Is Abortion Unconstitutional?

PaleRider · #**101** (**permalink**) 07-18-2006, 06:39 AM

Hodgepodge.

I have enjoyed the conversation. You haven't convinced me though. Your argument depends upon the Declaration not being ratified which it was and as such it was the law of the land. That law was not changed or suspended with the writing of the Constitution and as such, the principles that were defined in the Declaration, specifically the self evident truth that we come into being with the right to live are still in effect and in order to deny that right to live to a human being or a group of human beings, law must be legislated that specifically enumerates the denial of that right.

...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hodgepodge

Ammendment V addresses Due Process of Law. This is completely off topic.

Somehow, the act of killing a human being by simply going to the place of killing plopping down your money and having the killing done seems to completely ignore due process for each individual who is killed. How, exactly is that off topic.

JohnnyCa$h · #**102** (**permalink**) 07-18-2006, 06:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaleRider

Doctors don't decide who has rights and who doesn't. That is the role of the law and our law says that we all (human beings) have the right to live unless we are threatening someone else's life. Science, however, can, and has, said when we become human beings. Since our laws are supposed to protect the rights of human beings, the law has the responsibility to protect the right to live of the unborn as well. Or write law that denies them their very right to live.

OK OK I AM TRUELY SORRY I MEAN INSTEAD OF DOCTORS I WILL MEAN LAWS.....THERE.......SEE THIS DEBATE WILL NEVER END

PaleRider · #**103** (**permalink**) 07-18-2006, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyCa$h

OK OK I AM TRUELY SORRY I MEAN INSTEAD OF DOCTORS I WILL MEAN LAWS.....THERE.......SEE THIS DEBATE WILL NEVER END

Sure it will. They once said that the argument over slavery would never end and as we all can agree, it has ended. This one will end as well. Just as soon as "We the People" have had our say on the matter as opposed to 9 unelected, unaccountable judges.

Hodgepodge · #**104** (**permalink**) 07-18-2006, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaleRider

From wikipedia:

The Declaration of Independence is the document in which the Thirteen Colonies in North America declared themselves independent of the Kingdom of Great Britain and explained their justifications for doing so. It was ratified by the Second Continental Congress on July 4, 1776. This anniversary is celebrated as Independence Day in the United States. The handwritten copy signed by the delegates to the Congress is on display in the National Archives in Washington, D.C.

I agree. This is what I said. You had stated that the Declaration was ratified by the states. It was not. The Continental Congress approved it (not ratification as was required to make the Constitution legitimate).

Your quote from Wikipedia above ansl states that the Declaration was a document where America "declared themselves independent of the Kingdom of Great Britian." That has also been my argument all along. Not a document of law - but a declaration of independence.

Hodgepodge · #**105** (**permalink**) 07-18-2006, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaleRider

Hodgepodge.

I have enjoyed the conversation. You haven't convinced me though. Your argument depends upon the Declaration not being ratified which it was and as such it was the law of the land. That law was not changed or suspended with the writing of the Constitution and as such, the principles that were defined in the Declaration, specifically the self evident truth that we come into being with the right to live are still in effect and in order to deny that right to live to a human being or a group of human beings, law must be legislated that specifically enumerates the denial of that right.

...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...

Somehow, the act of killing a human being by simply going to the place of killing plopping down your money and having the killing done seems to completely ignore due process for each individual who is killed. How, exactly is that off topic.

You apparently do not understand what the 5th ammendment was intended to do. Searches of your home or property cannot be carried out without a search warrant signed by a judge. That is what the due prosecc clause is about.

Case law (Roe v Wade) stated that it is legal for a woman to have an abortion for any reason in the first tri-mester. Therefore no need exists for governmental involvement.

When i said that the Declaration was not ratified by the states, I mean that it did not go through a state by state approval process. It was approved by the Continental Congress but not the states themselves.

You continue to say that the Declaration is law. It is not. It is a statement of principles but it does not define any laws. If you feel that this is not the case (as you apparently do) please show me where it defines law.

Hodgepodge · #**106** (**permalink**) 07-18-2006, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaleRider

Sure it will. They once said that the argument over slavery would never end and as we all can agree, it has ended. This one will end as well. Just as soon as "We the People" have had our say on the matter as opposed to 9 unelected, unaccountable judges.

All you have to do is get a Constitutional Ammendment passed to outlaw abortion.

You refer to the Justices of the Supreme Court as unelected and unaccountable.

They are not elected for good reason. Do you disapprove of the method of appointment of Justices?

They can be impeached. By being impeachable, there is a measure of accountability.

PaleRider · #**107** (**permalink**) 07-18-2006, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hodgepodge

You apparently do not understand what the 5th ammendment was intended to do. Searches of your home or property cannot be carried out without a search warrant signed by a judge. That is what the due prosecc clause is about.

The 5th is about a lot more than searches of your home.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Explain how being killed without legal consequence doesn't amount to being derpived of life without due process.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hodgepodge

Case law (Roe v Wade) stated that it is legal for a woman to have an abortion for any reason in the first tri-mester. Therefore no need exists for governmental involvement.

Once again, Roe didn't acknowledge that unborns were human beings and it was noted that if they were, the decision would have been different. This is because, one can't claim that a right to privacy outweighs another's right to live. Medical technology has closed the door on the "not human beings" argument.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hodgepodge

You continue to say that the Declaration is law. It is not. It is a statement of principles but it does not define any laws. If you feel that this is not the case (as you apparently do) please show me where it defines law.

I explained my position in my initial post on this thread. I have since ran it by a few lawyers, (one of the constitutional variety) and have been told that my reasoning is sound.

Lynus McFeedee · #**108** (**permalink**) 07-18-2006, 08:38 PM

Anything without a brain stem is not human. Up until 4 months, the fetus is not human. You argument makes sense at 4 months...before that, you are simply enslaving women.

funktacular · #**109** (**permalink**) 07-19-2006, 05:58 PM

Anything without a brain stem is not human. Up until 4 months, the fetus is not human. You argument makes sense at 4 months...before that, you are simply enslaving women.

Where did you get that information? Unfornately for you medical science says otherwise.

the fetus is not human

If not human than please tell us what it is? Last time I check a fetus was just a word for a human being in a developmental stage.

Hodgepodge · #**110** (**permalink**) 07-19-2006, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaleRider

The 5th is about a lot more than searches of your home.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Explain how being killed without legal consequence doesn't amount to being derpived of life without due process.

The problem with relying on the 5th in this context is that the government is not taking the life. The mother and her doctors are. The US Government is not taking the life therefore, by definition, the government is not violating the 5th Ammendment..

Once again, Roe didn't acknowledge that unborns were human beings and it was noted that if they were, the decision would have been different.

At the time of the decision, I doubt that the outcome would have been different.

This is because, one can't claim that a right to privacy outweighs another's right to live. Medical technology has closed the door on the "not human beings" argument.

I explained my position in my initial post on this thread. I have since ran it by a few lawyers, (one of the constitutional variety) and have been told that my reasoning is sound.

I appreciate your argument, but the Declaration is not a document of laws. It is a declaration of principles. If we codify the sentiments in the Declaration, it would be law.