Discussion in 'Politics' started by Lumpy 1, Oct 3, 2017.
Just have to get passed that 60 vote threshold in the Senate.
In the womb the simulated ability of the lungs is what I am talking about. The lungs expand and contract ambiotic fluid. That is not really breathing, but I thought it obvious that I did not mean 100% functionality as that is impossible in the womb, for the lungs.
It's all red herring BULLSHIT anyway.
Neither brain function nor the ability to breathe on your own is a requirement for personhood. The Supreme Court has already said as much in their quote in my sig. Furthermore, our fetal Homicide laws define children in the womb as human beings in ANY stage of development.
The ability to think, breath or feel pain . . . None of that has anything to do with personhood.
I am attempting to find a secular criteria for what establishes personhood.
And the SCOTUS quote in your sig does not say that the definition of when personhood is established is known or defined in our laws, unless I am misreading it.
The (anti-abortion) appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the (pro-abortion) appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the (14th) Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. - Roe v. Wade
Can you explain to me where I am wrong in my interpretation of your sig?
You are not so much wrong as you may be missing the timeline a bit.
Forty plus years ago, The SCOTUS said in Roe that States could establish personhood for children in womb. Since then, more than 30 States and even the Federal Government has done exactly that. . . To the extent that the lawmakers had to include an exception to (for now) keep abortions legal.
It is now an issue of whether or not the exceptions that (for now) keep abortions legal are themself constitutional or not.
You don't think 5 months is ample time in which to kill your unborn child?
For now, until the zealots incrementally take those options away too.
The problem is that wealthy & those able to gather the money will fly to where its legal to abort. the poor will go back to coat hangers & back street abortions. those to poor or to scared will have an unwanted, unable to be cared for properly. end result more kids living on the street, more kids running wild & not learning how to do the right thing. look up the numbers of children now in foster care or living on the street. after there birth how much government support do you back? how much money time or effort are you willing to provide? going by what people post on this board very few are willing to help the poor & think you should pull your self up by your own boot straps, something quite difficult for a young child to do. we need better answers to the abortion problem.
Something like 90% of abortions occur in the first trimester and were the laws to limit it to such a period, then 99% of them would be.
Coat Hangers? There's still 5 months during which a woman can have an abortion!
Separate names with a comma.