The proper Constitutionalist views on abortions & same-sex issues

[Cynanthrope]

I was looking through some threads on the issues of abortion & gay marriage but couldn't find any answers, so if someone could post the proper threads please do.

1) What is the proper Constitutionalist view on abortion? Should it be prohibited completely because it's the abortion of a fetus or should it be left to the states to decide via the 10th Amendment? Or, was the ruling of Roe v. Wade justified & nothing should be done to reverse or modify the ruling?

2) Should the government be involved in the same-sex marriage issue whatsoever? Should individual states be allowed to legalize/prohibit gay marriages or should that issue be left completely to the churches and/or private sector?

3) How about same-sex adoptions? Should individual states be allowed to prohibit/legalize same-sex adoptions via the 10th Amendment or should the govt. not be involved with same-sex adoptions & leave it to the private sector?

 

[dannno]

States...states.....states...states...states

 

[dannno]

But how should the states handle it, imo?


Abortion -

I'd like to see an attitude shift in this country because I think medical abortions are violent and unnecessary. There are natural abortive remedies that are safe and effective and most importantly cheap, so they can be used immediately once a woman is aware she is pregnant. This will mean the abortions that do happen will happen earlier. For women who don't succeed in the natural abortive remedies, it would be better that they adopt.. however I wouldn't be in favor of prosecuting medical abortions, I would be in favor of individuals advocating against them.


Marriage -

I don't think the states should be involved in marriage at all, it is a religious ordeal.


Adoption -

As long as adoption agencies are adopting from moms who consent and adopting to parents who consent to take the child, I don't see why the state needs to be involved. If a particular adoption agency adopts to gay couples and you are against that, then you should be able to take your baby to an adoption agency that only adopts to straight couples. On that note, adoption agencies that adopt to only straight couples should not be prohibited from doing business by the government.

 

[TinCanToNA]

Well life begins at the umbilical cord snip, so obviously abortion only involves a woman's body and nothing else whatsoever

Just standard murder is handled by the states, and so should they also manage preinfanticide. Cave men used infanticide to lessen the number of mouths to feed. Outside of places like North Korea and very, very few other places where famine is a routine concern, this could never possibly be justified under any circumstance that recognizes value in human life or individual rights. Civilly retarded 'modern' cultures such as significant areas of China regularly commit both infanticide and abortion of females, as they are viewed as less valuable.

For same-sex marriage, the answer should be the same as all marriage--get government out. Legal agreements between any two adults should be honored by governments.

Adoption is perhaps trickier, but states should be able to do it.

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

I think it's time for some states to adopt a state religion again.

Starting in NH with the religious ethical doctrine of non aggression principles and self ownership.

 

[LookingForward]

The government needs to stay out of issues concerning marriage.

Abortion, on the other hand:
An individual's life begins when his or her DNA has formed. That individual has an inherent, unalienable right to life.

 

[UtahApocalypse]

The government needs to stay out of issues concerning marriage.

Abortion, on the other hand:
An individual's life begins when his or her DNA has formed. That individual has an inherent, unalienable right to life.

So flushing the toilet after a miscarriage is desecration of a corpse? We should have to have funerals, and burials for every "human" as you define with a casket and plot?

Life begins at birth.

I am against abortions, bit would never force MY beliefs on someone else. This is my libertarian view.

 

[LookingForward]

So flushing the toilet after a miscarriage is desecration of a corpse? We should have to have funerals, and burials for every "human" as you define with a casket and plot?

Life begins at birth.

I am against abortions, bit would never force MY beliefs on someone else. This is my libertarian view.

An individual who does not live to see birth is no less an individual. A funeral, casket or what have you would be for the parents to decide.

 

[noxagol]

The proper Constitutionalist view would be the same as Ron Paul's; let the states deal with it. You personally can feel either way about it, but what you can't do is move for a federal allowance or banning of the procedure as the Constitution does not grant the national government that power.

 

[LookingForward]

The Constitution does grant the national government power to protect life and when it comes to protecting life, liberty and property, we must impose our views on others.

 

[MelissaWV]

The government needs to stay out of issues concerning marriage.

Abortion, on the other hand:
An individual's life begins when his or her DNA has formed. That individual has an inherent, unalienable right to life.

I guess every sperm IS sacred...

 

[dannno]

The Constitution does grant the national government power to protect life and when it comes to protecting life, liberty and property, we must impose our views on others.

We as humans have the inherent right to protect ourselves and our property. If we have the right we can transfer it to others. So for example, I can transfer the right to protect my life and my property to the government. But I can also transfer that right to my neighbor. If I'm being robbed and I have a good relationship with my neighbor, they can come protect my life and property, on the assumption that it is something that I want them to help me with, and generally it would be.

If my neighbor's wife was about to kill her child on the front lawn and I was watching the events unfold, I'd run over and protect her child's life. I feel I would be within my rights to do so.

However, if my neighbor's wife is early in her pregnancy and chooses to terminate the pregnancy, I don't feel that I have the right to interfere in those matters. Therefore, I wouldn't vote to give the state the right to interfere in those matters. In my state. In your state, you might believe that you do have the right to stop a woman from terminating an early pregnancy and so you might vote to ban all abortions. In your state.

An individual's life begins when his or her DNA has formed. That individual has an inherent, unalienable right to life.

According to Deuteronomy, the blood is the life. So according to that passage in the Bible life doesn't begin until a fetus has blood, which occurs at 4 weeks.

I personally don't like medical abortions at all, I think they are violent. There are plenty of natural abortive remedies that are extremely cheap and safe that women could use to terminate pregnancies within the first month or so. Basically you drink a tea for a few days and you have a miscarriage, but it's so early in the pregnancy that it's more like just having a period. I think we could help end the Abortion Industrial Complex through simple education and by allowing states to decide in these matters so that we could look to different states to see what is most successful and most humane.

 

[SerArris]

I guess every sperm IS sacred...

Monty Python Sings... Some funny tunes including the aforementioned "Every Sperm Is Sacred". Thanks for reminding me of that Melissa!

 

[LookingForward]

MelissaWV wrote:

I guess every sperm IS sacred...

Sperm and eggs are merely cells of the parents. When they come together, they form a unique human life.

 

[Brian in Maryland]

The Constitution puts into law the ideas expressed in the Declaration of Independence:

…endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men…

Government is supposed to be protecting life.

As for marriage, the government should not be in the marriage business, there was a time in America when they weren’t.

Licensing whether two people can marry? What the hell is that all about? ( that’s rhetorical, I know what it is about, control and taxes)

 

[TinCanToNA]

Are you people truly that stupid regarding abortion? Cut the religions 'blood in fetus' crap or talk about sacred sperm. As of the moment of conception, a unique biologic identity is formed; it's new human life. Don't believe me? Ask a biologist, ffs.

Oh, that's right, some people believe that life begins at birth. Talk about religious nonsense! What ritual empowers you with life at birth, hm? The cutting of the umbilical cord makes you a human? Science disagrees, as does common sense. All humans, regardless of their stage in their natural life cycle, should not be subjected to arbitrary death for menial reasons. If you want to talk about self defense, even war or capital punishment, there are a plethora of philosophical points of view on those matters. But any philosophy that does not value human life is a self-defeating one. Hence Peter Singer and his complete bastardization of Utilitarianism, claiming that it's okay to "abort" babies up to three years old becuse they don't appreciate the concept of tomorrow and therefore won't mind being killed; just so long as it makes the mother happy. Guess he never had a dad...

 

[Krugerrand]

I personally don't like medical abortions at all, I think they are violent. There are plenty of natural abortive remedies that are extremely cheap and safe that women could use to terminate pregnancies within the first month or so. Basically you drink a tea for a few days and you have a miscarriage, but it's so early in the pregnancy that it's more like just having a period. I think we could help end the Abortion Industrial Complex through simple education and by allowing states to decide in these matters so that we could look to different states to see what is most successful and most humane.

I'm not sure where you get your information.

What I could find on abortive remedies is that they are essentially chemical compounds that poison the child with the hopes that the level of poison does not kill the mother. The results are often a child that survives but with serious complications as a result of the poison - or both mother and child die.

My experience with women who have had early miscarriages is that are exceptionally traumatic. While the bleeding MAY correspond with a period there is far more to it than that. The experience is quite similar to child birth from a hormonal perspective. They leave a woman emotionally and physically exhausted.

While abortive remedies may eliminate the situation from the legal realm from a practical standpoint - the shift does not shield the person from a morally reprehensible act. To try and portray them as something they are not is, at best, disingenuous to somebody who may not know better.

That said, I'm all for ending the Abortion Industrial Complex and for any murder to be handled at the state level.

 

[MelissaWV]

Some people really should learn to lighten up. I've never seen a Monty Python reference cause so much turmoil.

The proper Constitutionalist view was what was asked for in the OP. If life begins precisely at conception, then a lot of birth control will need to be eliminated from the market. You should at least be consistent with that, as some forum members are. If life begins at birth, then there should be no laws that tack on the death of a baby in utero as an additional charge. If life is defined by "intent" (does the mother "intend" to have a baby, or is it "unwanted"?) then we are in bigger trouble than most would like to admit.

Since there is very likely not ever going to be a concensus on this one, the proper Constitutionalist view would be to leave it up to the smallest viable and recognized unit. If we're talking about making laws of this sort, that would be the state. I personally disagree with that, but it's certainly better than how things are now.

The closest I've seen to a rational answer on this is the fact that we recognize someone as "dead" when there's a certain lack of brainwave activity. Even that is up for debate, but if that's going to be a standard, then it should also be the standard for the beginning of life. That one's worth pondering.

 

[TinCanToNA]

The closest I've seen to a rational answer on this is the fact that we recognize someone as "dead" when there's a certain lack of brainwave activity. Even that is up for debate, but if that's going to be a standard, then it should also be the standard for the beginning of life. That one's worth pondering.

That is worth pondering, but there are innumerable examples of special rules for humans in the early stages of their natural whole life cycle (i.e. children).

"Wanted" or "unwanted" are asinine criteria; not only do those shift as a function of time during gestation, that's also one hell of a piss-poor reason to end someone's life. It's in complete agreement with Peter Singer's version of "Utiltarianism," but then again, bad arguments often fit with bad philosophies. Fundamentally, the whole argument about "choice" and "it's my body," are failures to accept reality. The "choice," except in cases of rape, was made when you got laid. It is your body, except for the little bit of it that is now your child's. Own up to the consequences of your actions.

I didn't catch the Monty Python referrence. Guess it must have been from the 98% of Monty Python stuff that isn't funny.

 

[Baptist]

Cynanthrope;

I was looking through some threads on the issues of abortion & gay marriage but couldn't find any answers, so if someone could post the proper threads please do.

1) What is the proper Constitutionalist view on abortion? Should it be prohibited completely because it's the abortion of a fetus or should it be left to the states to decide via the 10th Amendment? Or, was the ruling of Roe v. Wade justified & nothing should be done to reverse or modify the ruling?

Google the "Virginia Kentucky Resolutions" of 1798. Madison and Jefferson argued that there are ONLY two or three crimes the Federal Government has the authority to prosecute: high crimes on the seas, piracy, etc. This means that the Federal Government has no authority to outlaw murder. So assuming that abortion is murder, the Feds have no authority to be involved in it. The states are free to criminalize and punish murder how they see fight, and this includes abortion if you believe it to be murder.

2) Should the government be involved in the same-sex marriage issue whatsoever? Should individual states be allowed to legalize/prohibit gay marriages or should that issue be left completely to the churches and/or private sector?

From a legal standpoint the Federal Government has no authority to dabble in marriage whatsoever. States can do whatever they want. So if California wants to recognize gay marriage they can. If Utah wants to allow polygamy they can. If Ohio wants to outlaw gay marriage they can.

From a philosophical standpoint government should not be involved in marriage at all. Marriage is an institution between God and individuals. There should be no tax benefits for married people. Remember, we get our rights as individuals, not as groups. Giving benefits or rights to certain "married" people goes against the principle that we are all endowed with the same unalienable rights.

3) How about same-sex adoptions? Should individual states be allowed to prohibit/legalize same-sex adoptions via the 10th Amendment or should the govt. not be involved with same-sex adoptions & leave it to the private sector?

Again, the states get to decide. I prefer no government involvement, though. To me you can solve 99% of ALL problems with the enforcement of property rights and contracts. If I want to adopt my kid out to somebody else we can draw up a contract that says so. It should be none of the government's business unless one of us takes the other to court for violating a contract.

Knowing the 9th and 10th Amendment does not help understand state's rights as much as knowing that ALL ten amendments are supposed to apply to the Federal Government only. So when you read the Bill of Rights know that they are directed at the Feds. Legally, states can infringe upon speech, religion, guns, due process, etc (but all states have their own Constitutions which prevents this). Philosophically, though, is another matter.


Are there going to be problems with minimal government or no government? Of course. But IMO the problems would be minimalized with no government. It is also important to remember that freedom only works with a good and moral people. Myself, I get my morals from the Bible.

But even if we had anarchy or very minimal government in a country full of immoral scumbags, I'd take that over this government. You can defend yourself against your neighbor. You can't defend yourself against tyrannical government.