Mini-editorial: There's no right to abortion in the Constitution

AlwaysWrite

Addicted Member
It's simple, really. There is no right to abortion in the United States Constitution.

In the midst of the current raging battle over Roe v. Wade. pro-abortion activists have misconstrued the 1973 Roe decision as a woman’s unquestionable right to have an abortion.

But again, nowhere in the Constitution is a woman’s right to an abortion stated or guaranteed, although in Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court drew the flimsy conclusion that "a right to privacy" buried in the 14th Amendment somehow guaranteed an American woman the right to have an abortion.

With no clear right to an abortion spelled out in the Constitution, that leaves us with two choices. We must add an amendment to the Constitution that guarantees the right to abortion, or we must send the issue back to the states, where all matters not specifically addressed in the Constitution belong.

And despite the protests, rhetoric and political posturing, that's it in a nutshell.
 

9andaWiggle

Addicted Member
The opposition to abortion surprises me a bit, considering it generally comes from the conservative side of the aisle.

Google searches I've seen show that low income and minority women tend to get far more abortions than white women with money. So there comes the rub; conservatives are generally against socialist programs and are pro law and order. So why would conservatives be FOR bringing more poor people who are statistically much more likely to grow up dependent on social programs and/or become criminals?

Conservatives in general support the death penalty, so killing humans can't be a moral barrier. What's the difference waiting to kill a human until someone harms an innocent, productive, law abiding citizen, or allowing it pre-birth as a pre-emptive precaution to prevent crime/tax dollar waste?

I'm all for abortion AND death penalty. We have 7 billion people and growing on this orb of limited resources. We have no need to support or keep those who are not wanted, or who are not helping society become better and safer - I will add, by choice. I'm not advocating for the killing of the elderly or handicapped people (unless they commit a crime that is punishable by death).

It's a cold stance and not generally popular, I understand, but it's also practical for our current situation. Weed out those who are dangerous or a net drain on society and save those resources for the beneficial people in our society. Perhaps I'd view abortion differently if there were only 7 million people on earth.
 

Greg T.

The Jizz Slinger
The opposition to abortion surprises me a bit, considering it generally comes from the conservative side of the aisle.

Google searches I've seen show that low income and minority women tend to get far more abortions than white women with money. So there comes the rub; conservatives are generally against socialist programs and are pro law and order. So why would conservatives be FOR bringing more poor people who are statistically much more likely to grow up dependent on social programs and/or become criminals?

Conservatives in general support the death penalty, so killing humans can't be a moral barrier. What's the difference waiting to kill a human until someone harms an innocent, productive, law abiding citizen, or allowing it pre-birth as a pre-emptive precaution to prevent crime/tax dollar waste?

I'm all for abortion AND death penalty. We have 7 billion people and growing on this orb of limited resources. We have no need to support or keep those who are not wanted, or who are not helping society become better and safer - I will add, by choice. I'm not advocating for the killing of the elderly or handicapped people (unless they commit a crime that is punishable by death).

It's a cold stance and not generally popular, I understand, but it's also practical for our current situation. Weed out those who are dangerous or a net drain on society and save those resources for the beneficial people in our society. Perhaps I'd view abortion differently if there were only 7 million people on earth.
I don't think it's about conservatives promoting the act of bringing more poor babies into the population, as much as it is about trying to get these fucking sluts to make better decisions BEFORE getting pregnant. There are well over 100 types of birth control available for the asking, not to mention anal sex and swallowing. These women don't need to use their vaginas as cum dumpsters. They can also "just say no". Yeah, I know, crude way of putting this but regardless of how it is worded it would mean the same thing. Make the decision BEFORE the pregnancy.
 

AlwaysWrite

Addicted Member
I don't think it's about conservatives promoting the act of bringing more poor babies into the population, as much as it is about trying to get these fucking sluts to make better decisions BEFORE getting pregnant. There are well over 100 types of birth control available for the asking, not to mention anal sex and swallowing. These women don't need to use their vaginas as cum dumpsters. They can also "just say no". Yeah, I know, crude way of putting this but regardless of how it is worded it would mean the same thing. Make the decision BEFORE the pregnancy.
Dear Greg T:

"Crude way" or not, I totally agree!
 

9andaWiggle

Addicted Member
I don't think it's about conservatives promoting the act of bringing more poor babies into the population, as much as it is about trying to get these fucking sluts to make better decisions BEFORE getting pregnant. There are well over 100 types of birth control available for the asking, not to mention anal sex and swallowing. These women don't need to use their vaginas as cum dumpsters. They can also "just say no". Yeah, I know, crude way of putting this but regardless of how it is worded it would mean the same thing. Make the decision BEFORE the pregnancy.
I don't necessarily disagree, but the poor and uneducated are less likely to make intelligent decisions - no matter how "common sense" it is to people like you and me. It only gets worse as it becomes multi-generational within families and even parts of towns/cities.
 

Djarum300

Addicted Member
The opposition to abortion surprises me a bit, considering it generally comes from the conservative side of the aisle.

Google searches I've seen show that low income and minority women tend to get far more abortions than white women with money. So there comes the rub; conservatives are generally against socialist programs and are pro law and order. So why would conservatives be FOR bringing more poor people who are statistically much more likely to grow up dependent on social programs and/or become criminals?

Conservatives in general support the death penalty, so killing humans can't be a moral barrier. What's the difference waiting to kill a human until someone harms an innocent, productive, law abiding citizen, or allowing it pre-birth as a pre-emptive precaution to prevent crime/tax dollar waste?

I'm all for abortion AND death penalty. We have 7 billion people and growing on this orb of limited resources. We have no need to support or keep those who are not wanted, or who are not helping society become better and safer - I will add, by choice. I'm not advocating for the killing of the elderly or handicapped people (unless they commit a crime that is punishable by death).

It's a cold stance and not generally popular, I understand, but it's also practical for our current situation. Weed out those who are dangerous or a net drain on society and save those resources for the beneficial people in our society. Perhaps I'd view abortion differently if there were only 7 million people on earth.
1. Most conservatives are religious, and believe life begins at conception. There are also other avenues for women such as adoption. Conservatives also believe in personal responsibility, and of the responsibility of sexual activity.

2. Conservatives are all over the map when it comes to the death penalty. I'm generally against because the system isn't perfect and all too often we find someone incarcerated that ended up being innocent.

3. Conservatives are also pro 2a, which would solve the rape issue quick if women were packing.

4. Personally, morally, and ethically I believe abortion is legalized murder outside of a few rare circumstances.

5. Legally, until the law takes the stance as above, it is a states issue. We only have the right of privacy as we individually dictate and in general, what is regulated by the state. The constitution doesn't have much to say in regards to privacy, as those laws were typically handled at the community level.

6. I also find it legally perplexing and contradictory when states have laws on the books that include manslaughter and murder if an unborn child dies at the hands of say a violent offender. What moral, just, and ethical society has laws that basically state that the unborn child is only of worth when the state says it is when a mother dies or when the mother says it has worth, or more importantly, personhood. A mother can decide a child doesn't have personhood or not, regardless of the woman's body or bodily autonomy. Could we imagine a justice system that only goes after murders when certain people die?

7. I also find it amazing that the unborn don't have intrinsic rights of any kind. This is probably due to the founders not fathoming the extent of how many abortions are occuring now (we have significantly more than our European countries, which in most cases are more restricted and have a society built on personal responsibility). But if we look at the rights of pets and animals, they have significantly more rights than an unborn child.
 

9andaWiggle

Addicted Member
Fair points, DJ. Animals also have more end of life rights than people. It's humane to medically put an end to an animal's suffering, but not an option for a human.

My opinion is also based on what I would prefer for myself. IMO, I'd rather my life be aborted before I know I exist if being born means being unwanted and unloved, or being raised in an environment which would set me up for a lifetime of poor choices, poverty, crime, and constant failure.
 

Djarum300

Addicted Member
Fair points, DJ. Animals also have more end of life rights than people. It's humane to medically put an end to an animal's suffering, but not an option for a human.

My opinion is also based on what I would prefer for myself. IMO, I'd rather my life be aborted before I know I exist if being born means being unwanted and unloved, or being raised in an environment which would set me up for a lifetime of poor choices, poverty, crime, and constant failure.
What those who would have been aborted and were adopted into loving homes?
 

9andaWiggle

Addicted Member
What those who would have been aborted and were adopted into loving homes?
I'm a "glass is half empty" type, so naturally my mind goes to all those who don't and wind up wards of the state being shuffled around, never having a stable home.

Based on what I've heard, your argument would be stronger if they allowed anyone to actually adopt a kid born in this country. The majority of people I know (about a half dozen or so) that adopted children went to other countries because the US makes it such an unnecessarily expensive, time consuming, absolute PITA that willing parents give up trying to get one locally. Maybe it's better today, the last couple I knew that adopted did so probably 15 years ago. I doubt it's changed much.

Realistically, it's a bigger problem than just to allow or not allow abortion. There are many problems around "family planning" that need to be thoughtfully addressed, but as usual with our government will not happen.
 

Djarum300

Addicted Member
I'm a "glass is half empty" type, so naturally my mind goes to all those who don't and wind up wards of the state being shuffled around, never having a stable home.

Based on what I've heard, your argument would be stronger if they allowed anyone to actually adopt a kid born in this country. The majority of people I know (about a half dozen or so) that adopted children went to other countries because the US makes it such an unnecessarily expensive, time consuming, absolute PITA that willing parents give up trying to get one locally. Maybe it's better today, the last couple I knew that adopted did so probably 15 years ago. I doubt it's changed much.

Realistically, it's a bigger problem than just to allow or not allow abortion. There are many problems around "family planning" that need to be thoughtfully addressed, but as usual with our government will not happen.
True, but there are long lines for adopting newborns. I do find it interesting that to adopt a child, adopting parents have to go through hoops that biological parents don't have to go through. A dedicated room for the child. What? All kinds of psych evaluations and parental instructions. What?

Abortions are down, but there still is a huge problem in the poor communities, unnecessarily so. Birth control is free in most cases for the poor. Condoms are widely available. So why are young poor women getting pregnant?

Even more disturbing, however less frequent, are women who are educated and well off who get abortions because it is "inconvenient" to their lifestyle.


"How can it be true that middle-class single women abort nearly one-third of their pregnancies, but lower-income women, who abort a smaller percentage of their pregnancies, still make up most of patients sitting in abortion clinic waiting rooms on any given day?"

While the article talks about the latter, the former is even more concerning to me. Why are middle class women aborting 1/3 of their pregnancies? They can afford or have better access to birth control and they can afford a child moreso than the poor.
 

Djarum300

Addicted Member
On a side note, why do the lefties think it is OK for states to regulate guns (I'm sure they'd prefer they were illegal all together) when gun ownership is stated in the constitution, but privacy nor abortion are mentioned anywhere and having the states control abortion is somehow bad?
 

AlwaysWrite

Addicted Member
On a side note, why do the lefties think it is OK for states to regulate guns (I'm sure they'd prefer they were illegal all together) when gun ownership is stated in the constitution, but privacy nor abortion are mentioned anywhere and having the states control abortion is somehow bad?
Dear Djarum300:

You continue to post many valid comments and opinions, including this one
.
 

9andaWiggle

Addicted Member
On a side note, why do the lefties think it is OK for states to regulate guns (I'm sure they'd prefer they were illegal all together) when gun ownership is stated in the constitution, but privacy nor abortion are mentioned anywhere and having the states control abortion is somehow bad?
The 2A argument is all about their ability to have more control and reduce the citizen's ability to keep them in check by force (if necessary).

As for abortion not being in the constitution, I don't know why it wouldn't be addressed. Unless it was intended to be a decision left unto each state. I had to research when people started doing abortions, and it goes back a loooong way. I thought perhaps it was a more modern concept, but was totally wrong on that.
 
Top