Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Alive legally means being born. There is no life until then, legally. There is "potential life." And the SC's Casey opinion found the state has an interest that. BUT imo the Texas law has nothing to do with that. It is about political control. If Texas was interested in potential life there'd be a helll of a lot of prenatal and early childhood care that ain't happening with the law.Like I said earlier in the thread we have to have the discussion and come to an agreement about what is life. Until that's been agreed upon we will never get the opposing sides on abortion to convince each other is right. But it's the wrong argument IMO or at least one that once the "what is life" question is answered is moot.
Is that the definition of life we as a society are ok with? I dont think it is. And what about passing through the birth canal infers life on a baby? If we grew a baby outside a womb would that individual not be alive? If I kill a pregnant woman in many jurisdictions I will be charged with double homicide.Alive legally means being born. There is no life until then, legally. There is "potential life." And the SC's Casey opinion found the state has an interest that. BUT imo the Texas law has nothing to do with that. It is about political control. If Texas was interested in potential life there'd be a helll of a lot of prenatal and early childhood care that ain't happening with the law.
of course there's a debate. You're simply trying to "frame" the issue so the debate ends in your favor. The 14th amend defines a "person" as "born or being here." Legally, there's no such thing as "personhood." But the SC said in Casey the state has an interest in protecting life (or the sanctity of life.") So yes killing a pregnant women can have enhanced punishment. states can limit violence in media, children can't be used in porn, etc. And the state may limit abortions. The question is how much. The SC has consistently over the past 20 years or so allowed more and more restriction even if the restrictions cannot be shown to really protect the mother or prevent a fetus from being aborted that is capable of being a "person."Is that the definition of life we as a society are ok with? I dont think it is. And what about passing through the birth canal infers life on a baby? If we grew a baby outside a womb would that individual not be alive? If I kill a pregnant woman in many jurisdictions I will be charged with double homicide.
Abortion is 100% about it. If an unborn baby is a life then abortion is murder if it isnt then it isnt and there's really no abortion debate right?
You dont even know what my "side" is. The idea that abortion is about controlling someone else's body is stupid. It's about whether or not we are killing a life. So what is life? What's different about a fetus in the womb and 1 sec later a baby that's born? We have to define what life is so we debating with an agreed upon set of facts and definitions. Otherwise we are just pissing in the wind. Passage through the birth canal seems like a weird definition of life. What characteristics make a baby born 6 weeks early more intrinsically valuable than a fetus at 36 weeks?of course there's a debate. You're simply trying to "frame" the issue so the debate ends in your favor. The 14th amend defines a "person" as "born or being here." Legally, there's no such thing as "personhood." But the SC said in Casey the state has an interest in protecting life (or the sanctity of life.") So yes killing a pregnant women can have enhanced punishment. states can limit violence in media, children can't be used in porn, etc. And the state may limit abortions. The question is how much. The SC has consistently over the past 20 years or so allowed more and more restriction even if the restrictions cannot be shown to really protect the mother or prevent a fetus from being aborted that is capable of being a "person."
Neither is Brown v. Board of Ed or Gideon v. Wainwright or Miranda v Arizona or Loving v Virginia.So you can’t show anything can you fuckstain? Roe vs Wade is not in the Constitution dumbfuck. Wow you just got your ass totally handed to you.
She's a Poe, you know.Oh my f’n God. I just read that ^
We've certainly got our fair share.....that's for sure.I think we got a bunch MGTOW/INCEL misogynists on here.
you just stated your "side." lolYou dont even know what my "side" is. The idea that abortion is about controlling someone else's body is stupid. It's about whether or not we are killing a life. So what is life? What's different about a fetus in the womb and 1 sec later a baby that's born? We have to define what life is so we debating with an agreed upon set of facts and definitions. Otherwise we are just pissing in the wind. Passage through the birth canal seems like a weird definition of life. What characteristics make a baby born 6 weeks early more intrinsically valuable than a fetus at 36 weeks?
It's funny watching you double down on your ignorance on how the Supreme Court makes rulings USING the U.S. Constitution....Roe vs Wade is not in the Constitution you fucking idiot. Now skid mark, you will show where in the Constitution abortion is codified as a right. Or STFU loser.
Supreme Court decision
On January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision in favor of Norma McCorvey ("Jane Roe") that held that women in the United States have a fundamental right to choose whether or not to have abortions without excessive government restriction, and struck down Texas's abortion ban as unconstitutional. The decision was issued together with a companion case, Doe v. Bolton, that involved a similar challenge to Georgia's abortion laws.
Opinion of the Court
Justice Harry Blackmun, the author of the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade
Seven justices formed the majority and joined an opinion written by Justice Harry Blackmun. The opinion recited the facts of the case, then dealt with issues of procedure and justiciability before proceeding to the main constitutional issues of the case.
Mootness
The Court's opinion first addressed the legal question of mootness, which generally bars American federal courts from hearing cases that have ceased to be "live" controversies because of intervening events.[47] Under a normal application of the principle, McCorvey's appeal had become moot because she had already given birth to her child and thus would not be affected by a ruling in her favor.[48]
The Court concluded that the case came within an established exception to the rule: one that allowed consideration of an issue that was "capable of repetition, yet evading review".[49] Blackmun noted that pregnancy would normally conclude more quickly than an appellate process: "If that termination makes a case moot, pregnancy litigation seldom will survive much beyond the trial stage, and appellate review will be effectively denied."[50]
Abortion and right to privacy
After dealing with mootness and standing, the Court then proceeded to the main issue of the case: the constitutionality of Texas's abortion law. The Court first surveyed abortion's legal status throughout the history of Roman law and the Anglo-American common law.[5] It also reviewed the developments of medical procedures and technology used in abortions, which had only become reliably safe in the early 20th century.[5]
After its historical survey, the Court introduced the concept of a constitutional "right to privacy" that was intimated in earlier cases involving parental control over childrearing—Meyer v. Nebraska and Pierce v. Society of Sisters—and reproductive autonomy with the use of contraception—Griswold v. Connecticut.[5] Then, "with virtually no further explanation of the privacy value",[6] the Court ruled that regardless of exactly which of its provisions were involved, the U.S. Constitution's guarantees of liberty covered a right to privacy that generally protected a pregnant woman's decision whether or not to abort a pregnancy.[5]
This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or ... in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.
— Roe, 410 U.S. at 153.[51]
Well clearly thinking isn't your strong pointI don't think people in Colonial America would have had any problem with abortion...
For the 7,000x - abortion has never been in the US Constitution. Never. Why do you so desperately want the world to know how ignorant you are? Why? Asking for a friend.The assclown is apparently unaware that a mother’s right to choose has been constitutionally protected for the past 50 years. Sad
Isn't it typical....they want us to do their work for them.I see you are too lazy to use Google
I've sent that to everyone I know and the laughing hasn't stopped. People are just dying laughing. Even young nieces and nephews.In this country, the definition of a constitutional right is when the SCOTUS rules something to be a constitutional right.
Fort Fun Indiana has proved more laughs than the best comic alive today. Man the low-IQ left is so damn funny!No sorry. That is very stupid and you just made it up and vomited it, because you are very stupid and thought that was just what those two words meant.
Well God can't tell you you can't get an abortion, but a court can. That's the difference.I've sent that to everyone I know and the laughing hasn't stopped. People are just dying laughing. Even young nieces and nephews.
Nobody can understand how the left can get so dumb as to not understand that "constitutional" literally means something in the constitution just as something "biblical" means in the Bible:
View attachment 536629
Damn that is hilarious coming from the "we're too lazy to work so we want wealth redistribution" crowd!Isn't it typical....they want us to do their work for them.
)
Neither has the Air Force...you want to make that illegal too?For the 7,000x - abortion has never been in the US Constitution. Never. Why do you so desperately want the world to know how ignorant you are? Why? Asking for a friend.
That doesn't reflect well on your family.I've sent that to everyone I know and the laughing hasn't stopped. People are just dying laughing. Even young nieces and nephews.
Nobody can understand how the left can get so dumb as to not understand that "constitutional" literally means something in the constitution just as something "biblical" means in the Bible:
View attachment 536629
God can't tell you to get an abortion? Seriously? So he can create an entire universe, but he's incapable of speaking? Yeeaahh...ok.Well God can't tell you you can't get an abortion, but a court can. That's the difference.
Love the projection, hun.Damn that is hilarious coming from the "we're too lazy to work so we want wealth redistribution" crowd!
You people have gotten so fuck'n lazy, you can't even do a Google search (mostly because it will produce results that prove you made shit up
