The Overturning of Roe v Wade

Coyote

Varmint
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
86,057
Reaction score
19,356
Points
2,180
Location
in between
Fetal homicide laws do not recognize fetal rights.

Furthermore, fetal laws do not challenge abortion rights because, although each act results in the same end (the destruction of the fetus), the actor is different in each scenario. Feticide laws and the right to abortion are based on the rights of the actor, not the rights of the object. In each scenario, the actor is a different person with a different set of rights. With abortion, the woman, through her authorized doctor, is the actor. With fetal murder, a third person, who does not have the same rights as the woman, is the actor.

Throughout the law, when different actors engage in exactly the same behavior, one may get penalized while the other may not. The reason is because Actor A may have affirmative rights to act in a certain way, whereas Actor B has no rights to perform the same act.

...The law says that the woman can abort her fetus, but a third party abuser cannot. Is this hypocrisy? Is it legal schizophrenia? Do the limitations on the aggressor somehow imply limitations on the mother? No, no, and no.

The permissions of the mother and the limitations on the criminal depend on the rights of the respective parties, not the rights of the object being acted upon. Roe grants the mother alone the right to consent to abortion. She, and only she, holds that right. An abusive third party does not. We need not assume that limitations on a criminal abuser create constitutional fetal personhood. They mean nothing more than the simple fact that different actors have different rights; a third party bad actor has no right to terminate someone else's pregnancy.

This idea has been used again and again by courts to quash equal protection challenges to fetal murder laws. Criminal and civil defendants, when faced with charges of either feticide or fetal wrongful death, often plead that the charges are a violation of equal protection.
 
OP
Chuz Life

Chuz Life

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2015
Messages
8,132
Reaction score
2,312
Points
275
Location
USA
Fetal homicide laws do not recognize fetal rights.

Furthermore, fetal laws do not challenge abortion rights because, although each act results in the same end (the destruction of the fetus), the actor is different in each scenario. Feticide laws and the right to abortion are based on the rights of the actor, not the rights of the object. In each scenario, the actor is a different person with a different set of rights. With abortion, the woman, through her authorized doctor, is the actor. With fetal murder, a third person, who does not have the same rights as the woman, is the actor.

Throughout the law, when different actors engage in exactly the same behavior, one may get penalized while the other may not. The reason is because Actor A may have affirmative rights to act in a certain way, whereas Actor B has no rights to perform the same act.

...The law says that the woman can abort her fetus, but a third party abuser cannot. Is this hypocrisy? Is it legal schizophrenia? Do the limitations on the aggressor somehow imply limitations on the mother? No, no, and no.

The permissions of the mother and the limitations on the criminal depend on the rights of the respective parties, not the rights of the object being acted upon. Roe grants the mother alone the right to consent to abortion. She, and only she, holds that right. An abusive third party does not. We need not assume that limitations on a criminal abuser create constitutional fetal personhood. They mean nothing more than the simple fact that different actors have different rights; a third party bad actor has no right to terminate someone else's pregnancy.

This idea has been used again and again by courts to quash equal protection challenges to fetal murder laws. Criminal and civil defendants, when faced with charges of either feticide or fetal wrongful death, often plead that the charges are a violation of equal protection.

Please explain how a person can be charged with MURDER if the person (child in the womb) they kill has no rights AGAINST being murdered.

"Gloria Feldt, President of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, described the federal Unborn Victim's of Violence Act as "part of a deceptive anti-choice strategy to make women's bodies mere vessels by creating legal personhood for the fetus."
 
Last edited:

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
126,795
Reaction score
13,028
Points
2,220
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
Can I get you to expound on that?

All it takes for Roe to be overturned is for the majority of the Supreme Court to rule on a case to make it so.

Are you suggesting that the Supreme Court should favor popular opinions over scientific facts and the Constitution?
actually, what they should consider is practicality. Laws only really work if the vast majority supports them.

Most people believe that murder is wrong. (Murder of real human beings, not Cleetus the Fetus). Therefore homicide laws can be enforced. People will report it. Police will bother to investigate. Prosecutors will prosecute and juries will convict.

If you get a law passed most people think is kind of stupid, then enforcement becomes difficult. Case in point, Prohibition. The Religious nuts who pushed it managed to sneak the 18th Amendment through during World War I by tying it to the war effort and anti-German sentiment. But when people realized that the nutters were serious about banning all alcohol, it became a mess that bolstered organized crime, corrupted government on the local level, and became kind of a national joke before they repealed it with the 22nd Amendment.

So you could possibly get abortion criminalized, but then you'd have to enforce it. People won't rat out their neighbors. Police will find better things to do with their time. Prosecutors, especially in liberal jurisdictions where most people live, will not bother to bring cases.

I'll tell you straight up, if I ever found myself on a jury in an abortion case, I wouldn't care if you had video of the abortion provider performing the deed and slam dunking little Cleetus into a medical waste bin. I'd still vote to acquit.

Again, what you don't get is that by 1973, the abortion laws that were on the books were already dead letter. The laws weren't being enforced, investigated or prosecuted unless it was an extreme case. Women went to their OB/GYN's, and they wrote something like "Uterine scraping" on the medical charts. The court was merely doing what the legislatures didn't have the guts to do.
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
126,795
Reaction score
13,028
Points
2,220
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
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?
Nope. The beginning point should be, "Can this law be practically enforced?"
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
126,795
Reaction score
13,028
Points
2,220
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
Please explain how a person can be charged with MURDER if the person (child in the womb) they kill has no rights AGAINST being murdered.

"Gloria Feldt, President of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, described the federal Unborn Victim's of Violence Act as "part of a deceptive anti-choice strategy to make women's bodies mere vessels by creating legal personhood for the fetus."
And one more time.

Purvi Patel.

Ms. Feldt has a point. You people can't be trusted.
 

Coyote

Varmint
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
86,057
Reaction score
19,356
Points
2,180
Location
in between
Fetal homicide laws do not recognize fetal rights.

Furthermore, fetal laws do not challenge abortion rights because, although each act results in the same end (the destruction of the fetus), the actor is different in each scenario. Feticide laws and the right to abortion are based on the rights of the actor, not the rights of the object. In each scenario, the actor is a different person with a different set of rights. With abortion, the woman, through her authorized doctor, is the actor. With fetal murder, a third person, who does not have the same rights as the woman, is the actor.

Throughout the law, when different actors engage in exactly the same behavior, one may get penalized while the other may not. The reason is because Actor A may have affirmative rights to act in a certain way, whereas Actor B has no rights to perform the same act.

...The law says that the woman can abort her fetus, but a third party abuser cannot. Is this hypocrisy? Is it legal schizophrenia? Do the limitations on the aggressor somehow imply limitations on the mother? No, no, and no.

The permissions of the mother and the limitations on the criminal depend on the rights of the respective parties, not the rights of the object being acted upon. Roe grants the mother alone the right to consent to abortion. She, and only she, holds that right. An abusive third party does not. We need not assume that limitations on a criminal abuser create constitutional fetal personhood. They mean nothing more than the simple fact that different actors have different rights; a third party bad actor has no right to terminate someone else's pregnancy.

This idea has been used again and again by courts to quash equal protection challenges to fetal murder laws. Criminal and civil defendants, when faced with charges of either feticide or fetal wrongful death, often plead that the charges are a violation of equal protection.

Please explain how a person can be charged with MURDER if the person (child in the womb) they kill has no rights AGAINST being murdered.

"Gloria Feldt, President of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, described the federal Unborn Victim's of Violence Act as "part of a deceptive anti-choice strategy to make women's bodies mere vessels by creating legal personhood for the fetus."
If I understand it correctly, it Is not tbe fetus th
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?
Nope. The beginning point should be, "Can this law be practically enforced?"
They attempt to...and the result is a horrific loss of rights for the woman.

The Impact of Fetal Protection Laws on Women
A 2013 study by the National Advocates for Pregnant Women (NAPW) identified 413 criminal and civil cases involving the arrest, detention and deprivation of liberty of pregnant women between 1973 and 2005.12 New data indicates that 250 such interventions have occurred since 2005.13 In almost all the cases identified, the woman would not have been prosecuted for any crime, had she not been pregnant at the time of the violation.14 Since 1973, measures that have encouraged state actors to treat eggs, embryos and fetuses as entities separate from the mother have been used as the basis for punitive action against women all over the country (although disproportionately against women in the south, low-income women and African American women.)15 Following are five cases in which women were targeted for actions taken during their pregnancy.

Laura Pemberton, a resident of Florida, had previously delivered a baby by C-section. When she became pregnant again, she attempted to find a physician that would allow her to deliver vaginally. Unable to do so, Pemberton decided to give birth with the assistance of a midwife. On January 13, 1996, after a day of labor, she decided that she needed to go to the hospital. Upon arrival she requested only an IV so that she could return home and finish the delivery. Instead, the hospital set in motion a process used for patients who declined medically necessary treatment. A hearing was held where two doctors testified that vaginal delivery would pose a substantial risk of uterine rupture, resulting in the death of the baby. Ms. Pemberton, who had since returned home, was forced to return to the hospital against her will. Although lawyers argued on behalf of the fetus, Pemberton and her husband were not afforded legal counsel, but were “allowed to express their views.”16 The judge ordered that a caesarean section be performed. Later, when she sued for a violation of her civil rights, a court ruled that the state’s interest in preserving the life of the fetus outweighed her rights.17 She went on to give birth vaginally to three more children.

In 2010, Samantha Burton was 25 weeks pregnant and began showing signs of miscarrying. Her doctor advised that she go on bed rest, possibly until delivery, but Burton had two toddlers and a job. She planned on getting a second opinion, but the doctor asked the state to step in. She was ordered to remain at the hospital and undergo any medical treatment that her doctor, acting in the interest of the fetus, deemed necessary.18 She asked to switch hospitals, but the court denied her request. Three days later, Burton miscarried.

In 2011, Chinese immigrant Bei Bei Shuai, who was 30 weeks pregnant, attempted suicide by swallowing rat poison. The father of the baby had broken off his relationship with Shuai, who then became desperate. She survived and went to the hospital, complying with all medical staff. She then gave birth to a baby girl, who did not survive. Prior to her suicide attempt, Shuai had left a note to the father stating she was going to kill herself and take the child with her. Under Indiana law, it is a crime to knowingly or intentionally kill a viable fetus. Prosecutors used this to argue that she had intended to kill the baby. However, the molecular structure of the rat poison ingested does not easily cross the placenta, and it is not clear that this is the reason the baby died.19 In fact, Indomethacin, the medicine given to Shuai to prevent her from having contractions, can cause hemorrhages in babies.20 The forensic pathologist testified that she had done no research to determine whether the rat poison or medications killed the baby. Shuai was imprisoned for over a year until the charges were dropped and she plead guilty to criminal recklessness.

In 2013, Alicia Beltran, 28, went in for a prenatal checkup and revealed to a health-care provider that she previously had a drug addiction to the painkiller Percocet. The prior fall, she willed herself off the drug. She then obtained Suboxone, a medicine that blocks opiates and is often used in pregnancy, which she stopped taking three days before her appointment. A urine test found traces of Suboxone, but no other opiates, and three days later another test came back completely clean. Two weeks later, a social worker visited Beltran’s home and demanded that she either restart Suboxone treatment or face a court order to do so. On July 18, she was taken into custody under a 1998 Wisconsin law that allows child-welfare authorities to forcibly confine a pregnant woman who uses drugs or alcohol to a severe degree and refuses treatment (Minnesota, South Dakota and Oklahoma have similar laws in place).21 Her fetus was appointed a legal guardian, although her pleas for a lawyer were ignored. She spent 78-days at a drug treatment center, losing her job in the process.
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
126,795
Reaction score
13,028
Points
2,220
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
They attempt to...and the result is a horrific loss of rights for the woman.
Thank you for those examples. Another one would be Purvi Patel, who had a miscarriage, and even though they couldn't prove she induced an abortion, was still imprisoned for years for fetal homicide.

The problem with "Fetal homicide" laws is that they are the proverbial Trojan Horse. Of course, everyone wants a guy who beats a pregnant woman so bad she miscarries to be punished. But the religious nutters will try to sneak in the back door what they can't get in through the front.
 
OP
Chuz Life

Chuz Life

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2015
Messages
8,132
Reaction score
2,312
Points
275
Location
USA
Fetal homicide laws do not recognize fetal rights.

Furthermore, fetal laws do not challenge abortion rights because, although each act results in the same end (the destruction of the fetus), the actor is different in each scenario. Feticide laws and the right to abortion are based on the rights of the actor, not the rights of the object. In each scenario, the actor is a different person with a different set of rights. With abortion, the woman, through her authorized doctor, is the actor. With fetal murder, a third person, who does not have the same rights as the woman, is the actor.

Throughout the law, when different actors engage in exactly the same behavior, one may get penalized while the other may not. The reason is because Actor A may have affirmative rights to act in a certain way, whereas Actor B has no rights to perform the same act.

...The law says that the woman can abort her fetus, but a third party abuser cannot. Is this hypocrisy? Is it legal schizophrenia? Do the limitations on the aggressor somehow imply limitations on the mother? No, no, and no.

The permissions of the mother and the limitations on the criminal depend on the rights of the respective parties, not the rights of the object being acted upon. Roe grants the mother alone the right to consent to abortion. She, and only she, holds that right. An abusive third party does not. We need not assume that limitations on a criminal abuser create constitutional fetal personhood. They mean nothing more than the simple fact that different actors have different rights; a third party bad actor has no right to terminate someone else's pregnancy.

This idea has been used again and again by courts to quash equal protection challenges to fetal murder laws. Criminal and civil defendants, when faced with charges of either feticide or fetal wrongful death, often plead that the charges are a violation of equal protection.

Please explain how a person can be charged with MURDER if the person (child in the womb) they kill has no rights AGAINST being murdered.

"Gloria Feldt, President of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, described the federal Unborn Victim's of Violence Act as "part of a deceptive anti-choice strategy to make women's bodies mere vessels by creating legal personhood for the fetus."
If I understand it correctly, it Is not tbe fetus th
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?
Nope. The beginning point should be, "Can this law be practically enforced?"
They attempt to...and the result is a horrific loss of rights for the woman.

The Impact of Fetal Protection Laws on Women
A 2013 study by the National Advocates for Pregnant Women (NAPW) identified 413 criminal and civil cases involving the arrest, detention and deprivation of liberty of pregnant women between 1973 and 2005.12 New data indicates that 250 such interventions have occurred since 2005.13 In almost all the cases identified, the woman would not have been prosecuted for any crime, had she not been pregnant at the time of the violation.14 Since 1973, measures that have encouraged state actors to treat eggs, embryos and fetuses as entities separate from the mother have been used as the basis for punitive action against women all over the country (although disproportionately against women in the south, low-income women and African American women.)15 Following are five cases in which women were targeted for actions taken during their pregnancy.

Laura Pemberton, a resident of Florida, had previously delivered a baby by C-section. When she became pregnant again, she attempted to find a physician that would allow her to deliver vaginally. Unable to do so, Pemberton decided to give birth with the assistance of a midwife. On January 13, 1996, after a day of labor, she decided that she needed to go to the hospital. Upon arrival she requested only an IV so that she could return home and finish the delivery. Instead, the hospital set in motion a process used for patients who declined medically necessary treatment. A hearing was held where two doctors testified that vaginal delivery would pose a substantial risk of uterine rupture, resulting in the death of the baby. Ms. Pemberton, who had since returned home, was forced to return to the hospital against her will. Although lawyers argued on behalf of the fetus, Pemberton and her husband were not afforded legal counsel, but were “allowed to express their views.”16 The judge ordered that a caesarean section be performed. Later, when she sued for a violation of her civil rights, a court ruled that the state’s interest in preserving the life of the fetus outweighed her rights.17 She went on to give birth vaginally to three more children.

In 2010, Samantha Burton was 25 weeks pregnant and began showing signs of miscarrying. Her doctor advised that she go on bed rest, possibly until delivery, but Burton had two toddlers and a job. She planned on getting a second opinion, but the doctor asked the state to step in. She was ordered to remain at the hospital and undergo any medical treatment that her doctor, acting in the interest of the fetus, deemed necessary.18 She asked to switch hospitals, but the court denied her request. Three days later, Burton miscarried.

In 2011, Chinese immigrant Bei Bei Shuai, who was 30 weeks pregnant, attempted suicide by swallowing rat poison. The father of the baby had broken off his relationship with Shuai, who then became desperate. She survived and went to the hospital, complying with all medical staff. She then gave birth to a baby girl, who did not survive. Prior to her suicide attempt, Shuai had left a note to the father stating she was going to kill herself and take the child with her. Under Indiana law, it is a crime to knowingly or intentionally kill a viable fetus. Prosecutors used this to argue that she had intended to kill the baby. However, the molecular structure of the rat poison ingested does not easily cross the placenta, and it is not clear that this is the reason the baby died.19 In fact, Indomethacin, the medicine given to Shuai to prevent her from having contractions, can cause hemorrhages in babies.20 The forensic pathologist testified that she had done no research to determine whether the rat poison or medications killed the baby. Shuai was imprisoned for over a year until the charges were dropped and she plead guilty to criminal recklessness.

In 2013, Alicia Beltran, 28, went in for a prenatal checkup and revealed to a health-care provider that she previously had a drug addiction to the painkiller Percocet. The prior fall, she willed herself off the drug. She then obtained Suboxone, a medicine that blocks opiates and is often used in pregnancy, which she stopped taking three days before her appointment. A urine test found traces of Suboxone, but no other opiates, and three days later another test came back completely clean. Two weeks later, a social worker visited Beltran’s home and demanded that she either restart Suboxone treatment or face a court order to do so. On July 18, she was taken into custody under a 1998 Wisconsin law that allows child-welfare authorities to forcibly confine a pregnant woman who uses drugs or alcohol to a severe degree and refuses treatment (Minnesota, South Dakota and Oklahoma have similar laws in place).21 Her fetus was appointed a legal guardian, although her pleas for a lawyer were ignored. She spent 78-days at a drug treatment center, losing her job in the process.
No amount of fear mongering, even when based upon actual events will ever change a single biological fact.

Neither will any amount of fear mongering change what the Constitution says.

Therefore, my efforts and the efforts of others to see that our laws are changed to reflect those facts will continue unabated.
 
Last edited:

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
68,094
Reaction score
11,420
Points
2,060
Fetal homicide laws do not recognize fetal rights.

Furthermore, fetal laws do not challenge abortion rights because, although each act results in the same end (the destruction of the fetus), the actor is different in each scenario. Feticide laws and the right to abortion are based on the rights of the actor, not the rights of the object. In each scenario, the actor is a different person with a different set of rights. With abortion, the woman, through her authorized doctor, is the actor. With fetal murder, a third person, who does not have the same rights as the woman, is the actor.

Throughout the law, when different actors engage in exactly the same behavior, one may get penalized while the other may not. The reason is because Actor A may have affirmative rights to act in a certain way, whereas Actor B has no rights to perform the same act.

...The law says that the woman can abort her fetus, but a third party abuser cannot. Is this hypocrisy? Is it legal schizophrenia? Do the limitations on the aggressor somehow imply limitations on the mother? No, no, and no.

The permissions of the mother and the limitations on the criminal depend on the rights of the respective parties, not the rights of the object being acted upon. Roe grants the mother alone the right to consent to abortion. She, and only she, holds that right. An abusive third party does not. We need not assume that limitations on a criminal abuser create constitutional fetal personhood. They mean nothing more than the simple fact that different actors have different rights; a third party bad actor has no right to terminate someone else's pregnancy.

This idea has been used again and again by courts to quash equal protection challenges to fetal murder laws. Criminal and civil defendants, when faced with charges of either feticide or fetal wrongful death, often plead that the charges are a violation of equal protection.

Please explain how a person can be charged with MURDER if the person (child in the womb) they kill has no rights AGAINST being murdered.

"Gloria Feldt, President of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, described the federal Unborn Victim's of Violence Act as "part of a deceptive anti-choice strategy to make women's bodies mere vessels by creating legal personhood for the fetus."
If I understand it correctly, it Is not tbe fetus th
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?
Nope. The beginning point should be, "Can this law be practically enforced?"
They attempt to...and the result is a horrific loss of rights for the woman.

The Impact of Fetal Protection Laws on Women
A 2013 study by the National Advocates for Pregnant Women (NAPW) identified 413 criminal and civil cases involving the arrest, detention and deprivation of liberty of pregnant women between 1973 and 2005.12 New data indicates that 250 such interventions have occurred since 2005.13 In almost all the cases identified, the woman would not have been prosecuted for any crime, had she not been pregnant at the time of the violation.14 Since 1973, measures that have encouraged state actors to treat eggs, embryos and fetuses as entities separate from the mother have been used as the basis for punitive action against women all over the country (although disproportionately against women in the south, low-income women and African American women.)15 Following are five cases in which women were targeted for actions taken during their pregnancy.

Laura Pemberton, a resident of Florida, had previously delivered a baby by C-section. When she became pregnant again, she attempted to find a physician that would allow her to deliver vaginally. Unable to do so, Pemberton decided to give birth with the assistance of a midwife. On January 13, 1996, after a day of labor, she decided that she needed to go to the hospital. Upon arrival she requested only an IV so that she could return home and finish the delivery. Instead, the hospital set in motion a process used for patients who declined medically necessary treatment. A hearing was held where two doctors testified that vaginal delivery would pose a substantial risk of uterine rupture, resulting in the death of the baby. Ms. Pemberton, who had since returned home, was forced to return to the hospital against her will. Although lawyers argued on behalf of the fetus, Pemberton and her husband were not afforded legal counsel, but were “allowed to express their views.”16 The judge ordered that a caesarean section be performed. Later, when she sued for a violation of her civil rights, a court ruled that the state’s interest in preserving the life of the fetus outweighed her rights.17 She went on to give birth vaginally to three more children.

In 2010, Samantha Burton was 25 weeks pregnant and began showing signs of miscarrying. Her doctor advised that she go on bed rest, possibly until delivery, but Burton had two toddlers and a job. She planned on getting a second opinion, but the doctor asked the state to step in. She was ordered to remain at the hospital and undergo any medical treatment that her doctor, acting in the interest of the fetus, deemed necessary.18 She asked to switch hospitals, but the court denied her request. Three days later, Burton miscarried.

In 2011, Chinese immigrant Bei Bei Shuai, who was 30 weeks pregnant, attempted suicide by swallowing rat poison. The father of the baby had broken off his relationship with Shuai, who then became desperate. She survived and went to the hospital, complying with all medical staff. She then gave birth to a baby girl, who did not survive. Prior to her suicide attempt, Shuai had left a note to the father stating she was going to kill herself and take the child with her. Under Indiana law, it is a crime to knowingly or intentionally kill a viable fetus. Prosecutors used this to argue that she had intended to kill the baby. However, the molecular structure of the rat poison ingested does not easily cross the placenta, and it is not clear that this is the reason the baby died.19 In fact, Indomethacin, the medicine given to Shuai to prevent her from having contractions, can cause hemorrhages in babies.20 The forensic pathologist testified that she had done no research to determine whether the rat poison or medications killed the baby. Shuai was imprisoned for over a year until the charges were dropped and she plead guilty to criminal recklessness.

In 2013, Alicia Beltran, 28, went in for a prenatal checkup and revealed to a health-care provider that she previously had a drug addiction to the painkiller Percocet. The prior fall, she willed herself off the drug. She then obtained Suboxone, a medicine that blocks opiates and is often used in pregnancy, which she stopped taking three days before her appointment. A urine test found traces of Suboxone, but no other opiates, and three days later another test came back completely clean. Two weeks later, a social worker visited Beltran’s home and demanded that she either restart Suboxone treatment or face a court order to do so. On July 18, she was taken into custody under a 1998 Wisconsin law that allows child-welfare authorities to forcibly confine a pregnant woman who uses drugs or alcohol to a severe degree and refuses treatment (Minnesota, South Dakota and Oklahoma have similar laws in place).21 Her fetus was appointed a legal guardian, although her pleas for a lawyer were ignored. She spent 78-days at a drug treatment center, losing her job in the process.
No amount of fear mongering, even when based upon actual events will ever change a single biological fact.

Neither will any amount of fear mongering change what the Constitution says.

Therefore, my efforts and the efforts of others to see that our laws are changed to reflect those facts will continue unabated.
The Constitution does not say the unborn are persons.
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
126,795
Reaction score
13,028
Points
2,220
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
No amount of fear mongering, even when based upon actual events will ever change a single biological fact.

Neither will any amount of fear mongering change what the Constitution says.

Therefore, my efforts and the efforts of others to see that our laws are changed to reflect those facts will continue unabated.
No amount of religious nutbaggery will change the fact that if a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, she will find a way to not be pregnant.

And no one wants to live in a police state with the government up your whoo-ha.
 
OP
Chuz Life

Chuz Life

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2015
Messages
8,132
Reaction score
2,312
Points
275
Location
USA
The Constitution does not say the unborn are persons.
True.

However, the Constitution does say "all persons" are entitled to the EQUAL protections of our laws.

That is pretty damn inclusive.

Inclusive enough to include "children in the womb in any stage of development?"

I think it is.
 

WEATHER53

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
10,695
Reaction score
2,954
Points
290
It’s a coarse statement but it’s true to the bone
Abortion will not become illegal because too many white guys of means use it. Very few dads want their 18 year old daughter to be forced to deliver a baby due to her weekend at the beach with Jamaica Joe.

You liberals have nothing to worry about. Not because of you but because of Us.
 
OP
Chuz Life

Chuz Life

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2015
Messages
8,132
Reaction score
2,312
Points
275
Location
USA
It’s a coarse statement but it’s true to the bone
Abortion will not become illegal because too many white guys of means use it. Very few dads want their 18 year old daughter to be forced to deliver a baby due to her weekend at the beach with Jamaica Joe.

You liberals have nothing to worry about. Not because of you but because of Us.
Isn't it up to the Supreme Court?

Doesn't the Supreme Court have a duty to adhere to the facts and uphold the Constitution?
 

WEATHER53

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
10,695
Reaction score
2,954
Points
290
It’s a coarse statement but it’s true to the bone
Abortion will not become illegal because too many white guys of means use it. Very few dads want their 18 year old daughter to be forced to deliver a baby due to her weekend at the beach with Jamaica Joe.

You liberals have nothing to worry about. Not because of you but because of Us.
Isn't it up to the Supreme Court?

Doesn't the Supreme Court have a duty to adhere to the facts and uphold the Constitution?
Since it’s already the law of the land someone would have to file a case that makes it all the way to the Supremes that it needs to be overturned.
The Supreme Cout does not initiate a hearing on it by themself

It’s mostly another faked emotive liberal hoax method
 
OP
Chuz Life

Chuz Life

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2015
Messages
8,132
Reaction score
2,312
Points
275
Location
USA
Since it’s already the law of the land someone would have to file a case that makes it all the way to the Supremes that it needs to be overturned.
The Supreme Cout does not initiate a hearing on it by themself

It’s mostly another faked emotive liberal hoax method
I know for a fact that some States have held off on laws that would challenge Roe because they perceived a Supreme Court minority in their favor.

That is about to change.
 

WEATHER53

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
10,695
Reaction score
2,954
Points
290
More assumptive fake worst case scenario peddling by liberals
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
126,795
Reaction score
13,028
Points
2,220
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
True.

However, the Constitution does say "all persons" are entitled to the EQUAL protections of our laws.

That is pretty damn inclusive.

Inclusive enough to include "children in the womb in any stage of development?"

I think it is.
Only if you live in a fantasy world where "globs of tissue" are persons. Most people don't think they are.

When you are giving globby more rights than the woman he is inside, then that's kind of messed up.
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
126,795
Reaction score
13,028
Points
2,220
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
Isn't it up to the Supreme Court?

Doesn't the Supreme Court have a duty to adhere to the facts and uphold the Constitution?
Actually, SCOTUS has a duty to makes sure laws are practical.

The reason why Roe was ruled on was because these laws on the books were unworkable and largely being ignored by 1973. They probably never thought it would be as controversial as it is.
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
68,094
Reaction score
11,420
Points
2,060
The Constitution does not say the unborn are persons.
True.

However, the Constitution does say "all persons" are entitled to the EQUAL protections of our laws.

That is pretty damn inclusive.

Inclusive enough to include "children in the womb in any stage of development?"

I think it is.
The Constitution says, "all persons," in terms of "born" people.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
 

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
126,795
Reaction score
13,028
Points
2,220
Location
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
I think you're projecting. Also I don't think you see why many men are for abortion. They don't want the responsibility or accountability. Many men want to be able to screw around as much as they want, use women, and of course abortion-on-demand allows them to get rid of the "mistake" instead of being responsible for their own actions like a real man.

Your position enables that behavior.
Quite the contrary, the reasons I support a woman's right to choose (as a man, I have no say in the matter once I've donated my sperm) are as follows.

1) If a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, she will find a way to not be pregnant.
2) If abortion is outlawed, you will have a bunch of shady characters performing them.
3) To make abortion laws work, you would not only have to investigate every abortion, you'd have to investigate every miscarriage as a potential homicide.

To put that number in perspective. Right now, the US has 19,000 homicides a year, (way too many for an advanced civilization) of which the police manage to solve about 60% of them. If you criminalize abortion, you will have to investigate 900,000 abortions and almost as many miscarriages as homicides... I'm really not sure how you do that without turning America into a police state with no right to privacy at all.

For instance, right now, your doctor can't turn you in for using Drugs. That would be a violation of HIPAA. You'd have to abolish HIPAA if you wanted to enforce an abortion ban. Doctors would have to report when their patients are pregnant.

It gets worse. Once you've established fetal personhood, a miscarriage might well become a homicide. Eating the wrong kind of food or smoking while pregnant would be considered assault.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top