Abortion as Murder.

[Cecilie1200]

Ben, I for one think that your arguement is a very good one. I agree that the murdered human being should without a doubt be protected and given the same rights as any other living human being. Not much to debate on my end. However, You won't see any of the cowards who support this come into this thread and debate the subject. It takes a coward to kill an innocent child, just as it takes a coward to run and hide when it comes to defending their own beliefs or actions. ~BH

I'm doing my best to think that somebody might actually be thinking about it.

I don't see how one could not after viewing those images. ~BH

I can answer that. One could not think about it by having a vested interest in NEVER thinking about it. Humans have a remarkable capacity for selective blindness and and rationalization when they want it.

 

[BolshevikHunter]

I'm doing my best to think that somebody might actually be thinking about it.

I don't see how one could not after viewing those images. ~BH

I can answer that. One could not think about it by having a vested interest in NEVER thinking about it. Humans have a remarkable capacity for selective blindness and and rationalization when they want it.

Seems to be the case. ~BH

 

[BenNatuf]

I'm doing my best to think that somebody might actually be thinking about it.

I don't see how one could not after viewing those images. ~BH

I can answer that. One could not think about it by having a vested interest in NEVER thinking about it. Humans have a remarkable capacity for selective blindness and and rationalization when they want it.

I find it quite telling that in the couple places i have posted that analysis not one single abortion "rights" supporter has even attempted to answer the questions about the nature and source of the governments authority and their duty in that regard given the ramifications of the findings in Roe and Casey. Not once has any pro abortionist even attempted to make a legally reasonable argument to negate the argument that given those findings a viable fetus is de facto a "person" regardless of what the dicta might insinuate but not assert. Not once has a pro abortionist attempted to explain why these persons are entitled to a lesser equal treatment than any other person and why they should not be protected by the same exact laws as the rest of us.

From what I can gather they support what they support because they support it, and cannot make one rational legal argument as to why they support it as law but can only rationalize why they support it as law. Do they even know the difference between a rational argument and a rationalized argument?

 

[BenNatuf]

I'm doing my best to think that somebody might actually be thinking about it.

I don't see how one could not after viewing those images. ~BH

I can answer that. One could not think about it by having a vested interest in NEVER thinking about it. Humans have a remarkable capacity for selective blindness and and rationalization when they want it.

Seems to be the case, I haven't seen one abortionist rights supporter even attempt it yet. Maybe they went to IL?

 

[Cervantes22]

Ben, I for one think that your arguement is a very good one. I agree that the murdered human being should without a doubt be protected and given the same rights as any other living human being. Not much to debate on my end. However, You won't see any of the cowards who support this come into this thread and debate the subject. It takes a coward to kill an innocent child, just as it takes a coward to run and hide when it comes to defending their own beliefs or actions. ~BH

I'm doing my best to think that somebody might actually be thinking about it.

I don't see how one could not after viewing those images. ~BH

From what I hear most of them are botched anyway. But who cares, there are tons of medical procedures that look disgusting. You want to me to find pictures of those?

 

[BenNatuf]

I'm doing my best to think that somebody might actually be thinking about it.

I don't see how one could not after viewing those images. ~BH

From what I hear most of them are botched anyway. But who cares, there are tons of medical procedures that look disgusting. You want to me to find pictures of those?

Thats nice, but the thread isn't about the pictures. Do you have anything to add to the legal arguments?

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'm doing my best to think that somebody might actually be thinking about it.

I don't see how one could not after viewing those images. ~BH

From what I hear most of them are botched anyway. But who cares, there are tons of medical procedures that look disgusting. You want to me to find pictures of those?

Pretty sure the point isn't that they're disgusting. But thank you for so clearly demonstrating my point about a vested interest in blindness and rationalization trumping reality.

 

[BenNatuf]

I don't see how one could not after viewing those images. ~BH

From what I hear most of them are botched anyway. But who cares, there are tons of medical procedures that look disgusting. You want to me to find pictures of those?

Pretty sure the point isn't that they're disgusting. But thank you for so clearly demonstrating my point about a vested interest in blindness and rationalization trumping reality.

**chuckle**

 

[BolshevikHunter]

I'm doing my best to think that somebody might actually be thinking about it.

I don't see how one could not after viewing those images. ~BH

From what I hear most of them are botched anyway. But who cares, there are tons of medical procedures that look disgusting. You want to me to find pictures of those?

Oh really, where did you "hear" that? And what the hell does finding pitcures of medical procedures that look disgusting have to do with butchering a human being? What a weak minded response. ~BH

 

[NYcarbineer]

I'll try this one more time for anyone who cares to answer.

We know there are two competing interests in the constitution, the states authority and the peoples rights. We also know that the state is precluded from infringing on a persons rights except in areas where it has a grant of authority and a compelling interest to do so. Those compelling interests are limitted mostly to:

1. Defence of the nation, which of course is the government acting to protect the life liberty and property of the citizenry.

2. Public safety, which of course is the government acting to secure the life liberty and property of the citizenry.

3. In defence of another persons even more compelling right, which of course is a balancing of the fundamental rights of life liberty and property between persons.

These are the only reasons I know of by which the state may use its grant of authority to infringe or limit on a persons rights. If there is some other reason thats constitutionaly grounded I'll be glad to entertain it, so feel free to add and join the debate.

The SCOTUS in Roe and Casey determined a state interest in preserving the life of a viable fetus. In doing so they allow the state to use its grant of authority to limit and infringe on a womans right to privacy grounded in the 1st, 4th and 5th amendments (and possibly others). Since we already know the states grant of authority is limitted in its ability to infringe on a persons rights, on what compelling interest is this grant of authority based?

National defence? No.
Public Safety? No.

There is only one compelling interest the state can claim to empower this infringement and that is the balancing of one persons rights against anothers. It procedes logically that since the states grant of authority allows it to infringe on the womans right to privacy it must be based on some other persons more compelling right. The only other possible "person" involved in this decission is the viable fetus, and it is inarguable that the most fundamental of rights (life) could possibly be trumped by a lesser right (privacy).

So, once again, is there any possible interpretation of Roe's central finding that could possibly be interpretted as to NOT grant a viable fetus "personhood" that would still allow the state to use its constitutional grant of authority to infringe on the womans right to privacy? If so, state it, and explain the legal philosophy which backs it up.

And, if not, how do we justify these "persons" not recieving the equal protection all persons are gaurenteed under the law to recieve justice by having their killers prosecuted under the same laws as all other persons when they are intentionally deprived of life without due process of law and when the taking of that life does not involve the defence of ones own just as compelling fundamental rights (life, liberty, property); which, under all circumstances is unlawful and therefore murder?

I've made this point before - this is strictly my opinion -

In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court, in a gallant effort to find a reasonable, sensible compromise to deal with the abortion question, with little help from the Constitution,

may have simply invented a form of personhood for the viable fetus where no such thing exists, constitutionally.

Now to the highlighted part: The Supreme Court did not BAN abortion of a viable fetus, and, I assume that where late term abortion is allowed, there is no recourse for someone acting on behalf of the aborted fetus to prosecute the abortionist, or the mother, or both

for violating the fetus's civil rights. Thus they really didn't grant the fetus full personhood.

 

[BenNatuf]

I'll try this one more time for anyone who cares to answer.

We know there are two competing interests in the constitution, the states authority and the peoples rights. We also know that the state is precluded from infringing on a persons rights except in areas where it has a grant of authority and a compelling interest to do so. Those compelling interests are limitted mostly to:

1. Defence of the nation, which of course is the government acting to protect the life liberty and property of the citizenry.

2. Public safety, which of course is the government acting to secure the life liberty and property of the citizenry.

3. In defence of another persons even more compelling right, which of course is a balancing of the fundamental rights of life liberty and property between persons.

These are the only reasons I know of by which the state may use its grant of authority to infringe or limit on a persons rights. If there is some other reason thats constitutionaly grounded I'll be glad to entertain it, so feel free to add and join the debate.

The SCOTUS in Roe and Casey determined a state interest in preserving the life of a viable fetus. In doing so they allow the state to use its grant of authority to limit and infringe on a womans right to privacy grounded in the 1st, 4th and 5th amendments (and possibly others). Since we already know the states grant of authority is limitted in its ability to infringe on a persons rights, on what compelling interest is this grant of authority based?

National defence? No.
Public Safety? No.

There is only one compelling interest the state can claim to empower this infringement and that is the balancing of one persons rights against anothers. It procedes logically that since the states grant of authority allows it to infringe on the womans right to privacy it must be based on some other persons more compelling right. The only other possible "person" involved in this decission is the viable fetus, and it is inarguable that the most fundamental of rights (life) could possibly be trumped by a lesser right (privacy).

So, once again, is there any possible interpretation of Roe's central finding that could possibly be interpretted as to NOT grant a viable fetus "personhood" that would still allow the state to use its constitutional grant of authority to infringe on the womans right to privacy? If so, state it, and explain the legal philosophy which backs it up.

And, if not, how do we justify these "persons" not recieving the equal protection all persons are gaurenteed under the law to recieve justice by having their killers prosecuted under the same laws as all other persons when they are intentionally deprived of life without due process of law and when the taking of that life does not involve the defence of ones own just as compelling fundamental rights (life, liberty, property); which, under all circumstances is unlawful and therefore murder?

I've made this point before - this is strictly my opinion -

In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court, in a gallant effort to find a reasonable, sensible compromise to deal with the abortion question, with little help from the Constitution,

may have simply invented a form of personhood for the viable fetus where no such thing exists, constitutionally.

I appreciate your attempt. It does comprise an explanation, but not an argument.

That said the SCOTUS is not in the business of ruling on extra constitutional reasonable sensible compromises (which of course is a matter of opinion if you happen to like the outcome). They are in the business of adjudicating reasonable and sensible applications of the law. The court in Roe should have just said there was no federal question to be answered, as unless and until the congress deems to define what a person is, by virtue of the tenth amendment that authority falls to the states. If any state should choose to not define it then it remains undefined.

And, there is no "form of personhood", either you are a person or your not. There are not "degrees of personhood". If a viable fetus is not a person then no restrictions against abortion should be allowed at all, as the state's authority to abridge the rights of the woman would be unfounded. If the viable fetus is a person, then every state should be required to enforce the laws on their murderers equally. Thats what happens when you federalize a state issue. Instead of each state having to treat all persons equally within it's borders, every person has to be treated equally throughout the country.

Now to the highlighted part: The Supreme Court did not BAN abortion of a viable fetus, and, I assume that where late term abortion is allowed, there is no recourse for someone acting on behalf of the aborted fetus to prosecute the abortionist, or the mother, or both

for violating the fetus's civil rights. Thus they really didn't grant the fetus full personhood.

There is no such thing as "half personhood", and I never said the court banned abortion of a viable fetus. Why would they have to? If it's a person you can't legally kill it.

I said, they said, the STATES have an interest in preserving the life of a viable fetus... and thats what they said. In doing so they have conferred personhood on viable fetus' as that is the only place the states interest could possibly flow from. As such, their ruling is deeply flawed as it should say the States MUST take an interest in the life of a viable fetus, otherwise they are allowing an entire class of person to be killed without due process of law. In that, it is not a federal issue, its the STATES that must enforce their laws, and the states that are failing to do so. Does any of that make a difference? Likely not, as no prosecutor will enforce the law as they should. BTW, the courts do not "grant rights", the holder of the "right" posesses it before they ever enter the court.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I don't see how one could not after viewing those images. ~BH

From what I hear most of them are botched anyway. But who cares, there are tons of medical procedures that look disgusting. You want to me to find pictures of those?

Oh really, where did you "hear" that? And what the hell does finding pitcures of medical procedures that look disgusting have to do with butchering a human being? What a weak minded response. ~BH

Apparently, Cervantes is the sort of person who can look at horrifying photos of mass graves full of humans butchered in a war, shrug, and say, "Lots of types of death look disgusting, want me to find pictures of them?" . . . if he happens to support the war in question.

 

[BolshevikHunter]

From what I hear most of them are botched anyway. But who cares, there are tons of medical procedures that look disgusting. You want to me to find pictures of those?

Oh really, where did you "hear" that? And what the hell does finding pitcures of medical procedures that look disgusting have to do with butchering a human being? What a weak minded response. ~BH

Apparently, Cervantes is the sort of person who can look at horrifying photos of mass graves full of humans butchered in a war, shrug, and say, "Lots of types of death look disgusting, want me to find pictures of them?" . . . if he happens to support the war in question.

Which brings us back to the whole "blindness and rationalization trumping reality" thing. ~BH

 

[BenNatuf]

Oh really, where did you "hear" that? And what the hell does finding pitcures of medical procedures that look disgusting have to do with butchering a human being? What a weak minded response. ~BH

Apparently, Cervantes is the sort of person who can look at horrifying photos of mass graves full of humans butchered in a war, shrug, and say, "Lots of types of death look disgusting, want me to find pictures of them?" . . . if he happens to support the war in question.

Which brings us back to the whole "blindness and rationalization trumping reality" thing. ~BH

They not only rationalize was is happenning away, they also rationalize the law away.

 

[Care4all]

Each State can do their own thing, with viable fetus. some states ban abortion after 3 months, some states allow it up to 6 months....the State itself, gets to decide.

I'm not certain a State has the power to instate a law that says killing a viable fetus through a consensual abortion, is murdering a BORN baby....giving the baby "Personhood" with ALL the rights that come with personhood.... I can see them making a law about Fetal Homicides, but that is still not murder of a human being that is born....?

 

[Care4all]

Can parents to be, count their fetus as a person before it is born, and take the tax write off for the unborn child?

What exactly is a "Birth Certificate" legally for in the USA?

 

[BenNatuf]

Each State can do their own thing, with viable fetus. some states ban abortion after 3 months, some states allow it up to 6 months....the State itself, gets to decide.

I'm not certain a State has the power to instate a law that says killing a viable fetus through a consensual abortion, is murdering a BORN baby....giving the baby "Personhood" with ALL the rights that come with personhood.... I can see them making a law about Fetal Homicides, but that is still not murder of a human being that is born....?

Show me a statute against murder that requires the person murdered be "born", and why would they need seperate laws against murder for different persons? What other persons should not be covered by the statutes?

Also it is not the "states" that would be confiring personhood on the viable fetus (it should be sans congressional action... but it isn't), it's the courts who in Roe and Casey de facto did so.

Don't think so?

Then answer the question about from whence the states' authority flows to negate the rights of the woman once the fetus is viable.

 

[BenNatuf]

Can parents to be, count their fetus as a person before it is born, and take the tax write off for the unborn child?

Not according to tax law which gives credits for "children" not for "persons".

What exactly is a "Birth Certificate" legally for in the USA?

Citizenship, which has absolutely nothing to do with any other "persons".

 

[Care4all]

Each State can do their own thing, with viable fetus. some states ban abortion after 3 months, some states allow it up to 6 months....the State itself, gets to decide.

I'm not certain a State has the power to instate a law that says killing a viable fetus through a consensual abortion, is murdering a BORN baby....giving the baby "Personhood" with ALL the rights that come with personhood.... I can see them making a law about Fetal Homicides, but that is still not murder of a human being that is born....?

Show me a statute against murder that requires the person murdered be "born", and why would they need seperate laws against murder for different persons? What other persons should not be covered by the statutes?

Also it is not the "states" that would be confiring personhood on the viable fetus (it should be sans congressional action... but it isn't), it's the courts who in Roe and Casey de facto did so.

Don't think so?

Then answer the question about from whence the states' authority flows to negate the rights of the woman once the fetus is viable.

you tell me then...Why, in the past 30 years, have States not put a charge of Murder, against a woman that has aborted her fetus at the 5 or 6 month gestation point? Certainly there are States that do not support abortion....but are forced to cover them at least up to 3 months....why haven't they put a murder charge in to law, against the woman aborting her child after viability?


Why are they just twiddling their thumbs?

A fetus does not have the same worth as a born child, and the States know such....is what I am guessing....but not certain?

Just because the SC said that States could have an interest in a viable fetus, does not give legal personhood, to the fetus, as you seem to imply?

 

[BenNatuf]

Each State can do their own thing, with viable fetus. some states ban abortion after 3 months, some states allow it up to 6 months....the State itself, gets to decide.

I'm not certain a State has the power to instate a law that says killing a viable fetus through a consensual abortion, is murdering a BORN baby....giving the baby "Personhood" with ALL the rights that come with personhood.... I can see them making a law about Fetal Homicides, but that is still not murder of a human being that is born....?

Show me a statute against murder that requires the person murdered be "born", and why would they need seperate laws against murder for different persons? What other persons should not be covered by the statutes?

Also it is not the "states" that would be confiring personhood on the viable fetus (it should be sans congressional action... but it isn't), it's the courts who in Roe and Casey de facto did so.

Don't think so?

Then answer the question about from whence the states' authority flows to negate the rights of the woman once the fetus is viable.

you tell me then...Why, in the past 30 years, have States not put a charge of Murder, against a woman that has aborted her fetus at the 5 or 6 month gestation point?

certainly not because they don't fit the deffinition under the statutes. The insinuation here is that if the state fails to enforce a law, its not the law, and thats simply not true.

Certainly there are States that do not support abortion....but are forced to cover them at least up to 3 months....why haven't they put a murder charge in to law, against the woman aborting her child after viability?

We both know the answer to that, political shit storm. Once again, the states refusals' to enforce the law equally do not make the law, not the law. Also, while its possible and reasonable that a court could uphold a conviction (if it got by a jury) it's unlikely that any court would, because they know what the result would be also. Politics trumps construction.

Why are they just twiddling their thumbs?

A fetus does not have the same worth as a born child, and the States know such....is what I am guessing....but not certain?

neither does an infant have the same worth to the state as a working adult, for that matter neither does a welfare case. "Worth" is not a factor in "equal treatment under the law".

Just because the SC said that States could have an interest in a viable fetus, does not give legal personhood, to the fetus, as you seem to imply?

Then answer the question, from what grant of authority is the state allowed to negate the womans rights durring any part of preganancy? They can't just negate rights because they feel like it, niether can than do so because they "think" its the right thing to do. They must have some rational basis in the law to do so. In negating rights that basis must be compelling. So which is it?

national defence?
public safety?

or

The ballancing of one persons rights against anothers!

Here's the truth of it. This argument has never been decided by any court as no prosecutor to my knowledge has ever bought a case. Unless and until a court does decide the matter, it is a reasonable legal opinion, and any prosecutor who wanted to could bring murder charges against both the woman and the doctor under it. He of course would have to be in an extremely pro-life district and his constituents would have to be willing to put up with months of 1000's of press and 1000's of protesters marching up and down their streets outside the courthouse causing a ruckus. Prosecutors are of course politicians and he'd would by nature weigh the benefits against the cost instead of just looking at the law. And, since they all have "prosecutorial discretion" and political ambition the likelyhood of one deciding to do it is rather small.

The public by and large does support restrictions on abortion when a fetus is viable, the public at large however, does not take that logic and apply it to what the law actually is, they apply it to what they think is "right", and while they suport restrictions, actually using the logical reasoning to enforce the law equally resulting in a murder charge on a woman for doing what technically is murder would NOT be publicly supported. So, the political ambitions of the prosecutor would have to be rather slight and rather short term.