Think about it, it would be easier for the left to compromise saying yeah, sure, some babies should be able to live than for the right to say yeah, sure, some babies should die.

Obama might be able to lessen the rhetoric, or even move the issue totally off the table while the economy stays in the fron and center, but to think that he could actually take the politics out of abortion would require him to really, truly be Jesus, Lincoln and Martin Luther King all rolled into one, and he's simply not.

No, the better path that the pro-choice side has taken currently is simply to downplay their side of the issue. It h as nothing to do with taking politics out of the question and in fact their course is based on pure politics.

Life is politics, and the begining of life is the most political of all.

The right-wingers could compromise not on how many babies get to die but instead on how Godlike their knowledge is. They could concede that their abstract judgment concerning what counts as a "baby," a little human being, is no better or more certain than the judgment of a woman actually carrying a fetus. They might then conclude that their judgment is no better ground than hers, and might even be a worse ground, for using the force of law.

Something like this does in fact seem to be the kind of pragmatic approach offered by Obama, who told Rick Warren that the question whether life and human rights began at conception was "above his pay grade" and therefore something he wanted to leave to women and their doctors.

Right-wingers can believe both that life begins at conception and that pregnant women have the right to act on different beliefs. And if they do believe these two things, they will then begin to try to reduce abortions with arguments, education, contraception, easy adoption, and increased economic opportunity for young women. In these projects they can cheerfully cooperate with liberals like Obama.

Sorry Sextus, but for right wingers there is only one cure for unwanted pregnancy: abstinence. Sarah Palin seems to be proof of that.

Reasonable is not "let women do what the hell they want to". We as a society have the right to develop rules for acceptable, decent behavior. I own property, but am constrained by zoning laws. I have children, but am constrained by DSS regs.

A reasonable pro-choice person would not allow a viable fetus to be aborted. A reasonable pro-life person would acknowledge the rights of the woman.

Obama's rhetoric is in opposition to a voting record that is clearly in favor of no restrictions; McCain's rhetoric is in opposition to a voting record that is clearly more mainstream. Which is a more reasonable position is up for debate.

Well your definition of "reasonable" and what is Constitutionally permissible are two different things. The Constitution is pretty clear on this subject. Ams 4,5,9 and 13 pretty much preclude The Government's power to reach into the skin of a fecund woman and control how her reproductive organs function.

zoning laws are based on your impact on your neighbors. If you can secretly install a gas station on your property and not impact your neighbors, you have no problem.

Your interactions with born children are as a guardian over other human beings. Note also Children's rights is an area of evolving law because at the time of the signing of the US Constition, children were chattel, and you could pretty much do as you would with them since they were not accorded full rights as human beings.

Arguing though that discarding the Constitution is a "reasonable" position is hardly itself a reasonable approach.

9 is relevant; the others are B.S. Your comment with regard to the child is telling because the whole argument against abortion has nothing to do with control of women and everything to do with the life of a human.

opus512:

Think about it, it would be easier for the left to compromise saying yeah, sure, some babies should be able to live than for the right to say yeah, sure, some babies should die.

I'm pretty sure some babies actually do live. I swear I've seen parents walking around with their newborns recently:

Anyway, some abortion/right to choose compromises the right could make:

Saying women have the right to birth control prescribed by their doctor without having to search pharmacy to pharmacy because the pharmacist won't give it to them.

Stating that birth control is acceptable, and not abortion because it blocks fertilization.

As other have pointed out, agreeing that the definition of a human is not clear--right currently defines as fertilization, could change to implantation. Could also recognize that any number of other opinions are possible--first heart beat, brain activity, viability, birth.

Allowing for the physical or mental health of the mother, rape, incest, or some other reason I can't think.

And I'm sure there are plenty of others that I didn't think of in these two minutes.

On lets consider. If the Life of a Human is the paramount controlling aspect. We know that most persons have 2 kidneys and can live with only 1. So if saving a life of a human being is the paramount issue, then why can't The Government compel kidney, skin graft donation or even blood donation (since blood is easily regenerated)

Answer: Am 4 precludes seizure of any part of one person simply in the cause of keeping another person alive.

Which is a greater intrusion into a person's body - compelling carrying a fetus to term with all the concomittant threats to health and life - or donating blood?

Answer: compelling carriage to term.

QED if you cannot compell blood donation to save a life - you cannot compell carrying to term to save a life.

Now that's just Am 4.

Am 5 combines with Am 13 because absent a conviction, via Am 5, the Am 13 prohibition against involuntary servitude applies.

And very clearly carrying a fetus to term servitude either to the fetal person, or to the state. And absent a conviction, Am 13 precludes ANY legislation that results in involuntary servitude.

QED All of the amendments are relevant: 4 (seizure), 5 (due process), 13 (involuntary servitude).

BTW, you just proved the point I made in an earlier top-post: No middle ground exists because for those who oppose abortion rights see it as purely a moral question and couch all arguements in moral terms

and those who support access to legal abortion see it as a Rights and Governmental Powers issue which makes it a Constitutional and Civic Law framework.

And the two frameworks explicitly do NOT overlap precisely because the Founding Fathers had the recent history of the various European wars of "morality" (religion) in their memories. So they explicitly separated the powers ceded to the government from the religious/moral realm

That the right sees ceding ground on Fertilization Control as "compromise" on the abortion issue demonstrates how little ground there is for compromise.

Note that McCain refused to acknowledge that it is ok to allow an exception even for the physical health of the host woman. And he is hardly the most hard-core on the right.

I find it amusing that people who would so cavalierly toss out a strict constitutionalist approach to the law go running to the Constitution when it is convenient. I find it equally amusing when people fail to cite said document correctly. In strict constitutionalist terms:

Amendment 4--is about government's power to search without probable cause. It has never been used as a defense against laws constraining individual behavior.

Amendment 5 is about due process under law in criminal cases. If a law limits abortions, amendment 5 is irrelevant--except that it would allow for incarceration for said individual.

Amendment 13 is about slavery and indentured servitude for monetary obligations. The legality of selective service CLEARLY shows that there are cases when societies wishes supercede individual liberties.

And you're completely incorrect about the frameworks not overlapping and off the reservation when you speak of the European wars of "morality". The Constitution is a framework for running an enterprise, it is not the moral foundation for the enterprise. The moral foundation of the country, rather, is based on the creation of laws as allowed in the constitution.

Voltaire, Franklin and their ilk were certainly anti-church morality, but not anti-moral. In fact, they spoke often of the amorality of the bourgois and were Freemasons--an organization firmly rooted in Judeo-Christian beliefs (read: morals).

So, Constitutionally speaking, they would probably find the issue as difficult as we do and would probably try to create laws that represent a compromise.

It isn't a human. It is a parasitic mass.

What about "Right-Wingers" who use contraceptives? And we're a little sketchy on what, exactly, you mean by "Sarah Palin seems to be proof of [abstinence]." Neverminding that abstinence doesn't "cure" unwanted pregnency, there are no reports that indicate Gov. Palin's pregnancies were unwanted.

I find it amusing when someone feels that a pro-life approach is necessarily one rooted in the Judeo-Christian paradigm. God has no place in the discussion of abortion matters if one doesn't want Him to.

I find it also amusing when someone feels a comment like "whether life and human rights began at conception was "above his pay grade" is a pragmatic one. You do NOT want to leave this up to doctors. If it were, no abortions would be allowed, since life does indeed begin at conception. We have every biological ingedient needed to be human at conception, and I want to see the scientific study or documentation that life does not start at conception. Hint: they don't start 'The Miracle of Life' at the newborn stage.

"Arguments, education, contraception, easy adoption, and increased economic opportunity for young women" does not make the act of abortion any more right. If Republicans summarily made some unprecedented effort in all of these facets, your stance on abortion would not budge, ergo, there is no compromise, unless your definition of "compromise" is simply getting what you want while setting a social agenda how you want.

The human brain throws out "strict constructionism" because its biologically impossible to implement it. Nor is their any judge now or ever historically, short of maybe John Jay, that is a "strict constructionist".

Am 4 starts off with

The right of the people to be secure in their persons

IOW The government has to keep its hands off everyone's BODIES, ... and it goes on:

against unreasonable...seizures, shall not be violated,

So if the government cannot seize - ie take control - of a woman's body, how can it take control of her reproductive organs?

. It has never been used as a defense against laws constraining individual behavior.

Really? Such as? Public behaviour is constrained by a balance of rights. But there are almost no laws that constrain individual behaviour that does not derive from violating someone elses protected rights. The common example folks offer up is drug use. Except that drug use itself is not illegal. Drug POSSESSION is. And the difference is important. Because Drug POSSESSION laws derive from the Commerce Clause (something that even that "strict constructionist" Scalia agreed with in Raich even though there was no commerce).

So you are simply wrong in this claim. It is PRECISELY Am 4 that precludes The Government from prohibiting individual behaviour like illegal drug use.

Am 5 is only relevant in defing due process and conviction for the context of Am 13.

Am 13 is about slavery. It is ALSO about Involuntary Servitude. And Selective Service - like Drug Possession laws, derives from explicit Constitutional exceptions. In the case of Selective Service, it derives from the authorization that empowers Congress to "call forth the militia".

No such similar language authorizes congress to "call forth the fecund women". Hence The STATE is prohibited from compelling a woman into Involuntary Servitude - be it to a fetal person, or to society's "interest in promoting life".

The Constitution is a framework for running an enterprise, it is not the moral foundation for the enterprise. The moral foundation of the country, rather, is based on the creation of laws as allowed in the constitution.

Now you may be using a dialect of english I'm not familiar with. In the version of english that I am familiar with the terms:

Framework, Structure, basis, support, foundation, underpinning

All show up as synonyms in the thesaurus.

That means your paragraph reads:

The Constitution is a underpinning for running an enterprise, it is not the moral underpinning for the enterprise. The moral underpinning of the country, rather, is based on the creation of laws as allowed in the constitution.

Ah yup. Pretty self-contradictory. Note, I never suggested that Franklin et. al were "anti-moral". Rather that they had seen in recent history what belief driven morality had done to England (the Puritans), France (Hugenots, Jewish pogroms), and other nations. So they removed the notion of "morality" from the civic discourse by explicitly separating the governance from any religious test and prohibiting any religious endorsement.

And I doubt Franklin would have found abortion at all morally problematic. Given his satyric tendencies, I suspect he was involved in more than one case of such. I'll grant you that Adams would be of different mind, but Jefferson too would have no such qualms. Burr definately would have no qualms. Washington? Probably. Madison? unclear- depends on whether he thought of women as chattle or as persons.

Note also, that Am 13 was NOT in any of their conceptions - though Adams and Jefferson both were vexed by the notion of slavery. And it is Am 13 that is the strongest and clearest prohibition against the State from acting in any way that compells a woman to carry to term against her voluntary will.

We have every biological ingedient needed to be human at conception

So do the skin cells you slough by the millions every night.

So what.

BTW, the term "miracle" - is language explicitly derived from the judeo-Christian heritage. You are so tied to the faith based derivation of logic in this discussion that you cannot even dissociate from christian language.. amazing.