The Overturning of Roe v Wade

[Chuz Life]

1. Under any of the fetal homicide laws, can a person be charged with manslaughter or murder for killing a "child in the womb" in "any stage of development" during a criminal act?

Yes or No?

Yes.

Great.

Now, what is the definition of "murder" and or "manslaughter" and how do those definitions NOT establish the personhood of the "child in the womb" that was killed?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

REMINDER: This is in the CDZ and CDZ rules apply.

Countless Elected officials, Legal Experts(sic), Journalists, USMB members /posters, all unceasingly postulate that, in the event that Roe v Wade is ever overturned, the abortion issue would simply "revert back to the States."

I disagree that THAT is necessarily the case.

Here's why.

It all comes down to the specifics of the case that the Supreme Court would consider as a means to challenge Roe.

It also comes down to the ruling / decision(s) of the case and the Opinions given by the Justices in the majority.

For example;

If the Supreme Court takes up a "State's Rights" type case and it all comes down to a State or several State's making the case that they (each State) has the right to decide abortion laws. . . and the Supreme Court agrees, overturns Roe etc. . . Then, YES. In a case like that, I can see it reverting back to the States.

However, what about a case that comes before the Supreme Court (like a Fetal Homicide Law) that centers around the personhood of a "child in the womb" and compels the Supreme Court to reconciles between that which is established in our many Fetal Homicide laws and Roe?

If the Supreme Court of the United States determines that "a child in the womb" in "any stage of development" (as they are recognized and defined in the Fetal Homicide Laws) is a "person." Then, those "persons" (children in the womb) would automatically be entitled to all of the Constitutional rights and protections of any other "person"are entitled to.

No State would have the Constitutional Authority to DENY them their rights except by Due Process of Law.

Can we please have a civil discussion on this?

I think to some degree you are correct. Anti-abortion extremists are hardly likely to let it be decided by states. They seeking their own sweeping federal ruling akin to RvW.

It will be hell for women and their rights during pregnancy, turning pregnancy into a potential legal nightmare and increasing federal involvement into woman’s most intimate decisions. It could also have broad implications for the most effective forms of birth control.

But it might ultimately prove to be an overreach.

It’s at the Federal level that the will of the majority of Americans will be realized – there will always be enough Senate Republicans to join with Democrats to oppose a Federal abortion ban, even in a Senate under Republican control.

Likewise, there’ll be no Constitutional amendment ‘banning’ abortion.

The battle will continue at the state level, moving from the courtroom to the ballot box.

 

[Chuz Life]

Its just my opinion and expectations, but I doubt that the Supreme Court will overturn Roe vs. Wade anytime soon. On the other hand, I would not be surprised if the supreme court allows more restrictions on abortions such as the first 20 weeks of preg. Like it or not, popular public opinion does have an effect on the court. Also, 50 years of precedent has a great effect on the court.

I understand that opinion as it is very realistic.

However, given that the efforts to get the issue back before the courts will continue unabated. . . I have to conclude that it is inevitable that the SCOTUS will one day revisit Roe.

Especially given the conflicts between Roe and the many fetal homicide laws.

It can not be Constitutional for the government to establish a human being in the womb is a "person" in one situation (fetal homicide laws) and at the same time DENY they are a "person" in another situation (abortion laws.)

Sooner or later the SCOTUS will have to be compelled to address that disparity.

 

[Coyote]

1. Under any of the fetal homicide laws, can a person be charged with manslaughter or murder for killing a "child in the womb" in "any stage of development" during a criminal act?

Yes or No?

Yes.

Great.

Now, what is the definition of "murder" and or "manslaughter" and how do those definitions NOT establish the personhood of the "child in the womb" that was killed?

They do not because personhood is not that clear Cut in the law.

Here is one article of interest that tackles it:


CASE WESTERN RESERVE LAW REVIEW [Vol. 60:3
24
This Note shows, however, that laws surrounding personhood do not challenge abortion rights and argues that so-called "fetal rights" laws will not and do not live up to their hype. Contrary to suggestions by advocates on both sides of the abortion debate, when a state confers "personhood" to an unborn human, it does not sound the death knell for reproductive rights. Personhood as conferred through feticide legislation is not the same as natural personhood, and does not garner the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment. Moreover, it is entirely logical for a state to punish the same act (termination of a pregnancy) differently in different circumstances. Abortion by the mother is simply not the same as an unprovoked assault on the fetus by a third party.

This Note begins in Part I by examining the present state of fetal treatment under the law. Currently, fetuses are not persons for the purposes of abortion jurisprudence, but many state laws nevertheless still refer to fetuses as "persons."

Part II illustrates how these seemingly contradictory notions can be reconciled. First, theories of personhood, federalism, and linguistics are examined to demonstrate that constitutional fetal personhood does not exist. Second, Part II discusses more specific ways in which fetal statutes do not conflict with Roe or abortion rights. Namely, fetal laws recognize state interest, not fetal interest. State protection does not imply personhood; states can and do protect non-persons quite often. Feticide laws also do not pit mother against state, as abortion laws do. Rather, the laws logically distinguish between the rights of a pregnant woman and the non-rights of third-party attackers.
Finally, this Note concludes by arguing that feticide laws actually promote reproductive autonomy. The right to carry a child to term is an oft-forgotten corollary of the right to abortion. These laws protect women in that sacred interest.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

REMINDER: This is in the CDZ and CDZ rules apply.

Countless Elected officials, Legal Experts(sic), Journalists, USMB members /posters, all unceasingly postulate that, in the event that Roe v Wade is ever overturned, the abortion issue would simply "revert back to the States."

I disagree that THAT is necessarily the case.

Here's why.

It all comes down to the specifics of the case that the Supreme Court would consider as a means to challenge Roe.

It also comes down to the ruling / decision(s) of the case and the Opinions given by the Justices in the majority.

For example;

If the Supreme Court takes up a "State's Rights" type case and it all comes down to a State or several State's making the case that they (each State) has the right to decide abortion laws. . . and the Supreme Court agrees, overturns Roe etc. . . Then, YES. In a case like that, I can see it reverting back to the States.

However, what about a case that comes before the Supreme Court (like a Fetal Homicide Law) that centers around the personhood of a "child in the womb" and compels the Supreme Court to reconciles between that which is established in our many Fetal Homicide laws and Roe?

If the Supreme Court of the United States determines that "a child in the womb" in "any stage of development" (as they are recognized and defined in the Fetal Homicide Laws) is a "person." Then, those "persons" (children in the womb) would automatically be entitled to all of the Constitutional rights and protections of any other "person"are entitled to.

No State would have the Constitutional Authority to DENY them their rights except by Due Process of Law.

Can we please have a civil discussion on this?

I think to some degree you are correct. Anti-abortion extremists are hardly likely to let be decided by states. They seeking their own sweeping federal ruling akin to RvW.

It will be hell for women and their rights during pregnancy, turning pregnancy into a potential legal nightmare and increasing federal involvement into woman’s most I time t decisions. It could also have broad implications for the most effective forms of birth control.

But it might ultimately prove to be an overreach.

Can we agree or can we not agree that the common ground should be "when does a child's life and rights begin?"

If that is not to be the common ground then all other efforts and conversations on the sucbject are futile.

Agree?

Yes, we can agree.

Ok, to that point. . . can you agree that our nations more than 30 State and Fetal Homicide laws are already establishing that point to a large and certain degree. Can we also agree that those laws conflict with Roe and other decisions that (for now) keep abortions legal?

On the first, no.
On the second..not really. Women have the right to terminate their own pregnancies. No one has the right to do it for them. Against their will.

No?

That's funny.

How does the charge of "Homicide" or "Murder" under a fetal homicide law NOT establish the fact that the "child in the womb" that was killed is a "person" under the law?

Fetal ‘homicide’ laws are a red herring, having nothing to do with the right to privacy and the restrictions the right places on the states.

 

[Faun]

Its just my opinion and expectations, but I doubt that the Supreme Court will overturn Roe vs. Wade anytime soon. On the other hand, I would not be surprised if the supreme court allows more restrictions on abortions such as the first 20 weeks of preg. Like it or not, popular public opinion does have an effect on the court. Also, 50 years of precedent has a great effect on the court.

I understand that opinion as it is very realistic.

However, given that the efforts to get the issue back before the courts will continue unabated. . . I have to conclude that it is inevitable that the SCOTUS will one day revisit Roe.

Especially given the conflicts between Roe and the many fetal homicide laws.

It can not be Constitutional for the government to establish a human being in the womb is a "person" in one situation (fetal homicide laws) and at the same time DENY they are a "person" in another situation (abortion laws.)

Sooner or later the SCOTUS will have to be compelled to address that disparity.

If the unborn are persons, each state would have to count unborn towards their respective number of representatives. That doesn't happen. If they're persons, they have to be paid welfare if they would otherwise qualify as a born child. That doesn't happen. All miscarriages would have to be treated, and investigated, as potential homicide. That doesn't happen. They would have to be issued social security numbers upon contraception. That doesn't happen. Parents of unborn would be eligible for tax breaks as though they were born. That doesn't happen. There is no regard for unborn to be considered persons. That has never been established in this country.

 

[Coyote]

No

REMINDER: This is in the CDZ and CDZ rules apply.

Countless Elected officials, Legal Experts(sic), Journalists, USMB members /posters, all unceasingly postulate that, in the event that Roe v Wade is ever overturned, the abortion issue would simply "revert back to the States."

I disagree that THAT is necessarily the case.

Here's why.

It all comes down to the specifics of the case that the Supreme Court would consider as a means to challenge Roe.

It also comes down to the ruling / decision(s) of the case and the Opinions given by the Justices in the majority.

For example;

If the Supreme Court takes up a "State's Rights" type case and it all comes down to a State or several State's making the case that they (each State) has the right to decide abortion laws. . . and the Supreme Court agrees, overturns Roe etc. . . Then, YES. In a case like that, I can see it reverting back to the States.

However, what about a case that comes before the Supreme Court (like a Fetal Homicide Law) that centers around the personhood of a "child in the womb" and compels the Supreme Court to reconciles between that which is established in our many Fetal Homicide laws and Roe?

If the Supreme Court of the United States determines that "a child in the womb" in "any stage of development" (as they are recognized and defined in the Fetal Homicide Laws) is a "person." Then, those "persons" (children in the womb) would automatically be entitled to all of the Constitutional rights and protections of any other "person"are entitled to.

No State would have the Constitutional Authority to DENY them their rights except by Due Process of Law.

Can we please have a civil discussion on this?

I think to some degree you are correct. Anti-abortion extremists are hardly likely to let be decided by states. They seeking their own sweeping federal ruling akin to RvW.

It will be hell for women and their rights during pregnancy, turning pregnancy into a potential legal nightmare and increasing federal involvement into woman’s most I time t decisions. It could also have broad implications for the most effective forms of birth control.

But it might ultimately prove to be an overreach.

Can we agree or can we not agree that the common ground should be "when does a child's life and rights begin?"

If that is not to be the common ground then all other efforts and conversations on the sucbject are futile.

Agree?

Yes, we can agree.

Ok, to that point. . . can you agree that our nations more than 30 State and Fetal Homicide laws are already establishing that point to a large and certain degree. Can we also agree that those laws conflict with Roe and other decisions that (for now) keep abortions legal?

On the first, no.
On the second..not really. Women have the right to terminate their own pregnancies. No one has the right to do it for them. Against their will.

No?

That's funny.

How does the charge of "Homicide" or "Murder" under a fetal homicide law NOT establish the fact that the "child in the womb" that was killed is a "person" under the law?

Fetal ‘homicide’ laws are a red herring, having nothing to do with the right to privacy and the restrictions the right places on the states.

From what I understand they also do not relate to any rights of the fetus, but rather the rights of the mother vs the non rights of a third party attacker.

 

[Chuz Life]

1. Under any of the fetal homicide laws, can a person be charged with manslaughter or murder for killing a "child in the womb" in "any stage of development" during a criminal act?

Yes or No?

Yes.

Great.

Now, what is the definition of "murder" and or "manslaughter" and how do those definitions NOT establish the personhood of the "child in the womb" that was killed?

They do not because personhood is not that clear Cut in the law.

Here is one article of interest that tackles it:


CASE WESTERN RESERVE LAW REVIEW [Vol. 60:3
24
This Note shows, however, that laws surrounding personhood do not challenge abortion rights and argues that so-called "fetal rights" laws will not and do not live up to their hype. Contrary to suggestions by advocates on both sides of the abortion debate, when a state confers "personhood" to an unborn human, it does not sound the death knell for reproductive rights. Personhood as conferred through feticide legislation is not the same as natural personhood, and does not garner the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment. Moreover, it is entirely logical for a state to punish the same act (termination of a pregnancy) differently in different circumstances. Abortion by the mother is simply not the same as an unprovoked assault on the fetus by a third party.

This Note begins in Part I by examining the present state of fetal treatment under the law. Currently, fetuses are not persons for the purposes of abortion jurisprudence, but many state laws nevertheless still refer to fetuses as "persons."

Part II illustrates how these seemingly contradictory notions can be reconciled. First, theories of personhood, federalism, and linguistics are examined to demonstrate that constitutional fetal personhood does not exist. Second, Part II discusses more specific ways in which fetal statutes do not conflict with Roe or abortion rights. Namely, fetal laws recognize state interest, not fetal interest. State protection does not imply personhood; states can and do protect non-persons quite often. Feticide laws also do not pit mother against state, as abortion laws do. Rather, the laws logically distinguish between the rights of a pregnant woman and the non-rights of third-party attackers.
Finally, this Note concludes by arguing that feticide laws actually promote reproductive autonomy. The right to carry a child to term is an oft-forgotten corollary of the right to abortion. These laws protect women in that sacred interest.

The Author of that opinion is and idiot and the idiocy such as hers is precisely what will be eventually challenged before the Supreme Court.

Take the Federal Fetal Homicide Law, for example.

18 U.S. Code § 1841 - Protection of unborn children

www.law.cornell.edu

The exact language of that law is clear and unambiguous and it provides links / hyper links to the additional laws that are being affected.

QUOTE: "
(C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall instead of being punished under subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections 1111, 1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being."

1111= 18 U.S. Code § 1111. Murder

1112= 18 U.S. Code § 1112. Manslaughter

1113= 18 U.S. Code § 1113. Attempt to commit murder or manslaughter

Click on those links and you will see that the laws being applied do in fact recognize "children in the womb" a natural human beings / persons.

 

[Slade3200]

Its just my opinion and expectations, but I doubt that the Supreme Court will overturn Roe vs. Wade anytime soon. On the other hand, I would not be surprised if the supreme court allows more restrictions on abortions such as the first 20 weeks of preg. Like it or not, popular public opinion does have an effect on the court. Also, 50 years of precedent has a great effect on the court.

I understand that opinion as it is very realistic.

However, given that the efforts to get the issue back before the courts will continue unabated. . . I have to conclude that it is inevitable that the SCOTUS will one day revisit Roe.

Especially given the conflicts between Roe and the many fetal homicide laws.

It can not be Constitutional for the government to establish a human being in the womb is a "person" in one situation (fetal homicide laws) and at the same time DENY they are a "person" in another situation (abortion laws.)

Sooner or later the SCOTUS will have to be compelled to address that disparity.

A fetus isn’t an independent life. It is a life form within another person. It is literally a part of the mother who is growing the life out of her bodies cells. So by killing a mothers unborn you are killing a piece of the mother. For a mother to have an abortion she is taking a piece of herself by her choice. It is indeed a very sensitive and complicated issue

 

[Chuz Life]

A fetus isn’t an independent life. It is a life form within another person. It is literally a part of the mother who is growing the life out of her bodies cells. So by killing a mothers unborn you are killing a piece of the mother. For a mother to have an abortion she is taking a piece of herself by her choice. It is indeed a very sensitive and complicated issue

All of those claims are so easily refuted by even an 8th grade biology teacher.

Possibly by the students as well.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Good news for all born and unborn Dread Scott was also overturned

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Its just my opinion and expectations, but I doubt that the Supreme Court will overturn Roe vs. Wade anytime soon. On the other hand, I would not be surprised if the supreme court allows more restrictions on abortions such as the first 20 weeks of preg. Like it or not, popular public opinion does have an effect on the court. Also, 50 years of precedent has a great effect on the court.

I understand that opinion as it is very realistic.

However, given that the efforts to get the issue back before the courts will continue unabated. . . I have to conclude that it is inevitable that the SCOTUS will one day revisit Roe.

Especially given the conflicts between Roe and the many fetal homicide laws.

It can not be Constitutional for the government to establish a human being in the womb is a "person" in one situation (fetal homicide laws) and at the same time DENY they are a "person" in another situation (abortion laws.)

Sooner or later the SCOTUS will have to be compelled to address that disparity.

A fetus isn’t an independent life. It is a life form within another person. It is literally a part of the mother who is growing the life out of her bodies cells. So by killing a mothers unborn you are killing a piece of the mother. For a mother to have an abortion she is taking a piece of herself by her choice. It is indeed a very sensitive and complicated issue

a prisoner also is not an independent life

 

[Slade3200]

A fetus isn’t an independent life. It is a life form within another person. It is literally a part of the mother who is growing the life out of her bodies cells. So by killing a mothers unborn you are killing a piece of the mother. For a mother to have an abortion she is taking a piece of herself by her choice. It is indeed a very sensitive and complicated issue

All of those claims are so easily refuted by even an 8th grade biology teacher.

Possibly by the students as well.

I disagree

 

[Slade3200]

a prisoner also is not an independent life

Of course they are. They just aren’t free. Nice try but that was a big whiff

 

[bigrebnc1775]

REMINDER: This is in the CDZ and CDZ rules apply.

Countless Elected officials, Legal Experts(sic), Journalists, USMB members /posters, all unceasingly postulate that, in the event that Roe v Wade is ever overturned, the abortion issue would simply "revert back to the States."

I disagree that THAT is necessarily the case.

Here's why.

It all comes down to the specifics of the case that the Supreme Court would consider as a means to challenge Roe.

It also comes down to the ruling / decision(s) of the case and the Opinions given by the Justices in the majority.

For example;

If the Supreme Court takes up a "State's Rights" type case and it all comes down to a State or several State's making the case that they (each State) has the right to decide abortion laws. . . and the Supreme Court agrees, overturns Roe etc. . . Then, YES. In a case like that, I can see it reverting back to the States.

However, what about a case that comes before the Supreme Court (like a Fetal Homicide Law) that centers around the personhood of a "child in the womb" and compels the Supreme Court to reconciles between that which is established in our many Fetal Homicide laws and Roe?

If the Supreme Court of the United States determines that "a child in the womb" in "any stage of development" (as they are recognized and defined in the Fetal Homicide Laws) is a "person." Then, those "persons" (children in the womb) would automatically be entitled to all of the Constitutional rights and protections of any other "person"are entitled to.

No State would have the Constitutional Authority to DENY them their rights except by Due Process of Law.

Can we please have a civil discussion on this?

I think to some degree you are correct. Anti-abortion extremists are hardly likely to let be decided by states. They seeking their own sweeping federal ruling akin to RvW.

It will be hell for women and their rights during pregnancy, turning pregnancy into a potential legal nightmare and increasing federal involvement into woman’s most I time t decisions. It could also have broad implications for the most effective forms of birth control.

But it might ultimately prove to be an overreach.

Can we agree or can we not agree that the common ground should be "when does a child's life and rights begin?"

If that is not to be the common ground then all other efforts and conversations on the sucbject are futile.

Agree?

Yes, we can agree.

Ok, to that point. . . can you agree that our nations more than 30 State and Fetal Homicide laws are already establishing that point to a large and certain degree. Can we also agree that those laws conflict with Roe and other decisions that (for now) keep abortions legal?

On the first, no.
On the second..not really. Women have the right to terminate their own pregnancies. No one has the right to do it for them. Against their will.

No?

That's funny.

How does the charge of "Homicide" or "Murder" under a fetal homicide law NOT establish the fact that the "child in the womb" that was killed is a "person" under the law?

Fetal ‘homicide’ laws are a red herring, having nothing to do with the right to privacy and the restrictions the right places on the states.

Free Scott Peterson on the second count of murder

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Its just my opinion and expectations, but I doubt that the Supreme Court will overturn Roe vs. Wade anytime soon. On the other hand, I would not be surprised if the supreme court allows more restrictions on abortions such as the first 20 weeks of preg. Like it or not, popular public opinion does have an effect on the court. Also, 50 years of precedent has a great effect on the court.

I understand that opinion as it is very realistic.

However, given that the efforts to get the issue back before the courts will continue unabated. . . I have to conclude that it is inevitable that the SCOTUS will one day revisit Roe.

Especially given the conflicts between Roe and the many fetal homicide laws.

It can not be Constitutional for the government to establish a human being in the womb is a "person" in one situation (fetal homicide laws) and at the same time DENY they are a "person" in another situation (abortion laws.)

Sooner or later the SCOTUS will have to be compelled to address that disparity.

A fetus isn’t an independent life. It is a life form within another person. It is literally a part of the mother who is growing the life out of her bodies cells. So by killing a mothers unborn you are killing a piece of the mother. For a mother to have an abortion she is taking a piece of herself by her choice. It is indeed a very sensitive and complicated issue

a prisoner also is not an independent life

Of course they are. They just aren’t free

they aren't independent

 

[Chuz Life]

A fetus isn’t an independent life. It is a life form within another person. It is literally a part of the mother who is growing the life out of her bodies cells. So by killing a mothers unborn you are killing a piece of the mother. For a mother to have an abortion she is taking a piece of herself by her choice. It is indeed a very sensitive and complicated issue

All of those claims are so easily refuted by even an 8th grade biology teacher.

Possibly by the students as well.

I disagree

Under existing fetal homicide laws, How many murders can a person be charged with for killing a pregnant woman?

 

[Slade3200]

Its just my opinion and expectations, but I doubt that the Supreme Court will overturn Roe vs. Wade anytime soon. On the other hand, I would not be surprised if the supreme court allows more restrictions on abortions such as the first 20 weeks of preg. Like it or not, popular public opinion does have an effect on the court. Also, 50 years of precedent has a great effect on the court.

I understand that opinion as it is very realistic.

However, given that the efforts to get the issue back before the courts will continue unabated. . . I have to conclude that it is inevitable that the SCOTUS will one day revisit Roe.

Especially given the conflicts between Roe and the many fetal homicide laws.

It can not be Constitutional for the government to establish a human being in the womb is a "person" in one situation (fetal homicide laws) and at the same time DENY they are a "person" in another situation (abortion laws.)

Sooner or later the SCOTUS will have to be compelled to address that disparity.

A fetus isn’t an independent life. It is a life form within another person. It is literally a part of the mother who is growing the life out of her bodies cells. So by killing a mothers unborn you are killing a piece of the mother. For a mother to have an abortion she is taking a piece of herself by her choice. It is indeed a very sensitive and complicated issue

a prisoner also is not an independent life

Of course they are. They just aren’t free

they aren't independent

Dude, just quit this one. You’re embarrassing yourself

 

[Slade3200]

A fetus isn’t an independent life. It is a life form within another person. It is literally a part of the mother who is growing the life out of her bodies cells. So by killing a mothers unborn you are killing a piece of the mother. For a mother to have an abortion she is taking a piece of herself by her choice. It is indeed a very sensitive and complicated issue

All of those claims are so easily refuted by even an 8th grade biology teacher.

Possibly by the students as well.

I disagree

Under existing fetal homicide laws, How many murders can a person be charged with for killing a pregnant woman?

I don’t know. How many?

 

[Chuz Life]

A fetus isn’t an independent life. It is a life form within another person. It is literally a part of the mother who is growing the life out of her bodies cells. So by killing a mothers unborn you are killing a piece of the mother. For a mother to have an abortion she is taking a piece of herself by her choice. It is indeed a very sensitive and complicated issue

All of those claims are so easily refuted by even an 8th grade biology teacher.

Possibly by the students as well.

I disagree

Under existing fetal homicide laws, How many murders can a person be charged with for killing a pregnant woman?

I don’t know. How many?

I think you are lying to me.