More abortion insanity

[Care4all]

One of the most authoritative sources for learning law during the founding era was William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England. Blackstone, a distinguished English jurist, was so well-liked by the founding fathers that he was the second most frequently cited thinker in the American political writings of the founding era. American law students studied his work so religiously that Thomas Jefferson wrote to a friend that “Blackstone is to us what the Koran is to the Muslims.”

Blackstone affirmed in his Commentaries that an individual’s right to life is an “immediate gift of God.” This right to life is legally binding “as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother’s womb.” Per Blackstone,

“For if a woman is quick with child, and by a potion, or otherwise kills it in her womb; or if any one beat her, whereby the child dies in her body, and she is delivered of a dead child; this, though not murder, was by the ancient law homicide or manslaughter. But at present it is not looked upon in quite so atrocious a light, though it remains a very heinous misdemeanor.”

--------------------
QUICKENING happens at around 16 to 19 weeks of pregnancy.

And also from another founding father who taught law.....

-----------------

American courts upheld this traditional common law approach in characterizing abortion as a misdemeanor. Founding father James Wilson, a signatory of the Declaration of Independence and original U.S. Supreme Court justice, taught his law students that,

“With consistency, beautiful and undeviating, human life, from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law. In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb. By the law, life is protected not only from immediate destruction, but from every degree of actual violence, and, in some cases, from every degree of danger.”

--------------

That is QUICK, QUICKENING.

Definition

Quickening in Pregnancy​

Quickening is when a pregnant person starts to feel their baby's movement in their uterus (womb). It feels like flutters, bubbles or tiny pulses. Quickening happens around 16 to 20 weeks in pregnancy, but some people may feel it sooner or later

 

[Care4all]

So, who is to blame if abortion is illegal in a particular state?

The SCOTUS didn't write those state laws.

They didn't, never said they did. They protected women's privacy and autonomy to make their own decisions, from State government over reach.

 

[TNHarley]

Am I missing something? Why should the guy not be held financially responsible for the CHILD he fathered?

The law is where the women can sue the guy for getting her pregnant. This isnt about child support.

 

[Lesh]

Yes. Both are as stupid as each other. Simple answer.

Funny how the law favours the mother when kids are involved.

It FAVORS taking care of the kid

 

[Lesh]

The law is where the women can sue the guy for getting her pregnant. This isnt about child support.

That’s exactly what it’s about

 

[TNHarley]

That’s exactly what it’s about

Yeah I know

 

[Care4all]

The law is where the women can sue the guy for getting her pregnant. This isnt about child support.

Is it about splitting medical bill and other financial losses due to pregnancy??? I guess I need to read the link!

 

[TNHarley]

Is it about splitting medical bill and other financial losses due to pregnancy??? I guess I need to read the link!

Its just payback for ohios strict abortion law, is all it is. Or its about the one they are about to do in november and outlaw all abortion.
Partisan theater.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

They didn't, never said they did. They protected women's privacy and autonomy to make their own decisions, from State government over reach.

But, they found that to be inappropriate at the federal level, via judicial fiat (Roe), which is their job.

So, again. Whose fault is it?

 

[Care4all]

But, they found that to be inappropriate at the federal level, via judicial fiat (Roe), which is their job.

So, again. Whose fault is it?

They found a convoluted reason, that satisfied or barely satisfied their predetermined result, to revert stare decisive decisions by previous supreme court decision from 50 years ago...

It was a twisted decision, that now allows state courts to ban inter mixed marriages again, ban birth control again, ban divorce again etc.... None of those are rights specifically mentioned in the constitution either....but fall under the right to privacy, just like a TOP.....Termination of pregnancy.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Regarding abortion, there should be one set of laws for every woman in the nation, not this ridiculous nonsense that this ruling has inflicted on the nation. 20 states have now fully banned or mostly banned abortion.

So much for giving consideration on the social implications of this reversal. Or the number of woman relying on this right - also a supposed consideration.

This is another attempt of the minority radical fringe right wingers inflicting their regligous beliefs on the people. This decision has far less validity than the original decision.

Then either amend the Constitution to do that or, as I noted before, Congress needs to do their job, like they should have done 50 years ago, instead of pawning off their responsibility to the courts.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

They found a convoluted reason

The Roe Court? I agree.

that satisfied or barely satisfied their predetermined result, to revert stare decisive decisions by previous supreme court decision from 50 years ago...

a shit decision remains a shit decision. It doesn't matter how long it's been upheld.

It was a twisted decision

Roe? I agree. Totally.

that now allows state courts to ban inter mixed marriages again,

WRONG. Who is telling you these lies?

ban birth control again, ban divorce again etc....

Of course. But maybe you have never heard of the old Scalia adage "stupid but constitutional."

KICK THE BUMS OUT if they make those terrible laws or move away. Look at California. It is SERIOUSLY suffering from its own dumbfuckery.

I am very pro-choice.

I am also very pro-local, anti-centralized government

The original intent of the U.S. government was very limited, for regulated commerce between the states, for a common currency, and for mutual defense. Abortion is NONE of those.

 

[Care4all]

Then either amend the Constitution to do that or, as I noted before, Congress needs to do their job, like they should have done 50 years ago, instead of pawning off their responsibility to the courts.

But we believe we do have a right to privacy? Why would you need a law, when we believe our privacy is a right??

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

But we believe we do have a right to privacy? Why would you need a law, when we believe our privacy is a right??

It's your opinion that it's a right. Legally is a whole other question. There is no right to privacy. There never was. That was invented by the Berger court, hence the controversy for the past 50 years. As I said in an earlier post, had they kicked it back to Congress like they should have, instead of engaging in judicial activism, this likely would have been settled a long time ago.

 

[dblack]

It's your opinion that it's a right. Legally is a whole other question. There is no right to privacy. There never was. That was invented by the Berger court, hence the controversy for the past 50 years. As I said in an earlier post, had they kicked it back to Congress like they should have, instead of engaging in judicial activism, this likely would have been settled a long time ago.

Are you of the opinion that the Constitution only protects the rights specifically cited in the document?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Are you of the opinion that the Constitution only protects the rights specifically cited in the document?

I don't. See the 9th Amendment.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

But also, see the 10th Amendment.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Even if you buy into the all-encompassing interpretation of the Commerce Clause or the General Welfare Clause (which are completely overbroad interpretations) Congress has made NO LAW concerning abortion, so there can be no federal preemption.

 

[Care4all]

It's your opinion that it's a right. Legally is a whole other question. There is no right to privacy. There never was. That was invented by the Berger court, hence the controversy for the past 50 years. As I said in an earlier post, had they kicked it back to Congress like they should have, instead of engaging in judicial activism, this likely would have been settled a long time ago.

But if you say there is no privacy right in the constitution, .... what kind of sexual contact you have, what birth control you can use or not use, what gender you marry, and whether you can divorce or not, your own medical decisions are up for grabs again, by the radical, over reaching State Governments...?

fundamental right​

Primary tabs​

Overview​

Fundamental rights are a group of rights that have been recognized by the Supreme Court as requiring a high degree of protection from government encroachment. These rights are specifically identified in the Constitution (especially in the Bill of Rights), or have been found under Due Process. Laws encroaching on a fundamental right generally must pass strict scrutiny to be upheld as constitutional.

Non-Exhaustive List of Fundamental Rights​

Examples of fundamental rights not specifically listed in the Constitution include:

• marriage
• privacy
• contraception
• interstate travel.
• procreation
• custody of one's child(ren)
• voting

 

[jc456]

I tell you what I favour, I favour the earth stop spinning so the sane people can get off.

With all these nutters who struggle with gender, and those who struggle how they got pregnant and want a contraceptive abortion, they're dragging the intelligence of the human race down.

maybe kick off the insane and leave us sane folks all alone.

 

[Lesh]

It's your opinion that it's a right. Legally is a whole other question. There is no right to privacy. There never was.

Then there should be no issue with the government getting access to your phone records for instance

 

[jc456]

They didn't, never said they did. They protected women's privacy and autonomy to make their own decisions, from State government over reach.

SCOTUS doesn't write law, they offer opinion based off constitutional law. Is there an abortion law? no, then they had no authority to do what the did 50 years ago. Just didn't. You choose to ignore the facts isn't my problem.