Would you support a Constitutional ammendment making abortion illegal?

[Archivist]

Not sure what your point is No Username Found. Amendments can be done by Constitutional Convention, but it has never happened. The claim was not that the Constitution has never been amended.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Not sure what your point is. Amendments can be done by Constitutional Convention, but it has never happened. The claim was not that the Constitution has never been amended.

Okay, just so that I am understanding you correctly. You are not saying that the Constitution has never been amended, rather, a the Constitution has never been amended via a Constitutional Convention?

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Why?

There is no exception for rape, and it legislates a decision between a doctor and their patients. The government should not have any say in any person’s private medical care.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

There is no exception for rape, and it legislates a decision between a doctor and their patients. The government should not have any say in any person’s private medical care.

Does the cause of conception change the value of the life in the womb? If so, under what grounds? Obviously it cannot be biblical grounds because the Bible is clear that the life in the womb is precious regardless of how the mother became pregnant. Furthermore, the only abortions that this proposed amendment would ban are abortions made out of convenience to the mother. Not abortions that are medically necessary. Yes, a woman choosing to abort the baby solely because it is a child of her rapist is a convenience based decision.

 

[Archivist]

Okay, just so that I am understanding you correctly. You are not saying that the Constitution has never been amended, rather, a the Constitution has never been amended via a Constitutional Convention?

Yes, I’ve clearly said that in two posts. The other poster said the same thing.

 

[Archivist]

Does the cause of conception change the value of the life in the womb? If so, under what grounds? Obviously it cannot be biblical grounds because the Bible is clear that the life in the womb is precious regardless of how the mother became pregnant. Furthermore, the only abortions that this proposed amendment would ban are abortions made out of convenience to the mother. Not abortions that are medically necessary. Yes, a woman choosing to abort the baby solely because it is a child of her rapist is a convenience based decision.

Tell the rape victim that forcing her to carry the fetus of her attacker for nine months is just a matter of convenience.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Yes, I’ve clearly said that in two posts. The other poster said the same thing.

Okay. That make sense. Thank you for clarifying.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Tell the rape victim that forcing her to carry the fetus of her attacker for nine months is just a matter of convenience.

Yes, it is inconvenient to carry the child of your rapist. However, that does not justify murdering an innocent child. I will say that, as Christians, there should be more effort to help these unfortunate women care for these children and help them find loving homes. I have seriously considered starting an organization dedicated to such a cause. If a woman is impregnated as a result of rape and must carry the baby to term, the pro-life advocates should advocate for the life of the child after it is born.

 

[Archivist]

Yes, it is inconvenient to carry the child of your rapist. However, that does not justify murdering an innocent child. I will say that, as Christians, there should be more effort to help these unfortunate women care for these children and help them find loving homes. I have seriously considered starting an organization dedicated to such a cause. If a woman is impregnated as a result of rape and must carry the baby to term, the pro-life advocates should advocate for the life of the child after it is born.

Carrying the fetus of an attacker to term is more than inconvenient. According to some women, having to do so would be devastating. No woman should be forced to do that against her will.

You’ve been talking about the Constitution. It forbids slavery. How is forcing a rape victim to carry the fetus of her attacker against her will not putting her in a state of slavery for nine months?

 

[GodLovesCats]

That is not the point. A claim was made that the process of amending the constitution was never successful. Which is false. It has been amended 17 times. You know, abolishment of slavery and the two-term limits to the President? How do you think those amendments came to exist?

Yes, and changing the President's inauguration date, letting women and later 18-year olds vote, etc. I am from the Dry Capital of the World so I will never forget the 18th Amendment.

 

[Tutorman]

This thread is a carry over from my previous thread "How can abortion be biblically defended." In that thread, I noticed that their was perhaps one verse that was ever used to biblically defend abortion (Numbers 5). Many Christians stated that they believed that abortion is biblically wrong and sinful however they supported the "Constitutional Rights" of others to make that decision. So the question is very simple so I would expect a very simple answer. If, as a Christian, you had the opportunity to vote to amend the Constitution so that only abortions that could be performed legally in the United States are those in which is medically necessary for the survival of the mother or if the unborn could never live outside the womb (ect. no brain development), would you be in favor of it?

Only if the amendment had abortion completely banned

 

[GodLovesCats]

Yes, it is inconvenient to carry the child of your rapist. However, that does not justify murdering an innocent child. I will say that, as Christians, there should be more effort to help these unfortunate women care for these children and help them find loving homes. I have seriously considered starting an organization dedicated to such a cause. If a woman is impregnated as a result of rape and must carry the baby to term, the pro-life advocates should advocate for the life of the child after it is born.

With Missouri set to close its only abortion clinic, I recommend starting in St. Louis.

 

[Sketcher]

With the permanence given to Constitutional Amendments, I'd rather not. You have to make sure you're getting the standard you set with an Amendment absolutely right before you ratify it, and if you don't, you have to pass another Amendment to supercede it. No thanks. I'd rather have the standard decided at the level of state or federal law, where it can be more easily changed as necessary.

 

[GodLovesCats]

With the permanence given to Constitutional Amendments, I'd rather not. You have to make sure you're getting the standard you set with an Amendment absolutely right before you ratify it, and if you don't, you have to pass another Amendment to supercede it. No thanks. I'd rather have the standard decided at the level of state or federal law, where it can be more easily changed as necessary.

This has already happened, as I explained in my first reply. It is still not "easy" to pass state laws with all of the right abortion restrictions, but definitely a much better solution than a repeat of the 18th and 21st.

 

[TuxAme]

I support an amendment making all abortions illegal. It's impossible for the staunchest abortion advocate to name one instance where it would be medically necessary- to save the life of the mother- to dissect her living child in her womb or burn him/her with chemicals.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Carrying the fetus of an attacker to term is more than inconvenient. According to some women, having to do so would be devastating. No woman should be forced to do that against her will.

You’ve been talking about the Constitution. It forbids slavery. How is forcing a rape victim to carry the fetus of her attacker against her will not putting her in a state of slavery for nine months?

I am going to ask you a very simple question. Is the value of the unborn determined by the method of conception. Meaning, is an unborn child any less valuable because the mother was raped? Does the unborn child conceived from a loving married couple more valuable than a child of rape?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Only if the amendment had abortion completely banned

I agree. But I figured that considering the extraordinary rarity of an actual situation where an abortion was required to save the life of the mother, it would be a good compromise. I am sure you would agree that 1 medically required abortion every 5-10 years is better than 40-50 million performed annually in the United States alone?

 

[Sketcher]

I support an amendment making all abortions illegal. It's impossible for the staunchest abortion advocate to name one instance where it would be medically necessary- to save the life of the mother- to dissect her living child in her womb or burn him/her with chemicals.

Ectopic pregnancy. And I'm pro-life, for the record.

 

[GodLovesCats]

I support an amendment making all abortions illegal. It's impossible for the staunchest abortion advocate to name one instance where it would be medically necessary- to save the life of the mother- to dissect her living child in her womb or burn him/her with chemicals.

Unless you are a medical doctor, you are not qualified to say there are no medical reasons a mother can't finish her pregnancy.

 

[SPF]

Unless you are a medical doctor, you are not qualified to say there are no medical reasons a mother can't finish her pregnancy.

Unless you are a medical doctor, you are not qualified to say there are medical reasons a mother can't finish her pregnancy.