martybegan
Diamond Member
- Apr 5, 2010
- 94,141
- 44,399
- 2,300
Again, were these attempts BEFORE Dobbs, or after.
And a discussion about someone's opinion of something is hardly proper evidence.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Again, were these attempts BEFORE Dobbs, or after.
And a discussion about someone's opinion of something is hardly proper evidence.
For one I never stated that I was providing evidence I am attempting to talk about the legal concept and some of the ramifications of such a law passing.
If you are incapable of discussing concepts instead of concrete laws then just say so
The legal concept has to be based in some reality, or some real desire to pass a full personhood law for a fetus. I've stated that most of these attempts were probably end run strategies around Roe, which are now not needed because Roe is rightfully dead and buried.
I've already stated I think any type of "an adult can't travel from our State to get an abortion" law is unconstitutional, so you know my view on that.
You also know I am not an absolutist on either side. While I would prefer a from conception ban on elective abortions, I know that isn't feasible, so a 12-16 week ban works for me. I don't like the heartbeat laws because they are ambiguous, something I hate in laws.
And fetal personhood laws are being discussed or do you deny that?
![]()
Does a fetus count in the carpool lane? Texas’ abortion law creates new questions about legal personhood
A pregnant Texas woman said her fetus should count as a person in an HOV lane. That legal question is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the thorny question of “personhood.”www.texastribune.org
![]()
Opinion | Wendy Davis: The dangerously hypocritical logic behind America's next big abortion battle
These hypocritical laws could have far-reaching implications, even in states that already restrict abortion. And the misogyny that drives this quest has an insatiable appetite.www.nbcnews.com
![]()
A Brief Guide to Fetal Personhood, the Next Frontier In Anti-Choice Politics
Ending the constitutional right to abortion is not enough for many conservatives, who are likely to push for fetal personhood laws soon.ballsandstrikes.org
that?
So then if it isn;t being currently implemented you are incapable of discussing it.Holy long post space Batman....
It's being discussed of course, but I still don't see it being implemented, and one of the things you linked seems to be some abortion rights snark trying to get Roe conditions back.
So then if it isn;t being currently implemented you are incapable of discussing it.
Just say so
I'm good with abortions for any reason by any sound method up to 16 weeks, with exceptions for the mother's life afterwards, and of course non-viable fetuses being medically removed as safely as possible.
As for sanctity, that's a religious question.
The USSC said so.We have it on record that m14shootr does not consider a woman having an unwanted pregnancy is not protected by the constitution of the United States of America
Never in a million years has USSC said it “does not consider a woman having an unwanted pregnancy is not protected by the Constitution of the United States of America”The USSC said so.
Let;s clear this up.We have it on record that m14shootr ...
What I said is a pregnant woman of 10 weeks is protected by the Constitution. I was making the point that a 10 week fetus is not individually protected by the Constitution. The fetus receives its rights through the mother, not as an individual of its own fundamentally because the fetus at 10 weeks does not have a brain or a neurological system of it’s own.said whatever right a woman has to abort that 10 week pregnancy, it is not protected by the US Constitution..
Sure she is.What I said is a pregnant woman of 10 weeks is protected by the constitution.
No, the court did not actually say that. The court said states have the right to deny her access to a safe and legal medical procedure. However, if she has the means she can travel to another state where abortion is legal, which means she does have a right to an abortion if she has a means to travel. No state thus far that I know of, will go after a resident of the state who travels to get an abortion in another state and then returns home. She still has a right to have an abortion.Sure she is.
Her right to abort that pregnancy is not.
The USSC said so.
Held: The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and CaseyNo, the court did not actually say that.
And that right is not protected by the Constitution.She still has a right to have an abortion.
Just shows you don't need guns to mass murder, and if by some miracle you get guns to disappear cars can be just as deadly.
Wrong. We have differing definitions of multiple things across the States.
Leave it up to the States to figure it out.
Um, yeah, I don't want to live in the Mad Max Thunderdome shit you guys want to live in.That's not a real choice, and it's the sign of a police state.
libertarianism (small l) is about clear laws, less laws, and more local laws.
The Constitution does not deny the right to an abortion as well. it is silent,, she still has a right to an abortion in states where religious majorities do not ban it.Held: The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey
are overruled;
Irrelevant to what I said.The Constitution does not deny the right to an abortion as well.
It is still a right and Republicans are clearly exposed to be the Party against individual freedom for taking away a right in white Christian dominated states that women have had for 50 years.The right to an abortion is not protected by the Constitution.
....not protected by the Constitution.