A Canadian conservative is one who believes in limited government and that the government should stay out of our wallets and out of our bedrooms.
I will agree with you in that RvW is currently the law of the land [ with a couple of court case rulings that have limited its original scope ]… I heartily disagree with you regarding its likelihood of being overturned.
When? Now that is the real question.
As regards the Constitution and its "interpretation" by that poor R v W decision, even then you could not, certainly, be considered 100% accurate, nor is it within your purview to proclaim that a child in utero is not a person and has no rights… you can only say that the Supreme Court, in a 7-2 [ which means two were dissenting on this, so that 100% right there is put into question, as that is almost 30% or nearly 1/3 opposition, right? ] decision gave the upper hand to your side, for the time being only. And even in that decision [ see below] they allude to the state placing limits on a "right to privacy", indicating that the "potential life" can be taken into consideration by the states.
Besides which, and correct me if I am wrong as this is not by any means my favored term of use in these cases, but does not ZEF stand for zygote, embryo and fetus…? ...and R v W really only prohibits state interference with mothers and physicians murdering children until viability is reached. Would the viable pre born baby not then be in what you would call the fetus stage, that would be the F in ZEF, right??? And states can make decisions on these fellow citizens under even the prevailing R v W decision... correct? Yes, correct.
Plus, as previously stated under the UVVA, the child in utero, the unborn ZEF as you would have it, has protections from violence being perpetrated from the outside upon it. This law is also the law of the land as it has not been struck down.
As stated to Minnie earlier, there are all kinds of laws on the books already, trigger laws, in anticipation of when this monstrosity of a law allowing infanticide will be mercifully ended.
I do not know if the Supreme Court thought about this, but in the case of a citizen “born” to parents outside the borders of the USA, it matters not where and when they are born, but rather matters who “created” this fellow citizen. I would further suggest that if the mother died and the child were still alive in the womb, this baby would still be an American, would still deserve a chance to live. It would not matter, just as in the case if someone attempted harm on them while in the womb, whether they were yet born or not.
Besides which, in Roe, the Supreme Court does allude to the fact that the right of privacy has limitations stating:
The Court's decisions recognizing a right of privacy also acknowledge that some state regulation in areas protected by that right is appropriate. As noted above, a State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life. At some point in pregnancy, these respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision. The privacy right involved, therefore, cannot be said to be absolute. In fact, it is not clear to us that the claim asserted by some amici that one has an unlimited right to do with one's body as one pleases bears a close relationship to the right of privacy previously articulated in the Court's decisions. The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited right of this kind in the past. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U. S. 11 (1905) (vaccination); Buck v. Bell, 274 U. S. 200 (1927) (sterilization).
We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation.
Thus proving that SCOTUS also has determined that it can, indeed, protect the unborn. So it is a very lukewarm decision on abortion at best…
As you state, “The UVVA explicitly states that it does not apply to abortion.” That would, however, seem in conflict with equal protection clause under the law though, 14th Amendment, would it not? If a man, who through paternity, can prove he is the father of this child, what is the legal basis for the mother to be in more control of this child’s “disposal”, or not, than the father? That clearly is discrimination… especially in light of the fact that if the mother, in contra to the father, desires to continue with the pregnancy [ which morally she indeed should], the father, in most cases, will have financial responsibility that he may not care to have [ tho, too bad, so sad, as indicated earlier as that if voluntarily having sex and there is created a new life, you have that responsibility as well as the mother who engaged voluntarily in this act of agreement and creation ]. So, in this aspect of the UVVA, it is an arbitrary law, a law with no fundamental core in morality or logic. The only consistent way to apply this law would be to also not allow the mother to harm the baby in utero either.
I would say the only exception being where the life of the mother is actually in jeopardy.
Secondly, the mother's right to privacy can only be limited after viability. This has been made clear to you several times, so I have no idea why you persist in the notion that this limit might somehow lead to abortions being limited to protect the ZEF at any time before viability
Thirdly, people have tried to use the equal protection law in the way you argue it could be used, and the courts, including SCOTUS, have rejected it every time, as the links I just posted show. Again, I have no idea why you persist in pushing a notion that has clearly been disproven over and over again but it does demonstrate the ability of the abortion banners to ignore the facts and the law.
Nobody ever stated or implied that UVVA 2004 said that everyone has to arrive at that conclusion, that a child in utero is a homo sapien...[ straw man ]... however, that is indeed what it states explicitly. That those that are logical do arrive at that conclusion is simply... logical.
Some interesting reading, the first link obviously not at all from those advocating abortion bans and some quoted being particularly partisan... so while interesting, not very enlightening.
The second had some interesting material and some enlightening material as well, above all I enjoyed the part where it said,
" Mr. Greenwood says, "The Supreme Court has held that fetuses are not persons within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment." That is an accurate statement of the current doctrine of the Supreme Court -- and it is entirely irrelevant to H.R. 2436. In the 1989 case of Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to invalidate a Missouri statute that declares that "the life of each human being begins at conception," that "unborn children have protectable interests in life, health, and well-being," and that all state laws "shall be interpreted and construed to acknowledge on behalf of the unborn child at every stage of development, all the rights, privileges, and immunities available to other persons, citizens, and residents of this state," to the extent permitted by the Constitution and U.S. Supreme Court rulings. A lower court had held that Missouri’s law "impermissibl[y]" adopted "a theory of when life begins," but the Supreme Court nullified this ruling, holding that a state is free to enact laws that recognize unborn children, so long as the state does not include restrictions on abortion that Roe forbids. The Minnesota Supreme Court agreed in its ruling upholding the Minnesota law: "Roe v. Wade . . . does not protect, much less confer on an assailant, a third-party unilateral right to destroy the fetus." [State v. Merrill, 450 N.W.2d 318 (Minn. 1990)].
Interesting indeed. I cannot see how you do not see the writing on the wall for Roe... the Supreme Court will eventually have to recognize these superior rights to lives of these "persons", as they have deemed states are allowed to enact laws and protections for these, as they do other, persons.... and they will just have to overturn this inferior right of privacy...much inferior.
But then you add the fact that, RvW, is not them ruling against this being a life, they are solely, illogically, ruling that the right to privacy supersedes the right to life at this stage of human development...this being high...or supreme...silliness. It was a SCOTUS decision, a single bad SCOTUS decision, not the Constitution remember, and SCOTUS can be, and will be, overturned.
You are aware that past and previous Supreme Courts were inhabited by mere mortals right, not gods? They were/are not supreme autocrats whose rulings are written forever in stone or steel, they are only rulings that will be remembered, as is Plessy v Ferguson and Dred Scott, for how wrong they were, how much misery they caused, not for being rulings that were particularly what anyone would call justice.
WTF is it that every thread that even mentions a fetus will turn into an insult-ladened abortion debate? A man assaulted a woman by giving her a dangerous drug which had an abortive affect on her fetus, without her knowledge and permission. She wanted that child. It was her right to choose to have that child. Someone assaulted her and took that right away.
To me, the charge should be first degree assault with special circumstances. Why wasn't that the charge? Was there a political or ideological strategy in overreaching with a murder charge? That should have been the focus of an honest debate. Instead, it turns into the DP Abortion Forum, part deux. Predictable, disheartening, and incredibly annoying.
But claiming that you can predict the future is a cowardly way to avoid discussing the facts. Until you give up the delusion of prophecy, this isn't a debate at all. It's more like me watching the guy on the corner, wearing a tin foil hat, screaming about how Jesus is coming.