Reply With Quote
I suppose the fact Yoni has completely dropped the Sanger/Planned Parenthood angle is as close as I'm going to get to an answer.
Thanks.good luck with that
I suppose the fact Yoni has completely dropped the Sanger/Planned Parenthood angle is as close as I'm going to get to an answer.
The conversation was side-tracked by ElNono.
My answer is, I have no clue but, obviously, the eugenics angle among abortionists remains.
Why would they need to be struck down? If the law says murdering a non-person is illegal, then it's illegal.
What a law can't do is override a cons utional right.
The law doesn't define a fetus as a non-person. At least, not the murder statutes I've read.
How does law override the "cons utional right to privacy" in the case of late-term abortions?
You're wasting your time with el nono. He absolutely does not believe a fetus growing in a women is human therefore you are not killing anything. It's absurd but it's his opinion. God bless
It doesn't define it as a person either. If anything, it's pretty consistent defining it as an "unborn children".
Why cherry pick on late-term?
What I believe is irrelevant to what we're discussing. ron bless.
Because it defies the logic of your argument that, 1) it's settled and that 2) unborn children don't have a right to life.
Obviously, in certain cir stances, they do indeed have rights that supersede a woman's right to kill them.
If a woman has a cons utional right to privacy in choosing to have an abortion, why doesn't that right extend to late-term abortions?
The "right to life" argument was never on the table (as pointed out)
What was on the other end of privacy rights was the state's rights to regulate abortions. Under the premise that the older the fetus, the more responsibility for the state, the SCOTUS decided a middle-ground approach: earlier on the pregnancy, the woman's right to privacy trumps the state's regulatory rights. Further down the road, the state's regulatory rights trump the women's privacy rights.
So, it's not settled. The right isn't absolute. The right to an abortion isn't based on prenatal fetuses not being lives deserving protection. Got it.
A State could conceivably develop a regulation, meeting cons utional muster, that prevents abortions, earlier and earlier in the pregnancy - potentially to the moment of conception?
Thanks for finally getting there.
Actually, it is settled and it's an absolute right as long as the cons ution isn't changed to remove that right or a new cons utional right is enacted that would trump it (through a cons utional amendment).
No. That would be uncons utional, as it would infringe on women's privacy rights.
Again, is yoni working on getting a cons utional amendment passed?
If not, he's just paying the lip service all Republicans do to the ending of abortion to keep the base docile.
using the law to make something immoral, palatable, is just being lawful evil.
WC employs the Dungeons and Dragons gambit.
pretty much
Hold on. If there's a cir stance, under which a woman's absolute right to an abortion is trumped, it's not absolute. Late-term abortions are that cir stance. It's not absolute and it's not settled. It doesn't matter how often you say it.
If a woman has an absolute, irrevocable right to get an abortion, she should be able to walk into Dr. Virmani's clinic, dilated, fully effaced, and in the process of delivery and have the fetus killed -- so long as it's done before meeting the elements of that State's murder statute.
That would be an absolute right to an abortion. That the right doesn't extend that far necessarily means there's a point at which it is determined the right of abortion gives way to the right of the baby not to be killed. That point is completely open to being altered, based on advances in medicine and understanding of the development of a human fetus.
At what point does it cross the line from lawfully regulating abortions that are late-term to violating the woman's cons utional right?
It's absolute insofar as there's no other cons utional right that trumps it.
As you know, mere laws cannot supersede the cons ution, and the cons ution cannot change itself.
On what cons utional principle is the State's ability to regulate late-term abortion, and thus supersede a woman's right to abortion, based?
Which begs the question of how a State can cons utionally deprive a woman the right in the cir stance of late-term abortions.
The Court stated that during the first trimester, when the procedure is more safe than childbirth, the decision to abort must be left to the mother and her physician. The State has the right to intervene prior to fetal viability only to protect the health of the mother, and may regulate the procedure after viability so long as there is always an exception for preserving maternal health.
State's rights are granted under the 10th amendment. That includes the authority to regulate what's not regulated federally or under the cons ution.
Again, this is a cons utional right vis a vis cons utional right.
So, the SCOTUS decision is based on relative terms, such as safe and viable. Surely, understanding of those terms could never be altered in the context of the difference between childbirth and abortion and, certainly, the viability of a fetus has remained constant and unarguably at the same point, during pregnancy.
So, the State's ability to regulate abortion, found in the 10th amendment, can be construed to supersede a woman's right to an abortion divined out of the 4th.
Obviously.
Whats the population breakdown under the age of 35? That is far more relevant than the entire US population.
Hispanic women make up 21% of the entire population aged 10-40 so they are actually right where you would expect them as a percentage of all abortions.
The other two groups didn't change all that much.
Just an FYI because its stupid to use the entire population as not even close to the entire population is able to get abortions.
I doubt the SCOTUS is on the lexical business. More likely they feel a healthcare professional should be able to determine what's safe and what's viable on every given case.
Only when the mother's health might be at risk. The protection is for the mother, not the fetus.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions