Posted on 11/08/2002 3:06:20 PM PST by Jean S
That might be the most insane thing I have ever read. The mindless drivel at DU is Pulitzer material compared to that mad rant.
The choice is made at conception. The "product of conception" is a human being. To deny that is to deny scientific fact. If you are "pro-choice" to kill unborn babies then, to be consistent, you must be "pro-choice" to kill other children as well.
I would never commit adultry or have an abortion, but would never impose my beliefs on you = nonsense! This philosophy is why we are slouching toward Gomorah. The slouchers will drag you into the pitt with them.
And as far as when a human life begins it seems clear as crytal to me that it is when one half copy of DNA joins another half copy of DNA creating a whole and viable copy of DNA that has never before and will never again exist. From that moment it has the power to self replicate. A sperm cell cannot divide into two sperm cells or into a two celled sperm. Neither can an egg. Sperm and egg don't even contain the complete DNA of the parent. The moment they combine they become one cell, completely unique and capable of growing. Utterly human in form. Dependant only for nourishment and shelter.
So as far as legal status is concerned the spiritual doctrines of the universe don't have to be unravelled. It's human and it's alive, by objective standards that the law can understand and address. Either all life is sacred or we start to break it down into good lives-bad lives, useful lives-useless lives etc.
There are other inconsistencies between Fourteenth Amendment status and the typical abortion statute. It has already been pointed out, n. 49, supra, that in Texas the woman is not a principal or an accomplice with respect to an abortion upon her. If the fetus is a person, why is the woman not a principal or an accomplice? Further, the penalty for criminal abortion specified by Art. 1195 is significantly less than the maximum penalty for murder prescribed by Art. 1257 of the Texas Penal Code. If the fetus is a person, may the penalties be different?
Cf. the Wisconsin abortion statute, defining "unborn child" to mean "a human being from the time of conception until it is born alive," Wis. Stat. § 940.04 (6) (1969), and the new Connecticut statute, Pub. Act No. 1 (May 1972 special session), declaring it to be the public policy of the State and the legislative intent "to protect and preserve human life from the moment of conception."...
On the merits, the District Court held that the "fundamental right of single women and married persons to choose whether to have children is protected by the Ninth Amendment, through the Fourteenth Amendment," and that the Texas criminal abortion statutes were void on their face because they were both unconstitutionally vague and constituted an overbroad infringement of the plaintiffs' Ninth Amendment rights. The court then held that abstention was warranted with respect to the requests for an injunction. It therefore dismissed the Does' complaint, declared the abortion statutes void, and dismissed the application for injunctive relief.
The 14th:...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. .
The 9th:The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people
It all seems to hinge on primarily one question: When does life begin?
Heh! I'm so enthusiastically glad that you do. I just can't understand how it is possible to objectively see it any other way.
Even without modern knowledge of micro-biological science it seems beyond question to me that the life in a mothers womb, initiated by mother and father, could be anything but another lifeform of the type the mother and father were.
I pine for the day I can vote for Ann, whatever post she desired to fill.
I think I know what you mean. An unconstitutional law is just that. ie. "you can outlaw self defense but I still have a right to defend myself". But Roe v.Wade doesn't comply with any spiritual doctrine I know of and it sure is one big hill. But it isn't beans it's BS so you've got me there. ; )
Of course, a legal choice to enslave is the opposite of a legal choice to abort. The modern slaveholders are the anti-abortion zealots who want to maintain pregnant women in bondage until they deliver a baby.
Oh my goodness I hope we don't equate the responsibilities of parenthood with slavery. I have 6 kids and though I sometimes feel like I'm in involuntary servitude, I never would think that that would justify offing my kids. Oh I know that you're only referring to the nine months that kids spend in their mother's womb, but I don't see much of difference. It certainly wouldn't make any difference to the life you snuff out.
But on the slavery issue: Most slaveholders did not feel that their actions were morally wrong. Essentially they're philosophy was that blacks were inferior to whites. They were either savages or children and this gave the slaveholders the right to keep them in bondage. They had taken a morally repugnant position and defended it on the basis of choice. Consider the two following statements:
Both are moral statements and neither can be proven. Are all men or races equal? How do you know? Can you prove it? But we believe this statement to be true, so that by even asking the question, one would be accused of racism. This was not the case 200 years ago, when whites would routinely ask the question and because they could ask the question they would argue that they had the right to choose to be slaveholders.
The zealots in the battle over slavery were the abolitionists who tried to impose that first statement on all people regardless of their moral beliefs - and thank God they won.
You could point out that the statement, "all men are created equal" is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence - and you'd be right. You'd of course find it a few sentences before statement about all men having "a right to life".
One final point. Yes, when a politician says "I believe in a woman's right to choose" we all know what he or she is talking about. However it is telling that the sentence by itself makes no sense and that the "a" word is avoid whenever possible. One might as well say, "I belive in the right to control" and never mention the word "guns". You might want to consider why politicians avoid completing that sentence, especially if you maintain that the right to choose abortion is an entirely reasonable one.
Goodnight everybody.
She said nothing of the kind. Here's what she said:
"Love of abortion is the one irreducible minimum of the Democratic Party. Liberals dont want to go to war with Saddam Hussein, but they do want to go to war to protect Roe v. Wade."
That's pure hyperbole. I've never heard any Democrats say that they love abortion and I'm not aware of any acts of war committed by any liberals in the name of pro-choice. On the other hand, some people who call themselves conservatives have bombed clinics and killed innocent bystanders in the name of the "pro-life" movement. Nevertheless, it would still be hyperbole for me to say that conservatives want to go to war to prohibit abortion or that the Republicans' "one irreducible minimum" is hatred of women who choose abortion.
But now to your implicit point ... which is that "moral values" should not become part of the political scene.
I never implied that at all. I am a libertarian who believes that libertarian moral values should be incorporated into law. Nevertheless, I do not believe that misrepresentation or hyperbole promotes libertarian values -- nor does the hyperbole of anti-abortion zealots promote their moral values.
Are Abortion and Adultery Equal?
This is a red herring question, since I never equated the two. I was only making the point that someone who thinks adultery should be legal is not necessarily "pro-adultery" any more than a person who thinks abortion should be legal is "pro-abortion".
Why can't people who support abortion's legality say "I'm for abortion remaining legal" instead of substituting the word "choice?"
I'll say that any time. But people are entitled to identify their position in any way that is not a misrepresentation. If I say that I am "pro-choice" with regard to the abortion issue, that is a correct statement, whereas if you or Ann Coulter say that anyone who is "pro-choice" is "pro-abortion", that would be clearly be a misrepresetation (or at the very least an unsupported assumption).
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.