Big Lies for Abortion >>MOD WARNING<<

I know they did not demand. I am saying clearly as a bell, the court delimited the ruling into various zones of gestation. For the final part, certainly states CAN regulate. I figured you guys claim states are banned from regulations .

 

I am so sorry that in the Roe v wade decision, I found nothing at all, not any words, that explain it that way.

If you quote Roe v Wade, please show me that clause, paragraph or statement such as you daily make?

- - - Updated - - -

I am thrilled a poster told me that men are not responsible for pregnancy. Maybe the tooth fairy did it to her.

 

correct because the unborn were not seen as persons, only persons can harm other persons .. hence why the argument I advance is based upon the ideology of pro-lifers that the unborn are persons from conception, it is that pro-life argument that opens the door to the self-defence question.

no it does not, it merely allows the states to impose restrictions if they choose to do so .. however .. should the personhood from conception ideology ever become law then it places the Roe decision at odds to the equal protection clause in effect Roe could be struck down and the Supreme Court removing any and all restrictions on abortion no matter the gestation period, no matter the reason for the abortion and the state having to pay for it.

 

For one I do not quote Roe in my comment, if you are referring to the issue about Roe imposing restrictions on certain abortions that you incorrectly assert then I have already posted the relevant item from the decision, but here it is again;

The Court held that, in regard to abortions during the first trimester, the decision must be left to the judgment of the pregnant woman’s doctor. In regard to second trimester pregnancies, states may promote their interests in the mother’s health by regulating abortion procedures related to the health of the mother. Regarding third trimester pregnancies, states may promote their interests in the potentiality of human life by regulating or even prohibiting abortion, except when necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother. - http://www.lawnix.com/cases/roe-wade.html (just after the Holding and Rule (Blackmun) )

I'm sorry that biology eludes you, tell me what is it that turns a non-pregnant woman into a pregnant one, is it the man ejaculating sperm into the females vagina or the implantation of a fertilized ovum?

 

That entirely shoots down the argument the woman is harmed by her baby. If it is no person, as you say, it can't harm her.

However the Halliford case pleaded the unborn harm the mother. The court ruled against that failed argument.

 

You have consistently stated that Roe imposes restrictions on abortion when in reality it does not . .would you like me to post your comments from this very thread where you categorically state it?

So no I have not mis-quoted you in anyway, shape or form.

 

It DOES

By informing states they MAY regulate.

Since states may regulate, when they do regulate, what is all the fuss over?

If the court remained silent on what states MAY do, I would not classify their words as restrictions.

- - - Updated - - -

I am so tired of this topic.

Around and around we take the merry go round for a ride.

I plan to spend time on other topics.

If you get the urge to talk to me, try pm. If I am interested, I will darned sure try to reply to you.

 

Irrelevant, I cannot believe that some people are so ill informed to their own legal system and laws.

From a vantage place of the law, for the fetus to share the attributes of a person means that the behavior of the fetus, its movement and its effects on others, can be evaluated in terms of mens rea, or guilty mind. Clearly the fetus has no conscious intentions and cannot control its movements, for this reason, the law evaluates its mens rea as incompetent. To the degree that fetuses act, therefore, they'll act like a mentally incompetent human life.

In its most general sense the verb to act refers to all bodily movements, including involuntary actions such as might occur when one is sleeping or unconscious. In its more narrow sense, to act only refers to voluntary bodily movements - Source : Wayne R. LaFave Criminal Law 2nd Edition Page 197 - The law recognizes that both involuntary and voluntary acts can cause harm and injury to other people and that involuntary characteristic of an action does not give its perpetrator any right to inflict harm or injury. As the Model Penal Code notes, "People whose involuntary movements threaten harm to others may present a public health or safety problem." - Source : Model Penal Code - Page 197 - In criminal cases the state itself initiates proceedings against perpetrators to protect the public interest, a person who causes harm through involuntary movement lack the mens rea to be held legally responsible for their behavior, furthermore an act cannot be deemed voluntary when the person is underage. The fetus's behavior nonetheless falls into that category of action in which the law assigns objective fault even without the presence of conscious intention. In this sense, people can be objectively at fault whether or not they have the mental capacity or requisite knowledge to know that their behavior is criminal - Source : LaFave & Scott, Criminal Law Page 212-213 - In the same way the fetus's behavior is objectively at fault for causing pregnancy, even though it has no knowledge, consciousness, or intention of doing so.

Already responded to, it failed because the unborn were not deemed as persons under the constitution and only persons can injure other persons, the issue has moved on since then with pro-lifers asserting that the unborn are persons from conception, it is that assertion that opens the door for the self-defence issue.

If or when the unborn are deemed as persons then her consent is required for the unborn to impose pregnancy onto her, they are after all according to pro-lifers a separate individual and as such the consent she gave for sex cannot be seen as consent for pregnancy as it involves two different actors, the man and the unborn.

Because it proves your assertion that Roe imposes restrictions is 100% false.

Yes you did say it, do you want the comments quoted .. here you go

- post #724

- post #726

- post #734

- post #735

- post #763

- post #790

All of the above a 100% wrong as anybody who has actually read and understood the Roe decision can plainly see.

and neither have I stated you demand anything, so please don't attempt to use words I have not said .. All I have done is show that your assertion that Roe created a law restricting abortion is bogus and wrong.

 

No... I have a right to own a gun, but the state is allowed to restrict that just like the state can restrict abortions (as long as they do not violate my, or a woman's, Constitutional rights.

Do you agree that I still have the right to own a gun (although the state places restrictions on it)?

 

Though you may find you are restricted, it does not mean the state is correct since the second amendment is clear, your rights may not be infringed.

They ran into this problem with another case. First the SC ruled they could restrict a free speech right only to later reverse. (Citizens united)

Roe v Wade allows for states to regulate or what is better known, as restrict.

Guns are named as a right that shall not be infringed

Abortions not true.

Sooner or later, those gun laws will evaporate.

What this proves to all of us is states violate federal laws and until caught, get away with it.

By the way, if you must discuss this more, pm me. I will do my best to get back to you.

I simply am tired of a small number of posters essentially accusing me of telling falsehoods.

And when the SC told us in Roe states may restrict, bet me that states are not doing all they can today to restrict.

 

The pro-abortion crowd wants an abortion of every pregnancy. That is a different crowd than pro-choice.

I interpret your question to be "In the case of the pro-choice crowd, they want the mother to infringe on the right of the zygote, embryo, or fetus." The zygote, embryo, and fetus have never been given rights by the Constitution or Roe v Wade... but citizens (those born in the United States) have been given lots of rights.

Then you said "Fortunately they told the woman, nope, no way, no can do during the final trimester." If you meant the Supreme Court, they did not place restrictions on her (if they did, please list those restrictions of the court in the exact words). The Supreme Court instead gave the states permission to set limits in the final trimester. If a given state decided NOT to set limits, there would be no restriction on her rights in that state.

You also said "Ergo those so called rights to abort are infringed." The court says states can place restrictions on a woman's right to an abortion, but they cannot take away her right right to an abortion. It is recognized as a fundamental right (just like my right to own a gun).

PS: I see others have already addressed this so feel free to skip my post (I was out for a bit and started responding before I caught up on this thread)

 

How can I make this more clear?

Roe has qualifiers. Roe decided the woman in trimester 1, she has unfettered ability to abort.
In #2, they put qualifiers.
In 3 states got permission to restrict.

If states refuse, sure she has no restrictions.

But it seems to me a lot of states are taking full advantage of Roe v Wade.

Maybe you see the woman as totally unrestricted, I see her as restricted.

You seem content, it seems to me, to realize as you say the second amendment restricts you. How can a person enjoy the second amendment proviso not to infringe if a state is free to infringe>

I believe it will take more time. But states will be forced out of the infringement business given the proper climate of the supreme court.

 

You tried to argue the slippery slope fallacy (if we do not pretend a fetus is a person before it can think, nothing will stop us from declaring an unconscious already-born person a non-person). Canada stands as evidence that your argument fails (unless you have evidence that Canada is declaring unconscious patients to be non-persons).

 

Slippery slope fallacy.

 

I would argue that the gestation process is designed to prevent meaningful thought until the moment of birth, but AGREE that the scientific evidence confirms that the brain is incapable of any meaningful thought before week 24.

 

In that case your mind and your heart are in conflict. One of them is lying to you. If you really thought abortion was murder you would be happy to send the conspirators to death row, or life in prison. You should resolve that internal conflict so your position is consistent. As it stands, your position of leniency toward the conspirators is evidence that you believe abortion is not murder.

 

People with Alzheimer's may become increasingly impaired over time, to put it mildly. It's a terrible disease that does change the person, but they are still persons. They absolutely feel and have thoughts, even if they are not as good at thinking and remembering as before. An early fetus, in contrast, has no mind or feelings at all.

 

If not the real mother, a surrogate. Your comment was disingenuous. As decent people, we are all obligated to support the baby in the womb's right to live.

- - - Updated - - -

Totally relevant and correct.

 

Which is wrong! Killing the baby intentionally SHOULD NOT BE EXEMPTED. Killing is killing, no matter if it is a person hurting her or the mother herself. The law is now in error because it was JUDICIALLY LEGISLATED, and that is not the purpose of the constitution.

 

You cant find an argument of mine which has fallen by the wayside.

Now that is irrelevant. Killing a baby BY ANYONE, in the womb or after birth is wrong, and abortion is no different than any other murder.

- - - Updated - - -

Nope! The baby has as much right to life as the mother.

 

Murder is immoral! I don't understand why you don't accept that when it recognized the world over. Oh, I forgot, you exclude abortion. Now that is an immoral concept. BTW, the law was never properly legislated. 7 justices were pro abortion and 2 were not. So what? And why did the justices ignore the 9th and 10th amendments? States were perfectly capable of legislating IAW their constituents. Oh yeah, the mother imposed the problem on herself, not outsiders. Now we should protect the babies.

 

Yet the federal government is imposing on the States and their constituents in violation of the 9th and 10th amendments. That alone is a violation of our republican form of government.

- - - Updated - - -

All judicially legislated by the USSC.

 

I think we should amend the 1st amendment. If the courts can violate one amendment, why not others? Or the 4th or the 5th or any of them. You and others whining about what some amendments allow or require are pushing the envelope. Call a constitutional convention, lets get this mess straightened out clearly. Add an 11the bill of rights giving babies equal rights with the rest of innocent human lives.

 

What does removal from the body do with the evils of abortion?

 

If it had been necessary to get the states to ratify it, R v W would never have passed.