Posted on 11/18/2008 12:56:20 PM PST by MeanWestTexan
I’ve truly never understood why this was allowed to be framed as a “religious vs. non-religious” debate. It’s clearly more scientific & constitutional in nature.
They would never do it.
It’s all shuck-and-jive and avoid the issue.
LOL! She was a typical moonbat, allright. You should ask her, "So the Preamble doesn't count, but the 'Prenumbra' does?" Also ask her if she understands the words "abortion" and "privacy" do not exist in the Constitution --Preamble or otherwise.
Well, we disagree.
I think it’s going to be a hard case to make. All references to the age of a person for purposes of things like voting and holding public office were understood to start at birth. You’re going to need to clarify what this means in terms of recognition of citizenship after conception, but before birth.
10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.In fact, special-interest justices wrongly ignored 10th A. protected state powers in Roe v. Wade (corrections welcome).
As a side note, consider how the USSC is playing double standards with respect to arbitrarily recognizing state powers. This is evidenced by its respecting of state powers in cases like Terri Schiavo while ignoring state powers in cases like Roe v. Wade.
Given the USSC's scandalous legalization of abortion in Roe v. Wade, the reason that I'm happy that constitutionally clueless Obama is going to be president is the following. With respect to ongoing social strife related to injustices like abortion, the people will now be forced to reconnect with the Constitution and its history in order to protect themselves from Socialist Obama's misguided pen.
I’m not dissappointed at all. I think you’re wrong, and I’m being polite about it.
>>>>>“Has the State proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a fetus is not a person?” <<<<<<
Ironically the State Of California convicted Scott Peterson for the murder of the fetus carried by his wife Amy (?).
IIRC he’s not the first or last to be prosecuted for killing a fetus in the course of murdering the mother.
>>>>>I’ve truly never understood why this was allowed to be framed as a “religious vs. non-religious” debate.<<<
Bizzare, isn’t it?
I am a Fiscal Conservative, Pro-Choice and non-religious and often amused at the Religious Rights’ so-called “secular” arguments against abortion. I’m not the best at articulation, so I will leave behind a link to Brian Elroy McKnight’s website:
http://www.elroy.net/ehr/abortionanswers.html
I highly recommend reading his arguments if the Right truly wants to start putting together airtight secular/scientific counter against the Pro-Choice agenda. Until somebody can ‘prove’ to me a fetus has the exact same rights as a full human being (most will agree rights of a fully conscious human being come first in any hypothetical situation), I will remain Pro-Choice. Safe, legal abortion is a necessary evil for the greater good of a world suffocating under overpopulation. If you truly want to stop abortion, stay conservative with your values, but be liberal with birth control and sex education. Whether you like it or not - if you truly believe this is murder we are talking about - you must earn the respect of the left on this issue with compromise and a calm, rational arguments. Otherwise, you’ll be written off as another wacko fundie, which does no good for the baby. Turning the anti-abortion agenda into a power issue for our party only can, and has, greatly harm the movement. I’m worried the party is going to split over this…
“Until somebody can ‘prove’ to me a fetus has the exact same rights as a full human being”
Curious why you believe the burden is to prove the fetus is a person, and not the other way around.
I would think the safer approach would be to have a presumption of “personhood” (like the “presumption of innocence”) until proven otherwise.
It would a horrible thing to have accidently killed innumerous people.
“Safe, legal abortion is a necessary evil for the greater good of a world suffocating under overpopulation.” - “krh6626”
“The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”
Margaret Sanger (editor). The Woman Rebel, Volume I, Number 1. Reprinted in Woman and the New Race. New York: Brentanos Publishers, 1922.
“Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race.”
Margaret Sanger. Woman, Morality, and Birth Control. New York: New York Publishing Company, 1922. Page 12.
“We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”
Margaret Sanger’s December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, 255 Adams Street, Milton, Massachusetts. Original source: Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College, North Hampton, Massachusetts. Also described in Linda Gordon’s Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America. New York: Grossman Publishers, 1976.
“Eugenic sterilization is an urgent need ... We must prevent multiplication of this bad stock.”
Margaret Sanger, April 1933 Birth Control Review.
“Eugenics is … the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems.
Margaret Sanger. “The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda.” Birth Control Review, October 1921, page 5.
“Birth control itself, often denounced as a violation of natural law, is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives.”
[no source available at this time...]
As an advocate of birth control I wish ... to point out that the unbalance between the birth rate of the ‘unfit’ and the ‘fit,’ admittedly the greatest present menace to civilization, can never be rectified by the inauguration of a cradle competition between these two classes. In this matter, the example of the inferior classes, the fertility of the feeble-minded, the mentally defective, the poverty-stricken classes, should not be held up for emulation....
On the contrary, the most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective.
Margaret Sanger. “The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda.” Birth Control Review, October 1921, page 5.
“The campaign for birth control is not merely of eugenic value, but is practically identical with the final aims of eugenics.”
Margaret Sanger. “The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda.” Birth Control Review, October 1921, page 5.
“Our failure to segregate morons who are increasing and multiplying ... demonstrates our foolhardy and extravagant sentimentalism ... [Philanthropists] encourage the healthier and more normal sections of the world to shoulder the burden of unthinking and indiscriminate fecundity of others; which brings with it, as I think the reader must agree, a dead weight of human waste. Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to render them to a menacing degree dominant ... We are paying for, and even submitting to, the dictates of an ever-increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all.”
Margaret Sanger. The Pivot of Civilization, 1922. Chapter on “The Cruelty of Charity,” pages 116, 122, and 189. Swarthmore College Library edition.
“The undeniably feeble-minded should, indeed, not only be discouraged but prevented from propagating their kind.”
Margaret Sanger, quoted in Charles Valenza. “Was Margaret Sanger a Racist?” Family Planning Perspectives, January-February 1985, page 44.
“The third group [of society] are those irresponsible and reckless ones having little regard for the consequences of their acts, or whose religious scruples prevent their exercising control over their numbers. Many of this group are diseased, feeble-minded, and are of the pauper element dependent upon the normal and fit members of society for their support. There is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped.”
Margaret Sanger. Speech quoted in Birth Control: What It Is, How It Works, What It Will Do. The Proceedings of the First American Birth Control Conference. Held at the Hotel Plaza, New York City, November 11-12, 1921. Published by the Birth Control Review, Gothic Press, pages 172 and 174.
“The marriage bed is the most degenerative influence in the social order...”
Margaret Sanger (editor). The Woman Rebel, Volume I, Number 1. Reprinted in Woman and the New Race. New York: Brentanos Publishers, 1922.
“[Our objective is] unlimited sexual gratification without the burden of unwanted children...”
Margaret Sanger (editor). The Woman Rebel, Volume I, Number 1. Reprinted in Woman and the New Race. New York: Brentanos Publishers, 1922.
“Give dysgenic groups [people with ‘bad genes’] in our population their choice of segregation or [compulsory] sterilization.”
Margaret Sanger, April 1932 Birth Control Review.
“As we celebrate the 100th birthday of Margaret Sanger, our outrageous and our courageous leader, we will probably find a number of areas in which we may find more about Margaret Sanger than we thought we wanted to know...”
Faye Wattleton, Past-president of Planned Parenthood
Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood, proposed the American Baby Code that states, “No woman shall have the legal right to bear a child… without a permit for parenthood”.
Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood, proposed the Population Congress with the aim, “...to give certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilization.”
ping
>>>>>Until somebody can ‘prove’ to me a fetus has the exact same rights as a full human being (most will agree rights of a fully conscious human being come first in any hypothetical situation), I will remain Pro-Choice.<<<<<<
I normally take a firm stand against the Bible thumpers here on FR for the reason expressed below in my tagline. I get a lot of grief for it.
But explain to us how California convicted Scott Peterson for the murder of his unborn child, when his wife Laci was 8 months pregnant.
Because that particular fetus was most definitely deemed a person by the state and by the jury.
No, they deem it not a person and then don’t have to pove ANYTHING. It’s logically absurd to start with a default that it IS a person and forcing the other side to prove it is not.
....and you’re not talking the State taking a life as punishment for a crime anyway....and if you go to “what about tax $$$ being used”......then I take away the tax $$$$.
ES, I think you are missing the point. The legal niceties have been decided, for right or wrong.
It’s about framing the issue for debate.
Whether or not they’d do it is irrelevant and purely speculative. You’re talking “logical” and that’s the “logical” step for a State that is being challenged on a 5A argument and the legal definition of “person” in a State’s rights issue.......and really...not being able to prove a negative does not mean the positive in the logical world anyway.....called a negative proof fallacy.
Premise fails.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.