http://news.yahoo.com/okla-court-halts-personhood-rights-embryos-214251787.html This is a noteable unanimous decision by the State Supreme Court in Oklahoma supporting the Rights of Women as established by Roe v Wade that anti-abortionists seek to violate. The US Supreme Court, in Roe v Wade, in it's decision established that there was no historical precedent establishing that a zygote, embryo or fetus was a person. Even the anti-abortionists that argued against abortion in Roe v Wade admitted that no such precedent existed. It is time for the anti-abortionists to stop waging their war on women. Women have inalienable Rights that are protected by the US Consitution. Right only apply to "persons" and a zygote, embryo and/or a fetus is not a person and has no inalienable Rights.
Well said. It's worth mentioning that, to my knowledge, no personhood attempts have succeeded in the U.S. as of yet. Arizona and South Dakota seem to be on the forefront of the radical anti-choice movement, and yet even they have not had any successes in the personhood debate, though Arizona, in a /facepalm moment, has declared pregnancy starts two weeks prior to conception. I wonder if that means you die two weeks before you're dead.
"Waging war"? When you wage war, you kill people. If anyone is waging war, it is the abortionists. As far as legal precedent for personhood is concerned, if you murder a pregnant woman, you will be charged with a double homocide. The only one who can legally kill that person currently is the mother.
I find this hard to believe. I have been assured by the liberal elites that Oklahoma is a pit of stupidty that even MSNBC cannot enlighten.
In reading the entire article it appears that there is still an organized effort to get the Constitutional amendment on the ballot even though the State Supreme Court unanimously ruled it violates Roe v Wade. Apparently Oklahoma might still represent the pit of stupidity. Why would they attempt to change the State Constitution when they already know that the change they're proposing is unconsitutional?
As noted, because a zygote, embryo and fetus are not "persons" (people) then then no one is being killed during an abortion. Only people/persons can be killed/murdered under the Constitution. Yes, there are "fetal homicide" laws but these are supplemental indictments related to the assault on the woman. It is very similiar to "armed robbery" being a supplemental indictment related to "robbery" by way of example. The victim is the woman because the woman is a person. An non-person cannot be murdered. The fetal homicide laws are not independent because they only exist if the woman's Rights are violated. BTW the only murders that have been committed are by anti-abortionists (e.g. Dr. George Tiller).
I just want to understand. I'll put my thought process out there so you know who your talking to. I would like to understand the pro choice side of the argument because I do not understand at this time. I am not 100% against abortion. A person can come up with a reason that they would feel justifies having the abortion but personally I would have to say 'this childs life will not be worth living and I take full responsibility for murdering this life' I am not a woman. I don't want to sound cruel to anyone who has had to live with that decision that is just the standard I and my wife had decided on when having our firstborn. I have not had to make such a hard decision. I understand what is legal but I don't understand who gets to decide a fetus isn't a life. Why can't we have post birth abortions. That's a joke. You can legally abort a fetus but if you mess with a turtle egg your life is over. That's a joke but true. Not trying to argue, just don't understand.
"Fetal homocide". The word homocide means "the killing of man (i.e. people)". And it is possible to kill the fetus without killing the mother, and still get charged, such as in, for example, a drunk driving accident. BTW, your last statement is pure BS. Every abortionist is a murderer.
This issue was extensively explored in the Roe v Wade decision and it is a very good read for someone that wants to take the time. I can summarize it though. The United States Constitution protects the Rights of People/Persons. It does not recognize Rights for non-people/non-persons. A cow, for example, has no Rights under the US Constitution. The woman is unquestionably a person. She obtained "personhood" status at birth. Historically an individual has become a "person" at birth. The Supreme Court, based upon the arguments of attorneys defending the law, explored the written history of mankind to see if there had ever been precedent establishing personhood prior to birth. Even the attorneys defending the law admitted that no such precedent existed. A zygote, embryo and/or fetus was not a "person" based upon any historical precedent so they had no Rights under the US Constitution but the woman, as a person, did have protected Rights under the US Constitution. The Supreme Court did listen to the attorneys defending the law though and acknowledged that at viability a fetus could live outside of the womb and if it was outside of the womb then it would be a child and would attain "personhood" and would be afforded Constitutionally protected Rights. The Court, in it's decision, took this into account. While the specific criteria was minimally arbitrary it was founded upon the legal logic of the Court. During the first trimester the zygote/embryo was no where near establishing personhood so the woman's rights could not be infringed upon by the law. During the second trimester the embryo/fetus was approaching personhood so limited infringements upon the woman's Constitutionally protected Rights could be pragmatically imposed. During the third trimester the fetus was assumed to be at the age of viability where it could exist as a child outside of the womb and be entitled to Constitutionally protected Rights so severe infringement upon the woman's Rights were pragmatically imposed. The ultimate legal argument comes down to the "pro-choice" argument that supports the Constitutionally protected Rights of the woman which is opposed by the "anti-abortionists" that oppose the Constitutionally protected Rights of the woman.
I highly advocate reading the Supreme Court decision in Roe v Wade. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=410&invol=113 Based upon numerous discussions with anti-abortionists I've come to the conclusion that this is a decision they've never read but are opposed to.
