English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

your are taking away a baby's (person's) right to live and everyone of all ages has the RIGHT to LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

2007-02-16 09:41:54 · 27 answers · asked by jj_frolik 1 in Politics & Government Politics

27 answers

Yes, abortion is unconstitutional and deprives innocent human beings of their right to life and due process. It is a simple biological fact that the child in the womb is a unique, living human being. Anyone who denies this is denying reality. For more information, see:

Photos and Video of Abortions, Including 1st Trimester Abortions:
http://www.cbrinfo.org/Resources/pictures.html
http://www.abort73.com/HTML/I-A-4-video.html

Photos and Facts About Prenatal Development:
http://www.justthefacts.org/clar.asp
http://www.abort73.com/HTML/I-A-2-prenatal.html
http://www.studentsforlife.uct.ac.za/foetal%20dev%20photos.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/3847319.stm

Pro-Life Answers to “Pro-Choice” Arguments:
http://www.deathroe.com/Pro-life_Answers/
http://www.pregnantpause.org/abort/choicarg.htm

A Comparison of Abortion and Other Historical Genocides:
http://www.blackgenocide.org/abortion.html

EDIT: Born babies can't survive without their mothers, either. Left alone, they will die. Does that mean it is acceptable to kill them? Should our dependency on others really determine our right to live? Where is the compassion?

2007-02-17 01:06:11 · answer #1 · answered by Just the Facts 2 · 0 0

It depends on what interpretation you take from the constitution. That's why we have the supreme court, and it, in 1972, declared abortion legal. Also, go read the constitution. The right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness is not in there. Actually, the constitution is very vague; you would wonder how an article like it has been successful for over 200 years.

2007-02-16 09:53:39 · answer #2 · answered by baseb11 2 · 1 0

No, I don't think it is unconstitutional. Could the baby survive outside the womb? What about the woman's right to choose whether she wants to be host to a life inside her? If everyone has the right to be born, what about all the sperm that is flushed down the toilet every time you use a condom? Did those sperm have a right to life? What about the egg that fertilizes and can't implant because a woman is wearing an IUD? One could argue that it has a right to life? Where do we draw the line?

Where does it say in the constitution that the government has control of what we do with our bodies? Do you want the President deciding whether you have the right to have children or not? I don't. That's why I live in America. We have freedom's other countries don't. If I wanted to live where the government controlled my life's decisions, I would move to a communist society. Abortion may not be the answer for me, or for you, but your government doesn't have the right to make that decision for you.

2007-02-16 09:52:27 · answer #3 · answered by mschvs_65 4 · 1 0

I'm with 'Bert'. I'm also a (L)iberal - Canadian style. I totally agree with Roe v Wade, and also that opinions based on religious convictions are just that, opinions(beliefs). The constitutional article relating to free speech allows all and sundry to 'wax' poetic or otherwise for or against virtually anything. It does not however give the anti-abortion factions of all stripes the unimpuned right to 'forcefully' condemn a well thought out decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. Remember, this is the same Court(different people) who basically 'declared' George W. Bush president of the United States. The 'church' and 'state' are separate in the Constitution and should remain so forever and beyond. The 'state' makes the laws and amendments, not the 'church(es)' now or ever. Your conscience is one thing, the law is another. Sometimes they are both in concert. Sometimes they're not. So be it. Live with it. The basic right of the human female is the only thing that matters. She decides, and the 'Court' finally gave that right to women in the USA in 1973. 'Nuff said.

2007-02-16 10:13:56 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Absolutely it is unconstitutional. What ever happened to the right to life? Some people say its not a baby because it can't survive on its own. How many babies that are born could survive on there own? Feed themselves, clothe themselves, working, and making money to support themselves? NONE!! In reality most people could not truly support them selves until they are probably 14 or 15, many people 30 or 40 cannot support themselves. Should we say anyone who cannot support themselves can be aborted? Rather than help others should we just kill anyone who can't support them selves. Because that is basically what abortion is. So then the question would be when does life start? Lets say it starts when there is a beating heart. This is usually known as a sign of life. So you ask, when does a babies heart start beating in the womb. Well it is scientifically proven that a babies heart starts beating about 8-10 days after conception. That's right 8-10 DAYS. And because it is so soon after conception, all babies in the womb should be given the RIGHT to life.

2007-02-16 09:58:15 · answer #5 · answered by flyguy03 3 · 0 2

The key to your statement is the phrase "everybody of all ages" and whether a first trimester fetus constitutes a person of any age.

And anyway, the constitution doesn't say a thing about "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" - that's the declaration of independence.

2007-02-16 09:58:30 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

Your argument does not make abortion "unconstitutional", because the phrase guaranteeing "life" as an inalienable right is in the Declaration of Independence, not the constitution.

But it does tell you the mindset of the founding fathers, doesn't it? The Bill of Rights mentions all the things that the founding fathers felt needed further specification. They never specified "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", likely because they thought that every ethical, responsible human being would understand that these are "inalienable" rights.

("FORCING ONE TO STAY PREGNANT"? What kind of moron would get herself pregnant and then pretend that it's someone else's fault and no one can "force" them to stay pregnant? Sounds like someone is not responsible enough with their own body and needs someone to force tieing off some tubes!)

2007-02-16 09:47:25 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3 2

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are not in the Constitution. That comes from the Declaration of Independence. However, as murder is clearly illegal, I do believe that abortion should be, also. The age of a person when murdered should not make any difference.

2007-02-16 09:47:46 · answer #8 · answered by J.R. 6 · 2 3

Hell no! The government intruding on a person's private life is unconstitutional. Do you really want far right anti abortion police scouring the country for women who have abortions? Yeah, well maybe you do.

2007-02-16 09:53:35 · answer #9 · answered by iwasnotanazipolka 7 · 2 0

"Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" is not in the Constitution.

A better Contitutional argument would be the 14th Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause.

Hope this helps.

2007-02-16 09:48:01 · answer #10 · answered by theearlybirdy 4 · 4 0

fedest.com, questions and answers