Abortion as Murder.

[NYcarbineer]

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.

You're wrongly assuming that there has to be an either/or all or nothing conveyance of rights and protections to fetuses, or born humans, for that matter.

Otherwise, how could we constitutionally deny the right to vote to minors? How could we constitutionally draft men to serve and fight and die for their country?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

The first thing I pointed out in this thread was my opinion that the 'flaw' in Roe v. Wade was that it gave rights to 'viable' fetuses with no Constitutional basis for that.

The 'proper' ruling would have been to make all abortion a right.

That's why Roe v Wade is brilliant.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Roe v Wade decides that States get to decide whether they have an interest or not. There is nothing in Roe v Wade that prevents a State from allowing abortion after viability; if the court were granting personhood to the fetus, that would be tantamount to allowing the states to legalize infanticide.

Did they do that?

 

[NYcarbineer]

[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.

.

You wouldn't since they refute your premise.

 

[BenNatuf]

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.

You're wrongly assuming that there has to be an either/or all or nothing conveyance of rights and protections to fetuses, or born humans, for that matter.

Otherwise, how could we constitutionally deny the right to vote to minors? How could we constitutionally draft men to serve and fight and die for their country?

Your contention is demonstrably false, the courts have found consistantly that minors do have rights, and restricted those rights based on the more compelling rights of thier parents. And voting is a poor example at any rate since its the constituion which restricts it making the restriction absolutely constituional. The draft is authorized by the governments authority to protect the right of all people to not be deprived of life liberty and property by having there government defeated in war and supplanted and by the constitutional provision granting the congress the authority to raise armies. Rights can only be infringed on through ballancing their exercize with the rights of other persons or by constitutional grants of authority, which coincidently serve to empower the government to protect those rights to begin with.

There is no constitutional provision to not deprive a notional person of potential life in protection of their future rights. There is only a prohibition to not deprive an actual person of real life in protection of thier current rights. The government has absolutely NO authority to restrict a persons rights based on the future rights of a notional person with potential life. the authority simply does not exist, and any claim thast it does is falacious. The SCOTUS is not empowered to empower itself or the government where it has no authority, only constitutional amendment can do that. Yet Roe does. It is inherently unconstitutional as law.

Further rights are an all or nothing proposition as they are held by persons, either you are a person and have rights or you are not and have none. There is no constitutinal middle ground. Neither can there be if all persons are to be treated equally. The constitutution does not empower the government to declare any person less than a person. You either are, or you're not.

 

[BenNatuf]

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.

The first thing I pointed out in this thread was my opinion that the 'flaw' in Roe v. Wade was that it gave rights to 'viable' fetuses with no Constitutional basis for that.

The 'proper' ruling would have been to make all abortion a right.

That's why Roe v Wade is brilliant.

Brilliant? hardly, its a logical falacy built around a presumed power that does not exist.

The proper ruling would have been either that a viable fetus was a person and could not be deprived of life without due process; or, that it was not a person and the state had no interest in protecting it.

Of course then we have the deffinition of viable to contend with and how as law its inconsistant for all persons because first, there is no test to determine viability to ensure these person are protected; and, second, the standard changes with medical advancements.

 

[BenNatuf]

[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.

.

You wouldn't since they refute your premise.

First, no they don't. They make claims which are not constitutionally grounded. There is no protection for potential life in the constitution, there are no notional persons in it.

second, dicta is non-binding rendering it meaningless as precedent.

 

[BenNatuf]

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.

Roe v Wade decides that States get to decide whether they have an interest or not. There is nothing in Roe v Wade that prevents a State from allowing abortion after viability; if the court were granting personhood to the fetus, that would be tantamount to allowing the states to legalize infanticide.

Did they do that?

If a viable fetus is not a person the state has no constitutional grounds to restrict the womans right to privacy. States authorities cannot negate constituional rights unless the authority to do so is constitutionally grounded. And yes, the courts did defacto grant the states permission to allow infanticide if we are to take the courts grant of authority to the states for what it is, the state exercizing its authority in the defence of a person rights.

 

[BenNatuf]

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.

The first thing I pointed out in this thread was my opinion that the 'flaw' in Roe v. Wade was that it gave rights to 'viable' fetuses with no Constitutional basis for that.

Carb, here's the gist of it, we AGREE on this point.

The fact is my argument is that the court has no authority to make any decission which is not constitutionally grounded. The Constitution limits our ENTIRE government including the courts.

What you seem to be celebrating is the SCOTUS acting outside of the constitution and making decissions which are not grounded in it. Think about that seriously. Are we a nation of laws or aren't we?

I said earlier that the opinion should have been either that a viable fetus was a person, therby engendering the states with the authority to protect it; or, that it was not thereby negating any possibility of ever infringing on a womans rights. That however is only correct in the context of them making any decission. The correct decission would have been for the court to declare themselves not having the authority to make ANY decission, since congress had not thought to use its legislative powers to define what a "person" is in the law. They (the courts) used to do that quite a bit before progressives took over our government.

Where in our constitution is the SCOTUS empowered to enhance the powers of our government beyond it's constitutional limitations?

 

[BenNatuf]

Well, I guess Carby gave up, so I'll leave it to another Abortion rights supporter who buy the dicta based argument to explain what Constitutional provision allows the SCOTUS to grant a "form of personhood" engendering only "some rights" and not the rest of them when the constitution requires "equal treatment under the law" for "persons" of any form. The argument is constitutionally inconsistant.

and

If they granted no "form of personhood" on what constitutionally grounded authority does the court allow the states to negate a womans rights at all?

There are two possibilities if you adhere to Roe, to adhere to it you either have to:

1. Believe the state can cite some generic "interest" which empowers them to negate rights.

or

2. Believe the constitution allows different classifications or persons who get different rights

If there's a third possibility which progresses logically and stands up to scrutiny I don't know what it is. And, I've seen no argument to justify constitutionally either of those two.

 

[Varth Dader]

...
2. Believe the constitution allows different classifications or persons who get different rights

Don't they do that with kids (give them less rights than adults)? Say for free speech rights?

 

[BenNatuf]

...
2. Believe the constitution allows different classifications or persons who get different rights

Don't they do that with kids (give them less rights than adults)? Say for free speech rights?

No they do not. They ballance the rights of the child with the rights of the person responsible for the child. And, they ballance the rights of a child in school, with the rights of all the other children to get an education. It's a ballancing act of one persons rights against anothers, and the persons with the more compelling right wins.

Other than the constitutional rights that are only afforded adults in the first place, Children have the same rights as anyone else, they just lose the battle of who's rights are more compelling in most cases.

 

[jillian]

...
2. Believe the constitution allows different classifications or persons who get different rights

Don't they do that with kids (give them less rights than adults)? Say for free speech rights?

No they do not. They ballance the rights of the child with the rights of the person responsible for the child. And, they ballance the rights of a child in school, with the rights of all the other children to get an education. It's a ballancing act of one persons rights against anothers, and the persons with the more compelling right wins.

they did that...

embryo vs human... human has more compellig rights.

human vs baby... baby has more compelling rights.

nice that you still don't know what you're talking about.

 

[BenNatuf]

Don't they do that with kids (give them less rights than adults)? Say for free speech rights?

No they do not. They ballance the rights of the child with the rights of the person responsible for the child. And, they ballance the rights of a child in school, with the rights of all the other children to get an education. It's a ballancing act of one persons rights against anothers, and the persons with the more compelling right wins.

they did that...

embryo vs human... human has more compellig rights.

human vs baby... baby has more compelling rights.

nice that you still don't know what you're talking about.

Nice to see you're still incapable of understanding this thread has nothing to do with embryos.

Woman vs Viable fetus... Viable fetus has more compelling rights.

BTW einstein, a baby is a human. So is a viable fetus. For that matter, so is an embryo. But the Constitution doesn't protect "humans", it protects "persons".

 

[Varth Dader]

No they do not. They ballance the rights of the child with the rights of the person responsible for the child. And, they ballance the rights of a child in school, with the rights of all the other children to get an education. It's a ballancing act of one persons rights against anothers, and the persons with the more compelling right wins.

Other than the constitutional rights that are only afforded adults in the first place, Children have the same rights as anyone else, they just lose the battle of who's rights are more compelling in most cases.

Where in the constitution do you see your argument about the balance of rights? Where do you see a right to education in the Constitution? Where does it say that Kids can't put out a "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" sign?

Anyways, where do you come up with this:

Woman vs Viable fetus... Viable fetus has more compelling rights.

 

[BenNatuf]

No they do not. They ballance the rights of the child with the rights of the person responsible for the child. And, they ballance the rights of a child in school, with the rights of all the other children to get an education. It's a ballancing act of one persons rights against anothers, and the persons with the more compelling right wins.

Other than the constitutional rights that are only afforded adults in the first place, Children have the same rights as anyone else, they just lose the battle of who's rights are more compelling in most cases.

Where in the constitution do you see your argument about the balance of rights? Where do you see a right to education in the Constitution? Where does it say that Kids can't put out a "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" sign?

Anyways, where do you come up with this:

Woman vs Viable fetus... Viable fetus has more compelling rights.

You've heard of Roe V Wade? That is precisely what it does and why abortion of a viable fetus can be restricted or outright banned.

On the specific issue of "BHFJ", I happen to agree with you that the courts went to far in upholding the schools decission. They were attempting to Ballance the rights of the other students to learn without undue distraction and failed. As to the right to an education, you seem to be of the wrongheaded opinion that the Constitution confers rights in the first place, it does not, it prevents the government from infringing on some of them.

As to the rest maybe you should take a civics class.

 

[Varth Dader]

You've heard of Roe V Wade? That is precisely what it does and why abortion of a viable fetus can be restricted or outright banned.

On the specific issue of "BHFJ", I happen to agree with you that the courts went to far in upholding the schools decission. They were attempting to Ballance the rights of the other students to learn without undue distraction and failed. As to the right to an education, you seem to be of the wrongheaded opinion that the Constitution confers rights in the first place, it does not, it prevents the government from infringing on some of them.

As to the rest maybe you should take a civics class.

Is Roe V Wade the notion the viable fetus has rights or that the State has in interest in the fetus living?

Out of curiosity, if a fetus is viable outside the womb, but a woman wants to get it out for whatever valid reason, should society pay the health care (and other related costs) of that baby if it is born prematurely? Because it seems to me if a baby will be born (extracted?) prematurely, the baby will have increased odds of disabilities or other negative consequences.

 

[BenNatuf]

You've heard of Roe V Wade? That is precisely what it does and why abortion of a viable fetus can be restricted or outright banned.

On the specific issue of "BHFJ", I happen to agree with you that the courts went to far in upholding the schools decission. They were attempting to Ballance the rights of the other students to learn without undue distraction and failed. As to the right to an education, you seem to be of the wrongheaded opinion that the Constitution confers rights in the first place, it does not, it prevents the government from infringing on some of them.

As to the rest maybe you should take a civics class.

Is Roe V Wade the notion the viable fetus has rights or that the State has in interest in the fetus living?

You can't have one without the other. The state has no authority to restrict the womans constitutional rights based on any generic "interest". The states authority to do so is based on the state acting to protect the more compelling rights of another person or persons.

Out of curiosity, if a fetus is viable outside the womb, but a woman wants to get it out for whatever valid reason, should society pay the health care (and other related costs) of that baby if it is born prematurely? Because it seems to me if a baby will be born (extracted?) prematurely, the baby will have increased odds of disabilities or other negative consequences.

No, she should be prosecuted for attempted murder if it lives and murder if it dies, except in the case of medical neccesity to preserve her own life. Seriously, if she decides to bash her 6 month old in the head with a hammer for whatever reason is that OK too? There is no valid reason to kill other than those ordered through due process or to protect your own life, liberty or property. And in the case of liberty and property the ballance usually goes to life.

 

[Cecilie1200]

...
2. Believe the constitution allows different classifications or persons who get different rights

Don't they do that with kids (give them less rights than adults)? Say for free speech rights?

No, kids have the same RIGHTS as anyone. What they have fewer of are PRIVILEGES. Remember that the right to free speech that you mentioned is protection against GOVERNMENT encroachment, not against other people. The things a child does not have that an adult does, such as being able to vote, drive, purchase restricted substances, etc., are not rights like freedom of speech and assembly, a speedy trial, etc. They are privileges, accorded under certain circumstances and not under others.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No they do not. They ballance the rights of the child with the rights of the person responsible for the child. And, they ballance the rights of a child in school, with the rights of all the other children to get an education. It's a ballancing act of one persons rights against anothers, and the persons with the more compelling right wins.

they did that...

embryo vs human... human has more compellig rights.

human vs baby... baby has more compelling rights.

nice that you still don't know what you're talking about.

Nice to see you're still incapable of understanding this thread has nothing to do with embryos.

Woman vs Viable fetus... Viable fetus has more compelling rights.

BTW einstein, a baby is a human. So is a viable fetus. For that matter, so is an embryo. But the Constitution doesn't protect "humans", it protects "persons".

I thought it was interesting that she still doesn't know the definition of "human".