CDZ Abortion laws should be left up to the States

[D Truth]

oops

 

[D Truth]

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.

I disagree.

With the exception of federal agents, homicide is State jurisdiction.
Or...are you arguing any homicide should be subject to federal criminal code?

 

[D Truth]

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.

The so called "fetus" is human, more so it is a baby human. I realize you prefer to use that word as an effort to dehumanize the baby. Never the less, killing the baby is killing a human.

While your religious belief that a baby is somehow magically made human by your tribal god at the moment of birth, modern reason and common sense presents overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

You do realize this isn't some stone age desert tribal discussion right?

Simply put...
Just because you have religious beliefs contrary to basic biological facts does not change the facts.
The Talmud is not a biology text.

 

[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.

I disagree.

With the exception of federal agents, homicide is State jurisdiction.
Or...are you arguing any homicide should be subject to federal criminal code?

I am saying that no State has the right to legalize murder. Why? Because 'all persons have a Constitutional right to the equal protections of our laws

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

 

[D Truth]

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.

I disagree.

With the exception of federal agents, homicide is State jurisdiction.
Or...are you arguing any homicide should be subject to federal criminal code?

I am saying that no State has the right to legalize murder. Why? Because 'all persons have a Constitutional right to the equal protections of our laws

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

Interesting.
You still appear to be arguing that homicide is the jurisdiction of the federal government, not exactly a constitutional argument.
That is not to say you have no argument, if you are one who wishes to redefine the nature of states rights.

Is it fair to say that our argument is not necessarily over the absurd religious "abortion ruling" the federal government used to usurp state rights, rather it is over the concept of states rights itself?

 

[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.

I disagree.

With the exception of federal agents, homicide is State jurisdiction.
Or...are you arguing any homicide should be subject to federal criminal code?

I am saying that no State has the right to legalize murder. Why? Because 'all persons have a Constitutional right to the equal protections of our laws

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

Interesting.
You still appear to be arguing that homicide is the jurisdiction of the federal government, not exactly a constitutional argument.
That is not to say you have no argument, if you are one who wishes to redefine the nature of states rights.

Is it fair to say that our argument is not necessarily over the absurd religious "abortion ruling" the federal government used to usurp state rights, rather it is over the concept of states rights itself?

I don't know why you are so confused about this. Yes, murders are for the most part up to the States to prosecute.

However, can a State legalize murder if it wanted to?

No?

Why not?

Is it maybe because doing so would violate the Constitutionall rights of those PERSONS killed?

HMMMMMM.

So, if/when the Supreme Court decides that personhood begins at conception and they decide that children in the womb are entitled to the EQUAL protections of our laws. . .

You tell me how a State (any State) could make the killing of those persons LEGAL.

I can hardly wait for someone to explain how that works.

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

 

[PK1]

The part we are NOT trying to change is the definitions ...

I'm curious. why do you care about another family's embryo? Zygote?
How does someone else's personal & private issues affect your life?

I can't give a long answer to this on my phone but I have many many responses to that question. Including some questions of my own, like why DON'T YOU care? ...
I finally realized and accepted the fact that a child's life begins at and by conception when I couldn't intellectually and honestly maintain that denial anymore. ...

So, you adopted a belief that a zygote, someone else's zygote, is more important than the grown human life carrying it? I simply disagree; i do not believe that.
WHY DON'T I CARE?
First, i do NOT believe an embryo, and especially a zygote, have much human value in comparison to a born baby. Half the zygotes are aborted naturally in the developmental process, often without the woman knowing it. That's nature.
Secondly, i recognize people vary in their beliefs, and i respect individual liberty, i.e., others have their right to choose their pregnancy option, as my wife or daughter have their own rights based on their own beliefs.
If you want to "save" human lives, there are plenty of very unfortunate miserable born babies & children out there that you can assist.

 

[grbb]

Encourage women to pick the rich. Then we will see much less abortion.

 

[there4eyeM]

An amendment to the Constitution guaranteeing women's rights would settle the issue.

 

[Chuz Life]

An amendment to the Constitution guaranteeing women's rights would settle the issue.

Not unless the legislators were first able to prove that a prenatal child is not a person nor entitled to any rights or protections, it wouldn't.

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

 

[there4eyeM]

A constitutional amendment that says one has final say in the processes of one's body should suffice.
.

 

[Chuz Life]

A constitutional amendment that says one has final say in the processes of one's body should suffice.
.

The child would then have a right to have the same protections for the processes taking place in their body too.

Wouldn't it.

Supreme Court Justice Potter had it right. Once a child in the womb is established as a person, the case for allowing abortions becomes near impossible to make. And Sarah Weddington, attorney for "Jane Roe" agreed.



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

 

[there4eyeM]

Next, people will want to sue their mother for not having had a brother for them to play with. What about a husband that wants a child with a wife that doesn't; he could force her with that logic. After all, she is already holding the egg that his sperm would fertilize. It is alive in there, and she won't let it out? By what right does she deny that possible person to be born and become a baby?

 

[Chuz Life]

The part we are NOT trying to change is the definitions ...

I'm curious. why do you care about another family's embryo? Zygote?
How does someone else's personal & private issues affect your life?

I can't give a long answer to this on my phone but I have many many responses to that question. Including some questions of my own, like why DON'T YOU care? ...
I finally realized and accepted the fact that a child's life begins at and by conception when I couldn't intellectually and honestly maintain that denial anymore. ...

So, you adopted a belief that a zygote, someone else's zygote, is more important than the grown human life carrying it? I simply disagree; i do not believe that.
WHY DON'T I CARE?
First, i do NOT believe an embryo, and especially a zygote, have much human value in comparison to a born baby. Half the zygotes are aborted naturally in the developmental process, often without the woman knowing it. That's nature.
Secondly, i recognize people vary in their beliefs, and i respect individual liberty, i.e., others have their right to choose their pregnancy option, as my wife or daughter have their own rights based on their own beliefs.
If you want to "save" human lives, there are plenty of very unfortunate miserable born babies & children out there that you can assist.

1. I don't factor any values to human lives in ANY condition or stage of development into my positions. The Constitution says "equal" so equal it is.

That said, try telling a couple who has spent tens of thousands of dollars on IVF processes to finally get pregnant- that their tiny child in his/her zygote or embryonic state has no value or less value than any other human being has.

2. Yes people die. In most cases naturally. We still have laws to protect them from being killed unjustly. I (for one) support those laws and that principle. The variations in people's beliefs not withstanding. One person's belief that a violent rape (for example) is just sex or no more than a pat on the back would not make such an act any less of a violation to the person being raped.



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

 

[Chuz Life]

Next, people will want to sue their mother for not having had a brother for them to play with. What about a husband that wants a child with a wife that doesn't; he could force her with that logic. After all, she is already holding the egg that his sperm would fertilize. It is alive in there, and she won't let it out? By what right does she deny that possible person to be born and become a baby?

You clearly don't understand or appreciate difference between the potential for a child to exist (preconceptions) and a child post conception that is the result of that potential having been realized.

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

 

[Mudda]

Abortion should be left up to the individual, as it is now.

 

[there4eyeM]

At least it has been demonstrated to others that the reasoning about all this demands a great deal more rigor and honesty.

 

[Chuz Life]

At least it has been demonstrated to others that the reasoning about all this demands a great deal more rigor and honesty.

I would like to meet the person who has dealt with this issue more rigorously and with more honesty than I have.

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

 

[D Truth]

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.

I disagree.

With the exception of federal agents, homicide is State jurisdiction.
Or...are you arguing any homicide should be subject to federal criminal code?

I am saying that no State has the right to legalize murder. Why? Because 'all persons have a Constitutional right to the equal protections of our laws

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

Interesting.
You still appear to be arguing that homicide is the jurisdiction of the federal government, not exactly a constitutional argument.
That is not to say you have no argument, if you are one who wishes to redefine the nature of states rights.

Is it fair to say that our argument is not necessarily over the absurd religious "abortion ruling" the federal government used to usurp state rights, rather it is over the concept of states rights itself?

I don't know why you are so confused about this. Yes, murders are for the most part up to the States to prosecute.

However, can a State legalize murder if it wanted to?

No?

Why not?

Is it maybe because doing so would violate the Constitutionall rights of those PERSONS killed?

HMMMMMM.

So, if/when the Supreme Court decides that personhood begins at conception and they decide that children in the womb are entitled to the EQUAL protections of our laws. . .

You tell me how a State (any State) could make the killing of those persons LEGAL.

I can hardly wait for someone to explain how that works.

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

States do have the right to make homicide legal, it's called the death penalty.

There is no need for some special federal law to usurp the states rights, this whole "personhood" argument is an exercise in ridiculousness. It's bullshit religious debate, no basis in fact. Just the old "well my religion says a person is a person at the magical time they are born" vs. "well my religion says a person is a person when there is a detectable heartbeat" vs. some more stone age crap. While some of these opinions and propaganda techniques are more accurate than others... the fact is that the baby is a living human being. Basic feckin' biology.
When the baby is killed, it is homicide. No need for the religious/philosophical jackasses when you already have settled facts.

You seem genuine in your argument, I believe that you may be a bit misguided is all.
Or... maybe you are a'shillin for the federal government to usurp more power and somehow legitimize this whole personhood bullshit via argumentum ad populum.

I think it is more the former than the latter... but we will see.

 

[Chuz Life]

I almost reported this post because I feel you are pushing the limits for clean debate here (below) but I want to address some of the things you said.

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.

I disagree.

With the exception of federal agents, homicide is State jurisdiction.
Or...are you arguing any homicide should be subject to federal criminal code?

I am saying that no State has the right to legalize murder. Why? Because 'all persons have a Constitutional right to the equal protections of our laws

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

Interesting.
You still appear to be arguing that homicide is the jurisdiction of the federal government, not exactly a constitutional argument.
That is not to say you have no argument, if you are one who wishes to redefine the nature of states rights.

Is it fair to say that our argument is not necessarily over the absurd religious "abortion ruling" the federal government used to usurp state rights, rather it is over the concept of states rights itself?

I don't know why you are so confused about this. Yes, murders are for the most part up to the States to prosecute.

However, can a State legalize murder if it wanted to?

No?

Why not?

Is it maybe because doing so would violate the Constitutionall rights of those PERSONS killed?

HMMMMMM.

So, if/when the Supreme Court decides that personhood begins at conception and they decide that children in the womb are entitled to the EQUAL protections of our laws. . .

You tell me how a State (any State) could make the killing of those persons LEGAL.

I can hardly wait for someone to explain how that works.

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

States do have the right to make homicide legal, it's called the death penalty.

That's a topic for another thread and since convicted criminals facing a death penalty get Constitutional rights, trials, appeals and due process and children in the womb are not afforded the same... I have to think you were only being facetious with that.

There is no need for some special federal law to usurp the states rights, this whole "personhood" argument is an exercise in ridiculousness. It's bullshit religious debate, no basis in fact. Just the old "well my religion says a person is a person at the magical time they are born" vs. "well my religion says a person is a person when there is a detectable heartbeat" vs. some more stone age crap. While some of these opinions and propaganda techniques are more accurate than others...

STOP!

Wait a minute.

You just said all of that - to essentially 'poison the well' and to ridicule the 'personhood' position. . .

And then you added this:

the fact is that the baby is a living human being. Basic feckin' biology. When the baby is killed, it is homicide. No need for the religious / philosophical jackasses when you already have settled facts.

Wow.

Where to begin

Personhood matters to the debate because the Constitution matters to the debate. NOT because some religion says so. I agree with you that religion doesn't / shouldn't have ANYTHING to do with it.

Like you said, it is "Basic feckin' biology" that a child ("baby") in the womb is "a human being."

Guess what!?!

That is also what makes it a "person."

This is a LEGAL debate we are having and LEGAL definitions matter. The Constitution matters and whether you like it or not, "personhood matters."

The LEGAL definition of a "person" is simply what YOU already acknowledged yourself. "a human being."

Natural Person:

n. a real human being, as distinguished from a corporation which
is often treated at law as a fictitious person.

n. a human being, as opposed to an artificial or legal person like a company.​

See?

No religion or philosophy necessary.

Just like you said, it's "Basic feckin' biology."

You seem genuine in your argument, I believe that you may be a bit misguided is all. Or... maybe you are a'shillin for the federal government to usurp more power and somehow legitimize this whole personhood bullshit via argumentum ad populum.

I think it is more the former than the latter... but we will see.

Thank you for helping me make the legal case for the personhood status of children in the womb. Your personal attacks not withstanding.