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.
That ship sailed when she CHOSE to participate in male/female sexual acts that may result in pregnancy without responsibly using contraception. The choice was already made, THEN. Just as happens with drunk driving and any subsequent car accident. You don't get a "take-back" by killing another human life. That's beyond depraved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimTheEnchanter
When we make mistakes that harm another there are consequences. When we look down at that oh so important text message, cross the center line and kill someone we don't go, "oh well, it WAS a mistake."
The lady is entitled to control her uterus, but she should not have dominion over another person.
Abortion is taking responsibility. A woman’s wishes trump a fetus that cannot live outside her uterus. Don’t have an abortion if you’re against them.
That's why states were made. So local cultures could set their own laws as they saw fit as long as they were constitutional. If you don't like the laws in Texas then choose another state. I'm pro-choice thru first trimester but if the culture here in Texas is predominantly anti-abortion then so be it and I think Roe v Wade covered under the 4th as right to privacy is pretty weak. There's also the loss of credibility for supporters who've always championed their cause with the slogan "My body, my choice" now that those same people have been in the vanguard for vax mandates.
That may be exactly why Roe v Wade is overturned. SCOTUS can't concurrently rule in favor of both vaccine mandates and "my body, my choice."
Please post the number of states where murdering a pregnant woman can and does result in TWO charges of murder. Hint, that number > 0.
Please post the number of states where a pregnant woman can opec a 529 account for her unborn child, take out a life insurance policy on her unborn child, collect child support for an unborn child, is issued a death certificate for a miscarriage in the first trimester, decare their unborn child on their taxes, etc. Hint, that number = 0.
Back to the subject of the thread:
If the USSC overturns its Roe v. Wade decision, will abortion be illegal? Or merely turned over to the states?
It will be turned over to the states.
But it's more complicated than that, especially in the case of the Texas law. Texas law also penalizes people for assisting women in obtaining abortion services in states in which it is legal.
All Roe v Wade really does is violate the 10th Amendment by judicial fiat. The 10th Amendment says that there is no power over abortion enumerated in the US Constitution, therefore, that power is reserved to the States and the People. And so it was in the US until 1973 when the Supreme Court decided to violate/ignore the 10th Amendment wholesale.
All "overturning" Roe v Wade means is removing the violation of the 10th Amendment and putting the power of abortion law back to where it belongs - the States and the People. Were that to happen, there would likely be 5 or so states that would strengthen restrictions if not outright ban it, and the other 45 states would leave things as they are or make it even easier.
The only other thing that would happen is the eventual challenge to the concept of giving federal money to Planned Parenthood, but that is just one tiny example of federal money going to state specific things, and doing so unequally and without regard to the census.
The central question on abortion has never been addressed, and that is what constitutes human life. Once you answer that question concretely as a national legal standard, abortion law is simple, even for our idiotic politicians.
Legally, we currently have two answers on the book, it just depends on who is doing the killing. If the mom is doing the killing, the answer seems to be somewhere between 3rd trimester and birth before life happens. If an outside party murders pregnant mom, then life begins at conception, so says the law. That's contradictory and inconsistent. Having a concrete answer to "what is life?" is step one in resolving the unresolvable.
A pregnant woman doesn't have to be murdered in order for a person to be guilty of fetal homicide. Just one example:
And, yes, that is an irreconcilable contradiction and a violation of the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause. Either anyone can kill an unborn child, or no one can. Can't have it both ways.
Note that, as usual, leftists are trying to pretend that a baby in the womb isn't really a baby, but only a mass of tissue, and therefore unimportant and OK to kill.
How do you feel about in vitro fertilization?
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.
