The Unenforceability of abortion bans

[Bob Blaylock]

We need to realize the consequences of calling a 2 celled zygote a legal person with rights.

Just as we once had to come to terms with the consequences of calling a black person a legal person with rights.

Not the same thing at all.

It's exactly the same.

We once failed to recognize black people as human beings with rights, exactly as we now fail to recognize the unborn as human beings with rights.

Both are equally wrong, for exactly the same reasons.

The biggest and most obvious difference is that granting a born person rights has absolutely no effect on the rights of other born persons.

Tell that to all the slave owners who were deprived of valuable “property”, when we recognized that that “property” was not property at all, but human beings who had to be recognized as having the rights to which all human beings are entitled. “Born” “non-slaves” were deprived of what they previously considered to be important rights regarding their “property”.

 

[Blues Man]

It's exactly the same.

We once failed to recognize black people as human beings with rights, exactly was we now fail to recognize the unborn as human beings with rights.

Both are equally wrong, for exactly the same reasons.




Tell that to all the slave owners who were deprived of valuable “property”, when we recognized that that “property” was not property at all, but human beings who had to be recognized as having the rights to which all human beings are entitled.

Not the same as I explained.

The government is perfectly justified in removing the property of a citizen after due process. Passing a laws and amending the constitution is due process.

 

[Flash]

The discretion of the states huh?

So there should be no problems with all the new gun laws coming in those states right?

Big difference Moon Bat. There is a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. I shit you not. Go look it up. It is in the Bill of Rights. It is the Second enumerated right.

What the Supreme Court said in this draft decision is that the 1973 Supreme Court made a very bad ruling by saying that a woman had a Constitutional right to kill her child for the purpose of birth control. They are fixing that. That is a good thing.

 

[JoeBlow]

"The American College of Pediatricians concurs with the body of scientific evidence that human life begins at conception - fertilization…. Scientific and medical discoveries over the past three decades have only verified and solidified this age-old truth. At the completion of the process of fertilization, the human creature emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species homo sapiens, needing only the proper environment in order to grow and develop. The difference between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage is not one of personhood but of development. The Mission of the American College of Pediatricians is to enable all children to reach their optimal physical and emotional health and well-being from the moment of conception."

The focus therefore should be preventing unwanted pregnancy, not killing the baby.

"the human creature" now stfu and go sit down.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Not the same as I explained.

Repeating a lie does not imbue it with any truth, no matter how often you repeat it.

The government is perfectly justified in removing the property of a citizen after due process. Passing a laws and amending the constitution is due process.

Were the slave owners duly convicted of crimes, by juries of their peers, as required by the Sixth Amendment, and sentenced to be fined in the value of their slaves, as punishment for those crimes?

Were they sued in accordance with the Seventh Amendment, and found liable in such a manner as to justify taking away their property in the form of slaves?

Were they compensated for the fair-market value of their slaves, as required by the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment?

Then no, they were not deprived of their “property” by any valid due process of law.

 

[Blues Man]

Repeating a lie does not imbue it with any truth, no matter how often you repeat it.




Were the slave owners duly convicted of crimes, by juries of their peers, as required by the Sixth Amendment, and sentenced to be fined in the value of their slaves, as punishment for those crimes?

Were they compensated for the fair-market value of their slaves, as required by the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment?

Then no, they were not deprived of their “property” by any valid due process of law.

The Constitution says nothing about crimes only due process of the law.

That due process was the amending of the Constitution.

 

[Who_Me?]

A millennial can't be claimed as a dependent and many of them can't live on their own either. They must not be people.

 

[AMart]

The biggest problem I see with those on the anti-abortion side is that they never tell you how they are going to enforce a ban on abortion.

Lest, we forget, the main reason why the Court (including 5 Republicans) voted to end abortion laws in the US is because they were being routinely ignored by women and their health care providers. The court was merely recognizing the reality the prudes failed to admit.

If anyone doubts this, we only need to look at the birth rates for the 1970's.

Live Births and Birth Rates, by Year

The following table shows the number of live births and the birth rate in the United States between 1910 and...

www.infoplease.com

1970​	3,731,386​	18.4​
1971​	3,555,970​	17.2​
1972​	3,258,411​	15.6​
1973​	3,136,965​	14.9​
1974​	3,159,958​	14.9​
1975​	3,144,198​	14.8​
1976​	3,167,788​	14.8​

There was no sudden drop in the live birth rate because abortions were now available. In fact, it leveled off in 1973.

Why? Because abortion laws were being routinely ignored. Despite all the horror stories told by the abortion rights side about coat hangers and Lysol, most women were ending unwanted pregnancies in the comfort of their OB/GYN's office. Women were never arrested for having abortions, and providers were rarely prosecuted unless some kind of negligence that injured the women was involved

So you get the laws on the books you want in half the country, what happens? Abortions will simply move from abortion clinics back to OB/GYN offices.

if anything, an abortion ban will be harder to enforce in 2022 than in 1973, because more states WILL keep it legal now, because it will be much easier to cross state lines, and because the option of pharmaceutical abortions will be available.

Laws only really work when you have universal agreement there should be a law. If you don't, police won't investigate, prosecutors won't file charges, and juries won't convict.

The first prosecution for a woman for having an abortion will be a lightening rod of unpopularity. The only time I remember Trump ever backing down from saying something really stupid ws when he said that women should be punished for having abortions, and then immediately reversing himself.

Donald Trump retracts call for women who have abortions to be 'punished'

Republican frontrunner tells MSNBC there needs to be ‘some form of punishment’ for women, though he later disavowed controversial remarks

www.theguardian.com

Nothing could be further than the truth. States with strict abortion laws don't have many abortion facilities. Louisiana only has 3. If the Dem governor signs the bill that makes abortion murder, then there will be zero.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The Constitution says nothing about crimes only due process of the law.

That due process was the amending of the Constitution.

The Constitution sets aside the conditions under which government may deprive a person of life, liberty or property.

None of these conditions were met in depriving slave owners of their “property”.

We can only recognize this as valid by recognizing that slaves were, in fact, human beings, and that it was never valid to treat them as mere property; that slavery was always wrong, even when it was legally allowed, and that it was always wrong to allow it.

Ultimately, the same will eventually have to be recognized about abortion; that the unborn are, in fact, human beings, entitled to the same rights as any other human being, and that abortion is wrong, and unjustifiable, even when it is legally allowed, and that we were always wrong to allow it.

 

[Blues Man]

The Constitution sets aside the conditions under which government may deprive a person of life, liberty or property.

None of these conditions were met in depriving slave owners of their “property”.

We can only recognize this as valid by recognizing that slaves were, in fact, human beings, and that it was never valid to treat them as mere property; that slavery was always wrong, even when it was legally allowed, and that it was always wrong to allow it.

Ultimately, the same will eventually have to be recognized about abortion; that the unborn are, in fact, human beings, entitled to the same rights as any other human being, and that abortion is wrong, and unjustifiable, even when it is legally allowed, and that we were always wrong to allow it.

DUE PROCESS

The Constitutional procedures for passing laws and Amending the Constitution are all parts of DUE PROCESS. The change of the Constitution that said people are not property was due process.

And ultimately you are wrong about the unborn. You don't seem capable of understanding the consequences of granting full legal rights at the moment of conception. Who's rights take precedence? It is not the same things as the legal removal of property because there is not any violation of the body of the person whose property was taken. Dominion over one's body is the ultimate liberty.

And besides that it is completely unenforceable because women can take an at home pregnancy test and never tell anyone the results so no one will ever know if she left the state to have an abortion or to get a prescription for a drug induced abortion.

 

[Captain Caveman]

Never gonna happen, buddy. We don't throw jurors in prison for not ruling the way the court wants...

The problem you guys have is that 61% of Americans support abortion. Good luck finding a jury that doesn't have a majority ready to acquit.

I support women making their choice before they conceive. What about you?

 

[sartre play]

The ban on abortions is going to end up like the war on drugs, Cost the tax payer a fortune & acomplish little to nothing.

 

[Nostra]

when life begins cannot be answered by science

"It is uncertain when human life begins." | The San Antonio Coalition for Life

sacfl.org

and also, the American College of Pediatrics is an anti-lgbt hate group.

So Religion also says life begins at conception. Science and Religion is on my side.

Thanks for the link confirming what I said.

 

[Nostra]

The ban on abortions is going to end up like the war on drugs, Cost the tax payer a fortune & acomplish little to nothing.

What ban on abortion?

 

[Nostra]

When life has legal rights is a matter of law.

When a fetus besoms a legal entity in the eyes of the law has nothing to do with science.

We need to realize the consequences of calling a 2 celled zygote a legal person with rights.

If someone kills a pregnant woman they get charged with two murders. So law is on our side along with science.

All you have is the rantings of your Baby Killer Cult.

 

[OKTexas]

Your statement was that



Except these women WERE Punished. They went to jail. They were prosecuted. Patels conviction was overturned after public outcry, and Ms. Shaui was bullied into accepting a lesser plea.

And, yes, Ms Shaui had a miscarriage after a suicide attempt. THat's what she was arrested for.

No she was arrested for endangering the welfare of a child. She was guilty of that.

.

 

[Mac-7]

The court was merely recognizing the reality the prudes failed to admit.

Thats legislating from the bench

Something that libs used to deny

 

[Burgermeister]

 

[JoeB131]

So, the way to stop these murders is to give more funding to the organization that is committing its lion's share of these murders?

Um, yeah, because they also distribute the contraception to the poorer areas that are underserved. Well-off people don't need abortions because they usually CAN get contraception.

We've seen what kind of “open discussion of sexuality in the schools” your side wants. That is one of the reasons your side is going to get its ass seriously kicked this upcoming election.

Actually, we HAVE seen the results of sex education in schools. We've gone from a rate of 96.3 pregnancies per 1000 teen girls to less than 18. This is really a policy success.

Your side is openly embracing groomers and pedophiles, and mainstream Americans have no stomach for this depraved shit. A great many of us would rather hunt down all of your kind and exterminate you, than allow you any control over our children.

Um, yeah, here's the thing... if you don't tell kids where babies come from, they are going to find out the hard way. See chart above.

And here, once again, you're showing the mindset of a terrorist. Cave in to our political demands, or we'll keep murdering children. And these demands include allowing you to sexually abuse the children that you don't murder.

Hardly, and boy, are you slow! The woman who thinks of abortion as birth control, you aren't going to do anything about her. The woman who is on the economic edge, though, is going to be more likely to not abort if she doesn't have to choose between a $300.00 abortion and a $10,000 live birth.

Just as we once had to come to terms with the consequences of calling a black person a legal person with rights.

Actually, if the summer of 2020 is any indication, we aren't there yet.

The Constitution explicitly affirms the people's right to keep and bear arms, and forbids any infringement of this right.

The Constitution defines it within the context of a well-regulated militia. In fact, the original draft of the second also allowed an opt-out from militia service for religious conviction. Combine that with the 3rd Amendment, which limits when and where the militia can be deployed, and it was clear that the founders weren't concerned that crazy people couldn't get guns, they wanted to limit and control militias.

 

[JoeB131]

Thats legislating from the bench

Something that libs used to deny

I agree, they shouldn't have. But that's where we were at in 1973. We had unworkable laws, and the legislative branch refused to fix them. So the Court had to.