CDZ Abortion laws should be left up to the States

[Chuz Life]

I don't have time (again) for a lengthy intro to this subject so I have to be brief.

A lot of comments are being made from all sides of the abortion issue - that the legality of abortion would be or should be a decision reverted to or left up to the States, if or when Roe V Wade is overturned.

I completely disagree with that position and here is why.

The U.S. Constitution (5th and 14th Amendments) clearly says that all persons (not only citizens) under U.S. Jurisdiction are entitled to the Equal Protections of our laws. The Constitution does not allow for that clause to be modified by or to be deviated from 'State by State.'

If Roe v Wade is overturned under the established principle that "personhood" begins at and by conception (using fetal homicide laws for example) . . . then the "personhood" of any children in the womb is automatic in EVERY State and so is their rights as persons under our Constitution, also going to be automatic.


All CDZ rules apply.

 

[william the wie]

Since the placenta is a life support cord as long as the rules are more or less the same at both ends of life abortion is not necessarily murder anymore than killing a burgler or other assailant is murder.

 

[mamooth]

Should states be allowed to have slavery? No. Hence, they should not be allowed to ban abortion. Basic liberty should not be left up to the whim tyrannical states.

Oh, fetuses are not persons, period, under any version of law or social custom. And overturning RvW would not change that in any way, as fetuses were not considered to be persons prior to RvW.

 

[Chuz Life]

REMINDER!

This thread is NOT about the legality of abortion. It is about whether or not it is to be "left up to the States" if/when Roe v Wade is overturned.

 

[Chuz Life]

Should states be allowed to have slavery? No. Hence, they should not be allowed to ban abortion. Basic liberty should not be left up to the whim tyrannical states.

Oh, fetuses are not persons, period, under any version of law or social custom. And overturning RvW would not change that in any way, as fetuses were not considered to be persons prior to RvW.

Our fetal homicide laws (referenced in the OP) do in fact establish the personhood of "children in the womb" and those laws even define "children in the womb" as such.

For now, those laws have make exceptions to themselves to keep abortions legal.

Remove those exceptions (as the Supreme Court might / could/ should do) and then what do you have?

 

[mamooth]

Our fetal homicide laws (referenced in the OP) do in fact establish the personhood of "children in the womb" and those laws even define "children in the womb" as such.

Not all states have those laws, and not all such laws says such a thing.

For now, those laws have make exceptions to themselves to keep abortions legal

Remove those exceptions (as the Supreme Court might / could/ should do) and then what do you have?

You still have laws that don't apply to fetuses being people.

 

[Fenton Lum]

Abortion will always be left up to the individual, all "the law" can do is have an impact on who performs them, and by proxy to that consideration, are they performed in a legalized and hopefully safer setting with safer conditions.

 

[Chuz Life]

Our fetal homicide laws (referenced in the OP) do in fact establish the personhood of "children in the womb" and those laws even define "children in the womb" as such.

Not all states have those laws, and not all such laws says such a thing.

Are you being intentionally obtuse?

The fetal homicide laws in any ONE or of the MANY States are one of many things the Supreme Court can (and should) take into consideration when deciding a future case that might challenge Roe.

And yes, the fetal homicide laws (State AND Federal) do too define "children in the womb" as such and as "human beings."

Read the laws.

For now, those laws have make exceptions to themselves to keep abortions legal

Remove those exceptions (as the Supreme Court might / could/ should do) and then what do you have?

You still have laws that don't apply to fetuses being people.

Then how can a person be charged with MURDER for killing a "child in the womb" during a criminal act?

Again.

Read the laws.

 

[Fenton Lum]

Our fetal homicide laws (referenced in the OP) do in fact establish the personhood of "children in the womb" and those laws even define "children in the womb" as such.

Not all states have those laws, and not all such laws says such a thing.

Are you being intentionally obtuse?

The fetal homicide laws in any ONE or of the MANY States are one of many things the Supreme Court can (and should) take into consideration when deciding a future case that might challenge Roe.

And yes, the fetal homicide laws (State AND Federal) do too define "children in the womb" as such and as "human beings."

Read the laws.

For now, those laws have make exceptions to themselves to keep abortions legal

Remove those exceptions (as the Supreme Court might / could/ should do) and then what do you have?

You still have laws that don't apply to fetuses being people.

Then how can a person be charged with MURDER for killing a "child in the womb" during a criminal act?

Again.

Read the laws.

How far back does abortion and birth control reach in hominid evolution?

 

[mamooth]

The fetal homicide laws in any ONE or of the MANY States are one of many things the Supreme Court can (and should) take into consideration when deciding a future case that might challenge Roe.

That's nice. It still wouldn't make fetuses people. Criminal law doesn't apply to that.

Then how can a person be charged with MURDER for killing a "child in the womb" during a criminal act?

People can be charged for killing animals. Doesn't make them people. Criminal law isn't the standard. The standard is what people do, and they don't act as if zygotes are people. Never have, never will.

 

[Chuz Life]

Our fetal homicide laws (referenced in the OP) do in fact establish the personhood of "children in the womb" and those laws even define "children in the womb" as such.

Not all states have those laws, and not all such laws says such a thing.

Are you being intentionally obtuse?

The fetal homicide laws in any ONE or of the MANY States are one of many things the Supreme Court can (and should) take into consideration when deciding a future case that might challenge Roe.

And yes, the fetal homicide laws (State AND Federal) do too define "children in the womb" as such and as "human beings."

Read the laws.

For now, those laws have make exceptions to themselves to keep abortions legal

Remove those exceptions (as the Supreme Court might / could/ should do) and then what do you have?

You still have laws that don't apply to fetuses being people.

Then how can a person be charged with MURDER for killing a "child in the womb" during a criminal act?

Again.

Read the laws.

How far back does abortion and birth control reach in hominid evolution?

What does that have to do with whether or not it is a matter for each State to decide?

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[Chuz Life]

The fetal homicide laws in any ONE or of the MANY States are one of many things the Supreme Court can (and should) take into consideration when deciding a future case that might challenge Roe.

That's nice. It still wouldn't make fetuses people. Criminal law doesn't apply to that.

Then how can a person be charged with MURDER for killing a "child in the womb" during a criminal act?

People can be charged for killing animals. Doesn't make them people. Criminal law isn't the standard. The standard is what people do, and they don't act as if zygotes are people. Never have, never will.

Making it a crime of MURDER to kill a "child in the womb" as our fetal homicide laws do.... how is that not acting as though the victim killed was a PERSON?

You tell me.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[Fenton Lum]

Our fetal homicide laws (referenced in the OP) do in fact establish the personhood of "children in the womb" and those laws even define "children in the womb" as such.

Not all states have those laws, and not all such laws says such a thing.

Are you being intentionally obtuse?

The fetal homicide laws in any ONE or of the MANY States are one of many things the Supreme Court can (and should) take into consideration when deciding a future case that might challenge Roe.

And yes, the fetal homicide laws (State AND Federal) do too define "children in the womb" as such and as "human beings."

Read the laws.

For now, those laws have make exceptions to themselves to keep abortions legal

Remove those exceptions (as the Supreme Court might / could/ should do) and then what do you have?

You still have laws that don't apply to fetuses being people.

Then how can a person be charged with MURDER for killing a "child in the womb" during a criminal act?

Again.

Read the laws.

How far back does abortion and birth control reach in hominid evolution?

What does that have to do with whether or not it is a matter for each State to decide?

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Like I said, abortion will always be left up to the individual, all "the law" can do is have an impact on who performs them, and by proxy to that consideration, are they performed in a legalized and hopefully safer setting with safer conditions.

 

[Coyote]

Just a little reminder folks - abortion is a wide ranging topic that covers a lot of ground - ethics, rights, legal issues, etc. The OP has opted to restrict the discussion to whether the LAW of abortion should be left up to the states if R v. W were overturned - if yes, why or if not, why. So it's pretty narrowly defined so as to keep the discussion focused.

 

[Fishlore]

Roe v. Wade is based on a constitutional right (to privacy) and, as the OP points out, constitutional rights are federal rights. If RvW is overturned and SCOTUS does not assert any constitutional right to abortion, legislation will probably fall back on the vital interest of the state in matters of health. This will result in giving states control over abortion legislation, including the right to ban abortion or to make it very limited in some states.

Should Trump and the hard right continue in power for the next eight years, there will be a considerable number of other retreats in federal legislation and regulation, resulting in a wide and growing gulf between red and blue states in many different areas of law and custom. This would, in a sense, return the USA to the diversity in law and culture to be found from region to region in the years before the First World War.

 

[Chuz Life]

Roe v. Wade is based on a constitutional right (to privacy) and, as the OP points out, constitutional rights are federal rights. If RvW is overturned and SCOTUS does not assert any constitutional right to abortion, legislation will probably fall back on the vital interest of the state in matters of health. This will result in giving states control over abortion legislation, including the right to ban abortion or to make it very limited in some states.

Should Trump and the hard right continue in power for the next eight years, there will be a considerable number of other retreats in federal legislation and regulation, resulting in a wide and growing gulf between red and blue states in many different areas of law and custom. This would, in a sense, return the USA to the diversity in law and culture to be found from region to region in the years before the First World War.

Do the States have the authority to each define for themselves what a person is and when personhood begins? Yes or no?

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[Lipush]

Just a little reminder folks - abortion is a wide ranging topic that covers a lot of ground - ethics, rights, legal issues, etc. The OP has opted to restrict the discussion to whether the LAW of abortion should be left up to the states if R v. W were overturned - if yes, why or if not, why. So it's pretty narrowly defined so as to keep the discussion focused.

I must say I find this entire subject fascinating. In Israel abortion is something which is hardly discussed. There is the law and it's not under much arguement. So we don't have this kind of awareness and conflict of mind regarding that. So I find in interesting when I hear American's discussing this.

I find the issue very phylosiphic.

 

[Fishlore]

Defining person is problematic for states because of questions about citizenship and constitutional rights which are clearly in the purview of the federal Congress. The states do have a recognized vital interest in public health and long-established authority to regulated medical practices. The Texas abortion restrictions are based on this legal ground. It isn't foolproof but it is a safer way to go than getting into "personhood."

 

[Chuz Life]

Defining person is problematic for states because of questions about citizenship and constitutional rights which are clearly in the purview of the federal Congress. The states do have a recognized vital interest in public health and long-established authority to regulated medical practices. The Texas abortion restrictions are based on this legal ground. It isn't foolproof but it is a safer way to go than getting into "personhood."

And if the SCOTUS rules that personhood begins at conception?

What then?

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[Chuz Life]

Defining person is problematic for states because of questions about citizenship and constitutional rights which are clearly in the purview of the federal Congress. The states do have a recognized vital interest in public health and long-established authority to regulated medical practices. The Texas abortion restrictions are based on this legal ground. It isn't foolproof but it is a safer way to go than getting into "personhood."

And if the SCOTUS rules that personhood begins at conception?

What then?

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Anybody?

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app