It's no longer "unconstitutional" if you change the Constitution. That is the goal of these groups.

Fallback to the Constitution? For people who look at this:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

And believe it plainly says that there's an inalienable right to have an abortion? Don't make me laugh.



No, it's to say that if a human being is not you (and since an unborn child does not have the same DNA structure as the mother, it is provably not her), then you don't have the right to kill them. Certainly not barring a conviction on a capital crime (hard to get against a fetus), a state of war (also difficult to get against a fetus), or self-defense (which could be argued in cases of threat to the life of the mother).

Seriously, do we have to do that argument again? Prove it's a life, separate and independent. Can't be done before third trimester. You cannot kill what is not alive.

Wait - what? Are you arguing that a fetus is made of inorganic matter? You do understand that there's living tissue that ceases biological processes when an abortion happens, right?

Science FAIL.



If it doesn't have your DNA structure, it's not you. And if it's not you, you don't have the right to kill it.

So what?

Let them try to change the Constitution if they want, and you or anyone else can oppose them. At the risk of stating the obvious, I feel compelled to point out that we are allowed to petition the Government to affect changes to our laws. And if enough people (ultimately, States) were to get behind such an initiative, and the Constitution were duly amended, then you would then have to come to grips with the fact that the majority of people in the U.S. disagree with your views about what constitutes a person. That's what it means to live in a democracy. Not saying it would ever happen, but we shouldn't fear the process. I find it at least somewhat reassuring that some people out there feel sufficiently motivated to get out of their self-absorbed lives and participate in the political process. We should, at some level, be grateful that we have a political process that gives us the freedom to seek such changes. Not everyone does.

So you believe a law banning abortion during the 3rd trimester (aside from "self-defense" or if the fetus is already dead) would be Constitutional?

I had to pull this out because of how irrational it is. Many forms of Cancer operate because of a small alteration to the DNA of a subject cell, causing it to propagate and grow almost as a seperate entity. Because it's DNA is 'seperate' from 'yours' would you argue that Chemo-therapy is murder? Of course not. Hell the DNA within your body isn't uniform. Even your Gametes are likely to have a multiplicity of differences in itron and extron DNA. Do we argue that each individual Egg and Sperm is a separate person? No, of course not, that would be ludicrous.

On a purely legal level, laws opposing Abortion can only exist in a context of Women's right to privacy being violated. A woman is pregnant, than she is not. Only by invasive medical examination can one determine the actuality of what occured and whether or not to press charges and on whom. There is no other way to enact a law opposed to abortion. It would also require violations of Patient-Doctor confidentiality.

Now if you want to argue there is no right to privacy in the US constitution, you are free to do so, which is an interesitng proposition and makes me glad I live in a place where such a right is enshrined in law.

Though in terms of the present rise on high-order anti-woman politics in the US, the abortion debate is a small, small corner of a much larger attack against women's personhood. The attacks on contraception for example, or the way the whole 'Sexting' thing has played out time and time again represent examples of how women's sexuality is continually defined as their prime characteristic. How the political fear of women and girls engaging in sexual behavoir is used as political tool.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/1 ... f=politics


War on Women indeed.

Do the Catholic priests object to Viagra being covered? What about vasectomies?

(edit, wrong word.... totally wrong procedure )

If she's getting birth control from the government, there's no need for them to be messing with her uterus.

Logic fail.

It doesn't matter if B/C is good for society or not--what matters is that government shouldn't force the issue one way or another, either by mandates or by bans.

To an extent, I agree with you. Where I disagree, of course, is that I believe the government has justification for mandating availabilityof birth control.

Was birth control "unavailable" before Obamacare's employer mandate?

No one is asking to go back to the pre-Griswold* days; just pre-Obamacare.




*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut

That's not entirely accurate. They are asking for an allowance to allow employers to enforce their moral beliefs on their employee's through the legislation of 'Obamacare'. If person A works for some-one who doesn't care and thus is fine with the Insurer paying Birth Control, but person B works for a Catholic who believes it's his moral duty to not pay for Birth Control, person B is suffering in effect from a 'Sin Tax'.

The essential truth is that the vast majority of women in North America use birth control of one form or another. That includes Catholic women. You shouldn't have to pay more money for a piece of preventative medicine just because your Boss holds some bizarre, and most likely hypocritical views on Sexuality.