• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Florida Man Charged with Murder for Killing Ex-Girlfriend's FETUS[W330;338]

Gosh…

Not able to point to anything you have said that is not factual…with the multiplicity of targets so readily available, one may feel the uncertainty faced by a single mosquito hovering over a nudist camp…

Where to start, where to start…..???


It’s not like I have time to go over them all, but… let’s us just go back through some of those factual inaccuracies you have undeniably stated, since you keep challenging me to do so and they keep proliferating like mutating germs.

In this thread, and again, just picking the main ones as who has time to go back through and flag EVERY SINGLE ONE of your erroneous “facts”… here is a hurried smattering.

Another thing, one who makes such statements should not go unchallenged just due to laziness, so…

Post #151

You said: “Actually, most of the Africans who were enslaved died before they ever got to America”

This is factually wrong as the estimates are 12.5 -15% were lost in the Middle Passage and about 4.5% lost on the Western African Atlantic side prior to departure. You even “liked” this statement of the proof of your own off-the-cuff inaccuracy being wrong.
PS--- you even "liked" this yourself.


Post #188

You said: “The constitution only protects the rights of "persons". Under the constitution, a human is not a "person" until it is born. Therefore, until it is born, a child can not be protected by the law because the constitution does not grant the govt the power to protect the unborn”

Factually untrue, proven by the fact that you cannot to this day point out anywhere the Constitution says anything of the sort. The Constitution is silent on the issue.

Post 212

You said: “The bottom line is the twists, turns, and spins that the right has to go through in order to rationalize how their belief in a govt of power limited by the constitution can be squared with their desire to have the govt assume a power that was not granted to it by the constitution, and how their belief in liberty and freedom is consistent with the disdain they show for freedom when they trivialize people's right to self-determination (ie "choice") are the real "verbal gymnastics"

As already proven, the Constitution does provide notice that We, the People, who are the ACTUAL government, have rights not enumerated, expressed or implied, at our sole discretion. Should we decide to do so, so shall it be done.

Post #219

You said: “The DOI is not a legal document”

While illegal, as a form of teason under an English government, this was a formal document expressing the breach of the Social Contract by King George III that was iniated under our Second Contenental Congress…how is that not a legal document*? In the most eloquent of language, overseen by many an American attorney, witnessed and signed in a very legal manner. How is the Declaration of Independence not a “legal document” that is in continuous use to this day? You never proved that statement either.
*By raising armies, directing strategy, appointing diplomats, and making formal treaties, the [Second Continental ] Congress acted as the de facto national government of what became the United States [Cogliano, Revolutionary America, 1763-1815, 113.].


Post 231

You said: “UVVA does not protect any rights of the unborn. It protects the mother”

Does the "Unborn Victims of Violence Act" (UVVA), protecting fetal rights, threaten abortion rights? - ACLU - ProCon.org

You will note that the text of the law makes reference to the unborn child starting with this language:

Sec. 1841. Protection of unborn children
(a) (1) Whoever engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section.

Concluding with this language:

(d) As used in this section, the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.

If you actually read the the law, it only mentions the mother in reference to a comparison to a crime that had been committed on the mother [ it makes no mention of this being a crime against the mother]. I again challenge you to point out the language therein where it does so in this act…



Post 303

You said: “Because the UVVA specifies that people who attack a mother and cause a fetus to die should be charged with murder.

Once again, I challenge you to point out the language in the law that says anything about an attack to the mother except as a comparison to the penalty if there is an attack on an unborn child…this bill is all about the unborn child, its title is the Unborn Victims of Violence Act for gosh sakes.

And in regards to our current iteration wherein you will not even deign to give definition to the terms you use…yet saying that separate DNA is not in evidence upon conception….let me do the work for us.

Conception by Merriam Webster definition: 1 a (1) : the process of becoming pregnant involving fertilization or implantation or both (2) : embryo, fetus

Conception by Yourdictionary.com The formation of a zygote resulting from the union of a sperm and egg cell; fertilization.

As fertilization might be put under question…

by Merriam Webster definition: Fertilization (2) : the process of union of two gametes whereby the somatic chromosome number is restored and the development of a new individual is initiated.

Yourdictionary.com Fertilization science definition: The process by which two gametes (reproductive cells having a single, haploid set of chromosomes) fuse to become a zygote, which develops into a new organism. The resultant zygote is diploid (it has two sets of chromosomes).

Oxford English Dictionary: Definition of Fertilization noun: 1the action or process of fertilizing an egg or a female animal or plant, involving the fusion of male and female gametes to form a zygote.

And finally should your definition of Zygote not up to date…

by Merriam Webster definition: Zygote=a cell formed by the union of two gametes; broadly : the developing individual produced from such a cell

Yourdictionary.com science definition: Zygote : The cell formed by the union of the nuclei of two reproductive cells (gametes), especially a fertilized egg cell.

If you are unable or unwilling to actually debate, just let me know. I will keep this list of inaccuracies handy to remind you…should you desire to keep uttering this undeniable equivocation regarding only stating the factual.

All of these points have been addressed and you have been shown to be wrong. All you can do is repeat your mistakes and hope that will make it sound as if you're right

But I have proven, with quotes from SCOTUS' decision in Roe v Wade, that under the constitution a ZEF is not a person, and has no rights. Your inability to understand how our justice system determines the meaning of the constitution is not my failing; it is yours.

All of the points you raised have been addressed, and so all you're doing is repeating your mistakes, as if repeating them will make them true

The fact is that under the constitution, a ZEF is not a person and has no rights. I have po
 
Yeah, this is one of those cases that makes our justice system so laughable to the rest of the world. Abortion is legal, while killing a fetus at the same stage of pregnancy is murder. That makes no sense whatsoever.
 
All of these points have been addressed and you have been shown to be wrong. All you can do is repeat your mistakes and hope that will make it sound as if you're right

But I have proven, with quotes from SCOTUS' decision in Roe v Wade, that under the constitution a ZEF is not a person, and has no rights. Your inability to understand how our justice system determines the meaning of the constitution is not my failing; it is yours.

All of the points you raised have been addressed, and so all you're doing is repeating your mistakes, as if repeating them will make them true

The fact is that under the constitution, a ZEF is not a person and has no rights. I have po

Yawn.

You already attempted the "raised and addressed" ploy previously...did not work then and the ploy certainly has not improved any with age. My suggestion? Stop challenging me to identify that target rich environment of your inadequacy in proving positively the assertions you keep making. Hey, unless one has masochistic tendencies, then to each his own, eh?

What you have proven, under RvW, is that a previous Supreme Court made a decision [ wonder of wonders, about the status of an unborn child---how could they do that, didn't they listen to you?] which, like the decision of Plessy v Ferguson, was a poor decision eventually to be rectified, and most assuredly will be overturned.

As regards a ZEF [ callous identifier that the rest of us call an innocent child in utero ] under the Constitution, as stated many times, the Constitution is mute on the issue. If WE want to make a law regarding an unborn child, WE MOST CERTAINLY CAN MAKE A LAW and WE MOST CERTAINLY WILL. Been done already, ironically, in the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004. So that this is impossible to do, I guess, would depend on what your definition of "is" is.
 
Good thing the current makeup of the USSC will not rule abortions illegal, idn't it?

Where is your assurance of that? I think most Supreme Courts like to clean up messes left by previous Supreme Courts if they can, for example the poor decision of Plessy v Ferguson replaced with the much improved version, Brown v Board.
 
The murder charge under UVVA has nothing to do personhood , and is not conflict with the woman's right to privacy regarding abortion.
The UVVA would never have been passed if the law did not specify that that a woman could still have an abortion within the parameters of Roe vs Wade.

The right to privacy precedent regarding womans reproductive privacy rights was set 8 years before Roe vs Wade was passed and the right to privacy regarding abortion has been reaffirmed in the SC a few times since then.

The right to privacy is here to stay.
 
The murder charge under UVVA has nothing to do personhood , and is not conflict with the woman's right to privacy regarding abortion.
The UVVA would never have been passed if the law did not specify that that a woman could still have an abortion within the parameters of Roe vs Wade.

The right to privacy precedent regarding womans reproductive privacy rights was set 8 years before Roe vs Wade was passed and the right to privacy regarding abortion has been reaffirmed in the SC a few times since then.

The right to privacy is here to stay.

There is no "right to privacy" in the constitution.


sorry to rain on your and the lefty d-bags who came up with the roe versus wade decision.

As if you could kidnap someone, tortue them, and shoot them to death in your home and be free to do so as long as they don't catch you before you do the deed, as your "right to privacy" somehow trumps anything else.

What tripe.
 
Yawn.

You already attempted the "raised and addressed" ploy previously...did not work then and the ploy certainly has not improved any with age. My suggestion? Stop challenging me to identify that target rich environment of your inadequacy in proving positively the assertions you keep making. Hey, unless one has masochistic tendencies, then to each his own, eh?

What you have proven, under RvW, is that a previous Supreme Court made a decision [ wonder of wonders, about the status of an unborn child---how could they do that, didn't they listen to you?] which, like the decision of Plessy v Ferguson, was a poor decision eventually to be rectified, and most assuredly will be overturned.

As regards a ZEF [ callous identifier that the rest of us call an innocent child in utero ] under the Constitution, as stated many times, the Constitution is mute on the issue. If WE want to make a law regarding an unborn child, WE MOST CERTAINLY CAN MAKE A LAW and WE MOST CERTAINLY WILL. Been done already, ironically, in the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004. So that this is impossible to do, I guess, would depend on what your definition of "is" is.

Until SCOTUS overturns Roe v Wade (unlikely given that they have only affirmed it later cases) it is the law of the land. Until that day, it is 100% accurate for me to say that under the constitution, a ZEF is not a person and has no rights.

And as the RvW decision made clear, the constitution is not mute on this issue. SCOTUS noted that the constitution refers to persons in a number of places (as my quote from RvW shows) and in none of them does the word apply to the unborn. Only the ideologically blinded would insist that the constitution does not refer to "persons" or that any of those references refer to the unborn.

And you can make as many abortion banning laws as you like. They will always be struck down, just as they have always been struck down.

The UVVA explicitly states that it does not apply to abortion. It takes a special kind of delusion to believe that a law which explicitly does not apply to abortion will somehow affect abortion.
 
There is no "right to privacy" in the constitution.


sorry to rain on your and the lefty d-bags who came up with the roe versus wade decision.

As if you could kidnap someone, tortue them, and shoot them to death in your home and be free to do so as long as they don't catch you before you do the deed, as your "right to privacy" somehow trumps anything else.

What tripe.

In case you forgot most of the judges who decided Roe vs, WAde were apponted by republicans.

Blackmun, who penned the Supreme Court’s final Majority opinion, was appointed by Republican President Richard Nixon.
Also appointed by Nixon were Burgher and Powell.
So far, three of the seven Justices in the Majority were appointed by a Republican President.
But do not forget that Brennan and Stewart were appointed by Republican President Dwight Eisenhower.
This means that five of the seven Majority Justices were appointed by Republican presidents (Douglas and Marshall were appointed by Democratic Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon B. Johnson, respectively). What’s more, take the two Democratic-appointed judges out of the Majority, and you are still left with all-Republican majority of the Court that legalizes abortion.

Only White (appointed by Democratic President John F. Kennedy) and Renquist (appointed by Nixon) opposed the Court’s decision to legalize abortion in the United States.


Are liberal judges to blame for Roe v. Wade? | Vox Nova

The right to privacy regarding reproductive rights was decided in 1965 a full 8 years before Roe vs Wade.

A little history:
Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)

In Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), the Supreme Court ruled that a state's ban on the use of contraceptives violated the right to marital privacy. The case concerned a Connecticut law that criminalized the encouragement or use of birth control.
The 1879 law provided that "any person who uses any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purposes of preventing conception shall be fined not less than forty dollars or imprisoned not less than sixty days." The law further provided that "any person who assists, abets, counsels, causes, hires or commands another to commit any offense may be prosecuted and punished as if he were the principle offender."
<SNIP>

The Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision written by Justice William O. Douglas, ruled that the law violated the "right to marital privacy" and could not be enforced against married people. Justice Douglas contended that the Bill of Right's specific guarantees have "penumbras," created by "emanations from these guarantees that help give them life and opinion."
In other words, the "spirit" of the First Amendment (free speech), Third Amendment (prohibition on the forced quartering of troops), Fourth Amendment (freedom from searches and seizures), Fifth Amendment (freedom from self-incrimination), and Ninth Amendment (other rights), as applied against the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, creates a general "right to privacy" that cannot be unduly infringed.
<SNIP>

the majority in Griswold v. Connecticut agreed that the "right to privacy," in addition to being "fundamental," was "substantive."
<SNIP>

In Griswold, however, it ruled that "substantive rights" do exist in non-economic areas like "the right to privacy," even if they do not in economic activities like the right to contract.
Over the next 10 years, the Court expanded this fundamental, substantive "right to privacy" beyond the marital bedroom, ruling that the state could not ban the use of contraceptives by anyone (Eisenstadt v. Baird [1972]), and that the state could not ban most abortions (Roe v. Wade [1973]).

The Supreme Court . Expanding Civil Rights . Landmark Cases . Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) | PBS
 
Last edited:
The murder charge under UVVA has nothing to do personhood , and is not conflict with the woman's right to privacy regarding abortion.
The UVVA would never have been passed if the law did not specify that that a woman could still have an abortion within the parameters of Roe vs Wade.

The right to privacy precedent regarding womans reproductive privacy rights was set 8 years before Roe vs Wade was passed and the right to privacy regarding abortion has been reaffirmed in the SC a few times since then.

The right to privacy is here to stay.

Minnie, that is just not true, you have no way of knowing if that law would have passed or not with the woman's right to abortion/privacy conflict included ... there are all sorts of "trigger" laws even now already passed, also old state laws statutes on the books that have never been repealed, regarding making abortion illegal... so a law can be passed about nearly anything, later it may be adjudicated as to whether the law was actually Constitutional, or at least within the parameters that the current Supreme Court deems Constitutional.

Secondly, UVVA does seem to go quite far regarding whether or not a child in utero should be considered a fellow citizen, a person as you put it, when they indicate in no uncertain terms that,

“(d) As used in this section, the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.

While slightly ambiguous, I do not see how one can interpret that to mean anything less than a fellow member in the race…to me that indicates personhood…

Merriam Webster is not much help in resolving the nebulous aspect of homo sapiens as it defines it as : Humankind
Humankind is defined as : : the human race

As regards the right to privacy and its link to abortion being permanent... I am sure many, at the time, thought slavery was here to stay as well... I wouldn't bet my life on it, if I were you.
.
 
The murder charge under UVVA has nothing to do personhood , and is not conflict with the woman's right to privacy regarding abortion.
The UVVA would never have been passed if the law did not specify that that a woman could still have an abortion within the parameters of Roe vs Wade.

The right to privacy precedent regarding womans reproductive privacy rights was set 8 years before Roe vs Wade was passed and the right to privacy regarding abortion has been reaffirmed in the SC a few times since then.

The right to privacy is here to stay.

That may all be true - however, that's exactly why the phrase "the law's an ass" was originally coined.
 
Minnie, that is just not true, you have no way of knowing if that law would have passed or not with the woman's right to abortion/privacy conflict included ... there are all sorts of "trigger" laws even now already passed, also old state laws statutes on the books that have never been repealed, regarding making abortion illegal... so a law can be passed about nearly anything, later it may be adjudicated as to whether the law was actually Constitutional, or at least within the parameters that the current Supreme Court deems Constitutional.

Secondly, UVVA does seem to go quite far regarding whether or not a child in utero should be considered a fellow citizen, a person as you put it, when they indicate in no uncertain terms that,

“(d) As used in this section, the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.

While slightly ambiguous, I do not see how one can interpret that to mean anything less than a fellow member in the race…to me that indicates personhood…

Merriam Webster is not much help in resolving the nebulous aspect of homo sapiens as it defines it as : Humankind
Humankind is defined as : : the human race

As regards the right to privacy and its link to abortion being permanent... I am sure many, at the time, thought slavery was here to stay as well... I wouldn't bet my life on it, if I were you.
.

Even one of most pro-abortion banning groups agree that the UVVA does not lead to the conclusion that a ZEF is a person

What supporters of legal abortion say about "fetal homicide" laws

http://www.nrlc.org/Unborn_Victims/UVVA092899.html
 
Until SCOTUS overturns Roe v Wade (unlikely given that they have only affirmed it later cases) it is the law of the land. Until that day, it is 100% accurate for me to say that under the constitution, a ZEF is not a person and has no rights.

And as the RvW decision made clear, the constitution is not mute on this issue. SCOTUS noted that the constitution refers to persons in a number of places (as my quote from RvW shows) and in none of them does the word apply to the unborn. Only the ideologically blinded would insist that the constitution does not refer to "persons" or that any of those references refer to the unborn.

And you can make as many abortion banning laws as you like. They will always be struck down, just as they have always been struck down.

The UVVA explicitly states that it does not apply to abortion. It takes a special kind of delusion to believe that a law which explicitly does not apply to abortion will somehow affect abortion.


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 rightsyou 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…

Sooo....

100%? HARDLY.

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.
 
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 rightsyou 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…

Sooo....

100%? HARDLY.

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.

For one thing, it is not "my" decision. It was SCOTUS' decision. You remember them, right?

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.
 
There is no "right to privacy" in the constitution.


sorry to rain on your and the lefty d-bags who came up with the roe versus wade decision.

As if you could kidnap someone, tortue them, and shoot them to death in your home and be free to do so as long as they don't catch you before you do the deed, as your "right to privacy" somehow trumps anything else.

What tripe.

Five of the seven judges ruling in favour were appointed by Republican presidents.
 
Even one of most pro-abortion banning groups agree that the UVVA does not lead to the conclusion that a ZEF is a person

What supporters of legal abortion say about "fetal homicide" laws

Rebuttal



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.
 
For one thing, it is not "my" decision. It was SCOTUS' decision. You remember them, right?

Not 100% accurate though, were you...ha ha ha...??? So factually inaccurate, again. Guess we can add another one to the long list provided earlier. [ BTW, you, sangha, are aware that the you, grammatically and usage wise, does not always specifically have to apply to you, sangha, right? The application in that instance was meant as a "you in general" sense. Understand? ]

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.

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

As you indicate, the "...mother's right to privacy can only be limited after viability" ....currently... only currently... until this socially destructive blight of a ruling is rightly overturned. You have no idea why we persist? First of all, this is a debate man, you do understand that, right? Secondly, your side is simply wrong. Your side currently, only currently, holds the upper-hand, and only in the first 21 weeks of the lives of these children that your side advocates for infanticide, murdering its called to the rest of us... you think we will give up when you are so logically and so morally, so ethically unpersuasive [ read: absolutely wrong ]?

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.

What a laugh... it IS the law, the 14th Amendment is the law... how could you not know that? That it is currently being applied in a silly and arbitrary fashion, so be it...now...but later it will be overturned and you really haven't a logical, legal or moral leg to stand on...

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.
 
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.

I can see that you are unwilling to face the fact that nothing in the UVVA, or any of the state laws which protect the unborn, describe a ZEF as a "person", nor can they overrule the constitution. No matter when "life begins", a ZE does not become a person until it is born
 
Not 100% accurate though, were you...ha ha ha...??? So factually inaccurate, again. Guess we can add another one to the long list provided earlier. [ BTW, you, sangha, are aware that the you, grammatically and usage wise, does not always specifically have to apply to you, sangha, right? The application in that instance was meant as a "you in general" sense. Understand? ]

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.



As you indicate, the "...mother's right to privacy can only be limited after viability" ....currently... only currently... until this socially destructive blight of a ruling is rightly overturned. You have no idea why we persist? First of all, this is a debate man, you do understand that, right? Secondly, your side is simply wrong. Your side currently, only currently, holds the upper-hand, and only in the first 21 weeks of the lives of these children that your side advocates for infanticide, murdering its called to the rest of us... you think we will give up when you are so logically and so morally, so ethically unpersuasive [ read: absolutely wrong ]?



What a laugh... it IS the law, the 14th Amendment is the law... how could you not know that? That it is currently being applied in a silly and arbitrary fashion, so be it...now...but later it will be overturned and you really haven't a logical, legal or moral leg to stand on...

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.

You can whine all you like about what the law is. As an American, you are free to whine, gnash your teeth and rend your garments to your hearts content.

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.
 
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.

It had been discussed earlier and much of it involved a father's rights, as well as a mother's rights, and some form of assault was also the general consensus as to what the charges should be. Since then the rights and wrongs of abortion has taken over, as is inevitable.

But if you go to earlier posts some of them might be worthy of comment.
 
Five of the seven judges ruling in favour were appointed by Republican presidents.

Beggars can't be choosers. They were lawyers, after all. Look at this recent dumb ass roberts, who didn't even rule on the constitutional merits of Obamacare, he ruled in fear "they" would think "his court" was a bit too kangeroo-ish.

luckily he is a lifetime appointee, lucky for him at least, and he can say such stupid **** without being thrown out on his ear, which is what he deserved.
 
I can see that you are unwilling to face the fact that nothing in the UVVA, or any of the state laws which protect the unborn, describe a ZEF as a "person", nor can they overrule the constitution. No matter when "life begins", a ZE does not become a person until it is born

For someone beaten on all angles, with facts, with logic, with more facts, with facts from your own cases [ i.e., Roe v Wade ] provided, with facts from their own laws proffered [UVVA 2004] proven so far off on knowledge of our Constitution, with so so many of your proven factual inaccuracies littered all along the way like a garbage truck that lost its lid throwing trash in all directions while hauling this garbage down the internet interstate... you sure take a tiny modicum of truth and mostly illogical prevarication and throw it out there as if victorious...

I will give you props on a Clintonian approach to being proven wrong...

And the morally deprived aspect of this declaration of victory...simply deplorable...

PS I note with a wry chuckle how you are now dropping the F on ZEF... that will not quite cover it, sorry to have to inform...but it was funny.
 
PS I note with a wry chuckle how you are now dropping the F on ZEF... that will not quite cover it, sorry to have to inform...but it was funny.

The Z in ZEF just stands for zygote which is a fertilized egg.
Almost two thirds of all zygotes either pass through the body without implanting or self abort within the first week implantation.
Some pro life people think pregnancy begins when an egg is fertilized but pregnancy does not begin until implantion occurs.
 
Bill Baird, founder of the nation's first abortion referral center, wrote in his 1993 article
"The Politics of God, Government, and Sex: a Thrity-One-Year Crusade"
in the Saint Louis University Public Law Review:

"Restore personhood? This is the typical false propaganda that unthinking people accept.
An embryo has never been a person by state law....
No pregnant woman counts as two people in a census.
No one is given a conception certificate rather than a birth certificate....
[The] rhetoric of 'pre-born children' makes as much sense as living people are 'pre-dead.'
Acorns aren't oak trees; embryos aren't people."

1993 -Bill Baird
 
Back
Top Bottom