The Overturning of Roe v Wade

[badger2]

In post #23, the idea is giving more rights to the fetus than the mother, but there is never an instant when the DNA of the fetus is not alive, which is a constitutional contradiction. The life of the fetus is always already preemptively living, even before conception, even as it lives in schizoid contemplation of adjoinment.

 

[JoeB131]

In post #23, the idea is giving more rights to the fetus than the mother, but there is never an instant when the DNA of the fetus is not alive, which is a constitutional contradiction. The life of the fetus is always already preemptively living, even before conception, even as it lives in schizoid contemplation of adjoinment.

Okay, that made little or no sense.

Again, it's not just the questionable issue of giving rights to fetuses, it's taking rights away from women. It's essentially letting a fetus hold her hostage for nine months of her life.

 

[BWK]

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?

Mississippi just fumbled the ball in this exchange.

 

[Penelope]

All I can hear is "my body, my choice" by the republicans.

 

[BWK]

All I can hear is "my body, my choice" by the republicans.

Exactly! A bunch of hypocrites.

 

[BWK]

In post #23, the idea is giving more rights to the fetus than the mother, but there is never an instant when the DNA of the fetus is not alive, which is a constitutional contradiction. The life of the fetus is always already preemptively living, even before conception, even as it lives in schizoid contemplation of adjoinment.

Huh?

 

[Rigby5]

In post #23, the idea is giving more rights to the fetus than the mother, but there is never an instant when the DNA of the fetus is not alive, which is a constitutional contradiction. The life of the fetus is always already preemptively living, even before conception, even as it lives in schizoid contemplation of adjoinment.

All cells have DNA and are alive, including moles you have removed.
Life is not sacred or significant at all.
Sentience is all that is important, and a fetus is not sentient.
Nor was Teri Schievo, or any person in a permanent vegetative state, so can legally be terminated.
That is because science sets the value of life on sentience, not being merely alive.
Anyone who does not get his is medically ignorant and legislators who still try to violate these medical facts, are illegally trying to practice medicine without a license.

 

[Rigby5]

Malignant cancers are alive.
They are an independent life, working towards their own goals.
But clearly we terminate them because they interfere with the rights and goals of the host they are killing.

 

[Faun]

All cells have DNA and are alive, including moles you have removed.
Life is not sacred or significant at all.
Sentience is all that is important, and a fetus is not sentient.
Nor was Teri Schievo, or any person in a permanent vegetative state, so can legally be terminated.
That is because science sets the value of life on sentience, not being merely alive.
Anyone who does not get his is medically ignorant and legislators who still try to violate these medical facts, are illegally trying to practice medicine without a license.

Your analogy to Terri Shiavo is a fail. Unlike an unborn, Terri was allowed to die because she had no chance of ever being sentient again.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Please Explain How. . . If and when the Supreme Court were to decide that a "child in the womb" in "any stage of development" is a "person". . . That one State could (Constitutionally) embrace that decision and another could Constitutionally DENY it.

Explain how Scott Peterson can be charged and convicted for killing his wife and unborn child?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Malignant cancers are alive.
They are an independent life, working towards their own goals.
But clearly we terminate them because they interfere with the rights and goals of the host they are killing.

But cancer is not a human

 

[Rigby5]

Your analogy to Terri Shiavo is a fail. Unlike an unborn, Terri was allowed to die because she had no chance of ever being sentient again.

Yes there is a difference you point out, but the similarity is that neither Teri nor an unconscious fetus cares any more or yet.
The point is sentience is all that is of value, and if we are going to talk about "potential". then each sperm and ovum has that same potential.
Do you want to save each sperm and ovum?

 

[Rigby5]

Explain how Scott Peterson can be charged and convicted for killing his wife and unborn child?

Because the courts are wrong, sentimental, and religous.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Because the courts are wrong, sentimental, and religous.

On my moral ground do you make this claim?

 

[Rigby5]

But cancer is not a human

Either is an unborn fetus.
The line has to be drawn somewhere, and I choose sentience as the demarcation.
If you choose less, then is the blastosphere a human, an ovum, a sperm, etc.?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Either is an unborn fetus.
The line has to be drawn somewhere, and I choose sentience as the demarcation.
If you choose less, then is the blastosphere a human, an ovum, a sperm, etc.?

It's still a human conception

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It's still a human conception

Egg alone is not a human vice versa sperm alone is not a human it takes both.

 

[Rigby5]

On my moral ground do you make this claim?

An unborn is not conscious, sentient, or self aware.
It is just a collection of cells.
Our ethics are not arbitrary, but come from what worked over the millions of years of evolution.
And a fetus is not historically considered a full human.
In fact, most societies do not really consider born children to be fully human for years.

 

[Rigby5]

It's still a human conception

A "human conception" is just potenital, and of no more significance than an ovum or sperm.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

An unborn is not conscious, sentient, or self aware.
It is just a collection of cells.
Our ethics are not arbitrary, but come from what worked over the millions of years of evolution.
And a fetus is not historically considered a full human.
In fact, most societies do not really consider born children to be fully human for years.

An unborn does feel pain at a certain point 6 weeks I believe. it does have a soul