Why is it that the left just loves to preach all about the evils of capitalism (see: Sanders, Bernie) until dead baby parts are for sale? Then they're suddenly free-market capitalists who are all about economic and personal liberty.
It's not even that. When a cop shots down a criminal, we as a society, are effectively "Sanctioning the murder of an unconsenting human". We then put our moral/civil code atop to parse it.
"Sanctioning the murder of an unconsenting human" isn't really such a shocking thing at the end of the day. Even animals do it.
Now with abortion specifically, the case centers strictly on the host (mother). It's something you can't separate from it, because the fetus just can't live without it for long.
I always said I thought the SCOTUS reached a Solomonic solution in Roe vs Wade. But if at some point technology allows to safely transplant the fetus at any stage of pregnancy into another host, then there will be no reason for abortion.
Roe v Wade is largely irrelevant atm... Casey v Planned Parenthood controls
It actually isn't. Casey vs PP largely reaffirmed Roe, but added guidelines about laws that restrict abortion. In other words, Casey vs PP made no changes to the determinations of women's privacy vs state interest set on Roe, which is what I was alluding to.
Incest/rape and when giving birth threatens the life of the mother are the only cases in which a case for abortion could possibly be made, since one involves the woman being physically coerced into having a child and the other obviously is a medical issue. These cases also represent less than 1% of all abortions in this country.
yeah but it did away with the trimester nonsense that i'm assuming is what you alluded to when you brought up the "solomonic solution"
but even in the case of rape... by your argument, the child has done nothing wrong
you are sanctioning the murder of an unconsenting human being.
in the cases where the mother's life is threatened, you can argue its an act of "self defense" and not murder. but if its just an incest/rape thing and the mother's life isn't in danger, you have to stick to your innocent baby defense, imo... which is flawed
Have you figured out the difference between buying and selling yet?Are any of the resident lib s going to address any of ^ this ^ or just keep deflecting? Livers, spleens, spines, brains, eyes, ears, skin, all for sale.But, but, the ad said it was only blood!
If you have then we may proceed.
And yes, the ad was for blood samples. You cannot dispute this.
FWIW, there's always an inherent risk to the mother when giving birth. An abortion is only more risky than birth starting only at the third trimester, which is exactly why the SCOTUS set the cutoff time the way it did.
brah, they did away with the "trimester" thing and just have a more flexible "viability" test since Planned Parenthood. that's what ive been referring to when i say Roe v Wade has been replaced. i guess you can call it "updated" instead of replaced
This is true too, and it's a genuinely complicated issue for pro-life supporters. Let's be real, though, the vast majority of abortions are used as a "get out of personal responsibility free" card for women only (the father doesn't legally get a say in it).
I don't believe it did. It merely adjudicated what's an "undue burden" or not in state laws seeking to regulate abortions.
the reasoning behind them is irrelevant, imo (as long as we aren't dealing with a significant health/life risk). you either allow the behavior or you dont.
people are allowed to buy knives, even though some people might buy them with the purpose of stabbing others. the reasoning is irrelevant. its either gna be legal or its not.
Nevermind, I just read about it, you're correct. Roe actually set the "viability" standard. It was just set at the third trimester then, now 22 or 23 weeks. The issue remains the same though: Abortion during those weeks is less of a health risk than giving birth.
from casey, tbh...
The Supreme Court, Justices O'Connor, Kennedyand Souter held that: (1) the doctrine of stare decisis requires reaffirmance of Roe v. Wade'sessential holding recognizing a woman's right to choose an abortion before fetal viability; (2) the undue burden test, rather than the trimester framework, should be used in evaluating abortion restrictions before viability;
We reject the trimester framework, which we do not consider to be part of the essential holding of Roe
The trimester framework no doubt was erected to ensure that the woman's right to choose not become so subordinate to the State's interest in promoting fetal life that her choice exists in theory but not in fact. We do not agree, however, that the trimester approach is necessary to accomplish this objective. A framework of this rigidity was unnecessary and in its later interpretation sometimes contradicted the State's permissible exercise of its powers.
A logical reading of the central holding in Roe itself, and a necessary reconciliation of the liberty of the woman and the interest of the State in promoting prenatal life, require, in our view, that we abandon the trimester framework as a rigid prohibition on all previability regulation aimed at the protection of fetal life. The trimester framework suffers from these basic flaws: in its formulation it misconceives the nature of the pregnant woman's interest; and in practice it undervalues the State's interest in potential life, as recognized in Roe.
applying the trimester framework has led to the striking down of some abortion regulations which in no real sense deprived women of the ultimate decision. Those decisions went too far because the right recognized by Roe is a right “to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child.” **2820Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S., at 453, 92 S.Ct., at 1038. Not all governmental intrusion is of necessity unwarranted; and that brings us to the other basic flaw in the trimester framework: even in Roe's terms, in practice it undervalues the State's interest in the potential life within the woman.
^ thanks, see my followup post.
yeah, the viability test will certainly echo the rationale behind the trimester test
yeah, saw that right after i hit the submit button
i just took con law this past spring semester, and my jeebo school made sure we spent enough time talking about these cases
I dug into it a few years ago. I have pretty good memory, but that slipped.yeah, saw that right after i hit the submit button
i just took con law this past spring semester, and my jeebo school made sure we spent enough time talking about these cases
As I was saying earlier, unless you can untie the mother's privacy interest, you can't untangle that. Eventually, I think technology might deal with it, but we're not there yet.
was pretty hilarious when there were literally waves of "boooo" in the classroom the first time the prof mentioned Roe v Wade
I bet reactions vary wildly from state to statewas pretty hilarious when there were literally waves of "boooo" in the classroom the first time the prof mentioned Roe v Wade
Yup it could. But then it could be argued that the fetus then really doesn't have rights i.e. isn't really a full human citizen.
That was effectively a sticking point made by Justice Blackmun on Roe: The Cons ution doesn't protect the unborn. It's one of the reasons why the US Code includes added protections specifically for the unborn on top of those that applies to every other individual.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
