And yet, the Supremacy Clause still protects women if any laws passed by the state attempt to supersede the woman's rights.I never said it did. I said it allows states to, and you know the passage well. It's been shown to you multiple times.
If you cannot defend your position without resorting to straw-men, you cannot defend your position.
Yes I have. Color-coded and everything. Post 279 for reference.Roe zealot: You have to show us where anything in Roe recognized rights for the unborn if a state chose to restrict late term abortion and protect the unborn.
Me: Um, we have abortion restriction laws in a majority of states. They have names like the "Heartbeat Bill Act" and the "Fetal Heartbeat Protection from Abortion Act." The laws restrict abortion and they are allowed under Roe.
Roe zealot: Ha! You can't show us where anything in Roe recognized rights for the unborn if a state chose to restrict late term abortion and protect the unborn.
...
Correct...my pointing out how your misguided interpretations of several laws and legal decisions are failures.I think the last four posts pretty much sum up every exchange I've ever had with Lursa.
Actually, your argument has been beaten like a rented mule with a collision damage waiver.Wow, you cant get anything right can you?
Ah, I see now you have nothing left but to attack....your attempts at argument all failed...that's been proven...so now you try insults.Actually, your argument has been beaten like a rented mule with a collision damage waiver.
Roe zealot: The law may protect the fetuses but nowhere does it confer any rights on them.
Me: A Constitutional right to privacy can only be superseded in cases where exercising that right infringes on the rights of another. What right could possibly supersede a woman's right to control her own body of not someone else's right to live?
Roe zealot: The law may protect the fetuses but nowhere does it confer any rights on them.
...
Roe zealot logic: a woman's right to privacy can be superseded in the third trimester not because of a fetal right to live; it can only be superseded well .. uh .. because ... well, it can be superseded, and let's just leave it there.
It also says you can go elsewhere with no penalties.Not the issue. We are discussing what a state can and cannot do within its own jurisdiction. And one of the things they can do is declare a fetal right to live during its third trimester and have that supersede a woman's right to privacy. Fact, not opinion.
For example, even in your own state, Lursa, they do not allow you to make that decision about your own body after week 25.
"You have the legal right to have an abortion for any reason before fetal viability. Fetal viability means that the fetus, if born, could survive. That’s at about 24-25 weeks into a pregnancy. You can still get an abortion after that if the abortion is necessary to protect your health or your life."
Source: here.
Show it. "Prove your work." I've posted decision quotes that prove you wrong. Post the decision quotes that show that a state taking interest in protecting the unborn recognizes rights for the unborn. Post them next to the ones I posted proving you wrong. Let's see it. You know, the ones with the pretty colors that already show you're wrong.Yes, it does. It confers a right on them that literally trumps your right to privacy and your right to bodily autonomy. That's what being prevented from having an abortion means. The decision is no longer yours alone.
86I clarified this earlier; when I said "ban abortions" my intent was "ban abortion on demand."
Glad we both agree the state has the authority to declare a fetus's right to life is more important than the mother's right to privacy. Perhaps you'll have better luck convincing Lursa of that. She's still denying the reality of the situation.
Roe does not say that the fetus's right to life is more important than the mother's right to privacy. What it says is:Glad we both agree the state has the authority to declare a fetus's right to life is more important than the mother's right to privacy.
Note the use of 'interests' and never 'rights.' "Potentiality of human life," not a "right to life."Roe doe not say that the fetus's right to life is more important than the mother's right to privacy. What it says is:
94
In view of all this, we do not agree that, by adopting one theory of life, Texas may override the rights of the pregnant woman that are at stake. We repeat, however, that the State does have an important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant woman, whether she be a resident of the State or a non-resident who seeks medical consultation and treatment there, and that it has still another important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life. These interests are separate and distinct. Each grows in substantiality as the woman approaches term and, at a point during pregnancy, each becomes 'compelling.'
The state does not have the right. That right belongs to the people who actually have the expertise to decide whether an abortion should be performed, the doctors. No woman can demand a third trimester abortion for any reason less than her or the childs life is at stake. And if the child can survive as a preemie then medical ethics would have doctors do their best to keep the preemie alive.No, and it doesn't matter. Quantity is not what's at issue in this discussion. Authority is, as in a state's right to proscribe abortion in the third trimester.
No, that is barring a medical excuse.Really?
So you would have put my cousin's wife in jail for 60 days for saving her own life?
She was in the last trimester of a very planned and wanted pregnancy.
The cord got wrapped around the neck of the fetus and strangled it.
She had to have a partial birth abortion to save her own life.
So you would have forced her to either go to jail or not have that abortion while a dead fetus was inside her growing para tinnitus that will kill her.
How is causing one needless and unnecessary death the right thing to do?
Do you believe that women should be murdered because her pregnancy went wrong?
No, I would say it is based on the court case Roe v Wade.
There is no mention of the right to body sovereignty in the Constitution. It would most closely be related to Marbury v. Madison, which gave the Article 3 branch the ability to determine the constitutionality of the other two branches actions imo.
What do you think this proves? Please try brevity.86
A. The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a 'person' within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on re-argument. On the other hand, the appellee conceded on re-argument that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.
87
The Constitution does not define 'person' in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to 'person.' The first, in defining 'citizens,' speaks of 'persons born or naturalized in the United States.' The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. 'Person' is used in other places in the Constitution: (many examples are cited)
But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible prenatal application.
88
All this, together with our observation, above, that throughout the major portion of the 19th century prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word 'person,' as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn. This is in accord with the results reached in those few cases where the issue has been squarely presented. (many examples are cited) Indeed, our decision in United States v. Vuitch, 402 U.S. 62, 91 S.Ct. 1294, 28 L.Ed.2d 601 (1971), inferentially is to the same effect, for we there would not have indulged in statutory interpretation favorable to abortion in specified circumstances if the necessary consequence was the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection.
92
It should be sufficient to note briefly the wide divergence of thinking on this most sensitive and difficult question. There has always been strong support for the view that life does not begin until live birth.
93
In areas other than criminal abortion, the law has been reluctant to endorse any theory that life, as we recognize it, begins before life birth or to accord legal rights to the unborn except in narrowly defined situations and except when the rights are contingent upon life birth. For example, the traditional rule of tort law denied recovery for prenatal injuries even though the child was born alive. That rule has been changed in almost every jurisdiction. In most States, recovery is said to be permitted only if the fetus was viable, or at least quick, when the injuries were sustained, though few courts have squarely so held. In a recent development, generally opposed by the commentators, some States permit the parents of a stillborn child to maintain an action for wrongful death because of prenatal injuries. Such an action, however, would appear to be one to vindicate the parents' interest and is thus consistent with the view that the fetus, at most, represents only the potentiality of life. Similarly, unborn children have been recognized as acquiring rights or interests by way of inheritance or other devolution of property, and have been represented by guardians ad litem. Perfection of the interests involved, again, has generally been contingent upon live birth. In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
We do not agree. I cannot find anything in the Roe decision that gives a fetus the right to life. It says the state has the right to regulate abortion in the 3rd trimester but nowhere does Roe state or infer that confers the right to life or personhood on the fetus. The decision goes to great length to specifically show that the fetus does not have any rights with the exception of a court case involving inheritance after birth. Even in the wrongful death of a fetus Roe states that it is the parents that have been harmed and have the right to sue.
I never said that it did. Pls cite the post where you think I said this.Roe does not say that the fetus's right to life is more important than the mother's right to privacy.
Until we are forced to get a vaccine.The constitution doesn't use the word sovereignty but it does say that we have the right to privacy with our person which is our body.
The fourth amendment clearly says we have the right to privacy with our body.
That means the government can't tell us what we can or can't do with our bodies.
In other words we have the right to body sovereignty.
If you’re denied an abortion today because of the future rights of a “potential life” or the rights of a present life, what is the difference?Note the use of 'interests' and never 'rights.' "Potentiality of human life," not a "right to life."
The words are clear, repeated and used consistently, and very intentional.
With this sentence you’ve just contradicted your opening point and acknowledged the state does have the authority to proscribe abortion.No woman can demand a third trimester abortion for any reason less than her or the childs life is at stake.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?