This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Oklahoma Introduces barbaric abortion law
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Squishalot
Even if it said "Article One - Abortion - It is perfectly fine for a woman to choose to have an abortion, and for a doctor to carry it out" it would still be wrong. Even if every judge in the world agreed that abortion were fine.
But, at least in that case, it would definitely be constitutional, even if it were wrong.
The Constitution can be modified. It's a hell of a process, but nothing in it is set in stone. And it's definitely NOT the Supreme Court that holds the power to modify it.
Besides which - I don't think the constitution is this unclear in a lot of matters. Abortion was not something it was designed to deal with when it was written. Even the fourteenth amendment, I believe, goes back to Reconstruction.
I know it can be modified - just look at all the amendments you guys have in yours ;)
My point is that if you have something as nebulous as 'rights', without specifically stating what rights they are, what actions they impact, you're always going to be at risk of a panel of judges on the Supreme Court to interpret it in ways that may or may not agree with how the public want it to be interpreted.
Post by
Heckler
The Constitution is a document which
restricts
what the
government
can do. It is NOT a document which outlines
all
of your rights. One of the biggest argument against including the Bill of Rights in the Constitution was exactly that -- that people would come to think that because certain rights were explicitly outlined, that was all you get, and that was all that was protected.
The text of the Ninth Amendment (which I already quoted) was written precisely for this purpose.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
In other words, the fact that the Constitution does not guarantee a "Freedom of Abortion" cannot be used as an argument to outlaw it. (It could be argued that abortion is a violation of the Life and Liberty of the unborn fetus, but as outlined in
Roe v. Wade
, a fetus is not considered a person until it is "viable," meaning it can survive outside the womb).
Your arguments along the lines of "So what if the Judges decided, that doesn't mean they're right, and that doesn't make it Constitutional" are somewhat... wrong. Thats exactly what it means, and unless / until it is overturned, it is the Law of the Land. Period.
It's impossible to be a "literal interpretor" of the Constitution and simultaneously ignore the opinions of the Supreme Court, since the Constitution explicitly grants them "appellate Jurisdiction as to Fact."
My point is that if you have something as nebulous as 'rights', without specifically stating what rights they are, what actions they impact, you're always going to be at risk of a panel of judges on the Supreme Court to interpret it in ways that may or may not agree with how the public want it to be interpreted.
This is exactly the reasoning behind the due process clause, exactly. The Constitution was specifically designed NOT to enumerate all the rights of man, but instead restrict the action of government and grant
all
other power to the people. And you're right, it is vague and "risky" -- exactly as it was intended to be.
To me, it seems to set the precedent that just because something is done behind closed doors and doesn't impact on other people, it's automatically sanctioned by a 'right to privacy', even if it's not 'right'. It doesn't seem an unreasonable jump from preventing restrictions on abortion to preventing restrictions on suicide, illicit drug usage and incest.
Again, you've precisely described the idea of "rights of privacy" (or life and liberty if you prefer). And again you're exactly right that its not much of a leap to prevent restrictions on all those things, or any number of other things done behind closed doors (except that incest and suicide could easily be argued as an infringement of the life and liberty of a person, which would therefore be unconstitutional, regardless of where it's done).
I think a majority of Americans like it that way -- I know I do.
Even if it said "Article One - Abortion - It is perfectly fine for a woman to choose to have an abortion, and for a doctor to carry it out" it would still be wrong. Even if every judge in the world agreed that abortion were fine.
I support your right to this opinion, and if you're ever in the position to make the decision, you can decide however you want. But your beliefs do not dictate the liberties, rights, and freedoms of everyone else. The only way they do is if you take the initiative to prove that enough of the Country agrees with you that the Constitution should be amended to say "A fetus is a person at the moment of conception."
Until that happens, what you believe to be right or wrong means little in regard to the actions of others, which is exactly how it should be.
Post by
MyTie
Until that happens, what you believe to be right or wrong means little in regard to the actions of others, which is exactly how it should be.
I completely agree. Even if I am right, I personally shouldn't be allowed to force others to do right.
Post by
Skreeran
Or, you know, murdering one's child, as long as it's not a health risk to the mother. But that'd be MyTie's argument to fight, not mine.
I agree. Murduring a child is not ever acceptible. This holds true, even if that child is doomed anyway, and even if it means saving every other human being on earth. If the decision were mine, and mine alone, and every single human being, including the fetus, begged me to perform the abortion, and it would save every life except the fetus, and the fetus was already doomed, and the fetus were going to grow up to be Hitler, I wouldn't perform the abortion. Abortion is wrong.
The US Constitution doesn't have the words 'abortion' anywhere in it. This 'right to privacy' might as well be stretched to the murder of your teenager, or domestic violence, or
anything
. Besides, I don't see 'privacy' anywhere in the constition either. Even if it said "Article One - Abortion - It is perfectly fine for a woman to choose to have an abortion, and for a doctor to carry it out" it would still be wrong. Even if every judge in the world agreed that abortion were fine.
If I stood alone in my opinion completely, distinct from every other human, and every other law, for all time. I would find still find it grotesque and abhorrant that anyone could in good conscious possibly end the life of thier own offspring, for any reason.
Maybe this comes more with being a parent, and with age, when you start to appreciate life, but then again the supreme court justices are all older than I am.And this is precisely why I give your opinion no value.
Everything
is circumstantial. If a woman will die if her pregnancy is not terminated, it is in absolutely no way
your
right to say that she cannot. If a woman is raped and does not want to bear her rapists' child,
you
have no right to tell
her
that she cannot terminate
her
pregnancy (provided that the "baby" is still undeveloped, of course. She should certainly be given a window, though.)
Everything
is circumstantial. If I was a leader in the Allied forces in World War 2, and one of my sniper's had a shot at Hitler, I'd give the order in a heartbeat, even though killing is considered "wrong." Killing is often wrong, but there are no absolutes. It all comes down to circumstance.
Post by
Squishalot
In other words, the fact that the Constitution does not guarantee a "Freedom of Abortion" cannot be used as an argument to outlaw it.
I never said that it can be used as an argument to outlaw it. I just said that the Constitution doesn't state either way, explicitly, whether abortion is 'in' or not.
Your arguments along the lines of "So what if the Judges decided, that doesn't mean they're right, and that doesn't make it Constitutional" are somewhat... wrong. Thats exactly what it means, and unless / until it is overturned, it is the Law of the Land. Period.
I never said that either, so I'm not sure where you pulled that from. That's paraphrased by you, and a misinterpretation of what I said:
" the Constitution is written in such a way that a number of different panels of judges can come to a different conclusion about it, then it's not clearly defined in the Constitution now, is it?"
And in fact, going back to the original comment:
No, that would be 'unconstitutional.'Using inverted commas is correct. It is likely to be seen as unconstitutional, on the basis of precedent, but there's nothing clear in the US Constitution that would definitely make it unconstitutional.
I never made a judgement of whether anything was right. All I said was that the judiciary may not interpret the Constitution in the way that the people want, which is the risk.
It's impossible to be a "literal interpretor" of the Constitution and simultaneously ignore the opinions of the Supreme Court, since the Constitution explicitly grants them "appellate Jurisdiction as to Fact."
Again, I never said that anyone should ignore the opinions of the Supreme Court. In re-reading all of my posts, I'm still not sure how you came to that conclusion.
This is exactly the reasoning behind the due process clause, exactly. The Constitution was specifically designed NOT to enumerate all the rights of man, but instead restrict the action of government and grant all other power to the people. And you're right, it is vague and "risky" -- exactly as it was intended to be.
Yes, I realise that. Again though, I don't believe (opinion) that it's the best approach to take because of its subjectivity, because the power hasn't been granted to the people, it's been granted to the judiciary as the interpreters of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. This view is echoed in discussions between the legal experts who are currently discussing the issues of whether it's worth introducing a Bill of Rights in Australia.
Finally - all I was saying was that abortion is not unconstitutional in its own right. It has been deemed to be unconstitutional by a panel of judges, based on their interpretation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. That is very different to what MyTie gave as an example, which would be very explicitly defined to restrict governments from preventing abortions.
Everything is circumstantial. If I was a leader in the Allied forces in World War 2, and one of my sniper's had a shot at Hitler, I'd give the order in a heartbeat, even though killing is considered "wrong." Killing is often wrong, but there are no absolutes. It all comes down to circumstance.
It's morality, there is no right answer. Everyone has their own moral code, and in some moral codes, there are absolutes. You can't absolutely say that there are no moral absolutes :P
Post by
MyTie
Everything
is circumstantial. If a woman will die if her pregnancy is not terminated, it is in absolutely no way
your
right to say that she cannot. If a woman is raped and does not want to bear her rapists' child,
you
have no right to tell
her
that she cannot terminate
her
pregnancy (provided that the "baby" is still undeveloped, of course. She should certainly be given a window, though.)
What is that window? Who decides it? Based on what? You give my views no merit based on the fact that I think abortion is wrong no matter what, however you think abortion is wrong based on your own arbitrary discerning, and you find that acceptible. How is one justified and the other not? Why is it no longer ok at some point? Why is it no longer ok after birth?
I say that no human can know when it is 'ok', so we shouldn't do it. You say that there is an authority on such a thing, even though there is not.
Until I see something that verifies for me, with proper authority and proof, that there is no human being ended, I will not excuse the inexcusable. Perhaps that information will come someday, and I will have to rethink my views, but until then, I CANNOT ACCEPT unfounded opinions of any human as reasoning for ending another human.
Post by
273605
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Heckler
"Breaking News" (6pm PST, 5/3/10):
New Oklahoma Abortion Restrictions Temporarily Blocked
Interestingly enough, both sides agreed to the restraining order without a hearing. Worth reading.
Post by
107106
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
So, murder is wrong, even if it would save everyone in the world?
Huh... Oh I'm sorry, what's that about Jesus? No, no, MyTie apparently DOESN'T think he should have given himself up for everyone else's salvation. That's a shame. I guess these filthy heathen non-christians just can't understand his sacrifice.
The Jews were wrong to murder Jesus, that is correct, however it was a very compassionate thing for Jesus to allow it, and for a greater good. I really don't see what this has to do with abortion, though.
Post by
Skreeran
Everything
is circumstantial. If a woman will die if her pregnancy is not terminated, it is in absolutely no way
your
right to say that she cannot. If a woman is raped and does not want to bear her rapists' child,
you
have no right to tell
her
that she cannot terminate
her
pregnancy (provided that the "baby" is still undeveloped, of course. She should certainly be given a window, though.)
What is that window? Who decides it? Based on what? You give my views no merit based on the fact that I think abortion is wrong no matter what, however you think abortion is wrong based on your own arbitrary discerning, and you find that acceptible. How is one justified and the other not? Why is it no longer ok at some point? Why is it no longer ok after birth?
I say that no human can know when it is 'ok', so we shouldn't do it. You say that there is an authority on such a thing, even though there is not.
Until I see something that verifies for me, with proper authority and proof, that there is no human being ended, I will not excuse the inexcusable. Perhaps that information will come someday, and I will have to rethink my views, but until then, I CANNOT ACCEPT unfounded opinions of any human as reasoning for ending another human.If someone can not do what was necessary to be done for the greater good, I find that person spineless, not righteous. I'd kill a man to save my brother, certainly. It's not always going to be easy, and it's not always going to be fair, but if something has to be done, it has to be done. If humanity's survival depended on me killing a baby with the bubonic plague, I wouldn't enjoy it, and I would try every possible alternative, but if it meant saving countless others, then I would do what is necessary.
The Jews were wrong to murder Jesus, that is correct, however it was a very compassionate thing for Jesus to allow it, and for a greater good. I really don't see what this has to do with abortion, though.The Romans killed Jesus (theoretically at least) at the Pharisees' behest. The leaders of the Jews were corrupt, yes, but you can hardly just sum it up as "the Jews."
What it has to do with your argument is this: God let humans kill
his son
(again, apparently), for the purposes of saving the rest of the human race. A sacrifice for the greater good.
Post by
Orranis
Murduring a child is not ever acceptible. This holds true, even if that child is doomed anyway, and even if it means saving every other human being on earth. If the decision were mine, and mine alone, and every single human being, including the fetus, begged me to perform the abortion, and it would save every life except the fetus, and the fetus was already doomed, and the fetus were going to grow up to be Hitler, I wouldn't perform the abortion. Abortion is wrong.
So, murder is wrong, even if it would save everyone in the world?
Huh... Oh I'm sorry, what's that about Jesus? No, no, MyTie apparently DOESN'T think he should have given himself up for everyone else's salvation. That's a shame. I guess these filthy heathen non-christians just can't understand his sacrifice.
I agree with you, but that was a terrible analogy and a cheap shot.
In his mind, one is the sacrifice of another, while the other is the sacrifice of oneself.
MyTie looks at that action as killing a fetus, which I don't really count as alive, but I would look at it as killing everyone else besides for a fetus. I only look at the net production and the intent.
If I am intending to save many, even if the process involves killing, and I have saved more than I have killed, it is not evil.
MyTie, would you kill thousands of fetuses to save one? That is essentially what I think you would have been doing in that situation.
Post by
pezz
Murduring a child is not ever acceptible. This holds true, even if that child is doomed anyway, and even if it means saving every other human being on earth. If the decision were mine, and mine alone, and every single human being, including the fetus, begged me to perform the abortion, and it would save every life except the fetus, and the fetus was already doomed, and the fetus were going to grow up to be Hitler, I wouldn't perform the abortion. Abortion is wrong.
So, murder is wrong, even if it would save everyone in the world?
Huh... Oh I'm sorry, what's that about Jesus? No, no, MyTie apparently DOESN'T think he should have given himself up for everyone else's salvation. That's a shame. I guess these filthy heathen non-christians just can't understand his sacrifice.
Jesus made that decision for himself. Fetuses obviously do not have that autonomy.
Edit: Beat to it.
Post by
Monday
So, murder is wrong, even if it would save everyone in the world?
Huh... Oh I'm sorry, what's that about Jesus? No, no, MyTie apparently DOESN'T think he should have given himself up for everyone else's salvation. That's a shame. I guess these filthy heathen non-christians just can't understand his sacrifice.
The Jews were wrong to murder Jesus, that is correct, however it was a very compassionate thing for Jesus to allow it, and for a greater good. I really don't see what this has to do with abortion, though.
Because it's another prod against oyu by a troll.
Serously dragon, I usually respect you, but right now you appear to be in Troll Aura, and it's stupid. Get with it and actually post something good instead of veiled insults at MyTie and my religion, mkay?
Post by
Heckler
Finally - all I was saying was that abortion is not unconstitutional in its own right. It has been deemed to be unconstitutional by a panel of judges, based on their interpretation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Based on the power granted to that panel of judges by the Constitution, their interpretation
defines
whether or not it is Constitutional. You keep implying there's some difference between the text of the Constitution and the Court's Opinion, when there isn't.
You also keep implying that the text of the Constitution is too vague, when it's written that way on purpose, and is precisely the reason for the Judiciary's existence.
Post by
Monday
The Romans killed Jesus (theoretically at least) at the Pharisees' behest. The leaders of the Jews were corrupt, yes, but you can hardly just sum it up as "the Jews."
What it has to do with abortion is this: God let humans kill Jesus (again, apparently), for the purposes of saving the rest of the human race. A sacrifice for the greater good.
Never mind the masses that screamed for his death right?
Pilot (IIRC) condemned him because the people wanted him to.
Post by
273605
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
I'm gunna be mature about this. Just gunna say this from the start.
I do understand your point of view on how abortion is wrong. And I understand how you can think it's always wrong, I guess. But what I don't understand is why the one baby you're aborting is different from the babies you would essentially be killing, or letting die, I should say, by not aborting it.
Even though killing is always wrong, if you were given the choice to directly kill (read: abort) one baby, while killing every one else in the world, or save everyone else in the world and abort the baby, you would let that one baby live for the sole reason that it was the one you would have to kill to save everyone else?You were very mature about it. Thanks.
The answer is, in short, yes.
The answer in long is, I am not the judge of when a means is made right by the ends. What I'm saying, in another way, is that if I were to use my own moral judgement in any given situation, it would be subjective, and therefore I would have to accept everyone's subjective moral judgements. If I think it is ok to abort a life to save a life based on my opinion, then why couldn't
I say that it is ok to abort a life to save money on my car insurance, or just because I felt like it. In subjectively, my mind is the only gauge I have, or that anyone has. I must reject, with all my heart, the idea that morality is subjective. If it is, then it changes with opinions, and nothing is truely right, and nothing is truely wrong. If nothing is right, then everything is purposeless. I must embrace the idea that morality is objective. So what is the objective source of my morals? I have to say Christianity. Others in this thread used the Constitution, however it is liable to the subjectivity of society and the supreme court's whim. Ultimately, I look to God for my morals, which can be no more condemnable by atheists as thier own subjective morals.
So, free from my opinion, I draw from the only source that is objective.
Post by
Skreeran
The Romans killed Jesus (theoretically at least) at the Pharisees' behest. The leaders of the Jews were corrupt, yes, but you can hardly just sum it up as "the Jews."
What it has to do with abortion is this: God let humans kill Jesus (again, apparently), for the purposes of saving the rest of the human race. A sacrifice for the greater good.
Never mind the masses that screamed for his death right?
Pilot (IIRC) condemned him because the people wanted him to.Never mind the masses that believe he was the Messiah and followed him wherever he went. According to the Bible, there were quite a few of them. They were Jews too. (Again, according to the storybook. I honestly doubt whether or not Jesus even existed and was not merely a recycled myth.)
I have, or that anyone has. I must reject, with all my heart, the idea that morality is subjective. If it is, then it changes with opinions, and nothing is truely right, and nothing is truely wrong.But nothing is truly right or truly wrong. The cosmos don't care what happens on our little blue marble. All we can hope to do is what we think the right action is in any given situation.
If nothing is right, then everything is purposeless.This isn't necessarily true, even if I believe that we objectively purposeless. We have no ultimate purpose, beyond what we give ourselves. We're free, not slaves to destiny.
Ultimately, I look to God for my morals, which can be no more condemnable by atheists as thier own subjective morals.Well, in a way, this is true. Your decision to let billions die to save one life that will still die is no more wrong than my decision to kill one and save billions. However, I am left with billion of people still alive and you are not. Since you seem unable to break a single principle in order to act in the way that serves the greater good, I find that weak and spineless, even if it is no more objectively right or wrong than I am.
Post by
Monday
Never mind the masses that believe he was the Messiah and followed him wherever he went. According to the Bible, there were quite a few of them. They were Jews too.
More wanted him dead than believed him. So it mostly was just "The Jews
and
the Romans." It was both as I see it. The majority of the Jews wanted him dead as did the Roman government.
(Again, according to the storybook. I honestly doubt whether or not Jesus even existed and was not merely a recycled myth.)
We know you don't believe it, you don't have to keep sticking that in there.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.