Should Abortion Be Made Illegal Based On The State You Live In?

[columbus]

So the baby's right to life is conditional upon the parents' behavior?

As usual, that's irrelevant to what I posted.
Tom

 

[1213]

Should Abortion Be Made Illegal Based On The State You Live In?

I think murder is already illegal. The problem is that some don’t think all people are really humans.

 

[columbus]

Well, if you aren't willing to believe that childbirth is an excrutiatingly painful experience (which it is) then I can't help you. Making someone suffer against their will is what we call torture.

It isn't against their will when there's a completely safe, free, and available method for avoiding it, but a couple of people chose something else. All competent adults know where babies come from.
Tom

 

[Father Heathen]

No, states should not be allowed to sidestep the constitution and deny people their rights and liberties.

 

[epronovost]

It isn't against their will when there's a completely safe, free, and available method for avoiding it, but a couple of people chose something else. All competent adults know where babies come from.
Tom

Contraception sometime fails for a variety of reasons. Every adult knows this too. Statistically about half of all women requesting abortion were using contraceptive methods (though the nature of those method is not mentionned and some are far less efficient then others)

 

[Father Heathen]

I think murder is already illegal. The problem is that some don’t think all people are really humans.

The problem is that people want to grant personhood to things that lack most if not all of the necessary defining attributes.

 

[Nakosis]

It might become necessary as over-population increases.

I wonder how the religious folks would feel about that. No mistreatment of fetuses involved.

Requiring a license to have kids. Even more intrusive but necessary. Funny I don't have any personal moral issues with that. Governmental control over your right to procreate. Doesn't mean you can't have kids, just need to show one is mentally and financially capable of raising a child.

 

[epronovost]

Doesn't mean you can't have kids, just need to show one is mentally and financially capable of raising a child.

It's not THAT big of a leap. We already require such proofs for people who want to adopt children. The only problem though would be what to do with those who would break this law; forced adoption, force abortion?

 

[Revoltingest]

I wonder how the religious folks would feel about that. No mistreatment of fetuses involved.

Requiring a license to have kids. Even more intrusive but necessary. Funny I don't have any personal moral issues with that. Governmental control over your right to procreate. Doesn't mean you can't have kids, just need to show one is mentally and financially capable of raising a child.

These believers who are compelled to go forth &
multiply might have to re-think that some day.

 

[metis]

Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts stated that Roe v Wade is highly unlikely to be ever overturned, although it might be modified over time. He says basically it's the law of the land and that the vast majority of Americans don't want it totally ended.

Also, just a reminder that under American law, a woman may have full constitutional rights but an unborn baby/fetus doesn't. Thus, different sets of rules apply to each.

To the OP question, I choose "no" because the issue really has to relate one way or the other to the Constitution itself, and such decisions will not vary from state to state.

BTW, while I'm at it, why is it that the right so much worried about the unborn child but care so little about the born child? If I have to explain this to someone, then this someone isn't following the news.

BTW, I am pro-life, thus I would recommend against abortion if asked, plus I'm against capital punishment and am anti-war except in cases of self-defense (see Just-War Theory). So many on the right one are pro-life only when it comes to the issue of abortion, which I tend to think is being hypocritical.

 

[columbus]

Contraception sometime fails for a variety of reasons. Every adult knows this too.

Nope, not all contraceptive techniques have a failure rate. Not having one particular variety of sex has a 100% effective rate. Doesn't mean you can't have any sex, just not that one.
And frankly, if both partners are using modern birth control, there's not going to be a problem. But if, for whatever reason, that doesn't work for them there's always the fail safe option.
Choosing not to use it doesn't give you the right to choose death for another human being. IMNSHO.

For most of USA history, lots of people had no rights. Natives, blacks, women, queers, one aspect of moral improvements in this country is expanding the people who have basic human rights. I see the unborn as the next group.
Tom

 

[epronovost]

BTW, while I'm at it, why is it that the right so much worried about the unborn child but care so little about the born child?

In my opinion it's because a lot of people are enamoured with the ideal of children, but don't have much love, respect or interest for actual people. Basically, in a strange perversion of humanism, the ideal of humanity trumps actual humans in some people's mind and moral reasonning.

 

[epronovost]

And frankly, if both partners are using modern birth control, there's not going to be a problem. But if, for whatever reason, that doesn't work for them there's always the fail safe option.
Tom

What's the fail safe? (in my understanding that would be abortion. If all other methods of contraception are a failure, abortion becomes the fail safe option)

PS: no contraception measure has a success rate of a 100% even full castration as you could have a botched castration for example. More realistically the very best method like vasectomy have no failure rates as long as the operation is done successfully though these method are often costly and permanent. The most common method of contraception the birth control pill and condoms have a failure rate of about 1-2% when used properly and about 20% when used improperly. All that to say lack of education and sometime access to contraception is a serious problem.

 

[Nakosis]

It's not THAT big of a leap. We already require such proofs for people who want to adopt children. The only problem though would be what to do with those who would break this law; forced adoption, force abortion?

I'm think along the line of some kind of temporary sterility starting at age 9? Something that could be medically reversed. I don't know if people would be happy separating kids from parents regardless of how incompetent they are shown to be. Probably give them to folks who can't have kids but otherwise shown to be competent.

 

[columbus]

What's the fail safe? (in my understanding that would be abortion. If all other methods of contraception are a failure, abortion becomes the fail safe option)

Generic term is abstinence.
That doesn't mean abstaining from sex altogether. Just one particular variety of sex.
Tom

 

[Maximus]

First, abortion is a "constitutional" right. However, there isn't strong basis for it.

"Abortion is not a constitutional right according to the strict text of the Constitution, but it has been justified as a constitutional right under the Fourth Amendment’s protection of privacy. In short, the constitutional right to abortion is found not in the Constitution itself, but in a loose reading of it.

This constitutional argument is often used by pro-abortionists. As former U.S. President Barack Obama once asserted, “I remain committed to protecting a woman’s right to choose and this fundamental constitutional right.”1 Obama, once a law professor, should have known that this right doesn’t actually exist ― the Supreme Court literally conjured it out of thin air."

Why You’re Told There’s a Constitutional Right to Abortion

One of the arguments against it is the right of the unborn fetus and when life begins.

Only life begats life, so it appears science backs up the Bible and that life begins at conception.

"Human Life comes into existence in just a fraction of an instant. You have a human egg and a human sperm and their sole purpose in life is to meet each other and fuse, to create a one cell human being."

When Does Life Begin | Just The Facts

"“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
and before you were born jI consecrated you;
I appointed you a prophet kto the nations.” Jeremiah 1:5

Thus, there is a factual case to be made for a fetus' rights.

Thus, these rights could trump the rights of the woman.

Thus, I thought what would be a good start to change.

How can the Supreme Court change this? Does it have to be at their level?

"There are three major ways in which a Supreme Court decision can be overturned.

If the decision is based on a law that Congress has passed, Congress can simply change the law. The Court sometimes has to rule on how they think laws made by Congress apply to certain cases. If Congress thinks the Court has gotten it wrong, they can change the law to make things clearer."

Finally, if anyone can clarify the issues I listed and linked to above, then please add your intelligent comments.

Also, read the poll question before voting. It is asking to make it a state's rights issue in lieu of Fourth Amendment rights.

Other: make it illegal in all states.

 

[columbus]

I'm think along the line of some kind of temporary sterility starting at age 9?

If this ever becomes an option, then it will become an issue.
But it isn't at the moment, so it doesn't matter.
Tom

 

[columbus]

Other: make it illegal in all states.

All abortions?
My mom would have died if all abortions were illegal.
Tom

 

[epronovost]

Generic term is abstinence.
That doesn't mean abstaining from sex altogether. Just one particular variety of sex.
Tom

That's not really a ''fail safe'' a fail safe is supposed to be something you can do when things go wrong. You can't retroactively not have sex or use better, more numerous and or more efficient method of contraception.

 

[metis]

In my opinion it's because a lot of people are enamoured with the ideal of children, but don't have much love, respect or interest for actual people. Basically, in a strange perversion of humanism, the ideal of humanity trumps actual humans in some people's mind and moral reasonning.

Yes, but I also believe it goes well beyond that in that all so many on the right simply put $ and power over the welfare of children. They don't want to pay for universal healthcare, or better schools, or cleaner water & air, or subsidized day care, or sensible gun control, or a better safety net, etc.