Thinking about abortion regulation requires three considerations: biological, legal and moral. The National Institutes of Health provides a good summary of the 40 weeks of pregnancy.

After conception, an embryo forms during the first 10 weeks of pregnancy. A woman’s body may detect conditions incompatible with human life and spontaneously abort about 50 percent of embryos.

The fetus cannot live outside the womb until about 20 to 22 weeks of pregnancy when it may become viable. At week 25, the fetus has a 50 percent chance of survival outside the womb. Most brain development occurs in the final trimester of pregnancy.

Childbirth is a most extraordinary event. Once the fetus emerges from the woman’s body, the heart and lungs begin to function and mature. The fetus becomes an infant when independent evidence of life is observed.

The Roe v. Wade decision rested largely on balancing prenatal health with the health and privacy rights of the mother. The court found that privacy extends to mothers particularly in the first trimester during which time states couldn’t prohibit abortion.

After the first trimester, the state may regulate abortion to protect the health of the mother. Subsequent to viability, the state may regulate or proscribe abortion except for preserving the life of the mother.

Planned Parenthood v. Casey superseded this decision by replacing the prohibition of abortion restrictions during the first trimester with the concept of viability. The criterion for the test of constitutionality changed to “undue burden.”

As a result, states may place restrictions on abortions before viability as long as they don’t impose undue burdens on the mother.

None of the forgoing addresses the Establishment Clause, which prohibits the government from using religion to justify a law. This point was made 30 years ago by Justice John Paul Stevens. He wrote that the divisive debate based on differing religious views made it clear that defending a law by invoking a particular view of God violates the First Amendment.

Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey did exactly that, while signing new restrictions on abortion, when she averred they affirmed Alabamians’ belief that conception is a sacred gift from God.

Finally, one needs to consider the impact on religion of anti-abortion rhetoric and legislation. Christianity proved its strength by spreading through evangelism. When it became a state religion, human control corrupted it.

This corruption led to schisms and religious wars, which motivated men such as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison to fiercely oppose requiring religious oaths of office or allowing established religion.

To paraphrase Lord Kelvin any religion enforced by law “… is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind.”

True pro-life would provide the essentials of a healthy life to all mothers and infants by the government. Otherwise abortion regulations remain a mechanism requiring mandatory birth without regard to the social or religious rights of the mother.

Dan Freeman is an occasional columnist for The Daily News.

Locations

(93) comments

Carlos Ponce

"health and privacy rights of the mother" What about the health and rights of the aborted baby? Oh, that's right, you don't believe it's a baby. It has its own DNA similar but different than the mother (only 50% of its genetic material comes from the mother). It follows the scientific definition of "life". "It" is human, "it" is a baby. Roe v Wade was a flawed decision. Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg thinks so. https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-offers-critique-roe-v-wade-during-law-school-visit https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/the-forgotten-history-of-justice-ginsburgs-criticism-of-roe-v-wade/2016/03/01/9ba0ea2e-dfe8-11e5-9c36-e1902f6b6571_story.html?utm_term=.1c8b6a18a5cc The "Right to Life" movement gets it's name from the US Constitution, Fifth Amendment: "No person shall be....deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...." Roe v Wade became a death sentence for many with no due process.

Ed Buckner

Dan Miller wrote a wise and thoughtful column, one that I posted approvingly on FB, where it drew many positive comments. Carlos Ponce trots out the old, tired bromides based on his religious definitions and without honest consideration of other viewpoints. "No person shall be...deprived...," indeed. But the Constitution and First Amendment make it clear that defining "person," for example, must be done without basing your definition on religious authority. That's true for all ideas, not just in re abortion. I'm decidedly pro-life and also pro-choice--but the Bible is not the authority I turn to for definitions. The Bible, which nowhere equates abortion and murder, can reasonably be cited to support the idea that abortion is OK anytime before birth. As Rick Lowery has written, "Genesis 2:7 is clearest. The first human became a 'living being' (nefesh hayah, 'a living breath') when God blew into its nostrils and it started to breathe. Human life begins when you start breathing, biblical writers thought. It ends when you stop. That’s why the Hebrew word often translated 'spirit' (ruah) — 'life force' might be a better translation — literally means 'wind' or 'breath.'” But the Bible, whatever it says, is not an adequate authority to cite on American law.

Carlos Ponce

"Carlos Ponce trots out the old, tired bromides based on his religious definitions and without honest consideration of other viewpoints." We know you don't believe in God but Ed Buckner still trots out the old, tired bromides based on his religious definitions and without honest consideration of other viewpoints. As for me and mine, we will follow the Lord. Judgement day is coming, Ed. Are you prepared?

Ed Buckner

If there is a judgement day, I won't be prepared. But I think that's an impossibly big "IF." If you're right & I'm wrong, I'm lost. But, Blaise Pascal to the contrary notwithstanding, that is not how truth is reached. (If I had a book that declared that only atheists can go to heaven, and you did not acknowledge its truth, then would I win an argument with you?) My point--and no, it's not an old bromide--is that whether you're right or not Mr. Ponce, US law under our Constitution is not settled based on anyone's religious definitions. The US Supreme Court lacks the authority to tell you that you're wrong about any religious idea, but they have the final authority to decide legal/constitutional ones. And the court has held that fetuses are not "persons." You can perhaps win an argument with a bible-believer on what the Bible says/means, but not with the Supreme Court. And claiming that you don't have to be an expert to know the Constitution as amended is "pro-life" betrays your lack of understanding about American law.

Carlos Ponce

As long as you live and breathe there's still time, Ed. And in 1892 the Supreme Court ruled in Holy Trinity v the United States that the United States was a Christian nation. De facto not de juri.

Ed Buckner

Carlos Ponce, I did it again--I meant neither George Miller nor "Dan Miller," but of course Dan Freeman. And Dan Freeman is, evidently, smarter than I am.

Ed Buckner

Carlos Ponce thinks we should rely on the dicta of a Supreme Court Justice as truth, despite subsequent decisions that did not rely on that one. Therefore he apparently would agree that Negroes cannot be citizens? After all, "In March 1857, the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision against Dred Scott. In an opinion written by Chief Justice Roger Taney, the Court ruled that black people 'are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word 'citizens' in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States.'" I certainly don't accept this and probably Mr. Ponce also does not--but why not?

Carlos Ponce

Dred Scott was rendered according to the Constitution as it existed in 1857. It was not until amended by the 13th Amendment that slavery was abolished and the 14th Amendment that citizenship was defined as we know it today.

Gary Scoggin

Dred Scott was later made moot by the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments. We fought a war over all of that.

Gary Scoggin

The threshold question here is, “When does the baby acquire a soul?” God didn’t make me smart enough to answer this question. You can cherry pick Bible verses to get any answer you want or you can create and expand a Constitutionally non-existent “Right to Privacy” to create a legal construct to support your biases. Personally, I think life starts very early in the womb. And that is why I find abortion troublesome. But I have no basis, religious or legal, to impose my views on someone else, especially in the early stages of a pregnancy.

Carlos Ponce

"God didn’t make me smart enough to answer this question." But God answers that question for us in Jeremiah 1:5 - The word of the LORD came to me, saying: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you..."

Gary Scoggin

Like I said, cherry picking Bible verses.

Carlos Ponce

Not "cherry picking" but addressing the question at hand.

Ed Buckner

Apparently, if one accepts the prophet Jeremiah's word, the "LORD" knew everyone before conception. That has long been the biblical basis for the church (the Catholic church, at least) to oppose any form of birth control. Every Christian has a guaranteed right to believe that god doesn't want anyone to use contraception--but no one has the right to impose that restriction on anyone else, even on someone else who accepts the Bible as authoritative and your interpretation of Jeremiah as correct. And that's not the most obvious biblical interpretation. As noted elsewhere, "The verses most on point when it comes to abortion are Exodus 21:22-25 which state: 22. And should men quarrel and hit a pregnant woman, and she miscarries but there is no fatality, he shall surely be punished, when the woman’s husband makes demands of him, and he shall give [restitution] according to the judges’ [orders]. 23. But if there is a fatality, you shall give a life for a life, 24. an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot. 25. a burn for a burn, a wound for a wound, a bruise for a bruise. The woman is not killed in the passage. Only the fetus dies in the encounter. The resulting punishment for the miscarriage is a mere fine. The Bible continues with declaring that had the woman died the death penalty would be imposed under the principle of a “life for a life.” If the fetus was considered a life then the death penalty would be imposed under the principle of a “life for a life” but since a fine is imposed it is understood that the fetus is not considered a life. From this it is clearly understood that a fetus is not considered a full human life, otherwise the punishment would be death under the subsequently enumerated literal biblical principle of lex talionis (‘eye for an eye’). "

Jim Forsythe

Being pro-choice is not being pro-abortion. Bishop Melvin Talbert of the United Methodist Church put it this way in a 1996 sermon: "In reality, there are many of us who believe that choice is the most logical and the most responsible position any religious institution can take on this issue. My sisters and brothers, we are dealing with something that is deeply spiritual and cannot be left to those who would choose to politicize this issue and further victimize those who must ultimately decide for themselves."

Carlos Ponce

Bishop Melvin Talbert will have to answer to God for that one.

Gary Scoggin

We will all have to answer to God, Carlos. And I don’t presuppose the questions he will ask.

Carlos Ponce

God won't have to ask God already knows.One answers to God in judgement.

Jim Forsythe

Carlos, if you believe that we talk to God, then Bishop Melvin Talbert had done so. He followed what they talked about . ------------------------------------------------------- The United Methodist Church began in the early 1970s to view abortion as a "choice". The United Methodist position in favor of abortion has been so strong that two of its institutions helped organize and affiliate with the Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights. For many years RCAR used office space in the United Methodist Building which is located across the street from the U.S. Supreme Court. In both 1996 and 1997 the United Methodist Church publicly supported President Clintons veto of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.

Carlos Ponce

Sounds like a one way conversation with human secularism winning the one sided discussion.[innocent] "The United Methodist position in favor of abortion". A "church that FAVORS abortion???????? But Jim Forsythe posted on Jun 23, 2019 9:21am "Being pro-choice is not being pro-abortion," but now you inform us that they FAVOR abortion.

Jim Forsythe

A "church that FAVORS abortion???????? Not just one but several do. These are a few that do.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- June 21, 2016 A number of religious groups, including the United Church of Christ, the Unitarian Universalist Association and the two largest American Jewish movements – Reform and Conservative Judaism – favor a woman’s right to have an abortion with few or no exceptions. Many of the nation’s largest mainline Protestant denominations – including the Episcopal Church, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and the Methodists – also support abortion rights, although several of these churches temper this support with the call for some limits on when a woman can terminate her pregnancy.

JD Arnold

From the official UMC.org site: "Organizations like the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC) receive no denominational funding. It’s important to note that the Church's statements on social issues, such as abortion, represent the effort of the General Conference to speak to human issues in the contemporary world from a sound biblical and theological foundation. They are intended to be instructive and persuasive, but they are not church law and are not binding on members. Members will hold differing views on abortion. There is no requirement for members to agree with the Church’s view."

Carlos Ponce

Addiing to JD Arnold's post - "Our [the United Methodist Church] belief in the sanctity of unborn human life makes us reluctant to approve abortion. But we are equally bound to respect the sacredness of the life and well-being of the mother and the unborn child. http://www.umc.org/what-we-believe/what-is-the-united-methodist-position-on-abortion That doesn't sound like favoring abortion.

Charles Douglas

I agree with you Mr. Ponce. Though we all have choices. choices have consequences and repercussions! The holy angels have choices, and that was the reason that one third of them foolishly chose to follow Lucifer in his rebellion so many centuries ago. It is also the reason Hell and the Lake of Fire sits waiting for all who think they know more than God concerning the world and life God created. Had a gentleman tell me once that he did not believe in Hell and the Devil. I asked him if he believed in God! He replied, "Of coarse!" I informed him that the same God that he believed existed SAID, IN HIS WORD, that a devil and Hell existed. People have choices to be sure, but once individuals are laid out in a coffin, with hands folded across their chests, and family or friends are grieving over them,.......that is when choices ends, that is when demands will be made to ACCOUNT. NOW, for those who have ears to hear let them hear, and be careful WHAT you hear. Don't let your remnant of flesh, or lack of self-control ruin your eternal rewards, or destiny which Christ has already paid for! Can't say you were never warned!

Charles Douglas

Another lil something, in Psalms 139:14-16: Thank you for making me so wonderfully complex! Your workmanship is marvelous—how well I know it. 15 You watched me as I was being formed in utter seclusion, as I was woven together in the dark of the womb. 16 You saw me before I was born. Every day of my life was recorded in your book. Every moment was laid out before a single day had passed. Keep being Satan's hands and mouthpiece. Remember now, you cannot be in God's camp and be also in Satan's. Matthew 12:30 States you are either with God or against God.....where are You, whose camp are you in? I just want this on the record for the forces who are keeping records for that Great White Throne Judgement!!!!!!

Diane Turski

Thank you, Dan, for that explanation. How curious that all these hypocrites claiming that they are pro-life are only concerned with the unborn. After a child is born, they have proven that they can no longer even claim to be behaving as "pro-life" by supporting cutting benefits for children such as denying them healthcare, limiting school lunch programs, etc. And, let's not forget the current "pro-life" policy of separating children from their mothers at the southern border, putting them in cages, and not bothering to keep track of where they put them for later reunification. Anti-abortion really is just anti-woman!! My Body = My Choice!!

Carlos Ponce

"My Body = My Choice!!" What about the child's body? " They have no voice, they have no choice?

Wayne Holt

While it must be jarring for women to hear mostly men discussing the legality of decisions that affect women exclusively--and since most pro-abortion rights folks don't seem to agree on when life is lawfully protected--I would be curious to hear exactly what protection should be afforded the male donor, formerly know as the father. What happens if the woman had wanted the child, carried the fetus, then changed her mind...and the father still wanted the child? Exactly what rights does a male have to see that something that can only created with male input is not destroyed? This should be interesting, because the rationale I've seen on this topic from others almost without exception devalues the role of the father just because he does not carry the fetus. While that particular biological necessity is something that will have to be taken up with God or Gaia as one sees fit, it does not alter the genuinely problematical legal issue of the right of a woman to abort without consulting him. If we want to be crassly materialistic about it, a mutually agreed conception is a contract of a sort. There are plenty of contracts with vastly differing responsibilities or performance clauses...but that doesn't mean one party gets to abrogate it without regard to the other.

Gary Scoggin

A good and serious question. Personally, I think the decision- and the Rights - lie with the mother. To be honest, I have no real basis for this other than tradition and the acknowledgement that the mother undergoes all the physical impacts of pregnancy and childbirth.

Carlos Ponce

More than just tradition, Gary. It's common sense to involve both "parents".

Carlos Ponce

"Personally, I think the decision- and the Rights - lie with the mother." A dangerous proposition, Gary Scoggin. If carried to fruition there would be no need for paternity suits, no more child support, no more custody battles - because "the decision- and the Rights - lie with the mother". If the mother chooses to have and keep the baby she would assume full responsibility until the child leaves the nest. Do you really want to go there? Are men just delegated to becoming sperm donors with no sense of paternal responsibility? You did not think of the ramifications of your statement. A sad world.[sad]

Gary Scoggin

So if the father wants to abort and the mother doesn’t want to, whose decision should prevail? Is the father’s consent required for every aspect of the pregnancy? Selection of Doctor? Natural or Cesarean? The naming of the child? Is this true even if parenthood is unknown or there was no preexisting relationship between the Couple? Are these fatherhood rights legal or just traditional?

Carlos Ponce

Once the father agreed to have "relations" with the woman he gave tacit consent for the possible birth of a child.

Gary Scoggin

In my experience, that's not how many teen aged boys process the opportunity at hand.

Carlos Ponce

Teen pregnancies are down, Gary.

Gary Scoggin

Yes and that's a good thing. But they still exist and will continue to exist as long at there are hormones. Nice try at a diversion though.

Gary Miller

After conception the only way to keep the child from being born is killing it. Every conception is not perfect, the mothers body may detect a fatal flaw and abort the Fetus. These 'natural' abortions usually happen before first heart beat. Often before the woman suspects she is pregnant. After first heart beat the fetus is a living human baby with the rights of a citizen. Killing a baby with beating heart should be 'first class murder'.

Gary Scoggin

Gary Miller - what’s your basis for that definition? Just wondering.

Wayne Holt

"This point was made 30 years ago by Justice John Paul Stevens. He wrote that the divisive debate based on differing religious views made it clear that defending a law by invoking a particular view of God violates the First Amendment." Which is curious, since an exterior frieze of the US Supreme Court building depicts Moses as one of humanity's three great lawgivers, an interior frieze depicts Moses and Mohammed, and the first Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court said that Americans should "select and prefer Christians for their rulers." Odd, that. Will chisels be employed to correct this oversight?

Craig Mason

Not condoning one side or the other, but I find it laughable that the whole discussion is amongst a group of men. Men who can neither get pregnant nor have an abortion, have all kinds of opinions on it. Our government, run by men consistently cuts funding for prenatal care, family planning or anything else that would benefit a low income woman. It seems no thought is put into the fact that by not having family planning options for women and especially low income women, you are almost forcing these women into a decision around abortion. I also find it laughable and almost hypocritical that when one woman chimes into the conversation about making the choices concerning her body, she is attacked. Very sad. If men had laws passed limiting their choices for medical care, this would be a whole different discussion.

Carlos Ponce

Craig Mason, yours is a sexist post. I will speak for those who cannot. Bless the unborn and speak for them - they have no voice, they have no choice.To suggest I cannot reeks of fascism.

Gary Scoggin

Sexist and Facist at the same time! A two-fer! Now we need to talk of religious elitism.

Craig Mason

The facts are the facts, it is still a group men having this debate and unless you can get pregnant you don't have to live by it. Everything is easy for those that don't have to comply. Not sexist!

Carlos Ponce

Craig Mason is segregating opinion by male and female and disregards those provided by males. That's SEXIST!

Craig Mason

No its just fact not sexist. Women can't get prostate cancer, so should group of lawmakers made up of 90% women be able to tell you what kind of treatment you should get? Some treatments could end a males ability to procreate, should someone other than you and your doctor be able to make those decisions. If you want to be entirely technical the sperm is alive in the scrotum, so if you get radiation treatment and kill that are you not ending life? Most males that I know would not like being told what to do with their bodies and or medical care. I don't know why so many men are so concerned about women's medical decisions. I believe it is a control issue!

Carlos Ponce

Craig, here is the definition of sexist:prejudice or discrimination based on sex You hold that those who identify as male should have no say in the abortion discussion. Your comments are definitely sexist. You post that most males you know would not like being told what to do with their bodies. All males I know do not self diagnose. So you would disregard advice from a wife, daughter, sister, , niece, female health practitioner on the basis of their gender???? I get advice ALL the time from my relatives. And my PA is a female. I have friends and relatives who are nurses, pharmacists, pharmacy techs. I seek their advice if necessary.

Jim Forsythe

Advice in making medical decisions is just that, ADVICE, and not a demand that you do it the way they want.----------------------------------------------------- Unless someone is appointed guardian over me, I makes my own personal decisions, such as those involving medical care, as I have last say in my medical decisions, Can the same be said for a Woman?

Craig Mason

Go back and re-read, I said I find it laughable. I did not say that our opinions don't matter. The fact that most law making bodies are between 80 and 90 percent male makes me feel like the people affected have been drowned out. Thought it seemed ironic.

Carlos Ponce

"laughable"??? Really? You consider someone's opinion on a topi as serious as abortion to be "laughable"? Oh well, Craig, in this country even sexists are entitled to their opinion.[whistling]

Gary Scoggin

(Remember, Craig, Those conservative evangelical snowflakes have no sense of humor that we know of.)

Carlos Ponce

No, Gary S. We have a sense of humor, we know what is funny and what is not. Finding someone's legitimate views on a topic as serious as abortion "laughable" is beyond the norm. It's not funny.

Jim Forsythe

Craig, was so right when he said:"but I find it laughable that the whole discussion is amongst a group of men. Men who can neither get pregnant nor have an abortion" And Gary stated a fact when he said,Those conservative evangelical snowflakes have no sense of humor that we know of. Carlos tried to change the flow of the discussion away from the point that men try and make the rules. ""laughable"??? Really? You consider someone's opinion on a topic as serious as abortion to be "laughable"?" Remember that Advice in making medical decisions is just that, ADVICE, and not a demand that you do it the way they want

Carlos Ponce

Looks like we have some sick puppies thinking another's opinions on a serious topic are "laughable". SAD!

Craig Mason

As well as narrow minded zealots are free to speak their opinions. This is am awesome country where people of differing opinions can debate in an open forum God Bless the USA. On another note don't appreciate the name calling. But hey it's a free country right. Seems as if I have touched a nerve or two.

Jim Forsythe

Craig I'm sure he was thinking about the band and not using a term like that for a person. https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=sick+puppies+band&view=detail&mid=52C609A98DFBF2BFFE3E52C609A98DFBF2BFFE3E&FORM=VIRE

Carlos Ponce

Craig, this is a serious topic. Making it "laughable " is not the sign of a mature mind.

Carlos Ponce

Bottom line: Men can comment on the issue of abortion. To say they cannot is discrimination based on sex, ie. SEXIST.

Jim Forsythe

Trying to twist what Craig said into what you wanted it to mean , does not make it true. "Not condoning one side or the other, but I find it laughable that the whole discussion is amongst a group of men. Men who can neither get pregnant nor have an abortion, have all kinds of opinions on it."---------------------------------- Nowhere in the above statement did he say abortion was laughable.

Carlos Ponce

I'm not twisting, Jim. You are. "Men can comment on the issue of abortion. To say they cannot is discrimination based on sex, ie. SEXIST,"and "Looks like we have some sick puppies thinking another's opinions on a serious topic are "laughable". SAD! is what I posted.

Craig Mason

You are correct Jim. Just thought the group in the conversation was a little funny or ironic, given the subject.

Carlos Ponce

There you go again, Craig. You know once you dig a hole deep enough, it's hard to get out of it!

Jim Forsythe

Craig. you know what else is ironic, Carlos trying to say "Men can comment on the issue of abortion " when if you look at the number of Women that have committed on this thread, is 3 or 4. Men can commit on abortion and do, but it does not stop at that. Laws are passed by mostly men that will never have a abortion. Craig, Carlos will try and turn it in a discussion about something else and not about men trying to force Women to do what men want. And band played, Twist And Shout.

Carlos Ponce

Jim, I know many women who believe in the Right to Life. And there are pro-Life women in the House, Senate and State Legislatures.

Jim Forsythe

And how many Women posted on this thread? You posted " Men can comment on the issue of abortion" on a thread mostly men comment on.. You made Craig and my point, that men are making the rules for Women.--------Craig, Carlos will try and turn it in a discussion about something else, and not about men trying to force Women to do what men want. And band played, Twist And Shout.

Carlos Ponce

I cannot control who contributes to these forums. The number is finite. And I DO NOT make the rules. The "rules" as you put it are made by elected men AND women and judicial appointments. There is an excellent choice for the next Supreme Court Justice but Liberals detest her - Judge Amy Coney Barrett - for her pro Life stance.

Gary Scoggin

Jim said, "Carlos will try and turn it in a discussion about something else..." This is what he always does when proven wrong on a point. Change the subject. It happens all the time.

Craig Mason

Didn't dig a hole, just drilled till I hit a nerve. I enjoyed the debate!

Carlos Ponce

Digging a deeper hole.

Richard Illyes

If you thought the drug war was bad, wait until you see the war on abortion. A new criminal industry providing abortions would spring into being. What will ambitious prosecutors do to force women who miscarry to reveal their (non existent) abortion providers. Would pregnancy self-tests be outlawed? They would have to be. Potentially pregnant women would have to be forced into the medical system so their pregnancies could be reported and their unborn children protected. A huge new government agency would consume untold amounts of tax money while wreaking havoc on those targeted by its forces. Would it screw up constantly? What do you think? The government should be kept out of this issue. Leave things as they are. Any other direction is guaranteed chaos.

Carlos Ponce

"Would pregnancy self-tests be outlawed? They would have to be." You are entitled to your opinion but these statements are ridiculous. There are many women of child bearing age who want a child who use those test kits. The tests are not just for those who seek termination on a positive result. Many use the test hoping for a positive result so they can prepare for a bundle of joy.

Emile Pope

The new laws are not designed to protect children. They are designed to control women. The fetus is just the means used to accomplish this. Interesting how the concern for the child ends the second they are born and the anti-abortion crowd couldn't care less if the child is provided for or has medical care. Especially if they feel that they may have to contribute to any of it. Apparently when a woman becomes pregnant, all of her rights transfer to the fetus and her rights are eliminated...

Carlos Ponce

The woman has a right not to have sex as well as her partner. Only a small percentage of abortions were because of rape. The rest were consensual. How about self-control if the couple does not want to bring a new life into this world? Try it, it works 100% of the time.

Emile Pope

To say that someone has a right not to do something is to say that they have no rights at all. And right wing blathering doesn’t change that...

Carlos Ponce

This post makes no sense, Emile.

Emile Pope

I keep overestimating your level of sophistication...when you tell someone that they have the right to not do something, you are really telling them that they have no right to do it. In this case you are telling women that they don't have the right to have sex. As I said earlier, it's not about protecting the child, it's about controlling women...

Carlos Ponce

It's about the Constitutional right to life. If you believe the unborn child has no rights then you are like those in pre- Civil War America who claimed the slave had no rights.

Emile Pope

Since you are no authority or have any authority to speak on either subject i'll simply ignore your comment...

Carlos Ponce

Emile, I don't have to be an authority on the Fifth Amendment to know that the Right to Life is there.

Gary Scoggin

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.” I don’t see the word “abortion “ in there anywhere. Nor anywhere else in that glorious document. And I doubt the concept even entered James Madison’s mind when he wrote it. The idea that the Constitution speaks to abortion either way is a fantasy held by partisans on both sides.

Carlos Ponce

Apparently Gary Scoggin did not read what he posted: "nor be deprived of life....without due process of law." "NOR BE DEPRIVED OF LIFE". It doesn't take a Rhodes Scholar to figure that out, Gary.

Emile Pope

The 5th Amendment doesn't even apply unless you consider a woman to be a government or the extension of one...try to catch at least one straw...

Carlos Ponce

Okay try the 14th which extended the Right to Life: "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". So we have Federal judicial decree and state law enabling the deprivation of life.

Emile Pope

So now a woman is the State?

Carlos Ponce

No Emile. But the "state" is abetting.

Emile Pope

totally false...

Carlos Ponce

Coming from Emile that comment will be given all the attention it is due.[yawn][yawn][yawn][sleeping]

Gary Miller

Using religion to approve or reject a legal question is un constitutional. Roe V wade ignored the question of the 'right to life' of a citizen (AKA fetus). Roe should have identified the medical question of when a fetus becomes a citizen. Before first heart beat would not qualify but after first heartbeat the baby should have all the protections of citizenship. If ROE had been passed on legal considerations instead of political policy most abortions would have been illegal and 'choice' would have been to have unprotected sex or not.

Gary Scoggin

All strict constitutionalists should hate Roe v Wade. It created a new entitlement, a "Right to Privacy" out of nothing and usurped the power of the States granted under the Tenth Amendment. I don't like jacking with the Constitution to get an anwer you like. Abortion should be regulated by the individual states -- legal in some, banned in others. As a nation we don't have to agree on this. There are no interstate commerce ramifications about it and it's very dubious whether any other clause in the Constitution addresses. Certainly not, if you are going by original intent. Again, I don't like abortion but I don't think I have the right to tell another person what to do in this case. But if it's going to be regulated, it should be done so at the state level.

Emile Pope

After all, regulation by the individual states worked so well and so effectively with Civil Rights during the Jim Crow era...

Gary Scoggin

Emile. I didn’t write the Constitution but I sure respect it. It has come short on occasion but that is due to our failures in following it. To wit, the Civil Rights struggle. It was Amendment XIV granting equal protection under the law that finally - after too hard of a struggle - enabled us to kill off many of the Jim Crow era laws. It is still our best tool in fighting that type of thinking.

Emile Pope

What??? The 14th Amendment was passed in 1868. Jim Crow started after that. And the state's rights argument was used to enforce it for almost a hundred years. So save your let the states decide argument for people less woke...

Gary Scoggin

It took a hundred years but it was the 14th Amendment that finally prevailed. But I see state's rights in Civil right issues as different from State's rights in abortion. The civil liberties are expressly stated in the Constitution; a right to privacy or abortion isn't. Therefore, since there is no direct Interstate Commerce connection, per the Tenth Amendment it should be up to the states to decide. We all shape the Constitution to fit the outcome we want. I'm trying not to do that here.

Emile Pope

So a guess the Armistice ended World War II and the A bomb ended the Korean War...

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Thank you for Reading!

Please log in, or sign up for a new account and purchase a subscription to read or post comments.