Should we vote on abortion?

[ChristianCenturion]

Granted, the weakest branch of government made it so that some of our tax dollars are converted into promoting and funding abortions and related procreation topics, but should we as a society pursue deciding democratically whether or not we should protect the fetus from some of the more inhuman procedures (i.e. partial birth abortion (late term abortion), the individual has had repeated abortions with no supportive cause, etc.) or at least attempt to vote regarding supporting the unfounded decision?



We could vote on all abortions save some token incest, rape, problematic fetal development, etc. or we could simply outlaw the 'medical' procedure and not seek to penalize the woman.



How about cutting all funding via government and remove any financial incentives for the industry.



The assertion that this (right to abort a fetus) is what we have for a ruling and it is good enough has failed to prove itself.

We have the constitutional right to vote on this, should we push to use it?

 

[flicka]

I don't know if a vote would work. I wouldn't want the common voter making a medical decision for me...but I would like to see a standard set within the medical and legal communities that would calm the hysteria surrounding abortion. But knowing that some wouldn't be happy with less than a total ban and others with anything but total freedom of choice makes me doubt that would happen.

Just remember, if there is vote you might loose.

 

[Thirst_For_Knowledge]

Granted, the weakest branch of government made it so that some of our tax dollars are converted into promoting and funding abortions and related procreation topics, but should we as a society pursue deciding democratically whether or not we should protect the fetus from some of the more inhuman procedures (i.e. partial birth abortion (late term abortion), the individual has had repeated abortions with no supportive cause, etc.) or at least attempt to vote regarding supporting the unfounded decision?



We could vote on all abortions save some token incest, rape, problematic fetal development, etc. or we could simply outlaw the 'medical' procedure and not seek to penalize the woman.



How about cutting all funding via government and remove any financial incentives for the industry.



The assertion that this (right to abort a fetus) is what we have for a ruling and it is good enough has failed to prove itself.

We have the constitutional right to vote on this, should we push to use it?

No. Not allowing abortion has already been deemed unconstitutional.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

I don't know if a vote would work. I wouldn't want the common voter making a medical decision for me...but I would like to see a standard set within the medical and legal communities that would calm the hysteria surrounding abortion. But knowing that some wouldn't be happy with less than a total ban and others with anything but total freedom of choice makes me doubt that would happen.

Just remember, if there is vote you might loose.

Based on the science today and what rights have been bypassed, I would say that there are already many losers with the status quo.

But to address your note to the varied view of positions, then it would be incumbent upon them to 'plead' their case as opposed to the judicial tyranny that we currently have thrust upon us.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

No. Not allowing abortion has already been deemed unconstitutional.

They are free to leave our borders; they are also free to abstain from creating the condition.

It is also unconstitutional to kill out of convenience and the State has not proven its case against the fetus.

It is also unconstitutional to make uncontested, unilateral decisions concerning a shared offspring.

It is also unconstitutional to have taxation without representation.

It is also unconstitutional for the judicial branch to make law instead of interpreting it.


With the notion of "With much power comes much responsibility". Where is the responsibility demanded from the aborting woman? She is, after all, deciding uncontested and unilaterally concerning things beyond herself.

I understand your statement, but the Democratic Republic process has not decided it. It was decided by a group of interpreting lawyers and for a woman that now regrets their decision. The rest of history is out of citizen and intellectual laziness. IMHO

You can vote 'No', I would choose otherwise.

And the thread is not: 'is abortion right?'.
It is: "Should we vote on abortion?".

 

[morningstar2651]

A vote about a vote...

 

[ChristianCenturion]

A vote about a vote...

It's good enough for the Senate.

 

[Kira Faye]

I voted no cause I feel this sort of thing is to personnal to be voted on.... but I woudl liek to see some grounds laid down for it and soem more education so the problem of convienience aborttion is gotten rid of. I vote for better education.

 

[Clem is Me]

I voted no. You should never have a vote on another person's medical decision.

 

[hernyaccent]

Granted, the weakest branch of government made it so that some of our tax dollars are converted into promoting and funding abortions and related procreation topics, but should we as a society pursue deciding democratically whether or not we should protect the fetus from some of the more inhuman procedures (i.e. partial birth abortion (late term abortion), the individual has had repeated abortions with no supportive cause, etc.) or at least attempt to vote regarding supporting the unfounded decision?



We could vote on all abortions save some token incest, rape, problematic fetal development, etc. or we could simply outlaw the 'medical' procedure and not seek to penalize the woman.



How about cutting all funding via government and remove any financial incentives for the industry.



The assertion that this (right to abort a fetus) is what we have for a ruling and it is good enough has failed to prove itself.

We have the constitutional right to vote on this, should we push to use it?

No. The vote would fail because majority doesn't always win or rule. A persons medical choice is not yours to make.

 

[Alencon]

Granted, the weakest branch of government made it so that some of our tax dollars are converted into promoting and funding abortions and related procreation topics, but should we as a society pursue deciding democratically whether or not we should protect the fetus from some of the more inhuman procedures (i.e. partial birth abortion (late term abortion), the individual has had repeated abortions with no supportive cause, etc.) or at least attempt to vote regarding supporting the unfounded decision?

We have the constitutional right to vote on this, should we push to use it?

I don't think a vote would accomplish anything other than maybe establish an indication of a vague national opinion.

I say vague because a simple referendum could never take into account all of the potential subtleties. Even your post identifies a variety of potential questions.

Legally it would accomplish little unless the court could use it as a basis for making a ruling similar to the ruling associated with the Death Penalty as "cruel and unusual" where the constitutionality of a question can be affected by the establishment of a national consensus. But the court doesn't really need such an excuse to overturn it's own decisions if it wants to and would ignore it if it doesn't.

I might also point out that the US is a Republic and not a Democracy so we have no "constitutional right" to vote on any particular question. We merely have the constitutional right to elect representatives to vote on it for us.

 

[Thirst_For_Knowledge]

They are free to leave our borders; they are also free to abstain from creating the condition.

It is also unconstitutional to kill out of convenience and the State has not proven its case against the fetus.

It is also unconstitutional to make uncontested, unilateral decisions concerning a shared offspring.

It is also unconstitutional to have taxation without representation.

It is also unconstitutional for the judicial branch to make law instead of interpreting it.


With the notion of "With much power comes much responsibility". Where is the responsibility demanded from the aborting woman? She is, after all, deciding uncontested and unilaterally concerning things beyond herself.

I understand your statement, but the Democratic Republic process has not decided it. It was decided by a group of interpreting lawyers and for a woman that now regrets their decision. The rest of history is out of citizen and intellectual laziness. IMHO

You can vote 'No', I would choose otherwise.

And the thread is not: 'is abortion right?'.
It is: "Should we vote on abortion?".

I don't understand what you mean here. Honestly, I'm not sure this has anything to do with my statement. The Supreme Court is there to interpret the constitution. We have the civil liberty of privacy in the United States. Abortion falls under this scope. What a woman does with her own body is up to her. This may sound horrible, but the citizens of the United States aren't often educated enough to make these types of decisions. This is the reason why we have people to do it for us. You see, whether abortion should be legal or not isn't about if it is "right" or "wrong". It is about whether a woman's privacy is constitutional or not. The constitution is the supreme document in the United States. It ratifies all other thoughts and laws.

This if one of those things that isn't up to the people.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

I don't understand what you mean here. Honestly, I'm not sure this has anything to do with my statement. The Supreme Court is there to interpret the constitution. We have the civil liberty of privacy in the United States. Abortion falls under this scope.

Well, I see that there is yet one more that has been duped into this false notion. In order to declare it as such, the government must first prove that the child in the womb is not viable, that it isn't cruel and unusual punishment, that viable does not equate protection of the authorities. The government has not done so. In fact, it is afraid to address such examination, because it cannot make a case to justify it's actions. And last I knew, the courts were to interpret justice. We as a society in order to be 'moral' must defend those that can not defend themselves against a decision concerning another’s life or painful death. This tout of 'privacy' fails against other such conditions. Do you think that a person's "privacy" in their bedroom is a defense against rape? How about murder? How about the right to plot against the government in the privacy of one's bedroom? Perhaps you can show me where in the constitution we have some 'right' of privacy that trumps all other conditions. How about self-mutilation? Are you going to try to tell me that someone can't be taken into custody for their own good even if it only affected them? No. All across the board, this alleged 'right of privacy' that overpowers all other considerations fails in scrutiny.

What a woman does with her own body is up to her. This may sound horrible, but the citizens of the United States aren't often educated enough to make these types of decisions. This is the reason why we have people to do it for us. You see, whether abortion should be legal or not isn't about if it is "right" or "wrong". It is about whether a woman's privacy is constitutional or not. The constitution is the supreme document in the United States. It ratifies all other thoughts and laws.

This if one of those things that isn't up to the people.

As you can see above, your appeal to 'privacy' is not a super trump card and is shown to be the lazy mentality of a nation increasingly concerned about its desires as opposed to its responsibilities.

As you can also see, I do not agree that the rights overturned for the father, for the child or even the rights of the woman to be educated in what is involved are all abandoned due to a concept of 'privacy'.

 

[HazyRigby]

Should we have allowed a vote in 1865 on whether slavery should have remained legal?

Some things are not up to the population at large. My medical choice is one of them.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Should we have allowed a vote in 1865 on whether slavery should have remained legal?

You sound as if there is certain evidence that it would have remained legal. We of course will never know if it would be ratifiied to be abolished then or even prior... because there were those that didn't want that descision in the the hands of the moral citizen majority. A note that would help you keep things in perspective, not everyone was a plantation managing, slave owning, entreprenuer back 'in those days'.

Some things are not up to the population at large. My medical choice is one of them.

It is also your choice to avoid the condition from occurring in the first place - and that 'choice' doesn't require the pain and killing of a fetus, over-riding a man's right to decide the fate of his offspring, or the financial servitude of the taxpayer to promote it. That would be referred to as being a responsible adult.

I see that there is a majority of non-Christians responding to this. A pity that some would remain silent on this discussion given the value and respect of life - all life.

I also see that those that have responded don't seem to want to address the fact that there is considerable profiting involved in our current system. On such a passionate subject and one that is not confined to being 'a simple matter', one would think that the incentive in being a conflict of interest would be removed and efforts would be made to make the system a 'non-profit' organization and free of government propagation.
This is the Philosophy & Morality section, is it not? Those that have responded can't (or I should say haven't) make a case to where this is shown to be 'moral'. All I have seen is a claim that privacy triumps over all and that the decision of one (the woman) over others' (the father, the child, the citizen) is better than the decision of many over endorsing a fews' choice.

 

[jayem]

There is no legal basis for a nationwide vote on abortion. The Constitution says nothing about national referenda. Nowhere does it give the Congress power to authorize such. I believe it would take a Constitutional amendment to give such a vote any legal standing.

Now if the USSC ever reverses itself on Roe, then abortion laws would be decided by each state. Some state laws may authorize voting for amendments to their own Constitutions, or for propositions which may become laws. But a vote in such a case would only apply within the state.

You say that the "State" has not proven a case against the fetus. I don't know what you mean by this. In Roe v Wade, the appellee (arguing in support of laws criminalizing abortion) was the state of Texas, represented by its AG, Henry Wade. In all of the landmark abortion cases, to my knowledge, the party challenging restrictive abortion laws have been private citizens or reproductive rights organizations. (Whether Norma McCorvey has changed her mind is not an issue. She was the name used to file the case. The real plaintiff was a Texas reproductive rights group--and they haven't changed their mind.)

And the real issue is a legal question, not a biological one. It's not whether a fetus is human, or is alive. The crucial issue is: does the term "person" as used in the Constitution refer to a fetus or embryo. The document never says that a fetus is a "person." And despite what is often claimed, there really is no long standing precedent or legal tradition for considering that the unborn have the same legal status as "persons." Justice Blackmun discusses this in the opinion (decided by a 7-2 majority, BTW.) That's what Roe is really all about. Not that fetuses aren't alive, or aren't biologically human, but that they are not "persons" in the legal sense (at least not from the moment of conception.) You may disagree and have some good arguments. But at the present time, there are only two legal options: 1) SCOTUS will overturn its prior ruling, or 2) a Constitutional amendment to define a fetus as a "person." But I don't see any legal mechanism for a nationwide popular vote on abortion.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

There is no legal basis for a nationwide vote on abortion. The Constitution says nothing about national referenda. Nowhere does it give the Congress power to authorize such. I believe it would take a Constitutional amendment to give such a vote any legal standing.

Now if the USSC ever reverses itself on Roe, then abortion laws would be decided by each state. Some state laws may authorize voting for amendments to their own Constitutions, or for propositions which may become laws. But a vote in such a case would only apply within the state.

You say that the "State" has not proven a case against the fetus. I don't know what you mean by this. In Roe v Wade, the appellee (arguing in support of laws criminalizing abortion) was the state of Texas, represented by its AG, Henry Wade. In all of the landmark abortion cases, to my knowledge, the party challenging restrictive abortion laws have been private citizens or reproductive rights organizations. (Whether Norma McCorvey has changed her mind is not an issue. She was the name used to file the case. The real plaintiff was a Texas reproductive rights group--and they haven't changed their mind.)

And the real issue is a legal question, not a biological one. It's not whether a fetus is human, or is alive. The crucial issue is: does the term "person" as used in the Constitution refer to a fetus or embryo. The document never says that a fetus is a "person." And despite what is often claimed, there really is no long standing precedent or legal tradition for considering that the unborn have the same legal status as "persons." Justice Blackmun discusses this in the opinion (decided by a 7-2 majority, BTW.) That's what Roe is really all about. Not that fetuses aren't alive, or aren't biologically human, but that they are not "persons" in the legal sense (at least not from the moment of conception.) You may disagree and have some good arguments. But at the present time, there are only two legal options: 1) SCOTUS will overturn its prior ruling, or 2) a Constitutional amendment to define a fetus as a "person." But I don't see any legal mechanism for a nationwide popular vote on abortion.

Thank you for a well educated and sincere posting. You have addressed this with truth and clarity. I would not consider it all true, but there are after all, debatable topics.

~~~~~~~
http://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment XIV (1868)
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

~~~~~~~
http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/charters/declaration_transcript.html

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--
~~~~~~~


And yes, it comes down to whether or not the fetus can be considered a person. Not that the government is incumbent on declaring such, based on the DoI, we have already established that God makes that decision, it is therefore incumbent (as I see it) for the government to "prove" that the fetus is not a person.

Notice that we can claim that these "truths are self-evident" and that it "Life is endowed by the Creator".
Government has not established that the Life within the human womb can be stopped under the guise of justice.

I also contend that the woman with her contribution of 23 chromosomes can not by herself be consider the Creator; yet, she is the only current authority that can unilaterally decide to end the life growing within her. Logic would dictate that in a secular world, that the combination of 23 paired chromosomes from the woman and 23 paired chromosomes from the male (the two people as a unit) could be considered a creator. Yet, our courts currently void the male’s consideration. It is also the male's property (in possession of the woman) that is decided upon without a court hearing for each instance.

To say that there is not a constitutional issue or to say that science and technology has not established that it is human life, with sensations of pain, thought and growth, would be to ignore all the facts we have today.

Morally, we have an obligation to correct what we have now and challenge this by means of property, defense of Life, due process of law per individual, or due process of the citizens' right for representation concerning submission to governing law.

 

[jayem]

Everyone who's interested should read it directly (there is some legaleese to get through.) This is pasted from Section IX of Justice Blackmun's opinion for the majority:



A. The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well- known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, [p157] for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument.(51) On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument(52) that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to "person." The first, in defining "citizens," speaks of "persons born or naturalized in the United States." The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. "Person" is used in other places in the Constitution: in the listing of qualifications for Representatives and Senators, Art. I, § 2, cl. 2, and § 3, cl. 3; in the Apportionment Clause, Art. I, § 2, cl. 3;(53) in the Migration and Importation provision, Art. I, § 9, cl. 1; in the Emolument Clause, Art. I, § 9, cl. 8; in the Electors provisions, Art. II, § 1, cl. 2, and the superseded cl. 3; in the provision outlining qualifications for the office of President, Art. II, § 1, cl. 5; in the Extradition provisions, Art. IV, § 2, cl. 2, and the superseded Fugitive Slave Clause 3; and in the Fifth, Twelfth, and Twenty-second Amendments, as well as in §§ 2 and 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application.(54)[p158] All this, together with our observation, supra, that throughout the major portion of the l9th century prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.(55) This is in accord with the results reached in those few cases where the issue has been squarely presented. McGarvey v. Magee-Womens Hospital, 340 F. Supp. 751 (WD Pa. 1972); Byrn v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp., 31 N. Y. 2d 194, 286 N. E. 2d 887 (1972), appeal docketed, No. 72-434; Abele v. Markle, 351 F. Supp. 224 (Conn. 1972), appeal docketed, No. 72-730. Cf. Cheaney v. State, -- Ind., at --, 285 N. E. 2d, at 270; Montana v. Rogers, 278 F. 2d 68, 72 (CA7 1960), aff'd sub nom. Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U. S. 308 (1961); Keeler v. Superior Court, 2 Cal. 3d 619, 470 P. 2d 617 (1970); State v. Dickinson, 28 [p159] Ohio St. 2d 65, 275 N. E. 2d 599 (1971). Indeed, our decision in United States v. Vuitch, 402 U. S. 62 (1971), inferentially is to the same effect, for we there would not have indulged in statutory interpretation favorable to abortion in specified circumstances if the necessary consequence was the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

inferentially is to the same effect, for we there would not have indulged in statutory interpretation favorable to abortion in specified circumstances if the necessary consequence was the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection.

It is indeed gratifying to read someone well versed in the issue at hand and a double blessing that you maintain fact and post respectfully.

I do however state that it is incumbent upon the government to prove that the life is not a person. We know it is life, our revered documents state self-evident and Creator - not government's right to declare non-personhood.
Burden of proof is upon the government - given the natural course of events, the fetus would most likely meet future, established recognition of personhood.

Again, the subject is whether or not Democratic Republic process should be used as opposed to judicial tyranny. I agree that the SC decision of R. v. W. would not outlaw abortion, but would in essence bring about exactly what this thread is asking. Call it prep work for what is to come.

 

[Aimee30]

Decided not to vote on the poll but the OP has some good ideas. I vote that someone make some rules about this. After all, unwarranted killing isn't legal and the fetus is a lifeform. I don't think saving the whale but killing the fetus makes a whole lot of sense together. I would never drown a kitten because it isn't wanted, so I couldn't possibly kill lifeforms without a reason as in extreme medical necessity or perhaps to be able to eat as in some animals.
Maybe we should hire a lobbyist or sign a petition instead?