States rights and protecting unborn life

[jwoodie]

Constitutionally it is not a power given to the feds.
Constitutionally that power is retained by the states or the people.
Constitutionally you have a right to personal privacy.
Constitutionally you have a right to choose what medical treatment you ask for or deny.
It is my contention that while it may, at some level, exist as a "states right" issue it ultimately falls on the will of the person affected.
The law cannot say when life begins. A mother can.
A fetus cannot live outside the womb. A person can.
An fetus is not yet a citizen or a person - it has no rights.
If you are a pregnant woman then you get to decide what you are willing to do to support a life - as long as it is within and totally dependent on you.
No one else can say what you must or must not do with or to a parasitic being that may or may not develope into a human being.
You don't get to use the carpool lane because you are pregnant - there has to be two people in the car.
You, as a future mother, can sue if someone else takes the life of the fetus within you wrongfully. You can also pay someone to remove the fetus prior to it becoming a human being.

It has always amazed me that people on both sides argue rights on this issue but both sides have very different views of when a multi-celled organism becomes a human being. If we can agree on that time frame then the issue is gone. You can't commit murder but it is only murder if it is a human life and you are not defending yourself.
Now, when does a sperm and an egg become a human being?

Why don't you answer your own question? And please don't tell us when a fetus is NOT a human being; tell us SPECIFICALLY when it IS a human being. Unfortunately, I don't expect an answer from you or your fellow travelers.

 

[Publius1787]

I’ve read a number of rhetoric filled, but ultimately poorly thought out proposals to ‘solve’ the abortion debate simply by leaving it up to the states to decide. According to this fatally simplistic solution, states that want to ban abortion can do so, and women from those states who want to get one can simply travel to a state where it is legal and get the procedure. Sounds almost rational on the surface, but under this solution, states don’t actually retain the right to protect unborn life. All they can do is make abortion more costly and inconvenient (prohibitively even for some), but at the end of the day they don’t retain the ultimate right to protect unborn life.

States would only retain ultimate right to protect unborn life if they could prosecute residents who travel out of state to have an abortion.

By definition, in order for something to be a solution, it has to actually solve a problem. So if states can only ban abortion within their own borders but cannot prevent residents from getting one out of state, exactly what problem does this solution solve?

Yes, ignore the U.S. Constitution and lets do what you want to do. I see what your saying. But the U.S. Constitution is absolutely silent on abortion. Enter the 10th.

I don't like it, but at least I'm honest about it.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Constitutionally it is not a power given to the feds.
Constitutionally that power is retained by the states or the people.
Constitutionally you have a right to personal privacy.
Constitutionally you have a right to choose what medical treatment you ask for or deny.
It is my contention that while it may, at some level, exist as a "states right" issue it ultimately falls on the will of the person affected.
The law cannot say when life begins. A mother can.
A fetus cannot live outside the womb. A person can.
An fetus is not yet a citizen or a person - it has no rights.
If you are a pregnant woman then you get to decide what you are willing to do to support a life - as long as it is within and totally dependent on you.
No one else can say what you must or must not do with or to a parasitic being that may or may not develope into a human being.
You don't get to use the carpool lane because you are pregnant - there has to be two people in the car.
You, as a future mother, can sue if someone else takes the life of the fetus within you wrongfully. You can also pay someone to remove the fetus prior to it becoming a human being.

It has always amazed me that people on both sides argue rights on this issue but both sides have very different views of when a multi-celled organism becomes a human being. If we can agree on that time frame then the issue is gone. You can't commit murder but it is only murder if it is a human life and you are not defending yourself.
Now, when does a sperm and an egg become a human being?

Why don't you answer your own question? And please don't tell us when a fetus is NOT a human being; tell us SPECIFICALLY when it IS a human being. Unfortunately, I don't expect an answer from you or your fellow travelers.

People have often said that the one thing that separates us from all the other animals is our ability to think and reason.

A fetus isn't a "person" until it has a brain and a functioning nervous system.

 

[daveman]

Duh, the issue at hand is whether these ridiculous SCOTUS decisions should be overturned and the matter of abortion returned to the States as prescribed in the Constitution. Simply quoting them is a transparently circular argument.

Someone gets it.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Isn't it unbelievable that a person will be charged with TWO murders if killing a pregnant woman (of course) ...

.....................but a woman can freely kill an unborn child and that's ok. The "doctor" can tear that baby apart, limb from limb, and it's ok? errr, legal?

Something's terribly wrong with this picture.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I’ve read a number of rhetoric filled, but ultimately poorly thought out proposals to ‘solve’ the abortion debate simply by leaving it up to the states to decide. According to this fatally simplistic solution, states that want to ban abortion can do so, and women from those states who want to get one can simply travel to a state where it is legal and get the procedure. Sounds almost rational on the surface, but under this solution, states don’t actually retain the right to protect unborn life. All they can do is make abortion more costly and inconvenient (prohibitively even for some), but at the end of the day they don’t retain the ultimate right to protect unborn life.

States would only retain ultimate right to protect unborn life if they could prosecute residents who travel out of state to have an abortion.

By definition, in order for something to be a solution, it has to actually solve a problem. So if states can only ban abortion within their own borders but cannot prevent residents from getting one out of state, exactly what problem does this solution solve?

And a dry county just makes it more expensive to drink because I have to drive to a non-dry county. And a state that doesn't offer gay marriage makes it more expensive to marry because people now must go to a pro gay marriage state. And on and on and on....

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Constitutionally it is not a power given to the feds.
Constitutionally that power is retained by the states or the people.
Constitutionally you have a right to personal privacy.
Constitutionally you have a right to choose what medical treatment you ask for or deny.
It is my contention that while it may, at some level, exist as a "states right" issue it ultimately falls on the will of the person affected.
The law cannot say when life begins. A mother can.
A fetus cannot live outside the womb. A person can.
An fetus is not yet a citizen or a person - it has no rights.
If you are a pregnant woman then you get to decide what you are willing to do to support a life - as long as it is within and totally dependent on you.
No one else can say what you must or must not do with or to a parasitic being that may or may not develope into a human being.
You don't get to use the carpool lane because you are pregnant - there has to be two people in the car.
You, as a future mother, can sue if someone else takes the life of the fetus within you wrongfully. You can also pay someone to remove the fetus prior to it becoming a human being.

It has always amazed me that people on both sides argue rights on this issue but both sides have very different views of when a multi-celled organism becomes a human being. If we can agree on that time frame then the issue is gone. You can't commit murder but it is only murder if it is a human life and you are not defending yourself.
Now, when does a sperm and an egg become a human being?

Why don't you answer your own question? And please don't tell us when a fetus is NOT a human being; tell us SPECIFICALLY when it IS a human being. Unfortunately, I don't expect an answer from you or your fellow travelers.

People have often said that the one thing that separates us from all the other animals is our ability to think and reason.

A fetus isn't a "person" until it has a brain and a functioning nervous system.

So, liberals are not persons?

 

[daveman]

Isn't it unbelievable that a person will be charged with TWO murders if killing a pregnant woman (of course) ...

.....................but a woman can freely kill an unborn child and that's ok. The "doctor" can tear that baby apart, limb from limb, and it's ok? errr, legal?

Something's terribly wrong with this picture.

You can learn how to think like a liberal, but it involves head trauma.

 

[manifold]

I’ve read a number of rhetoric filled, but ultimately poorly thought out proposals to ‘solve’ the abortion debate simply by leaving it up to the states to decide. According to this fatally simplistic solution, states that want to ban abortion can do so, and women from those states who want to get one can simply travel to a state where it is legal and get the procedure. Sounds almost rational on the surface, but under this solution, states don’t actually retain the right to protect unborn life. All they can do is make abortion more costly and inconvenient (prohibitively even for some), but at the end of the day they don’t retain the ultimate right to protect unborn life.

States would only retain ultimate right to protect unborn life if they could prosecute residents who travel out of state to have an abortion.

By definition, in order for something to be a solution, it has to actually solve a problem. So if states can only ban abortion within their own borders but cannot prevent residents from getting one out of state, exactly what problem does this solution solve?

And a dry county just makes it more expensive to drink because I have to drive to a non-dry county. And a state that doesn't offer gay marriage makes it more expensive to marry because people now must go to a pro gay marriage state. And on and on and on....

Right, and what problems are being solved with any of that?

 

[whitehall]

I’ve read a number of rhetoric filled, but ultimately poorly thought out proposals to ‘solve’ the abortion debate simply by leaving it up to the states to decide. According to this fatally simplistic solution, states that want to ban abortion can do so, and women from those states who want to get one can simply travel to a state where it is legal and get the procedure. Sounds almost rational on the surface, but under this solution, states don’t actually retain the right to protect unborn life. All they can do is make abortion more costly and inconvenient (prohibitively even for some), but at the end of the day they don’t retain the ultimate right to protect unborn life.

States would only retain ultimate right to protect unborn life if they could prosecute residents who travel out of state to have an abortion.

By definition, in order for something to be a solution, it has to actually solve a problem. So if states can only ban abortion within their own borders but cannot prevent residents from getting one out of state, exactly what problem does this solution solve?

Actually they do "retain the right to protect unborn life" within the framework of the US Constitution> I don't see that as a problem but a solution to a problem.

 

[manifold]

I’ve read a number of rhetoric filled, but ultimately poorly thought out proposals to ‘solve’ the abortion debate simply by leaving it up to the states to decide. According to this fatally simplistic solution, states that want to ban abortion can do so, and women from those states who want to get one can simply travel to a state where it is legal and get the procedure. Sounds almost rational on the surface, but under this solution, states don’t actually retain the right to protect unborn life. All they can do is make abortion more costly and inconvenient (prohibitively even for some), but at the end of the day they don’t retain the ultimate right to protect unborn life.

States would only retain ultimate right to protect unborn life if they could prosecute residents who travel out of state to have an abortion.

By definition, in order for something to be a solution, it has to actually solve a problem. So if states can only ban abortion within their own borders but cannot prevent residents from getting one out of state, exactly what problem does this solution solve?

Actually they do "retain the right to protect unborn life" within the framework of the US Constitution> I don't see that as a problem but a solution to a problem.

Sounds to me like you see the problem as being the erosion of state's rights, and the protection of unborn life is merely fodder for establishing a precedent to thwart it, or indeed roll it back. Or am I missing something?

 

[tinydancer]

Constitutionally it is not a power given to the feds.
Constitutionally that power is retained by the states or the people.
Constitutionally you have a right to personal privacy.
Constitutionally you have a right to choose what medical treatment you ask for or deny.
It is my contention that while it may, at some level, exist as a "states right" issue it ultimately falls on the will of the person affected.
The law cannot say when life begins. A mother can.
A fetus cannot live outside the womb. A person can.
An fetus is not yet a citizen or a person - it has no rights.
If you are a pregnant woman then you get to decide what you are willing to do to support a life - as long as it is within and totally dependent on you.
No one else can say what you must or must not do with or to a parasitic being that may or may not develope into a human being.
You don't get to use the carpool lane because you are pregnant - there has to be two people in the car.
You, as a future mother, can sue if someone else takes the life of the fetus within you wrongfully. You can also pay someone to remove the fetus prior to it becoming a human being.

It has always amazed me that people on both sides argue rights on this issue but both sides have very different views of when a multi-celled organism becomes a human being. If we can agree on that time frame then the issue is gone. You can't commit murder but it is only murder if it is a human life and you are not defending yourself.
Now, when does a sperm and an egg become a human being?

lLooks like 20 weeks in Britain New law as compared to your darling of death.

She got all her cash from Tiller. I know her well.

 

[tinydancer]

Oh just so you know.....her name is Jan.

 

[daveman]

You can learn to think like a welching conservative, but it involves a lobotomy.

derrrrrp!

What was that?

isn't it unbelievable that a person will be charged with two murders if killing a pregnant woman (of course) ...

.....................but a woman can freely kill an unborn child and that's ok. The "doctor" can tear that baby apart, limb from limb, and it's ok? Errr, legal?

Something's terribly wrong with this picture.

you can learn how to think like a liberal, but it involves head trauma.

You can learn to think like a welching conservative, but it involves a lobotomy.

Last edited by manifold; Today at 12:12 PM.​

 

[daveman]

isn't it unbelievable that a person will be charged with two murders if killing a pregnant woman (of course) ...

.....................but a woman can freely kill an unborn child and that's ok. The "doctor" can tear that baby apart, limb from limb, and it's ok? Errr, legal?

Something's terribly wrong with this picture.

you can learn how to think like a liberal, but it involves head trauma.

You can learn to think like a welching conservative, but it involves a lobotomy.

I can't think of any conservatives who have welched on a bet. Can you?

 

[daveman]

You can learn to think like a welching conservative, but it involves a lobotomy.

I can't think of any conservatives who have welched on a bet. Can you?

My apologies. I thought you considered yourself a conservative.

I am.

Oh, are you talking about that bet whose terms I complied with?

 

[manifold]

are you talking about that bet whose terms I complied with?

Please accept my apologies again, but I'm not aware of any such occurrence.

 

[daveman]

are you talking about that bet whose terms I complied with?

Please accept my apologies again, but I'm not aware of any such occurrence.

You're entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts.

 

[manifold]

are you talking about that bet whose terms I complied with?

Please accept my apologies again, but I'm not aware of any such occurrence.

You're entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts.

Agreed. The facts speak for themselves.

 

[daveman]

Please accept my apologies again, but I'm not aware of any such occurrence.

You're entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts.

Agreed. The facts speak for themselves.

Indeed they do. And I don't recall them saying they agreed with your version.