Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Indeed, all "persons." Whether a fetus is a "person" is a political question.
I disagree.
It's primarily a question of science.
Good luck getting a majority of elected officials to agree with "science." It is therefore political, as said science is not codified in the U.S. Constitution.
He's absolutely correct.
With all due respect to Justice Scalia (may he rest in peace) that was the most idiotic thing I ever heard him say.
great, soo ... where did he go wrong?
The most obvious thing he had wrong was the fact that once personhood is established, it's no longer a State by State issue.
As a Supreme Court's Justice. . . he should know better than to suggest that a child could be recognized as a child / person in one State but that same child would be anything less if they were to be taken across the State line.
The same SCOTUS that enacted Roe v. Wade? Could the gay marriage decision have been 15 years ago?This is true, it becomes a question of politics.Like I said, when we have people doing time in prison for the murders of prenatal children. . . It not simply a matter of semantics.
If our fetal homicide laws were only political based, I doubt very much that our supreme Court would be upholding get them as they are today.
I disagree.
It's primarily a question of science.
Good luck getting a majority of elected officials to agree with "science." It is therefore political, as said science is not codified in the U.S. Constitution.
He's absolutely correct.
With all due respect to Justice Scalia (may he rest in peace) that was the most idiotic thing I ever heard him say.
great, soo ... where did he go wrong?
The most obvious thing he had wrong was the fact that once personhood is established, it's no longer a State by State issue.
As a Supreme Court's Justice. . . he should know better than to suggest that a child could be recognized as a child / person in one State but that same child would be anything less if they were to be taken across the State line.
Why? This wouldn't interfere with the politics or commerce of other states at all. People used to cross state lines all the time in order to get an abortion. likewise, if the abortion happened in a state where abortion was not criminalized then the state of residence cannot charge a person for murder committed in another state. I see no conflict. Where is the conflict that would push this up to the Supreme Court?
The same SCOTUS that enacted Roe v. Wade? Could the gay marriage decision have been 15 years ago?This is true, it becomes a question of politics.Like I said, when we have people doing time in prison for the murders of prenatal children. . . It not simply a matter of semantics.
If our fetal homicide laws were only political based, I doubt very much that our supreme Court would be upholding get them as they are today.
Dred Scott orThe same SCOTUS that enacted Roe v. Wade? Could the gay marriage decision have been 15 years ago?This is true, it becomes a question of politics.Like I said, when we have people doing time in prison for the murders of prenatal children. . . It not simply a matter of semantics.
If our fetal homicide laws were only political based, I doubt very much that our supreme Court would be upholding get them as they are today.
I can't think of any era in which our Supreme Court would have upheld a law like a Fetal Homicide law that they felt had nothing more than a political basis.
Can you?
Dred Scott or Korematsu v. United States (Japanese internment)The same SCOTUS that enacted Roe v. Wade? Could the gay marriage decision have been 15 years ago?This is true, it becomes a question of politics.Like I said, when we have people doing time in prison for the murders of prenatal children. . . It not simply a matter of semantics.
If our fetal homicide laws were only political based, I doubt very much that our supreme Court would be upholding get them as they are today.
I can't think of any era in which our Supreme Court would have upheld a law like a Fetal Homicide law that they felt had nothing more than a political basis.
Can you?
I added McDonald v. City of Chicago (2nd amendment).Dred Scott or Korematsu v. United States (Japanese internment)
How exactly were either of those LIKE a fetal Homicide law?
I added McDonald v. City of Chicago (2nd amendment).Dred Scott or Korematsu v. United States (Japanese internment)
How exactly were either of those LIKE a fetal Homicide law?
I think in every case SCOTUS interpreted the Constitution in light of current political atmosphere. None was very good law and two have proven to be an enduring embarrassment to the US claim of freedom and equal protection.
I doubt politics is the only factor, my only point was that constitutional law is NOT the only factor.I added McDonald v. City of Chicago (2nd amendment).Dred Scott or Korematsu v. United States (Japanese internment)
How exactly were either of those LIKE a fetal Homicide law?
I think in every case SCOTUS interpreted the Constitution in light of current political atmosphere. None was very good law and two have proven to be an enduring embarrassment to the US claim of freedom and equal protection.
Politics are always a factor. That's a given and I have not denied that fact.
However, you have not made the case for how our "Fetal Homicide" laws are purely Political.
Neither have you explained why you might think our Supreme Court is only upholding our Fetal Homicide Laws - for political reasons.
I doubt politics is the only factor, my only point was that constitutional law is NOT the only factor.I added McDonald v. City of Chicago (2nd amendment).Dred Scott or Korematsu v. United States (Japanese internment)
How exactly were either of those LIKE a fetal Homicide law?
I think in every case SCOTUS interpreted the Constitution in light of current political atmosphere. None was very good law and two have proven to be an enduring embarrassment to the US claim of freedom and equal protection.
Politics are always a factor. That's a given and I have not denied that fact.
However, you have not made the case for how our "Fetal Homicide" laws are purely Political.
Neither have you explained why you might think our Supreme Court is only upholding our Fetal Homicide Laws - for political reasons.
Unfortunately I only see SCOTUS getting more political not less as the battle over Scalia's replacement shows. This is having a detrimental impact on how we view SCOTUS and their moral authority will diminish as a result.
If they only decided cases based on the law you would be right but since politics comes into it morality is there too.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
I believe they want to ensure those who assault pregnant women get a harsher punishment than they otherwise might. And that is fine by me since I'd guess in the vast majority of cases the pregnant women values what she is carrying and that loss should require extra consideration. Doesn't mean she is necessarily carrying a human life but it does have great value to her.I believe that they agree that there is more merit to the arguments in favor of those (our fetal homicide) laws than only that.
I believe they want to ensure those who assault pregnant women get a harsher punishment than they otherwise might. And that is fine by me since I'd guess in the vast majority of cases the pregnant women values what she is carrying and that loss should require extra consideration. Doesn't mean she is necessarily carrying a human life but it does have great value to her.I believe that they agree that there is more merit to the arguments in favor of those (our fetal homicide) laws than only that.
Good luck getting a majority of elected officials to agree with "science." It is therefore political, as said science is not codified in the U.S. Constitution.
He's absolutely correct.
With all due respect to Justice Scalia (may he rest in peace) that was the most idiotic thing I ever heard him say.
great, soo ... where did he go wrong?
The most obvious thing he had wrong was the fact that once personhood is established, it's no longer a State by State issue.
As a Supreme Court's Justice. . . he should know better than to suggest that a child could be recognized as a child / person in one State but that same child would be anything less if they were to be taken across the State line.
Why? This wouldn't interfere with the politics or commerce of other states at all. People used to cross state lines all the time in order to get an abortion. likewise, if the abortion happened in a state where abortion was not criminalized then the state of residence cannot charge a person for murder committed in another state. I see no conflict. Where is the conflict that would push this up to the Supreme Court?
I think Justice Potter made the most salient point on this, long before Scalia was ever to be a Justice on the court.
He said (and the pro-abortion attorney Sara Weddington agreed) that - "once a State establishes personhood for a human fetus, the case for abortion become nearly impossible to make"
Justice Potter's comment is much more along the lines of a person's Constitutional rights than Justice Scalia's comments were.
With all due respect to Justice Scalia (may he rest in peace) that was the most idiotic thing I ever heard him say.
great, soo ... where did he go wrong?
The most obvious thing he had wrong was the fact that once personhood is established, it's no longer a State by State issue.
As a Supreme Court's Justice. . . he should know better than to suggest that a child could be recognized as a child / person in one State but that same child would be anything less if they were to be taken across the State line.
Why? This wouldn't interfere with the politics or commerce of other states at all. People used to cross state lines all the time in order to get an abortion. likewise, if the abortion happened in a state where abortion was not criminalized then the state of residence cannot charge a person for murder committed in another state. I see no conflict. Where is the conflict that would push this up to the Supreme Court?
I think Justice Potter made the most salient point on this, long before Scalia was ever to be a Justice on the court.
He said (and the pro-abortion attorney Sara Weddington agreed) that - "once a State establishes personhood for a human fetus, the case for abortion become nearly impossible to make"
Justice Potter's comment is much more along the lines of a person's Constitutional rights than Justice Scalia's comments were.
Sure, but finding that a fetus is a person would require congress to pass a "finding of fact." Good luck with that!
great, soo ... where did he go wrong?
The most obvious thing he had wrong was the fact that once personhood is established, it's no longer a State by State issue.
As a Supreme Court's Justice. . . he should know better than to suggest that a child could be recognized as a child / person in one State but that same child would be anything less if they were to be taken across the State line.
Why? This wouldn't interfere with the politics or commerce of other states at all. People used to cross state lines all the time in order to get an abortion. likewise, if the abortion happened in a state where abortion was not criminalized then the state of residence cannot charge a person for murder committed in another state. I see no conflict. Where is the conflict that would push this up to the Supreme Court?
I think Justice Potter made the most salient point on this, long before Scalia was ever to be a Justice on the court.
He said (and the pro-abortion attorney Sara Weddington agreed) that - "once a State establishes personhood for a human fetus, the case for abortion become nearly impossible to make"
Justice Potter's comment is much more along the lines of a person's Constitutional rights than Justice Scalia's comments were.
Sure, but finding that a fetus is a person would require congress to pass a "finding of fact." Good luck with that!
Says who?
Remember, we already have laws that say the criminal killing of a child in the womb is an act of MURDER.
The most obvious thing he had wrong was the fact that once personhood is established, it's no longer a State by State issue.
As a Supreme Court's Justice. . . he should know better than to suggest that a child could be recognized as a child / person in one State but that same child would be anything less if they were to be taken across the State line.
Why? This wouldn't interfere with the politics or commerce of other states at all. People used to cross state lines all the time in order to get an abortion. likewise, if the abortion happened in a state where abortion was not criminalized then the state of residence cannot charge a person for murder committed in another state. I see no conflict. Where is the conflict that would push this up to the Supreme Court?
I think Justice Potter made the most salient point on this, long before Scalia was ever to be a Justice on the court.
He said (and the pro-abortion attorney Sara Weddington agreed) that - "once a State establishes personhood for a human fetus, the case for abortion become nearly impossible to make"
Justice Potter's comment is much more along the lines of a person's Constitutional rights than Justice Scalia's comments were.
Sure, but finding that a fetus is a person would require congress to pass a "finding of fact." Good luck with that!
Says who?
Remember, we already have laws that say the criminal killing of a child in the womb is an act of MURDER.
And when does the fetus become a child in these laws?
Why? This wouldn't interfere with the politics or commerce of other states at all. People used to cross state lines all the time in order to get an abortion. likewise, if the abortion happened in a state where abortion was not criminalized then the state of residence cannot charge a person for murder committed in another state. I see no conflict. Where is the conflict that would push this up to the Supreme Court?
I think Justice Potter made the most salient point on this, long before Scalia was ever to be a Justice on the court.
He said (and the pro-abortion attorney Sara Weddington agreed) that - "once a State establishes personhood for a human fetus, the case for abortion become nearly impossible to make"
Justice Potter's comment is much more along the lines of a person's Constitutional rights than Justice Scalia's comments were.
Sure, but finding that a fetus is a person would require congress to pass a "finding of fact." Good luck with that!
Says who?
Remember, we already have laws that say the criminal killing of a child in the womb is an act of MURDER.
And when does the fetus become a child in these laws?
The Federal Fetal Homicide law says that they are a child in ANY stage of development while in the womb.
