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.
IX
The (anti-abortion) 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 (pro-abortion) appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the (14th) Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. - Roe v. Wade
If Roe v Wade was overturned, wouldn't everything in that decision be invalidated? Besides, this section refers to a hypothetical establishment of personhood at the federal level. Unless/until that occurs, the abortion issue would revert to the States.
Our FEDERAL fetal HOMICIDE laws already establish the fact that a "child in the womb" is a "person."
I do.
Feel Free to explain how this could revert back to the States.
That's not how the Supreme Court works. I'm pro-life (but probably a different kind of pro-life than you as I am from most who call themselves pro-life but are not.)
I hate that the court does this but when the court rules on something they almost invariably rule as narrow as they can.
I'll ask again.
Please explain how the Supreme Court of the United States can rule that a child's life begins at conception, recognize said children as "persons" and acknowledge that "children in the womb" are Constitutionally entitled to the "equal protections of our laws" and then leave it for the individual States to decide whether they want to Keep abortions legal and DENY those protections to children in the womb.
I'm waiting.
They aren't going to do that.
I think they will.
Especially when they are asked to reconcile a fetal HOMICIDE law or conviction with Roe.
You are speaking somewhere down the road.
That's not how the Supreme Court works. I'm pro-life (but probably a different kind of pro-life than you as I am from most who call themselves pro-life but are not.)
I hate that the court does this but when the court rules on something they almost invariably rule as narrow as they can.
I'll ask again.
Please explain how the Supreme Court of the United States can rule that a child's life begins at conception, recognize said children as "persons" and acknowledge that "children in the womb" are Constitutionally entitled to the "equal protections of our laws" and then leave it for the individual States to decide whether they want to Keep abortions legal and DENY those protections to children in the womb.
I'm waiting.
They aren't going to do that.
I think they will.
Especially when they are asked to reconcile a fetal HOMICIDE law or conviction with Roe.
You are speaking somewhere down the road.
And you aren't?
Our FEDERAL fetal HOMICIDE laws already establish the fact that a "child in the womb" is a "person."
Cite?
I'll ask again.
Please explain how the Supreme Court of the United States can rule that a child's life begins at conception, recognize said children as "persons" and acknowledge that "children in the womb" are Constitutionally entitled to the "equal protections of our laws" and then leave it for the individual States to decide whether they want to Keep abortions legal and DENY those protections to children in the womb.
I'm waiting.
They aren't going to do that.
I think they will.
Especially when they are asked to reconcile a fetal HOMICIDE law or conviction with Roe.
You are speaking somewhere down the road.
And you aren't?
No. I'm speaking about what happens if RvW was overturned. Not what *might* happen well after that.
They aren't going to do that.
I think they will.
Especially when they are asked to reconcile a fetal HOMICIDE law or conviction with Roe.
You are speaking somewhere down the road.
And you aren't?
No. I'm speaking about what happens if RvW was overturned. Not what *might* happen well after that.
The immediate outcome will weigh heavily on the exact wording of the Supreme Court Justices opinions. Can we at least agree on that?
Our FEDERAL fetal HOMICIDE laws already establish the fact that a "child in the womb" is a "person."
Cite?
18 U.S. Code § 1841 - Protection of unborn children
I think they will.
Especially when they are asked to reconcile a fetal HOMICIDE law or conviction with Roe.
You are speaking somewhere down the road.
And you aren't?
No. I'm speaking about what happens if RvW was overturned. Not what *might* happen well after that.
The immediate outcome will weigh heavily on the exact wording of the Supreme Court Justices opinions. Can we at least agree on that?
I addressed that. While I dislike it the court almost always rules as narrowly as possible. There is absolutely no reason to think they wouldn't here also.
Our FEDERAL fetal HOMICIDE laws already establish the fact that a "child in the womb" is a "person."
Cite?
18 U.S. Code § 1841 - Protection of unborn children
Thanks, but this distinguishes between a "person" and an "unborn child."
For example:
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution—
(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;
(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or
(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.
You are speaking somewhere down the road.
And you aren't?
No. I'm speaking about what happens if RvW was overturned. Not what *might* happen well after that.
The immediate outcome will weigh heavily on the exact wording of the Supreme Court Justices opinions. Can we at least agree on that?
I addressed that. While I dislike it the court almost always rules as narrowly as possible. There is absolutely no reason to think they wouldn't here also.
Almost. . .
Always. . .
Almost. . .
And you aren't?
No. I'm speaking about what happens if RvW was overturned. Not what *might* happen well after that.
The immediate outcome will weigh heavily on the exact wording of the Supreme Court Justices opinions. Can we at least agree on that?
I addressed that. While I dislike it the court almost always rules as narrowly as possible. There is absolutely no reason to think they wouldn't here also.
Almost. . .
Always. . .
Almost. . .
Roberts isn't going to allow some wide ranging ruling. That's not who he is.
No. I'm speaking about what happens if RvW was overturned. Not what *might* happen well after that.
The immediate outcome will weigh heavily on the exact wording of the Supreme Court Justices opinions. Can we at least agree on that?
I addressed that. While I dislike it the court almost always rules as narrowly as possible. There is absolutely no reason to think they wouldn't here also.
Almost. . .
Always. . .
Almost. . .
Roberts isn't going to allow some wide ranging ruling. That's not who he is.
There is No need for a wide ranging opinion from Roberts on when a child'sright to the equal protections of our laws should begin. A very narrow definition will suffice.
The immediate outcome will weigh heavily on the exact wording of the Supreme Court Justices opinions. Can we at least agree on that?
I addressed that. While I dislike it the court almost always rules as narrowly as possible. There is absolutely no reason to think they wouldn't here also.
Almost. . .
Always. . .
Almost. . .
Roberts isn't going to allow some wide ranging ruling. That's not who he is.
There is No need for a wide ranging opinion from Roberts on when a child'sright to the equal protections of our laws should begin. A very narrow definition will suffice.
We aren't discussing children. When speaking of the law the distinction makes a huge difference.
Republicans SWORE that they weren't going after Roe.
You mean they LIED...again?
Republicans SWORE that they weren't going after Roe.
You mean they LIED...again?
Republicans SWORE that they weren't going after Roe.
You mean they LIED...again?
What do you do when you are a single mom with no child support, three failed marriages, income coming from the military, making a car payment, and living in base housing and you get pregnant, because you never have anyone to talk to and long for love and care and attention, more than anything else. You find out your first missed period. The man that got you pregnant will not marry you. Would think explore your options. Maybe you are forced by the fact you are in the military and being pregnant is not something you do, military and babies don't mix. Plus you were born in the 50's and still smoke that costs a lot of money. Only fun thing to do was smoke tobacco. I think women have compelling reasons to choose abortion.
