Is abortion anti-constsitutional?
125673
The Constitution does not mention abortion. It does, however, guarantee you the right to privacy.
434628
I agree with you that abortions are wrong. I strongly believe that it is cruel and takes away the life of a child. Everyone should have the right to live and I believe it is selfish of someone to take away a child's entire life because they don't want 9 months of suffering. If they can't take care of the child there is always adoption. To those who say that a women should have the right to chose, what about the unborn child, shouldn't he have some rights or at the very least the right to live. Now this is also disapproved by religion as it goes against the 10 commandments as so forth but it is more then that, its a matter of love and selflessness, its morality and common sense. Abortion is murder and murder is wrong.
421711
I believe that's taking it a bit too far. I consider myself to be anti-abortion but at the same time, I realize there are certain cases when abortions should be a choice for the woman just like how the death penalty and divorces should only be reserved for extreme situations. Those cases include rape, incest, performing the operation to save the woman's life, or finding out that the baby will be born so deformed that it'll die in less than a year.\n\nOn the other hand, I don't believe a woman should simply choose to have her own baby killed just because she decided to get drink just a little too much at last night's party or willingly gave in to her boyfriend because "[she] thought he loved [me]." When that happens, I'll have absolutely no respect for her if she chooses to go to one of those alley-way abortion clinics.
580355
This is an interesting point because pro-abortion people always ingore the fact that a newborn can't survive on it's own either.\n\nIt's not about a woman's rights, it's about killing babies. That's it. Some people would rather rip a babies body apart with a suction tube than take a birth control pill.\n\n(now watch, some lib will post something about rape and insest as though more than just a few abortions are as a result of rape and insest)
504580
I am pro choice.  I believe that every women has the right to what happens to their own body.  If that right is taken away what man should approve an abortion or even the right to carry the pregnancy to term.  What about in a case of rape, should the rapist decide what happens to the pregnancy?  He was just the sperm donor.\n\nMost men cannot make "rational" decision when asked so give them a life or death answer...  Sorry, I wouldn't, and didn't.  \n\nI also believe that every women has the right to say what they want, if they are pro choice or even pro life.  That is the American way.
564865
Legal precedents for Roe?  I suggest you read the decision. The majority opinion reviews the history of abortion jurisprudence.  Roe is the first case to elevate abortion to a constitutional position.   \n\nIt's hard to respond to your question, without knowing your thesis, but for earlier cases protecting various family rights see, for example,  Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972); Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972); Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629 (1968); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497 (1961); May v. Anderson, 345 U.S. 528 (1953); Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944); Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925); Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923). \n\nThe court cited 143 precedents in the Roe decision- - not that the cases dealt with abortion.\n\nThere is an interesting analysis and criticism of Roe in the amicus brief filed in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services at 1988 U.S. Briefs 605 filed by the United States Catholic Conference.  \n\nWhether you are an abortion supporter or foe, Roe is a result oriented decision. Hope this is helpful.
108466
It should always be an option whether a women takes chooses to take adavntage of it is her choice. For example alcohol is legal and some choose to drink some don't put no one takes away that right. True abortion is more complex because it involves another "life", or some say, but its all about individual choices and rights. Excuse the whole "life" thing its just that a certain stages it can be considered a life to certain people and in others it won't. I don't think society as a whole can ever agree on whether abortion should be legal or not and I don't believe it is anyone's duty to impose their idea on another individual. The decision to have an abortion is based on what a women may be going throug based on her, life, religion, and emotional and personal health. Its all about point of views. I do believe that everyone should have a choice. Say 2 women got raped and because of it ones wants to get abortion because of emotional damage and say possibly finances, on the other hand the other women doesnt want one because of her own personal views and possibly religion. I'm not one to look down on anyone's decisions or judge an individual based off their actions. When it comes to abortion I can agree to disagree.\n\n@dragonflytimes3- You are somewhat very right. There are so many forms of birth control out there and to be irresponsible and use abortion as birth control is wrong.(Wrong by I mean having an attitude- "I won't use protection and if I get pregnant I'll just have an abortion") And its true that the safest sex is to not have it at all But what happens when a female thinks they are ready to have sex and the rubber breaks or that .1% of the pill not working kicks into effect? Sure you can say that if you don't think you can handle the responsibilty of having a child then don't have sex but in society's changing times how logical can that be? My thing is birth control does not always work, so what is a women to do when when she takes steps to be careful and they are not 100% effective?
28881
I hate the idea of Political Correctness, for pete's sake it is not sexist to be against Abortion, in fact Susan B. Anthony one of the greatest heroes of the Women's rights movement was against Abortion.\n\nWhy was she against it? it was because she felt Men had treated Women as property and that Abortion meant treating Children as property, she said if it is wrong for Men to treat Women as property then it is wrong for Women to do the same to Children.\n\nShe also was against the idea of Women going through Trauma due to Abortion.\n\nI am so sick of the idea that if you oppose Homosexuality then that means you are a Bigot.\n\n1st of all I believe Homosexuality is a Sin, I believe the practice is abnormal and I do not believe one is born Gay.\n\nI am not advocating the murder of Gays at all, in fact I think the Murder of Gays should be prosecuted the same way was the murder of Heterosexuals.\n\nOn top of that if a Homosexual commits a crime then guess what that person needs to be prosecuted for it.\n\nI am not advocating denial of employment to Homosexuals, heck I hold a don't ask don't tell policy, what I ask is that I am not put under the Swedish law that requires approval of Homosexuality or else Jail time.\n\nAlso whenever a Black has actually commited a crime I so totally hate it when the idea is to let the Black off the hook because he/she is Black.\n\nAs far as im concerned crime is crime period regardless of the race of the criminal and the Cops have a right to arrest a criminal even if the criminal is of a different race because when someone commits a crime the race of the Cops and Criminal is not gonna matter.
10016
I am pro-choice, but only to the extent that having an abortion never becomes as casual as some ardent privacy rights "zealots" seem to want to make it.  I happen to believe that what is created within a woman's body when she becomes pregnant does represent a form of life. Imagine all of the preparations that happily pregnant women undertake to make sure that whatever that is is safe throughout the pregnancy.  And does a happily pregnant woman refer to her unborn as matter, an embryo, a fetus, a zygote or any other such scientifically and socially ambiguous term?  No, of course not.  She talks to her unborn "baby."  She reads her "baby" stories.  She personifies every kick and every repositioning.  She makes reference to "eating for two."  I believe that pregnant woman are carrying life.  Therefore, while there are definitely circumstances where it would be inappropriate or unhealthy to bring that life to term, those are rare and extreme and should never become casual.\nFinally, I do not believe that, in general, men should tell women what to do with their bodies. I do not believe that two unmarried persons have an equal say to what happens to the baby that the woman is unexpectedly, and perhaps unhappily carrying.  I do, however, happen to believe that two people in a healthy monogamous relationship (which is intended to be long-term) should have a series of serious dialogs when a baby unexpectedly manifests itself.  The ultimate choice is hers, but she should consider his reasonable feelings when making this crucial decision.\n\nThis is a right that must be protected at all costs, but not exploited as a casual life event.  Education, abstinence, contraception, and adoption are all measures that can be taken (and should be considered) to greatly reduce the occasions where abortion becomes the ultimate answer.\n\nThis discussion of rights isn't generally had in the context of a discourse on separation of church and state (primarily because those discourses, under the First Amendment Establishment Clause, require the State not to endorse or support any particular religion.  The State can, however, endorse the ideal of faith and of being religious generally, which many view as positive for society's morality. I happen to believe that even this much State involvement is dangerous.\n\nPlease consider this my respectfully-presented, respectfully-intended personal viewpoint.
109743
this is all philisophical, so there really isn't a "right" answer.  I don't agree with abortion in any case, but if I was to excuse any reasons it would be only two.  One would be rape, child or adult, because the woman couldn't prevent that.  Two, is in the circumstance of placeing the mother in mortal danger of carrying the child.
337785
I apologize now cause this is gonna be long and more than likely will be added to.\n\nI'm always wondered about this.  I know it's one of those spin things but it's hard to pin this one down.  To use myself as an example, I am Pro-Choice.  I also consider myself Pro-life because I would never ask a woman I got pregnant to have an abortion.  First off, I think I should take the responsibilty for it and carry it through to term even if we don't want it.  (This brings up the debate of it's not my body so I can't choose and I agree, I can't.  But I would hope that a woman I slept with would be willingly to listen to what I have to say about the baby inside her that I helped create. Once Again I hope she would, but it's not my body and thus I cannot choose for her.)\n\nThe reason why I would never want an abortion are two-fold, I'd want to step up to the plate and father that kid.  If we decided not to keep it, then I'd want to give it up for adoption so someone else who can't have a baby for some reason or another can finally have one (I have a friend who cannot get pregnant through normal methods and she wants mroe than anything to be a mother.  Did you know invitro-fertilization is like $4000 a shot?  That doesn't even mean you will get pregnant, it means you have a chance to!)  I think that clarifies my Pro-choice/Pro-life stance.  I also don't believe that I have the right as an EQUAL member of human society, to force my values on others.  I don't consider myself to be any more special than anyone else on the streets.\n\nPeople refer to it as "Pro-Death" because they feel like it needs to be an opposite of the "Pro-life" platform.  It has to be called an opposite to be given a choice is rational while outlawing CHOICE, and thue FREEDOM is not.  I bet the tunes would change if "pro-Life" was refered to instead of "Removal of a right", which is what it really is.  Secondly, has anyone ever been to a pro-death rally?  Of course not, That would be considered Genocide (stopping all births would be an effective method of stopping humanity and thus genocide).  \n\nHere's the funny thing, people who are "Pro-life" also tend to be for the Death Penalty.  How is that Pro-Life?  There IS debate on whether a baby is a human or not and thus a murder, there IS NO debate on whether a prisoner is a human.  Perhaps a foul murdering human, but nonetheless human.  Is that not a murder?\n\nOh one more thing.  I am 100% against partial birth abortions.  That practice disgusts me.  I think it disgusts just about everyone who knows teh method of it.  Regardless, I would not want a law that states you cannot do it.  But here's what i think, you carried it that long, just deliver the baby and give it to someone that wants it.
54529
They should since all persons in the jurisdiction of the USA are supposed enjoy equal protection under the law according to the 14th Ammendment (read the last part). Pro-choicers dispute whether or not preborn human beings are persons, but in most dictionaries I have looked at, the first definition of 'person' is 'human, individual'. According to biology texts, preborn homo sapiens (human beings) are defined as "individuals' even though they are in utero (in their mother's uterus) and even if they are a single celled zygote. In my embryology text "A zygote is the beginning of a new human being" The pre-born human being is a person.
117413
The constitution was intended to restrict the actions of the federal goernment.  Any powers not given to the federal government nor denied to the states shall be invested in the states or in the people.\n\nThe constitution limits federal power to needs of the nation as a whole.  Laws which directly affect the lives of individuals are supposed to be left to the states.  That would include abortion.
58070
Neither, I'm in the middle on this issue.  It's a shame most people don't know there's a middle ground.\n\nYou said something original.\n\nOK, why?: To say a single cell should be granted the rights of a human person is probably one of the most absurd things I've ever heard.  On the other hand, to say it's OK to kill a 7 month old fetus that is little different from a new-born is just as absurd.\n\nMiddle ground can be achieved when we realize what it means to be human... to think (at least to the point that you might care if you were aborted or not). That is why I believe we should limit abortion to 22 weeks - the time of the development of the neo-cortex.
561769
I can see that you will not accept anyone's opinion but your own, but I will give it my best shot to try to explain the answer to what you have asked.\nJust because someone does not believe abortion should be legal, it does not mean that their answer is based in religion ,although the most powerful arguments against abortion is found in a religious view.  However there is also a Scientific explination. It is a fact that a child is a real human being from the moment of conception. They have everything, including their own blood type separate from the mother's. They have their own special DNA just like you and me, not connected with the mother's, which will make them the unique person they are, starting from coception until the end of the existence of their body. Everything about these tiny people, their gender, their eye color, the color of their skin, and hair, has already been predermined in the genes they have been given from coception,  At only 2 weeks into their life as a human in the fetus stage of developement, the unborn child has fingers and toes, and sucks his or her thumb, and has a real heartbeat that the obstetrician can detect with a stethascope. All of these facts have been determined scientifically. So, you mean to tell me that the unborn child is not human? What is it then, and at what exact moment did it evolve into human? Could it be feline, or insect, or alien at conception, and then at at a certain point just all of a sudden it becomes human?  Anyone with a brain would know that is totally rediculous. \n Unfortunately the unborn human child"s inalienable right to life under the constitution of the United States is denied to these the smallest and weakest of our race just because they still need the protection of their mother's womb until they have grown big enough and strong enough to  live outside of it. This violation of human rights is called Abortion. I also say it is discrimination based on their place of origin, that is living inside instead of outside their mother's body. Hey, even you began your life that way. Are you such a hypocrite that you would condem all human beings who are starting out life in the same way you did?  So, millions of these vulnerable human beings have their lives exterminated before they are even born, just because they are not yet among the strongest of our race. Does that not smack at all of Nazi Germany? In Auswitch the unwated people were sent to the ovens and gas showers to die a terrible death. In the Abortion mills the unwanted children are brutally murdered in their mother's wombs. \nI will explain how brutal. Most people don't realize the abortion process. One method is to inject a saline solution into the mother's  womb. The baby is burned alive and is delivered dead with it's skin burned off. This method of abortion is usually done in the last trimester of the pregnancy, so it looks like a normal infant except dead and completely red all over.\nAnother method of abortion is where the doctor puts a sharp  blade into the opening of the uterus and literally slices the baby into pieces. Then he vacumes out all the pieces of arms and legs and skull, etc. into a bucket; and afterward someone has to put all the pieces back together so as to be sure that none are left inside the mother which could cause her severe problems later if not done properly. When the pieces are put back together they look like a human baby (except very bloody), even though this method is usually done in the first two trimester stages of pregnancy. \nThe absolute worst and cruelest of the abortion methods is what is called "Partial Birth Abortion" (It should be called "Partial Birth Infanticide.") It is always done in the last month of pregnancy when the baby is full term and about to be born anyway. First the abotionist gives the woman a shot to induce birth. Then when the baby's head comes out, he sticks a pair of scissors into the b
424754
I always thought that if I was ever confronted with the situation, I would have an abortion.  I was all for pro-choice.  Then it happened.  I couldn't do it once I knew there was a life inside of me.  Hey, that's just me.  I think it should be every woman's choice, and if she can not think of the fetus as a "life" and abort, then that's where she's coming from and shouldn't be criticized.  \n\nLikewise, if someone can't bring themselve to do it, so be it.  That is also her choice.  \n\nBottom line:  Stop trying to force your views and opinions on others and live and let live.
437344
It goes both ways. Extremists on both sides are wrapping the issue up with other issues. For example, people who are pro life are often also in favor of women being subservient, staying home, being married, making less money and stuff like that.  And pro choicers often refer to abortion as a reproductive right without considering the life of the child a right.  This is just another example of how extremist views are flawed.  The truth is in the middle.  Address the reasons for abortion, increase womens rights, access, equality, etc. and then only make abortion illegal without attaching any other bills to it.  It might work.