Ways to be a perfect Democrat..... (1 Viewer)

[RebSaint]

They did make it clear. Your rights as a citizen begin at birth. You aren't a citizen of the country you were conceived in, you aren't automatically whatever your parents are - you are a US citizen the moment you are born on American soil.

Right.

Which had nothing really whatsoever to with a fetus--which makes their omission of discussing the fetus in their various arguments the centerpiece of my argument. They're intent is unknown because they had no modern knowledge of a biological fetus.

I just don't think they were sentimental enough to think of a fetus as a sentient being apart from the mother. Nor were they sentimental enough to think of Blacks and Indians as equals to whites, nor were they intent on giving women the same rights as men. I think their intentions are crystal clear. Luckily, and this is your best argument, they have a track record of being wrong about quite a few things.

We're running in circles here. Your right about blacks, Indians and women regarding the framers, which is exactly my point about the troubling nature of ascertaining "intent" when making these arguments.

The framers didn't have any concept of the modern biological conception of the fetus, so therefore we can't ascertain with any certainty how they would view citizenship viewed through the prism of a modern knowledge of biology and abortion.

Your argument hinges on the fact that they intentionally left out the fetus and it was a conscious decision. I'm arguing that the framers didn't know what the hell a fetus was and they lived in a world without modern medicine's advancements vis a vis access to abortion. You can't simply tell me that they're intent was clear in this regard.

You're applying 21st century values on 18th century people. The Framers left out the unborn because they had no real modern medical conception of the unborn--which doesn't mean that the framers intentionally left out the unborn as a conscious political decision.

The omission of the "unborn" in this context as an argument about the framers' intent on abortion is just really misleading, imo.

 

[dtc]

That caught my eye too. Is wage garnishment for compulsory government health care adoption a way of staying out of our business? Like Cruize said, both sides are horribly flawed.

No, Mr. Pink. But, in the interest of cheapness, it could save us some dough seeing as how we already treat everyone and instead of paying for it through federal taxes, we pay for it in increased insurance, health care, and local taxes.

 

[RebSaint]

Just for clarification purposes: I'm not really trying to argue a pro-life position and can see the constitutional perspective of both sides.

When it comes to the real nuts and bolts of the abortion argument--the "status" of the fetus, whose rights should take precedence I'm really torn and haven't bothered to do any detailed research to take some firm position to convince me that there needs to be some national position which will be the final authority or answer.

So in a way, my perspective of kicking it back to the states I think maybe a more prudent approach--the problem is both sides are so entrenched that I recognize that abortion will continue to be a federal issue, whether we like it or not.

And it's a national issue because it's a supreme court issue, and presidents appoint Supreme Court justices. To claim it isn't a presidential issue or a non-issue for an election year is just being naive. Maybe it shouldn't be a national issue, but deserves got nothing to with it.

 

[JimEverett]

I don't claim to have read *all* the relevant SC opinions on the subject. But it strikes me as odd -- to say the least -- that the "my body, my choice" rule could apply to one, but not to the other. Thus my statement about "inconsistency".

One thing I want to clarify: are you saying that the SCOTUS uses history as a guideline with respect to abortion, but not with respect to prostitution? Or are you saying that historical proof exists of abortion being legal, but not of prostitution being legal?

My comment came out wrong - Even though its exactly what I wrote, I didn't mean to say that you had to read SCOTUS opinions to know this stuff, so just forget that bs comment.


And I am saying neither - I am saying that the history of abortion regulation in the United States, and the historical evidence concerning the role the state played in terms of marriage and acts in marriage, and decisions regarding pregnancy, etc. is a very different history from that of prostitution in the United States.
I do not know a great deal about the history of prostitution in the United States except that it has always been subject to state regulation (a big difference from abortion). My hunch is that it was probably for the most part legal (again, with heavy regulation) during the 17th and 18th and much of hte 19th Century because prudish morality had not entered the scene or gained nearly the prominence it has today.

 

[iron error]

Right. They weren't concerned with where one was conceived, but where one was born. And that illustrates a belief that life (and the resulting citizenship) began at birth.

But we are not talking about the rights to citizenship, we are talking about the right to your life. Pro-life means you have the right to live from the moment of existing, not from the moment you are a citizen, this is an unalienable right IMO just like the other ones.

 

[gavinj]

Right.

Which had nothing really whatsoever to with a fetus--which makes their omission of discussing the fetus in their various arguments the centerpiece of my argument. They're intent is unknown because they had no modern knowledge of a biological fetus.

Of course they had knowledge of a biological fetus. They probably had seen plenty of examples at various stages of development. You said that abortion was practiced back then. What was the term they used to describe the aborted baby?

We're running in circles here. Your right about blacks, Indians and women regarding the framers, which is exactly my point about the troubling nature of ascertaining "intent" when making these arguments.

And yet, their intent was quite clear in each case which is why amendments were needed later in order to fix their mistakes and correct their misconceptions.

The framers didn't have any concept of the modern biological conception of the fetus, so therefore we can't ascertain with any certainty how they would view citizenship viewed through the prism of a modern knowledge of biology and abortion.

The modern prism encompasses a neo-Christian view on when life begins. A fetus, still tethered to mother, is now considered an independent child by lots of people. Back then, if it didn't make it, it was goo to be buried by one of your slaves while you were on your way to deliver smallpox blankies to the Indians. They were much more concerned with their actual children than their potential ones.

Your argument hinges on the fact that they intentionally left out the fetus and it was a conscious decision. I'm arguing that the framers didn't know what the hell a fetus was and they lived in a world without modern medicine's advancements vis a vis access to abortion. You can't simply tell me that they're intent was clear in this regard.

My argument hinges on the fact that they obviously believed that citizenship began at birth, not conception. I'm not saying they were right. I'm not saying they were wrong. I'm just saying the intent is quite clear. They may have been fond of the unborn, but not enough to protect them from abortions or from domestic violence for that matter.

You're applying 21st century values on 18th century people. The Framers left out the unborn because they had no real modern medical conception of the unborn--which doesn't mean that the framers intentionally left out the unborn as a conscious political decision.

They didn't intentionally leave it out, just like they didn't intentionally leave out other stuff that they thought was so unimportant or absurd that it didn't warrant discussion or mention. They specifically stated, though, that citizenship begins at birth. There's no other way around it. They knew that there is a gestational period of 9 months and during that time, that kid doesn't count! You don't put its name in the census, you don't adjust the number of reps each state gets in the House by adding the number "potential citizens" currently residing in wombs etc. It's just ridiculous.

The omission of the "unborn" in this context as an argument about the framers' intent on abortion is just really misleading, imo.

If you can find anything, anywhere written by any of the framers or their friends or their friends' friends or their friends' friends' cousins that they were adamantly against preganancy termination... boy, will I be impressed.

 

[gavinj]

But we are not talking about the rights to citizenship, we are talking about the right to your life. Pro-life means you have the right to live from the moment of existing, not from the moment you are a citizen, this is an unalienable right IMO just like the other ones.

The US Constitution only applies to US citizens. In order to be a citizen and enjoy those rights to life, the framers insisted you go through a birth process or a naturalization process.

 

[RebSaint]

Of course they had knowledge of a biological fetus. They probably had seen plenty of examples at various stages of development. You said that abortion was practiced back then. What was the term they used to describe the aborted baby?

No, the framers didn't have nearly the knowledge about the biological development of the fetus. To argue that they did is just misleading. I agreed that they were aware of abortion, but pointed out that the modern advancements of biology and the mass access to safe abortion were modern conceptions.

And yet, their intent was quite clear in each case which is why amendments were needed later in order to fix their mistakes and correct their misconceptions.

No, even in referring to the 14th Amendment, the intent is not clear. The intent was arguably to just give African Americans the right to vote, not women.

The modern prism encompasses a neo-Christian view on when life begins. A fetus, still tethered to mother, is now considered an independent child by lots of people. Back then, if it didn't make it, it was goo to be buried by one of your slaves while you were on your way to deliver smallpox blankies to the Indians. They were much more concerned with their actual children than their potential ones.

My argument is that they had no conception of what what a "potential" child was, from a biological perspective.

My argument hinges on the fact that they obviously believed that citizenship began at birth, not conception. I'm not saying they were right. I'm not saying they were wrong. I'm just saying the intent is quite clear. They may have been fond of the unborn, but not enough to protect them from abortions or from domestic violence for that matter.

Because they had no idea what the "modern" conception of a biological fetus was, as they had no modern conception of what the "modern" conception of the ability of blacks and women to become rational political actors.

They didn't intentionally leave it out, just like they didn't intentionally leave out other stuff that they thought was so unimportant or absurd that it didn't warrant discussion or mention. They specifically stated, though, that citizenship begins at birth. There's no other way around it. They knew that there is a gestational period of 9 months and during that time, that kid doesn't count! You don't put its name in the census, you don't adjust the number of reps each state gets in the House by adding the number "potential citizens" currently residing in wombs etc. It's just ridiculous.

I see what your arguing, but I still think that your selectively citing the Constitution to fit your particular view on abortion.

No, ridiculous from your 21st century perspective. Your trying to support your particular view on abortion by trying to argue that constitutionally, the framers made a conscious decision to define a citizen at birth. What would the framers decide based on the modern knowledge of what a fetus is from a biological perspective? What would the framers think about the issue if they knew that abortion would be an accepted, medical practice with most women having access to it?

You don't know and I don't know Arguably, it can be said that as a whole, people in the 18th century viewed the sanctity of life in much more brutal light than we do now. Death from childbirth was common, kids died from disease much more common. People died at a much younger age. It was a completely different world in many respects.

If you can find anything, anywhere written by any of the framers or their friends or their friends' friends or their friends' friends' cousins that they were adamantly against preganancy termination... boy, will I be impressed.

Oh, I agree. But it doesn't consider the fact that overall, the country's political culture vis a vis life has changed significantly, along with its opinion on blacks, Indians, and women. And I'm not so sure about your claim about abortion. Abortion in the 18th century was dangerous and it wasn't as nearly "accepted" as you might would assume--only for the reason that a young woman who went to someone with medical knowledge might inform the town or community that that girl had sex out of wedlock, or even worse, had sex with a slave or someone in the community which she should even be consorting with.

Because abortion, much less the medical profession was not nearly advanced as it is now is why the framers didn't even address it--which does NOT mean that if it was, they would ignore it.

To argue your own political agenda on abortion as one thing the framers' got "right" while completely ignoring the rest is just a bit inconsistent.

As to their silence on the issue? I reiterate, that maybe they thought it was an issue better left to state and local communities, and not the federal government to decide.

I'm enjoying this exchange, gavinj.

 

[iron error]

The US Constitution only applies to US citizens. In order to be a citizen and enjoy those rights to life, the framers insisted you go through a birth process or a naturalization process.

you missed my point...am speaking in general terms here, unalienable ones that we based everything else upon.

also, I think that it is incorrect in your statement "of goo" to be buried, etc. Not offended by your way of speaking, but instead diasagreeing with the concept that people did not value life in the womb back then. There are graves for stillbirths, etc. all over. Just curious are you a parent yet? Not labeling or being too personal, but it seems that you are not by the way you are speaking in historical terms of how parents were back then. Just saying that you speak for parents back then that makes it seem to me that you are not one now.

 

[Pure Energy]

The US Constitution only applies to US citizens. In order to be a citizen and enjoy those rights to life, the framers insisted you go through a birth process or a naturalization process.

Would you extend that argument to mean that anyone in the US illegally can be shot and killed without penalty? Since they aren't citizens do you believe the Framers of the Constitution believed they had no rights (including the right to life)?

 

[gavinj]

No, the framers didn't have nearly the knowledge about the biological development of the fetus. To argue that they did is just misleading. I agreed that they were aware of abortion, but pointed out that the modern advancements of biology and the mass access to safe abortion were modern conceptions.

They didn't have the knowledge that we have today on the subject, but they weren't exactly stumbling around like cro-mags, either. I would be willing to bet that pregnancy termination has been around quite a while. At least thousands of years before the framers got around to not mentioning it in the constitution. I remember seeing some exhibit somewhere where they talked about women drinking something to induce miscarrages in ancient times.

No, even in referring to the 14th Amendment, the intent is not clear. The intent was arguably to just give African Americans the right to vote, not women.

I understand the point. But I believe that when I read the original constitution, the intent is quite clear to me.

My argument is that they had no conception of what what a "potential" child was, from a biological perspective.

Of course they had a conception of what a "potential" child is. It doesn't take a knowledge of chromosomes and DNA to understand what lay beneath ma's swollen tummy. They knew what being pregnant meant and what was soon to follow. They used the term 'with child' so they weren't even concerned with the potential aspect, simply that a pregnant woman is 'with child'. That child doesn't get status without the mother, though.

Because they had no idea what the "modern" conception of a biological fetus was, as they had no modern conception of what the "modern" conception of the ability of blacks and women to become rational political actors.

So you are saying that even without this "modern" conception of a fetus they MAY have intended to ensure its life and liberty nonetheless?

I see what your arguing, but I still think that your selectively citing the Constitution to fit your particular view on abortion.

No, I'm just arguing that the framers did not intend to protect the unborn. Wasn't even on their radar (even if they had no idea what a radar was). I'm open to them being mistaken. I've never been one to put much stock in the infallible framers arguments around here. I think they got it wrong just about as often as they got it right. I just think it's clear that they did not wring their hands over the babies that didn't make it or weren't wanted by their parents. This was, what, still well over a hundred years away from taking kids out of the factories and putting them in schools?

No, ridiculous from your 21st century perspective. Your trying to support your particular view on abortion by trying to argue that constitutionally, the framers made a conscious decision to define a citizen at birth. What would the framers decide based on the modern knowledge of what a fetus is from a biological perspective? What would the framers think about the issue if they knew that abortion would be an accepted, medical practice with most women having access to it?

It doesn't matter what they would decide based on modern knowledge. We're arguing what their intent was in the 1700s- not what their intent would be if Bill & Ted traveled back in time, kidnapped Jefferson and Franklin et al, brought them to the Planned Parenthood of Los Angeles circa 2008, and then took them back just in time for them to write the Constitution.

You don't know and I don't know Arguably, it can be said that as a whole, people in the 18th century viewed the sanctity of life in much more brutal light than we do now. Death from childbirth was common, kids died from disease much more common. People died at a much younger age. It was a completely different world in many respects.

Of course it was. That's why it is somewhat ludicrous to think that they were concerned with the constitutional rights of the unborn. When your kids very well may not make it out of the toddler years, who's wasting time on the unwanted ones? There were orphaned kids begging in the streets for pete's sake.

Oh, I agree. But it doesn't consider the fact that overall, the country's political culture vis a vis life has changed significantly, along with its opinion on blacks, Indians, and women. And I'm not so sure about your claim about abortion. Abortion in the 18th century was dangerous and it wasn't as nearly "accepted" as you might would assume--only for the reason that a young woman who went to someone with medical knowledge might inform the town or community that that girl had sex out of wedlock, or even worse, had sex with a slave or someone in the community which she should even be consorting with.

I never said that the culture hasn't changed or that abortion was a widely accepted practice back then. I'm merely stating that it is quite clear that the framers did not intend to extend rights to umbelical cord-fed humans via the US Const.

Because abortion, much less the medical profession was not nearly advanced as it is now is why the framers didn't even address it--which does NOT mean that if it was, they would ignore it.

I just think they came from a long tradition of men holding sway over their women and their offspring. That's why it deserved no mention. It was a secret problem dealt with in the secrecy of the household. An unwanted child was worthless. There was no point in protecting them.

To argue your own political agenda on abortion as one thing the framers' got "right" while completely ignoring the rest is just a bit inconsistent.

Well, whether its right or wrong - I'm still open to it. I believe that their intent is clear.

My personal belief is to let the women decide for themselves and not allow the government to force them to carry pregnancies to term on pain of imprisonment which is exactly what the Pro-choice people want to do. Whether the framers would agree with me on that, I don't know. I just know that they didn't consider a fetus a citizen until it proved itself to be a viable independent human being.

As to their silence on the issue? I reiterate, that maybe they thought it was an issue better left to state and local communities, and not the federal government to decide.

Ah, this would explain their silence on gay marriage as well. And intercontinental ballistic missile defense. And hanging chads.

 

[gavinj]

you missed my point...am speaking in general terms here, unalienable ones that we based everything else upon.

also, I think that it is incorrect in your statement "of goo" to be buried, etc. Not offended by your way of speaking, but instead diasagreeing with the concept that people did not value life in the womb back then. There are graves for stillbirths, etc. all over. Just curious are you a parent yet? Not labeling or being too personal, but it seems that you are not by the way you are speaking in historical terms of how parents were back then. Just saying that you speak for parents back then that makes it seem to me that you are not one now.

Well, the use of 'goo' was probably a bit cavalier. But the point I was trying to illustrate was that it was a hard life and you probably didn't stop to be sentimental about such things too often. It was a time when the extermination of the indigenous people was a popular cause and the ownership and abuse of one group of people by another was considered normal everyday life.

And yes, I'm the parent of a beautiful 3 yr old girl.

 

[gavinj]

Would you extend that argument to mean that anyone in the US illegally can be shot and killed without penalty? Since they aren't citizens do you believe the Framers of the Constitution believed they had no rights (including the right to life)?

Absolutely, if we're talking intent of the framers... Pretty clear what a US male citizen could do to those who weren't on the same level. Shoot an Indian, kill a Mexican, hang a slave... what, you thought there were trials and prison sentences handed down for that stuff?

 

[RebSaint]

They didn't have the knowledge that we have today on the subject, but they weren't exactly stumbling around like cro-mags, either. I would be willing to bet that pregnancy termination has been around quite a while. At least thousands of years before the framers got around to not mentioning it in the constitution. I remember seeing some exhibit somewhere where they talked about women drinking something to induce miscarrages in ancient times.

There's arguably a larger historical leap from 1787 to 1900, or 2008 than you assume. Still the point stands. The amount of knowledge regarding the biological make-up of a fetus is nothing whatsoever compared to what it was then than what it is now. There's no way we can assume what the framers would do with the information or perspective of a 21st century knowledge of medicine, biology, etc. Keep in mind the time of the framers predated such momentous biological achievements such as the germ theory, evolution, and Freudian psychology. Pick up any biology or psychology book and you'll find out that these advancement forced the western world to seriously reconsider everything from human sexuality to political relationships.

I understand the point. But I believe that when I read the original constitution, the intent is quite clear to me.

According to your opinion on abortion, and not necessarily overalying 21st century values to 18th century people. The intent is not clear.

Of course they had a conception of what a "potential" child is. It doesn't take a knowledge of chromosomes and DNA to understand what lay beneath ma's swollen tummy. They knew what being pregnant meant and what was soon to follow. They used the term 'with child' so they weren't even concerned with the potential aspect, simply that a pregnant woman is 'with child'. That child doesn't get status without the mother, though.

You really don't then appreciate the history of modern technology and medical advancements. This perspective is just a gross simplification of how abortion changed, access to abortion, perspective of life, and knowledge of the different stages a fetus goes through.

This post assumes that hey, people have sex and 9 months later there's a kid. I'll give you an example. Sonograms: people in early American couldn't go to a doctor and see their child literally growing fingers, hands, legs, etc. The change in the medical knowledge of the various stages of human development changed some minds--many of these arguments were based on religious perspectives--who knows what the framers would think if they had access to this knowledge.

I don't mean to demean or diminish some of the framers' intent or perspective. On many issues, we DO know what their intent was because they made it clear. On abortion, we really don't know much of anything. Yes, abortion was available, but it wasn't a widespread practice, nor was it something that the medical community regularly accepted or viewed as something useful or some form of right in the context of women's rights--which is why I think your analysis is just way off.

In other words, the "silence" of the framers on abortion vis a vis citizen rights isn't a slam dunk for the pro-choice argument, or even a legitimate argument to create some national law preserving a woman's right to choose. Nor should it be used for pro-lifers to claim that there SHOULD be a national law limiting a woman's right to choose.

Really it appears I'm arguing out of both sides of my mouth, but in some ways I am because I think it should be better left up to the states.

Why should there be a national abortion law, one size fits all? I think local and state communities can make these decisions.

So you are saying that even without this "modern" conception of a fetus they MAY have intended to ensure its life and liberty nonetheless?

No, I'm arguing that they had no modern conception of a fetus, therefore, did not intentionally leave it out of the constitution, but if they had....who knows.?? Given the emphasis on the right to life and liberty, I'm not convinced that all framers would have been pro-choice, but unlike you, I have no earthly idea what they would think, which has been my point all along.

No, I'm just arguing that the framers did not intend to protect the unborn. Wasn't even on their radar (even if they had no idea what a radar was). I'm open to them being mistaken. I've never been one to put much stock in the infallible framers arguments around here. I think they got it wrong just about as often as they got it right. I just think it's clear that they did not wring their hands over the babies that didn't make it or weren't wanted by their parents. This was, what, still well over a hundred years away from taking kids out of the factories and putting them in schools?

Your right, they didn't intend to protect the unborn because they had no conception of what it meant to be "unborn," Your fallacy is that your claiming this unconcern of the "unborn" was tantamount to a pro-choice position. It isn't.

It doesn't matter what they would decide based on modern knowledge. We're arguing what their intent was in the 1700s- not what their intent would be if Bill & Ted traveled back in time, kidnapped Jefferson and Franklin et al, brought them to the Planned Parenthood of Los Angeles circa 2008, and then took them back just in time for them to write the Constitution.

:redx: No. From this perspective, I can construct an elaborate argument to bring back segregation and disfranchisement of both women and blacks. You don't know what Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, etc. would do with the knowledge of the accomplishments of blacks and women. Again, your placing your own, 21st century values on 18th century people to advance your own political agenda.

Of course it was. That's why it is somewhat ludicrous to think that they were concerned with the constitutional rights of the unborn. When your kids very well may not make it out of the toddler years, who's wasting time on the unwanted ones? There were orphaned kids begging in the streets for pete's sake.

About as ludicrous as applying the 14th Amendment for women, and concern for blacks, but yet supporters of the Civil War Amendments extended the "intent" of the framers to extend to women and blacks, why not extend it to the fetus? Again, you conveniently want to impart your version of morality and extend it to women and blacks but for the fetus....no, such rights don't exist.

I sniff a bit of hypocrisy here. This country is about extending and expanding those rights, not limiting them. So the wisdom of the framers was "wrong" when it came to women and blacks, but exactly right when it came to the fetus, which they had no real biological conception of--nor did they have the prism of the possibility women and blacks actually voting and contributing more to society more than just as occupying a role which is socio-economically lower than white males.

I never said that the culture hasn't changed or that abortion was a widely accepted practice back then. I'm merely stating that it is quite clear that the framers did not intend to extend rights to umbelical cord-fed humans via the US Const.

The change in the culture has indicated more rights for all--arguably including fetuses.

I just think they came from a long tradition of men holding sway over their women and their offspring. That's why it deserved no mention. It was a secret problem dealt with in the secrecy of the household. An unwanted child was worthless. There was no point in protecting them.

Workers, blacks, women, etc. were treated in many ways the same way. The expansion of "rights" has allowed this pandora's box to open, to include whether you like it or not, the potential of a fetus at various stages as having potential rights.

Well, whether its right or wrong - I'm still open to it. I believe that their intent is clear.

Again, if we all went by intent of the framers, let's bring back slavery and take the vote away from women and poor people.

My personal belief is to let the women decide for themselves and not allow the government to force them to carry pregnancies to term on pain of imprisonment which is exactly what the Pro-choice people want to do. Whether the framers would agree with me on that, I don't know. I just know that they didn't consider a fetus a citizen until it proved itself to be a viable independent human being.

Well, that's just my point. You want some national standard to decide this issue regardless of the division which exists on this issue and the heterogeneity of opinion and political culture. Instead of supporting just your moral and political standard which fits all, let the states decide and give people a political choice at the ballot box in their own states and local communities, which arguably, if any intent of the framers could be ascertained--is what they wanted.

Ah, this would explain their silence on gay marriage as well. And intercontinental ballistic missile defense. And hanging chads.

Your conflating three different issues here. I would argue though that gay marriage is another issue with the feds have just complicated and mucked up needlessly on both sides.

The two issues because they deal with national issues of defense and elections involve the fed. gov't more.

 

[Pure Energy]

Absolutely, if we're talking intent of the framers... Pretty clear what a US male citizen could do to those who weren't on the same level. Shoot an Indian, kill a Mexican, hang a slave... what, you thought there were trials and prison sentences handed down for that stuff?

You're referring to a time when Aliens were easily distinguishable because they weren't White. What about English or German domestics who were here and not naturalized (illegally)? Do you really believe the could be killed carte blanche?


Here's a piece from the Declaration of Independence...I see no mention of citizenship in it:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."