Does the Constitution protect the right to abortion?

<p>Until it's born, the baby = ball of cells. Therefore, it doesn't have any rights.</p>

<p>umm, we are just a large mass of cells, just like any other organism in the universe. and, have you ever seen what a third-trimester fetus looks like?</p>

<p>rainbow kirby - you too are a ball of cells. technically you have no proof separating you from other balls of cells other than the opinions or findings of other 'balls of cells'. what makes you any different than a baby, as you called it? it too has brain waves. It too senses pain and danger. Sure it might rely on its mother for life, but dont all babies? and kids for that matter? should we all just be allowed to kill our kids whenever if we dont want them? Anyone under the age of 16 or so should be allowed to be killed if their parents dont want them? no - and the only thing different than between a 10 year old and a fetus is its size and intellectual compacity. and if you base your reasons to kill it because of those, everyone shorter than you or dumber than you, like all mentally handicapped people should be killed according to you? I know you dont agree with that, so maybe you should rethink your 'ball of cells' statement</p>

<p>congrasfelope:
Your counter-argument is flawed. Look at it this way: the women most likely to have an abortion are going to be from a poor, under-educated background. Children coming from such a background are more likely to commit crimes later in life. Both of those statements are proven in statistics. That said, while women don't decide "to have abortions just [because they] know that they are having a future criminal," they are most likely having the abortion because they know they can't care for their child adequately and that their child would have a bleak future (which may or may not include crime, but a path of crime is more likely than children who are better off). As for killing future Einsteins and world impacting presidents, I doubt the people who are going to raise those children are putting themselves in situations where an abortion would be neccesary. As much as we'd like to think that every child brought into this world has an equal chance, it doesn't.</p>

<p>I did misspeak when I said ALL would-be criminals weren't being born. Obviously, that is not the case, as we still have crime and all crime is not solely committed by underpriviliged. I should have phrased it differently, but I think I still get the point across.</p>

<p>"Your mom was prolife - you should be too"
That doesn't even make sense. Your mom was "prolife" because she knew she could afford to bring you into this world and provide a good enviroment. Her decision was most likely wasn't whether to have an abortion or not, but whether to have a child in the first place. Pro-life and wanting a child are two different things.</p>

<p>
[quote]
even if you are completely pro abortion, dont you know that women get seriously injured or even die from having them.

[/quote]

yes they can, but women can get seriously injured/ die in childbirth too; maybe we should outlaw that too. :\
not to mention, 'underground' abortions with coat hangers and rusty instruments are a hundred times more dangerous than legal abortion.</p>

<p>
[quote]
yea why dont you watch that and then tell me 1)that the fetus isnt a baby, and 2)that they dont recognize the danger in their environment and 3)that every woman should have the right to have someone rip her baby apart inside of her <- it doesnt look pleasant.

[/quote]

you have three justifications for outlawing abortion. 1. the fetus is a baby 2. the fetus can recognize danger and 3. it looks disgusting
- you give no sufficient warrant for the first one other than that in this film you speak of, the fetus looks like a baby, but then again, so do monkeys and we don't seem to have any problem sacrificing them for scientific experiments.
-the second justification doesn't prove anything. A fish can recognize the danger of its environment; so can a cow or a chicken but we kill and eat those everyday. Even if you're vegetarian, i doubt you believe we should outlaw the use of meat as food.
-there are a lot of things in this world that are unappealing to the senses. Any type of surgery for example involves cutting open a person; not the prettiest sight in the world. (You can say that surgery is different because it's for a good cause, but that doesnt deny that a lack of aesthetic appeal doesn't make something bad/immoral)</p>

<p>
[quote]

And Remember - Your mom was prolife - you should be too

[/quote]

...do you know what the term "prolife" means?
Choosing to have the child doesnt make a woman "prolife", politically anyway.
not to mention, anyone who believes everything their parents do really needs to get a mind of his/her own.</p>

<p>ok 1)are you saying that poor kids are stupid? and that they dont hardly have a chance to be smart or successful later in life? no and if you are, you are insulting a lot of people out there - like Oprah Winfrey - extremely poor - still immensely successful - 'more likely to commit crimes'...so you are one of those people that think that those born in poor areas, like those in the ghettos probably are the people who commit most of the crimes - i dont care what the stats say - what happened to faith in the belief that things can change? i can tell you are a very pessimistic person!
oh and abortions are never necessary - there is an awesome thing called adoption!?! not too mention that some times, it has nothing to do with their financial situation - its pressure from their boyfriends or parents cause they're too lazy to take care of the baby or they cant imagine their daughter getting knocked - all for reputation or how people will look at them - and if you say its for medical reasons - very, very few people ever need abortions for that reason, and i think its selfish of them to save themselves before their baby. but that is just my opinion
oh and the 'your mom was prolife' comment makes complete sense if you think about it. women who give their babies up for adoption probly do not have the financial means to take care of their baby - but they love it enough to give it a chance. and if you know you dont have the means to provide for a baby, why are you having sex? cant you wait? we're not complete animals - we have the free will to say no to any sexual urges we may have. so by your mom having you, she still wanted to have a baby - just cause you have money doesnt mean you have to have a baby</p>

<p>ladyinred - you see the funny thing is that death in childbirth is completely natural - its natural selection if you want to call it that. abortion is causing an unneeded risk that just stupid if you ask me. its not needed, if people would just wait to have sex! maybe abstinence until you're married and financially stable is the answer to everything!
and, no those arent my only reasons for being prolife. i just find that those tend to be the simplest reasons to tell people like you :)
and yea im quite aware of what prolife is - and obviously youre not - i suppose you are also pro-euthanasia and assisted suicide? and why not murder too? if it doesnt affect me, why care? right? oh and i am completely against animal research - you, too, must be for that too huh?</p>

<p>u're just a tad radical...</p>

<p>without animal research, we wouldn't have most of the drugs we currently have without testing them on humans (and probably killing some).</p>

<p>we also wouldnt know what the repercussions are when you kill 6 million jews if hitler hadnt done it first - just because it's been done, doesnt mean i have to agree with it or condone it</p>

<p>1) if abortion is made illegal, women will still find ways to do it. many, many more women will die from the procedure then because it will be done underground in unsanitary conditions etc
2) if men had to have babies, this wouldnt even be an issue</p>

<p>congrasfelope:
That's not what I'm saying at all. Intelligence and success often don't go together. I never even mentioned intelligence in my post, but like I said, as much as we'd love to think that every child has an equal chance, they don't. Look around.</p>

<p>Adoption isn't always so awesome. And it's still and always going to be an option--who is arguing against that?</p>

<p>Selfish to save themselves before their baby? I'd love to see how your ideas change when placed in a situation where your life and that of your future child's is threatened.</p>

<p>Your arguments are all highly idealistic. I see where you're coming from, but I just don't think your rebuttals are strong enough. You're imagining a society that simply does not exist.</p>

<p>
[quote]

so you are one of those people that think that those born in poor areas, like those in the ghettos probably are the people who commit most of the crimes - i dont care what the stats say - what happened to faith in the belief that things can change?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>There's your problem, right there, in a nutshell.</p>

<p>k one thing to clarify.
abortion is usually done by people who have the MONEY to do it. of course abortion isn't going to get rid of criminals b/c those people don't have the MONEY to do it.</p>

<p>
[quote]
you see the funny thing is that death in childbirth is completely natural - its natural selection if you want to call it that.abortion is causing an unneeded risk that just stupid if you ask me.

[/quote]

Uhh....let's just let all cancer patients die. natural selection is ok. :)</p>

<p>Outlawing stupidity sounds like a good idea to me, because that would be totally democratic. We'd all be at liberty to make our own decisions then. Part of having rights is dealing with people who use them in ways you don't necessarily approve of. In many cases, that's WHY they exist.</p>

<p>
[quote]

oh and the 'your mom was prolife' comment makes complete sense if you think about it. women who give their babies up for adoption probly do not have the financial means to take care of their baby - but they love it enough to give it a chance.

[/quote]
<br>
personal choices are different from political views. A woman who chooses to have a baby doesn't necessarily want to impose that view on everyone else. "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are political stances; they have nothing to do with what an individual chooses for her own life.
You explanation isn't even logically sound. Even if all prolifers would choose to have the child, that doesn't mean that whoever chooses to have a child is prolife. "If P then Q" does not equal "If Q then P".</p>

<p>
[quote]
and yea im quite aware of what prolife is - and obviously youre not - i suppose you are also pro-euthanasia and assisted suicide?

[/quote]

I'm for assisted suicide, not euthanasia.
If I am a rational being, I ought to have the liberty to choose the time and method of my own death. If I have the right to live, I also have the right to terminate my life. I'm against euthanasia and murder because they don't give the individual autonomy over his/her own existence. (You can't apply that same logic to support abortion, btw, because fetuses can't make any choices about their lives - that process starts only after birth.) </p>

<p>I'm not exactly sure why you're against animal testing considering you're all about natural selection. I'm a bit anthropocentric, so no, I don't mind animal testing.</p>

<p>
[quote]
2) if men had to have babies, this wouldnt even be an issue

[/quote]
</p>

<p>True say... :)</p>

<p>a newborn baby cannot exactly make any decisions either. it has basically no more metal capacity than it did a day, or even week before birth. the ability to think for oneself clearly does not begin immediately after birth.</p>

<p>if the ability to think is the critera for abortion, newborns should be able to be killed as well. Do you support that?</p>

<p>ok- guys will never being having babies so lets just end that argument right there. oh, and i'm a girl, so its not like its just guys who dont want abortionto be legal, its girls too. i never said lets just let women with complications die cause of natural selection. I was merely stating that that was something completely different cause its natural, unlike abortion. and as for letting all cancer patients die, i'm surprised you're not the ones who want to allow a law to let that happen. people being cured is an ideal thing, right juliusmonky? and since its not always a sure thing, why should we even try to make a difference? according to you, trying to make something happen is basically pointless. if it just might never happen, why bother right? why not try to save just one life, give one more baby a chance at a life, at going to school, at finding their favorite foods, at having friends, at playing on the jungle gym. who are you to take away that right of theirs? you got the chance at it, why cant they have one. I thought people on this board wanted to make a difference, to change the world one person at a time. but as juliusmonky has so eloquently showed, you obviously give a flying rats butt about that - you dont even want to try cause its a waste of time. well sorry, but i think there's more to life than that.
as for you lady in red, you can apply that little fact about choosing to live to fetuses. they too are living beings....maybe they cant communicate their will or lack there of to live, but who are we to decide for them. if you want to option of choosing when you live and when you die how can you go back and say they dont count and they dont deserve that choice later down the line. and like bubbles said, newborns cant make that decision either. neither can 5 year olds really, cause they havent formed their complete thought process. so once again, i ask you, should a parent be able to kill their kid whenever? no matter the age? and if you dont agree with this, but you maintain your stance on being able to take a fetuses life, you're a hypocrite. if you agree that we should be able to kill anyone if they are incapable of making that decision themselves you're a murderer. either way you lose, and you're in the wrong. so are you still sure of your beliefs?</p>

<p>let me say this. i'm against abortion but i have realized that making abortion illegal is not really the step to take at least for now. I confirm the strong power a precedent has whether it is negative or positive. So i am going to say the power of the precedent has a long effect on americans and at this point if u overturn roe v. wade there will still be back alley abortions. Thus it is not the solution. Right now i've been more pragmatic and accept abortion as a precedent whether i like it or not.</p>

<p>
[quote]
as for you lady in red, you can apply that little fact about choosing to live to fetuses. they too are living beings....maybe they cant communicate their will or lack there of to live, but who are we to decide for them.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Same thing applies to sperm. Why are you not crusading to ban masturbation?</p>

<p>Why should a fetus have more rights than a grown woman?</p>

<p>sperm does not apply at all - it has no brain waves - it might be alive, but if thats so you're saying we shouldnt kill plants too - fetuses are humans...and you cant really say otherwise if you look at everything a fetus is capable of. killing a baby and you being desperate enough to masturbate is something completely different. oh and no i dont think masturbation is a good thing but i know guys and know how you all claim not to have enough willpower to resist the urges to play with yourselves</p>

<p>i'm not saying they should have more rights - but why should they have less? they're the innocent and shouldnt we protect them. i just think that if you got yourself into being pregnant shouldnt you be ready and willing to live with the consequences? and that entails taking care of a baby created by you - even if you give it up for adoption, you still care a great amount for that baby. the baby couldnt help being created, even though the mother couldve helped getting pregnant in most cases. why should we take away one life because another was irresponsible and not careful?</p>