Sorry Anti-Choicers - SCOTUS is wrong. (4 Viewers)

[Ahlevah]

You misunderstand what the right is. A woman has a right to seek and receive medical treatment, at least if the doctor is willing to provide it, and a doctor has a right to offer medical treatment to effect a result healthier for a patient than would be the case if she continued her natural condition.

Well, if a doctor is unwilling to provide medical care, then it really isn’t a right, is it? UNLESS government compels him to provide it, in which case his rights are being sacrificed, presumably for the greater public good.

The doctor has always had a right not to offer that medical treatment if his/her ethics are that the woman's natural pregnancy is healthy enough. We leave it to the doctor to decide because there is always objective evidence that pregnancy is not.will not be healthy for a woman, but without women continuing pregnancies, the species would end. The doctor, as a medical professional, has to decide whether offering or not offering abortion is more ethical in each case.

That hasn’t stopped progressives from trying. Both the Obama and Biden Administrations tried to force Catholic hospitals and physicians to provide abortion and sexual reassignment services to the point that the Catholics and had to make a federal case out of it, joined by several states.

Franciscan Alliance v. Becerra - Becket

In May 2016, the federal government issued a mandate requiring that virtually every healthcare provider in the country be willing to perform and provide insurance coverage for gender-transition procedures. The mandate made no exception for providers who believe those procedures to be harmful or...

becketfund.org

 

[Lursa]

Well, if a doctor is unwilling to provide medical care, then it really isn’t a right, is it? UNLESS government compels him to provide it, in which case his rights are being sacrificed, presumably for the greater public good.

Nah, that's like saying the 2A isnt a right if the govt or someone else wont give you a firearm. That's not really an accurate rebuttal.

 

[Ahlevah]

The problem with your interpretation is this. The quickening was used to prove not that a fetus existed, but that it was capable of voluntary movement, the basis of mind-directed human action. So your view, that the proven existence of a live embryo/fetus with a human genetic code exists justifies its violation of the woman's body, wasn't theirs. They didn't think the embryo/fetus was alive without that basis. They didn't define human life in the mindless way you do. And advancements in medical care had nothing to do with it.

Mindless way? I wouldn’t characterize Aristotle, the Pythagoreans, or St. Thomas Aquinas as mindless. Now, some modern-day pro-abortion fanatics? They redefine the genre.

Men are not the source of life - women are. Until there is evidence that the fetus is sufficiently developed to be capable of continuing life itself, without the woman giving it, that life belongs to the woman.

And who or what created women? I would say whoever or whatever THAT was is the source of life. Just saying’.

The quarrel between pro-choice and anti-choice people has always rested on the question of whose life is involved, that of the woman or the fetus, of when the embryo/fetus has a completely separate life.

I think this quarrel will go on indefinitely, because if God is commanding some people to do one thing and abortion rights are someone else’s god they’ll never achieve a “meeting of the minds.” I mean, what’s your post count in this thread? Have you learned anything or evolved your position in any way aince it was started, ironically, last year just before Christmas?

So the best solution is for the pros to move to large, urban states with plenty of abortion rights and doctors, and for the antis to move to smaller, more rural states.

 

[weaver2]

Eventually, it (abortion) will be (banned). Only a matter of time.

Something you don't understand is that you don't have any control over what women do about their pregnancies. You can ban abortion until till the end of time when only one man and one woman are left on earth and you still can't tell her what to do about her pregnancy or make her reproduce. A woman that wants an abortion will find a way legally or illegally. What do you think was going on during the 100 years when all the states at one time had banned abortion? Or the 50 years when NY and a few other states made abortions legal? And there is always suicide. The suicide rate in pregnant women is twice that of non pregnant women. Men have been trying to control women's reproductive lives ever since it was discovered that women produced babies. They have not succeeded yet. Eventually abortion will be banned in the next 4 years. It will not effect the abortion rate.[/QUOTE]

 

[JoeB131]

Morality is subjective. Not everyone is squeamish about abortion.

The Aztecs weren't squeamish about mass human sacrifice, what is your point?

And how many elective (non-medical) abortions do they have of healthy, viable fetuses? Please share the data. It's available all over the place.

One is too many, and it's allowed in six states.

I'm not going to say she didn't screw up. The big mistake, IMO, was the choice of Walz. I would have gone for Mark Kelly or Josh Shapiro. However, I don't think the low Democratic Party approval rate is either as bad as it appears - it includes all the Dems and Dem-leaning Indies who are furious that they aren't protesting enough or efficiently.

Shapiro would have driven Arab-Americans to Trump. (Goodbye, Michigan!!!) I think Kelly would have been a better choice than Walz, but the real problem is that Veeps just don't make that much of a difference. Bush the Elder picked Dan Quayle, and he STILL won 40 states.

The big problem was that she was a crap candidate in 2020, where she didn't even make it to Iowa. Why does she suddenly become a good candidate now? The problem is, of course, that if they skipped over her for someone who was "electable", the Feminists and African-Americans would have screamed bloody murder. (Even though Trump did better with women AND blacks this last time out, increasing with women by 3 points and blacks by 1 point)

She was a DEI hire when America has gotten sick of DEI.

As for why Democrats approval is so low. I think it has a lot more to do with how radical the Democrats have become on a whole host of issues... some of which I agree with them on, but real politics say that the electorate isn't with them on it.

Her key problem, though, was young men. It's awful that Gen Z has the greatest generation gap of all the generations, but young women really can't help that.

Or maybe after generations of demonizing white men, young Gen Z men had quite enough of it.

The problem is, of course, that Trump improved with all age demographics except 65 and older, where he did slightly worse. Because Harris was a crap DEI candidate.

No, actually, Jews (Hebrews) never believed a fetus was a person. In the Talmud, the oral law *recorded only in the second century?) clarifies this.

Hebrews believed diseases were cursed from God and stoned people to death for working on Sunday. Let's not use them as an example, M;kay. They also didn't believe in a soul or the afterlife.

Today, we know that at a certain point, a fetus has a heartbeat and brain activity fairly early on in the process. Does it have a soul? Couldn't tell you, not even sure if I have a soul.

I don't believe in participation trophies. But I do believe that it is a terrible sin to go around judging people who have to be bailed out by assuming their own bad choices were to blame. The truth is, people who have been shot by irresponsible gun wielders, hit by irresponsible car drivers, challenged by inherited and poverty-caused diseases and those from corporate pollution, harmed by acts of serious injustice by those in authority, etc., to say nothing of all the other ways people have been damaged. Sometimes, even the bad choices they made came from such victimization. So I simply can't agree with someone so quick to judge like that.

So everyone is a victim, and everyone gets a participation trophy. Got it.

I didn't say dandy. You did. Don't project what I think. Some women choose abortion in circumstances where I wouldn't have, when I could get pregnant. But I would have chosen it in some circumstances where some other women wouldn't have. Each one has her own philosophical bottom line.

I don't get the connection.

Six states, and DC, you can get an abortion at any point with absolutely no restrictions.

Which means that if a woman is angry at her husband because she thinks he's banging the secretary, she can abort their 8 month fetus without his having any say-so on her way to the divorce lawyer.

Which is terrible.

 

[JoeB131]

No, actually, you wouldn't. You would select people with the appropriate skills for the current operation of your business, and for people in sales, reception, and wait services in many businesses, the young healthy looker is not unimportant in spite of evrything. It's true that some younger people have awful work ethics, but it isn't true of everyone.

As someone who writes resumes as a business... the problem that Millennials have horrible work ethics. The only reason why they are sometimes preferred is that they work cheaper and they don't have expectations. if your boss is an insecure narcissist (and too many of them are) that makes them ideal because they won't push back on the stupidity.

One reason why is that there are more people now. Seriously, though, the Klan didn't just kill people. It tortured and mutilated people, interfered with basic civil rights and citizen privileges at multiple levels, warping not just neighborhoods but entire towns and counties.

Yes, the Klan was terrible.

Street gangs are far worse. They push drugs, engage in human trafficking, etc.

You shouldn't rely on your spouse's health insurance because he can pop off, or if he's irresponsible, he could lose his job, and maybe if he's a domestic abuser, you have to have a way to escape. In the fifties, if a kid died, people weren't so quick as to suspect the parents of killing him/her. People understood that sometimes people die of diseases or accidents even if we provide them health care. They don't now.

First, I think we should have single-payer health coverage like most of the rest of the industrialized world has. But the reality is, most married couples, they have one spouse who takes the coverage (usually the man) and the other just latches on, because each spouse buying his own would be FAR more expensive.

 

[JoeB131]

I don't believe that for a minute. First, I don't believe that most Dems and Dem leaners wanted so many illegal immigrants, or even legal ones that might become US citizens. I don't think that most of them think about that issue as much as you do. Rather, I think that they usually concern themselves with issues concerning both the poor and the working class and those in the middle class who are not small business owners, though H Clinton did put some focus on them. The struggles of the middle class are about paying for kids' college tuition and still paying off their mortgages. The entire student loan problem concerns many middle class people. It is now clear that some Hispanics and blacks who decided to turn to Trump do regret their vote.

I'm married to an immigrant. My father was an immigrant. The real problem is the Democratic Leadership was all for illegal immigration. The rank and file, not so much, which is why Trump seriously improved his standing with Hispanics and Asians. (As opposed to those evil white people, where he did marginally worse!)

The problem I see with the middle class is that when you pay something like 40% of your income on taxes, and then you see your neighbor who is living just as well as you are because they got a section 8 voucher to live in your neighborhood, are getting a SNAP Card to buy groceries with while you are deciding on whether or not to buy the generic brand. You are schlepping to work every day while they sit home and play video games and smoke weed; you are going to get pretty fed up. And this is how I would describe most members of my extended family, not because they were evil privileged white people, but because they know the Democrats don't give a flip about them.

My problem with it is that it promotes an agenda that favors the rich and has the following issues.

1, It is largely racist, against Blacks, Native Americans, and Hispanics in that order
2. It promulgates a sexism that is very unpleasant,
3 it pretends to Christian values by overemphasizing puritanical values related to sex publicly and violating those values privately, and by not showing serious concern for the poor, sick, disabled, homeless, and everyone else Jesus thought we should help.

I agree that they use this to promote policies that favor the rich.

But I also see (based on above) how the white working class looks at the Democratic Party and their DEI, welfare state nonsense, and say, "enough"!

You see, as much as I revile Trump, I see him as a reaction to BOTH parties and their complacency and being out of touch. He appealed to the worst in a lot of people, but you can get why people would vote for an arsonist when the whole structure kind of stinks.

No, that's not how it is. You really hate women, don't you? When I read your posts, I always think of Gloria Steinem and how she thought before and after she went undercover as a Playboy bunny and discovered how narrow-minded and prejudiced she was about less educated women, and how inevitable that she walked out on a selfish middle class fiance to put first the survival needs of an underpaid, disrespected, but morally responsible working class woman.

I feel bad for anyone who went to the Playboy Club and got to see Gloria Steinem in a bunny outfit. They probably threw up a bit in their mouths.

I think her fiancé probably thinks he dodged a bullet, too.

If you were hot enough to work at the Playboy Club, you were doing pretty well. A waitress at Hooters makes far better money than a waitress at your local greasy spoon. Certainly better than a working-class white male who spent his life working in a factory, only to get demonized as "privileged".

But we weren't talking about Playboy models or strippers, we were talking about the kind of party girl who goes out clubbing all night, has sex with a man she has never met before, and then decides an abortion is the best course of action, not taking into account her life and being better.

 

[JoeB131]

Something you don't understand is that you don't have any control over what women do about their pregnancies. You can ban abortion until till the end of time when only one man and one woman are left on earth and you still can't tell her what to do about her pregnancy or make her reproduce. A woman that wants an abortion will find a way legally or illegally. What do you think was going on during the 100 years when all the states at one time had banned abortion? Or the 50 years when NY and a few other states made abortions legal? And there is always suicide. The suicide rate in pregnant women is twice that of non pregnant women. Men have been trying to control women's reproductive lives ever since it was discovered that women produced babies. They have not succeeded yet. Eventually abortion will be banned in the next 4 years. It will not effect the abortion rate.

[/QUOTE]

Probably not.

Then again, laws against murder haven't stopped murders from happening, so I'm not sure what your point is here.

I've already conceded that an abortion ban would probably be about as effective as prohibition was. It would really depend on how seriously the society takes it.

The problem with the Pre-Roe abortion laws is that they were barely enforced. The only time someone went to jail was if they fouled up and injured the woman. This is why the courts probably felt okay about overturning them with Roe and Doe.

I think the way to make abortion "rare" (which is why Feminist Hero Bill Clinton advocated) is to change the culture, not the law.

 

[Gordy327]

The Aztecs weren't squeamish about mass human sacrifice, what is your point?

Your issue with abortion is your own.

One is too many, and it's allowed in six states.

Good. Only 44 states to go. Canada has no restrictions and their abortion rate is lower than the US.

Or maybe after generations of demonizing white men, young Gen Z men had quite enough of it.

Who's demonizing men?

Today, we know that at a certain point, a fetus has a heartbeat and brain activity fairly early on in the process.

And what does that have to do with anything?

Six states, and DC, you can get an abortion at any point with absolutely no restrictions.

Good, as it should be. There's no rational or legal reason for restrictions.

Which means that if a woman is angry at her husband because she thinks he's banging the secretary, she can abort their 8 month fetus without his having any say-so on her way to the divorce lawyer.

Which is terrible.

And who's getting elective abortions at that point?

 

[Gordy327]

For purposes of discussion, my opinion is no less relevant than yours, and, like @Lursa, at the moment you’re providing a rebuttal to an argument I never made. I’m not disputing the legal distinction that exists in law between a “person” and a human embryo or fetus. I can think of reasons as to why this was and probably still is a good idea. I mean, do we want to require a fetus to have a Social Security card or let its parents take a tax deduction for a college savings plan? I don’t know. Maybe we do. But there is also a state interest in protecting human life, born or not, and that interest has been described in any number of ways, including as an “unborn child” or “human being.”

I have not offered opinion. Just fact. If you cannot dispute a legal argument, them you have no real argument to make. All you have to offer are your feelings. What exactly is a "state's interest?" That is never explicity or legally defined. The state doesn't care if one procreates or not. Abortion is essentially no different that someone choosing not to have children. The state doesn't get involved in that decision. So why does it get involved with abortion? How is one's reproductive choices a "state interest?"

Okay, just not in my state (Mississippi), unless it’s to save the life of the mother or performed within six weeks of impregnation (only in the case of rape).

What is the reasoning behind 6 weeks, as opposed to say 12, 15, 20, ect weeks othet states arbitrarily impose?

I mean, technically she can still get one under these limited circumstances, but because of other legal and regulatory restrictions, it’s almost impossible for her to find a doctor (and it must be a doctor) willing to perform the procedure.

And women suffer for it.

You’re still attacking a strawman here. The issue here is the state’s interests, including protecting human life, whether that life is legally classified as a person or not.

You still haven't explained how or why it's an "interest." Neither have states defined this interest.

I have, but it begins from the standpoint of ethics, which is really the source for most of our laws on contentious issues like this one.

Not really. It's a matter of individual rights and autonomy. Ethics might govern how medical procedures are performed. But not the legal basis for them.

An unborn human life develops along a continuum. At some point—and reasonable people can disagree on where that point begins—that life comes to represent a human being, which the state views as being worth protecting. What most people find unreasonable is that it’s never worth protecting as long as it’s in a uterus. Somewhere between zygote and full-term fetus I think we can find compromise, but it’s best left at the state level. We had fifty years of national pain and acrimony on this issue. Let the federal government focus on things of federal import—like trade, commerce, and national defense.

That compromise was viability, which was the literal and metaphorical middle ground on the issue.

It is a legal one, maybe not in the context you would hope or imagine, but certainly in federal and state criminal fetal homicide laws.

Still false. Fetal homicide laws does not establish fetal personhood or rights nor scientifically defines "human being."

Answered.

Where?

Well, I have provided support for my arguments even though I’m not the one who’s attempted to assert that women have a right to kill a fetus.

Where? Your argument has been refuted from a legal standpoint.

 

[Ahlevah]

She's saying that the woman is a slave because she can't stop a pregnancy, and she's right.

Horseshit. North Koreans are slaves. They have to live there. No one is forcing people to live in Texas. Was she a slave when she had sex? She can avoid pregnancy in most circumstances. We have this thing called “birth control,” with some methods being more than 99% effective. So if she wants to avoid the predicament of being pregnant in a state with severe restrictions on abortion, she can. In those rare circumstances in which something goes wrong with a planned pregnancy, threatening her life, I agree that she should be able to terminate it, but these instances are outliers, ending up in the courts and magnified by pro-abortion advocates and the media in an attempt to sway public opinion on the topic of abortion in general.

We've told you repeatedly that Roe said abortion in the first trimester was so safe that there wasn't a reason for the state to interfere with the woman's seeking and receiving a voluntary abortion and the doctor's offering and performing such an abortion. The health issue began to arise in the second trimester, so the state could regulate the practice of abortion for the woman's health as determined by a doctor. A state was allowed to ban abortion altogether in the third trimester except if, in the medical doctor's view, her life/health of major organs was at serious risk.

And that’s your opinion and that’s fine. My opinion is more philosophical and less antiseptic than yours likely is: ALL human life should be regarded as precious, and not terminated as a matter of routine. But the woman should still be treated with compassion and respect as all times. That’s because deliberately terminating a pregnancy at an early stage really is a matter of conscience. But there comes a point at which the state’s interest in preserving the life within her comes to outweigh her right of bodily autonomy, unless we decide we really don’t live in a civil society but want to remain barbarians.

 

[Ahlevah]

First, preventing harm to a woman's implanted fetus cannot occur without doing something to the woman, because no one can even know a woman is pregnant without asking her to consent to providing that information, and she has a right not to provide it (4th amendment). Hence, when the state tells a doctor he/ she can't provide an abortion, it is, first, interfering with his/her practice of medicine.

Telling a doctor he can’t euthanize his patients is interfering with his practice of medicine. That doesn’t mean we should never do it.

The point of the conscription example was not to claim that the circumstances of a young military draftee are identical to a young woman desiring to terminate a pregnancy. Obviously, they’re not, as the hundreds of thousands of draftees who occupy graves at U.S. military/veterans cemeteries around the world could attest to if they were still living. At the time they were being slaughtered at Antietam or Guadalcanal while fighting for what you hope to be the freedom of women to kill their unborn children, people weren’t much interested in their opinions. Many of them were dead well before anyone might have asked then whether or not they wanted kids.

The point of the example was sometimes the collective interests of society, whether they be taking lives or preserving them, outweigh our own parochial interests. A duty involving personal sacrifice, including the risk of possibly sacrificing one’s own life as in my conscription example, may be asked of a nation’s citizens.

 

[Gordy327]

Horseshit. North Koreans are slaves. They have to live there. No one is forcing people to live in Texas. Was she a slave when she had sex? She can avoid pregnancy in most circumstances. We have this thing called “birth control,” with some methods being more than 99% effective. So if she wants to avoid the predicament of being pregnant in a state with severe restrictions on abortion, she can. In those rare circumstances in which something goes wrong with a planned pregnancy, threatening her life, I agree that she should be able to terminate it, but these instances are outliers, ending up in the courts and magnified by pro-abortion advocates and the media in an attempt to sway public opinion on the topic of abortion in general.

If the state forces a woman to remain pregnant against her will, thereby depriving her of her bodily autonomy and a safer medical procedure, then the statevis in effect enslaving the woman to a fetus. No amount of denial or dancing around will change that fact.

And that’s your opinion and that’s fine. My opinion is more philosophical and less antiseptic than yours likely is: ALL human life should be regarded as precious, and not terminated as a matter of routine.

the issue is legal, not philosophical.

But the woman should still be treated with compassion and respect as all times.

that is a contradiction with restricting one's bodily autonomy.

That’s because deliberately terminating a pregnancy at an early stage really is a matter of conscience.

If one's conscience bothers them, they are free to choose not to have am abortion.

But there comes a point at which the state’s interest in preserving the life within her comes to outweigh her right of bodily autonomy, unless we decide we really don’t live in a civil society but want to remain barbarians.

What point is that? And why a particular point? What exactly is a "state's interest and where is thus interest legally defined? Be specific! Simply asserting "state's interest" is an excuse, not a legal justification.

 

[Ahlevah]

The greatest weakness in your argument is your definition of abortion - deliberately killing the unborn. But an act is defined by its purpose, not collateral damage. The proper definition of abortion is deliberately ending a pregnancy. The fact that an embryo or fetus dies isn't deliberate killing, but rather deliberately ending the use of the woman's body, blood oxygen, blood nutrients, homeostasis, etc., against her will and without her consent to such use. The embryo or pre-viable fetus simply ceases to live.

Your definitions are certainly tidier and less provocative: “Ending” instead of “killing.” “Pregnancy” instead of “unborn.” “Embryo” or “fetus” instead of “unborn child” or “human being.” If that’s what allows you to sleep at night, sweet dreams!

 

[Gordy327]

Your definitions are certainly tidier and less provocative: “Ending” instead of “killing.” “Pregnancy” instead of “unborn.” “Embryo” or “fetus” instead of “unborn child” or “human being.” If that’s what allows you to sleep at night, sweet dreams!

Those definitions are accurate. Using terms like "unborn child" and the like are merely emotionally manipulative layman terms and medically (scientifically) inaccurate.

 

[Ahlevah]

Nah, that's like saying the 2A isnt a right if the govt or someone else wont give you a firearm. That's not really an accurate rebuttal.

Under Natural Law Theory (the system of political philosophy that undergirds the American system of government, including on the origin and nature of rights), people have a right to bodily autonomy, including the right to walk from Texas to California. People also have a right to defend themselves. They don’t have a right to demand that someone else provide them transportation out of state or the means to defend themselves from an intruder. The difference is the U.S. Constitution enumerates a fundamental right to keep and bear arms while there is no similarly-enumerated right to get an abortion in Texas or anywhere else under the political jurisdiction of the United States.

 

[Gordy327]

Under Natural Law Theory (the system of political philosophy that undergirds the American system of government, including on the origin and nature of rights), people have a right to bodily autonomy, including the right to walk from Texas to California. People also have a right to defend themselves. They don’t have a right to demand that someone else provide them transportation out of state or the means to defend themselves from an intruder. The difference is the U.S. Constitution enumerates a fundamental right to keep and bear arms while there is no similarly-enumerated right to get an abortion in Texas or anywhere else under the political jurisdiction of the United States.

The US constitution does not prohibit abortion either. But it does establish (along with federal law) the unborn are not persons with rights. But the Constitution does establish bodily autonomy and the SCOTUS affirmed that one cannot be compelled to have their body or bodily resources used to benefit another. As such, the states have no legal basis to restrict abortion and by extension, one's bodily autonomy.

 

[Bodi]

The Aztecs weren't squeamish about mass human sacrifice, what is your point?



One is too many, and it's allowed in six states.



Shapiro would have driven Arab-Americans to Trump. (Goodbye, Michigan!!!) I think Kelly would have been a better choice than Walz, but the real problem is that Veeps just don't make that much of a difference. Bush the Elder picked Dan Quayle, and he STILL won 40 states.

The big problem was that she was a crap candidate in 2020, where she didn't even make it to Iowa. Why does she suddenly become a good candidate now? The problem is, of course, that if they skipped over her for someone who was "electable", the Feminists and African-Americans would have screamed bloody murder. (Even though Trump did better with women AND blacks this last time out, increasing with women by 3 points and blacks by 1 point)

She was a DEI hire when America has gotten sick of DEI.

As for why Democrats approval is so low. I think it has a lot more to do with how radical the Democrats have become on a whole host of issues... some of which I agree with them on, but real politics say that the electorate isn't with them on it.




Or maybe after generations of demonizing white men, young Gen Z men had quite enough of it.

The problem is, of course, that Trump improved with all age demographics except 65 and older, where he did slightly worse. Because Harris was a crap DEI candidate.




Hebrews believed diseases were cursed from God and stoned people to death for working on Sunday. Let's not use them as an example, M;kay. They also didn't believe in a soul or the afterlife.

Today, we know that at a certain point, a fetus has a heartbeat and brain activity fairly early on in the process. Does it have a soul? Couldn't tell you, not even sure if I have a soul.



So everyone is a victim, and everyone gets a participation trophy. Got it.





Six states, and DC, you can get an abortion at any point with absolutely no restrictions.

Which means that if a woman is angry at her husband because she thinks he's banging the secretary, she can abort their 8 month fetus without his having any say-so on her way to the divorce lawyer.

Which is terrible.

Your posts become more and more clearly about oppressing women for daring to want bodily autonomy...

d

 

[Ahlevah]

Congress cant do that without creating an amendment that makes the unborn "persons." It's currently unconstitutional. (See US Code 8, see Dobbs, etc. as evidence. These are all based on SCOTUS interpretation of the 14t A....as is all the convolutions you see in the fetal homicide law...the federal decisions are ALL that the unborn are not persons and recognize no rights for them.)

You’re referencing a statute defining a “person” as post natal and using that to conclude that Congress could not effectively ban the taking of human life in utero through a constitutional amendment? I beg to differ. But if by some stroke of legal hocus pocus that would be required, then, okay, include wording defining a human embryo or fetus as a “person.”

So why would Congress do that? When most indications are that the majority of Americans support elective abortion to some extent? And when states get to vote on it, except in one instance since Dobbs, the people vote down more restrictions on abortion.

It probably wouldn’t. It was a hypothetical designed to illustrate the point of the Supremacy Clause. Just imagine any circumstance you want in which Congress passes a constitutional amendment addressing the issue of abortion that supersedes the majority of state abortion laws, either pro or against.

 

[Gordy327]

You’re referencing a statute defining a “person” as post natal and using that to conclude that Congress could not effectively ban the taking of human life in utero through a constitutional amendment? I beg to differ. But if by some stroke of legal hocus pocus that would be required, then, okay, include wording defining a human embryo or fetus as a “person.”

Not just a statute, but also a Constitutional basis. A constitutional amendment to the contrary is unlikely given the requirements to pass a constitutional amendment.

 

[Ahlevah]

If you take a trip and murder a family member in another state, your state of residence will charge you with murder...yes or no?

Generally, no. The state where the murder actually occurred would have jurisdiction and file the charges.

Yes.

Still no.

Now...what about for killing your unborn/having it killed in another state? You will not be charged with a crime, period.

Probably not. If a state tried to do it it would likely fail.

Why is that? The provider wouldnt be doing it if the woman didnt request it. Why not charge the actual initiator? If you hire someone to kill your spouse...you are also charged, right? Is it a crime to kill that unborn or not? Is it murder or not?

Because the focus isn’t on punishment. It’s protecting the lives of the mother and her unborn baby (fetus, child, gerbil, alien…. ). Is it murder? I think it depends on the circumstances, especially how developed it is at the time “Mom” wants to terminate it.

(Hint: it comes down, again, to the fact that they cant charge her with murder since federally the unborn have no legal status.)

If it’s a fully-developed fetus, with the only difference being it’s still in utero, it may not legally be a “person,” but it’s still a human being the state has an interest in protecting, Roe or no Roe.

I explained this...so you are repeating yourself but not refuting my response. I addressed the entire thing, including 'compromise.' where I discussed weighing her entire life against the potential life. Remember?

"Ethically worth protecting" is your argument...that's fine. There's no definition of the states' interest but you provide something reasonable. However that can then be challenged in court regarding the ethics of denying women a much safer medical procedure, the state imposing pain and suffering on her without her consent, violating her due process, right to life, bodily autonomy, etc...for a "potential" life. When here she is, already contributing to society. So IMO this is just one more reason it can be considered but when weighed against the woman's entire life and meaning to others, and health and rights, it would definitely be weighed in the woman's favor, ethically. And again...it's why women can still kill/have killed their own unborn. The courts know they cant overcome this imbalance. This is my opinion. Backed by the fact that Dobbs does not protect the unborn at all and that no state has made having an abortion a crime.​

​

And if the state denies women abortions based on the states' interest, then it becomes "involuntary servitude." 13th Amendment.​

The women/couples most in need of abortions need them for financial reasons and often cannot just pick up and move. So...just 'tough for them?'



That's what supporting abortion restrictions leads to and I was very very clear on that. And instead of acknowledging that reality...you just try to defend yourself. So did you not understand any of that or you just dont want to address the actual truth of it? That since the vast majority of abortions take place early, before complications occur....the restrictions almost completely affect women that WANTED to have a baby...and are now suffering physically and emotionally because of the loss of that fetus. You dont even acknowledge this...I hope you arent planning on going back to your comments on ethics here.


See above, your suggestion is one of entitlement. And is just another admission that killing the unborn isnt wrong, it's not "murdering babies"...because no one that believes that believes it's a states' rights issue. If it's not wrong...why should there be laws against it? If it is murder...how can it be left up to the states...you insist only "human beings" can be murdered.

Do you think repeating the same twaddle—that the only human beings worth protecting are post natal and that there never comes a point at which the states’s interest in protecting the life of an unborn baby could come to outweigh any potential risk to the woman—is going to alter my opinion or my desire to counter that nonsense? Because it won’t.

 

[Ahlevah]

Anyone can hold any personal beliefs they want. The law is about imposing restrictions on others. The entitlement to do that must be founded on the law.

Sure, but if the intent is to live within an ordered, ethical civil society, the law should reflect that. A society in which human beings are given less consideration than a pet cat probably isn’t long for this world.

Old people die off and younger people start voting. Religion is declining across America. The long game looks ok.

People are by nature spiritual beings. They long for something greater than themselves. Anyone who thinks they’ll find that in a political cause or movement will be sorely disappointed. But humans are also thinking, rational beings, and rationalism supports as well the idea that all human life, especially that of an innocent unborn baby, is something worth valuing and protecting. So I have faith and confidence that my argument will be on the right side of history while yours will end up in its dustbin.

 

[Lursa]

One is too many, and it's allowed in six states.

"Na huh" is just a concession...look at all the women that just drive to another state now from the red states now. Where are people complaining about that law..."but if only ONE gets across!" Nowhere.

You know you cant find the data and just want to support an empty, self-righteous, useless law.

Six states, and DC, you can get an abortion at any point with absolutely no restrictions.

Which means that if a woman is angry at her husband because she thinks he's banging the secretary, she can abort their 8 month fetus without his having any say-so on her way to the divorce lawyer.

But no one does. So why lie? Show women without a medical need aborting healthy, viable fetuses? Quote where your scenario ever happened? It would cost around $10,000. It would be more painful and dangerous than labor. And she couldnt just pick up the phone and find a clinic to do it, it's a specialized procedure and not all doctors can do it...and most, if any, wont. So it would take time, $$, and distance, you can forget your "spur of the moment spite" fantasy.

But thanks for showing us how little you think of women. You misogyny shines thru again. OTOH, we know men do it to women. You know that law you like to cite, Lacy v Peterson? If you scroll down to the cases they cite...there's several where the boyfriends/husbands intentionally punched their women to kill the fetuses.

LOL your posts are always such a fun opportunity to turn things around on you and misplaced misogny and 1950s dogma...the truth ends up coming out.

 

[Lursa]

Under Natural Law Theory (the system of political philosophy that undergirds the American system of government, including on the origin and nature of rights), people have a right to bodily autonomy, including the right to walk from Texas to California. People also have a right to defend themselves. They don’t have a right to demand that someone else provide them transportation out of state or the means to defend themselves from an intruder. The difference is the U.S. Constitution enumerates a fundamental right to keep and bear arms while there is no similarly-enumerated right to get an abortion in Texas or anywhere else under the political jurisdiction of the United States.

The 2nd A is about a right to own and bear arms. An implied right to SD is not affected by owning a gun or not.

THere are many other Const protections of our right to self defense. The 2A did not work as your rebuttal.

 

[Lursa]

You’re referencing a statute defining a “person” as post natal and using that to conclude that Congress could not effectively ban the taking of human life in utero through a constitutional amendment? I beg to differ.

What act/action would it be?

But if by some stroke of legal hocus pocus that would be required, then, okay, include wording defining a human embryo or fetus as a “person.”

Exactly. There's no legal or ethical reason to do so. The legal issues would be very complicated and not beneficial to women or society so that would be some heavy lifting. (There are no negative effects of abortion on society, unless you can list some?)

But if you have reasons for them to do so, feel free to share. Unless you can tho, it seems a waste of time to go on about 'imagining" the unborn as persons or having rights recognized in discussion re: law...doesnt it?

It probably wouldn’t. It was a hypothetical designed to illustrate the point of the Supremacy Clause. Just imagine any circumstance you want in which Congress passes a constitutional amendment addressing the issue of abortion that supersedes the majority of state abortion laws, either pro or against.

No right is absolute and no has implied they are. And banning abortions is a common "hypothetical" used here by the anti-abortion crowd...and their goal. And so coming to terms with the realities of what that would take...from Congress...matters. So now you just want to blow it off as "meh, it wouldnt happen anyway." Agreed, it is highly unlikely but the reasons matter.