Political Crossfire Forums

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 7793

AUEagle wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: AUEagle wrote: Roe v. Wade should be overturned. I believe that states should vote on this issue.

And I believe that it should be an individual issue, and that Roe v. Wade should be upheld in the American legal system.

But until Roe v. Wade is overturned, that is the law in the United States, and like it or not, that is the law that governs you, me, and all other Americans.

The Constitution and the 10th Amendment suggest that abortion is a states right's issue or should be...

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The Supreme Court decision follows the Constitution, because it granted the power to the American people, which is also defined in the 10th Amendment of the United States Constitution.

F'losrix · Posted: Sat May 20, 2006 2:02 am Post subject:

LostSoul3412 wrote: AUEagle wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: AUEagle wrote: Roe v. Wade should be overturned. I believe that states should vote on this issue.

And I believe that it should be an individual issue, and that Roe v. Wade should be upheld in the American legal system.

But until Roe v. Wade is overturned, that is the law in the United States, and like it or not, that is the law that governs you, me, and all other Americans.

The Constitution and the 10th Amendment suggest that abortion is a states right's issue or should be...

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The Supreme Court decision follows the Constitution, because it granted the power to the American people, which is also defined in the 10th Amendment of the United States Constitution.

I might be misinterpreting your intent, so I ask your indulgence for a moment:

Think about the difference between the word 'persons' versus 'people'. The former is more than one individual, the latter is a plural word describing a group - in this case an extremely broad group - as a whole. Note also the use of the definite article - it's "the people".

In this context it refers to the power of the people to act as a group to control something - not to an individual's liberty to make a choice for himself or herself.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 7793

Skeptical Mystic wrote: I might be misinterpreting your intent, so I ask your indulgence for a moment:

Think about the difference between the word 'persons' versus 'people'. The former is more than one individual, the latter is a plural word describing a group - in this case an extremely broad group - as a whole. Note also the use of the definite article - it's "the people".

In this context it refers to the power of the people to act as a group to control something - not to an individual's liberty to make a choice for himself or herself.

No, you understood my claims correctly, I argued that the Constitution support the choice of the people, and not solely the state or federal government.

Unfortunately, though, "the people" are nearly always in disagreement. A group of individuals it just that, many individuals. I do not doubt that the 10th Amendment refers to the American people as a whole, but the problem arises in abortion because of the vast differences in separate groups of the American public. For the people to truly decide the issue of abortion as a whole, America would have to resort to a state of true democracy, where each individual person votes on a single issue, and majority rules.

But abortion isn't an issue for the majority, it is an issue for the individual. Why does the greater part of society have the right to decide what to do with the mother's body? And in a pre-response to all out there who would say that this is an issue for the embryo inside the mother, I would say remove the embryo at conception, and you will be right. However, leave the embryo inside the mother to grow, and abortion is an issue that affects the mother as well.

Back to my point, abortion is an issue for the individual to decide. Just like the Second Amendment is a right granted to the people to bear arms, it is a right that the individual decides for himself/herself.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Society does not force the individual to own a weapon, nor does the government force the citizen to use that right, it is an individual decision as to whether or not the individual indeed owns a gun. Just as the 10th Amendment grants the power to the people, that does not mean that the group decides whether or not the individual uses that right. I believe that the Constitution should be interpreted to mean that the power of abortion is granted to the people (In accordance with Roe v. Wade), but it is an individual choice to use that power and have an abortion done. It is the group's right, but ultimately, and individual's decision.

Plodder · Joined: 01 Nov 2005 Posts: 803 Location: USA

Quote: Unfortunately, though, "the people" are nearly always in disagreement. Quote: Society does not force the individual to own a weapon, nor does the government force the citizen to use that right, it is an individual decision as to whether or not the individual indeed owns a gun. Just as the 10th Amendment grants the power to the people, that does not mean that the group decides whether or not the individual uses that right. I believe that the Constitution should be interpreted to mean that the power of abortion is granted to the people (In accordance with Roe v. Wade), but it is an individual choice to use that power and have an abortion done. It is the group's right, but ultimately, and individual's decision. beacuse the individuals cannot decide on a consensus, the state has jurisdiction.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 7793

Plodder wrote: Quote: Unfortunately, though, "the people" are nearly always in disagreement. Quote: Society does not force the individual to own a weapon, nor does the government force the citizen to use that right, it is an individual decision as to whether or not the individual indeed owns a gun. Just as the 10th Amendment grants the power to the people, that does not mean that the group decides whether or not the individual uses that right. I believe that the Constitution should be interpreted to mean that the power of abortion is granted to the people (In accordance with Roe v. Wade), but it is an individual choice to use that power and have an abortion done. It is the group's right, but ultimately, and individual's decision. beacuse the individuals cannot decide on a consensus, the state has jurisdiction.

So the government should decide whether or not I should own a weapon?

Because the individuals cannot decide on a consensus, each individual has jurisdiction over themselves.

F'losrix · Posted: Sun May 21, 2006 1:00 pm Post subject:

LostSoul:

Good points in your response - I'm going to address just the end statement:

LostSoul3412 wrote: It is the group's right, but ultimately, and individual's decision.
I would say it's an individual's decision unless the group decides that no right exists for this to be an individual's decision. I want to be clear here that by 'the group decides', I mean that to be inclusive of the hurdles that implementing the will of the people encompasses - including the use of a Constitutional amendment to override judicial rulings.

Do I support such an action? Absolutely not - there are times when the will of the majority is not the best thing for the country in the long term - that's why we have a Republic and not a direct democracy. I'm merely acknowledging that if the will of the people is strong enough, they can effect such a change.

steen · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 1430 Location: Upper Midwest

Skeptical Mystic wrote: LostSoul:

Good points in your response - I'm going to address just the end statement:

LostSoul3412 wrote: It is the group's right, but ultimately, and individual's decision.
I would say it's an individual's decision unless the group decides that no right exists for this to be an individual's decision. I want to be clear here that by 'the group decides', I mean that to be inclusive of the hurdles that implementing the will of the people encompasses - including the use of a Constitutional amendment to override judicial rulings. So are you saying that the States can pass an amendment stating that "Steen has no Constitutional rights" f.ex.? Does the Bill of Rights allow this, or must Amendments conform to the rest of the US Constitution?

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 7793

Skeptical Mystic wrote: LostSoul:

Good points in your response

Thank you, you bring up very good points as well.

Skeptical Mystic wrote: I would say it's an individual's decision unless the group decides that no right exists for this to be an individual's decision. I want to be clear here that by 'the group decides', I mean that to be inclusive of the hurdles that implementing the will of the people encompasses - including the use of a Constitutional amendment to override judicial rulings.

Do I support such an action? Absolutely not - there are times when the will of the majority is not the best thing for the country in the long term - that's why we have a Republic and not a direct democracy. I'm merely acknowledging that if the will of the people is strong enough, they can effect such a change.

Such is the curse of society. The only problem is that the group does not have power over Constitutional issues, the governments (State and Federal) do. On the issue of abortion, I believe that the group cannot decide to institute a law to ban it, because that is a power that the government removes from the people. With any form of government in place, that government takes away the power of legislation from the people, meaning that the group no longer decides the laws they live by. In the United States, the people are governed by the laws of Congress, and the interpretation of the Courts, not by the consensus of the group.

I would say that this is an individual decision because the group cannot decide what rights the individual does, and does not, have. The individual is the only one that has that power. Laws do not limit the liberty of the individual, they only impose greater consequences for their actions. It is still my choice as to whether or not I kill another man. The law does not control my actions, only I do. The law decides my punishment for my actions (and that is why I oppose it), but it does not control my choice.

The same applies here. The government can try to impose greater punishments on abortion, but that does not control the choice of the individual. If a mother truly wants an abortion, then she will get an abortion. It may be illegal, it may be unsanitary, and it may kill her in the process, but she will have an abortion if that is what she truly wants. Laws do not change the choice of the individual, they only work to hide it from the eyes of society. Murder is illegal, yet we hear everyday how another person is murdered. Laws do not prevent action, they only make it more punishable. If abortion is made illegal, then the government will be punishing people for their choices, risking the lives of Americans because mothers would resort to illegal and unsafe abortion techniques, and above all, creating a new way to threaten the American people into compliance with another's morals.

That is why I oppose a legal ban on abortions. This is not a choice for the group. Only the individual can choose their own rights, and the law only works to punish the wrong choices like a master punishes his dog. The group can attempt to take away rights of the individual, but the individual is the only one that can take their own rights away. The group does not decide the rights of the individual, and the individual cannot restrict the options of the group. Abortion is an individual right, and needs no group consensus.

AllAmericanMan · Joined: 07 Mar 2005 Posts: 3606

Quote: Abortion is an individual right, and needs no group consensus So is the murder of a born human. The answer to this debate is deciding when a human becomes human. At conception? Or on which side of the skin it is on.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 7793

AllAmericanMan wrote: Quote: Abortion is an individual right, and needs no group consensus So is the murder of a born human. The answer to this debate is deciding when a human becomes human. At conception? Or on which side of the skin it is on.

Yes, murder is an individual choice to make. The government and laws can impose punishments for such actions, but it is still the individual's choice to commit murder. (I use the term "murder" in relation to already born persons, not embryos.)

The issue is not the definition of life, the issue is the choice of the individual.

AllAmericanMan · Joined: 07 Mar 2005 Posts: 3606

Quote: The issue is not the definition of life, the issue is the choice of the individual. No one considers the choice of a serial killer to be the issue. This argument is about wether or not a newly conceived human is indeed human.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 7793

AllAmericanMan wrote: No one considers the choice of a serial killer to be the issue. This argument is about wether or not a newly conceived human is indeed human.

Actually, that is the issue being debated here, whether or not abortion is a Constitutional choice of the individual. We are not arguing whether or not an embryo is human in this particular thread.

F'losrix · Posted: Sun May 21, 2006 4:34 pm Post subject:

steen wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: LostSoul:

Good points in your response - I'm going to address just the end statement:

LostSoul3412 wrote: It is the group's right, but ultimately, and individual's decision.
I would say it's an individual's decision unless the group decides that no right exists for this to be an individual's decision. I want to be clear here that by 'the group decides', I mean that to be inclusive of the hurdles that implementing the will of the people encompasses - including the use of a Constitutional amendment to override judicial rulings. So are you saying that the States can pass an amendment stating that "Steen has no Constitutional rights" f.ex.? Does the Bill of Rights allow this, or must Amendments conform to the rest of the US Constitution?
In theory, I suppose the voters could pass such an amendment at the state level, but it would be largely ineffective since they have no means of removing your federally protected rights.

State constitutions and laws cannot withstand the supremacy of federal law and the federal Constitution on matters that are federal in nature.

There is nothing that says an amendment to the federal constitution has to comply with what's already written there - otherwise you'd never be able to make changes to it via the amendment process in the first place.

F'losrix · Posted: Sun May 21, 2006 4:53 pm Post subject:

LostSoul:

Again, you raise good points. And again, I'm going to deal with one particular statement:

LostSoul3412 wrote: Abortion is an individual right, and needs no group consensus.
The trouble here, is that people disagree over whether or not there is a right to an abortion. Thus far, it has enjoyed some protection under the court's interpretation of the 4th Amendment as providing the individual a right to privacy.

It's all well and good to say that individuals are the ultimate deciders of their own rights; quite another to make practical use of such an idea when establishing & maintaining a legal system to regulate certain behaviors as part of the government's duty to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty..."

The government can indeed institute stricter regulation of abortions, or ban them altogether. Whether doing so violates some right and should therefore be avoided, is open to debate. Asserting that the issue is already decided because individuals have this right and that the control of it shouldn't be wrested from them doesn't win the argument. You have to convince the people of why it should be left up to the individual and not them.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 7793

Skeptical Mystic wrote: LostSoul:

Again, you raise good points. And again, I'm going to deal with one particular statement:

And again so, thank you for your compliments and continuation of this "conversation" via cyberspace.

Skeptical Mystic wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: Abortion is an individual right, and needs no group consensus.

The trouble here, is that people disagree over whether or not there is a right to an abortion. Thus far, it has enjoyed some protection under the court's interpretation of the 4th Amendment as providing the individual a right to privacy.

It's all well and good to say that individuals are the ultimate deciders of their own rights; quite another to make practical use of such an idea when establishing & maintaining a legal system to regulate certain behaviors as part of the government's duty to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty..."

The government can indeed institute stricter regulation of abortions, or ban them altogether. Whether doing so violates some right and should therefore be avoided, is open to debate. Asserting that the issue is already decided because individuals have this right and that the control of it shouldn't be wrested from them doesn't win the argument. You have to convince the people of why it should be left up to the individual and not them.

Instead of asking why it should be left up to the individual, I ask why it should be left up to other individuals. I view abortion as an issue of choice, a choice that I believe should be left in the hands of the individual. On one end of the debate, are those who argue that abortion is a choice, and are more concerned with the freedom of the individual than the potential life of the embryo. These people are commonly deemed, "Pro-Choice". On the other hand, those classified as "Pro-Life" present their argument that the choice should be prevented, because of the elimination of the "life" within the mother. Abortion is an issue of choice versus result. It comes down to which is more important, the choice of the individual, or the result of that choice?

Yet, on both sides of the issue there is one common connection: both are made of individuals. The group is nothing more than a collection of individuals, and I will address them as such. Those who follow choice present abortion as a right for the individual to choose for themselves. We do not demand that one option be selected over the other, and that both options are viable for the individual to choose. I am personally not concerned with whether or not a mother chooses to have an abortion done, I am concerned with her having the choice available, should she wish to pursue it. The choice is out of our hands, and each person should decide the issue for themselves. We do not play upon our own morals, and expect others to reflect them. I am personally against abortion, and yet I realize that my opinion is my own and should not be imposed upon others through laws and restrictions. Everyone is responsible for their own lives, and to take away choice is to take away responsibility. If a mother still chooses not to have an abortion, I respect her decision because I have no right to tell her otherwise. Individual choice, individual action. My person disagreements with other's actions gives me no right to tell others to change.

However, the opposite side of the coin is very different. I have noticed that those identified as Pro-Life argue that the protection of the individual gives them the right to interfere with others' choices. I do not agree. Whereas those who are Pro-Choice allow the individual to decide for themselves, those who are Pro-Life demand that they should decide for other individuals, and this I cannot agree with.

The issue of the choice itself is already decided, but the issue of where the power to determine that choice is what is argued. Am I truly qualified to tell another person what to do with their own body? Or should I allow the other individual to determine that for themselves, even if I should disagree with it? Does the individual have control over their own life, or does another individual have the power to control it for them?

Liberty is the power to make your own choices, even when the results are unpopular. This is not to say that those who still choose not to have an abortion, since it is currently a legal right, are not expressing liberty, I mean to say that those that do choose to have an abortion are exercising their right to do so. The Second Amendment gives me the right to bear arms, but when I choose not to do so, I am no less free, I am only making a choice. Abortion works the same way, it is an individual's choice, and the power to choose either option is liberty. Even if some disagree with one option taken, I believe that they have no right to restrict that option based upon personal opinion.

That is my take on the abortion issue. Do I make my own choices, or do I let another make them for me? I believe that this is an individual issue, where the individual should be allowed to make their own choices. I have no right to make decisions for another's life, and even if I disagree with the results, I will still respect the choice. The individual should make their own choices, and another does not have the power to make it for him/her.

steen · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 1430 Location: Upper Midwest

Skeptical Mystic wrote: steen wrote: So are you saying that the States can pass an amendment stating that "Steen has no Constitutional rights" f.ex.? Does the Bill of Rights allow this, or must Amendments conform to the rest of the US Constitution? In theory, I suppose the voters could pass such an amendment at the state level, but it would be largely ineffective since they have no means of removing your federally protected rights.

State constitutions and laws cannot withstand the supremacy of federal law and the federal Constitution on matters that are federal in nature. But how is my individual rights a federal issue? And how is this different than Abortion having been found to be a federal right, and thus NOT something that can be taken away by the states?

Quote: There is nothing that says an amendment to the federal constitution has to comply with what's already written there - otherwise you'd never be able to make changes to it via the amendment process in the first place. So again, if Congress pass a law stating that "Steen has no Constitutional rights" and all 50 states ratify this amendment, then it is constitutionally valid?

steen · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 1430 Location: Upper Midwest

Skeptical Mystic wrote: The government can indeed institute stricter regulation of abortions, or ban them altogether. Whether doing so violates some right and should therefore be avoided, is open to debate. Asserting that the issue is already decided because individuals have this right and that the control of it shouldn't be wrested from them doesn't win the argument. You have to convince the people of why it should be left up to the individual and not them. Because it is their own body and not yours? Just as you can not be forced to give me your bodily resources against your will (I can't force you to give blood, even if that would save my life), neither can she be forced to give her bodily resources against her will, even if it saves an embryo or a fetus.

AllAmericanMan · Joined: 07 Mar 2005 Posts: 3606

Quote: Because it is their own body and not yours? Wrong. The act of reproduction produces a seperate living individual that while growing inside the mother, is not part of the mother. This individuals identity remains intact throughout pregnancy. to quote much smarter people than I...

Quote: A human life begins when a diploid complement of human DNA is initiated to begin human development. Therefore, a life can be initiated by the fusion of sperm and egg or by the introduction of a diploid nucleus into an enucleated egg (ie, “cloning”).

A human life is the experience of a human being until its death. It begins with a single cell that has a diploid complement of human DNA, programmed for human development.

http://www.cogforlife.org/clonedebate.htm

Here it is scientifically explained that a new life is created at the embrionic stage. Be definition, this life has its own body, be it a single cell or a fully formed fetus.

You can also see on this chart below that the process of the new growing human organism is constant, the being never loses its identity or undergoes a drastic chance at ANY point in the pregnancy.

http://www.visembryo.com/baby/index.html

You can also visibly see the newly forming lifes body as it actually appears during each stage.

Revenant · Joined: 16 Apr 2006 Posts: 16633 Location: Bliss

I hope so. The Constitution can kiss my ass. :roll:

steen · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 1430 Location: Upper Midwest

AllAmericanMan wrote: Quote: Because it is their own body and not yours? Wrong. The act of reproduction produces a seperate living individual Nope.

Quote: that while growing inside the mother, is not part of the mother. This individuals identity remains intact throughout pregnancy. nope.

Quote: to quote much smarter people than I...

http://www.cogforlife.org.... A pro-life lie-site. So what?

Quote: Here it is scientifically explained you are LYING!!!!!!

Quote: You can also see on this chart below that the process of the new growing human organism is constant, the being never loses its identity,,, You are lying.