Matt Davies for October 26, 2012

^Skipschool: I’ve read it, enforced it, and fought for it. You’ve done none.

“When does the unborn have rights?”

The benchmark these days is generally “When the unborn can exist independently of the woman,” i.e. “viability.” If the line between “fertilized egg” and “human being” has to be drawn somewhere (as it seems it must), I’m pretty comfortable with that.

Perfect delineation of the issue. The GOP are hypocrites, pure and simple.

There is a hypocrisy when a person calls for less government regulation of banks, industry, and the environment, but more regulation on how an individual conducts their personal health choices.Respectfully,C.

“So according to you the unborn has rights at about 20 to 26 weeks… such we start the request for the ammemdment to constitution on this basis.”

I said that’s the general benchmark as it stands, and I’m comfortable with it (I also think you’d get some argument about the lowest threshold for viability, but I’m not the one to make it). And we don’t need a Constitutional amendment, because that’s more or less how the law stands under Roe vs Wade: First two trimesters, no restrictions; third trimester, restrictions can be placed, but no outright ban. In cases where the mother’s health is in danger, I think that is ALWAYS the first consideration, even if you’re at 8 months, three weeks, and 6 days, and that needs to be at the discretion of the woman and her doctor, not of the courts.

Re “viability:”

Who knows? Maybe someday a woman five weeks into an unwanted pregnancy will be able to walk into a clinic and have the embryo removed on an out-patient basis, and it is then lovingly transferred to an artificial uterus where it grows into a healthy baby who is immediately adopted by loving parents (who have presumably paid for the gestation). When that is an option, check in with me again.

But as it stands, as I said we seem to have to draw an arbitrary line, because claiming that a fertilized egg is a human being with rights is as absurd as claiming that a newborn infant is not. The line is currently drawn at around the beginning of the third trimester, and I’m comfortable with that.

An excellent example of the Republican Right’s hypocrisy on national health issues.

Zit: “skepticcal” has many, many, posts, that prove my point.

I took this to mean it’s OK to regulate women’s bodies, but hands off the male body. that would go along with the men know best of the republican pre-supposition. the democrat pre-supposition is men and women both are endowed by their Creator and are both are supposed to live with every right being equal.

Proabortionists use false arguments-.abortion is killing….murder of the most helpless human on earth.If murder of the preborn is “legal” then why not give everyone the “right” to kill anyone that they choose to kill?Why legalize abortion murders of preborn humans and keep laws on the books to protect animals?The true HYPOCRITEs are the pro-abortion people whose mothers did not abort them…..

@Gretsche

the constitution is explicitly clear on when a fetus has rights. one must be born AND be a citizen to have rights under the constitution.

so the answer, in a strict constructionist point of view, is about 9 months.

“So we are back to nine people instead the the people making the decisions… Amendments gave many people civil rights and yet you think as few as five out of nine people can eliminate civil rights of the unborn…”

Polls over the last 40 years have consistently shown that the majority of Americans think that abortion should be “legal, with restrictions.” So I think it’s be much easier to get a Constitutional amendment codifying that than and amendment saying “No abortions, ever.” The only advantage the latter has over the former is that it would be easier to write (Constitutional amendments tend not to have much “nonetheless,” “whereas,” “provided that,” or “unless”).

However, once again we don’t NEED a Constitutional amendment, since it’s already the law of the land. The restrictions themselves can vary from state to state (a Mississippi abortion law would never fly in California), so long as they don’t run afoul of the “Roe vs. Wade” decision.

And of course, none of the abortion laws ANYWHERE in this country contradict this basic freedom:“If you don’t believe in abortion, YOU DON’T HAVE TO HAVE ONE.”

“Will you be “comfortable” facing all these aborted men in the next life?”

Will they be men, or will they be embryos and fetuses? If the latter, I think I can take ’em.

Will you be comfortable being a woman hauled into jail, interrogated for hours, humiliated, and taken to court on charges of infanticide, because under “Christian Taliban Law”, and “personhood amendments”, you buy tampons?

“If the polls support your position then you should not be afraid of the amendment to the constitution.”

I’m not afraid of a proposed amendment, because I do not believe one would be ratified. Were there a ratification campaign, I would oppose it. Were one enacted, I would push for repeal. And I don’t see the need for a constitutional amendment ensuring the continued legality of abortion, either. The law of the land as it currently stands is “Abortion can be subject to some restrictions, but it cannot be banned.”

If you say “abortion is murder”, that does not make it true. If I say “abortion is not murder”, that does not make it true. To consider a fertilized egg to be a human being is absurd. To consider a newborn infant NOT to be a human being is absurd. It’s only because the law has difficulty deadling with subtle distinctions that I talk of there being a “line” to be drawn, but embryonic/fetal development is a process, not a quantum phenomenon.

Here’s a hypothetical Constitutional amendment for you:“Prior to the 25th week of pregnancy, the right to a speedy abortion shall not be infringed. The decision to terminate any such pregnancy is at the sole discretion of the pregnant individual, and any second party attempting to interfere with the free exercise of that right shall be subject to civil and/or criminal penalties. From the commencement of the 25th week until parturition, termination of a pregnancy may not be obtained without an opinion of medical advisability from two or more qualified and experienced medical professionals, and any third party attempting to interfere with the performance of an abortion deemed medically advisable shall be subject to civil and/or criminal penalties.”

I’ve shown you mine, now you show me yours.

@gretsche, incorrect, it is exactly that same amendment that provides that definition. but apparently you want to give more rights to a fetus than to a born citizen.

It becomes more obvious with every post that Charlie555 has never had, nor raised, a child. The years, and in today’s world, the hundreds of thousands of dollars, needed to raise EACH child, goes right over the heads of the “egg-huggers”.

yes, you can have just that if you didn’t live in any country. Otherwise pay up for the privilage

“then the couple must be willing to take full responsibility.”

Therein lies the problem, no? You can’t mandate willingness. You can’t legislate responsibility. Without abortion, you have unwanted children being born.