Abortion

[Tipsy]

It seems you use arguments that have been spouted out and put down time and time again in this post.

According to your argument you stated that "Posterity", meaning future generations, was protected under the constitution. You're right but by posterity what do you mean?When the constitution was written there was no abortion. It was intended for future generations.

What do I mean when I say posterity? I mean our grandfathers, our fathers, us, our sons, etc, no matter what stage of development they are in, whether they are unborn babies, or crippled old men who live their life in a retirement home. What do I mean, it is quite simple, every single future generation from our founding fathers onward, from George Washington, to the president of the United States in the year 3000 (if it still exists then). Every single one of those people is protected by the constitution.

But not fetuses. A fetus until the third trimester cannot survive on its own, without the mother.

There are a lot of people who cannot survive on their own who are already born and depend on other such as people with mental illnesses, does that mean that when they are perfectly healthy except in the mind that they should just be murdered because they are no longer wanted? If a person requires medical treatment and require some sort of device to help them sustain their life until their body can again, does that mean we should just pull the plug on people that will have a full recovery, just temporarily cannot support themselves? If somebody is laying on the street bleeding to death does that mean that they shouldn't be brought to the hospital to be saved because at that time in their life, their body requires the support from others, through different medical practices? And should this argument also mean we might as kill our just born babies because they too with their mental capacity still require others to care for them and cannot what is necessary for them to live.

And is not protected under the constitution. If that were the case then every time I jerked off (don't laugh) I would have killed over billions and billions of children at a time.

What potential life does sperm have without an egg? I'll answer that for you, none. There is no potential life in sperm alone.

The constitution protects people..its Present Citizens. Not future, or would be, citizens.

Yet it says that the Constitution is being made to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. You cannot change the meaning of a word to fit it to your likings.

If that were the case we would have to physically name every fetus and get it a conception certificate and have legal proof that it exsisted as a citizen. Which you can in no way prove.

I believe someone already said this example, but if by some sort of fire or something, all proof of my existence is destroyed, does that mean that I no longer have the right to live? There are millions of people in countries that do not have birth certificates, does that mean they we can just kill them because there is no legal proof they exist as a citizen of their home country?

 

[Lizardbreath]

It seems you use arguments that have been spouted out and put down time and time again in this post.


What do I mean when I say posterity? I mean our grandfathers, our fathers, us, our sons, etc, no matter what stage of development they are in, whether they are unborn babies, or crippled old men who live their life in a retirement home. What do I mean, it is quite simple, every single future generation from our founding fathers onward, from George Washington, to the president of the United States in the year 3000 (if it still exists then). Every single one of those people is protected by the constitution.

-Well then I will rebuttle this by saying that it could potentially harm the posterity of this unborn child if it is born. Lets say a couple have sex and they concieve a child. But wait. This couple is poor and cannot even afford to pay for the prenatal care. So they opt for an abortion. It is not your right to say they cannot. It is the mother's right to say whether or not she wants to carry out the full 9 months of pregnancy. And they are only protected once they are born. Until then they are not even considered citizens.


There are a lot of people who cannot survive on their own who are already born and depend on other such as people with mental illnesses, does that mean that when they are perfectly healthy except in the mind that they should just be murdered because they are no longer wanted? If a person requires medical treatment and require some sort of device to help them sustain their life until their body can again, does that mean we should just pull the plug on people that will have a full recovery, just temporarily cannot support themselves? If somebody is laying on the street bleeding to death does that mean that they shouldn't be brought to the hospital to be saved because at that time in their life, their body requires the support from others, through different medical practices? And should this argument also mean we might as kill our just born babies because they too with their mental capacity still require others to care for them and cannot what is necessary for them to live.

-These people however are already born. I am not saying have a child and then kill it after you have already given birth. You are describing abortion as if people have a child and it is outside the mother and they kill it. For the first two trimesters the fetus will not survive outside. Even if you did a c-section it still would not be able to survive with medical help.


What potential life does sperm have without an egg? I'll answer that for you, none. There is no potential life in sperm alone.


Yet it says that the Constitution is being made to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. You cannot change the meaning of a word to fit it to your likings.

-Your changing it yourself. Posterity is the future and a human beings future. Not an unborn child that has no legal documentation. It has no rights until it is born and given a birth certificate.


I believe someone already said this example, but if by some sort of fire or something, all proof of my existence is destroyed, does that mean that I no longer have the right to live? There are millions of people in countries that do not have birth certificates, does that mean they we can just kill them because there is no legal proof they exist as a citizen of their home country?

-No. We don't kill them. BECAUSE THEY ARE ALREADY BORN. Your taking my words to an extreme and making petty arguments that are irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

I have a headache...stupid essays.

 

[Tipsy]

-Well then I will rebuttle this by saying that it could potentially harm the posterity of this unborn child if it is born. Lets say a couple have sex and they concieve a child. But wait. This couple is poor and cannot even afford to pay for the prenatal care. So they opt for an abortion. It is not your right to say they cannot. It is the mother's right to say whether or not she wants to carry out the full 9 months of pregnancy. And they are only protected once they are born. Until then they are not even considered citizens.

So because a parent is poor they magically gain the right to break the constitution. I have yet to see any argument that has made any room at all on making any progress in disproving anything in my argument. The various points I have made are a single argument, you say that basically a mother has right of privacy is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy, which is exactly what the Supreme Court says, and I have that in a quote in my argument. That deals with how Roe vs Wade was justified by Griswold vs Connecticut. My point is, that if the ammendment that was made to make it illegal to have blacks as not 'full persons', how could it ever be used to justify to legalize making babies not 'full persons'. So there you go, read over a few times so that you can understand my whole argument, and attack is as a whole, it all fits together in one piece. If it was just the preamble then you might be right, but it is a collection of different legal documents and cases.

Since the next two fit together, I'll answer them together:

Your changing it yourself. Posterity is the future and a human beings future. Not an unborn child that has no legal documentation. It has no rights until it is born and given a birth certificate.

No. We don't kill them. BECAUSE THEY ARE ALREADY BORN. Your taking my words to an extreme and making petty arguments that are irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

So you are saying that because there is no documentation, then these people don't have rights. That sounds like saying, just because you are black, you have no rights.

Since Undead Cheese phrased it quite nicely, I'll just quote him to answer this:
From what I've seen the only people who have even pointed that out as a possibility are the supporters of abortion trying to create an inconsistency in the pro-life argument that simply does not exist. Sperm and eggs have absolutely zero potential for becomming human beings by themselves, as each of them only possess 23 of the necessary 46 chromosomes a human needs.

Other than that, the stages that take place in the womb are normal processes of development during the human lifespan, and thus should be considered part of it. These developments are no different than those that take place during infancy, adolescence, and throughout a human's entire lifespan. Their genetic code is identical to grown humans; they are merely at a different stage of development. Descrimination by age or physical characteristics is outlawed by the constitution.
[Blue colored text was written by Undead Cheese]

Since that beyond a doubt shows that unborn babies are infact 'human', then let me go on and say that your argument violates human rights. Not only the rights guarenteed by our constitution, but also the rights given on an international basis such as what is guarenteed in the International Covenant on economic, social, and cultural rights.

 

[Lizardbreath]

An unborn baby has no constitutional right. Which I have proven. Your argument takes a word and stretches it to something that is not in fact here yet. A fetus is a part of the birth process, yes. Does it have any legal protection? no. The mother that carries it does. That doesn't give her the right to commit murder. That just gives her the right to choose whether or not she wants to have this baby or not. ITS NOT YOUR CHOICE. ITS THEIRS.

I have said this time and time again. You are arguing two different points. A live and breathing human being. And an unborn one. It has no rights until it is born.

If you want me to argue your style. Then that means a pregnant women can walk over here from mexico and walk back and she just gave her baby citizenship. You might want to read your own argument and actually LISTEN to what I am saying before you post the same baseless bullshit again.

EDIT: BTW tipsy I love you in a non-homophobic way.

 

[Sogeking]

Then do you think its perfectally fine for a pregnant woman to smoke, get drunk, get high, etc. while she has the fetus inside of her body?

 

[amrtin77]

if she plans on keeping the baby then doing those things would only ruin the childs life. if she is aborting the baby, then smoking/ drinking/ ect matters not. its an interesting point, but i guess it goes along with the whole "is the baby wanted" thing.

sure it has no legal rights, but if your going to have the baby, and not abort it, then dont **** it up with drugs.

 

[Lizardbreath]

Sadly I don't think it is fine. But is it my decision what she does? No. God gave us the right to make decisions. If we make the wrong ones it is our own fault. And the government should not step in and say that a women has to give birth to a child.

Edit:

 

[Undead Cheese]

And the government should not step in and say that a women has to give birth to a child.

The government isn't forcing any women to have children. Did the government impregnate them? No? Didn't think so. How did they become pregnant, then? Could it be because they chose to have sex, and in doing so chose to accept the consequences? Of course not; it goes against your fantasy version of the world! It must be false!

An unborn baby has no constitutional right. Which I have proven.

I must have missed that. I haven't seen you prove anything, but perhaps I missed it. Quote?

Your argument takes a word and stretches it to something that is not in fact here yet.

Take Reading Comprehension 101, please. If you had actually taken the time to read his arguments, you'd know that they don't solely focus on that one word in the preamble.

That just gives her the right to choose whether or not she wants to have this baby or not. ITS NOT YOUR CHOICE. ITS THEIRS.

Exactly, it is their choice. They chose to have sex and were fully aware of the possible consequences of their actions. (excluding cases of rape)

I have said this time and time again. You are arguing two different points. A live and breathing human being. And an unborn one. It has no rights until it is born.

You have yet to explain why birth is some miraculous event that entitles someone to basic human rights. Why should I be able to kill a fetus one hour pre-birth as opposed to one hour post-birth? As I've already stated, a fetus is genetically identical to a fully grown human and is going through a normal stage in human development. How do you define a human? Genetics, not age. The constitution forbids discrimination based on age or physical characteristics, so it is therefore unconstitutional to say a fetus is any less than human simply because they lack certain characteristics you feel magically qualifies them.

Then that means a pregnant women can walk over here from mexico and walk back and she just gave her baby citizenship.

Well the whole "walking here from Mexico" part would be illegal as it would completely bypass our border security. But, nevertheless, I don't see how killing the child would somehow be better, especially since it's obviously in the very late stages of the third trimester in your scenario.

 

[Lizardbreath]

The government doesn't have a right too step in and say " you have to have this baby." The constitution gives the individual the freedom to choose as he pleases as long as he doesn't disobey the local laws. You wanna outlaw sex? It's their choice to have sex and it is their choice to do what they want afterwards. This means that we cannot use birth control because this prevents a baby from being born and is murdering them.

EDIT: And they can choose to end their own pregnancy.

 

[Lights]

The government doesn't have a right too step in and say " you have to have this baby." The constitution gives the individual the freedom to choose as he pleases as long as he doesn't disobey the local laws. You wanna outlaw sex? It's their choice to have sex and it is their choice to do what they want afterwards. This means that we cannot use birth control because this prevents a baby from being born and is murdering them.

EDIT: And they can choose to end their own pregnancy.

Umm.. shut up? Every point you try to raise has been thoroughly ground to dust. You are just saying the same lines that were used pages back. If you are going to continue to post, at least PLEASE bring some new material to the table. Please. You're wasting eveyone's time.

If you are seriously asking if we believe 'sex should be outlawed' leave this thread and don't look back. For the sake of your pride as a member.

:/

 

[Sogeking]

The government doesn't have a right too step in and say " you have to have this baby." The constitution gives the individual the freedom to choose as he pleases as long as he doesn't disobey the local laws. You wanna outlaw sex? It's their choice to have sex and it is their choice to do what they want afterwards. This means that we cannot use birth control because this prevents a baby from being born and is murdering them.

EDIT: And they can choose to end their own pregnancy.

ok, lets compare your point to that of slave owners wanting to keep slaves back in the 1800's:

in the US, it was perfectally legal prior to the American Civil War to own slaves as you would a beast of burden. the argument the slave owners had against banning of slavery must hae been something like this...

"why dont you outlaw the ownership of horses? both slaves and horses are used for labor, so why dont you take that away as well?"

seems very familiar when compared to your point of outlaw sex, sex is perfectally legal as is having horses, oxen, cows, etc. Yet, to limit and restrict the rights of another human being wether be man, woman or child, it was ruled that you cannot own them because they were(are?) all humans and shouldnt be treated like dirt.

now, there were cases back in ancient rome when slavery was perfectally fine to practice. If you were poor, you could become a slave in order to work off your debts and eventually make enough money to become a regular person again. Likewise, abortion should be allowed in some situations if it might endanger the mother's life and(this is where i would disagree) if there was a rape or a place where the woman had no say whatsoever, then she should be allowed to have the baby removed.

I disagree with that last part because i think the rapist shouls have to pay ALL the medical expenses for having the baby, and then if the mother chooses to keep the baby, the rapist should have to pay child support for at least 2 years after conception.

I believe it was undead cheese who said this, but, sperm have 0 potential to become anything and eggs have 0 potential to become anything. Untill fertilization, the sperm would merely be discarded by the body through urination or the egg would be ejected at the end of menstration. Thus, by your debate of not having sex or using birth control methods, having menstration or never using the sperm, you would be breaking the law...which would never happen. Using birth control merely stops the fertilization from happening or makes it have no effect.(not sure which)

 

[Tipsy]

The government doesn't have a right too step in and say " you have to have this baby." The constitution gives the individual the freedom to choose as he pleases as long as he doesn't disobey the local laws. You wanna outlaw sex? It's their choice to have sex and it is their choice to do what they want afterwards. This means that we cannot use birth control because this prevents a baby from being born and is murdering them.

EDIT: And they can choose to end their own pregnancy.

And this is another example of you not reading the thread. If you have been here long enough, you would know that Lights is the last person on this forum that would back me up on something that only had to do with God being in the government, quite a few example of this in the homosexuality thread. And if you can't interpret all the big words in my post about why the unborn baby has the rights, then how about you just look at the United Nations human rights documents. It applies to all human, and I don't think there is a possible argument to say an unborn baby isn't a human, that guarentees the baby everything that it needs for this case. And as I said before, if you ask me, I will quote it for you.

And as for they have the right to do whatever they want, that is true. But the thing is, I think it was Undead Cheese who gave this example, give or take the phrasing, that if you go and gamble and lose, it was your choice to gamble, and the government isn't infringing on your rights to choose when they say you have to pay the money you lost. You have the right to have sex, but with few exceptions, should you ever have the right to end your pregnancy through abortion.

And you are correct that the constitution gives the individual the freedom to choose as they please, but if they choose to steal from somebody and the government makes stealing illegal, does that infringe on your rights to choose?

Also, I second Lights':

Umm.. shut up? Every point you try to raise has been thoroughly ground to dust. You are just saying the same lines that were used pages back. If you are going to continue to post, at least PLEASE bring some new material to the table. Please. You're wasting eveyone's time.

 

[Lizardbreath]

What new material do I need to bring? You misinterprate the constitution and several legal documents wrong and you want me to bring arguments to the table? Fine. Gimme a sec. Lights STFU where have you been in this? Coming in here and like "OMGZ I AM D33 Cool LEeT Man By BAkcing SOmebODY K NoB!!!!!!#$#" I am surprised you had the mental capacity too write such a large paragraph. Back to tipsy wipsy.

As we all know before Roe Vs. Wade many women died or suffered serious medical problems from either self-induced or illegal "back-alley" abortions. Women streamed into emergency rooms with punctured wombs, massive bleeding, and rampant infections. But now that Roe vs Wade made it legal several women now can seek a medical physician to get an abortion.

Banning any type of abortion to "protect the fetus" necessarily grants rights to the fetus -- which to me is an utter perversion of individual rights. If a woman has no right to her own body, then by what logic does a fetus (which, by definition, is a biological parasite) have a right to the woman's body? Properly, an infant's rights begin after the fetus is removed from the mother's body and its umbilical cord cut.

It is a woman's individual rights -- to her life, to her liberty, and to the pursuit of her happiness (as provided in the constitution) -- that sanctions her right to have an abortion. Once "fetal rights" are granted to one stage of the pregnancy, nothing will prevent their extension to all stages. "Fetal rights" are a gimmick to destroy a woman's individual rights.

I thought I might as well throw in some numbers for you as long as I am at it.
Number of abortions per year: 1.37 Million (1996)
Number of abortions per day: Approximately 3,700
-If you outlawed abortions it would just go back to the old way where people would do back-alley abortions and several women would die anyways. So you would be supporting the killing of aproximately 1.37 million women worldwide.

Why women have abortions
1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient).

Here's a good one for the christian viewers...double standard

Who's having abortions (religion)?
Women identifying themselves as Protestants obtain 37.4% of all abortions in the U.S.; Catholic women account for 31.3%, Jewish women account for 1.3%, and women with no religious affiliation obtain 23.7% of all abortions. 18% of all abortions are performed on women who identify themselves as "Born-again/Evangelical".
(http://www.cbrinfo.org/Resources/fastfacts.html)

Roe Vs Wade
Opinion

The Supreme Court of the United States decided that states could regulate abortions only in certain circumstances but otherwise women did have a right to privacy and reproductive autonomy. The Court divided a woman’s pregnancy into three time periods: 1) during the first trimester (the first three months of pregnancy), states may not interfere with a woman’s decision to have an abortion; 2) during the second trimester, states could regulate abortions, but only if such regulation was reasonably related to the mother’s health; and, 3) during the third trimester, which occurs after the fetus (unborn child) reaches viability (the stage at which it can survive outside the mother’s body), states may regulate absolutely and ban abortions altogether in order to protect the unborn child. The woman’s right to privacy was held to be a fundamental right which could only be denied if a compelling state interest existed. Once the fetus reaches a “viable†stage of development, such a compelling point is reached because the unborn child is now given constitutional protection.

The Court held that a woman's right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy (recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut) protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision gave a woman a right to abortion during the entireity of the pregnancy and defined different levels of state interest for regulating abortion in the second and third trimesters. (http://www.roevwade.org/court.html)

Now I will go into more constitutional arguments. First lets start off with the fourteenth ammendment shall we?

The fourteenth ammendment
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

-Notice the part where it says BORN...am I the only one who is reading it that way? It says you are protected by laws when you are BORN in the U.S. Not going to be born...

Now on too the pre-amble which you say is somehow like the overviewing law of the constitution.

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. " (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.preamble.html)

-Notice how it says that it establishes the constitution of the United states of america. Which means that everything within is law. According to the fourteenth ammendment it says that you have to be born to have rights.

So I sacked all your shitty little arguments in one blow. So why don't you do me a favor and shut up.

Edit:I think you have been misled about my argument. I agreed with you that the third trimester is one that I disagree with because it is a full grown baby and can function outside.

Edit #2:
-Against your posterity argument
pos·ter·i·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (p-str-t)
n.
1. all of the offspring of a given progenitor
2. all future generations

-Now lets go on and look up offspring.

off·spring ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ôfsprng, f-)
n. pl. offspring

1. The progeny or descendants of a person, animal, or plant considered as a group.
2. A child of particular parentage.
3. A result; a product.

3. Progeny
prog·e·ny ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prj-n)
n. pl. progeny or prog·e·nies

1. One born of, begotten by, or derived from another; an offspring or a descendant.
2. Offspring or descendants considered as a group.
3. A result of creative effort; a product

Oh wait...whats this???? Through the english dictionary I have proved that you were wrong once again and misinterpretated something? Wow. What a ****ing concept.

EDIT#3: Damn this is a long ass explanation.

 

[Undead Cheese]

The government doesn't have a right too step in and say " you have to have this baby." The constitution gives the individual the freedom to choose as he pleases as long as he doesn't disobey the local laws. You wanna outlaw sex? It's their choice to have sex and it is their choice to do what they want afterwards. This means that we cannot use birth control because this prevents a baby from being born and is murdering them.

* The government isn't forcing anyone to have a baby. The woman chose to accept the risk of pregnancy by having sex.
* Exactly. The woman chose to have sex, and thus chose to accept the responsibility that goes along with it.
* Why would I want to do that? Seems to me like you're putting words in our mouths.
* Yes, it is their choice to have sex, and by having sex they have chosen to accept the potential consequences. You can't gamble all of your money, lose, and then refuse to pay the bill because it's not convenient.
* Don't argue points you know nothing about. Contraception prevents the firtilization from ever taking place, or, in other words, it stops it from happening instead of killing it after it happens.

Lights STFU where have you been in this? Coming in here and like "OMGZ I AM D33 Cool LEeT Man By BAkcing SOmebODY K NoB!!!!!!#$#" I am surprised you had the mental capacity too write such a large paragraph. Back to tipsy wipsy.

Don't be mad at him. What he said was completely accurate.

As we all know before Roe Vs. Wade many women died or suffered serious medical problems from either self-induced or illegal "back-alley" abortions. Women streamed into emergency rooms with punctured wombs, massive bleeding, and rampant infections. But now that Roe vs Wade made it legal several women now can seek a medical physician to get an abortion.

Banning any type of abortion to "protect the fetus" necessarily grants rights to the fetus -- which to me is an utter perversion of individual rights. If a woman has no right to her own body, then by what logic does a fetus (which, by definition, is a biological parasite) have a right to the woman's body? Properly, an infant's rights begin after the fetus is removed from the mother's body and its umbilical cord cut.

* I have no compassion for the women that mutilate and/or kill themselves while trying to kill their offspring.
* I know. Isn't it great?
* How does the personal convenience of the mother outweigh the fact that you're killing the fetus? Why do you consistently refuse to acknowledge that you define what a human is by genetics and not by age? Oh, that's right. Facts that contradict you. What's a better way to deal with mere facts than to just outright ignore them?
* She does have a right to her own body. She chose to have sex. She chose to make the pregnancy possible.
* Just as with all of our rights, they only extend so far as they do not infringe on the rights of others. While the woman may not like the fact that she's pregnant, the fetus' life is more valuable than her personal convenience.
* It doesn't matter if it's a parasite; it's still a human (again, genetics, not age, tell us this). If a mother gives birth to conjoined twins, but one of the childrens' lives is dependent on the use of the other's organs, than is he merely a parasite that is unworthy of life?
* Yet you can be charged with two counts of murder for killing a pregnant woman. I guess the fetus is only alive when it's convenient.

It is a woman's individual rights -- to her life, to her liberty, and to the pursuit of her happiness (as provided in the constitution) -- that sanctions her right to have an abortion. Once "fetal rights" are granted to one stage of the pregnancy, nothing will prevent their extension to all stages. "Fetal rights" are a gimmick to destroy a woman's individual rights.

Perhaps robbing banks makes me happy. Guess what? It's still illegal. Happiness is not more important than life.

I thought I might as well throw in some numbers for you as long as I am at it.
Number of abortions per year: 1.37 Million (1996)
Number of abortions per day: Approximately 3,700
-If you outlawed abortions it would just go back to the old way where people would do back-alley abortions and several women would die anyways. So you would be supporting the killing of aproximately 1.37 million women worldwide.

Again, I feel no compassion for the women who kill or mutilate themselves while attempting to kill their offspring. I really don't care about how they're too stupid to put the child up for adoption. Also, you're assuming that abortions would occur at the same rate they do today should they be made illegal, which is a complete logical fallacy.

Why women have abortions
1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient).

* Fine with me. The woman never chose to accept the risk of pregnancy in this event, and she shouldn't be held responsible for it.
* Fine.
* Not acceptable.

Here's a good one for the christian viewers...double standard

Okay, I'll ignore this since I'm an atheist.

So I sacked all your shitty little arguments in one blow. So why don't you do me a favor and shut up.

You didn't sack anyone's arguments. We already know how the supreme court ruled. We're not arguing about that, idiot. We're arguing about whether or not their ruling is morally and legally sound.

-Against your posterity argument
pos·ter·i·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (p-str-t)
n.
1. all of the offspring of a given progenitor
2. all future generations

-Now lets go on and look up offspring.

off·spring ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ôfsprng, f-)
n. pl. offspring

1. The progeny or descendants of a person, animal, or plant considered as a group.
2. A child of particular parentage.
3. A result; a product.

3. Progeny
prog·e·ny ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prj-n)
n. pl. progeny or prog·e·nies

1. One born of, begotten by, or derived from another; an offspring or a descendant.
2. Offspring or descendants considered as a group.
3. A result of creative effort; a product

Oh wait...whats this???? Through the english dictionary I have proved that you were wrong once again and misinterpretated something? Wow. What a ****ing concept.

No, you haven't proven anything. I have highlighted the definition that you chose to ignore in red.

 

[Lizardbreath]

I suggest you go back to school and read how to debate. I destroyed each and every one of the arguments presented...used sources..and you say I am wrong. Just shut up.

 

[Tipsy]

As we all know before Roe Vs. Wade many women died or suffered serious medical problems from either self-induced or illegal "back-alley" abortions. Women streamed into emergency rooms with punctured wombs, massive bleeding, and rampant infections. But now that Roe vs Wade made it legal several women now can seek a medical physician to get an abortion.

We are not talking about banning all types of abortion, they are cases where abortion may be necessary, but that does not even account for half of abortion cases.
Edit: Your numbers below can be used as my source.

Banning any type of abortion to "protect the fetus" necessarily grants rights to the fetus -- which to me is an utter perversion of individual rights. If a woman has no right to her own body, then by what logic does a fetus (which, by definition, is a biological parasite) have a right to the woman's body? Properly, an infant's rights begin after the fetus is removed from the mother's body and its umbilical cord cut.

Once again, may I use the exact thing I used to answer this last time, my quote from Undead Cheese:
From what I've seen the only people who have even pointed that out as a possibility are the supporters of abortion trying to create an inconsistency in the pro-life argument that simply does not exist. Sperm and eggs have absolutely zero potential for becomming human beings by themselves, as each of them only possess 23 of the necessary 46 chromosomes a human needs.

Other than that, the stages that take place in the womb are normal processes of development during the human lifespan, and thus should be considered part of it. These developments are no different than those that take place during infancy, adolescence, and throughout a human's entire lifespan. Their genetic code is identical to grown humans; they are merely at a different stage of development. Discrimination by age or physical characteristics is outlawed by the constitution.
[Blue colored text was written by Undead Cheese]

If you have read any of my other threads where I have mentioned John Locke, then you have heard what he said in his writing before. He said that unrestrained liberty can hurt more than it can help a society and the people within it. For example, if I want to persue my happiness by killing you (no offense intended) then is it unconstitutional for me to be punished for killing you (or at least attempted murder)? This is exactly what the mother is doing in this case. They are perusing their own happiness through an action that in any other case would be considered unconstitutional, and murder.

It is a woman's individual rights -- to her life, to her liberty, and to the pursuit of her happiness (as provided in the constitution) -- that sanctions her right to have an abortion. Once "fetal rights" are granted to one stage of the pregnancy, nothing will prevent their extension to all stages. "Fetal rights" are a gimmick to destroy a woman's individual rights.

Lights argued this a few pages back, and that is where my whole Roe vs Wade is an unconstitutional case came in. It is not the preamble, but the preamble with the support of the purpose and words of two amendments that support my case, not to mention the political philosopher who a large portion of the founding father's ideas came from, support my argument, while you only have the words "pursuit of happiness" from the preamble to support you. Which argument do you believe has more support?

I thought I might as well throw in some numbers for you as long as I am at it.
Number of abortions per year: 1.37 Million (1996)
Number of abortions per day: Approximately 3,700

-If you outlawed abortions it would just go back to the old way where people would do back-alley abortions and several women would die anyways. So you would be supporting the killing of aproximately 1.37 million women worldwide.

Notice how in the top quote, it is how many abortions occurred in the United States, and the bottom quote has 'women word wide'. And tell me how this justifies murder?

Why women have abortions
1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient).

Though I support all of that except for the 6% health problems, Bush, and what I will be fighting fore, is only the 93% of abortions. Health problems I can understand, but just because you want to kill someone because the child is unwanted is murder in my mind. And the whole 'rape and incest' thing is just another reason for not wanting the child; it should be in that 93% category.

Here's a good one for the christian viewers...double standard
Who's having abortions (religion)?
Women identifying themselves as Protestants obtain 37.4% of all abortions in the U.S.; Catholic women account for 31.3%, Jewish women account for 1.3%, and women with no religious affiliation obtain 23.7% of all abortions. 18% of all abortions are performed on women who identify themselves as "Born-again/Evangelical".
(http://www.cbrinfo.org/Resources/fastfacts.html)

So just because we belong to a group that preaches something good, we immediately come better people? No way. I know many atheists who are far better people than people who consider themselves 'Christian'. Look at John Kerry, his spiritual leader compares abortion to genocide, yet he supports it.

Roe Vs Wade
Opinion
The Supreme Court of the United States decided that states could regulate abortions only in certain circumstances but otherwise women did have a right to privacy and reproductive autonomy. The Court divided a woman’s pregnancy into three time periods: 1) during the first trimester (the first three months of pregnancy), states may not interfere with a woman’s decision to have an abortion; 2) during the second trimester, states could regulate abortions, but only if such regulation was reasonably related to the mother’s health; and, 3) during the third trimester, which occurs after the fetus (unborn child) reaches viability (the stage at which it can survive outside the mother’s body), states may regulate absolutely and ban abortions altogether in order to protect the unborn child. The woman’s right to privacy was held to be a fundamental right which could only be denied if a compelling state interest existed. Once the fetus reaches a “viable†stage of development, such a compelling point is reached because the unborn child is now given constitutional protection.

The Court held that a woman's right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy (recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut) protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision gave a woman a right to abortion during the entireity of the pregnancy and defined different levels of state interest for regulating abortion in the second and third trimesters. (http://www.roevwade.org/court.html)

Now I will go into more constitutional arguments. First lets start off with the fourteenth ammendment shall we?

The fourteenth ammendment
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

-Notice the part where it says BORN...am I the only one who is reading it that way? It says you are protected by laws when you are BORN in the U.S. Not going to be born...

Notice the part that the only thing I said about the fourteenth ammendment was that it says nothing about the rights of privacy which come from Griswold vs Connecticut. Please improve your reading comprehension. Continuing on. All this means, to help your comprehension, was the acknowledge the fact that the right of privacy comes from Griswold vs Connecticut. You are attacking something that I did not use as proof; you can go re-read and try to comprehend my original post. Now, keep that in mind while you read this next thing. Griswold vs Connecticut was justified by the ninth amendment, which reads:

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"

Remember, keep a constant train of thought when thinking about this. And to put it as I did in my other post, the decision of declaring the difference of 'potential' and 'full' human life it is an obvious breach of the ninth amendment. And if you don't remember, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, life is one of those. Life is extended to these unborn babies and gives them a unalienable right to life.

-Ran out of room, continuing in next post, split post in half to spread it over two posts so that the number of characters would be accepted-

 

[Tipsy]

Okay, so let's go over this so you can understand it:
Abortion was justified by Roe vs Wade. So far everything is legal. Roe vs Wade was justified by Griswold vs Connecticut due to the fact that this course case was showed that despite the fact that the fourteenth amendment did not have this right, there are and I pull from my other post. "There are unmentioned, yet fundamental rights within the Constitution. The lack of a specific mention of a certain right doesn't mean it does not exist. These unmentioned, fundamental rights, can not be restricted, and the 14th Amendment applies this restriction to the states.
The right to privacy was one of these rights which is not mentioned, but implied within the Constitution." Okay, everything is legal so far. Now we look at why Griswold vs Connecticut was justified. Ah, here we are, the part that makes abortion illegal. Griswold vs Connecticut was justified by the ninth amendment, which says "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people". They all go together. I hope you can understand my argument since you have only been able to attack what I do not argue so far.

Now on too the pre-amble which you say is somehow like the overviewing law of the constitution.

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. " (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.preamble.html)

-Notice how it says that it establishes the constitution of the United states of america. Which means that everything within is law. According to the fourteenth ammendment it says that you have to be born to have rights.

Answered in long response.

So I sacked all your shitty little arguments in one blow. So why don't you do me a favor and shut up.

How bout you do me a favort:
1) Attack what I argue and not what you feel like attacking such as what you did with the fourteenth ammendment.
2) Don't commit a violation of human rights in both the United States and the international community by breaching what is in our Constitution and the human rights guarenteed in the International Covenant on economic, social, and cultural rights.

Edit #2:
-Against your posterity argument
pos·ter·i·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (p-str-t)
n.
1. all of the offspring of a given progenitor
2. all future generations

-Now lets go on and look up offspring.

off·spring ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ôfsprng, f-)
n. pl. offspring

1. The progeny or descendants of a person, animal, or plant considered as a group.
2. A child of particular parentage.
3. A result; a product.

3. Progeny
prog·e·ny ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prj-n)
n. pl. progeny or prog·e·nies

1. One born of, begotten by, or derived from another; an offspring or a descendant.
2. Offspring or descendants considered as a group.
3. A result of creative effort; a product

Oh wait...whats this???? Through the english dictionary I have proved that you were wrong once again and misinterpretated something? Wow. What a ****ing concept.

And the second definition fits the one that supports my argument. Also, please tell me what sense it makes to use a 'modern' dictionary to interpret 200 year old document. Hrmm, maybe you should look into what they meant by the word posterity by looking at what some of the people who wrote the constitution thought about the topic. Regardless of which definition you use, and the preamble in itself, go deal with the

So there we go, that just about answers everything. To sum up my entire argument in one sentence: Please read my argument, then understand it, and then try to debate it.

This post because of its' length will probably have quite a bit of editing, just a warning.

 

[Lizardbreath]

Then how comes you are interpreting it as if they were talking about abortion when it is a 200 year old document? Thank you. You just answered my argument.

Edit#4397298729-3: Enough essays my eyes hurt and I am going to go clean my room now KEKEKEKE!

 

[Tipsy]

Then how comes you are interpreting it as if they were talking about abortion when it is a 200 year old document? Thank you. You just answered my argument.

Let's think...they did. Abortion is murder, and murder was 'invented', for the lack of a better word, quite a long time before 200 years ago.

 

[Undead Cheese]

I suggest you go back to school and read how to debate. I destroyed each and every one of the arguments presented...used sources..and you say I am wrong. Just shut up.

No. You obviously didn't read my post. I have not seen you refute a single one of my points yet. You cannot defeat someone's argument when you fail to address the points they make. Also, since you obviously didn't read my post, read:

You didn't sack anyone's arguments. We already know how the supreme court ruled. We're not arguing about that, idiot. We're arguing about whether or not their ruling is morally and legally sound.

Another point that you have consistently ignored:

Why do you consistently refuse to acknowledge that you define what a human is by genetics and not by age? Oh, that's right. Facts that contradict you. What's a better way to deal with mere facts than to just outright ignore them?