Roe v. Wade

Post Reply New Topic

You are right, in the sense that these analogies do not belong here. I suppose my attempt at making that very point was lost on most people.

But, in response to your first line: Ever since that "food" had a lil fetus growing in it. Mother's are thier offspring's source of sustenance, ie food. Therefore, mother's are food for thier children during pregnancy. They do more than simply feed them though, they are thier entire life support system.

So, "food" has the status of a living being, and is capable of ownership, when the "food" in question is a pregnant woman.

It's not odd thinking, it's logical rational thinking.

But the important aspect of the whole abortion debate, is when is a human, human? The issue has numerous points of view on all sides. As this thread clearly indicates. And some people are close minded about thier opinion, and even push it. Others are open minded and seek understanding. So, on top of not only differing opinions, you have differing levels of conviction in those opinions.

~NS

Everyone who argues against abortion tends to take a sort of "Everyone's going to have one if it is legalized!" tone and approach to the argument and I just had to point that out.

...and that abortion is actually legal right now.


...and that they need to start showing some empirical figures as to how this service is negatively effecting society. Note: having the number of abortions go up isn't a negative on society. The kind of crime, cost of crime, increased poverty, and increased population figures that would come with it being made illegal would be measurably on the worse side if it were to be made illegal.

Me too!

Yes.

The first thing to notice is that only live actually human beings have rights. Potential human beings have no rights that anyone is bound to recognize.

ruveyn

Although birth is an admittedly arbitrary demarcation of the point of life, or rather "legal" existence as a citizen due the protection of the state, I am quite comfortable with that on purely pragmatic grounds. Were we to choose a point prior to birth, I believe it would justifiably compel the state to investigate any and all miscarriages as potential homicides, (voluntary or involuntary). I'm not so sure that is a road we would want to, or should, go down. Basic humanity should dictate otherwise.

Again, my primary objection to Roe, is that on Constitutional grounds it is in fact unconstitutional based on the fact that it is a states right issue. Murder, as a general rule, (there are exceptions), is NOT a violation of Federal law. Should I commit the aforementioned crime in, say Texas, a different set of laws and precedents, and potential punishments would apply than if I were to commit the same offence in Alaska. I submit that the citizens of Alabama, for example, have a better handle on what is appropriate in their state than I, as a resident of Alaska, (and visa versa).

RE paternal rights; several posters have noted the disproportionate burden placed on each party, from conception through the age of either 18, or 21, of the child. My primary complaint is that the rights of the father are entirely negated in the legal process. I am of the opinion that they are, at minimum, due SOME consideration.

The main thrust of Roe was the protection of privacy, the right to which is protected under the 9th Amendment. In order for a State to illegalize abortion it must violate the privacy of a women who is pregnant. This is a 9th Amendment violation. The 9th was first invoked in Griswold v. Connecticut where the State of Connecticut outlawed the use of contraceptives. To do this, it must violate the privacy of the bedroom. The Supreme Ct, Justice Goldberg reading for the majority invoked the 9th amendment for the first time

ruveyn

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

By your argument in addition to the "right" to privacy, we have the "right" to health care, education, Lamborghini's, ad nauseum. Please support these.

No one has a right to the property of others. As to privacy that right is adumbrated in the 4th amendment which says we should be secure in our papers and personal effects.

Why not read the Constitution and see what it really says.

ruveyn

He has a valid point, but the reason why the state steps in once the child is born is because the government truly considers people the property of the state. Why do you think they push to have infants issues Social Security numbers the day they are born? So you know Social Security is still a 100% voluntary program and a minor cannot enter a contract...certainly an infant cannot. Likewise, parents cannot authorize contracts that place legal obligations upon their children.

I've often wondered about something along those lines.

I am obligated to follow the laws, but, when exactly did I ever agree to do so? Why do we force people to conform to the rules of society? Wouldn't it be simpler to hold an actual swearing in of citizenship at some point, wherein we agree to the rules and regulations set forth? And, failing to agree to the terms would be akin to having no rights or priveleges. Iono...just typing my thoughts.

The proposition of an individual to openly declare himself an outlaw (in all senses of the word) seems to me to be intensely foolish. Smart outlaws don't reveal themselves.

The Prudent Predator is most likely to succeed.

ruveyn

QUICK, SOMEONE BRING ME SOME O2....RUVEYN AND I AGREE ON SOMETHING!



There are fundamentally two ways that a society operates (no matter what names they want to assign).

The first employs a "social contract" where the citizen and the state owes duties to each other. You give loyalty and obedience to the state who has duties and obligations to protect your freedoms and property interests from harm threatened by others. If the state fails to perform its side of the deal, the citizen likewise has no lawful obligation to the state.

The other is sometimes called "thugs with guns." It basically means the state threatens the citizen with punishment for not doing what he/she is told. The state may do things to serve the interest of its citizens, but it holds no regard to any "obligation" to do so. If the state is oppressive, the citizen has no recourse.

In the first model, you and the state work in a partnership of sorts. You both mutually benefit. In the second model, no matter how good things seem to be going for you on a individual level, the simple fact is that the state regards you as a slave to its wishes.

I like to tell people that when deciding how to feel about government officials over them, they should examine how they are treated and then substitute that official for an ordinary person. Would we accept an ordinary person doing to us what a government official with a fancy title is doing? If not, why tolerate it?

Taxes are not handed over freely. It's done under the threat of punishment if we don't comply. What does the government do as repayment for paying taxes? Does it have an obligation? (BTW, courts have ruled the state has no obligation to its citizens.) Last I checked, when you take money from someone by threat of force, it's stealing. When you take money from someone and give something of like value back in return, it's a business transaction and perfectly legal.

I am rather surprised at the concept that the government does nothing worthwhile with the taxes it collects.

Sometimes the government does will with the money it takes from its citizens/subjects, sometimes not. Most often not.

Consider the snail mail. In the U.S. the government has a monopoly by law on the delivery of first class mail. It has always operated this monopoly at a loss. So even with the advantage of monopoly by law the government pisses away its first class mail income.

There is a good reason for this. When there is no competition there is little incentive to do well.

ruveyn