Why does the left view abortion as such a sacred right?

[zzand]

No birth control is 100 percent except no regular intercourse at all. Abortion has become the easy answer to a drunken pickup, a one night stand, the list goes on and on. I think, IMHO, the answer to your original question, as to why it is on a pedestal, is because having one is easier than dealing with making the adult decisions after the the pregnancy happens and they live in fear of having to make those decisions, so off to the doctor for a D and C, and back to life. Much easier to deal with. But how does this not conflict with the Doctor who promises to "first do no harm"?

[FET-500]

Two can play at this game -

Why are tax cuts for the rich AKA trickle down economics the rights sacred cow? It’s been proven over and over it does NOTHING to stimulate the economy

Lurk more, post less... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Laffer

[Turkeytop]

And if the court rules that a right exists under your Constitution. even though it isn't specifically referenced, doesn't that right have the same weight as one that was added by amendment?

You're essentially correct. A court-determined right as contained within the Constitution has the same force of law as if it were expressly spelled out in the Constitution. The only real difference is that such a court ruling is easier to change (by nothing more than majority vote of a future court as opposed to the process of Constitutional amendment).

This is a side-track though as I'm not trying to make a legal argument here. I'm simply asking why the right to abortion is put on such a high pedestal by so many.

Your country has an amazing constitution. You should all take pride in and defend the rights it bestows on you. Some of those rights are valued more among certain members of your society. Everyone cherry picks.

A journalist would be grateful for press freedom. A person of faith would value religious freedom. A woman with an unwanted pregnancy might be glad for the right to abortion. A gun enthusiast or mass shooter would cherish the right to bear arms.

Yet, each one of those freedoms are equal in value.

[Y M Ionhere]

And if the court rules that a right exists under your Constitution. even though it isn't specifically referenced, doesn't that right have the same weight as one that was added by amendment?

You're essentially correct. A court-determined right as contained within the Constitution has the same force of law as if it were expressly spelled out in the Constitution. The only real difference is that such a court ruling is easier to change (by nothing more than majority vote of a future court as opposed to the process of Constitutional amendment).

This is a side-track though as I'm not trying to make a legal argument here. I'm simply asking why the right to abortion is put on such a high pedestal by so many.

Your country has an amazing constitution. You should all take pride in and defend the rights it bestows on you. Some of those rights are valued more among certain members of your society. Everyone cherry picks.

A journalist would be grateful for press freedom. A person of faith would value religious freedom. A woman with an unwanted pregnancy might be glad for the right to abortion. A gun enthusiast or mass shooter would cherish the right to bear arms.

Yet, each one of those freedoms are equal in value.

Dude, seriously.
Mass shooters are not protected. They are criminals who either go to prison for life...or get executed. Ones right to bear arms comes with many responsibilities. Killing innocent people is not one and the constitution wont protect that.
If a crazed crackhead with a machete comes into your home through the window to rape your daughter, you can probably shoot. But the court will ultimately determine if it fit the framework of legality.
I have 3 cars. Legal. Registered. I screw up, the police come, issue a citation, maybe make me go to court. My drivers license does not allow me to just plow my car into a crowd of people and think i can get away with it. I cant. And wont. Apples and oranges? Maybe, maybe not. But the same basic premise. Objects have legal limitations.Guns may be legally used to hunt for food or for self-defense in clearly defined situations. Not mass shootings.

[audiophile]

I have no issue with single-round handguns, or rifles. This what the framers where aware of when they wrote it it. My support drops off dramatically after that.

[screen glare]

Slight correction Turkeytop. Not only journalists - but first and foremost those who understand living in tyranny - under an all powerful president, king, or dictator - appreciate freedom of the press. Without it - NO liberty of, by, and for the people. Even the right to vote is secondary to press freedom. Why? Because as we’ve just seen in our country - elections can be rigged in many different ways. Yet even with the possibility of propaganda MASQUERADING as news - one still has many choices of news outlets, can observe them ALL, and through contrast and comparison find the truth.

[screen glare]

bmw - really? Off my LONG list you ignore all but ONE THING - nausea/vomiting? Talk about insensitivity and downright refusal to consider another’s reality! And yes - nausea/vomiting can result in hospitalization, or even sick days off work. It’s not a disease. It’s part of pregnancy and can have real life consequences.

Also - most females who CHOOSE to become pregnant do not terminate the pregnancy. It’s what they desire.

Each and every time a man or woman copulates heterosexually they both risk a pregnancy happening. Contraception or no contraception. So if you’re actually pointing out the risk both participants are taking then - in your mind - neither should ever have sex unless they have chosen to become a father and mother when their baby is born. Which in the real world of human weakness is unrealistic. But perhaps you are NEVER weak and can’t relate to most humans.

[bmw]

in your mind - neither should ever have sex unless they have chosen to become a father and mother when their baby is born.

I would slightly re-word that, but yes. In my view, neither should have sex unless they are prepared for the possibility of becoming parents. And in adding to that, I would say that they shouldn't be having sex if they're not ready in any number of ways to be parents, such as unable to financially support a child.

Which in the real world of human weakness is unrealistic.

And there it is - the answer I was waiting for and expected to get if anybody actually addressed this issue. Humans have all kinds of weaknesses. Does that mean that every instance of bad behavior should be excused if it came as a result of human weakness? How about serial killers? They have their moments of weakness where they feel the urge to kill people. Are those murders ok because the killer was simply experiencing a moment of weakness? My point is, human weakness cannot stand by itself as justification for a particular behavior.

[screen glare]

Serial killers do not have moments of weakness.

They are mentally ill. With predictable symptoms over their entire lives. For example killing animals in childhood. Etc.

Nor is sex “bad behavior” as you define it.

You give reasons why males and females should not have sex. Hormones (nature) quite often overrules. Powerful urges intended to guarantee survival of the species. And humans are often weak in those hormone-driven moments. Or in the case of non-consent (rape or incest) one person is over-powered by another stronger person.

You say - no matter. Whatever the circumstance - passionate weakness, or crime - there will be no termination of pregnancy.

Most of America disagrees. Perhaps because they can relate to mistakes, accidents, weakness, and victims of crime.

[bmw]

Please don't put words into my mouth - I very clearly stated earlier in this thread that instances where the behavior that led to pregnancy was not by choice (ie, crime) were separate instances that I wasn't going to debate in this post.

And I would suggest having sex is "bad behavior" if you're not ready and able to raise a child. This shouldn't be a controversial stance. Actions have consequences, and we are currently as a society suffering a number of problems because too many people are not held responsible for their actions. The number of out-of-wedlock children being born today as well as the number of single mothers is skyrocketing - you don't think that is a problem?

[screen glare]

You just proved why legal abortion should remain available.

And - why abortion legal or not will always be an option.

As for victims of rape and incest - a simple statement from you here - not a debate from you another day elsewhere - would be enough if you thought abortion was alright in those cases.

[Bryce]

And there it is - the answer I was waiting for and expected to get if anybody actually addressed this issue. Humans have all kinds of weaknesses.

I don't think the left views abortion as a sacred right because of human weakness issues whatsoever. It is much more about supporting feminazi's, and their voting block, misguided view that it's a equal rights issue.

[bmw]

Except that Roe v. Wade was not treated as an "equal rights" issue by the Supreme Court; rather, it was treated as a privacy issue with the court finding that the 4th Amendment contains within it a right to privacy and that prohibitions on abortion would violate said right to privacy.

I rarely hear "equal rights" argued today by the pro-abortion crowd. Rather, I hear "my body, my choice." In typical millennial fashion, it is all about "me."

My problem with the whole "my body, my choice" argument is that it is really no different than saying "my house, my rules," meaning, that if you own the house and your child lives there, you can do whatever you want to that child, including kill it. Of course the latter is absurd, but it illustrates how absurd the whole my body my choice argument really is. The REAL issue is over when life (or legally, personhood) begins, regardless of where the living being resides. Which, on a side-note, I find it kind of ironic that the same liberals who call conservatives "science deniers" over their views on global warming don't use the same standard when it comes to the science of when a life begins. When it is all about their body, they don't want to hear about "science."

[Turkeytop]

I don't believe anyone on this board is more left than I am. I don't view abortion as a left - right issue. Here in Canada, abortion rights came about, not through the courts, but through legislation passed by a right wing government.

[Y M Ionhere]

I don't believe anyone on this board is more left than I am. I don't view abortion as a left - right issue. Here in Canada, abortion rights came about, not through the courts, but through legislation passed by a right wing government.

What you call a right-wing government in Canada is considered pretty solid left here. The termnology or placement on the left-right scale are essentially irrelevant here. By US standards, you have 2 sides up there: left, and far left. So, maybe not the best argument honetly.