Bush nominates Alito to SCOTUS

[Marcus Bryant]

I'll ask you: why abortion? With other prohibited activities, generally crimes, there is a victim who is identified by law to possess rights that are invaded by the criminal perpetrator.

Well, we're in this purgatory, with something that isn't fully a separate human but by the same token is something more than a tumor.

To be consistent, your argument necessarily means that laws will have to come into existence that either: (1) define a fetus as a person for all purposes; or (2) concoct some bizarre architecture to define when a fetus does or does not have rights. Either result is problematic, I think.

Sure, but the situation itself is problematic. Does one need to define a fetus as a person in order to provide it legal protection?

If you define a fetus as a person for all purposes, you open the door to all sorts of interesting possibilities. If a fetus is a person, can a mother who miscarries be prosecuted for manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide if there is some proof that the miscarriage was provoked by the mother's behavior? I mean, if the idea here is to protect the interests of the fetus, it seems to me that some State resources would have to be devoted to investigating miscarriages to determine if there was misfeasance by the mother that may have caused the result.

Sure.

Say a pregnant woman is injured in a car accident caused by the negligence of an employee of Holt Cat.

Guilty, but I digress.

She goes to Wayne Wright or Jim Adler -- or better yet, goes to a plaintiff's lawyer who isn't afraid of a courtroom -- and sues Holt Cat. Should the fetus be able to recover damages from Holt Cat in that action? If not, why not? I mean, if there is some injury, why shouldn't the fetus be en led to a recovery?

Let the mother have standing initially and then once the child is a full person he/she can have standing as well.

Here's another situation, the pregnant woman is married and her husband is killed by the negligence of a Holt Cat employee. The woman is en led to damages for wrongful death, and likely can recover for things like emotional distress and loss of consortium. Why shouldn't the fetus be en led to similar damages?

The list of absurd results just grows from there if you define a fetus as a person in the law. If you don't define a fetus as a person for all purposes, you're simply drawing the very same arbitrary line that Yonivore despises with respect to defining viability.

Then don't define the fetus as having that status, but don't allow the wanton destruction of it.

[Spurminator]

I still don't see how the status of a fetus as a living human matters in the abortion debate. The primary issue is whether or not a woman should be punished for choosing to forego a pregnancy.

My opinion on this issue would be the same whether we're talking about a fetus, or a 6 year old kid that somehow got planted into a woman's uterus and the only two options were to kill it or to allow it to inhabit the woman's womb for a year.

Someday, maybe we'll be able to remove embryos/feti after conception and keep them alive but for now, given the choices, I side with the woman... however selfish or morally reprehensible her motives may be. Because I cannot justify imprisoning someone for avoiding a 9 month pregnancy.

[BronxCowboy]

I still don't see how the status of a fetus as a living human matters in the abortion debate. . . . My opinion on this issue would be the same whether we're talking about a fetus, or a 6 year old kid that somehow got planted into a woman's uterus and the only two options were to kill it or to allow it to inhabit the woman's womb for a year.

Scary.

[boutons]

Fringe right dictates to the less, brainless faux-macho dubya.

[Marcus Bryant]

boutons has posted some pics. Time to shut down the thread.

[FromWayDowntown]

Sure, but the situation itself is problematic. Does one need to define a fetus as a person in order to provide it legal protection?

Well, things have legal protection only to the extent that the law creates rights and rights exist only with respect to people, property, and chattel. It would be an odd result to say that a fetus is either property or chattel, so I would say yes to your question. It would be necessary to either define the fetus as a person, particularly since the anti-Roe crowd is so insistent in defining a fetus as a person; it would be an odd result to cite that proposition as the basis for decades of argument, only to relent after the fact.

As my previous post explains, there are significant legal problems associated with defining a fetus as a person (either fully or on a limited basis).

Guilty, but I digress.

So I presumed.

Let the mother have standing initially and then once the child is a full person he/she can have standing as well.

I can't see that as being an answer. For one thing, you'd have protracted litigation while waiting for the fetus to obtain "personhood" -- which again, is problematic to the anti-Roe argument; it's either a person or its not. Another is that it would create a large inconsistency in the law. The law generally assigns the date of the accident as the date of accrual for damages. If you're hurt in an auto accident, you can obtain future damages based on injuries you sustained in the accident. But if you weren't legally injured in the accident, you have no basis to recover in tort. If you define a fetus to be a person, then you have to say that it was injured at the time of the accident to afford it the recoveries that would be available to any other person injured by the accident. But if you say that it was a person at the time of the accident, liability in tort will grow again, which is contrary to present day conservative dogma. You can't have it both ways: if the fetus is a person, it has legal rights, including things like the right to sue for damages.

Then don't define the fetus as having that status, but don't allow the wanton destruction of it.

Would that be based on the "Because Christian teachings says its wrong" theory of the law? or would that be the "Because we're too willy-nilly to deal with the ramifications of a consistent articulation of legal rights since doing so might adversely affect other things that we stand for, but damnit we think it's wrong" theory?

[FromWayDowntown]

I still don't see how the status of a fetus as a living human matters in the abortion debate. The primary issue is whether or not a woman should be punished for choosing to forego a pregnancy.

I think it's terribly important to the anti-abortion argument. If the fetus is a living human -- a person -- then terminating a pregnancy (killing the fetus) would be an infringement on the rights of another living person. The anti-abortion argument depends largely on the notion that the rights of the mother cannot or should not outweigh the rights of her unborn child because that child has equal rights under the law -- hence, the push to define life as beginning at conception. In other words, any rights the mother might possess are limited by the rights of the fetus. Otherwise, the mother's rights are the only rights at stake in the decision and her right to self-determination is difficult to overcome, legally.

It's why they absolutely must have the law define the child as a person to accomplish the goal of ending abortion altogether.

[Mr. Peabody]

Because I cannot justify imprisoning someone for avoiding a 9 month pregnancy.

I agree. Government keeps taking an inch here and an inch there when it comes to invading our privacies and dictating what we can do with our bodies and we keep letting them. Forcing women to be living incubators for nine months against their will is not a power that the government should have.
________
Nexium settlement update

[Marcus Bryant]

Well, things have legal protection only to the extent that the law creates rights and rights exist only with respect to people, property, and chattel. It would be an odd result to say that a fetus is either property or chattel, so I would say yes to your question. It would be necessary to either define the fetus as a person, particularly since the anti-Roe crowd is so insistent in defining a fetus as a person; it would be an odd result to cite that proposition as the basis for decades of argument, only to relent after the fact.

So there is a way to deal with the issue in the law.

I can't see that as being an answer. For one thing, you'd have protracted litigation while waiting for the fetus to obtain "personhood" -- which again, is problematic to the anti-Roe argument; it's either a person or its not. Another is that it would create a large inconsistency in the law. The law generally assigns the date of the accident as the date of accrual for damages. If you're hurt in an auto accident, you can obtain future damages based on injuries you sustained in the accident. But if you weren't legally injured in the accident, you have no basis to recover in tort. If you define a fetus to be a person, then you have to say that it was injured at the time of the accident to afford it the recoveries that would be available to any other person injured by the accident. But if you say that it was a person at the time of the accident, liability in tort will grow again, which is contrary to present day conservative dogma. You can't have it both ways: if the fetus is a person, it has legal rights, including things like the right to sue for damages.

I think most anti-abortion advocates would take a ban on abortion on demand over their dogma on the legal status of the fetus.

As for damages, move up the DCF on the damages to accrue to the child to his/her birth date. Prior to that, let the mother collect on the medical expenses related to whatever injuries were sustained. The child then will have the standing to collect the loss in lifetime earnings as well as the projected cost of medical care that will be required during his/her life if the accident was that serious. I don't think it would take much to enable an individual to make a tort claim for injuries sustained while in the womb.

Would that be based on the "Because Christian teachings says its wrong" theory of the law? or would that be the "Because we're too willy-nilly to deal with the ramifications of a consistent articulation of legal rights since doing so might adversely affect other things that we stand for, but damnit we think it's wrong" theory?

Better than the 'it's too hard to make this work theoretically so let's just embrace the status quo' theory.

[Spurminator]

The anti-abortion argument depends largely on the notion that the rights of the mother cannot or should not outweigh the rights of her unborn child because that child has equal rights under the law -- hence, the push to define life as beginning at conception.

But they don't have equal rights, regardless of its humanity, because the unborn child is completely dependent on the mother. Kind of cold, but until we can incubate unborn children some other way, that's the way it has to be... Otherwise the unborn child's rights, by definition, supercede the mother's rights.

[Extra Stout]

But they don't have equal rights, regardless of its humanity, because the unborn child is completely dependent on the mother. Kind of cold, but until we can incubate unborn children some other way, that's the way it has to be... Otherwise the unborn child's rights, by definition, supercede the mother's rights.

That's why there's the "viability" standard. If a child can be kept alive outside the womb with contemporary technology, then abortion should no longer be an option unless the life or health of the mother is in jeopardy.

Right now, that's somewhere around 16 weeks.

[Yonivore]

But they don't have equal rights, regardless of its humanity, because the unborn child is completely dependent on the mother. Kind of cold, but until we can incubate unborn children some other way, that's the way it has to be... Otherwise the unborn child's rights, by definition, supercede the mother's rights.

That's only if the life of the mother is being traded for the life of the baby.

[Spurminator]

That's why there's the "viability" standard. If a child can be kept alive outside the womb with contemporary technology, then abortion should no longer be an option unless the life or health of the mother is in jeopardy.

Right now, that's somewhere around 16 weeks.

I agree, and if advances enable us to keep an unborn child alive outside of a womb, I would align myself with the anti-abortion side.

[Spurminator]

That's only if the life of the mother is being traded for the life of the baby.

It may be, it may not be. More than likely not, but a woman should not be forced to take that risk, or endure the 9 months of physical reprocussions leading up to it.

[Yonivore]

It may be, it may not be. More than likely not, but a woman should not be forced to take that risk, or endure the 9 months of physical reprocussions leading up to it.

Over 99% of pregnancies are a choice -- not forced upon the mother.

[jochhejaam]

a fetus doesn't have rights, it isn't alive, and spurminator is right ( if spurminator is a she) you have no right to tell her what she can do with her body

Since when does her body have two heads, two beating hearts, four arms and four legs?

[jochhejaam]

better question, what comes next, a lot of the same fruit loops that dislike abortion dislike contraception, is that going to go too?

If contraception had been used the termination of the unborn baby wouldn't have been necessary.
You were a " ing fetus" at one time.

[JoeChalupa]

Over 99% of pregnancies are a choice -- not forced upon the mother.

link please.

[Yonivore]

link please.

Jeeze, Joe...MILLIONS of abortions a year. Subtract those due to rape and incest and do the math yourself.

[JoeChalupa]

Jeeze, Joe...MILLIONS of abortions a year. Subtract those due to rape and incest and do the math yourself.

So what are you saying? That everytime a woman has sex other than rape and incest she intended to get pregnant? Or that you pulled stat out of thin air?

Jeeze Yonivore, I didn't know you had such insight into a woman's thoughts.

[Yonivore]

So what are you saying? That everytime a woman has sex other than rape and incest she intended to get pregnant? Or that you pulled stat out of thin air?

Jeeze Yonivore, I didn't know you had such insight into a woman's thoughts.

No, that she makes a CHOICE that could lead to pregnancy.

[JoeChalupa]

So you agree. Then should it not be her CHOICE whether to have the child or not?

I think she should but I cannot force her to do so.

[Yonivore]

So you agree. Then should it not be her CHOICE whether to have the child or not?

I think she should but I cannot force her to do so.

Once created, life is deserving of the right to continue.

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE]

So you agree. Then should it not be her CHOICE whether to have the child or not?

With few exceptions, slaughtering the innocent unborn should never have been a choice in the first place and I'll never figure out the "pro-death to babies" crowd.
And everyone who reads this post was at one time a "fetus" so don't feed me your absurd and tiresome arguements about viability!

I think she should but I cannot force her to do so.

That's the position pro-lifers are in, The USSC made a horrific and unconscionable decision and we are obligated to abide by it.

There is one whose opinion matters far more than a handful of Justices. His love for all of His creation, including those whose lives were senselessly and inhumanely torn from the womb of those who didn't want to be inconvenienced by their life, remains steadfast and his judgement upon those that actively fight for the mindless execution of his Creation will be brought to fruition.

"Beautifully you were created in your Mothers womb". Psalms

But Jesus said, "Let the little ones come to me, and do not keep them away: for of such is the kingdom of heaven". Luke
They were never given the chance, I'm sure He understands that is would have been inconvenient...<sarcasm>

[JoeChalupa]

[QUOTE=jochhejaam]

With few exceptions, slaughtering the innocent unborn should never have been a choice in the first place and I'll never figure out the "pro-death to babies" crowd.
And everyone who reads this post was at one time a "fetus" so don't feed me your absurd and tiresome arguements about viability!






That's the position pro-lifers are in, The USSC made a horrific and unconscionable decision and we are obligated to abide by it.

There is one whose opinion matters far more than a handful of Justices. His love for all of His creation, including those whose lives were senselessly and inhumanely torn from the womb of those who didn't want to be inconvenienced by their life, remains steadfast and his judgement upon those that actively fight for the mindless execution of his Creation will be brought to fruition.

"Beautifully you were created in your Mothers womb". Psalms

But Jesus said, "Let the little ones come to me, and do not keep them away: for of such is the kingdom of heaven". Luke
They were never given the chance, I'm sure He understands that is would have been inconvenient...<sarcasm>

Again, what most don't get is that, at least for me, I am NOT pro-death to babies. I am a Catholic just like Judge Roberts and Alito and I am against abortion but I will not legislate from the bench and force my religious beliefs on others. I will ALWAYS choose life over death and have never approved of abortion. I have a pro-life Rose on the dash of my car.

Some just don't get it I guess.

Just like I sometimes don't get the pro-lifers who support war and the death penalty but that is just me.