4th. You are to be secure in your person. Forcing you to provide your bodily resources to another without your consent is the seizing of your body. So then killing someone attempting to kill or rape another is not allowed because of the attacker's right of life, even when it is shown that it can't be done otherwise? Does the inalienable right of life mean that we can take someone else's blood or organs in order to save that life?
The DOI is neither law nor the basis of law, as the Constitution is. That said, the law doesn't respect my right to life. I have the right to property. Which also means that I have a right to get rid of said property. I have a right to free speech, while also means that I have a right to not speak. I have a right to practice a religion, which also means that I have a right to have no religion. I have a right to life, no argument there, but that also means that I have the right to give up my life, whether in sacrifice, or just because I don't want it anymore, and yet the law would deny me that right. Further, with that right for life, I do NOT have the right to take from others in order to maintain that life. If someone consents to provide that which I need to live, that is their right to do so, but they can also withdraw that consent at any time. You do realize that a goodly proportion of the pro-life/anti-choice movement wants to get rid of contraception and prevent women from getting tubal ligations and hysterotomies at their own discretion, right?
The Constitution was written to enact the principles of the DOI. Also understand that an individual's right extend only so far as they don't create serious harm or affliction to another. Rights come with restrictions. Nonsense - that's a tiny cohort at most - any attempt to block those procedures who be soundly defeated. A "goodly portion" of the pro-life cohort actually favors abortion under certain circumstances; there are few hard core "no abortion, no how" zealots. This is NOT a yes or no issue.
I'm not talking about legality, I talking about morality. I don't want women punished legally but I want them to suffer the moral consequences of choosing abortion. In moral terms pro-choice means pro-abortion. In addition, in the context of abortion as it's discussed by activists pro-choice nearly universal means pro-abortion. Don't forget this There is no confusion in my mind on this matter.
Women can legally get an abortion in the U.S. after viability up until the baby gets out. Before jumping on a high-horse and spouting nonsense, you might want to read a little first. The labor is induced by the death of the baby as the video of an experienced abortion doctor explains.
In several states now, the law has been written to make it very unlikely that any woman will get prosecuted for abortion after viability, even though it may be theoretically illegal in some sense. (In has to do with the language in the law, and how that wording will likely be interpreted, along with the law seeming to give mixed messages and leaving doors open that can be used as excuses, decision-making processes that involve a lack of oversight or accountability)
Agreed, which means that a person's right to live does not give them the ability to take from another person what is required to live without consent. And consent can be withdrawn at any time during what was being consented to is occurring This also is included in your statement about creating serious harm or affliction to another. Pregnancy is more of a health or life risk than abortion is. A woman, any person really, gets to choose how much of a risk to take and when. Those tiny cohorts are introducing and pushing legislation in states. Last year there were efforts in Missouri, Idaho and Louisiana to limit or ban access to Plan B and IUD's. Many red states are passing or proposing laws to take away funding from health clinics even if all they provide is forms of birth control other than abortions. Idaho public universities have been to not to recommend any form of birth control to students including condoms unless the supposed use was to prevent STD's and not if the reason was pregnancy prevention. So does many other actions. Going skiing implies accepting the consequence of breaking a leg or arm. By the logic that you are presenting, then one must not bother to fix that consequence. By reality, just as one goes to have the broken bone fixed, one can also end the pregnancy. Except where you (generalized) don't want others to have it. Name for me anything else that we force a person to go through that is 14 times more likely to kill them than an alternative that we ban. And while we are at it, name for me anything else that we force a person to provide from their bodily resources to sustain another. This is self defense for the woman. She has the right to decide if she is going to take that 14X higher risk or not. She has the right to change her mind and not take the risk she chose to take earlier. We all have that right to choose to not take a risk or to no longer take a risk for whatever.
Completely true https://www.nationalgeographic.com/...arly-history-of-abortion-in-the-united-states But let's look at some of your cases in your linked article Virginia 1629: Possible case of murder AFTER birth. Not abortion Massachusetts, 1648: Child already born. Not abortion Maryland 1652: Man attempted to force an abortion on the woman. The forced attempt was the issue not the abortion itself. Maryland, 1656: Man beat a woman, abortion was not the issue. Maryland, 1663: Another case of a man forcing the abortion on the woman. Massachusetts and Maryland, 1680s: No mentions of any crimes here, not sure why it's included in the list. New York, 1719:Another already birthed child, not abortion Maine, 1712: No dead child in any way shape or form. Not sure why this is in the article either. Massachusetts, 1670-1807: Once more, not a single abortion. Why are they including these in a supposed article on abortion? The rest of the article talks about how abortion was used and what was used and all that, but I can find no evidence in your linked article that indicates that there were any laws against abortion in the US, pre- or post-revolution, prior to approx the 1860's, as I said earlier.
Please tell me which part of my statement, "My point doesn't deal with the legality or illegality either." or "Legality doesn't enter into that aspect." made you think that I was talking about legality or claiming that you were talking about legality or that legality had anything to do with the point I was making? Already happens for many. Many woman suffer socially because of the morals of others causing them to disassociate with her, including parents and other family. If there is a deity that does count this as a sin, then they will suffer other consequences here or in the afterlife, whether or not we notice or recognize those consequences from the outside. In no way shape of form is that correct. The key point about it is that a woman can choose to NOT have an abortion. She gets to choose. Unlike some of those woman mentioned in the article posted by @Bob Newhart who had no choice in the abortion occurring. Wanting a woman to have a choice is not the same as wanting a woman to have an abortion. pro-choice=/=pro-abortion. I find you very confused on the matter. There are many things out there that I disapprove of and think that no sane or moral person should do, but I still support their choice to do it, even as I do not support the choice itself. To not be able to keep these two things separate is confusion itself.
I will take the hit for poor wording. Most states actually had restrictions for after viability, not always at the 24 week standard that is the medical line for 50% chance. Some were later. And yes some had no limits whatsoever. And most states that did have the viability limits also had exceptions for the mother's life being threatened or issues with the offspring, such as the one in Ohio where the organs were growing outside the offspring's body. But for the most part, short of those exceptions, the woman didn't have that legal option. Further, I can't think of a single doctor, including the small handful that can perform the late term procedure, who would perform the abortion outside of a medical emergency I'll take the hit on poor wording again. I am not talking about an abortion such as you reference there. I am talking about actual induced labor, where the offspring is likely to come out alive. But it still serves the function of ending the pregnancy and stopping the use of the woman's bodily resources by the offspring, which is the woman's only actual right. Early induction of labor is not illegal anywhere that I am aware of. Do please show me laws that prove me wrong. The woman and the genetic father are still responsible for the offspring after that. What it's chances of surviving early birth are will depend upon how early it was induced. Mind you, at no point here am I making any claim on the likelihood that any given woman would take this step. Nor does my point make any indication of how many doctors would agree to perform the procedure. I am only noting the legality of it. But then again, very few women even bother to get any kind of late term abortion yet alone an induced labor significantly prior to their due date. If they have gone that long, they typically want the child, and many even risk the hazards instead of getting the late term abortion.
FoxHastings said: ↑ Banning abortion destroys WOMEN''s rights....and fetuses have NO rights...if they did they would certainly infringe on the woman's rights and that is why they don't have any.... What?
Did you even bother to read your own article which states the abortion law began in 1821? The first, codified in Connecticut in 1821, punished any person who provided or took poison or “other noxious and destructive substance” with the intent to cause “the miscarriage of any woman, then being quick with child.” Although infanticide was the common means of abortion prior to modern medicine - If you insist on strict abortion by the mother and not someone else see the case of Eleanor Beare of Derby in 1732. Although to be honest you have to show surgical abortions were common prior to to 1789 in order to show that the 9th amendment holds sway. At best you can try to claim that the morning after pill is protected by the ninth.
And health of the mother is one of the conditions for which I, and many others agree that abortion is justified. But, "changing my mind" is not a valid reason, just as kicking a toddler out in the street is not. And what happened? Again, what was the result? Nope. total red herring. Fractures heal, dead fetuses don't come back to life. Sorry no, that logic fails. Alito explained this issue in the opinion. Making a decision that solely effect the decider is different that one which affects a separate entity, the fetus; in that case two different sets of rights are involved. Nope. Again,
About 1% of elective abortions are performed at viability. That's about a thousand per year. There are a lot of doctors who perform and they obviously don't want their names publicized. But the Democrats don't want to abortions after viability to be banned except for medical reasons. Democrats want abortions free and available all the way to birth. Go to a Democratic convention as a delegate and try to convince them otherwise.
I, and most others are not advocating BANNING abortion. We advocate some simple guidelines. 1. A deadline. some states six weeks; I believe that's far too early. I've seen 15-20 weeks - that's reasonable, but the actual deadline is still a matter of debate. 2. Rape, incest, life of the mother, viability of the fetus should be slam dunks. Maybe even if the mother can demonstrate she faithfully used an accept birth control method and still got pregnant an abortion would be allowed. What?[/QUOTE]
I'm not confused at all. It seems you're the one confused, I think you have no idea of the national discussion going on right now. You are right about the literal meaning of "pro-choice" but that is not at all relevant to the discussion going on in our culture right now.
You are correct, I didn't really note either Connecticut nor even New York in 1829 because they were the outliers date wise. The majority of the laws were passing in the later part of the 1860's. I was concentrating on the bulk, not the earliest couple. Infanticide is not abortion. And that is especially important for the debate that we are having today. As far as Beare goes, dude you cannot use the assault of a mother who did not give her consent to an attacker for causing her to lose the offspring as any kind of evidence that voluntary abortion was illegal. Why? Over half of abortions are medical/chemical instead of surgical. And my assertion is still that the protection is via the 4th not the 9th.
Oh what CRAP! A woman having to prove she used BC like a "pass" to have her rights ??!!!! F that! You: ""Rape, incest, life of the mother, viability of the fetus should be slam dunks"" Why an exception for rape and incest? A fetus is a fetus. What if a rape victim is too traumatized to decide on an abortion until week 7? and your buddies made the cut off 6 weeks? they are trying to do that just to make women's lives harder, doncha know.
And yet it's an extension onto the the usual rape, incest . . . list. Because the issue is not a binary choice. Some leeway seems appropriate. . Where's this "week" crap come from?
So you haven't heard of the case and you know nothing about it. https://www.madamegilflurt.com/2016/11/bringing-down-flowers-abortion-in.html She performed what may be called now a coat-hanger abortion. Then you're in the wrong thread because the title of this thread is "Abortion and the Ninth Amendment" Please take some time to read before posting. The original post I made which you disagreed with was about the ninth amendment. But since you've conceded the ninth amendment I'm moving on now.
It's relevant in the context that in providing a false label that means other than what the person you are labeling it with is, is an attempt to manipulate perception of said person to others to in order to discredit or otherwise put them in a more negative light. It is as manipulative and as emotional as labeling a ZEF (at whatever stage) as a baby prior to the offspring actually reaching that stage.
Remind yourself of that when the same groups shouting pro-choice about abortion show up shouting for banning gun ownership at their next rallies. Will they be pro-choice then?
