I was actually in error myself, the case involved the right to privacy implied by Amendments 1, 3, 4, 5, 9, and 14 versus the police power of the States. Did States have a compelling and overriding interest in regulating the health, safety, and morals of the community? Was there an area of personal, marital, familial, and sexual privacy protected by the Bill of Rights? Was the Texas law an unreasonable invasion of privacy, or was it a reasonable exercise of the police power? Were women permitted to terminate pregnancies “at will,” or were fetuses “persons” with rights to be protected by the State? It is a good argument for any pregnancy no matter the circumstances leading to it. Should the unborn ever be deemed as persons under the Constitution then they must abide by the restrictions of that status as well as acquire its protections, and as such no person can use another persons body to sustain their life without that persons consent ergo the unborn as separate and individual persons must gain separate and individual consent to use the females body in order to sustain their own life. To grant the unborn the right to use a females body without her consent, a right no other person has, would violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment which basically states that the state cannot offer a right to a group of people without also offering that right to all other people, in other words if the state grants the unborn the right to use another persons body to sustain their life without consent it must also grant that right to all other people born or not . .furthermore granting the unborn this right would also violate the females right to consent (4th Amendment) and her right to self-defence (2nd Amendment) both of which over rule any right to life of any person. Thank you Your link is not about rights acquired via the Constitution it is talking about privileges - For our purposes we are talking about earned rights. These are privileges that fall to us because of the efforts we have made to fulfill a responsibility. The point is that all people in the USA have rights acquired via the Constitution, those rights include the right to consent ("to be left alone by others"), the right to self-defence and the right to life .. however the right to life can, and is, over ruled when you infringe another persons right to consent that leads to imminent threat to death, serious and/or prolonged injury and/or loss of liberty. Pregnancy is already deemed a serious literal injure in some cases and deemed as a serious injury in at least two states laws. If it is deemed that the unborns right to life is greater then the females right to consent and right to self-defence against non-consented injuries then it would be in direct conflict to what all other people have. You would be within your rights to defend yourself, up to and including deadly force, even if it were a mentally incompetent person injuring you without your consent, why should the unborn be any different? There may be, however that right does not over rule another persons right to consent or their right to use self-defence against non-consented injuries. BTW, the assertion in that article that the first entry in the Oxford English Dictionary for child reads “unborn or newly born human being” is incorrect. Child - A young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority - http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/child in fact none of the definitions for child in the Oxford English dictionary mention anything about “unborn or newly born human being” That article contains numerous unfounded assertions and assumptions. Why, it is a scientific fact that a fetus cannot feel pain before 26 weeks and also there are no elective late-term abortions (late-term being 24 weeks or more), all late-term abortions are done for very good reasons usually for life threats to the female and/or fetal disability incompatible with life. Take Canada for example they have no restrictions on abortion what so ever and yet their late-term abortion rate is lower than the USA. It should not be a state issue to decide on abortion it should purely be left to the medical community. and yet that ban did not change anything at all, all doctors did was to ensure that the fetus is dead prior to extraction as the "partial birth abortion act" does not apply to a dead fetus, and this ban has nothing to do with abortion over all, it is the banning of a procedure used in abortion, not abortion itself.
Again, all of the above are social dependencies, things that any willing person can provide, where as a fetus is biologically dependent, what it requires can ONLY be supplied by one person .. the pregnant woman. Any born child is not biologically dependent, they are socially dependent. That is simply incorrect. Appeal to Extremes - http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/30-appeal-to-extremes
Simply not true. A born baby does not physically injure another person, a fetus does A born baby is socially dependent (it's needs can be met by ANY willing person), a fetus is biologically dependent (It's needs can be met ONLY by the pregnant woman)
It suggest no such thing. There are people who do decide not to have sex . .that is their choice. 54% of women who had abortions DID use contraception and DID think they were using it correctly. Don't blame women for the lack of comprehensive sex education, blame the conservative right wing religious fanatics. Why would a woman get the MOP if she thought she had used contraception correctly, MOP is only effective up to 72 hours after sex . .does any woman know she is pregnant before 72 hours are up?
Acquired via the Constitution? We have a fundamental disagreement here, Recognised by the Constitution, we already have these rights. These rights are not granted us by the Constitution, these rights are inherent simply because we are human beings. Natural rights protect us from the State and from each other. The constitutional protection of these rights includes both a duty of government self-restraint so as not to infringe these rights and a duty on government to protect the rights of citizens from infringement by others. The Preamble to the U.S. Constitution clearly states its purpose is to establish Justice, ensure domestic tranquility, promote the general Welfare, and secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity . Our Constitution works to secure (not grant) our Liberty. Liberty we enjoy and have a right to, simply because we are human beings. You have brought up a very good point several times I have not yet addressed, on the right of the mother to be protected from the "taking" of shelter and fodder by the separate life within her. No analogy is perfect, but this is the best I can think of at the moment and it tracks back to my point that natural rights are not location dependent. What would the State say, if using the same argument, I put my infant out on the porch and left it there on a dark cold wet rainy night, and left it there for a long enough period of time that harm resulted?
I've made that argument about Natural Right's and God given rights and the Enlightenment but it only has fallen on deaf ears.
That is basically what I meant, wrong word usage on my part, though I disagree with your inherent comment, rights can only be given by a higher authority There is no such thing as natural rights - http://www.politicalforum.com/abortion/329575-abortion-violates-unalienable-right-life.html there are only rights decredd by other people ergo they cannot be natural. And yet this Liberty can be removed, otherwise people would not be put in jail. The main point is that the fetus, as a separate individual, must gain separate and individual consent from the woman in order to impose the injuries that pregnancy causes her, just as any other person must gain consent to injure another person eg. boxing. You analogy of leaving an infant on the porch is not accurate, for one the infant is not causing any physical injury to another person and the fact that if you wished to rid yourself of the infant you have other methods to do so without causing that infant injury or death, a pregnant woman has no other recourse, and no "natural rights" are not location dependent, but that also applies to the woman, the location of the fetus is irrelevant as to whether it is causing her injuries . .do you agree that we all have the "natural right" to defend ourselves, including deadly force, against non-consented injuries, if so then the woman must also have that "natural right" just as any other person has, the location of the fetus is irrelevant to the "natural rights" of the female.
It simply has not fallen on deaf ears, you just don't like the fact that it has been disputed using logic.
God given rights are an indisputable fact. It is the basis of our founding documents. Saying that you dispute it with logic is an unintentional admission that you don't understand the concept of inalienable rights. It is a philosophical concept that was born of the Enlightenment. The logic and reasoning which gives us the understanding of "Natural Rights" or God given rights that everyone is born with is that in order for everyone to possess inalienable rights they must be endowed by a Higher Power, for if they aren't then they are by necessity endowed by our fellow man, and if they are endowed by our fellow man, then they can be taken away by our fellow man. Therefore, to say you don't believe in God given rights is to say you don't believe in individual rights because if rights are dispensed by governments established by man, and man being fallible, then man can determine what those rights are. It is a well established fact that our founding documents were written with this basic philosophical concept in mind. To argue that our rights are not God given is to deny this well established fact. This is the reasoning and logic which makes it possible to believe in God given rights without a religious belief in God. Our laws must be based in God given rights or else they are at the mercy of the majority, or a powerful minority, or a legislature, or a judicial oligarchy or a tyrannical dictator. Assuming that an individual must believe in God or that God exists in order for God given rights to exist is a specious argument.
This comparison doesn't work fully. It only works so long as your "opponent", if you will, insists that a fetus is a part of a woman's body and she has the right to do with it as she pleases (since, without it needing to be said, we recognize that a person's body is their property). Is my pinkey not my property? I own a Samsung Galaxy, it is my property. I am free to do whatever I want with it, so long as it does not harm anyone else, yes? And my pinkey - I am free to do what I want with it, so long as I'm not violating anyone else's rights, yes? So I can take my phone and smash it, or I can take my pinkey and remove it, or I could take my fetus and remove it/smash it/whatever, right? So going along the common line that a fetus is a part of a woman's body, how does this comparative argument not work?
godgodsgodgodgod ..........good argument except that there is no god and no one has ever proven there is...... the tiny wizard who lives in my mailbox told me women could have all the abortions they want...... If your "god" thing made so many rights and they're so important why doesn't he make sure EVERYONE has these rights? Why didn't he make impossible to deny these rights.....he made rights and then is too weak and ineffectual to DO anything about making sure everyone has them? What a failure...
This argument is way above your level of understanding. It is a philosophical argument, not a religious argument.
god isn't religious? Oh really...... The argument is wayyyyy over the head of anyone who thinks a make believe creature decided what rights humans should have......
It's different once they already exist. A fetus sort of already exists, but will exist even more as it continues to develop.
A fetus exists to a far far greater extent than a sperm. There's absolutely no comparison between the two. Now a newborn baby may be more valuable than an 8 week old fetus, but it is still possible to draw some comparison between the two. Of course, it could also be asked whether a 10 year old child is "more valuable" than a newborn baby...
Everyone of your rights is subject to change depending on the situation, eg. If America were ever to invaded and conquered, your so called "God given rights" would mean nothing. Inalienable means "impossible to take away or give up" - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inalienable, the very fact that your rights, including the right to life can and are taken away (ie executions) means that they are not inalienable and are subject to the determination of others. If rights are inalienable then by what right does a court have to sentence another human being to death, remember by your own admission "God given rights" are inalienable ie impossible to take away or give up, in order for a court to sentence someone to death they MUST over rule inalienable rights, if they can over rule one so called inalienable right then all so called inalienable rights can be over ruled and as such logically there are no inalienable rights what so ever "God" given or otherwise Your rights along with all other countries where rights are paramount are nothing more than what has been bestowed upon you by others based on what ever ideology they happened to believe in .. rights are moral and ethical judgements, nature has no morals or ethics so rights cannot be natural and in order for them to be "God" given you must first prove that God exists and that he would give a set of rights to humans. Even as a philosophical concept the ideology had to come from somewhere, from some person or persons who believed in a Creator or greater force of some sort in order for the concept to be presented as a basis for rights. So the only denial here is those who assert the fallacy of "God" given rights as fact.
