The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Politics & Current Events / Political Asylum
|Subject: Re: Poll: When should abortion be legal/banned||Date: 7/11/2013 6:06 PM|
|Author: nigelwhalmsley||Number: 1888516 of 1998274|
[ Society has already chosen. The right to choose has been the law of the land for decades. No one is forced in either direction. That is the hallmark of personal liberty. Those that champion the removal of those rights wish to force everyone to follow their beliefs. ]
"Society can and often changes it's mind - or are you one of those people that believes in original intent and would never change the laws or the Constitution - you know, on things like guns or voting rights?"
Yes, society can and does change its mind, and has done so. The Constitution was written with an evolution in mind. However, you cannot deny that this issue has been challenged repeatedly, not by those who wish to exercise rights, but rather by those who wish to limit right of others. You'll find few examples where we have changed our minds that also meet that same description.
"I generally consider you to be intelligent but if you are suggesting we live a society without any restrictions on personal liberty, then there really is nothing else for us to talk about."
Of course I did not suggest that at all.
[ On what basis do you think that the people directly involved, the woman carrying the fetus should not be allowed to make that decision? That the decision should be made by the government? ]
"To state once again, because I believe that at some point, typically around high viability, the unborn has rights. Many states recognize that right in one form or another - can you admit that? I don't suggest that the mother must sacrifice her rights, only that there is a timer by which she must execute them or give up such right to the unborn (assuming healthy mom and baby)."
You've added a few qualifiers, and I appreciate that. Yes, I know that some states have legislated rights to the 'unborn'. Those rights range from zero to some very tricky definitions in various places. One wonders how we square that as a society. Maybe a drive across the border to a neighboring state would result in completely different 'rights'. Weird.
You say that the mother should be forced to abdicate her rights at some point, but that point is VERY difficult to define and pinpoint. You have also qualified that a healthy mom and baby be part of the equation.
I think there are very, very few late term abortions that would meet your criteria, assuming these qualifiers. Still, I have to restate my opinion here. This decision should be a between a woman, her doctor, and her partner. I know you disagree, but we'll just have to live with that.
[ Not sure what you mean here, but I don't think the treatment of animals is relevant to the question at hand. ]
"Oh but it is. Society recognizes that the right of the animal or pet may by higher than your right as the owner of such. Your liberty to do what you like with it is restricted."
True. How that is relevant really escapes w=me, though.
[ The Supreme Court heard many challenges to abortion rights over the years, yet continues to uphold the idea that this is not a decision for government to make in a society that values personal liberty. ]
"I don't know every single case SCOTUS has seen on this but the above statement is not correct. SCOTUS has on at least two occasions ruled that states can place restrctions on abortions. Specifically:
Understood. I didn't mean to imply SCOTUS never made any sort of rulings on this. What I meant was that overall, Roe v Wade (and the fundamental Constitutional interpretations on this issue) has been upheld repeatedly, despite numerous challenges.
|Copyright 1996-2015 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|