# The Overturning of Roe v Wade



## Chuz Life (Sep 27, 2020)

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?


----------



## candycorn (Sep 27, 2020)

Chuz Life said:


> 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."
> 
> ...


The issue with letting States decide is the same problem you run into with mixed race marriages, gay marriages, etc...  If you're married in Maine, you're still married if you move to Montana.  Outlawing medical procedures in a patch-work way is not likely to happen because the reasoning would have to be uniform in all of the states where it is outlawed.  I can see blue states sabotaging the red states to a degree on this.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Sep 27, 2020)

Roe is not getting overturned


----------



## Chuz Life (Sep 27, 2020)

candycorn said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > REMINDER: This is in the CDZ and CDZ rules apply.
> ...



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.


----------



## Oddball (Sep 27, 2020)

Chuz Life said:


> 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."
> 
> ...


The Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific is a tricky thing.


There is ample evidence to show that the clerks who transcribed and codified it were the ones who bastardized the meaning of the word "person".

Properly applied or not, if the USSC rules that a zygote is just as much a "person" as are the legal fictions known as "corporations", "trusts", "governments", etcetera, then all bets are off.

I'd love to be a witness to this argument before the court.


----------



## Chuz Life (Sep 27, 2020)

Oddball said:


> The Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific is a tricky ruling.
> 
> There is ample evidence to show that the clerks who transcribed and codified it were the ones who bastardized the meaning of the word "person".
> 
> ...



Same here.

Especially considering the language and precedents established in the nations more than 30 State and Federal "Fetal *Homicide* Laws."


----------



## candycorn (Sep 27, 2020)

Chuz Life said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...



That is my point...its either an all or nothing proposition.  Either abortion will be legal everywhere or illegal everywhere. 

If it is made illegal everywhere, you may well have a situation that Johnson faced in civil rights where a landmark piece of legislation transforms the electorate. Given that women are more than 53% of the population at this point and 90+ percent of catholic women practice some form of contraception...it may not be a political win for Conservatives long term.


----------



## Chuz Life (Sep 27, 2020)

candycorn said:


> That is my point...its either an all or nothing proposition.  Either abortion will be legal everywhere or illegal everywhere.
> 
> If it is made illegal everywhere, you may well have a situation that Johnson faced in civil rights where a landmark piece of legislation transforms the electorate. Given that women are more than 53% of the population at this point and 90+ percent of catholic women practice some form of contraception...it may not be a political win for Conservatives long term.



Thanks for staying on point with the OP.

Personally, I believe the facts are the facts, the Constitution says what it says about "persons" and their rights and beyond that, I don't really care about what the political fallout might be.


----------



## Oddball (Sep 27, 2020)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Roe is not getting overturned


You can't say that with any certainty.


----------



## Chuz Life (Sep 27, 2020)

For Reference; This is from the text of Roe v Wade itself (also in my signature)

The *(anti-abortion)* appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. *If this suggestion of personhood is established, the (pro-abortion) appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the (14th) Amendment.* *The appellant conceded as much on reargument.* - *Roe v. Wade*

Our Nation's more than 30 State and Federal Fetal Homicide Laws do exactly that.

They "ESTABLISH" the personhood of "Children in the Womb" in "Any stage of Development."

So much so, that the Fetal Homicide Laws, so far, have to make EXCEPTIONS to themselves to prevent them from being used to prosecute elective abortions.

*Remove those exceptions* and what will we have left, but an outright ban on abortions.


----------



## fncceo (Sep 27, 2020)

Roe V Wade has always been on shaky ground legally.  It is based on the 14th Amendment right to (medical privacy) and makes no determination as to the human status of a fetus.

The current COVID situation has made it pretty clear that our rights to medical privacy are easily removed and not Constitutionally protected.  Without a 'carved in stone' right to medical privacy, RVW is subject to interpretation.

Only seven states have no laws regarding foeticide.  Most states regard the unlawful termination of a foetus to be equivalent to homicide.


----------



## buttercup (Sep 27, 2020)

candycorn said:


> Given that women are more than 53% of the population at this point and 90+ percent of catholic women practice some form of contraception...it may not be a political win for Conservatives long term.



Correct me if I'm misunderstanding you, but you seem to be implying that women in general support abortion, more so than men. If so, that's a common assumption, but it is not true. 

According to a 2019 Gallup poll on values and beliefs, 51% of women consider themselves to be pro-life, compared with 46% of men who identify as pro-life.


----------



## candycorn (Sep 27, 2020)

buttercup said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Given that women are more than 53% of the population at this point and 90+ percent of catholic women practice some form of contraception...it may not be a political win for Conservatives long term.
> ...



The poll reminds me of the often repeated poll that says Americans want to see more documentaries and fine arts programming on television.  It sounds good when you answer the poll question...not so good when you see the reality on the ground.


----------



## buttercup (Sep 27, 2020)

candycorn said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



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.


----------



## candycorn (Sep 27, 2020)

buttercup said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > buttercup said:
> ...



My position on a poll enables behavior?


----------



## Chuz Life (Sep 27, 2020)

Back to the subject of the OP.

I'm really interested in knowing what the arguments are or what the explanation for how and why it would revert back to the States as so many people claim.


----------



## buttercup (Sep 27, 2020)

candycorn said:


> buttercup said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Your position on abortion, I thought my point was clear and obvious.


----------



## Muhammed (Sep 27, 2020)

fncceo said:


> Roe V Wade has always been on shaky ground legally.


Just like Scott v. Sanford, the Democrats present the absurd argument that some people are not actually people.


----------



## Chuz Life (Sep 27, 2020)

fncceo said:


> Roe V Wade has always been on shaky ground legally.  It is based on the 14th Amendment right to (medical privacy) and makes no determination as to the human status of a fetus.




Here is the complete text of the 14th Amendment.


*AMENDMENT XIV
SECTION 1*
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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

*SECTION 2*
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

*SECTION 3*
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

*SECTION 4 *
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

*SECTION 5*
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Comment: Doesn't the 14th more clearly speak to the rights that "all persons" have to their LIVES and the equal protections of our laws than it does to a so called right to privacy?

The most ludicrous thing is that the so called right to privacy is actually being used to shield the DENIAL of all the other 14th Amendment rights to "children in the womb."

It can not stand forever.


----------



## Chuz Life (Sep 27, 2020)

Muhammed said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> > Roe V Wade has always been on shaky ground legally.
> ...



I'm going to check that out.


----------



## candycorn (Sep 27, 2020)

buttercup said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > buttercup said:
> ...


My position is to support a person's right to privacy in medical decisions.


----------



## Penelope (Sep 27, 2020)

buttercup said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > buttercup said:
> ...



and another polls says from Gallup:








						Majority in U.S. Still Want Abortion Legal, With Limits
					

Americans' views on abortion remain steady, with most wanting abortion legal with some restrictions. More say they will only vote for like-minded candidates.




					news.gallup.com


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 27, 2020)

Chuz Life said:


> Can we please have a civil discussion on this?



I'm going to take away your rights and force millions of women to have dangerous procedures, can we have a civil conversation on this?  

Um, no.  

This is exactly what the court has been avoiding for 50 years.   It's why Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter and Roberts  have all voted to uphold Roe. Because they know what an absolute disaster it would be if even SOME states outlawed abortion.  

I've already pointed out the problems (which you've ignored) in the granting of civil rights to fetuses.  That every woman who had a miscarriage would now be treated as a criminal suspect.  Did you do something to cause the miscarriage? Are we going to treat tampons as crime scenes?  





*Law and Order: Tampon Police*

Could a woman who smoked, drank a glass of wine or even ate the wrong kinds of food during a pregnancy be charged with assault?  

Could women be banned from certain jobs because of potential harm to a fetus? 

You've essentially given fetuses more rights than the women they are inside. 



Chuz Life said:


> Our Nation's more than 30 State and Federal Fetal Homicide Laws do exactly that.
> 
> They "ESTABLISH" the personhood of "Children in the Womb" in "Any stage of Development."



And we've already seen how these laws have been abused to go after women who had miscarriages, like Purvi Patel, who spent years in prison because she lost a pregnancy.


----------



## alang1216 (Sep 27, 2020)

Chuz Life said:


> 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."
> 
> ...


Since the Constitution doesn't define 'person' I don't think the court will rule on a definition of personhood.  I'm fairly sure there was no real discussion of what constitutes a 'person' in the era of the founding fathers.  They may strike down RvW but they won't replace it with something new so it will go back to the states.

I'm not well versed in this subject but my understanding is that personhood laws are aimed at prosecuting crimes against pregnant women.  If they are used by states for other reasons a serious can of worms will be opened.


----------



## Flash (Sep 27, 2020)

To me the Roe v Wade was a ridiculous ruling, like on the same level of the Dred Scott decision.

Ruling that a woman has the Constitutional right to kill her child for the sake of convenience was absolutely unbelievable.

It should be overturn.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 27, 2020)

Flash said:


> To me the Roe v Wade was a ridiculous ruling, like on the same level of the Dred Scott decision.
> 
> Ruling that a woman has the Constitutional right to kill her child for the sake of convenience was absolutely unbelievable.
> 
> It should be overturn.



You see, you suffer from the misconception about Roe that America was a happy, abortion-free place before 1973.

Exactly the opposite was true.  By 1973, most women who had unwanted pregnancies went to their OB/GYN and he performed the abortion and wrote something else down on the chart.  Insurance happily paid for this, because they knew it was cheaper. 

Pre-Roe, women were never arrested for having abortions and providers were never prosecuted for performing them unless they screwed up and injured the woman.  In short, abortion laws were kind of like prostitution laws- they were on the books, but you had no problem finding one if you wanted one. 

When the Seven Justices - Including FIVE Nixon and Eisenhower appointees - voted for Roe and more importantly, Doe v. Boland, which was issued on the same day, they thought it was no more controversial than when they struck down the outdated contraception laws in _Griswold v. Connecticut_ .  So what happened?

Well, the Christian Right did.  Before Roe, the Evangelicals and Southern Baptists considered contraception and abortion to be a "Catholic thing" they didn't care that much about.  They were more concerned with keeping the darkies out of their churches.  When segregation wasn't playing too well, they needed an issue to get asses back into pews, and lo and behold, abortion became a big issue.  

Up until Trump, Republicans have had the good sense to realize that it would be a disaster if Roe were overturned and this issue got back into the legislative arena.  That's why more Republican Justices have voted to maintain Roe (Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Roberts) than have voted to overturn it (Scalia, Thomas, Alito).   It is only because Trump is more interested in throwing red meat to his base than actually maintaining balance that we've gotten absolute fanatics on the court (Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and now Barrett.)


----------



## JoeMoma (Sep 27, 2020)

Chuz Life said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > Roe is not getting overturned
> ...


Mods have opinions just like the rest of us.


----------



## JoeMoma (Sep 27, 2020)

There needs to be a drastic swing in public opinion in order for Roe vs. Wade to be overturned.


----------



## Flash (Sep 27, 2020)

JoeMoma said:


> There needs to be a drastic swing in public opinion in order for Roe vs. Wade to be overturned.




Public sentiment is that abortions should be allowed for legitimate medical reasons but not the killing of children for the sake of convenience.


----------



## Pilate (Sep 27, 2020)

Chuz Life said:


> 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."
> 
> ...


Yeah, makes sense. But that’s why the court is very selective about what cases it hears.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 27, 2020)

JoeMoma said:


> There needs to be a drastic swing in public opinion in order for Roe vs. Wade to be overturned.



Does it?  The right wing has kind of shown they don't give a darn about public opinion, they are going to just try to jam as many of their policies down our throats as they can. 



Flash said:


> Public sentiment is that abortions should be allowed for legitimate medical reasons but not the killing of children for the sake of convenience.



Actually, not true at all.  Most people think abortion should be legal in all or most cases, and that abortions laws should either be make more permissive or left as they are.


----------



## Meister (Sep 27, 2020)

candycorn said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


If the court would overturn RvW, that would kick it back to having the states deal with it being legal or illegal.


----------



## Chuz Life (Sep 27, 2020)

Meister said:


> If the court would overturn RvW, that would kick it back to having the states deal with it being legal or illegal.



Oh my gawd.

Here we are full circle again.

Did you not even read the OP Or any of the early posts before this thread was trolled and derailed?


----------



## Faun (Sep 27, 2020)

Chuz Life said:


> For Reference; This is from the text of Roe v Wade itself (also in my signature)
> 
> The *(anti-abortion)* appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. *If this suggestion of personhood is established, the (pro-abortion) appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the (14th) Amendment.* *The appellant conceded as much on reargument.* - *Roe v. Wade*
> 
> ...


Nothing in the 14th Amendment defines unborn as persons.


----------



## Chuz Life (Sep 27, 2020)

Faun said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > For Reference; This is from the text of Roe v Wade itself (also in my signature)
> ...



That's true and I'll take your point a step further and admit that when the 14th was written, there was NO intention of including "children in the womb."

Guess what happened since then to bolster the anticipations of former Supreme Court Justices like Potter Stewart.


Here's a hint: State Laws on Fetal Homicide and Penalty-enhancement for Crimes Against Pregnant Women


----------



## Chuz Life (Sep 27, 2020)

JoeMoma said:


> There needs to be a drastic swing in public opinion in order for Roe vs. Wade to be overturned.



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?


----------



## Chuz Life (Sep 27, 2020)

Pilate said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > REMINDER: This is in the CDZ and CDZ rules apply.
> ...



To your point, could you imagine being a person convicted under a fetal homicide law, for something like drinking and driving and accidentally killing a "child in the womb?"

In a world where abortion is (for now) "legal" and the laws both DENY personhood to children in the womb (abortion laws) and establish it at the same time (fetal homicide laws). . . You can safely bet that I would be appealing my case all the way up to the Supreme Court.


----------



## Coyote (Sep 27, 2020)

Chuz Life said:


> 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 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.


----------



## Faun (Sep 27, 2020)

Chuz Life said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...


Great, well since there's nothing in the Constitution to establish unborn are persons, the option on the table for the Supreme Court is to rule infant homicide laws are unconstitutional.


----------



## Chuz Life (Sep 27, 2020)

Coyote said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > REMINDER: This is in the CDZ and CDZ rules apply.
> ...



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?


----------



## Coyote (Sep 27, 2020)

Chuz Life said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...


Yes, we can agree.


----------



## Chuz Life (Sep 27, 2020)

Coyote said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



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?


----------



## Slade3200 (Sep 27, 2020)

Chuz Life said:


> 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."
> 
> ...


SCOTUS rules on the constitutionality of laws, right? Is there currently a federal law proposing to make Abortions an act of murder/homicide? Or are you talking about a potential law that may be proposed in the future?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Sep 27, 2020)

“Currently, 53% of U.S. adults believe abortion should be legal "only under certain circumstances," far more than the 25% who favor it being legal with no restrictions and the 21% who think it should be completely illegal. These results from a May 1-12 Gallup poll, align with what Gallup has found most years since 1975, the year it began tracking these attitudes.” _ibid_

Republicans/conservatives don’t care what a majority of the people want – they’re perfectly happy with the tyranny of rightwing minority rule.


----------



## Chuz Life (Sep 27, 2020)

Slade3200 said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > REMINDER: This is in the CDZ and CDZ rules apply.
> ...



The Supreme Court rules on more than only the Constitutionality of Laws. They also rule on *decisions* renedered by lower courts that come to the Supreme Court by way of appeal.


----------



## Coyote (Sep 27, 2020)

Chuz Life said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...


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.


----------



## Chuz Life (Sep 27, 2020)

Coyote said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



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?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Sep 27, 2020)

JoeMoma said:


> There needs to be a drastic swing in public opinion in order for Roe vs. Wade to be overturned.


Wrong.

Start of the October 2020 Term there will be five conservative ideologues on the Court prepared to do just that – contrary to settled, accepted privacy rights jurisprudence, contrary to the will of the majority of the American people.

Of course, this is not about ‘abortion’ – it never was.

This is about the authoritarian right’s desire to compel conformity and punish dissent, to increase the size and authority of the state at the expense of individual liberty, and to allow more government, bigger government to interfere in the private lives of Americans.


----------



## Slade3200 (Sep 27, 2020)

Chuz Life said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...


True, I’m just asking if there is a law in the pipeline to SCOTUS that would challenge Roe or if you are posting about a potential future case that would make abortions an act of homicide?


----------



## Coyote (Sep 27, 2020)

Chuz Life said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...


Fetal homicide laws are kind of all over the board in what they establish and most contain exceptions for abortion.  

It is also important to note that taking it to a predictable extreme will infringe on a woman’s own rights.


----------



## Chuz Life (Sep 27, 2020)

Slade3200 said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...



I do not know what's in the pipeline to be immediately considered. 

I do know that several State's lawmakers have held off on any lawys that would challenge Roe because they knew the odds were not very good in the SCOTUS.

Changing that balance may in fact compel lawmakers to go forward with the passing of some of those laws.


----------



## Chuz Life (Sep 27, 2020)

Coyote said:


> Fetal homicide laws are kind of all over the board in what they establish and most contain exceptions for abortion.
> 
> It is also important to note that taking it to a predictable extreme will infringe on a woman’s own rights.



Geez this is like herding cats.

Let's try this.

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?


----------



## Slade3200 (Sep 27, 2020)

Chuz Life said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...


Perhaps. But it would have to be a pretty convincing law to make it to SCOTUS, overrule Roe and set a historical change to the ethical foundation of our country. Plus it would need a very solid constitutional argument to be made. For the most part I’ve only heard mostly political arguments around this issue. A lot of bluster


----------



## Chuz Life (Sep 27, 2020)

Slade3200 said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...



"Perhaps" is a green light. 

You know that, right?


----------



## Faun (Sep 27, 2020)

Chuz Life said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Fetal homicide laws are kind of all over the board in what they establish and most contain exceptions for abortion.
> ...


I knew someone who was murdered in the early 90's, before fetal homicide laws, and the killer was charged, convicted and executed for her murder, her husband's and her unborn child's.  That doesn't establish personhood.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Sep 27, 2020)

candycorn said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > REMINDER: This is in the CDZ and CDZ rules apply.
> ...


That’s not consistent with conservative judicial dogma hostile to the right to privacy enshrined in the 3rd, 4th, and 5th Amendments and the doctrine of substantive due process enshrined in the 14th Amendment.

Wrongheaded conservative judicial dogma dictates that because there is no right to privacy, the interests of the state outweigh a woman’s protected liberties and her bodily integrity, authorizing the states to compel women to give birth against their will through force of law.

Absent a right to privacy, therefore, women must seek reproductive autonomy through the political – not judicial – process by opposing at the ballot box laws ‘banning’ abortion, or advocating for their repeal.

Consequently, conservative jurists are perfectly content to uphold a haphazard patchwork of state laws ‘banning’ abortion.


----------



## Slade3200 (Sep 27, 2020)

Slade3200 said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...





Chuz Life said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...


thats the beauty about our system of government. There is always a green light to try anything. We can only hope that the system filters out the bad and promotes the good after all’s said and done.


----------



## JoeMoma (Sep 27, 2020)

Chuz Life said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> > There needs to be a drastic swing in public opinion in order for Roe vs. Wade to be overturned.
> ...


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.


----------



## Coyote (Sep 27, 2020)

Chuz Life said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Fetal homicide laws are kind of all over the board in what they establish and most contain exceptions for abortion.
> ...


Yes.


----------



## Chuz Life (Sep 27, 2020)

Slade3200 said:


> thats the beauty about our system of government. There is always a green light to try anything. We can only hope that the system filters out the bad and promotes the good after all’s said and done.



Same as it ever was.


----------



## Chuz Life (Sep 27, 2020)

Chuz Life said:


> 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?





Coyote said:


> 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 (Sep 27, 2020)

Coyote said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > REMINDER: This is in the CDZ and CDZ rules apply.
> ...


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 (Sep 27, 2020)

JoeMoma said:


> 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 (Sep 27, 2020)

Chuz Life said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > 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?
> ...


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 (Sep 27, 2020)

Chuz Life said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...


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 (Sep 27, 2020)

Chuz Life said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


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 (Sep 27, 2020)

No


C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


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 (Sep 27, 2020)

Coyote said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...



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 (Sep 27, 2020)

Chuz Life said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


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 (Sep 27, 2020)

Slade3200 said:


> 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 (Sep 27, 2020)

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


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 27, 2020)

Slade3200 said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > JoeMoma said:
> ...


a prisoner also is not an independent life


----------



## Slade3200 (Sep 27, 2020)

Chuz Life said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > 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
> ...


I disagree


----------



## Slade3200 (Sep 27, 2020)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> 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 (Sep 27, 2020)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


Free Scott Peterson on the second count of murder


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 27, 2020)

Slade3200 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...


they aren't independent


----------



## Chuz Life (Sep 27, 2020)

Slade3200 said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...



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


----------



## Slade3200 (Sep 27, 2020)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


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


----------



## Slade3200 (Sep 27, 2020)

Chuz Life said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...


I don’t know. How many?


----------



## Chuz Life (Sep 27, 2020)

Slade3200 said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...



I think you are lying to me.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 27, 2020)

Slade3200 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...


are they independent or dependent?


----------



## Slade3200 (Sep 27, 2020)

Chuz Life said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...


I’m not lying just trying to get you to make your point out a little quicker


----------



## Slade3200 (Sep 27, 2020)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


Stop buddy. It’s over


----------



## whitehall (Sep 27, 2020)

The true believers on the left used to predict the end of the world under nuclear warfare and later the end of the world due to man made global warming. The left wing can't exist unless they are facing a disaster sponsored by the media. Roe is so entrenched in society that it is doubtful that the S.C. will ever take it up but it's a good tool for left wing recruitment these days.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 27, 2020)

Slade3200 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...


answer the fucking question you pathetic piece of shit
are prisoners dependent or independent  lives?


----------



## Chuz Life (Sep 27, 2020)

Slade3200 said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...



The point is that the law already defines and recognizes "children in the womb" in "any stage of development" as separate human beings from their mothers. 

Thus there are two or more murder charges possible for someone killing children in the womb, as is determined by how many children there are.


----------



## Slade3200 (Sep 27, 2020)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


They are independent you turd. They can live and breath on their own. They aren’t being grown out of cells inside another fucking human. Seriously how retarded are you?


----------



## Slade3200 (Sep 27, 2020)

Chuz Life said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...


That’s interesting. I haven’t read those laws which is why I asked you and didn’t just answer. I wasn’t lying. Do those laws call the fetus a separate independent human life? Or two lives existing in one human?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 27, 2020)

Slade3200 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...


no they are not independent because they are dependent on the state


----------



## Chuz Life (Sep 27, 2020)

Slade3200 said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...



You can not murder the same person twice, can you?

Consider, conjoined twins that share a body their entire life.

Are they one person or two?

The laws (I think rightly) say they are two.

This is not rocket surgery.


----------



## Slade3200 (Sep 27, 2020)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


Whatever you say dude. I can’t debate this stupidly. You win. I’m insane


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Sep 27, 2020)

Slade3200 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...


Glad you recognized your stupidity there is hope for you


----------



## Slade3200 (Sep 27, 2020)

Chuz Life said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...


It’s a good question... the differentiating factor being that a mother is literally growing a life in her body and conjoined twins are two independent lives connected to eachother by tissue. There have been twins born where one is a fully formed human and the other are unformed cells in which case the unformed cells are removed. They have a term called a parasitic twin. I don’t believe removing those cells is considered a homicide. Correct me if I’m wrong


----------



## Slade3200 (Sep 27, 2020)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


Yes, outstanding victory. Go grab a cookie and a beer. Job well done


----------



## Chuz Life (Sep 27, 2020)

Slade3200 said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...



Factually, biologically it is what it is. 

The laws may not make it criminal (the removal of a parasitic twin.) However, that does not change what it factually IS.


----------



## Slade3200 (Sep 27, 2020)

Chuz Life said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...


Well the laws seem to define it in different ways depending on the situation. It is a life, hence the extra homicide charges for killing a pregnant woman. But there is a difference between viable and unviable hence the ethical removal of a parasite twin. Then there is abortion which gives authority to the host mother, with limitations, over what is done with the extra life form that she is growing inside her.


----------



## Chuz Life (Sep 27, 2020)

Slade3200 said:


> Well the laws seem to define it in different ways depending on the situation. It is a life, hence the extra homicide charges for killing a pregnant woman. But there is a difference between viable and unviable hence the ethical removal of a parasite twin. Then there is abortion which gives authority to the host mother, with limitations, over what is done with the extra life form that she is growing inside her.



I have a whole thread on that.





__





						Is it Constitutional for the Government to recognize a Human Being as a Person in one Situation but Deny their Personhood in all other Situations?
					

Is it Constitutional for the Government to recognize a Human Being as a Person in one Situation but Deny their Personhood in all other Situations?  It is obvious and undeniable that our Nation's more than 130 State and Federal "Fetal HOMICIDE" laws define and regard a "child in the womb" as a...



					www.usmessageboard.com


----------



## Slade3200 (Sep 27, 2020)

Chuz Life said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Well the laws seem to define it in different ways depending on the situation. It is a life, hence the extra homicide charges for killing a pregnant woman. But there is a difference between viable and unviable hence the ethical removal of a parasite twin. Then there is abortion which gives authority to the host mother, with limitations, over what is done with the extra life form that she is growing inside her.
> ...


What did you learn from that discussion?


----------



## Chuz Life (Sep 27, 2020)

Slade3200 said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > Slade3200 said:
> ...



The poll reflects what I already knew.

I am always open to learning new things. However, as a general rule, I don't normally ask questions about things unless and until I already have a good idea about what the answer is.


----------



## Slade3200 (Sep 27, 2020)

Chuz Life said:


> Slade3200 said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...


How about details? Do you think it’s constitutional? I you understand the opposition to that argument? Do they make valid points?


----------



## Coyote (Sep 27, 2020)

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.


----------



## Chuz Life (Sep 27, 2020)

Coyote said:


> 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*.
> 
> ...




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*."


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 27, 2020)

Chuz Life said:


> 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 (Sep 27, 2020)

Chuz Life said:


> 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 (Sep 27, 2020)

Chuz Life said:


> 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 (Sep 27, 2020)

Chuz Life said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Fetal homicide laws do not recognize fetal rights.
> ...



If I understand it correctly, it Is not tbe fetus th


JoeB131 said:


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



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 (Sep 27, 2020)

Coyote said:


> 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.


----------



## Chuz Life (Sep 27, 2020)

Coyote said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


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.


----------



## Faun (Sep 27, 2020)

Chuz Life said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...


The Constitution does not say the unborn are persons.


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 28, 2020)

Chuz Life said:


> 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.


----------



## Chuz Life (Sep 28, 2020)

Faun said:


> 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 (Sep 28, 2020)

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.


----------



## Chuz Life (Sep 28, 2020)

WEATHER53 said:


> 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 (Sep 28, 2020)

Chuz Life said:


> WEATHER53 said:
> 
> 
> > It’s a coarse statement but it’s true to the bone
> ...


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


----------



## Chuz Life (Sep 28, 2020)

WEATHER53 said:


> 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 (Sep 28, 2020)

More assumptive fake worst case scenario peddling by liberals


----------



## JoeB131 (Sep 29, 2020)

Chuz Life said:


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



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 (Sep 29, 2020)

Chuz Life said:


> 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 (Sep 29, 2020)

Chuz Life said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > The Constitution does not say the unborn are persons.
> ...


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 (Oct 1, 2020)

buttercup said:


> 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.


----------



## badger2 (Oct 1, 2020)

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 (Oct 1, 2020)

badger2 said:


> 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 (Dec 1, 2021)

Chuz Life said:


> 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."
> 
> ...


  Mississippi just fumbled the ball in this exchange.


----------



## Penelope (Dec 1, 2021)

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


----------



## BWK (Dec 1, 2021)

Penelope said:


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


Exactly! A bunch of hypocrites.


----------



## BWK (Dec 1, 2021)

badger2 said:


> 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 (May 3, 2022)

badger2 said:


> 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 (May 3, 2022)

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 (May 3, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> 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.
> ...



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 (May 3, 2022)

Chuz Life said:


> 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 (May 3, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> 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 (May 3, 2022)

Faun said:


> 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 (May 3, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> 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 (May 3, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> Because the courts are wrong, sentimental, and religous.


On my moral ground do you make this claim?


----------



## Rigby5 (May 3, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> 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 (May 3, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> 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 (May 3, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> It's still a human conception


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


----------



## Rigby5 (May 3, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> 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 (May 3, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> It's still a human conception



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


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 3, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> 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


----------



## Rigby5 (May 3, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


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



Not really.
Humans reproduce by meiosis now, but historically in the distant past is was asexual mitosis.
And asexual mitosis still can and does sometimes happen.
So it does not take both.
It usually does, because the sharing of DNA is more successful than just an exact copy.
But asexual fission is much older and more common.


----------



## Rigby5 (May 3, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


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



Pain is just a nerve stimulus.
What matter is if it cares or not, and since it is unconscious, it does not care at all about anything.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 3, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> Pain is just a nerve stimulus.
> What matter is if it cares or not, and since it is unconscious, it does not care at all about anything.


Pain is still pain


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 3, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> Not really.
> Humans reproduce by meiosis now, but historically in the distant past is was asexual mitosis.
> And asexual mitosis still can and does sometimes happen.
> So it does not take both.
> ...


Yes really it takes both egg and sperm


----------



## Rigby5 (May 3, 2022)

And before we go any deeper into the question of the "value" of life, clearly we do not really value life.
If we did, we would not have dropped the atomic bombs, killing a quarter million innocent civilian lives.
We would not fail to provide public health care.
We would not ruin lives with the War on Drugs, etc.
We murdered half a million innocent Iraqis over what we now know were deliberate lies.
So please to not tell me we value lives.
We clearly do not.


----------



## Rigby5 (May 3, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Pain is still pain



Similar to the automatic kick when you strike below the knee.
It is not something a fetus cares about.
You are imagining sentient features that are not yet present.


----------



## Rigby5 (May 3, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Yes really it takes both egg and sperm



Usually, but not always.
An ovum can duplicate and make a fertile fetus all by itself.
It is just very rare.


----------



## Faun (May 3, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> 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?



Again, your analogy is a fail. Exactly how fucked in the head are you to persist with it?


----------



## Rigby5 (May 3, 2022)

Faun said:


> Again, your analogy is a fail. Exactly how fucked in the head are you to persist with it?



The analogy is NOT a fail.
Sentience is a temporary thing.
It starts and ends.
And before then and after then, the body is insignificant.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 3, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> Usually, but not always.
> An ovum can duplicate and make a fertile fetus all by itself.
> It is just very rare.


No it's not rare because it doesn't exist.


----------



## Faun (May 3, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> The analogy is NOT a fail.
> Sentience is a temporary thing.
> It starts and ends.
> And before then and after then, the body is insignificant.



Of course it's a fail. You're a fail so your arguments are doomed to fail. If a person is in a coma and has no chance of recovery, they can get a court order to "pull the plug." But if doctors deem there's a chance of recovery, no court will grant such a request.


----------



## Jake Winker Frogen (May 3, 2022)

From what I have gleaned from the leaked decision is it is not concerned about when a person becomes a person at all.

It makes the simple, bare-knuckles legal claim there is nothing in the constitution whatsoever that grants a woman a constitutionally protected right to an abortion and so therefore the states must make their own laws on the subject.


----------



## Rigby5 (May 7, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> No it's not rare because it doesn't exist.



Wrong.
All organisms used simple cell division, mitosis at one time, and all organisms that have added the complexity of meiosis, still have the ability to use mitosis, and it happens spontaneously on rare occasions.


----------



## Rigby5 (May 7, 2022)

Faun said:


> Again, your analogy is a fail. Exactly how fucked in the head are you to persist with it?



Wrong.
Unconscious life without sentience is not of value.
The fact we could do nothing to restore Teri Schiavo's consciousness, but could allow most fetuses to develop consciousness, is irrelevant.
Any ovum and sperm can be used for that.
The inopportune one does not have to be used.
It can be discarded in favor of an ovum/sperm combination that is more opportune.

Your lie is the claim that abortion reduces life by one.
And the reality is it does not.
All it does is delay for another ovum/sperm combination that is better timed.
The final tally of lives is identical after the family has become more prepared for a child.
The world is improved by abortion, not diminished in any way.


----------



## Rigby5 (May 7, 2022)

Faun said:


> Of course it's a fail. You're a fail so your arguments are doomed to fail. If a person is in a coma and has no chance of recovery, they can get a court order to "pull the plug." But if doctors deem there's a chance of recovery, no court will grant such a request.



Wrong.
All cases could miraculously have a chance of recovery.
But all courts will still let the executor pull the plug at any time.
The courts have no authority to act otherwise.


----------



## Rigby5 (May 7, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> No it's not rare because it doesn't exist.



Wrong.
{...
How Do Humans Reproduce Asexually?​It is a known fact that the advanced and most evolved class of animal kingdom – the homo sapiens reproduce sexually. But there are cases where humans reproduce through asexual modes. Asexual reproduction in humans is carried out without the immediate use of fertilization of the male and female sex cells (the sperm and egg). It is carried out by fusing a few parts of human sperm, embryo, the egg or unnatural genes to reproduce a new human fetus which further undergoes maturation and development depending upon the medical procedures. It is usually carried out in case of infertility using the assisted reproductive treatment such as the IVF(Invitro fertilization).

However, there is a mode of asexual reproduction which occurs naturally in a woman’s body which is known as the monozygotic twinning. It is a kind of asexual reproduction which has been used for decades in the IVF cycles, a type of human cloning. Other types of asexual reproduction that is carried out artificially as part of IVF is the cloning by somatic cell nuclear transfer.

The latest advancement in the field of medicine has given rise to a new breakthrough in the domain of asexual reproduction referred to as the ‘3-parent-embryo’ which involves the use of several techniques, for instance, the mitochondrial transfer which is again another kind of cloning. The concept is that three parents can be used to produce one single embryo if the mitochondria, which are usually found in the female egg, is replaced by the mitochondria from the third party in case of any defect.

Get to know more about asexual reproduction in humans and related topics, by registering at BYJU’S.
...}









						Different Methods Of Asexual Reproduction In Humans
					

Get to know about how reproduction takes place asexually in humans through different medical procedures carried out with the transfer of genetic information to the next generation.




					byjus.com


----------



## Rigby5 (May 7, 2022)

Jake Winker Frogen said:


> From what I have gleaned from the leaked decision is it is not concerned about when a person becomes a person at all.
> 
> It makes the simple, bare-knuckles legal claim there is nothing in the constitution whatsoever that grants a woman a constitutionally protected right to an abortion and so therefore the states must make their own laws on the subject.



Totally and completely wrong.

First of all, the Constitution does not and should not mention any thing at all about rights.
Since rights are infinite and the Constitution is not, clearly anyone who expects to go to the Constitution for rights, is totally wrong and confused.
If rights did not exist BEFORE the Constitution, then we could not have had the American Revolution, which was based on and authorized by our inherent individual rights.

You have it totally backwards.
Government does not at all create rights, but our inherent individual rights is what gives us the authority to create government.
As philosophers put it, you can NOT have government granting rights, because that automatically implies that government then can simply decide to take they away, any time it wants.
Anyone looking for individual rights in the federal Constitution is totally confused.
The point of the federal constitution is ONLY to define and limit federal authority.
And the 10th amendment does NOT then assume it is up to states, because it also mentions "the people", which is because individual rights are inherent and not granted by ANY government, federal, state, or local.
That should be obvious because rights are INFINITE, and can never even ever be fully listed.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 8, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> All organisms used simple cell division, mitosis at one time, and all organisms that have added the complexity of meiosis, still have the ability to use mitosis, and it happens spontaneously on rare occasions.


Nope


----------



## Faun (May 9, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> Unconscious life without sentience is not of value.
> The fact we could do nothing to restore Teri Schiavo's consciousness, but could allow most fetuses to develop consciousness, is irrelevant.
> Any ovum and sperm can be used for that.
> ...



You're utterly insane. Again, Schiavo had zero chance of recovery as half of her brain had irreparably dissolved and it was her wish, according to her husband at one time, to not be kept alive by machine under such a dramatic event.

None of that applies to the vast majority of abortions.

And abortion is a very personal matter. Your bizarre views do not apply to anyone but yourself.


----------



## Faun (May 9, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> {...
> How Do Humans Reproduce Asexually?​It is a known fact that the advanced and most evolved class of animal kingdom – the homo sapiens reproduce sexually. But there are cases where humans reproduce through asexual modes. Asexual reproduction in humans is carried out without the immediate use of fertilization of the male and female sex cells (the sperm and egg). It is carried out by fusing a few parts of human sperm, embryo, the egg or unnatural genes to reproduce a new human fetus which further undergoes maturation and development depending upon the medical procedures. It is usually carried out in case of infertility using the assisted reproductive treatment such as the IVF(Invitro fertilization).
> 
> ...



Nothing in there indicates that can happen naturally.


----------

