Ah the sweet irony of you saying this while also trying to argue that the constitution contains natural rights that exist with or without the constitution outlining them.
REMINDER: THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. has no obligation to monitor the Forums. However, THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. reserves the right to review any materials submitted to or posted on the Forums, and remove, delete, redact or otherwise modify such materials, in its sole discretion and for any reason whatsoever, at any time and from time to time, without notice or further obligation to you. THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. has no obligation to display or post any materials provided by you. THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. reserves the right to disclose, at any time and from time to time, any information or materials that we deem necessary or appropriate to satisfy any applicable law, regulation, contract obligation, legal or dispute process or government request. Click on the following hyperlinks to further read the applicable Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Roe v Wade - DONE!
- Thread starter Duffy LaCoronilla
- Start date
I'm more of a secular humanist than an old testament guy
And condemning human sacrifice doesn't exactly equate to banning abortion. Human sacrifice was primarily driven by whatever babbling bullshit theology to which the sacrificers ascribed. Like the Aztecs slaughtering hundreds of villagers a day to appease whatever god was causing their famine and disease and general collapse of a horribly managed pre-Columbian society
Abortions are so the mother and the village may have a better chance at survival during hard times. Terrible all the same, but not just an arbitrary killing to appease some magical sun god
And condemning human sacrifice doesn't exactly equate to banning abortion. Human sacrifice was primarily driven by whatever babbling bullshit theology to which the sacrificers ascribed. Like the Aztecs slaughtering hundreds of villagers a day to appease whatever god was causing their famine and disease and general collapse of a horribly managed pre-Columbian society
Abortions are so the mother and the village may have a better chance at survival during hard times. Terrible all the same, but not just an arbitrary killing to appease some magical sun god
wait a minute- am I political forum-ing? Dr Marvin! I'm a politco!! I'm politicking!
So f-ing smug that guy, with his commandments and his whole preachy schtick, leading the poor jews around the desert for 40 years. Any prophet worth his salt, or even just a guy with a halfway decent sense of direction, could have taken them across the Sinai and back into the land of milk and honey in a few weeks at the most.
That's not entirely true, neither in regard to Roe v Wade, nor here in California where we explicitly protect the fetus's right to life in the womb if they perish due to homicide. CA Penal Code 187 section A, states:
A) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought.
You cannot by definition murder something that is not alive. That's called property damage. If you murder a pregnant woman in the state of California, you get two counts, not one. Scott Peterson comes to mind.
Part of the original Roe V Wade 1973 decision was that during the third trimester of pregnancy, the state's interest in protecting the potential human life outweighs the right to privacy. As a result, the state may prohibit abortions in the 3rd trimester, unless an abortion is necessary to save the life or health of the pregnant person. This was actually a departure from established law, as previously the 14th Amendment's protections only explicitly covered those who are "born or naturalized" in the United States, as it extended the state's interests into now potential citizens, as opposed to those who had been born.
It was actually the court's arbitrary decisions to dictate what rules that the Federal or States could apply, when the Court defined the rights of each party, the woman and the unborn fetus, by dividing pregnancy into three 12-week trimesters (which is weird when you think about it cause 39-40 weeks is when the bun is really done as it were) ; that gave rise to the crux of the Alito decision, which essentially states that '73 court co-opted the legislative prerogative. The Federal government could enshrine a woman's right to an abortion into the law of the land, it's well within their Constitutional authority; that's why we have a representative government. They just haven't, because even during Obama's first term, the last time there was a Democratic supermajority, they didn't have the votes for it. Maybe this issue will swing the pendulum the other way.
Not that it matters; but I think that morally Roe v Wade was the right decision and probably in the public's interest; but I thought it was a terrible decision from a Constitutional law perspective. So did a lot of other people. I'd rather have laws dictated by the people we elect than 9 appointed judges; whose job is really just to decide if something is Constitutional or not.
“Roe, I believe, would have been more acceptable as a judicial decision if it had not gone beyond a ruling on the extreme statute before the court. … Heavy-handed judicial intervention was difficult to justify and appears to have provoked, not resolved, conflict.” - Ruth Bader Ginsburg
What is the payoff for the crazy right?
More unwanted poor babies?
I don't see the upside.
Trolling women?
More unwanted poor babies?
I don't see the upside.
Trolling women?
Quoting a law doesn't support the argument.
Not all laws are just, and not all rights are written in laws.
Having an autonomy over one's own body is certainly a right.
Liberal tears.
I mean, look at all the gloating from people who don't even support the abortion ban.
When it comes to right's motivation, never underestimate pettiness as a factor.
Hey Californians, just think, this is your opportunity to move to a red state and vote in their state elections so you can change their laws.
I am sorry, wasn't your argument, "Fetus has zero rights."
That doesn't seem to be accurate. That's why I cited a local law, CA Penal Code 187, and the recently overturned Supreme Court decision that this thread is about.
Per the examples I cited, the fetus in the womb does have more than zero rights, no?
Or are you talking about some kind of divine right granted by some higher power? I was just trying to help your argument; it seemed a little hyperbolic. Obviously, the state does confirm some rights on the "unborn", as it were. We codify them into law all the time. Are you saying that the rights granted by governing law are illegitimate?
false. the behaviors that underly morality have been repeatedly demonstrated to be biological constructs that have been encoded evolutionarily over time
If anyone BUT the mother kills the unborn fetus, a case can certainly be made for murder. But the mother is allowed to "murder" her unborn child. Every child who has ever been lucky enough to have a pet gerbil give birth to a bunch of baby gerbils, and then watched the mother devour said babies, has learned this brutal life lesson
Less than 1% of abortions.
Also, a child conceived from rape is no more or less of a human than any other child.