still stands. Get a clue. Not changing.

You are in denial top gun.

But yet the law has stood for decades and still stands with in line with my position even as we speak... hmmmmmmm.

In the time since Roe, the suggestion of personhood has been established and a bucket full of precedent has established. You can not be charged and sentenced for manslaughter or murder unless you kill a person. The people who are in jail right now, having been charged, tried and sentenced for killing unborns are there because they killed persons.

But yet again... we can and we do.

There is a fundamental difference between cut and paste and reading for comprehension.

You're not going to make me point out your Wile E. Coyote super genius thing again are you? Come on.

Your dog won't hunt my friend. Even President Bush when asked about trying to overturn Roe said quote: The country is not ready for that. But I actually think it's one of the greatest things that can happen all this sabre rattling about wanting to overturn Roe. It highlights the importance of The Supreme Court and who appoints them. This type of redoric about turning back the clock greatly enhances the opportunities for the Democrats... although even Rudy is Pro-choice.

Keep talking my friend... it does me well. When someone finds themselves digging a hole they can't get out of the best advice is... quit digging. But do what you want

 

[ArmChair General]

All rights are secondary to the right to live. And the fact remains that you can not be charged for murder or manslaugher unless you have killed a person. Many on the pro choice side went to the mat for law to be written that would punish people who killed an unborn child. They didn't think their actions through. Whether they like it or not, whether you like it or not, precedent has been established for the personhood of the unborn and justice Blackmun, way back in 1972 saw the handwriting on the wall when he said that if personhood is established, Roe falls. Well welcome to the 21'st century where personhood has been firmly established.

Debates about the moral permissibility of abortion generally go nowhere largely because they focus on disputes over what counts as a "person." That dispute, in turn, is founded on a false assumption. That false assumption infects every conclusion that anybody might want to defend, making all conclusion indefensible.

As for why people have been charged with murder or manslaughter for killing the unborn of a woman, its simple really. A parent who wants to have a child has an interest in the fetus. In this case, if the fetus is damaged or harmed, then the interests of the potential parents have been severely harmed, and penalties are appropriate.

There are interests to protect in defending a fetus that does not yet have a brain. However, those interests belong to others. The fetus itself has no morally relevant interests.

 

[palerider]

The fact remains general, that you can not be charged for either manslaughter or murder unless you have killed a person. Perhaps personhood for the unborn wasn't an intended consequence but the game does have rules.

 

[palerider]

Well top gun, it is clear that you have no argument other than parrotting roe itself and claiming that abortion is still legal. That doensn't constitute an argument.

Guess you lose by default.

 

[top gun]

Well top gun, it is clear that you have no argument other than parrotting roe itself and claiming that abortion is still legal. That doensn't constitute an argument.

Guess you lose by default.

Well actually it's more like you were on the losing end from the very start. All the grand arguments you make have been made before (sidebar: you do know you didn't just now come up with any of this yourself). It has not caused the demise of a women right to choose and will not.

There are several things that you just turn a blind eye to. Even a conservative Supreme Court can do many different things (sidebar #2 another great reason though for progressives to get out and vote to stop neo-con attempts). You go on in posts about... If the Supreme Court recognizes personhood @ conception then abortion would be banned, even the birth control pill would be banned. First off just in the outrage that would cause in a country where the vast majority would be against that and its citizens vote for their elected officials one could see... NOT GONNA HAPPEN. Actually that's the best part of your argument for my side... outlawing the current safe and effective Birth Control Pill.

Women have a lot more power in this country than you give them credit for. If you hearken back to the bra burning days... you'll remember. It's not just the mass women's vote either. There's an old saying... If mommas not happy, nobody's happy! Even stubborn men have a way of coming around fairly quickly to this reality... and Pro-Choice is about fairness to women.

And who said that's how they would rule anyway? We have a standing decision. You extrapolate out to your fondest conclusion. There are many, many instances where the Supreme Court finds some middle ground ruling. They could not rule on the personhood issue and send it back to the states as a States Rights/community control issue (not gonna happen either but it is legally possible).

Like I said if everyone just is a tad bit realistic and considers the standing judgment and then thinks of our younger MTV/BET generation that are constantly becoming new voters it is clear a woman's right to choose will be protected.

Like I said I'll check back from time to time to see how your fight is progressing. We'll just have to agree to disagree and live with the current ruling for now.

 

[palerider]

So we remain in a position where you can't effectively argue against any point that I have made and are left parrotting the obvious fact that abortion is still legal.

Oddly enough, that is the very position pro choice lawyers find themselves in as new challenges to Roe make their way through the progressively higher courts. If it were otherwise, the challenges would be struck down in the lower courts.

Your state of denial over the fact that the world has moved on since 1972 is amusing though. Keep it up. It gives folks like me an opportunity to demonstrate how few actual ideas and original thoughts you actually possess.

 

[top gun]

So we remain in a position where you can't effectively argue against any point that I have made and are left parrotting the obvious fact that abortion is still legal.

Oddly enough, that is the very position pro choice lawyers find themselves in as new challenges to Roe make their way through the progressively higher courts. If it were otherwise, the challenges would be struck down in the lower courts.

Your state of denial over the fact that the world has moved on since 1972 is amusing though. Keep it up. It gives folks like me an opportunity to demonstrate how few actual ideas and original thoughts you actually possess.

There really is no need for your anger Pale. I don't know what you want me to say. I respect your right to an opinion. You just can't force someone to agree with you. Didn't I say let's agree to disagree?

Of course I bring up the current finding. It's my position... come on. If you're already on the winning side you don't say... I don't want to point that out. You act as if I don't understand your point. I completely do.

You believe that everything from Birth Control Pills forward are murder of a human being. You believe any woman that does these things should be brought up on "in your words" at least manslaughter charges.

So see I completely understand your position.

My position is just not the same. Yes... it somewhat mirrors the current Supreme Court ruling that's been the law all across the land for decades now. I can't help that.

I believe that there is more than just one issue at play here. (I know to you it's all about not allowing the progression or "killing"... I understand your position)

But to me there's much more to it than that. And remember I'm the father of two daughters. You have health of the mother... health of the fetus... forced implantation... inability to adequately & safely care for... abusive stronger male dominated relationships... alcohol & drug addicted parents... mentally ill parents... and the list goes on. You have the woman's right to privacy under due process. And at the end of the day you have the reality that you cannot force a woman to incubate a child... you just cannot control someone else's body that way. All you can do is force an unsafe underground medical practice.

I'm sure you've watched the movie Dirty Dancing. That's how things were, and worse, before abortion was a legal medical procedure. It didn't stop abortion. It just changed the provider. Women died because of those butchers.

So I'm not going to put you down for believing what you believe. And I'm certainly not going to force anyone to have an abortion.

I just try to look at everything and make a decision. And to me the conclusion always comes back to this. Try to push hard for the use of birth control including The Pill to help prevent pregnancies and let the woman herself choose the path she must travel in the event of an abortion according to her own individual medical and personal situation. Bottom line my main concern is for the safety of the woman.

I know to you that makes me a bad person. But as a father and a grandfather and a husband and a girls basketball coach who's dealt with my share of women & girls over the years I'm comfortable with my position.