• 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!

States Want to Ban Abortions Beyond Their Borders.

The 4th also covers 'security of the person', bodily autonomy, and that's what I was referring to in my post and what the McFail v Shimp decision is about.
And when combined with the 14th, that is a sure thing.

Even when the issue of possible fetal rights has surfaced in federal legal cases, they have never been considered persons and the "rights," such as inheritance, have been contingent on live birth.

And US federal law has never recognized a right to be born.

The anti-abortion people are as ridiculous as Putin in the face of truth.
 
I did not include the word "a" in my post before the word "right" as you did.

Entirely different meaning.
Irrelevant. My statement is accurate. Whether one thinks abortion itself is right or wrong is subjective.
 
Irrelevant. My statement is accurate. Whether one thinks abortion itself is right or wrong is subjective.

But it does raise the question...if it's not wrong, why are there laws against it? How, under the Const., are they allowing states to deny women a safer medical procedure? And if it is wrong, why isnt it banned?
 
But it does raise the question...if it's not wrong, why are there laws against it?
Probably due to emotionally based reasons. Those reasons might be referred to as a "state interest." I have not heard anyone put forth a rational reason to pass laws against abortion.
How, under the Const., are they allowing states to deny women a safer medical procedure?
In addition to my previous statement, possibly due to political and/or popular appeal.
And if it is wrong, why isnt it banned?
There are those that want it banned and who advocate for it. Or at least for severe restrictions.
 
Probably due to emotionally based reasons. Those reasons might be referred to as a "state interest." I have not heard anyone put forth a rational reason to pass laws against abortion.

In addition to my previous statement, possibly due to political and/or popular appeal.

There are those that want it banned and who advocate for it. Or at least for severe restrictions.

Thanks. So...no legitimate reasons. I have yet to have anyone tell me, legitimately, what the 'state's interest' is in the unborn. Certainly I cant think of anything that over rides the violation of several of women's Const rights which...if we are protected by the Const for 2/3 of the pregnancy...how are we still not protected in the last third? What "state's interest" supersedes that?
 
I have yet to have anyone tell me, legitimately, what the 'state's interest' is in the unborn.
As have I. No one can seem to elaborate or specify what is "interest" actually is.
Certainly I cant think of anything that over rides the violation of several of women's Const rights which...if we are protected by the Const for 2/3 of the pregnancy...how are we still not protected in the last third? What "state's interest" supersedes that?
[with a hint of sarcasm] Sanctimony maybe?
 
Back
Top Bottom