Mississippi asks Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade; says 1973 decision was "egregiously wrong" (layman, biased)
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.
"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." - 14th Amendment, US Constitution
Either anyone can kill an unborn child, or no one can. Can't have it both ways.
It comes down to you inventing your very own theory that nobody but you thinks has merit. Surely somebody who actually challenged or wrote about the constitutionality of fetal homicide laws would have presented your argument. They can't all have been less knowlegeable than you, or could they ?
It comes down to you inventing your very own theory that nobody but you thinks has merit.
The US Constitution isn't a "theory." The bottom line is that either anyone can be prosecuted for killing an unborn child, or no one can. That's stipulated in the 14th Amendment. If SOME persons are provided such protection, then All persons MUST have the equal protection of NOT being prosecuted for killing an unborn child, under the law.
It comes down to you inventing your very own theory that nobody but you thinks has merit. Surely somebody who actually challenged or wrote about the constitutionality of fetal homicide laws would have presented your argument. They can't all have been less knowlegeable than you, or could they ?
The US Constitution isn't a "theory." The bottom line is that either anyone can be prosecuted for killing an unborn child, or no one can. That's stipulated in the 14th Amendment. If SOME persons are provided such protection, then All persons MUST have the equal protection of NOT being prosecuted for killing an unborn child, under the law.
No, the Constitution is not a theory. But many if not most aspects of it need interpretation as to how it fits specific facts. Court after court has disagreed that the Equal Protection Clause prohibits a state from criminalizing the conduct prohibited in "fetal homicide laws" and permitting abortion. Interpretation of the Constitution is as much a part of the Constitution as the words themselves.
No, the Constitution is not a theory. But many if not most aspects of it need interpretation as to how it fits specific facts. Court after court has disagreed that the Equal Protection Clause prohibits a state from criminalizing the conduct prohibited in "fetal homicide laws" and permitting abortion.
That's a miscarriage of justice as the 14th Amendment is quite clear. If SOME persons are protected from prosecution for killing an unborn child, then ALL persons must be protected from prosecution for the same.
"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." - 14th Amendment, US Constitution
That's a miscarriage of justice as the 14th Amendment is quite clear. If SOME persons are protected from prosecution for killing an unborn child, then ALL persons must be protected from prosecution for the same.
"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." - 14th Amendment, US Constitution
I recognize that this is your opinion, and clearly it is strongly felt. The simple fact is that the Equal Protection Clause does not mean that the law must be blind to circumstances. This is why, by way of example only:
- The law allows someone to kill in self defense ("If he gets to kill Joe, why can't I kill Bill?")
- The law can impose different degrees of punishment given the circumstances ("Joe is no more dead than - Bill, why is my murder first degree and the other defendant's is second degree?")
- The law allows for a progressive income tax ("Joe is taxed at 15%, why am I taxed at 30%?")
It's repulsive that the anti-abortion busy bodies try to use a law that was designed primarily to protect pregnant women from violence at the hands of their partners and use it as a weapon against women.
I recognize that this is your opinion, and clearly it is strongly felt. The simple fact is that the Equal Protection Clause does not mean that the law must be blind to circumstances.
Actually, it does. There is no allowance for exceptions in the 14th Amendment.
"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." - 14th Amendment, US Constitution
The 14th Amendment is quite clear. If SOME persons are protected from prosecution for killing an unborn child, then ALL persons must be protected from prosecution for doing the same. Or are you confused as to what "any person" means?
It's repulsive that the anti-abortion busy bodies try to use a law that was designed primarily to protect pregnant women from violence at the hands of their partners and use it as a weapon against women.
Misogyny at its finest.
The 14th Amendment is gender-blind. ALL PERSONS means EXACTLY that: ALL PERSONS.
I recognize that this is your opinion, and clearly it is strongly felt. The simple fact is that the Equal Protection Clause does not mean that the law must be blind to circumstances. This is why, by way of example only:
- The law allows someone to kill in self defense ("If he gets to kill Joe, why can't I kill Bill?")
- The law can impose different degrees of punishment given the circumstances ("Joe is no more dead than - Bill, why is my murder first degree and the other defendant's is second degree?")
- The law allows for a progressive income tax ("Joe is taxed at 15%, why am I taxed at 30%?")
RBG argued the Equal protection clause as a reason to legalize abortion. She had a brilliant mind, educated and experienced in matters of law, unlike posters who have none and choose to dismiss real legal thinking with their own interpretations.
RBG argued the Equal protection clause as a reason to legalize abortion. She had a brilliant mind, educated and experienced in matters of law, unlike posters who have none and choose to dismiss real legal thinking with their own interpretations.
How does legally allowing the killing of another human life for the sake of convenience exemplify "equal protection" under the law? Unborn children, legally recognized as a separate human life by fetal homicide laws, sure aren't getting equally protected from deliberate murder.
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.
