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.
You want people who murder women and their babies to go free.
A woman doesn't have to be murdered for a person to be prosecuted for and convicted of killing her unborn child. All that has to happen is that the unborn child is killed. I've already posted an example of exactly that happening. The unborn child's killer went to prison.
A woman doesn't have to be murdered for a person to be prosecuted for and convicted of killing her unborn child. All that has to happen is that the unborn child is killed. I've already posted an example of exactly that happening. The unborn child's killer went to prison.
Sorry I forgot your need to nitpick rather than answer the substance of any question asked of you.
So, do you want that child's killer and others like him/her to be released from prison.
Or, do you want women who have an abortion charged with murder?
The 9th Amendment has nothing to do with States' Rights, which is what is at issue in this SCOTUS case.
Furthermore, there is no so-called trigger law that bans birth control. Your hysterical imaginings otherwise are ridiculous.
I didn't say anything about trigger laws.
Your right to use birth control relies in part on the 9th amendment among others. If the 9th doesnt support abortion, it doesn't support the cases used to make birth control legal.
Oh I get it. I know why the law is the way it is. It would be terrible for the children if the dad didn't want to support them. But it's still better than having their head drilled, which is what the mother can decide to do.
If abortion is legal (and I think it should be), then we have to give the father a "choice" too. I understand that will put a burden on the state, but it's only fair. It should be a legal "choice" for the father as to whether or not he wants to commit to raising a child for 18 years. I'm not talking about this from an ethical or moral perspective, I'm only talking about the law and how the law treats these cases.
Personally, I believe that EVERY father should support their children and anyone who doesn't is a piece of garbage. But law should give them a choice, especially if they declare their unwillingness to be a parent while the child is still in the womb. If a guy uses birth control during a one-night-stand and it fails, should he be saddled with raising a child with a woman he hardly even knows for 18 years? Why does she get a "choice" and he doesn't? That's not good law.
Life is messy. Laws cannot always fix that. An understanding ahead of time between two people about what will happen if a child is conceived is not the law's business and even if it were enforcing it would be impossible.
However, centuries of human tradition and law expects the father to support his child and more recently mother's to support them as well.
The state as the wallet of last resort is always going to extract every last penny it can from both parents wallets before it opens it's own.
Because they create a separate special class that protects some people but not others from prosecution for killing another human's life.
That's unconstitutional, by the way. It violates the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.
"nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
The 14th Amendment equal protection argument has been made in court many times and lost each time. This is misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment. Equal protection means that people are treated equally for the same actions. The criminal law determines what is unlawful. If two people perform the same unlawful act, Equal Protection states they should be treated equally for that transgression. If a state's laws make abortion legal and fetal homicide illegal, Equal Protection means that two people performing an abortion are treated the same, and two people committing fetal homicide are treated the same. As I have stated previously, I don't believe destroying a fetus is killing a person but for the sake of this argument let's say it is. The law can - and frequently does - differentiate between different actions that lead to the same outcome. The best example is killing someone in self defense. The person has killed someone. Someone who intentionally kills someone unprovoked commits murder. That person has also killed someone. By this misinterpretation of Equal Protection asserted by those who oppose choice, by differentiating between justifiable homicide and murder the law has created "a separate class that protects some people but not others from prosecution for killing another human's life."
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Gun control laws are irrelevant to an essential liberty, yet states have them and enforce them anyway. If states can restrict 2nd Amendment Rights, and they do (even red states do), they can restrict any perceived right to abortion.
This has been stated many times in this thread but the relevance has never been explained. No right is limitless. Felons can't possess guns despite the Second Amendment, it's a crime to threaten a public official despite the right to free speech, states can impose capacity restrictions on venues despite the freedom of assembly, and so on and so on. But restrictions have to have a basis and not be so restrictive as to act as a virtual ban. If the argument is that a law that prohibits abortions in every situation other than to save the life of a mother is not a ban because of the one single narrow exception is disingenuous. Most people, including me, who support choice also support some level of regulation of it. Opinions on the level vary. But prohibiting abortions in any case other than to save the life of the mother is not "regulating" abortion.
Sorry I forgot your need to nitpick rather than answer the substance of any question asked of you.
So, do you want that child's killer and others like him/her to be released from prison.
Or, do you want women who have an abortion charged with murder?
It is a legitimate constitutional question to ask when the "right to life" and "due process" protections kick in though. Is it at conception or birth? I don't know the answer, but I suspect that it never occurred to the founders that the "industry" of abortion would become a thing when they were writing the constitution. If we strictly read the language of the document, then I think we can reasonably conclude that it protects unborn children given our modern medical understanding of what it means to be "alive." We can create human life in a test-tube nowadays and that wasn't a thing 250 years ago.
Maybe a constitutional amendment is in order. I don't know. I have read Roe v. Wade and I have read the constitution. I don't think the legal reasoning the court gave for the decision holds up. However, I do think the moral imperative of giving women the right to control their own bodies is a real thing, so again, maybe it's time for our elected representatives to pass a constitutional amendment that addresses this issue in its modern context.
Anything short of that just strains reason.
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.
