• 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!

'Pro-life' supporters of the creation of a new criminal statute

The rights that will be violated if women are criminally charged with murder or homicide, etc are federally, Constitutionally protected rights. States may not enact laws that supersede those. See: Supremacy Clause.

So the challenges will come. And IMO, the sooner the better. If and when the federal courts or SCOTUS will accept those challenges 🤷
I don't yet see that challenge outside of the Roe framework unless its procedural. I think even an equal protection challenge will be a stretch. State legislatures enjoy a lot of freedom to define new crimes and set sentencing guidelines for them.
 
Last edited:
I don't yet see that challenge outside of the Roe framework. I think even an equal protection challenge will be a stretch. State legislatures enjoy a lot of freedom to define new crimes and set sentencing guidelines for them.

At the federal level, the unborn have zero legal status. However the govt is obligated to protect women's, all persons, Constitutional rights. Again the Supremacy Clause...are you unfamiliar with it? So if the states enact laws that violate women's Const rights like due process, bodily autonomy, etc...*sigh* I'm not typing all this again. It's not rocket science.

I'm not sure how you're not getting this, but I'm not going to bother writing it again.
 
At the federal level, the unborn have zero legal status. However the govt is obligated to protect women's, all persons, Constitutional rights. Again the Supremacy Clause...are you unfamiliar with it? So if the states enact laws that violate women's Const rights like due process, bodily autonomy, etc...*sigh* I'm not typing all this again. It's not rocket science.

I'm not sure how you're not getting this, but I'm not going to bother writing it again.
I am assuming that the same SCOTUS which is deciding that state legislatures are entitled to regulate and ban abortion and pass laws to do just that with penalties attached to any breach, actually expect them to do so within the bounds of due process and all other constitutional protections and prove any charges by the same burden to the same jury as they always have. So do I. I do not see a challenge to a statute creating criminal charge of abortion and arresting and prosecuting a woman who commits that offense by having one .
 
Last edited:
I am assuming that the same SCOTUS which is deciding that state legislatures are entitled to regulate and ban abortion and pass laws to do just that with penalties attached to any breach, actually expect them to do so within the bounds of due process and all other constitutional protections and prove any charges by the same burden to the same jury as they always have. So do I.

You assume they examined 'everything' in the RvW decision? They did not, there were other grounds and the actual decision had nothing to do with the disposition of the unborn at all...it was about not allowing states to deny women the safer procedure of abortion.

They didnt examine 'security of the person' at all for instance.
 
Once again, you forgot to read my words carefully. It might help you if you did not add your own to mischaracterize mine.It requires discipline. Use the quote feature so that you are not tempted to change my phrase 'state legislators' to the phrase 'anti abortion extremist state legislators' . I have yet to discuss those people. And then there is the way you are clipping and editing my words so as to literally create a lie about my meaning...

As it so happens, practically every Repub legislator in the red states are anti-abortion extemists, so if you are referencing red state legislators in any manner, then we are indeed talking about the same people.
 
You assume they examined 'everything' in the RvW decision? They did not, there were other grounds and the actual decision had nothing to do with the disposition of the unborn at all...it was about not allowing states to deny women the safer procedure of abortion.

They didnt examine 'security of the person' at all for instance.
I wish the pro choice attorneys well as they come up with more creative and novel arguments to challenge these laws than what sat in Roe. I am not holding my breath as long as these justices sit on this court .
 
As it so happens, practically every Repub legislator in the red states are anti-abortion extemists, so if you are referencing red state legislators in any manner, then we are indeed talking about the same people.
Here's my words in my context on the topic of state legislators, including the typo. "Of course I feel for the women, the families that are being brutalized by this upcoming decisionbut I do spare more than an occasional thought for all these state legislators who now are stuck with votes on amendment after amendment after amendment and bill after bill, on a subject that will do nothing but KILL them in two years and I rarely feel sorry for a politician."

I made no reference to 'repub legislators' or 'red state legislators' because I feel sorry for state legislators of either party or any state who have the misfortune of having to revamp their own policy statements to get real specific on an issue that is going to lose them votes either in primary or general elections on an issue that was supposedly 'settled law'.

When you decided to edit my comment, you decided to leave out a third of the entire sentence. This is the third. "Of course I feel for the women, the families that are being brutalized by this upcoming decisionbut ..." and then accuse me of having my priorities screwed up.

Again when you use the quote feature, rather than pick and choose words and phrases that you want, these kinds in twists in meaning that suggest I care about legislators more than women won't be possible.

Let me be more blunt. Knock it off Watsup. you are not stupid and you know exactly what impression your words are leaving. Its a lie to suggest I am any sort of pro lifer or that I am indifferent to women who are unable to access abortion, and by now you have figured that out.

I wanted to concentrate on pro-lifer posters about their views on what they want to do with the women.
 
Last edited:
I wish the pro choice attorneys well as they come up with more creative and novel arguments to challenge these laws than what sat in Roe. I am not holding my breath as long as these justices sit on this court .
?? Is it your belief that 'all available' Const applications had been used in RvW? As I wrote earlier, it was a limited opinion, focused specifically on states not denying a safer procedure to women. There are other angles to attack this issue, that was just one, and it was relevant to the times because the procedure was finally recognized as safer than childbirth/pregnancy. Previously the procedure, esp. later term, was less safe.

Also IMO, the justices at the time didnt want to dig into it deeper and I think it was a rather cowardly opinion. It went only half way.

Here is one example of additional Const grounds that the courts could use that wasnt even brought up in RvW.

Bodily autonomy McFall vs Shimp
Six years after Roe v. Wade (1973), the landmark Supreme Court case that upheld a woman’s right to abortion based on her inherent right to privacy, the Common Pleas Court of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, ruled in favor of the “sanctity of the individual” to uphold women’s right to choice. The case, McFall v. Shimp (1978), ruled that a person could not be legally compelled to participate in medical treatment to save another person's life. The holding of McFall v. Shimp extends beyond this narrow circumstance; Judge John P. Flaherty applied the ruling to the moral obligations of people and other living things, citing the duty of the court to protect the individual from being invaded and hurt by others. [1] McFall v. Shimp employs the physical body's rights and duties, consistent with the discussion of reproductive rights during pregnancy—given the ongoing discourse on the legality of abortion, a critical examination of bodily integrity is necessary to distinguish moral conflicts from legal obligations. McFall v. Shimp set a legal precedent that an individual is not under compulsion to aid another person at their mental or physical expense, upholding the right to bodily autonomy found at the center of the debate on the legality of abortion.
 
I wish the pro choice attorneys well as they come up with more creative and novel arguments to challenge these laws than what sat in Roe. I am not holding my breath as long as these justices sit on this court .

Here are some additional legal opinions on RvW and the court.

In a passage from a memo written to Supreme Court Justice David Souter by one of his clerks on the question of whether Roe v. Wade should be overruled or preserved.​
Memo text:​
Prominent among those concerns, wrote the clerk, was that the influence of Roe on the selection of justices posed a particular danger. "If Roe is overruled," he argued, "the public will understand that the Court's reversal is explainable solely by reason of changes in the composition of the Court." Thus, he concluded: "The damage to the public understanding of the Court's decisions as neutral expositions of the law . . . would be incalculable."​

Eerily predictive. And:

Still, the great upshot of Casey was that it preserved the essence of Roe. And on June 29, 1992, O'Connor, Kennedy and Souter each read aloud portions of their joint opinion. It was Souter who spoke the meat of it. "The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation," he said, "has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives."
It was a remarkable sentence. For it spoke not of privacy -- the legal ground that Roe was built upon -- but equality, the principle that future Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and others had famously asserted ought to undergird Roe instead.​

https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/23/opinions/abortion-rights-supreme-court-souter-prager/index.html
 
?? Is it your belief that 'all available' Const applications had been used in RvW? As I wrote earlier, it was a limited opinion, focused specifically on states not denying a safer procedure to women. There are other angles to attack this issue, that was just one, and it was relevant to the times because the procedure was finally recognized as safer than childbirth/pregnancy. Previously the procedure, esp. later term, was less safe.

Also IMO, the justices at the time didnt want to dig into it deeper and I think it was a rather cowardly opinion. It went only half way.

Here is one example of additional Const grounds that the courts could use that wasnt even brought up in RvW.

Bodily autonomy McFall vs Shimp
Six years after Roe v. Wade (1973), the landmark Supreme Court case that upheld a woman’s right to abortion based on her inherent right to privacy, the Common Pleas Court of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, ruled in favor of the “sanctity of the individual” to uphold women’s right to choice. The case, McFall v. Shimp (1978), ruled that a person could not be legally compelled to participate in medical treatment to save another person's life. The holding of McFall v. Shimp extends beyond this narrow circumstance; Judge John P. Flaherty applied the ruling to the moral obligations of people and other living things, citing the duty of the court to protect the individual from being invaded and hurt by others. [1] McFall v. Shimp employs the physical body's rights and duties, consistent with the discussion of reproductive rights during pregnancy—given the ongoing discourse on the legality of abortion, a critical examination of bodily integrity is necessary to distinguish moral conflicts from legal obligations. McFall v. Shimp set a legal precedent that an individual is not under compulsion to aid another person at their mental or physical expense, upholding the right to bodily autonomy found at the center of the debate on the legality of abortion.
There is more than I knew about and It well worth trying, but none of this do I see this configuration of anti-Roe justices being interested in hearing, except maybe Roberts. I think we will know more when we see the actual majority opinion and see if they all sign on or if you end up with a concurring opinion. If they all sign on to that thing of Alito's that leaked and it has not changed much, I think you are doomed without getting rid of one them
 
They call it birth control. Planning and acting responsibly.
 
There is more than I knew about and It well worth trying, but none of this do I see this configuration of anti-Roe justices being interested in hearing, except maybe Roberts. I think we will know more when we see the actual majority opinion and see if they all sign on or if you end up with a concurring opinion. If they all sign on to that thing of Alito's that leaked and it has not changed much, I think you are doomed.

They still have to make their decisions public and since the unborn have no rights at the federal level no matter what the states 'invent', they will have to justify not protecting women's Constitutional rights which are spelled out and instead, protecting the unborn over ours.

It all depends on the actual charges and the cases brought before the courts.
 
I wish the pro choice attorneys well as they come up with more creative and novel arguments to challenge these laws than what sat in Roe. I am not holding my breath as long as these justices sit on this court .
Well, this is what we have now.

When the legislature of Louisiana, I think, suggested a bill that would make a woman guilty of homicide for having an abortion, the stupid "Feminists for Life" said they didn't want to make the woman who got an abortion guilty of any criminal offense. Gimme a break. If the doctor is guilty, how can they make the woman not guilty? First, they whined about abortion being murder. Now, they whine about the consequences.

Next, idiots actually thought Alito's draft was correct about American history being without "deep-rooted" approval for abortion. He referred nine times in his draft to Matthew Hale, a sour aristocrat of the 1600s who not only declared abortion to be murder when other legal minds didn't, but believed in witchcraft; made sure that two widows accused of witchcraft in 1662 were found guilty and put to death; and became famous for arguing that there was no such thing as marital rape because the woman had given her body away.

And now, you can find all over the web references to the very popular John Tanner's Every Man His Own Doctor of 1734, where remedies for "suppression of the courses" are given, which is euphemistic for early abortion, and for Benjamin Franklin's textbook several decades later, which includes it as openly as you please.


Meanwhile, I see Governor De Wine of Ohio actually signed some bill offered by anti-abortion legislator Jean Schmidt saying that rape victims had to send thank you letters to rapists for their God-given pregnancy opportunity, in neat handwriting:


I'm sorry, but I'm from a generation whose IQs and SATs were far too high to take this seriously. I'll vote, but I'm not prepared to call this a viable reality.
 
They call it birth control. Planning and acting responsibly.

So then those women that use birth control and plan and act responsibly.abortion acceptable, right? If not, why not, based on your comment.

Do you believe that married couples that cant afford kids yet should be forced to reproduce...or just expect them not have sex?
 
Let's do what the Bible says>>
.
When Onan had sex with Tamar, he withdrew before he ejaculated and "spilled his seed on the ground". The next statement in the Bible says that Onan did evil and that God slew him.
Let's tie this law in the same decision that the Supreme court will make soon.
THAT would stop all this God-Damn bullshit.

I thought Tamar had sex with her father in law Judah dressed as a prostitute?

You drove me to look this up. I don't know how any of you know/remember this stuff. I remember The Sermon on the Mount and The Beatitudes.


Story 1: Tamar and Judah (Genesis 38)

Genesis 38 intersects the Joseph narrative with an absolutely bizarre story regarding one of Joseph’s brothers, Judah, and his relationship with his daughter-in-law Tamar.
In the story, Judah, the fourth-born son of Jacob (Israel), had left his father and brothers and married a Canaanite woman named Shua. When their oldest son Er came of age, Judah and Shua found him a wife named Tamar. However, according to Scripture, “Er was evil in the sight of the Lord, so the Lord took his life,”making Tamar a widow (Genesis 38:7).
In levirate marriage, the duty of the brother-in-law was to father a male heir with his brother’s widow to carry his brother’s name and ensure his inheritance (Deuteronomy 25:5). In this case, the responsibility fell to Onan, Er’s younger brother. Now although Onan took Tamar as his wife, he refused to bear a child that he would not be able to call his own. So instead of conceiving a child with Tamar, Onan “wasted his seed on the ground in order not to give offspring to his brother.” It was a vile act that displeased the Lord, and so, “He (the Lord) took his life also” (Genesis 38:10).
Now twice-widowed, Tamar was childless and alone. Here, Judah was expected to provide another one of his sons to marry and care for Tamar. But rather that offer up his third son, Judah refused, telling Tamar, “remain a widow in your father’s house until my son Shelah grows up. I am afraid that he too may die, like his brothers” (Genesis 38:11).



Now although Judah argued that he wanted to wait until Shelah was older, it’s clear that he had no intention of marrying off another son to Tamar, an inexcusable neglect of his fatherly duties and injustice to Tamar. Not only that but Judah had grossly assumed that Tamar was the cause of Er and Onan’s downfall, a failure to acknowledge and address the sins of his own children.
And then the story takes another odd turn. Later, after Judah’s wife had passed, Tamar disguised herself as a harlot and offered herself to Judah, unbeknownst to him for he did not recognize her. Three months later, when Judah learned that Tamar was pregnant, he insisted Tamar be punished. That’s when Tamar brought forth Judah’s staff, seal, and cord, which he had given to her on the night of their encounter, to prove that he in fact was the father. In doing so, she had tricked Judah into performing the duties his sons should have.

Filled with guilt, Judah recognized his sin and acknowledged his failure to provide for his daughter-in-law, confessing, “she is more righteous than I, inasmuch as I did not give her to my son Shelah” (Genesis 38:26). In doing so, Judah became one of the first recorded examples of a public confession of personal sin.
Tamar and Judah later bore twin boys named Perez and Zerah. Ironically, out of Perez’s line, both King David and later Jesus Christ, the Messiah, were born (Matthew 1:3). This is testament to God’s prevailing mercy. For even the most flawed and sinful of men can be used and blessed by God, not because of their merit, but because of His grace and the power of repentance.

 
Last edited:
I have noticed that things have drifted since last night from my OP. Your's is the last to come near the topic at all. Your first question has basically been posed in countless threads, too numerous to grace with a count. The third question seems more about shocking the conscience with outrage than probative in value, but you could post it if that is your goal. I like the middle question as a subset of my larger discussion dealing with punishment options under consideration for women who have abortions and so I included in in the OP.

I'm not sure which definition of probative you're using.

That being said: I believe several (if not many) states are trying to force rape victims to give birth to their rapist-fathered baby/babies.
 
Back
Top Bottom