So much for overturning Roe v Wade and saving innocent pre-born babies.

[L88]

Personhood does not apply from conception to birth, per both the Constitution and Federal law.

Yet in California you can be convicted of second degree homicide of your unborn son. Ask Scott peterson.

This ain't easy it's not cut and dried black and white.

 

[Lursa]

Yet in California you can be convicted of second degree homicide of your unborn son. Ask Scott peterson.

This ain't easy it's not cut and dried black and white.

I asked you to source where the federal govt recognizes rights for the unborn.

Even that CA law does not recognize rights for the unborn, unless you can quote where? It just adds an additional charge.

 

[L88]

I asked you to source where the federal govt recognizes rights for the unborn.

Even that CA law does not recognize rights for the unborn, unless you can quote where? It just adds an additional charge.

Obviously under some conditions California recognizes that The unborn has rights.

https://corpuslegalis.com/us/code/title18/protection-of-unborn-children1

 

[Lursa]

Obviously under some conditions California recognizes that The unborn has rights.

https://corpuslegalis.com/us/code/title18/protection-of-unborn-children1

I asked you to quote it. Quote where it recognizes rights for the unborn (similar to what I do below).

The fact that it does explicitly state women can still abort the unborn demonstrates that there's no right to life recognized.

"(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution—​

​

(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;" link​

We have laws that protect pets, livestock, endangered species, forests...none of them have rights. Fetal homicide laws are about the loss/damages to the woman/her family, the penalties are in their interests, not the unborn's.

 

[weaver2]

Obviously under some conditions California recognizes that The unborn has rights.

https://corpuslegalis.com/us/code/title18/protection-of-unborn-children1

Obviously under some conditions California recognizes that The unborn has rights.

https://corpuslegalis.com/us/code/title18/protection-of-unborn-children1

The law establishes the punishment for the death intentional or unintentional of a fetus. The biblical law establishing the compensations for the death of a fetus are very similar. Both the Bible and the California law are deterrents to harming pregnant women and the fetus. They do not establish a fetal right to life.

However, the Christian right has come as close as possible with the wording of the California law
"If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall instead of being punished under subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections 1111, 1112, and 1113 of this title

for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being."

I'm sure this phrase is part of the long game and will be used at a later date to establish the fetus as the same as a born person with the same rights.

 

[Gordy327]

Yet in California you can be convicted of second degree homicide of your unborn son. Ask Scott peterson.

This ain't easy it's not cut and dried black and white.

That's based on harm inflicted against the pregnant woman. It does not establish unborn rights.

 

[choiceone]

Roe v Wade was on weak ground to begin with but when some states evolved beyond gestational restrictions it enlarged the population of resistance. Rove v Wade is based on a reprioritization of rights for a period of time. That's just not going to work under our constitution without an amendment.

The Court created a framework to balance the state's interests with privacy rights. Acknowledging that the rights of pregnant people may conflict with the rights of the state to protect potential human life, the Court defined the rights of each party by dividing pregnancy into three 12-week trimesters

• During a pregnant person's first trimester, the Court held, a state cannot regulate abortion beyond requiring that the procedure be performed by a licensed doctor in medically safe conditions.
• During the second trimester, the Court held that a state may regulate abortion if the regulations are reasonably related to the health of the pregnant person.
• During the third trimester of pregnancy, the state's interest in protecting the potential human life outweighs the right to privacy. As a result, the state may prohibit abortions unless an abortion is necessary to save the life or health of the pregnant person.

Many think of Roe v. Wade as the case that "legalized abortion." However, that isn't exactly true. What it did was change the way states can regulate abortion, and characterized abortion as something that was covered under constitutional rights of privacy.

Roe v. Wade Case Summary: What You Need to Know - FindLaw

One of the Supreme Court's most famous cases, Roe v. Wade changed the way states can regulate abortion services by establishing new privacy rights for women. Learn more about this influential case on FindLaw's Supreme Court Insights.

supreme.findlaw.com

I do not agree with you that some states evolved beyond gestational restrictions and that this enlarged the population of resistance. First, the only state to have no time limit restriction that I know of is Oregon. All other states do have some restriction. Second, the population of resistance to Roe never enlarged, and the population of resistance to restrictions simply increased by generational change. \

Roe wasn't based on a reprioritization of rights for a period of time. It was recognized that women had had a right to bodily autonomy re pregnancy prior to a time limit for a long time. But that's partly because "abortion" didn't even have the same linguistic meaning in the 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries that it came to have in the latter 20th. Women of those times were restoring their menstrual period to regularity.

Moreover, Roe was deeply concerned about the rights of the doctor to offer abortion and limiting the power of the state vis a vis medical professionals.

The Republicans in the SC at the time used privacy rather than liberty as their covering concept in Roe because they hooked Roe into a series of other decisions using it - the contraceptive decisions in particular. But at least part of it was that the entire argument that the state has a right to force pregnant women to continue pregnancies, even in cases of rape, really sounded obscene to people in the 1960s and 1970s.

The idea that huge numbers of right wing anti-abortion people would assert that girls and women had to report rape to the police in order to get abortions was not possible then. They were way too ashamed of this sort of shameless prying in a rape case.