Anyways, most of you that know me know my view on abortion
But is it unconstitutional?
It is.
57 comments
By using abortion, we are, in fact, denying fetuses (I'd rather redefine them as babies so my point carries any weight whatsoever) a basic right that they are guaranteed.
Fixed.
except, most of the time they aren't even fetuses when they are aborted, they are little more then lumps of cells and lack even a basic nervous system. A thing without a nervous system cannot be said to have any kind of rights.
Well, let's see. Abortion was allowed by the Supreme Court which is in place to decide the constitutionality of issues, and the issue of abortion has survived numerous challenges since.
Hmmm, I'd say, with emphasis, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FUCK YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT! Have a nice day.
"(I'd rather refer to them as babies)"
Of course you would. Because foetus doesn't invoke such a strong emotional reaction.
"Discuss, and don't say, "It's not life, it just has the potential for life!"
Tsk, tsk! You can't dismiss an argument by simply saying: "don't say it."
The Declaration of Independence is not the same as the U.S. Constitution. You either misunderstand or willingly misrepresent just what it is that you're trying to defend.
ETA: Out, foul demons of cross-posting!
"But is [abortion] unconstitutional? It is. Do you remember the three basic things that we, as a citizen, are guaranteed? LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
That's not in the constitution, it's in the Declaration of Independence .
Even I know that, and I'm not even American!
"(I'd rather refer to them as babies)"
And I'd rather refer to spaghetti as the creator of the world, but that doesn't make it true.
'Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' is not part of the Constitution - it was part of the Declaration of Independence. It's sad when a Canadian must point this out to you. So, to answer your question - Is abortion unconstitutional? No.
Firstly, not the Constitution, and secondly you guys seem to like to piss all over that pursuit of happiness bit by denying equal rights to homosexuals. Ignorant and hypocritcal, nice.
"Discuss, and don't say, "It's not life, it just has the potential for life!", because you are taking away a right of it any way you cut it.""
Just by virtue of throwing that little misnomer in there you have completley removed the ability of anyone to actually debate the topic fuckstick. You arrogant bastards are the reason women's rights have always been in question and are held in the same regard as cattle EVEN under the very constitution you profess to defend.
Do you remember the three basic things that we, as a citizen, are guaranteed? LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
But it's not a citizen until it's born.
By using abortion, we are, in fact, denying fetuses (I'd rather refer to them as babies) a basic right that they are guaranteed.
But...a fetus doesn't count as a baby until after it's born! Then what? Possibly, the Hypothetical Fetus becomes a Hypothetical Baby, and is born into an environment of hostility? Wouldn't that hinder the Hypothetical Baby's "right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness"?
Or, what about miscarriage? Ectoptic pregnancy? Death in childbirth? Sudden Infant Death Syndrome? Stillbirth? Horrible, crippling diseases that lower the quality of life for the Hypothetical Baby (like the girl without a face)?
All that aside, stop quoting the Declaration of Independence like it's the Constitution. It might help your argument, but as far as I can see, it's beyond saving.
"Anyways, most of you that know me know my view on masturbation
But is it unconstitutional?
It is.
Makes about as much sense.
That same constitution gives those rights to "all men born."
Keep your selective reading inclinations off my Goddamned body, plz.
Wrong, life begins at actual birth, not conception, however you do make a strong case against the "Death Penalty" and for that matter, any imprisonment!
Not fundie. The FSTDT majority just happens not to agree with this person's viewpoint. That's fine, but where do you get off taking a giant, mocking dump on every poster who expresses a viewpoint different from your own? To do so is, in fact, the very height of "fundieness."
This isn't a fundie position.
The debate here is whether life begins at birth or at some stage prior to birth.
All people are protected from murder in the US, whether they are citizens or not.
If you believe that life begins at some stage prior to birth (let's say you believe it begins at 6 months since they have a good chance of surviving in neonatal intensive care at this point) then it doesn't take GOD or fundamentalism to believe that ending that life is wrong past that point.
Here is what the delcaration actually says- Note that it does not mention "citizen" or being "born."
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."
Thus, the declaration itself refers to the Creator. Anyone who believes that a creator creates life prior to birth, would logically believe that the declaration would insist that life be protected.
This doesn't require fundamentalism or even strong religious convictions.
@ Not Fundie:
Either way, the guy's still wrong. He has the wrong document, for one thing, and for another, this is what the Constitution says:
All persons born
Born. BOOOOORN. It's not unconstitutional to have an abortion because the fetus hasn't popped out yet.
Fact is you are technically not a citizen until you're born. We don't do it after a certain period of time because that WOULD be killing an actual, developed baby.
And a fetus is alive, I won't deny that. That isn't the argument. The argument is whether or not a fetus is CONSCIENCE. Without any recognizable nervous system, the only way to prove that is with an intangible soul, which in itself cannot be proven.
Sorry 'bout your luck.
As technology gets better, the maximum age of killing a fetus should get lower.
If you can put the fetus in a hospital respirator and it can survive and grow up normally, it has to be considered its own independent person.
It may not be unconstitutional, but killing a person, even a non-citizen, is against the spirit of the founders of this country.
The argument is over what constitutes a person.
It is important to come to a consensus decision on this issue whether you are pro-choice or pro-life. I wouldn't want to rely on a supreme court decision that can be changed as members retire- If they rule against you, there is nothing you can do to change their minds. At least with laws created by elected legislators, an incorrect decision can be reversed with popular support.
I'm distressed to see that in addition to the standard, dull, "DIAF!1!" comments, some responders seem to be just as guilty of error in justifying their position.
This poster has made an admittedly weak argument, and I don't support the conclusion, but this post isn't particularly evidence of fundieism. Especially given that they claim the constitution as the source of their authority, rather than any holy book.
Personally, while I think we'd all prefer that abortions didn't take place, because they are going to happen it makes sense to protect the woman undergoing it.
He is directly referring to the Declaration of Independence as the constitution. Which it isn't. Therefore this is plenty fundie. He also decides to define something incorrectly, in a vain attempt to guilt trip the oposition. Therefore this is fundie. He also dismisses an argument, without putting an argument against it forward. Therefoe this is fundie.
I'd rather refer to them as babies
Abortions happen at the same rate regardless of whether they are illegal or not. Making them illegal just brushes the problem under the rug.
"Following your logic, why does the constitution permit death penalty?"
More and more methods of execution are being ruled unconstitutional via the 4th amendment. I wouldn't be surprised if it was eventually outlawed all together.
Sorry, Torquemada, but if he's anti-abortion AND waving the U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence around as though they're sacred documents, then yes, he's a Fundie.
By using abortion, we are, in fact, denying fetuses (I'd rather refer to them as babies) a basic right that they are guaranteed.
And I'd rather refer to them as squatters or illegal aliens living on welfare. Why are you attempting to deny women the right to put a stop to the unlawful occupation of their propriety/sovereign territory?
Or I could call them Genestealers. Who are you to tell the God-Emperor of Mankind that he can't send Space Marines to cleanse the infestation with Promethium?
...and "not fundie" brings the anthropocentrism liek woah. If you really want to make those arguments, you might want to worry less about the official human-or-not status of a fetus (which is ultimately a matter of definition, and so functionally arbitrary) and more on concerns such as consciousness or capacity for suffering...though then you'd have to take life other than humans into account.
Of course, on an unrelated tangent, the original quote (and most of the predominantly-fundie movement against women's control of their own bodies) is Biblically incorrect, but don't tell a fundie that...
There are solid pro-life arguments out there, but they depend solely on the axiom "a human being is defined from the moment of conception," which I do not accept.
Show me any VALID argument for that axiom that is not religious, and I will change my views.
Who are you to tell me that my definition of a person is right or wrong?
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
