Senator pushes for Abortion discussions on the web to be restricted.

[Mr. X]

True that.

Even if this passes, (its technically unconstitutional though as it violates the first amendment) it will be practically impossiable to enforce... Unless the government starts monitoring all of your actions even more closely then now. (I can see a massive expansion of the Patriot Act being one of the ways to enforce this law)

But still, question... If life begins at conception, then can a woman be charged with involuntary manslaughter if she has a miscarriage?

 

[Livewire]

The courts recognize that the "right" to have an abortion is not unlimited, and we will vigorously limit the practice to the fullest extent that the law allows.

Here is where your views get tangled up. The right to an abortion, even though protected by federal law, is somehow "limited", yet freedom of speech isn't?

Not mention, heavy and extreme federal regulation is ok, but only against things that don't jive with your ideology? You can't rail against government intervention 99% of the time, but turn into its biggest supporter the other 1% when it's an issue you seem to agree with. You either are or aren't.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

True that.

Even if this passes, (its technically unconstitutional though as it violates the first amendment) it will be practically impossiable to enforce... Unless the government starts monitoring all of your actions even more closely then now. (I can see a massive expansion of the Patriot Act being one of the ways to enforce this law)

But still, question... If life begins at conception, then can a woman be charged with involuntary manslaughter if she has a miscarriage?

No.

Since the definition of involuntary manslaughter varies by state, I'll use the California Penal Code as an example. It goes beyond just a mere accident. You have to be acting in a criminally negligent manner. For example, you accidentally kill someone in the commission of a dangerous act not amounting to a felony (a felony would apply the felony murder rule), or you accidentally kill someone while acting in negligent manner that any other reasonable person would understand could risk death. [California Penal Code section 192 (b)]

Here is where your views get tangled up. The right to an abortion, even though protected by federal law, is somehow "limited", yet freedom of speech isn't?

Not mention, heavy and extreme federal regulation is ok, but only against things that don't jive with your ideology? You can't rail against government intervention 99% of the time, but turn into its biggest supporter the other 1% when it's an issue you seem to agree with. You either are or aren't.

There is hierarchy of law. Freedom of speech is come from the Constitution. Constitutional law is the highest form of law. I haven't read any part of the Constitution that mentions abortion. Thus, statutory law and case law are lower forms of law than constitutional law. That is why speech cannot be limited to the extent that abortion can. Abortion also is contrary to the harm principle, which is what libertarians like myself use as a test to see where liberty should end. Speech doesn't end a human life. Abortion does.

That being said, I do recognize that freedom of speech is not unlimited. There are four classes of speech that are not constitutionally protected. Those are:
1) Obscenity
2) Fighting words, where the threat of lawlessness is imminent
3) Dangerous words (the classic "yelling fire in a crowded theater)
4) Slander/libel

 

[Netto Azure]

That being said, I do recognize that freedom of speech is not unlimited. There are four classes of speech that are not constitutionally protected. Those are:
1) Obscenity
2) Fighting words, where the threat of lawlessness is imminent
3) Dangerous words (the classic "yelling fire in a crowded theater)
4) Slander/libel

Which these forms of speech do not fall under yes?

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Which these forms of speech do not fall under yes?

Internet connections cross state lines, so Congress can regulate this under its authority to regulate interstate commerce.

 

[Livewire]

I haven't read any part of the Constitution that mentions abortion.

A document from 1789 wouldn't mention abortion, because it can't/couldn't possibly have. If there was ever more reason for loose constructionism, this is it.

Assuming it's a human life. A simple heartbeat a human does not make. Every vertebrate organism on earth has a heartbeat. That view is based entirely on an assumption with no finite and irrefutable scientific proof to back it.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

A document from 1789 wouldn't mention abortion, because it can't/couldn't possibly have. If there was ever more reason for loose constructionism, this is it.

Assuming it's a human life. A simple heartbeat a human does not make. Every vertebrate organism on earth has a heartbeat. That view is based entirely on an assumption with no finite and irrefutable scientific proof to back it.

Abortion has existed since the Earth cooled. This is Wikipedia, so take it with grain of salt, but: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion

 

[Eliminator Jr.]

I think that's a very biased article, even though I support women's right to choose. As for the actual law, I think it's pretty stupid - I mean unless the doctor is actually going to run tests on the woman involved then there's no difference between speaking face to face or speaking over video chat. The fact that this politician had to sneak the law into an unrelated bill shows that he didn't have confidence in the law passing on its own, which is saying something about the views of the majority of senators/Americans.

 

[Livewire]

Abortion has existed since the Earth cooled. This is Wikipedia, so take it with grain of salt, but: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion

Earth cooled roughly 3-4 billion years ago, so no it hasn't.

But what does that say about the Constitution? That only harms your points. Our founding fathers never even bothered considering it. Meaning, they never intended to touch it or considered it a non-issue. Something to ponder.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Earth cooled roughly 3-4 billion years ago, so no it hasn't.

But what does that say about the Constitution? That only harms your points. Our founding fathers never even bothered considering it. Meaning, they never intended to touch it or considered it a non-issue. Something to ponder.

It's a figure of speech. I meant that abortion has existed for a long time in human history.

Anything that the Founding Fathers did not mention in the Constitution cannot be protected by federal law. It becomes purely a state issue.

 

[Livewire]

It's a figure of speech. I meant that abortion has existed for a long time in human history.

Anything that the Founding Fathers did not mention in the Constitution cannot be protected by federal law. It becomes purely a state issue.

But like you said, the Constitution is the Supreme law of the land. And you won't find it in the individual states' constitutions either. Meaning we screwed something else up that the Founding Fathers were wise enough to know to avoid altogether.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

But like you said, the Constitution is the Supreme law of the land. And you won't find it in the individual states' constitutions either. Meaning we screwed something else up that the Founding Fathers were wise enough to know to avoid altogether.

The California Constitution actually does give protections for abortion. Way too many, in my opinion, but that's the current state of things. See Cal. Health & Safety Code § 123466.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States_by_state#State_by_State_Table

 

[(=Nemesis=)]

To those of you ranting about Why The Constitution Doesn't Forbid Abortion, you're missing one of the most important lines.

The one giving its people the right to, you know, Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness?

I'm British and even I know that bit.


So what exempts an unborn child from this right? Is it because he's not independent of his mother? That would mean the slaughter of six-month-old children should be legal. Is it because he's not currently contributing to society? Nobody really is until they've got a job or voluntary work. It would also cover anyone currently asleep. Murder is acceptable as long as the victim isn't conscious! Don't rest your head!

Or is it something else? The formation of a 100% functional brain? How do you test that one? Do you scan the brain for a pattern which represents "I think, therefore I am", and if you don't find it, consider the child a sub-human zombie-thing?

Or is it generally considered that unborn children Do Not Yet Have A Soul? OK, so, killing people on a subjective, untestable basis. Cool.


And you call it a "woman's right to choose". I call it a "woman's right to kill her offspring". The only difference between those two statements is that one of them is the literal truth, and the other one is a political whitewash. No prizes for guessing which is which I'm afraid. Those of you who like the idea of abortion, I'm astonished that you can sleep at night if you have to use a euphemism for the idea every time it comes up.

 

[Shining Raichu]

killing babies, killing babies, how can we live with ourselves, tl;dr

Whether you agree with abortion or not, the fact remains that it is legal and women do have the right to choose. This topic is about the ability to discuss abortion over the internet; what it is not is an opportunity to get on a soapbox and proclaim your moral high ground. I personally don't appreciate having pro-life propaganda thrust down my throat and I'm sure anyone else who doesn't agree with your views would feel the same. The difference is that we have been respectful enough not to go there, and I would very much appreciate it if you showed us the same courtesy.

I understand that abortion is an issue to which people attach a lot of emotion, but this is just ridiculous.

 

[(=Nemesis=)]

I personally don't appreciate having pro-life propaganda thrust down my throat and I'm sure anyone else who doesn't agree with your views would feel the same. The difference is that we have been respectful enough not to go there, and I would very much appreciate it if you showed us the same courtesy.

I understand that abortion is an issue to which people attach a lot of emotion, but this is just ridiculous.

The progression toward a woman's right to choose went linearly with history. There's nothing that annoys me more than somebody trying to re-open a battle after it's already been won.

Aha. Well.

I personally don't appreciate having pro-abortion propaganda thrust down my throat. And I'm sure anyone else who doesn't agree with your views would feel the same. The difference is I'm not changing my rules of discussion to suit the current situation, and I would very much appreciate it if you showed the same courtesy.

 

[deoxys121]

OK, here are my views on abortion in general: I don't like it, and I would never have it done if it was any of my business, such as a family member or close friend. If they couldn't take care of the child, adoption is the choice. But, as far as others, it's not my business. If they're gonna do it, let them. I don't know them and have never met them. It's none of my business what they do. Therefore, women should be allowed to discuss abortion with their doctors however necessary. And free to do it provided they make the decision intelligently.

 

[TRIFORCE89]

The pro-life side of the aisle seems very pro-death with preventing life-saving operations, performing executions, and wanting people who can't afford health insurance to just die.

 

[(=Nemesis=)]

The pro-life side of the aisle seems very pro-death with preventing life-saving operations, performing executions, and wanting people who can't afford health insurance to just die.

Abortion in the case of life-or-death scenarios is not something strongly contested as you infer. Also, health insurance? I thought that applied to everyone in the USA, and not just abortion patients.

Sweeping statements, cheap shot. Doesn't help, either, that your argument just doesn't conform to the basic rules of arithmetic, no matter how much emotive spin it's got.

For every mother who dies in childbirth, you would have a hundred lives terminated for the crime of being an inconvenience.

 

[Alley Cat]

^ Health insurance applies to like no one in the US these days, don't get your hopes up. The fact of the matter is this would ban the discussion between doctor and patient. No doctor in their right mind would preform an abortion due to information gathered on a Skype call. This is just the classical case of: You don't agree with me, so you you are wrong.

 

[TRIFORCE89]

Abortion in the case of life-or-death scenarios is not something strongly contested as you infer. Also, health insurance? I thought that applied to everyone in the USA, and not just abortion patients.

Sweeping statements, cheap shot. Doesn't help, either, that your argument just doesn't conform to the basic rules of arithmetic, no matter how much emotive spin it's got.

For every mother who dies in childbirth, you would have a hundred lives terminated for the crime of being an inconvenience.

Uh-huh, well, I wasn't speaking solely on abortion. It was a "sweeping statement", like you said, on just... what I see as general hypocrisy.

No arithmetic needed. The topic is about "life-saving" abortions and censorship.