Abortion as Murder.

[Care4all]

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. 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.

Good points....but, I think that they must feel they do not have the jurisdiction or rather, the law as written about what constitutes Murder, does not cover a viable fetus being aborted....otherwise, I believe one of these, "Against abortion States" with a strong prolife constituency, would have tried to prosecute such actions, regardless of the Dog and Pony show that would occur....

 

[BenNatuf]

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. 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.


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.

Good points....but, I think that they must feel they do not have the jurisdiction or rather, the law as written about what constitutes Murder, does not cover a viable fetus being aborted....otherwise, I believe one of these, "Against abortion States" with a strong prolife constituency, would have tried to prosecute such actions, regardless of the Dog and Pony show that would occur....

Of course they have the jurisdiction, they are prosecutors with prosecutorial discretion and are free to interpret the statutes as they see fit to bring charges (thats what they do every day)... that of course does not impose any requirement on any court to entertain those charges.

As to the deffinition of murder its pretty straight forward

"Ulawfully and with intent taking the life of another person"

This raises several questions

What is "unlawfully". In construction it would be taking the life of another person either not in defence of your own threatenned fundamental rights (life, liberty and property-which requires a ballancing of rights), or without due process. Dispensing with the second is simple, there is no due process involved in abortion. The first is the "ballancing" that courts do, and in Roe and Casey they came down on the side of the viable fetus allowing the states to negate the womans rights in favor of their "interest". Again, simple "interest" can not negate rights, the authority to do so must procede constituionally from granted authorities. Which effectively answers the second question as to what is a "person".

BTW, do you actually believe politicians of any stripe would subject their ambitions to the law? pffft!

 

[BenNatuf]

Is there an abortion rights supporter in the house who will answer the questions in this post and make a reasonned legal argument against its assertions?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3345659-post699.html

So far a couple have tried and so far there's nothing very compelling to rebut it.

 

[BenNatuf]

A state has no grant of authority to negate the constitutionally protected rights of one person except in the protection of a more fundamental constitutionally protected right of another person or persons.

What constitutional grant of authority allows a state to negate a womans right to privacy after the fetus becomes viable? From whence does this power flow?

If you can answer that without the viable fetus being a "person" then abortion is legal all the way to birth, if you can't it is murder, by deffinition, after the fetus becomes viable.

 

[BenNatuf]

Jillian,
instead of just acting like a petulant child and negging me for asking a valid question based on clearly reasonned legal argument, why not try to actually answer the questions and support your position? The answer is simple... you can't, and you know it.

What authority does the state have to negate a persons right other than in the protection of another person or persons' more compelling rights?

give it a shot, I'm sure it was covered in your 9th grade text books.

But no... you'd rather be a petulant child.

Don't worry though, we both know it aint about the previous post, it's about having your race based claim on a black mans opinions exposed for the intellectual slavery it is. Having your hypocracies exposed must be tough on you. Now have another childish fit or find a corner to cry in.

 

[Care4all]

Not to add fuel to this fire but:

Other than for medical reasons, if a woman has an abortion after 6 months of gestation....where the foetus is viable, a State could legislate that such abortions is murder, based on Roe v Wade, in my humble opinion....but I am not a lawyer...

There is a difference between an abortion and an abortion occurring AFTER VIABILITY if it is not for medical reasons....in Roe v wade they said the state COULD have a bigger interest, after VIABILITY....

so, imho, they COULD legislate such.....

they haven't and I don't think they would, but it just seems like they COULD if they wanted to....???

 

[BenNatuf]

Not to add fuel to this fire but:

Other than for medical reasons, if a woman has an abortion after 6 months of gestation....where the foetus is viable, a State could legislate that such abortions is murder, based on Roe v Wade, in my humble opinion....but I am not a lawyer...

There is a difference between an abortion and an abortion occurring AFTER VIABILITY if it is not for medical reasons....in Roe v wade they said the state COULD have a bigger interest, after VIABILITY....

so, imho, they COULD legislate such.....

they haven't and I don't think they would, but it just seems like they COULD if they wanted to....???

In actuallity C4A, the state wouldn't even have to legislate it, they could simply choose to enforce the current statutes against murder; and it doesnt have to be 6 months, the trimester system was scrapped in Casey in favor of the strict standard of "viability" whenever that may be. Now thats not to say they couldn't legislate it, it may actually lend to the argument and force the courts to address the issue. As things currently are if a prosecutor chose to enforce the current statutes he would be right to do so according to their definitions, but I find it unlikely that any court would entertain the charges. The Irony is they would be citing Roe in a dismissal when it's Roe which actually confirs de facto Personhood on viable fetus'. A point they'd dance around in dicta as they always do.

 

[jeffrockit]

The key word is Live BORN babies. When a baby/fetus/it is born from the mother it becomes a "person" in the eyes of the law.
the difference is one is still inside the mother, and the other is not. I know this is really sad to see people like you struggle with such a simple concept.

The simple fact unless tax payer money is being used to cover said costs, its none of your business. its up to the Mother, father and doctor in private to decide.

If you and others can't understand this simple concept, well then there is no hope for you.

You're going to have a little trouble posting that "law" since the congress has never passed one. You also have no understanding of Roe whatsoever, the test is not birth, it's viability. Whether or not the fetus is in utero or not is irrelevant.

are you a fucking retard?
I said in the eyes of the law, a fetus is not living and therefore you can not be brought up for murder. Otherwise a whole lot of women would be going to jail.

nevermind strike that, you are a fucking retard.

Then explain why someone that kills a pregnant woman and the mother and baby dies, they are charged with a double murder.

 

[BenNatuf]

You're going to have a little trouble posting that "law" since the congress has never passed one. You also have no understanding of Roe whatsoever, the test is not birth, it's viability. Whether or not the fetus is in utero or not is irrelevant.

are you a fucking retard?
I said in the eyes of the law, a fetus is not living and therefore you can not be brought up for murder. Otherwise a whole lot of women would be going to jail.

nevermind strike that, you are a fucking retard.

Then explain why someone that kills a pregnant woman and the mother and baby dies, they are charged with a double murder.

S/he cannot explain it, because s/he has a concept of the law built around what "I (s/he) said in the eyes of the law" is. The entire argument here is about what the law says, what Roe says, what Casey says, what the constituion says, and how they are applied; but, this fucking retard thinks what "I (s/he) said" means more than that.

 

[BenNatuf]

Still no abortion rights supporters to address this or answer the questions?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3345659-post699.html

So once again, tell us, if the states authority to negate a womans right to abort a viable fetus does not extend from the ballancing of rights between persons... where does the power come from?

 

[BenNatuf]

I guess it's just too much to expect. Can any of you abortion rights supporters make a reasonned argument or does the negation of the usual talking point deffenses completely disarm you? You're entire argument is built around an understanding of Roe; well, here is the logical legal extension of Roe... and you have NOTHING to negate it with.

Explain to us how in the context of Roe a womans constitutional right to privacy can be negated by the states interest. Explain to us what the states interest is, where the state gets the constitutional authority to do so, and the legal reasoning to establish that authority. If you can do all of that without referring to the viable fetus and your arguments reason stands up to srutiny then you have an argument that's legally reasonable.

If you can't

Then you have to explain to us where the state gets the authority to declare a seperate class of person from all other persons who can be deprived of the constitutional protections of due process and equal treatment and how it is the killing of these persons do not fit within ther legal deffinition of murder.

must be a toughie

 

[BenNatuf]

Well, it's saturday and time once again to see if any of our resident abortion rights supporters can address this

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3345659-post699.html

 

[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.

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.

They could not have conferred personhood on a viable fetus or else the states could not legalize the abortion of viable fetuses.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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....?

If a viable fetus has full personhood then it would be all but indistinguishable, legally, from a born child,

and that is clearly not the case. The OP is very wrong about that.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You find this, regarding the issue of a fetus being a person, in the actual Roe v. Wade decision:

A. The 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 appellant's case, of course, collapses, [410 U.S. 113, 157] for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. 51 On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument 52 that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.

 

[BenNatuf]

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.

They could not have conferred personhood on a viable fetus or else the states could not legalize the abortion of viable fetuses.

Thats kind of the point. the states are not enforcing the law as they should. A lack of enforcement is not proof of anything except a lack of enforcement.

Now, maybe you can answer the questions, if a viable fetus is not a person under what grant of authority does the SCOTUS allow the states to negate a womans constitutional right to privacy once the fetus becomes viable? A persons constitutional rights cannot be negated except in the protection of another person or persons more compelling rights. Who's the other person? If the states can negate rights for any other reason... what is it? Name one court case where the SCOTUS allowed a persons rights to be negated other than to protect the more compelling rights of another person or persons?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

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.

They could not have conferred personhood on a viable fetus or else the states could not legalize the abortion of viable fetuses.

Thats kind of the point. the states are not enforcing the law as they should. A lack of enforcement is not proof of anything except a lack of enforcement.

Now, maybe you can answer the questions, if a viable fetus is not a person under what grant of authority does the SCOTUS allow the states to negate a womans constitutional right to privacy once the fetus becomes viable? A persons constitutional rights cannot be negated except in the protection of another person or persons more compelling rights. Who's the other person? If the states can negate rights for any other reason... what is it? Name one court case where the SCOTUS allowed a persons rights to be negated other than to protect the more compelling rights of another person or persons?

I answered it but you summarily rejected my answer, even though I am right and you are wrong.

I called it a form of personhood, for lack of a better description, and I am exactly right. SCOTUS conveyed to the states the power to treat the fetus uniquely, i.e., to grant it protections as a person, or not.

That is not full personhood. That is something else. Your premise about 'half' a person is essentially false.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

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.

They could not have conferred personhood on a viable fetus or else the states could not legalize the abortion of viable fetuses.

Thats kind of the point. the states are not enforcing the law as they should. A lack of enforcement is not proof of anything except a lack of enforcement.

Now, maybe you can answer the questions, if a viable fetus is not a person under what grant of authority does the SCOTUS allow the states to negate a womans constitutional right to privacy once the fetus becomes viable? A persons constitutional rights cannot be negated except in the protection of another person or persons more compelling rights. Who's the other person? If the states can negate rights for any other reason... what is it? Name one court case where the SCOTUS allowed a persons rights to be negated other than to protect the more compelling rights of another person or persons?

I recommend you read IX - B in the decision:

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

 

[BenNatuf]

They could not have conferred personhood on a viable fetus or else the states could not legalize the abortion of viable fetuses.

Thats kind of the point. the states are not enforcing the law as they should. A lack of enforcement is not proof of anything except a lack of enforcement.

Now, maybe you can answer the questions, if a viable fetus is not a person under what grant of authority does the SCOTUS allow the states to negate a womans constitutional right to privacy once the fetus becomes viable? A persons constitutional rights cannot be negated except in the protection of another person or persons more compelling rights. Who's the other person? If the states can negate rights for any other reason... what is it? Name one court case where the SCOTUS allowed a persons rights to be negated other than to protect the more compelling rights of another person or persons?

I answered it but you summarily rejected my answer, even though I am right and you are wrong.

I called it a form of personhood, for lack of a better description, and I am exactly right. SCOTUS conveyed to the states the power to treat the fetus uniquely, i.e., to grant it protections as a person, or not.

That is not full personhood. That is something else. Your premise about 'half' a person is essentially false.

No, you have answered nothing, What you've provided is a lame excuse for an answer. There is no provision in the constituion for negating a persons constitutional rights for a "sort of person", there are no "forms of personhood", there are no "unique non-persons". There are no "partial persons", there are no "not quite persons" there is no-one in the constitution with any rights except "persons". When you find the provision allowing a persons rights to be negated by anything other than another persons more compelling rights... post it.

The government simply does not have the authority to negate a persons rights for anything except in the protection of another person or persons more compelling rights. You are quite simply, wrong. If a viable fetus is not a "person" in the constitutional sence, then a viable fetus has no rights and therefor cannot be the cause to negate a womans right to privacy and abortion cannot be restricted.

 

[BenNatuf]

They could not have conferred personhood on a viable fetus or else the states could not legalize the abortion of viable fetuses.

Thats kind of the point. the states are not enforcing the law as they should. A lack of enforcement is not proof of anything except a lack of enforcement.

Now, maybe you can answer the questions, if a viable fetus is not a person under what grant of authority does the SCOTUS allow the states to negate a womans constitutional right to privacy once the fetus becomes viable? A persons constitutional rights cannot be negated except in the protection of another person or persons more compelling rights. Who's the other person? If the states can negate rights for any other reason... what is it? Name one court case where the SCOTUS allowed a persons rights to be negated other than to protect the more compelling rights of another person or persons?

I recommend you read IX - B in the decision:

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

Why would I concern myself with non-binding dicta? The only binding part of the decission is the finding. The intellectually dishonest hoops they jumped through to get there are meaningless in the law.

The finding in Roe is that the States have an interest in restricting abortion once the fetus becomes viable. If its not a person, what interest would they have? How could that interest be justification for negating a persons rights? There is no instance in the history of this nation where the government has ever been seen to have the power to negate rights based on anything other than another person or persons more compelling rights... except this one case. That is the flaw in Roe.

The only thing you'll do by leaning on the dicta is expose the flaw.