Okay, JD Vance is growing on me

[SamSpade]

Where in the Constitution do women have the right to MURDER their unborn children

It was argued that the Due Process clause in the 14th amendment protects rights not previously recorded - one of them being a right to privacy. The case was that forbidding abortion violates a women's right to privacy.

This has ALWAYS been a very weak argument - even Ruth Bader Ginsburg said so - the most ardent proponent of abortion rights.
She stated frequently that it could be argued under the Equal Protection Clause of the same amendment that since women alone can become pregnant, making a law that restricts them along is a violation of their equal treatment under the law.

Dobbs pretty much wiped out the previous definition. As many people believe - as I do - there really can't BE a more fair and democratic approach to the issue than to let the voters decide in each state. This is counter to the modus operandi of the Democratic Party who typically believe, when an issue is something they believe in - what the voters CHOOSE be damned. Hence, they wish to restore a constitutionally protected right to an abortion.

They can DO that, with an amendment - which I do not believe will pass. They can also do that with a re-working of a right to an abortion under the equal protection clause. I don't know how that works, but those are the two ways I know of.

 

[Kinnakeet]

Here is how it works!! NOBODY HAS THE RIGHT TO TELL A WOMAN THAT SHE CANNOT HAVE A ABORTION AND I MEAN NO ONE!

 

[Kinnakeet]

Ok. Well then if they ban abortion nation wide then we can ban guns nationwide too?

try

 

[vraiblonde]

since women alone can become pregnant, making a law that restricts them along is a violation of their equal treatment under the law.

That's also a weak argument unless you want to sue biology.

IMO the real argument is, at what point is a fetus legally considered a separate life from the mother? But they'll argue that until the cows come home because there's a case to be made that life begins at conception, and also a case for life beginning at birth. Moderate heads tried to come up with a compromise but the Democrat death cult is having none of it. They don't want to compromise....on anything. Ever.

I think kicking it back to the states is what should have been done all along, then people can push for laws on a state level, which is a hell of a lot easier than trying to get a whole country to agree. When you try to explain this simple concept to a Democrat their eyes roll back in their head and they start spouting gibberish (much like Kamala Harris). They are freaking iron fisted when it comes to what they want, and there is no reason in their brains. They don't even try to see the other side.

"If you don't do what I want, you're a FASCIST!"

 

[SamSpade]

That's also a weak argument unless you want to sue biology.

Sure beats the right to privacy, which by itself, is absurd if derived from the 14th Amendment. I believe you DO have a right to privacy, but I don't see how it legally pertains to abortion.

Roe ORIGINALLY decided, for the sake of compromise, to set up a trimester framework for laws regulating abortion - in a nutshell, ok in the first, needs to be medically necessary in the second, and not permitted in the third. Shot down COMPLETELY by Casey v PP.

I GET that the specifics can be - tiresome but necessary. "Life" begins at conception might be a good scientific argument, but is that life granted the same level of rights as a developed PERSON? Sperm or ovum are without question - "alive" if only briefly. Skin cells are alive if swabbed from the mouth. But they're not PEOPLE. So - when does the embryo achieve "personhood"?

I do think viability is a very good indicator - at what point can a fetus live after being removed from its mother? Brain waves can be another - the examples I gave previously, no one thinks a sperm has sentience.

For CENTURIES - children - after being born - were still regarded as disposable by society at large. In some cultures, it is STILL that way to a lesser degree. Even here, in the Western world, as recently as a century or two - children weren't persons with rights. They - were - property. And you could do to them WHATEVER YOU WANTED. But if we're going to abide by a philosophy that children are persons with rights, it becomes necessary to determine WHEN THE FETUS has them.

Just as you can't claim - MY PROPERTY, MY RIGHT (to kill existing children), so too the claim of MY BODY, MY RIGHTS rings hollow IF - it's determined that it's no longer a piece of tissue but a person with rights.

I mean, damn, as a society we are more sympathetic to DOGS AND CATS than we are to a human fetus, and they don't have rights at all.

 

[Kyle]

I mean, damn, as a society we are more sympathetic to DOGS AND CATS than we are to a human fetus, and they don't have rights at all.

Sad but true, but then I'm also much more sympathetic to dogs than a VAST number of people I've encountered.

 

[Ramp Guy]

Sure beats the right to privacy, which by itself, is absurd if derived from the 14th Amendment. I believe you DO have a right to privacy, but I don't see how it legally pertains to abortion.

Roe ORIGINALLY decided, for the sake of compromise, to set up a trimester framework for laws regulating abortion - in a nutshell, ok in the first, needs to be medically necessary in the second, and not permitted in the third. Shot down COMPLETELY by Casey v PP.

I GET that the specifics can be - tiresome but necessary. "Life" begins at conception might be a good scientific argument, but is that life granted the same level of rights as a developed PERSON? Sperm or ovum are without question - "alive" if only briefly. Skin cells are alive if swabbed from the mouth. But they're not PEOPLE. So - when does the embryo achieve "personhood"?

I do think viability is a very good indicator - at what point can a fetus live after being removed from its mother? Brain waves can be another - the examples I gave previously, no one thinks a sperm has sentience.

For CENTURIES - children - after being born - were still regarded as disposable by society at large. In some cultures, it is STILL that way to a lesser degree. Even here, in the Western world, as recently as a century or two - children weren't persons with rights. They - were - property. And you could do to them WHATEVER YOU WANTED. But if we're going to abide by a philosophy that children are persons with rights, it becomes necessary to determine WHEN THE FETUS has them.

Just as you can't claim - MY PROPERTY, MY RIGHT (to kill existing children), so too the claim of MY BODY, MY RIGHTS rings hollow IF - it's determined that it's no longer a piece of tissue but a person with rights.

I mean, damn, as a society we are more sympathetic to DOGS AND CATS than we are to a human fetus, and they don't have rights at all.

Not trying to be "a wise guy" with this answer so please don't take it the wrong way, but not until they can find food/water and feed themselves.

 

[vraiblonde]

I mean, damn, as a society we are more sympathetic to DOGS AND CATS than we are to a human fetus, and they don't have rights at all.

"OMG that guy just threw a bag of kittens into the river to dispose of them! I was so angry and upset I almost missed my abortion appointment!"

 

[vraiblonde]

but not until they can find food/water and feed themselves.

But that would mean the disabled aren't persons. The elderly. Toddlers. Joe Biden.

 

[SamSpade]

Not trying to be "a wise guy" with this answer so please don't take it the wrong way, but not until they can find food/water and feed themselves.

Well using THAT as a standard, I'd have to go with a minimum age of five or six.

 

[SamSpade]

"OMG that guy just threw a bag of kittens into the river to dispose of them! I was so angry and upset I almost missed my abortion appointment!"

The other night Greg Gutfeld was referring to some complaint that women were afraid to get pregnant because of abortion laws.
"Yeah right - I am afraid to get pregnant because it might be a problem ABORTING IT LATER". Stupid.

 

[vraiblonde]

The other night Greg Gutfeld was referring to some complaint that women were afraid to get pregnant because of abortion laws.
"Yeah right - I am afraid to get pregnant because it might be a problem ABORTING IT LATER". Stupid.

It was Mika and she said, "He is making us afraid to have babies" which may or may not be what she meant because she was enraged and sputtering.



>> to about :35

 

[Kyle]

It was Mika and she said, "He is making us afraid to have babies"

Isn't she like 60 years old?

How many does she think she's gonna have?

 

[stgislander]

Isn't she like 60 years old?

How many does she think she's gonna have?

She's been trying to impregnate Joe all these years. Thankfully it hasn't worked.

 

[Kyle]

She's been trying to impregnate Joe all these years. Thankfully it hasn't worked.

 

[StmarysCity79]

"OMG that guy just threw a bag of kittens into the river to dispose of them! I was so angry and upset I almost missed my abortion appointment!"

Are theese kittens still attached to their mothers and wholly dependent on the for their survival through an umbilical cord or uterus?