A Woman's Right to Choose
Dies a woman have a right to choose? The answer is a resounding yes but there are some limitations. A woman has a right to choose to do whatever she wants as long as her decision does not cause harm to another human being.
A woman does not have a right to lie, cheat or steal and she does not have a right to terminate the life of her husband or the life of her unborn baby. A baby is not a wart of a tumor that she can have surgically removed. The unborn baby is a future human being that has the same right to life as its mother or father.
Powers not delegated to Congress are prohibited and abortion is an issue that was not mentioned in the Constitution and is therefore reserved to the states. Congress has no lawful authority to pass laws legalizing or criminalizing abortion. It is an issue reserved to the states.
The final arbiter of what is and what is not Constitutional is a decision to be made by the state legislators.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Jeanine Kincheloe on
-
I believe any law that violates the Laws of God (Nature's God and Natural Law) is null and void. Created beings made in His image are not subject to dissection while alive, suction or chemical death, much less, being left on a counter to suffocate while "being made comfortable," as some heartless governors desire.
-
-
As Jeanine, stated God's law is supreme. From a secular perspective on the subject of abortion and as a tax payer, why should I have to pay for someone else's mistake, having had no part in making that baby I should not have to pay for an abortion. Furthermore what becomes the rights of the newborn when you have partial birth abortion or when a child is born alive and left to die. This isn't about the right to choose if only one of the parties involved has rights while the other is ignored, the abortion industry is just that; an industry. Once again I say, the United States ought not be obligated to pay for badly handled business transactions or for a pregnancy it had no part in creating.
-
-
I read the entire and lengthy Roe v. Wade decision in the 90's. The one part that made sense to me was a lower court ruling in which the judge stated that US courts only posess jurisdiction over US citizens and that definition of "citizen", set in 1808 by the Supreme Court was; "A US citizen is an individual, born or naturalized in the united States of America". It was set by the US Supreme Court in a case that had nothing to do with abortion and yet has stood the test of time for over two-handed years.
The fetus was not regarded as "individual" until after the second trimester as it cannot presently survive and/or be viable outside the womb before then. Further, it has not yet been "born". And while a Constitutional amendment could possibly make it a "naturalized" citizen at some point in the future, that point in time was not then nor now existant.
Given that definition, the fetus is relegated to the approximate status of "parasite". Since no other legal "citizen" is harmed, the woman's right to choose prevailed.
While it has been a couple of decades since I read the ruling, that is I believe how it went down.
-
-
Science has proved when the heart beats, and that changes everything. A beating human heart and the full realization of that, is far different from a glob of tissue waiting to become what it is supposed to be.
-
Permalink Reply by Morton Thomson Jr. on
-
You are conflating "human" with the technical term "Person". They are not the same, and any definition which addresses the term "person" cannot be said to also apply to the term "human".
They are separate and distinct and humans have rights, one of which is the right to life. "Personas or Persons" do not have rights, only privileges.
The Chinese believe that life starts at the moment of conception. I am inclined to agree.
-
-
Yeah, and we're told that we can change our gender by will any day we want to. An example of the wisdom we asked to absorb.
-
-
If anyone can find Roe v Wade or Obergefell in the Congressional Register where laws are recorded, please share that. I cannot find it, which means that it is one more legal fiction. SCOTUS has no right to invent rights (privacy) any more than they have the right to invent new types of marriage. Or over immigration, for that matter. Person to person, person to state, state to state, state to fed and ambassadors and public ministers, that is all they have the jurisdiction to judiciate on. And even there, they cannot write law.
-
-
amen,
-
-
She surely has the right to choose to use a contraceptive BEFORE the fact. She has the right of abstinence. She has several modes of control over body. Killing her unborn child should not be one of them.
Once the body that was her's, houses another person, it becomes community property for a while. It's temporary and she doesn't have to raise the child, she just should not have the right to kill it.
There is no reason I can think of that makes the woman's life any more precious and important than the life of the child she carries. And sure infanticide is what it is when human beings are murdered in the millions at that point in development. There's no getting around that.
Our society has taken it even further. We dissect and sell the organs, brain tissue, cell stems etc. How inhumane can you get to turn human beings into an exchangeable commodity. It's worse than slavery or prostitution.
How long do we go on believing somehow that we will be lucky enough to escape such a fate? If they can do this to infants, they can do this to anyone. God help us!
-
Permalink Reply by Keith Broaders on
-
-
-
Why is it that those who support a woman's right to choose also reject the death penalty for convicted murderers?
-
-
I think because a pregnancy touches their own life, it's convenience. It means putting someone else before yourself. If a convicted murderer is half way good looking they'll marry him, for goodness sake. Now that another enigma. But I really think it is simply selfishness that brings a women to terminate her own child. She just doesn't want to be bothered. The incidence of actual life-threatening pregnancies are slim and none, unless one uses their emotional health, true or not, to escape motherhood.
.
© 2025 Created by Keith Broaders.
Powered by
