(04-04-2016 03:34 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  So in every state, abortion of any kind is murder?

If you're not even going to pay attention, don't expect me to take the bait.

All killings aren't murder... all murders are killings however.

The key word (and I used it a lot) is UNLAWFUL. Abortions are generally LAWFUL. Murder does not describe a lawful event.

Clarification.... all killings of humans...

There is NO killing of a dog or any other member of a species other than ours that constitutes murder under the law (I'm 99.9% sure)

(04-04-2016 03:31 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-04-2016 02:56 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  1. Statutory protections do not equate to constitutional rights or constitutional interests.

She didn't say anything about the Constitution.

Quote:2. The question at hand is the trade off between a woman's right to privacy and the state's interests, not the fetus' interests.

That's the key. The fetus' has no interests in those discussions.

Then it wouldn't be murder.

You and I have a very different interpretation of what the Constitution says and what it means... which is fine... even SC justices differ... but it is clear that RvW is Constitutional and it is also clear that laws making it murder to unlawfully kill an unborn child are also Constitutional. I doubt if a law to make killing a dog or an unborn dog 'murder' would be held to be Constitutional

Quote:It seems that is what Hillary is hanging her hat on here and she is not incorrect.

Nope, because once again, she said 'the laws', not 'The Constitution'.

People can differ on 'what the Constitution says', because as I said, even the court is usually 5-4 or 6-3... and if that is your distinction from my opinion... fine...

but the LAW OF THE LAND, which has been upheld to be Constitutional, is that a Fetus DOES have their own rights that it is the obligation of the state to protect.... EVEN against the wishes of the mother.

I think you need to listen to her comment again. She is clearly asked about constitutional rights and she answers.

She isn't wrong in saying they have none.

There is no link between a statutory protection and the existence of a constitutional right merely by association. You are wanting to draw that and that is probably where you are getting thrown off. There is no connection because we say there is no connection.

There is a hierarchy of authority with Constitutional Rights at the top, statutory rights in the middle, and regulations at the bottom. The existence of some right at one level does not necessitate the existence of one at a level above that as you are saying. That's just not how it works.

The "LAW OF THE LAND" is that a fetus has no constitutional rights or interests an no case has ever said otherwise, even if they are protected through certain narrowly tailored statutes.

She does not care who she has to kill.

(04-04-2016 03:31 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-04-2016 02:56 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  1. Statutory protections do not equate to constitutional rights or constitutional interests.

She didn't say anything about the Constitution.

Quote:2. The question at hand is the trade off between a woman's right to privacy and the state's interests, not the fetus' interests.

That's the key. The fetus' has no interests in those discussions.

Then it wouldn't be murder.

You and I have a very different interpretation of what the Constitution says and what it means... which is fine... even SC justices differ... but it is clear that RvW is Constitutional and it is also clear that laws making it murder to unlawfully kill an unborn child are also Constitutional. I doubt if a law to make killing a dog or an unborn dog 'murder' would be held to be Constitutional

Quote:It seems that is what Hillary is hanging her hat on here and she is not incorrect.

Nope, because once again, she said 'the laws', not 'The Constitution'.

People can differ on 'what the Constitution says', because as I said, even the court is usually 5-4 or 6-3... and if that is your distinction from my opinion... fine...

but the LAW OF THE LAND, which has been upheld to be Constitutional, is that a Fetus DOES have their own rights that it is the obligation of the state to protect.... EVEN against the wishes of the mother.

This is an interesting discussion and I've enjoyed reading the back in forth. However, I'm going to have to side with HOD on this one. You're right in that laws protecting the unborn can constitutionally coincide with abortion. The key issue to drill down, though, is the source of the unborn's protection. Does is come from an inherent right of the fetus or is it an interest that lies with the state, which they can apply at their discretion so long as it doesn't work an undue burden?

The protections that a fetus is afforded comes from the interest that the state has in protecting it, not from a right the fetus itself has. Think of it like an umbrella that is being held by the state which protects the fetus from harm (that's not a great example, but all I could think of off the top of my head). I realize that this sounds like just simple legal technicalities, but it makes sense if you consider what would happen if the fetus was afforded actual rights.

From a religious and a moral viewpoint, you and I are probably on the same page with a lot of this. However, this is the way the Court has handled this issue. Btw, I would recommend Planned Parenthood v. Casey to get a better idea of the modern abortion framework.

(04-04-2016 03:40 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-04-2016 03:34 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  So in every state, abortion of any kind is murder?

If you're not even going to pay attention, don't expect me to take the bait.

All killings aren't murder... all murders are killings however.

The key word (and I used it a lot) is UNLAWFUL. Abortions are generally LAWFUL. Murder does not describe a lawful event.

Clarification.... all killings of humans...

There is NO killing of a dog or any other member of a species other than ours that constitutes murder under the law (I'm 99.9% sure)

My point is that, how can they have constitutional right to life if you can lawfully kill them? Because that's the current law of the land. I'll defer to HOD though as he's more informed on legal matters.

(04-04-2016 03:43 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I think you need to listen to her comment again. She is clearly asked about constitutional rights and she answers.

And she answers... She says that under our laws right now, they have none.

Quote:She isn't wrong in saying they have none.

Yet you haven't yet said why then they can be victims of crimes under both state and Federal laws. If they can be victims, then it seems they have SOME protections/rights which have been violated to become victims. The duty of the state doesn't always require a 'victim'. I hope I'm making sense here.

Quote:There is no link between a statutory protection and the existence of a constitutional right merely by association. You are wanting to draw that and that is probably where you are getting thrown off. There is no connection because we say there is no connection.

Yeah, you're going to have to explain this better to me. She says that 'under our current laws' which is (I'm assuming) what you mean by a statutory protection... and she herself is drawing that comparison. She is not making a Constitutional argument... despite being asked a 'constitutional' question... she is making a statutory one.

Obviously SHE sees a connection because that is how she answered... as do I, because even RvW, much less other later suits clearly suggest the existence of SOME rights.

Quote:There is a hierarchy of authority with Constitutional Rights at the top, statutory rights in the middle, and regulations at the bottom. The existence of some right at one level does not necessitate the existence of one at a level above that as you are saying. That's just not how it works.

Yet a statutory AND a regulatory right must be Constitutional, right?

She mad a statutory response to a constitutional question. You're making a Constitutional response. YOU may have a point, but she doesn't. Had she said 'under our current Constitutional interpretation', then she would have been making your point.

Further, I don't think (but we can disagree) that you're looking at the Constitution correctly. The Constitution doesn't grant rights. Those rights are endowed by our Creator. We give up some of them in order to form a more perfect union... and those rights that we give up (along with some that are specifically reserved) are what make up the Constitution. In other words, if the Constitution doesn't say anything about it, then the right exists... not the other way around. The Constitution doesn't say anything about the rights of the unborn, but the SCOTUS has upheld as Constitutional, SOME laws protecting them.

Quote:The "LAW OF THE LAND" is that a fetus has no constitutional rights or interests an no case has ever said otherwise, even if they are protected through certain narrowly tailored statutes.

Then you should be able to show me that case. I'm unaware of it. I respectfully disagree, and have shown you cases where I disagree. How can they be victims of crimes if they have no rights or interests? That just makes no sense. RvW even speaks of the potentiality of human life. Isn't that a right in and of itself?

(04-04-2016 03:55 PM)ArmyBlazer Wrote:  This is an interesting discussion and I've enjoyed reading the back in forth. However, I'm going to have to side with HOD on this one. You're right in that laws protecting the unborn can constitutionally coincide with abortion. The key issue to drill down, though, is the source of the unborn's protection. Does is come from an inherent right of the fetus or is it an interest that lies with the state, which they can apply at their discretion so long as it doesn't work an undue burden?

On what Constitutional grounds are we denying a woman the right to a late term abortion? On what Constitutional ground can states call it 'murder', which equates the taking of that 'potential' life to the taking of a living human's life? How is that not a violation of the Criminal's right?

Numerous SC justices have spoken on exactly what I'm talking about... about the increasing of the rights of the unborn as time passes, and the 'balancing' of those rights with the rights of the mother. How can rights increase if they don't exist?

MAYBE we're just arguing semantics..... in that I (and many others including SC justices) believe that rights exist inherently... while others insist that there be a case defining those rights. I believe the opposite... that there must be a case taking those rights away... and there IS a case that takes a woman's right to an abortion away at the 3rd trimester, other than for the health and safety of the mother (which is akin to the 'justifiable homicide' laws that we have... that through its actions in allowing states to regulate abortion AT ALL, they have recognized SOME level of inherent rights within the fetus, even against and OVER the rights of the mother in the 3rd trimester.... which is where those rights (with the mother, absent such a declaration) would exist.

Quote:The protections that a fetus is afforded comes from the interest that the state has in protecting it, not from a right the fetus itself has. Think of it like an umbrella that is being held by the state which protects the fetus from harm (that's not a great example, but all I could think of off the top of my head). I realize that this sounds like just simple legal technicalities, but it makes sense if you consider what would happen if the fetus was afforded actual rights.

Why? As I mentioned, there are all sorts of specifically enumerated rights that don't exist with children and teens... why not a fetus? Recognizing their right to the potentiality of life such that unlawfully taking it is murder doesn't have to mean that they are allowed to vote. If the fetus has no rights at all, then what allows the state to prohibit the mother from an abortion in the 3rd trimester except for what is essentially 'self defense'? We're not talking about a 3rd party, but we're saying that the state can go against the wishes of the mother.

Quote:From a religious and a moral viewpoint, you and I are probably on the same page with a lot of this. However, this is the way the Court has handled this issue. Btw, I would recommend Planned Parenthood v. Casey to get a better idea of the modern abortion framework.

PP v Casey doesn't seem to address any of these issues... at least nothing I'm debating. It doesn't speak about the fetus not having rights, in fact it seems to say that under the right circumstances, the state can act even EARLIER against the wishes of the mother than in RvW.... and then of course, it talks about privacy and spousal consent... which we aren't really debating.

A woman CAN have a right to an abortion that conflicts with a fetus' right to 'potential life'... just as we all have the right to free speech but that speech can be limited when it conflicts with other's rights... and you're right that some sort of a 'weighing' of those rights must be made. (I'm rewording your comment about 'undue burden' to recognize that this means we are weighing the burden). Against what are we weighing it? If it's your right, how can the state take it away unless there is a conflicting Constitutional right it's being weighed against?

It seems obvious to me that many states believe that the fetus' rights supersede the rights of third parties from conception (calling it murder)... but obviously not the mother's until viability. Of course if someone's right to life is challenged, like the mothers, then that even supersedes their right AFTER viability.

(04-04-2016 04:14 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  My point is that, how can they have constitutional right to life if you can lawfully kill them? Because that's the current law of the land. I'll defer to HOD though as he's more informed on legal matters.

The same way it can be lawful to kill someone if you feel your life is in danger. That's the current law of the land, but it doesn't eliminate someone's general right to life... it just means that under these specific circumstances, their rights conflict with someone else's. Just because we have rights doesn't mean that can't be violated when they conflict with the rights of others. That's where his 'burden' comes in.


The bottom line as I implied earlier is that 'what she said' isn't correct. Even you guys are arguing that it's a Constitutional question, not a statutory one... yet she obviously gave a statutory answer... and it is precisely this sort of 'strained' (to the layman) or 'technical' defense that is what I suggested was going to be problematic for her... even with people who generally agree with her position.

You guys are doing it right here. I FULLY support abortion and a woman's right to choose... however I believe in limitations on those rights as the 'potentiality' of that life increases over time. Similarly, I believe that causing an abortion (under certain circumstances) SHOULD be 'murder' of the child, and not merely assault against the mother or something akin to 'theft' of her property for the same reasons. Frankly, I don't understand how something can be murder without the inherent Constitutionally protected right to life... but now I'm getting nuanced myself.

What you're doing (intentionally or not) is distancing 'your' position (using quotes because you may just be debating) from mine when we actually agree on the end result... which is fine and even enjoyable to engage in as an academic debate and I appreciate it.... I just don't see that as being a smart thing for a politician to engage in. To me, this pushes her even further left... where the late term abortion debate becomes NOT about a viable baby's right to life, but about a woman's right vs the state. That's where the late term advocates want the debate to be, but I don't think it's where most of America is, even many of those who are on the left.

(04-05-2016 11:24 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-04-2016 03:43 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I think you need to listen to her comment again. She is clearly asked about constitutional rights and she answers.

And she answers... She says that under our laws right now, they have none.

Quote:She isn't wrong in saying they have none.

Yet you haven't yet said why then they can be victims of crimes under both state and Federal laws. If they can be victims, then it seems they have SOME protections/rights which have been violated to become victims. The duty of the state doesn't always require a 'victim'. I hope I'm making sense here.

Quote:There is no link between a statutory protection and the existence of a constitutional right merely by association. You are wanting to draw that and that is probably where you are getting thrown off. There is no connection because we say there is no connection.

Yeah, you're going to have to explain this better to me. She says that 'under our current laws' which is (I'm assuming) what you mean by a statutory protection... and she herself is drawing that comparison. She is not making a Constitutional argument... despite being asked a 'constitutional' question... she is making a statutory one.

Obviously SHE sees a connection because that is how she answered... as do I, because even RvW, much less other later suits clearly suggest the existence of SOME rights.

Quote:There is a hierarchy of authority with Constitutional Rights at the top, statutory rights in the middle, and regulations at the bottom. The existence of some right at one level does not necessitate the existence of one at a level above that as you are saying. That's just not how it works.

Yet a statutory AND a regulatory right must be Constitutional, right?

She mad a statutory response to a constitutional question. You're making a Constitutional response. YOU may have a point, but she doesn't. Had she said 'under our current Constitutional interpretation', then she would have been making your point.

Further, I don't think (but we can disagree) that you're looking at the Constitution correctly. The Constitution doesn't grant rights. Those rights are endowed by our Creator. We give up some of them in order to form a more perfect union... and those rights that we give up (along with some that are specifically reserved) are what make up the Constitution. In other words, if the Constitution doesn't say anything about it, then the right exists... not the other way around. The Constitution doesn't say anything about the rights of the unborn, but the SCOTUS has upheld as Constitutional, SOME laws protecting them.

Quote:The "LAW OF THE LAND" is that a fetus has no constitutional rights or interests an no case has ever said otherwise, even if they are protected through certain narrowly tailored statutes.

Then you should be able to show me that case. I'm unaware of it. I respectfully disagree, and have shown you cases where I disagree. How can they be victims of crimes if they have no rights or interests? That just makes no sense. RvW even speaks of the potentiality of human life. Isn't that a right in and of itself?

(04-04-2016 03:55 PM)ArmyBlazer Wrote:  This is an interesting discussion and I've enjoyed reading the back in forth. However, I'm going to have to side with HOD on this one. You're right in that laws protecting the unborn can constitutionally coincide with abortion. The key issue to drill down, though, is the source of the unborn's protection. Does is come from an inherent right of the fetus or is it an interest that lies with the state, which they can apply at their discretion so long as it doesn't work an undue burden?

On what Constitutional grounds are we denying a woman the right to a late term abortion? On what Constitutional ground can states call it 'murder', which equates the taking of that 'potential' life to the taking of a living human's life? How is that not a violation of the Criminal's right?

Numerous SC justices have spoken on exactly what I'm talking about... about the increasing of the rights of the unborn as time passes, and the 'balancing' of those rights with the rights of the mother. How can rights increase if they don't exist?

MAYBE we're just arguing semantics..... in that I (and many others including SC justices) believe that rights exist inherently... while others insist that there be a case defining those rights. I believe the opposite... that there must be a case taking those rights away... and there IS a case that takes a woman's right to an abortion away at the 3rd trimester, other than for the health and safety of the mother (which is akin to the 'justifiable homicide' laws that we have... that through its actions in allowing states to regulate abortion AT ALL, they have recognized SOME level of inherent rights within the fetus, even against and OVER the rights of the mother in the 3rd trimester.... which is where those rights (with the mother, absent such a declaration) would exist.

Quote:The protections that a fetus is afforded comes from the interest that the state has in protecting it, not from a right the fetus itself has. Think of it like an umbrella that is being held by the state which protects the fetus from harm (that's not a great example, but all I could think of off the top of my head). I realize that this sounds like just simple legal technicalities, but it makes sense if you consider what would happen if the fetus was afforded actual rights.

Why? As I mentioned, there are all sorts of specifically enumerated rights that don't exist with children and teens... why not a fetus? Recognizing their right to the potentiality of life such that unlawfully taking it is murder doesn't have to mean that they are allowed to vote. If the fetus has no rights at all, then what allows the state to prohibit the mother from an abortion in the 3rd trimester except for what is essentially 'self defense'? We're not talking about a 3rd party, but we're saying that the state can go against the wishes of the mother.

From a religious and a moral viewpoint, you and I are probably on the same page with a lot of this. However, this is the way the Court has handled this issue. Btw, I would recommend Planned Parenthood v. Casey to get a better idea of the modern abortion framework.

PP v Casey doesn't seem to address any of these issues... at least nothing I'm debating. It doesn't speak about the fetus not having rights, in fact it seems to say that under the right circumstances, the state can act even EARLIER against the wishes of the mother than in RvW.... and then of course, it talks about privacy and spousal consent... which we aren't really debating.

A woman CAN have a right to an abortion that conflicts with a fetus' right to 'potential life'... just as we all have the right to free speech but that speech can be limited when it conflicts with other's rights... and you're right that some sort of a 'weighing' of those rights must be made.

It seems obvious to me that many states believe that the fetus' rights supersede the rights of third parties from conception (calling it murder)... but obviously not the mother's until viability. Of course if someone's right to life is challenged, like the mothers, then that even supersedes their right AFTER viability.

(04-04-2016 04:14 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  My point is that, how can they have constitutional right to life if you can lawfully kill them? Because that's the current law of the land. I'll defer to HOD though as he's more informed on legal matters.

The same way it can be lawful to kill someone if you feel your life is in danger. That's the current law of the land, but it doesn't eliminate someone's general right to life... it just means that under these specific circumstances, their rights conflict with someone else's. Just because we have rights doesn't mean that can't be violated when they conflict with the rights of others. That's where his 'burden' comes in.


The bottom line as I implied earlier is that 'what she said' isn't correct. Even you guys are arguing that it's a Constitutional question, not a statutory one... yet she obviously gave a statutory answer... and it is precisely this sort of 'strained' (to the layman) or 'technical' defense that is what I suggested was going to be problematic for her... even with people who generally agree with her position.

You guys are doing it right here. I FULLY support abortion and a woman's right to choose... however I believe in limitations on those rights as the 'potentiality' of that life increases over time. Similarly, I believe that causing an abortion (under certain circumstances) SHOULD be 'murder' of the child, and not merely assault against the mother or something akin to 'theft' of her property for the same reasons. Frankly, I don't understand how something can be murder without the inherent Constitutionally protected right to life... but now I'm getting nuanced myself.

What you're doing (intentionally or not) is distancing 'your' position (using quotes because you may just be debating) from mine when we actually agree on the end result... which is fine and even enjoyable to engage in as an academic debate and I appreciate it.... I just don't see that as being a smart thing for a politician to engage in. To me, this pushes her even further left... where the late term abortion debate becomes NOT about a viable baby's right to life, but about a woman's right vs the state. That's where the late term advocates want the debate to be, but I don't think it's where most of America is, even many of those who are on the left.
[/quote]

I think we are getting way off into the weeds.

It's actually quite simple. In Roe v. Wade the interests weighed against one another were those of the mother and those of the state. It's very important to note that nowhere in the conversation were the interests of the fetus weighed or considered.

No case subsequent to that has ever considered the interests of the fetus. The fetus is not considered to have any interests. They can be considered wholly subordinate to those of the mother's right to privacy.

The State has an interest. That interest is essentially their authority when we talk about abortion.

It all boils down to these two interests being weighed and the complete lack of a fetus' interests being given any consideration.

The part about them being protected by law is a separate argument. That is an argument that goes into an evaluation of the state's interests, not the fetus'.

A fetus has no constitutional rights or interests according the our current abortion jurisprudence.

PP v. Casey alters the sliding scale idea given in Roe v. Wade, which is to say that as you advance along the pregnancy the state's interests grow louder and louder until they eventually tip the scale and outweighs the mother's interests. But, still, the issue remains the state's interests, not the fetus'.

(04-05-2016 11:24 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-04-2016 03:43 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I think you need to listen to her comment again. She is clearly asked about constitutional rights and she answers.

And she answers... She says that under our laws right now, they have none.

Quote:She isn't wrong in saying they have none.

Yet you haven't yet said why then they can be victims of crimes under both state and Federal laws. If they can be victims, then it seems they have SOME protections/rights which have been violated to become victims. The duty of the state doesn't always require a 'victim'. I hope I'm making sense here.

Quote:There is no link between a statutory protection and the existence of a constitutional right merely by association. You are wanting to draw that and that is probably where you are getting thrown off. There is no connection because we say there is no connection.

Yeah, you're going to have to explain this better to me. She says that 'under our current laws' which is (I'm assuming) what you mean by a statutory protection... and she herself is drawing that comparison. She is not making a Constitutional argument... despite being asked a 'constitutional' question... she is making a statutory one.

Obviously SHE sees a connection because that is how she answered... as do I, because even RvW, much less other later suits clearly suggest the existence of SOME rights.

Quote:There is a hierarchy of authority with Constitutional Rights at the top, statutory rights in the middle, and regulations at the bottom. The existence of some right at one level does not necessitate the existence of one at a level above that as you are saying. That's just not how it works.

Yet a statutory AND a regulatory right must be Constitutional, right?

She mad a statutory response to a constitutional question. You're making a Constitutional response. YOU may have a point, but she doesn't. Had she said 'under our current Constitutional interpretation', then she would have been making your point.

Further, I don't think (but we can disagree) that you're looking at the Constitution correctly. The Constitution doesn't grant rights. Those rights are endowed by our Creator. We give up some of them in order to form a more perfect union... and those rights that we give up (along with some that are specifically reserved) are what make up the Constitution. In other words, if the Constitution doesn't say anything about it, then the right exists... not the other way around. The Constitution doesn't say anything about the rights of the unborn, but the SCOTUS has upheld as Constitutional, SOME laws protecting them.

Quote:The "LAW OF THE LAND" is that a fetus has no constitutional rights or interests an no case has ever said otherwise, even if they are protected through certain narrowly tailored statutes.

Then you should be able to show me that case. I'm unaware of it. I respectfully disagree, and have shown you cases where I disagree. How can they be victims of crimes if they have no rights or interests? That just makes no sense. RvW even speaks of the potentiality of human life. Isn't that a right in and of itself?

(04-04-2016 03:55 PM)ArmyBlazer Wrote:  This is an interesting discussion and I've enjoyed reading the back in forth. However, I'm going to have to side with HOD on this one. You're right in that laws protecting the unborn can constitutionally coincide with abortion. The key issue to drill down, though, is the source of the unborn's protection. Does is come from an inherent right of the fetus or is it an interest that lies with the state, which they can apply at their discretion so long as it doesn't work an undue burden?

On what Constitutional grounds are we denying a woman the right to a late term abortion? On what Constitutional ground can states call it 'murder', which equates the taking of that 'potential' life to the taking of a living human's life? How is that not a violation of the Criminal's right?

Numerous SC justices have spoken on exactly what I'm talking about... about the increasing of the rights of the unborn as time passes, and the 'balancing' of those rights with the rights of the mother. How can rights increase if they don't exist?

MAYBE we're just arguing semantics..... in that I (and many others including SC justices) believe that rights exist inherently... while others insist that there be a case defining those rights. I believe the opposite... that there must be a case taking those rights away... and there IS a case that takes a woman's right to an abortion away at the 3rd trimester, other than for the health and safety of the mother (which is akin to the 'justifiable homicide' laws that we have... that through its actions in allowing states to regulate abortion AT ALL, they have recognized SOME level of inherent rights within the fetus, even against and OVER the rights of the mother in the 3rd trimester.... which is where those rights (with the mother, absent such a declaration) would exist.

Quote:The protections that a fetus is afforded comes from the interest that the state has in protecting it, not from a right the fetus itself has. Think of it like an umbrella that is being held by the state which protects the fetus from harm (that's not a great example, but all I could think of off the top of my head). I realize that this sounds like just simple legal technicalities, but it makes sense if you consider what would happen if the fetus was afforded actual rights.

Why? As I mentioned, there are all sorts of specifically enumerated rights that don't exist with children and teens... why not a fetus? Recognizing their right to the potentiality of life such that unlawfully taking it is murder doesn't have to mean that they are allowed to vote. If the fetus has no rights at all, then what allows the state to prohibit the mother from an abortion in the 3rd trimester except for what is essentially 'self defense'? We're not talking about a 3rd party, but we're saying that the state can go against the wishes of the mother.

Quote:From a religious and a moral viewpoint, you and I are probably on the same page with a lot of this. However, this is the way the Court has handled this issue. Btw, I would recommend Planned Parenthood v. Casey to get a better idea of the modern abortion framework.

PP v Casey doesn't seem to address any of these issues... at least nothing I'm debating. It doesn't speak about the fetus not having rights, in fact it seems to say that under the right circumstances, the state can act even EARLIER against the wishes of the mother than in RvW.... and then of course, it talks about privacy and spousal consent... which we aren't really debating.

A woman CAN have a right to an abortion that conflicts with a fetus' right to 'potential life'... just as we all have the right to free speech but that speech can be limited when it conflicts with other's rights... and you're right that some sort of a 'weighing' of those rights must be made. (I'm rewording your comment about 'undue burden' to recognize that this means we are weighing the burden). Against what are we weighing it? If it's your right, how can the state take it away unless there is a conflicting Constitutional right it's being weighed against?

It seems obvious to me that many states believe that the fetus' rights supersede the rights of third parties from conception (calling it murder)... but obviously not the mother's until viability. Of course if someone's right to life is challenged, like the mothers, then that even supersedes their right AFTER viability.

(04-04-2016 04:14 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  My point is that, how can they have constitutional right to life if you can lawfully kill them? Because that's the current law of the land. I'll defer to HOD though as he's more informed on legal matters.

The same way it can be lawful to kill someone if you feel your life is in danger. That's the current law of the land, but it doesn't eliminate someone's general right to life... it just means that under these specific circumstances, their rights conflict with someone else's. Just because we have rights doesn't mean that can't be violated when they conflict with the rights of others. That's where his 'burden' comes in.


The bottom line as I implied earlier is that 'what she said' isn't correct. Even you guys are arguing that it's a Constitutional question, not a statutory one... yet she obviously gave a statutory answer... and it is precisely this sort of 'strained' (to the layman) or 'technical' defense that is what I suggested was going to be problematic for her... even with people who generally agree with her position.

You guys are doing it right here. I FULLY support abortion and a woman's right to choose... however I believe in limitations on those rights as the 'potentiality' of that life increases over time. Similarly, I believe that causing an abortion (under certain circumstances) SHOULD be 'murder' of the child, and not merely assault against the mother or something akin to 'theft' of her property for the same reasons. Frankly, I don't understand how something can be murder without the inherent Constitutionally protected right to life... but now I'm getting nuanced myself.

What you're doing (intentionally or not) is distancing 'your' position (using quotes because you may just be debating) from mine when we actually agree on the end result... which is fine and even enjoyable to engage in as an academic debate and I appreciate it.... I just don't see that as being a smart thing for a politician to engage in. To me, this pushes her even further left... where the late term abortion debate becomes NOT about a viable baby's right to life, but about a woman's right vs the state. That's where the late term advocates want the debate to be, but I don't think it's where most of America is, even many of those who are on the left.

I don't have a ton of time, so I'm just going to hit a couple of the high points. The interest in banning late term abortions comes the fact that at that point the interest in the state in protecting viable life outweighs the right privacy of the woman.

The purpose of Casey is that it 1.) reaffirmed the fundamental holding of Roe; 2.) recognizes the state's (not the fetus's) right to protect life; and 3.) allows the state to assert that right if they so choose during pre-viability so long as it doesn't work an undue burden on the woman who wants the abortion. (I'm going off memory, HoD might be able to clarify in more detail). The state can be aggressive to the point of constant litigation on what an "undue burden" is or they can choose not to assert it aggressively. It's up to them. How could the state have this kind of discretion over a potential human life that had an inherent right to life? The state couldn't allow some human life to be killed and prosecute others for the same thing.

I think HoD gave a pretty good breakdown of the difference between fundamental const. rights vs. statutory. States have a lot of statutory leeway to enforce their police powers (health, safety, welfare, and morals). SCOTUS has affirmed that it is through these rights inherent to the state that a legitimate right to protect the unborn comes from. I don't completely agree, but that has been the majority's reasoning.

Hopefully I didn't butcher Con Law too bad there.

Of course HoD had to come in and give a much simpler explanation...

Very interested in aspects of this discussion. The following relates more to the concept of an inherent right in general:

Questions for Ham and HOD:

1. If an inherent right exists, are all states compelled to recognize and defend it, even if they have customs and/or statutes that ignore it routinely?

2. If an inherent right has been recognized by the Supreme Court in decisions as existing and enforceable, can there ever be any statute of limitations imposed by a state or a court on that inherent right?

3. If an inherent right has been recognized by the Supreme Court as existing for some humans in a specific situation addressed by a case, does it follow that the same inherent right exists for all humans?

4. If a Court and/or a State violates a person's inherent right, or a statute is imposed that allows an inherent right to be taken away or ignored by the system, what is the best (most expedient) remedy for the person who has been so violated, and can damages be retroactive, despite any potential no look-back, or what's done is done provisions?

5. If one state's courts violates a person's inherent right, and another state refuses to step in and defend it when given an opportunity, is that second state (or third, etc..) also liable/culpable for refusing to step in? If so, must one first go though all the various state appeals and exhaust them in each state or may one go and pose the question to the federal courts directly and ask that they compel the state to defend the inherent right that they previously refused to?

6. If another (say third) state and/or court does later step in and take action in a case where a previous inherent right has been violated, can the second state/ court be held accountable for their inaction and/or violation of the inherent right that was previously put before them? (The argument of the second state being, well, since a third state stepped in, it's now no longer our problem, so you can't go back and hold us liable for something we chose not to do, even though their inaction violated the inherent right?)

LoL I love that Planned Parenthood and the uber-left wackos are upset with Hillary for calling them "unborn children" and not "tissue".

(04-05-2016 12:34 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Very interested in aspects of this discussion. The following relates more to the concept of an inherent right in general:

Questions for Ham and HOD:

1. If an inherent right exists, are all states compelled to recognize and defend it, even if they have customs and/or statutes that ignore it routinely?

2. If an inherent right has been recognized by the Supreme Court in decisions as existing and enforceable, can there ever be any statute of limitations imposed by a state or a court on that inherent right?

3. If an inherent right has been recognized by the Supreme Court as existing for some humans in a specific situation addressed by a case, does it follow that the same inherent right exists for all humans?

4. If a Court and/or a State violates a person's inherent right, or a statute is imposed that allows an inherent right to be taken away or ignored by the system, what is the best (most expedient) remedy for the person who has been so violated, and can damages be retroactive, despite any potential no look-back, or what's done is done provisions?

5. If one state's courts violates a person's inherent right, and another state refuses to step in and defend it when given an opportunity, is that second state (or third, etc..) also liable/culpable for refusing to step in? If so, must one first go though all the various state appeals and exhaust them in each state or may one go and pose the question to the federal courts directly and ask that they compel the state to defend the inherent right that they previously refused to?

6. If another (say third) state and/or court does later step in and take action in a case where a previous inherent right has been violated, can the second state/ court be held accountable for their inaction and/or violation of the inherent right that was previously put before them? (The argument of the second state being, well, since a third state stepped in, it's now no longer our problem, so you can't go back and hold us liable for something we chose not to do, even though their inaction violated the inherent right?)

I'm not a con law expert, or even a legal expert... but neither are 99% of the people who vote... and we're talking about what a politician is 'arguing' to the people, and not what a 'lawyer' is arguing to a court.

to your questions
I'd answer en masse...

Very few rights stand in a vacuum, meaning that there will always be situations where a right of yours infringes upon someone else's right... and that is where the arguments come. As to the states obligation to defend those rights, I'd say yes always, but that assumes that they don't see them conflicting with any other right, which they often do.

That's what the courts and 'due process' are for.

(04-05-2016 12:34 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Very interested in aspects of this discussion. The following relates more to the concept of an inherent right in general:

Questions for Ham and HOD:

1. If an inherent right exists, are all states compelled to recognize and defend it, even if they have customs and/or statutes that ignore it routinely?

2. If an inherent right has been recognized by the Supreme Court in decisions as existing and enforceable, can there ever be any statute of limitations imposed by a state or a court on that inherent right?

3. If an inherent right has been recognized by the Supreme Court as existing for some humans in a specific situation addressed by a case, does it follow that the same inherent right exists for all humans?

4. If a Court and/or a State violates a person's inherent right, or a statute is imposed that allows an inherent right to be taken away or ignored by the system, what is the best (most expedient) remedy for the person who has been so violated, and can damages be retroactive, despite any potential no look-back, or what's done is done provisions?

5. If one state's courts violates a person's inherent right, and another state refuses to step in and defend it when given an opportunity, is that second state (or third, etc..) also liable/culpable for refusing to step in? If so, must one first go though all the various state appeals and exhaust them in each state or may one go and pose the question to the federal courts directly and ask that they compel the state to defend the inherent right that they previously refused to?

6. If another (say third) state and/or court does later step in and take action in a case where a previous inherent right has been violated, can the second state/ court be held accountable for their inaction and/or violation of the inherent right that was previously put before them? (The argument of the second state being, well, since a third state stepped in, it's now no longer our problem, so you can't go back and hold us liable for something we chose not to do, even though their inaction violated the inherent right?)

1. The simple answer is it depends. You have a First Amendment right but there can be reasonable limitations. None of your rights are absolute.

2. I don't understand the question.

3. No. It all depends on the circumstances and wether or not there is enough distinction.

4. A Federal Case. You will have to clear all kinds of hurdles however in order to attack this sort of thing. But, since it is almost certainly a Federal question a court is likely to hear the case so long as you meet certain other requirements in terms of the actual harm done. It must be concrete or imminent.

5. No. State Courts MAY grant jurisdiction under circumstances where there may be a conflict but are not required to.

Someone in this thread was asking how early in gestation infants have survived.
In these photos (small anecdotal sample) there is a little girl who was born at 23 weeks and is alive and thriving.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/04/07/lo...s-preemies

At 23 weeks, this baby was deemed human and got her Constitutional Protections.