• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

I've noticed something has changed about the abortion debate on DP

minnie616 said:
State Feticide laws recognize abortion with the woman’s consent are legal.

States have rights . The unborn have no rights.

California makes it clear in their code that a fetus is not a human being.

From :

Cal. Penal Code § 187 (a) defines murder as the unlawful killing of a human being
or a fetus with malice aforethought.
Click to expand...
That California code shows that a fetus is a human being. The fetus is called out separately so that it cannot be disregarded in a murder case. You cannot murder a cat you cannot murder a horse. You can only murder a human being. The fetus is a human being.
 
NatMorton said:
No, I’ve said it often in this thread. In order to impose the abortion ban restrictions they did, the Roe majority first had to draw a line with the viability standard; they ruled that a human on one side of that line cannot be considered a human with rights.
Click to expand...

They didn't draw a line, they looked back at precedent and applied it:

"It is thus apparent that at common law, at the time of the adoption of our Constitution, and throughout the major portion of the 19th century, abortion was viewed with less disfavor than under most American statutes currently in effect. Phrasing it another way, a woman enjoyed a substantially broader right to terminate a pregnancy than she does in most States today. At least with respect to the early stage of pregnancy, and very possibly without such a limitation, the opportunity to make this choice was present in this country well into the 19th century. Even later, the law continued for some time to treat less punitively an abortion procured in early pregnancy...."

NatMorton said:
The authority for them to draw that line simply does not exist anywhere in the Constitution.
Click to expand...

This is you both not understanding what the role of the Supreme Court is, and also what Roe V Wade actually said:

"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: in the listing of qualifications for Representatives and Senators, Art. I, § 2, cl. 2, and § 3, cl. 3; in the Apportionment Clause, Art. I, § 2, cl. 3; in the Migration and Importation provision, Art. I, § 9, cl. 1; in the Emolument Clause, Art. I, § 9, cl. 8; in the Electors provisions, Art. II, § 1, cl. 2, and the superseded cl. 3; in the provision outlining qualifications for the office of President, Art. II, § 1, cl. 5; in the Extradition provisions, Art. IV, § 2, cl. 2, and the superseded Fugitive Slave Clause 3; and in the Fifth, Twelfth, and Twenty-second Amendments, as well as in §§ 2 and 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. 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 pre-natal application."

The Court, however, did not immediately lean into the idea that the unborn have no status:

"All this, together with our observation, supra, 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 conclusion, however, does not of itself fully answer the contentions raised by Texas, and we pass on to other considerations. The pregnant woman cannot be isolated in her privacy. She carries an embryo and, later, a fetus, if one accepts the medical definitions of the developing young in the human uterus. The situation therefore is inherently different from marital intimacy, or bedroom possession of obscene material, or marriage, or procreation, or education, with which Eisenstadt and Griswold, Stanley, Loving, Skinner, and Pierce and Meyer were respectively concerned. As we have intimated above, it is reasonable and appropriate for a State to decide that at some point in time another interest, that of health of the mother or that of potential human life, becomes significantly involved. The woman's privacy is no longer sole and any right of privacy she possesses must be measured accordingly.

Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer. "

NatMorton said:
I know you’re not going to buy that argument, but to claim I have not made it is nonsense.
Click to expand...

Correction: your claim is nonsense.

You are complaining that the Court did what the Court is supposed to do; interpret the law and determine its constitutionality measured between the rights granted to citizens and the interests of the state.
 
NatMorton said:
Left-wing logic: The Roe decision has to be Constitutional because really bad things are going to happen if it’s not.
Click to expand...

You should try to be more subtle with your attempts at attention-seeking snark.
 
NatMorton said:
And Dred Scott and his family would have not returned to enslavement if it were not for SCOTUS overreach and federal law. It was state law that would have freed them.

You're cherry-picking.
Click to expand...
How ironic some state laws now want to enslave women to their fetuses.
NatMorton said:
And since the Constitution is silent on the status of being unborn, states are free to grant the unborn rights within their jurisdiction.
Click to expand...
At the expense of the rights of the woman.
NatMorton said:
Don't be obtuse. Another human in possession of basic human rights.
Click to expand...
Not yet it isn't!
 
minnie616 said:
We can say human.

And an acorn as you said needs to planted in soil and nourishment to grow.

A previable human however relies on the woman’s body systems to grow.

Actually , it is questionable to refer to a zygote, an embryo or pre viable fetus as a living being since the embryo or pre viable fetus is not incapable of sustaining it’s life without the woman and her body's systems.

Yes, it has human DNA but it is not legally a human being until born.

From:
…………..

The embryo is not even a “potential” living being in so far as a “potential being” is defined as something capable of passing from this potential state to the state of being that thing in actuality, and only thanks to internal factors.
A blank sheet of paper is not a potential drawing, in so far as in order to pass from the state of blank sheet to the state of drawing it requires an external factor, namely the draughtsman.
As opposed to this, an acorn is a potential oak, for the soil in which it is planted only plays a nutritional role and it passes from the state of acorn to that of oak by virtue of internal factors only.

The same is often considered to hold for the embryo. But in fact, it doesn’t. The latest scientific research – the full range of which has still not been fully appreciated – shows the mother’s indispensable role.

Some of the growth factors that have been identified no doubt come from the embryo itself; but others come from the mother and are sufficiently important to be indispensable to the embryo’s growth: if put in a purely nutritious environment, the embryo will multiply self-identically or in a disorderly way. It is not correct to say of the embryo that it grows: it is grown by the mother.

It is not a potential living being;

the mother is the potential mother of a living being.

Read more:

The Embryo Is Not a Potential Living Being - L'Humanite in English
Click to expand...
I was actually just thinking about this... most people don't consider the sperm and egg worth protecting because they are just essential parts but not on their own actually human. But if it's the same with an embryo where essential parts are missing that the mother is required to supply, why is it worth protecting anymore than anything that exists before conception?
 
justoneman said:
That California code shows that a fetus is a human being. The fetus is called out separately so that it cannot be disregarded in a murder case. You cannot murder a cat you cannot murder a horse. You can only murder a human being. The fetus is a human being.
Click to expand...
But the attacker cannot be given a death penalty if he kills an unborn even if he does it with malice.

If he kills a born human he can be given the death penalty.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
They didn't draw a line, they looked back at precedent and applied it:

"It is thus apparent that at common law, at the time of the adoption of our Constitution, and throughout the major portion of the 19th century, abortion was viewed with less disfavor than under most American statutes currently in effect. Phrasing it another way, a woman enjoyed a substantially broader right to terminate a pregnancy than she does in most States today. At least with respect to the early stage of pregnancy, and very possibly without such a limitation, the opportunity to make this choice was present in this country well into the 19th century. Even later, the law continued for some time to treat less punitively an abortion procured in early pregnancy...."
Click to expand...
That is gibberish. States enacting laws about abortion do not grant authority to SCOTUS. Only the Constitution does.

Jredbaron96 said:
This is you both not understanding what the role of the Supreme Court is, and also what Roe V Wade actually said:

"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: in the listing of qualifications for Representatives and Senators, Art. I, § 2, cl. 2, and § 3, cl. 3; in the Apportionment Clause, Art. I, § 2, cl. 3; in the Migration and Importation provision, Art. I, § 9, cl. 1; in the Emolument Clause, Art. I, § 9, cl. 8; in the Electors provisions, Art. II, § 1, cl. 2, and the superseded cl. 3; in the provision outlining qualifications for the office of President, Art. II, § 1, cl. 5; in the Extradition provisions, Art. IV, § 2, cl. 2, and the superseded Fugitive Slave Clause 3; and in the Fifth, Twelfth, and Twenty-second Amendments, as well as in §§ 2 and 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. 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 pre-natal application."

The Court, however, did not immediately lean into the idea that the unborn have no status:

"All this, together with our observation, supra, 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 conclusion, however, does not of itself fully answer the contentions raised by Texas, and we pass on to other considerations. The pregnant woman cannot be isolated in her privacy. She carries an embryo and, later, a fetus, if one accepts the medical definitions of the developing young in the human uterus. The situation therefore is inherently different from marital intimacy, or bedroom possession of obscene material, or marriage, or procreation, or education, with which Eisenstadt and Griswold, Stanley, Loving, Skinner, and Pierce and Meyer were respectively concerned. As we have intimated above, it is reasonable and appropriate for a State to decide that at some point in time another interest, that of health of the mother or that of potential human life, becomes significantly involved. The woman's privacy is no longer sole and any right of privacy she possesses must be measured accordingly.

Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer. "
Click to expand...
No, this doesn’t cut it, either. At most the concept of being “born” would place a threshold test on federally protected rights. There is nothing here that gives SCOTUS the authority to prohibit states from establishing fetal rights in within their jurisdiction.

Jredbaron96 said:
Correction: your claim is nonsense.
Click to expand...
No, you’ve gotten that wrong, too.

Jredbaron96 said:
You are complaining that the Court did what the Court is supposed to do; interpret the law and determine its constitutionality measured between the rights granted to citizens and the interests of the state.
Click to expand...
No, they didn’t interpret law with Roe. They fabricated it.
 
watsup said:
Why are you so reliant on “hypotheticals”, which are actually OUTRIGHT LIES?
(Rhetorical question.)
Click to expand...
For someone who so often lies you’d think you would understand the definition of the word. A hypothetical is not a lie since there is no attempt to deceive.

Again, you lack reason.
 
minnie616 said:
But the attacker cannot be given a death penalty if he kills an unborn even if he does it with malice.

If he kills a born human he can be given the death penalty.
Click to expand...
I see nothing at all like that in the California penal code. You are making stuff up now.
 
minnie616 said:
Actually , even when birth control is consistently used there is a failure rate.

Oh and a recent study showed men only use condoms consistently 19 percent of the time, even when they do not wish to become a dad.

But 92 percent of women in the United States are being responsible for their fertility by using Birth control consistently.
( unless they are currently pregnant or are actively trying to become pregnant.)

Info from :

https://www.self.com/story/report-two-thirds-women-use-birth-control

From the article :

Oh, and as for 35.1 percent of women who aren’t using contraception?

They’re not all just having unsafe sex.

About half of them (17 percent of the respondents) hadn’t had sex in the past three months while the rest were either pregnant, postpartum or trying to conceive (7.5 percent), or, indeed, sexually active but not using protection (7.9 percent).
Click to expand...
yeah, yeah, yeah. We aren't talking about birth control failure. We are talking about personal responsibility for one's actions, and that's all.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Yeah, you've written that before, and it's as useless for this debate as it was before and as it is now.

It doesn't matter in the slightest what you *think* is how the Court should operate. The Court's job is to interpret the law and determine it's Constitutionality. And if there is a dispute or uncertainty between what the Constitution says and what a law says, the Court has to try to weigh where the rights granted in the Constitution begin and end, and how it can be balanced against the interests of society. This is why you have freedom of speech, but can get sued for defamation and libel. This is something you and every other originalist seem to forget the moment the Court rules in a way you disapprove of.*

Roe v Wade involved the Court trying to determine when the right to privacy ended and where the State's interest in preserving potential life began. It's why the Court openly declared it couldn't say when human life began because there was no scientific or philosophical consensus, and it wasn't the job of the Court to determine when.

The Court responded with the compromise position of holding that the right to privacy held until the second trimester, before which the State didn't have the authority to determine the private medical affairs of a person, and after which the State began having a vested interest in the protection of potential life.

The Court did *not* say that the Federal Government can determine whether abortion is legal and the States can't, which is why Roe V Wade did strike down some federal regulations on abortion. Nor did Roe say that State's *can't* regulate abortion at all, just that neither the state or federal government can infringe on the right to privacy past a certain point.

It's not surprising that originalists attacked Roe V Wade, but not for the reasons most conservatives on this forum are saying. When originalists first rallied against abortion their arguments hinged on saying there was no right to privacy in the constitution. That line of reasoning largely died after 9/11 with the NSA and the Patriot Act making it uncomfortable for most conservatives to say "you have no right to privacy", but you can still find some right wingers arguing it (including on this forum).

*Convienatly, when an originalist judge makes a grossly illogical argument or flat out makes up legal concepts out of thin air (like Alito has done before), there's hardly a whisper of complaint.
Click to expand...
Abortion has nothing to do with privacy. The state and federal government have the ability to regulate abortion.
 
NatMorton said:
So what? How does this have any bearing on the legitimacy of the Roe decision?

You really are lost in the woods on this one.
Click to expand...

So they ARE shit out luck..
 
GummyVitamins said:
Abortion has nothing to do with privacy. The state and federal government have the ability to regulate abortion.
Click to expand...

Bullshit... There are few things more private than an abortion.. good lord..
 
SammyCp said:
I'm out of this conversation. You know or should know what I did if you thought about the situation. I understand that may be completely outlandish to you. But YES, people do care about each other and try to help. It was completely wrong of me to present a real case as an example where a woman was incapable to use her rights. I forgot that your side don't care.
As for your pretty disgraceful question : I paid for the damn lawyer. Happy ?
sy, I'm done with this.

Edit : My bad, I will never talk about a real life situation again on these boards.
Click to expand...
Disgraceful question? Bullshit.

Be succinct in what you post and we won't have to ask what you mean.

OBTW, why did you "need" to pay for a lawyer? Need to "fix" something?

My"side" does care. We care that the participants take responsibility for their actions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom