Abortion is Unconstitutional

[KiloMikeAlpha]

By RJ Harris

This patriot is running for congress in OK. He is a Conservative who I was talking with last night. He mentioned this stance on abortion. Seeing as though we have a ton of people who are for abortions, as well as a ton of laywers, I would be interested in what you think about this stance.

According to the 5th and 14th Amendments, life, liberty or property can only be infringed after due process and equal protection under the law have been provided. Equal protection requires that the unborn have the same protection as the born. The born cannot have their lives infringed without having first committed a capital crime. Thus, the unborn, since they are incapable of committing a capital crime, may not have their lives infringed either. Moreover, since it is impossible for the unborn to have notice or an opportunity to be heard, there can be no process equal to the constitutional requirement of due process.

Answer to rape and incest and the mother's liberty infringed against her consent:

The baby is not the criminal, the unwanted-father is. The remedy must be against him, not the child. The unwanted father is also the infringer upon the woman's liberty. Again, the remedy is against him, not the child. The state is merely the protector of the baby's due process and equal rights and the force for legal retribution against the unwanted-father. The state allowing murder of the innocent to correct the actions of the guilty does not provide due process or equal protection to either the baby or the mother.

Answer to the infringement upon the woman's 9th amendment privacy and liberty rights:

The woman's liberty has been infringed by her own consent when she engaged in consensual sex knowing that she might get pregnant as a consequence. Consent is not infringement. State allowance of murder for the convenience of fixing the mother's mistake after the fact is not due process or equal protection for the baby and is therefore unconstitutional.

Answer to 'the 5th Amendment protects persons…the baby is not a person yet.'

According to the European slave traders, the Africans they sold were not people either. According to the plantation owners in the Caribbean and the Americas, their slaves were not people either. According to the Taney Supreme Court of 1857, Dred Scott, a slave suing for his freedom, was not a person either. According to Hitler, the Jews were not people either. According to the Hutus, the Tutsis were not people either. According to the Janjaweed Militia the Darfurian Civilians were not people either. Is this the argument you are really ready to make? If a human embryo was found on Mars in a stasis jar would NASA report the finding of mere life…or would NASA report the finding of HUMAN life? Questioning the personhood of the individuals at issue IS the losing argument.

Answer to 'abortion is a states rights issue.'

The 14th Amendment prevents the states from infringing upon the privileges and immunities of US Citizens. The privileges and immunities of US Citizens have been defined as those protected by the Bill of Rights (the first ten Amendments). Life being protected by the 5th Amendment, states may not permit abortions either.

Answer to 'what about the life of the mother'?

The Hippocratic oath requires that the Doctor "do no harm." Thus, he/she should do everything possible to protect and save both the baby and the mother. However, our society has decided collectively, over time, that only a doctor may decide who lives and who dies when faced with the near impossible choice of one over the other. Given that this particular facet of the issue is not covered by the Constitution, it should be debated and incorporated in accordance with whatever collective consent (75% ratification process) is reached.

[Kashindahar]

Doublecheck the thirteenth amendment for me, I forget if it abolished slavery.

[Muravyets]

No. It is not. The constitution does not allow people who do not exist to enslave people who do. Also, rightwing fundamentalist propaganda =/= legal argument.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

My biggest problem is with this:

Answer to the infringement upon the woman's 9th amendment privacy and liberty rights:

The woman's liberty has been infringed by her own consent when she engaged in consensual sex knowing that she might get pregnant as a consequence. Consent is not infringement. State allowance of murder for the convenience of fixing the mother's mistake after the fact is not due process or equal protection for the baby and is therefore unconstitutional.

This assumes that consent cannot be revoked. Such a premise would make rape a lot harder to prosecute.

[Czardas]

Ooh, an abortion thread, I bet this will result in exciting new arguments that have been heretofore unheard of.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

Ooh, an abortion thread, I bet this will result in exciting new arguments that have been heretofore unheard of.

[Hellenic Protectorates]

I 100% agree with the congressman from Oklahoma. Abortion is nothing less than murder, all to fix a mistake.

Is it unconstitutional? Maybe not, it is subject to interpretation. Should it be unconstictutional? Yes. Except in cases of rape, or if the mother's life is endangered, abortion should be abolished.

My biggest problem is with this:

Answer to the infringement upon the woman's 9th amendment privacy and liberty rights:

The woman's liberty has been infringed by her own consent when she engaged in consensual sex knowing that she might get pregnant as a consequence. Consent is not infringement. State allowance of murder for the convenience of fixing the mother's mistake after the fact is not due process or equal protection for the baby and is therefore unconstitutional.

This assumes that consent cannot be revoked. Such a premise would make rape a lot harder to prosecute.

This reaction is understandable, but cases of rape, abortion would be legal. ONLY in these cases, however.

[The Macabees]

Abortion is one of those topics where consensus is impossible to establish. The main issue is when the human can be considered a human being. I, admittedly, have not made up my mind on abortion (although, I have always been pro-choice I am the kind of person that always re-thinks his positions in order to strengthen them or adopt positions which are more logical and correct), but one of the principle influences is probably Rothbard who considered the baby a squatter in the mother's body (like a squatter, more accurately). The woman having rights over her property (her body) has the right to eject the baby. This runs into a number of problems, including how the baby is flushed out (whether it is killed in the womb or killed because it has not developed sufficiently in order to survive on its own), but ... that's why I avoid topics like these.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

I 100% agree with the congressman from Oklahoma. Abortion is nothing less than murder, all to fix a mistake.

Is it unconstitutional? Maybe not, it is subject to interpretation. Should it be unconstictutional? Yes. Except in cases of rape, or if the mother's life is endangered, abortion should be abolished.

My biggest problem is with this:

Answer to the infringement upon the woman's 9th amendment privacy and liberty rights:

The woman's liberty has been infringed by her own consent when she engaged in consensual sex knowing that she might get pregnant as a consequence. Consent is not infringement. State allowance of murder for the convenience of fixing the mother's mistake after the fact is not due process or equal protection for the baby and is therefore unconstitutional.

This assumes that consent cannot be revoked. Such a premise would make rape a lot harder to prosecute.

This reaction is understandable, but cases of rape, abortion would be legal. ONLY in these cases, however.

I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about 'consenting' to pregnancy. There is plenty wrong with that premise already, but I'm focusing narrowly on the consent part. He's assuming that such consent can't be revoked. Suppose that happened in rape cases. Suppose a woman intending to have sex changes her mind and gets raped. Is it no longer rape because she consented then changed her mind?

Suppose someone was going to donate a kidney to another person who would die without it then changed his mind. Is it too late because he consented? Do we strap him down and take it by force? Or can consent be revoked?

[Kashindahar]

This reaction is understandable, but cases of rape, abortion would be legal. ONLY in these cases, however.

What is the standard for determining rape in your hypothetical universe for the purpose of abortion? Does someone need to be convicted, or does the woman simply need to say that she was raped?

If the former, you're aware of how difficult rape is to prosecute, right?

If the latter, what's to stop anyone who wants an abortion to simply say that they were raped?

[Hamilay]

I would be interested in what you think about this stance.

I don't see how any of this is different to what people against abortion usually argue.

Answer to 'the 5th Amendment protects persons…the baby is not a person yet.'

According to the European slave traders, the Africans they sold were not people either. According to the plantation owners in the Caribbean and the Americas, their slaves were not people either. According to the Taney Supreme Court of 1857, Dred Scott, a slave suing for his freedom, was not a person either. According to Hitler, the Jews were not people either. According to the Hutus, the Tutsis were not people either. According to the Janjaweed Militia the Darfurian Civilians were not people either. Is this the argument you are really ready to make? If a human embryo was found on Mars in a stasis jar would NASA report the finding of mere life…or would NASA report the finding of HUMAN life? Questioning the personhood of the individuals at issue IS the losing argument.

Dodging the question.

[Natapoc]

What you quoted would make it unconstitutional for the government to mandate abortions as punishment for a crime.

edit: opps. Without due process

So the government then may not force a female to have an abortion against her will. I agree with that.

[Czardas]

Abortion is one of those topics where consensus is impossible to establish. The main issue is when the human can be considered a human being. I, admittedly, have not made up my mind on abortion (although, I have always been pro-choice I am the kind of person that always re-thinks his positions in order to strengthen them or adopt positions which are more logical and correct), but one of the principle influences is probably Rothbard who considered the baby a squatter in the mother's body (like a squatter, more accurately). The woman having rights over her property (her body) has the right to eject the baby. This runs into a number of problems, including how the baby is flushed out (whether it is killed in the womb or killed because it has not developed sufficiently in order to survive on its own), but ... that's why I avoid topics like these.

Ordinarily I would agree with Rothbard, but unfortunately, I feel it is my solemn duty to mock and belittle all of the proponents of the Austrian school of economics even when they happen to be right. It is a sad and lonely duty I must fulfill. Note my sad face. :(

[Kryozerkia]

This will end badly. It always does. People will get more warnings and someone will inevitable go too far, they'll get banned and cry about it.

It'll go back and forth for somewhere between 20-40 pages between the same tiresome arguments about foetal rights and the rights of the mother.

[The Macabees]

Ordinarily I would agree with Rothbard, but unfortunately, I feel it is my solemn duty to mock and belittle all of the proponents of the Austrian school of economics even when they happen to be right. It is a sad and lonely duty I must fulfill. Note my sad face.

Omg, statist!

[Muravyets]

My biggest problem is with this:

Answer to the infringement upon the woman's 9th amendment privacy and liberty rights:

The woman's liberty has been infringed by her own consent when she engaged in consensual sex knowing that she might get pregnant as a consequence. Consent is not infringement. State allowance of murder for the convenience of fixing the mother's mistake after the fact is not due process or equal protection for the baby and is therefore unconstitutional.

This assumes that consent cannot be revoked. Such a premise would make rape a lot harder to prosecute.

Please, LG, don't you know it's impossible to rape a slut? Just as it is impossible to rape one's wife. As soon as she stops being a virgin, she's fair game. Yes is forever and for everyone.

[Yootopia]

"Answer to 'the 5th Amendment protects persons…the baby is not a person yet.'

According to Hitler..."

Ah good times.

[Westeroth]

This will end badly. It always does. People will get more warnings and someone will inevitable go too far, they'll get banned and cry about it.

It'll go back and forth for somewhere between 20-40 pages between the same tiresome arguments about foetal rights and the rights of the mother.

I'll start.

Abortion is Unconstitutional Delicious.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

This will end badly. It always does. People will get more warnings and someone will inevitable go too far, they'll get banned and cry about it.

It'll go back and forth for somewhere between 20-40 pages between the same tiresome arguments about foetal rights and the rights of the mother.

Yep. That's why I'm getting my licks in now while it's still young. It'll be useless to even try after page 5 or so.

....actually it's useless now. Okay, this sucks. *wanders off in search of leftover Halloween candy*

[Hellenic Protectorates]

This reaction is understandable, but cases of rape, abortion would be legal. ONLY in these cases, however.

What is the standard for determining rape in your hypothetical universe for the purpose of abortion? Does someone need to be convicted, or does the woman simply need to say that she was raped?

If the former, you're aware of how difficult rape is to prosecute, right?

If the latter, what's to stop anyone who wants an abortion to simply say that they were raped?

The woman must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was, in fact, raped. If we allowed women to simply say they were raped, it would be heard left and right.

Protection of the baby's life must be taken parallel to protecting the mother's.

A conviction of rape is an immediate thumbs up for the mother to abort the baby, if she chooses to do so, but if it can be proven that she WAS raped, without a conviction (physical wounds, tears, ect.) Then this can be grounds for a legal abortion.

[Kashindahar]

This reaction is understandable, but cases of rape, abortion would be legal. ONLY in these cases, however.

What is the standard for determining rape in your hypothetical universe for the purpose of abortion? Does someone need to be convicted, or does the woman simply need to say that she was raped?

If the former, you're aware of how difficult rape is to prosecute, right?

If the latter, what's to stop anyone who wants an abortion to simply say that they were raped?

The woman must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was, in fact, raped. If we allowed women to simply say they were raped, it would be heard left and right.

Protection of the baby's life must be taken parallel to protecting the mother's.

A conviction of rape is an immediate thumbs up for the mother to abort the baby, if she chooses to do so, but if it can be proven that she WAS raped, without a conviction (physical wounds, tears, ect.) Then this can be grounds for a legal abortion.

So basically if a woman wants an abortion she can just have some really rough sex and she's a-OK?

[Czardas]

Ordinarily I would agree with Rothbard, but unfortunately, I feel it is my solemn duty to mock and belittle all of the proponents of the Austrian school of economics even when they happen to be right. It is a sad and lonely duty I must fulfill. Note my sad face.

Omg, statist!

Zomg! Quick, call in the Mises Institute brigade! I mean... if you want to. I don't want to make it look like I'm exerting a monopoly of force by ordering you around or anything.

[Jordanda]

It is: Crude, Mean, Evil, Bad, Sinful, Creepy, Stupid, and MURDER!!!!! If God gave you a child dont kill it even if you dont want it, He gave it to you because it will be a tool to his will. Abortion is just as sinful as killing your neighbor.

[Odhinnia]

Even if you could define the Fetus as a Human Life.... It still has No constitutional rights. Human Citizens of the USA only begin to have constitutional rights at age 18 and then Full Constitutional Rights at age 21. That's why they are called Minors, Know the definition, The real one?

Not of Age of Having their own Constitutional Rights

. Minors are only allowed some constitutional rights and citizenship through extension of their parents. So it's not really a Constitutional issue.

And before you start bashing me for being pro-abortion, I'm in this neutral, yet Pro Life. I think we could make a hell of a brainwashed army if we just simply gave the government unwanted babies instead of aborting them. Or we could make astounding scientific discoveries with Human testing. This may not come across right, But during ww2 Medical technology advanced swiftly, mostly because of Nazi Human Testing, and then the Allies taking their research. Unfortunately the west is against human testing, and the Soviets... were technologically behind to do any real advancement.

IM PRO STEM CELL RESEARCH!

[Muravyets]

Abortion is one of those topics where consensus is impossible to establish. The main issue is when the human can be considered a human being. I, admittedly, have not made up my mind on abortion (although, I have always been pro-choice I am the kind of person that always re-thinks his positions in order to strengthen them or adopt positions which are more logical and correct), but one of the principle influences is probably Rothbard who considered the baby a squatter in the mother's body (like a squatter, more accurately). The woman having rights over her property (her body) has the right to eject the baby. This runs into a number of problems, including how the baby is flushed out (whether it is killed in the womb or killed because it has not developed sufficiently in order to survive on its own), but ... that's why I avoid topics like these.

As soon as you can show me when one human being has the right to enslave and use the body of another human being against her will, even to the point of causing permanent injury or death, then you can show me why it should matter "when the human can be considered a human being".

You can second guess yourself all day long, if you like. But the real line here is clear and bright: Does a woman own her own body or does she not?