[W:103]Abortion is legal

[Logician Man]

Slavery wasn't ended by a court; it was ended by a civil war that killed 600,000 people. I anticipate a similar resolution of the abortion controversy; indeed, the abortion holocaust is the hidden spiritual machinery of death that is propelling this nation toward another civil war. Through abortion, America had the freedom to choose death, and death has chosen America.

No one is going to go to war over the abortion issue, with exception of a very small sect of religious anti-abortion fanatics, who have,and will, be dealt with accordingly. Stop with the nonsense.

 

[Lursa]

Slavery wasn't ended by a court; it was ended by a civil war that killed 600,000 people. I anticipate a similar resolution of the abortion controversy; indeed, the abortion holocaust is the hidden spiritual machinery of death that is propelling this nation toward another civil war. Through abortion, America had the freedom to choose death, and death has chosen America.

Slavery is illegal because of court decisions.

And if you think that America will choose the unborn over women, you are sadly wrong.

It's irrational to promote the birth of unaffordable and unwanted children...to the tune of 300,000 more a year...when there are already 100,000 children up for adoption in the US...aware and waiting for homes. For every new birth added to that pool, another child goes without a home.

 

[RobertU]

Slavery is illegal because of court decisions.

And if you think that America will choose the unborn over women, you are sadly wrong.

It's irrational to promote the birth of unaffordable and unwanted children...to the tune of 300,000 more a year...when there are already 100,000 children up for adoption in the US...aware and waiting for homes. For every new birth added to that pool, another child goes without a home.

I thought slavery was ended by the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment, both of which resulted from the Civil War. But if you have information about court decisions ending slavery in the US, please feel free to share it.

 

[Lursa]

I thought slavery was ended by the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment, both of which resulted from the Civil War. But if you have information about court decisions ending slavery in the US, please feel free to share it.

Court decisions determined that black people were equal. And therefore, not to be kept as slaves.

 

[RobertU]

Court decisions determined that black people were equal. And therefore, not to be kept as slaves.

Please cite the court decision(s) that ended slavery. I think you are confusing segregation cases with slavery cases.

 

[Logician Man]

Please cite the court decision(s) that ended slavery. I think you are confusing segregation cases with slavery cases.

Pssssstttt...Thread is about abortion being legal....not slavery.

 

[RobertU]

Pssssstttt...Thread is about abortion being legal....not slavery.

The implication in the thread title is that once something is legal, everything is settled. And from our experience with slavery, we know that is not true.

 

[Logician Man]

The implication in the thread title is that once something is legal, everything is settled. And from our experience with slavery, we know that is not true.

Nope..the thread title is 'Abortion is Legal', which is a statement of fact whether you like it or not.

 

[Lursa]

Please cite the court decision(s) that ended slavery. I think you are confusing segregation cases with slavery cases.

Didnt say that. I wrote this:

Slavery is illegal because of court decisions.

OTOH if the gist of my statement is wrong, then it's not relevant.

The topic is abortion. If you have a connection between slavery and abortion, it comes down to the individual having rights, being a person, being equal.

The unborn, as determined by court decisions (RvW for one) is not any of those things.

 

[Scrabaholic]

This has nothing to do with my post.

 

[Lursa]

The implication in the thread title is that once something is legal, everything is settled. And from our experience with slavery, we know that is not true.

The RvW decision is built on the precedent created by many other decisions. It could be sent back to the states but that's probably the most that would happen. And not all states would make any changes.

No change to the status of the unborn not having rights is likely...they are not persons and SCOTUS has examined and determined that, just like they examined blacks and women and decided they/we are equal and recognized our rights. What legal basis would you present to SCOTUS to evaluate to change their decision re: the unborn?

The unborn and born cannot be treated equally, legally or practically. One or the other's rights would supersede the others. SCOTUS decided that women were no longer 2nd class citizens and I dont see them changing that decision.

 

[RobertU]

The RvW decision is built on the precedent created by many other decisions. It could be sent back to the states but that's probably the most that would happen. And not all states would make any changes.

No change to the status of the unborn not having rights is likely...they are not persons and SCOTUS has examined and determined that, just like they examined blacks and women and decided they/we are equal and recognized our rights. What legal basis would you present to SCOTUS to evaluate to change their decision re: the unborn?

The unborn and born cannot be treated equally, legally or practically. One or the other's rights would supersede the others. SCOTUS decided that women were no longer 2nd class citizens and I dont see them changing that decision.

What, exactly, is the problem with Roe? The problem, I believe, is that it has little connection to the Constitutional right it purportedly interpreted. A constitutional right to privacy broad enough to include abortion has no meaningful foundation in constitutional text, history, or precedent. …

The Court mentions several specifically enumerated rights which concern an aspect of privacy, for example, the Fourth Amendment's "right of the people to be secure in their houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." However, the Court fails to connect these to the newly found "right" to abortion, because no logical connection exists.

Also, even if the court states that the fetus is not a person, that should not prevent the state from protecting “non-persons.”

One does not have to be a "person" in the full constitutional sense, however, for a state to validly protect one's life. Dogs can be protected from killing although they are not "persons."13 And under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), people are prosecuted, fined and jailed for acts that may harm creatures, such as sea turtles, that are not "persons" in the full constitutional sense. Sea turtles are protected not only after they are hatched, but even while in the egg.

Source: Ten Legal Reasons to Reject Roe

 

[Lursa]

What, exactly, is the problem with Roe? The problem, I believe, is that it has little connection to the Constitutional right it purportedly interpreted. A constitutional right to privacy broad enough to include abortion has no meaningful foundation in constitutional text, history, or precedent. …

The Court mentions several specifically enumerated rights which concern an aspect of privacy, for example, the Fourth Amendment's "right of the people to be secure in their houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." However, the Court fails to connect these to the newly found "right" to abortion, because no logical connection exists.

Also, even if the court states that the fetus is not a person, that should not prevent the state from protecting “non-persons.”

One does not have to be a "person" in the full constitutional sense, however, for a state to validly protect one's life. Dogs can be protected from killing although they are not "persons."13 And under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), people are prosecuted, fined and jailed for acts that may harm creatures, such as sea turtles, that are not "persons" in the full constitutional sense. Sea turtles are protected not only after they are hatched, but even while in the egg.

Source: Ten Legal Reasons to Reject Roe

There is no right to abortion, however the 9th amendment protects it as legal.

And since when would the courts decide that protecting non-persons..turtles, dogs, the unborn...is grounds to violate the Constitutional rights of women? What would the legal basis for that be?

 

[Removable Mind]

What, exactly, is the problem with Roe? The problem, I believe, is that it has little connection to the Constitutional right it purportedly interpreted. A constitutional right to privacy broad enough to include abortion has no meaningful foundation in constitutional text, history, or precedent. …

The Court mentions several specifically enumerated rights which concern an aspect of privacy, for example, the Fourth Amendment's "right of the people to be secure in their houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." However, the Court fails to connect these to the newly found "right" to abortion, because no logical connection exists.

Also, even if the court states that the fetus is not a person, that should not prevent the state from protecting “non-persons.”

One does not have to be a "person" in the full constitutional sense, however, for a state to validly protect one's life. Dogs can be protected from killing although they are not "persons."13 And under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), people are prosecuted, fined and jailed for acts that may harm creatures, such as sea turtles, that are not "persons" in the full constitutional sense. Sea turtles are protected not only after they are hatched, but even while in the egg.

Source: Ten Legal Reasons to Reject Roe

There’s too much to respond to regarding your perception of what the foundation of the Roe v Wade decision entails, but from what I read in your comments, it’s obvious that you aren’t grasping the entire context of the decision rendered. Right to privacy is but one element that is the catalyst of the Supreme Court’s 7 - 2 decision.

 

[Integrityrespec]

I just don't understand how anyones sees this as anything short of taking a life. Calling it "womans right to choose" is just a scam to keep from owning up to the reality of what is really happening.

 

[Integrityrespec]

How is it that a person who murders a pregnant woman and kills the unborn child can be charged with a double homicide if abortion is not murder? Same outcome, different proceedure.

 

[Logician Man]

How is it that a person who murders a pregnant woman and kills the unborn child can be charged with a double homicide if abortion is not murder? Same outcome, different proceedure.

Simple..It is the way the law is written.

 

[Logician Man]

I just don't understand how anyones sees this as anything short of taking a life. Calling it "womans right to choose" is just a scam to keep from owning up to the reality of what is really happening.

Women who choose to get an abortion don't 'have to own up to anything or anyone.'....end of story

 

[Lursa]

I just don't understand how anyones sees this as anything short of taking a life. Calling it "womans right to choose" is just a scam to keep from owning up to the reality of what is really happening.

It's taking a life.

What is your point? Is that unborn life more valuable than that of a woman?

Do you believe a life is just 'breathing?'

 

[Lursa]

How is it that a person who murders a pregnant woman and kills the unborn child can be charged with a double homicide if abortion is not murder? Same outcome, different proceedure.

Fetal homicide laws do not consider the unborn a person or anyone having rights. The prosecution has the option to charge the killer on behalf of the mother or the state...the charges are in their interests and the unborn is treated more like a loss of property, not a person.

 

[Removable Mind]

I just don't understand how anyones sees this as anything short of taking a life. Calling it "womans right to choose" is just a scam to keep from owning up to the reality of what is really happening.

What’s really happening, besides your opinion, based on your personal moral beliefs? Or is that something you adopted from an external source like your parents who base(d) their tenets on something taught to them by their parents - OR emanating from something like a particular religion’s teachings, perhaps?

 

[minnie616]

What, exactly, is the problem with Roe? The problem, I believe, is that it has little connection to the Constitutional right it purportedly interpreted. A constitutional right to privacy broad enough to include abortion has no meaningful foundation in constitutional text, history, or precedent. …

The Court mentions several specifically enumerated rights which concern an aspect of privacy, for example, the Fourth Amendment's "right of the people to be secure in their houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." However, the Court fails to connect these to the newly found "right" to abortion, because no logical connection exists.

Also, even if the court states that the fetus is not a person, that should not prevent the state from protecting “non-persons.”

One does not have to be a "person" in the full constitutional sense, however, for a state to validly protect one's life. Dogs can be protected from killing although they are not "persons."13 And under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), people are prosecuted, fined and jailed for acts that may harm creatures, such as sea turtles, that are not "persons" in the full constitutional sense. Sea turtles are protected not only after they are hatched, but even while in the egg.

Source: Ten Legal Reasons to Reject Roe

I guess I need to remind you again that the right to privacy is a Constitutional right protected by the 14th Amendment.

The right to privacy is most often cited in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, which states:



No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; 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.

However, the protections have been narrowly defined and usually only pertain to family, marriage, motherhood, procreation and child rearing.

For example, the Supreme Court first recognized that the various Bill of Rights guarantees creates a "zone of privacy" in Griswold v. Connecticut, a 1965 ruling that upheld marital privacy and struck down bans on contraception.

Read more:

https://www.livescience.com/37398-right-to-privacy.html


States that pass feticide laws must recognize abortion befor viability is legal when the pregnant woman or her legal guardian.requested it

 

[RobertU]

I guess I need to remind you again that the right to privacy is a Constitutional right protected by the 14th Amendment.


Read more:

https://www.livescience.com/37398-right-to-privacy.html


States that pass feticide laws must recognize abortion befor viability is legal when the pregnant woman or her legal guardian.requested it

Even your own source states that the right to privacy is “not explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution” and “the definition of the right to privacy is ever-changing.”

If Roe v. Wade was set in stone, pro-choice feminists would not have been so vehemently opposed to the Kavanaugh nomination.

 

[Logician Man]

Even your own source states that the right to privacy is “not explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution” and “the definition of the right to privacy is ever-changing.”

If Roe v. Wade was set in stone, pro-choice feminists would not have been so vehemently opposed to the Kavanaugh nomination.

You just moved the goal posts so far away, the game is on hold awaiting for them to be returned to the game .

 

[RobertU]

You just moved the goal posts so far away, the game is on hold awaiting for them to be returned to the game .

I like a good metaphor but I have no idea what you are talking about.