Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Don't they have better things to do than pass laws that are unconstitutional? Stupid, stupid, stupid!
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
Unconstituitional, how so?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ahzzie
You really have to ask??? I suggest reviewing the Supreme Court rulings on the matter. That'll sum it up pretty good for ya.
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey;45440077[B
]Yeah, I read Roe but that doesn't seem to cover how the Constitution specifically authorizes the federal government to decide who is or is not a person[/b].
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie53
Who should decide? You? People who share your beliefs? Some religious leader?
Admit it, you will never be happy with any decision that doesn't support your beliefs.
The court got it right, this is a privacy issue. A woman has the right to privacy when making a decision regarding something that no one can answer definitively. The decision should be based on HER beliefs, no one else's.
It is scientific FACT that the woman is the only bona fide person who has any standing in the matter.
Who should decide which others are worthy of personhood?
Certainly not the same Supreme Court that gave us the Dred Scott decision.
The denial of personhood is a Constitutional end-around by which all other rights are denied.
The sole reason for a yet to be born child to be deemed a non-person, per Roe, for a matter of 4-5 months is to provide opportunity for abortion on demand during that period.
No fundamental changes occur to the physiology of this child following this 4-5 month period except that lung development reaches a point at which the child may survive outside the womb.
This as the sole criteria for making a child a person under the law with all the rights and privileges afforded to any other person or an item of biological refuse to be disposed of at will and is a classic example of a decision being made in advance and the facts and those facts then being made to fit the decision.
The inconsistencies of the non-person argument are too numerous and prevalent for anything else to be the case.
Logic indicates that this life which is biologically distinct from both the father and the mother becomes so at the moment of conception and at no other time between conception and natural death does any other biological metamorphosis of that sort take place.
In this we know where on body ends and another begins because the DNA of each person is unique.
How the Court managed to ignore this and other related biological facts betrays their true intentions from the start.
In the case of Scott, what a person was (African-American) determined their status as a person.
There was no compelling reason for this to be the case except that it was a matter of convenience for those wishing to deny an entire class of individuals their most fundamental rights.
Who should decide which others are worthy of personhood?
Certainly not the same Supreme Court that gave us the Dred Scott decision.
The denial of personhood is a Constitutional end-around by which all other rights are denied.
The sole reason for a yet to be born child to be deemed a non-person, per Roe, for a matter of 4-5 months is to provide opportunity for abortion on demand during that period.
No fundamental changes occur to the physiology of this child following this 4-5 month period except that lung development reaches a point at which the child may survive outside the womb.
This as the sole criteria for making a child a person under the law with all the rights and privileges afforded to any other person or an item of biological refuse to be disposed of at will and is a classic example of a decision being made in advance and the facts and those facts then being made to fit the decision.
The inconsistencies of the non-person argument are too numerous and prevalent for anything else to be the case.
Logic indicates that this life which is biologically distinct from both the father and the mother becomes so at the moment of conception and at no other time between conception and natural death does any other biological metamorphosis of that sort take place.
In this we know where on body ends and another begins because the DNA of each person is unique.
How the Court managed to ignore this and other related biological facts betrays their true intentions from the start.
In the case of Scott, what a person was (African-American) determined their status as a person.
There was no compelling reason for this to be the case except that it was a matter of convenience for those wishing to deny an entire class of individuals their most fundamental rights.
But it is not your decision. It is up to the supreme court and not a church decision either.
Who should decide which others are worthy of personhood?
Certainly not the same Supreme Court that gave us the Dred Scott decision.
The denial of personhood is a Constitutional end-around by which all other rights are denied.
The sole reason for a yet to be born child to be deemed a non-person, per Roe, for a matter of 4-5 months is to provide opportunity for abortion on demand during that period.
No fundamental changes occur to the physiology of this child following this 4-5 month period except that lung development reaches a point at which the child may survive outside the womb.
This as the sole criteria for making a child a person under the law with all the rights and privileges afforded to any other person or an item of biological refuse to be disposed of at will and is a classic example of a decision being made in advance and the facts and those facts then being made to fit the decision.
The inconsistencies of the non-person argument are too numerous and prevalent for anything else to be the case.
Logic indicates that this life which is biologically distinct from both the father and the mother becomes so at the moment of conception and at no other time between conception and natural death does any other biological metamorphosis of that sort take place.
In this we know where on body ends and another begins because the DNA of each person is unique.
How the Court managed to ignore this and other related biological facts betrays their true intentions from the start.
In the case of Scott, what a person was (African-American) determined their status as a person.
There was no compelling reason for this to be the case except that it was a matter of convenience for those wishing to deny an entire class of individuals their most fundamental rights.
Unique DNA means nothing and does not equal personhood. Unique fetal DNA does not trump the woman's unique DNA, a woman who is unarguably a complete person in every way. Checkmate.
The fetus cannot survive without using someone else's body to do so and that someone else has a say in the matter because using that person's body can severely affect their health and can even cause their death. No one should be forced to take those risks against their will.
The woman also has unique DNA but you have no problem sticking your nose in where it doesn't belong by making life and death decisions for her. You don't get to decide anything, you have no skin in the game, you are taking no risks.
The Supreme Court got it right. The woman is the only one with legal standing when it comes to risking health and life to carry a pregnancy so they left the decision up to her, not you, not her neighbors, not some legislator or religious leader. Women have a right to privacy when making medical decisions that affect their health, just like men do.
I am confident that if men were put in this position abortion would have never been illegal.....EVER.
BTW....if a fetus is going to be considered a person from the moment of conception, baby daddy needs to pay child support from the moment of conception. He should pay half of all costs needed to maintain the life of the fetus and that means paying half of all costs needed to maintain the life of the mother. Food, rent, utilities, medical costs.....everything. Be careful what you wish for.
Unique DNA means nothing and does not equal personhood. Unique fetal DNA does not trump the woman's unique DNA, a woman who is unarguably a complete person in every way. Checkmate.
The fetus cannot survive without using someone else's body to do so and that someone else has a say in the matter because using that person's body can severely affect their health and can even cause their death. No one should be forced to take those risks against their will.
The woman also has unique DNA but you have no problem sticking your nose in where it doesn't belong by making life and death decisions for her. You don't get to decide anything, you have no skin in the game, you are taking no risks.
The Supreme Court got it right. The woman is the only one with legal standing when it comes to risking health and life to carry a pregnancy so they left the decision up to her, not you, not her neighbors, not some legislator or religious leader. Women have a right to privacy when making medical decisions that affect their health, just like men do.
I am confident that if men were put in this position abortion would have never been illegal.....EVER.
BTW....if a fetus is going to be considered a person from the moment of conception, baby daddy needs to pay child support from the moment of conception. He should pay half of all costs needed to maintain the life of the fetus and that means paying half of all costs needed to maintain the life of the mother. Food, rent, utilities, medical costs.....everything. Be careful what you wish for.
If unique DNA does not define a person as a person, what other objective standard would take its place?
Who should decide which others are worthy of personhood?
Certainly not the same Supreme Court that gave us the Dred Scott decision.
The denial of personhood is a Constitutional end-around by which all other rights are denied.
The sole reason for a yet to be born child to be deemed a non-person, per Roe, for a matter of 4-5 months is to provide opportunity for abortion on demand during that period.
No fundamental changes occur to the physiology of this child following this 4-5 month period except that lung development reaches a point at which the child may survive outside the womb.
This as the sole criteria for making a child a person under the law with all the rights and privileges afforded to any other person or an item of biological refuse to be disposed of at will and is a classic example of a decision being made in advance and the facts and those facts then being made to fit the decision.
The inconsistencies of the non-person argument are too numerous and prevalent for anything else to be the case.
Logic indicates that this life which is biologically distinct from both the father and the mother becomes so at the moment of conception and at no other time between conception and natural death does any other biological metamorphosis of that sort take place.
In this we know where on body ends and another begins because the DNA of each person is unique.
How the Court managed to ignore this and other related biological facts betrays their true intentions from the start.
In the case of Scott, what a person was (African-American) determined their status as a person.
There was no compelling reason for this to be the case except that it was a matter of convenience for those wishing to deny an entire class of individuals their most fundamental rights.
Sigh...another armchair lawyer. I find it funny how people suddenly become legal scholars and tell us why they "got it wrong" when the SCOTUS makes a ruling that they don't agree with.
A baby in the third trimester can continue living and developing with medical assistance outside the womb.
And?
I thought we went over this. Third trimester abortions are not performed on demand, there has to be a good reason.
What more do you want?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
