Itchee Dryback on May 19, 2009 at 12:13 PM

I was putting the competing rights question aside. Women would assert that the state can’t compel them to carry to term and the state doesn’t have a means to protect life for the embryo apart from the mother.

My main point is that a “life from conception” law would be unenforceable. Logically it would need to even include prohibiting consumption of substances that impeded implantation.

Working to push abortion back to the point of viability is politically possible. However, even if laws were enacted all the way to conception they couldn’t be enforced for the very early stages of pregnancy.

Aside from the question of competing rights, the enforcement mechanism doesn’t exist.

dedalus on May 19, 2009 at 11:56 AM

What competing rights? The right to kill another human being for personal convenience is not implied or enumerated in the Constitution as far as I can tell. (being somewhat sarcastic here…..I have that right)

Not really focusing so much on embryos as much a fetus, thought that is just a technicality to me. Human life is human life. The only exception to me is in the imminent and unavoidable death of the mother.

The mechanism of enforcement would be the prohibition of abortion in all but the noted exception. In 2009 there is no need for abortion. A woman or a man can engage in at least 3 simultaneous forms of birth control. This was not available decades ago.
A womans default “reproductive rights” should also be tied to a womans “reproductive responsibilities” imo.

That is the problem isn’t it…wishy washy representatives.

Itchee Dryback on May 19, 2009 at 11:04 AM

As much as people complain about the courts I wouldn’t want my Constitutional rights at the discretion of my congressman.

Life is a prerequisite for all other rights. In the case of children who have been born the state will step in and provide some basic services to provide for them and hopefully find them permanent homes.

In the case of embryos the state can’t protect that right to the same degree. Even in the case of frozen embryos, that could be seized, the best the state could do is maintain them in a state of suspended animation. With embryos in the uterus the only way the state can protect the right to life is by compelling the mother to carry to term. Aside from the question of competing rights, the enforcement mechanism doesn’t exist.

http://abort73.com/index.php?/abortion/medical_testimony
Now let’s dispense with the pleasantries and move on with doing what’s right.

The Constitution grants rights to people and puts them out of reach from the political officials. However, the state needs to be strong enough to enforce the Constitution.

That is the problem isn’t it…wishy washy representatives.

Actually, I have a slightly different read on the basics.

The Constitution recognizes that the basic rights..life being the most obvious, don’t come from government grantings, or protections. A human beings right to be born is a given.

Other rights..protection from property seizures..the right of peaceful assembly..speech, etc, are only apply after the obvious right of life and to be born has not been taken away by some government decree.

Your basic rights don’t come from the state……they’re basic human rights. The right to be born after the process of human life has been started is the most basic.

Do you think that the “state” grants people the right to experience life?

Itchee Dryback on May 19, 2009 at 10:15 AM

If the state is not strong enough to protect that right, then the right is compromised. In a stateless system all rights become subordinated to mob rule.

The Constitution grants rights to people and puts them out of reach from the political officials. However, the state needs to be strong enough to enforce the Constitution.

In the case of pregnancy, the state can step in between the mother’s reproductive organs and the fetus. However, without the mother’s cooperation it will have a near impossible time doing it in the first days or weeks. Surgical procedures, of course, are easier to regulate.

The state might grant a right to life from conception but it would be mostly symbolic. It could also grant a right to be free from fatal disease but it wouldn’t be a right that it could substantively deliver on.

dedalus on May 19, 2009 at 9:51 AM

You’re right..it would be symbolic.
Your basic rights don’t come from the state……they’re basic human rights. The right to be born after the process of human life has been started is the most basic.

Do you think that the “state” grants people the right to experience life?

Can you expand on that a bit? Some examples maybe.

It would seem that all the other rights a person has…ones that might need enforcement, are born into existence only after the first…most basic right..the right to life.. is realized. The need of enforcement is in the area of anyone who would take that from someone.

Itchee Dryback on May 18, 2009 at 9:23 PM

The state will use its power to prevent others from taking basic rights away from you. In the case of life or liberty it will pursue aggressively cases of murder or kidnapping.

In the first moments and then weeks after conception, the state has no ability to know that a new citizen has been created and no means to monitor the mother if she ingests substances that either prevent implantation or otherwise end the pregnancy.

The state might grant a right to life from conception but it would be mostly symbolic. It could also grant a right to be free from fatal disease but it wouldn’t be a right that it could substantively deliver on.

Screwed, because nothing will happen unless Roe is overturned.
;)

strangelet on May 19, 2009 at 12:55 AM

With your insistence on citing polls that seem to favor the pro choice argument, why would you be so opposed to allowing the states decide again?

undifferentiated cell clumps.

strangelet on May 19, 2009 at 12:58 AM

Isn’t it fun to make up your own ideas and definitions and pretend they mean something in the actual real world?

What do you mean “undifferentiated cells”? What point in a pregnancy covers that stage, as far as you understand it? In other words, from conception to what point does the validity of your position cover?

I doubt it is a question medical science will ever resolve conclusively for us, since they’ll never develop a soul detector… and if they did, it would immediately be suppressed by politicians, to prevent it from being used on them.

You sir, have a gift. That was outstanding.

Bait and switch the discussion.

Dr Zero, here is the LARGEST ISSUE of all.

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. May 14-17, 2009. N=1,010 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
“The 1973 Roe versus Wade decision established a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion, at least in the first three months of pregnancy. Would you like to see the Supreme Court completely overturn its Roe versus Wade decision, or not?”

Yes, Overturn– 30%
No, Not Overturn– 68%
Unsure– 1%

lol!
You are exactly where GW left you.
Screwed, because nothing will happen unless Roe is overturned.
;)

strangelet on May 19, 2009 at 12:55 AM

It certainly does shatter my hopes to learn that 687 of the people CNN talked to are opposed to overturning Roe vs. Wade. I don’t see how we can do it without them. I guess there really is no way to change people’s minds about anything. That’s why the people who say we’ll have a black President someday are fooling themselves.

3. Negro slaves citizen uteruses do not have citizen rights that trump the rights of their white owners undifferentiated cell clumps.

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. May 14-17, 2009. N=1,010 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
“The 1973 Roe versus Wade decision established a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion, at least in the first three months of pregnancy. Would you like to see the Supreme Court completely overturn its Roe versus Wade decision, or not?”

Yes, Overturn– 30%
No, Not Overturn– 68%
Unsure– 1%

lol!
You are exactly where GW left you.
Screwed, because nothing will happen unless Roe is overturned.
;)

3. Differentiated cell clumps Negro slaves do not have citizen rights that trump the rights of citizen host wombs. their white owners.

strangelet on May 18, 2009 at 5:02 PM

Sound ridiculous? It didn’t to more than half the country in 1860.

From a public/political perspective I don’t think it is any of my business if you, or your significant other, decided to kill your unborn children. If it were up to me it would not happen; but I am open minded enough to grasp that it is not and should not be up to me. If you ask me I’d tell you that I think it is wrong, but I would not seek you out to tell you that. It is none of my affair.

MikeA on May 18, 2009 at 8:35 PM

Were your tax dollars to be spent on an abortion, would it then become your affair? You answer that several lines below the above.

Abortion is not a private issue, now that the Government has pronounced it to be a right. As we all know, when the United States declares something a right, that right is oft-times guaranteed by legislation funding it, and by laws preventing interference with it — including requiring those who would rather not participate to participate, because a right cannot be infringed by either the action or inaction of others.

I’ve had discussions with pro-abortion people that go like this: If I want an abortion, and the only doctor in town capable of giving me one refuses, he is violating my rights. If I want an abortion, my employer is obligated to cover same under his/her health plan, no matter what they feel about the procedure. If a pharmacist refuses to fill my prescription for the morning after pill, he or she should be stripped of their license. If I worked for a Catholic hospital, I would expect their medical plan to cover abortions and contraceptives. I have a right to an abortion, and those who would deny me that right are violating the law.

Look at Obama’s recent abrogation of Bush’s “freedom of conscience” order (and the praise for the move by pro-abortion advocates) for the hint as to where all this is heading. Bush’s order protected minor functionaries like drug store sales clerks from having to participate in an abortion scenario, and Obama has removed those protections.

Your opinion matters to us! Have a nice day!

After all, he might change whitehouse.gov to be less strident about choice, even though none of his viewpoints and none of his choices for the Supreme Court will change as a result. We should be content with that sop, I guess — NOT!

dedalus on May 18, 2009 at 9:16 PM

Can you expand on that a bit? Some examples maybe.

It would seem that all the other rights a person has…ones that might need enforcement, are born into existence only after the first…most basic right..the right to life.. is realized. The need of enforcement is in the area of anyone who would take that from someone.