(05-17-2019 08:31 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-17-2019 08:11 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(05-17-2019 08:03 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I'm just saying that viewing RU-86 as morally the same as a Gosnell practice is fairly warped. Funny thing each side of the extremist viewpoint views RU-86 as exactly the same as Gosnell -- albeit with different polarities.

One side has no compunction about 7th, 8th, or 9th month abortions.

The other side has zero compunction about forcing *every single* pregnancy to term.

Each of those sides is absolutely warped imo, for their own specific reasons.

I find it very interesting on one side, the absolute compassion for 6 cells, yet zero compunction for compassion when their viewpoint is essentially 'Carry it to term, *****. Your choice, your problem.'

I mean, that is the 'meany poo' translation of a previous post which noted that 'She is open to childhood', but it is the same effect in the real world, is it not?

And I find the zero compassion on the other side as well when they think that an abortion in a very viable situation is justified.

From my viewpoint, the extremists are very much taking over their respective ships.

One extreme bill gets passed in one state house and that constitutes a takeover by the extremists on the entire issue?

I'm sorry but that i just a load of crap and you know it.

Even that Alabama bill appears NOT to be what those legislators actually desire, but are trying to use it as a tool for more reasonable limits on abortions.

The extremism of the Alabama bill is equal to the extremism of the VA law.

One can look at the Alabama bill in two differing ways: 1) they are trying to push for a definition of 'personhood'; or 2) they are emboldened by a rightward swing in the SCOTUS and have pushed a FU bill the challenge the basis of Roe V Wade.

So Eric, why do you say the 'bill is NOT what the legislators desire'? Do you have some all knowing prescience into each and every legislator voting on the bill? I sure as heck dont. How can I get those super powers of yours?

Here is the statement from the *sponsor* of the bill:

Quote:“What I’m trying to do here is get this case in front of the Supreme Court so Roe v. Wade can be overturned,” Republican Alabama state Rep. Terri Collins, who sponsored the abortion ban legislation, said in an interview with The Washington Post.

So your 'more reasonable limits' is actually an overturning of RvW when you actually use the actual words from the sponsors mouth, Eric.

As for *one* extreme bill in *one* state house that is an utter mis-statement. It *is* law -- meaning more than one 'house' passed it (last I looked Alabama still had a bicameral legislature) and the governor had to sign.

Tack on the Missouri Senate 'fetal heartbeat' bill, and your 'one house' is off by 200 per cent at that point, and your states count is *only* off by 100 per cent.

And I guess you completely missed the Ohio effort.

I'm an ultra-conservative and I'll admit that I would love to see Roe v. Wade overturned.

Here's the thing, though...

When it comes right down to it, do we have enough information to understand whether or not the baby is an actual human being?

If we have scientific information that confirms the baby in utero is indeed a human being then any position that supports ending that life amounts to genocide.

If we have scientific information that confirms the baby in utero is NOT a human being then abort away.

If we're still unsure as to whether or not the baby is a human being then we should err on the side of caution. The moral position would be to protect life rather than destroy it.

So yeah, I'd love to see it overturned.

Will it happen? I doubt it. But even if parts of it are overturned then I would consider it a huge victory.

(05-17-2019 08:42 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-17-2019 08:16 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(05-17-2019 03:54 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-17-2019 01:57 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(05-15-2019 07:29 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  None of the SCOTUS cases have vested *any* rights to the unborn. An unborn has zero rights (fundamental or not) with respect to Roe, Casey, and all the rest.

Disagree....

From Roe
However, the Court rejected the notion that a pregnant woman's right to abort her pregnancy was absolute, and held that the right must be balanced against other considerations such as the state's interest in protecting "prenatal life."

Why does the state have an interest in protecting pre-natal life if that life has no rights at all under the Constitution?

The state only has the rights granted to it by the Constitution, right?

I understand that they don't really specify here, but the 'right to life' is pretty strongly implied by the ability to block an abortion.

We may be arguing semantics? You know law isn't my area, but the above is pretty clear to me.

I think the law in question is designed specifically to clarify this... though again, it's hard to argue that rights don't exist if the state has an interest in protecting them from being 'ended'.

A state can have an 'interest in' a bajillion and one things: ozone output, concrete factories, sentencing guidelines, speed limits....

They can even have an 'overriding interest' in things.

A state having 'an interest' in something doesnt even get you to the ante in that 'rights are involved' card game.

In any case where there is a balance of rights, the Court will say: this a case that balances the rights of XYZ against the right of ABC.

For example, many of the cases in the 70s dealing with discrimination had to employ that since many of cases dealt with statutes that were based on fundamental rights under the Civil War amendments versus the 1st amendment right of freedom of association.

When there is a balancing of rights, the Court notes it and notes the specific rights. It doesnt happen often because the nature of the rights in question are such that they really dont come into conflict much.

But the 'balancing' of a right versus a state interest is *only* an indication of how far the state can 'push into a right' (you know, that 'shall not be infringed type stuff' and only government action can 'infringe').

I dont believe there has ever been a 'right' as such accorded to the unborn by the Court.

I hear you, but I don't follow you.

The state's interest in the things you mention are for the benefit of the people it represents.... promote the general welfare or any of a number of other concepts that are generically (and sometimes clumsily as you note) referred to...

There is a difference in saying the state has an interest in protecting pre-natal life and saying they have an interest in ozone output. I believe that is using the definition of the word 'interest' differently. The interest (concern) in ozone output comes from an interest (obligation) in protecting citizens, right? We don't owe an obligation to the ozone under the Constitution. It doesn't say it has an interest in the mother's well being as a result of a later term abortion, it says an interest in protecting.... life.

I agree with you that nowhere does it specifically recognize the rights of the unborn... I think this is the purpose of this law and why it specifically excludes rape and incest... it also doesn't, nor should it ever 'accord' such a right. All it can do is recognize them as they are endowed by our Creator... not the courts...

But I'm still having trouble rectifying your statement that it isn't recognizing pre-natal's right to life when it recognizes the states interest to protect it.

If the state's interest in protecting that life is so great by this point that it outweighs the mother's previously inviolate right to terminate that life... how can you argue that the pre-natal life has no recognized rights? Please don't use metaphors unless you have to (I'm notorious for doing so myself) as there are few close ones I can think of. I greatly respect your opinion here, but I'm having trouble understanding how this doesn't do exactly what I said.... and absolutely recognize and enshrine the state's 'right' to protect pre-natal life... semantics aside... I mean, I see it there in black and white. Apparently they didn't have an obligation, or the obligation was outweighed earlier in the pregnancy... but at this point, SOMETHING changed.

I think we are talking abut two differing concepts of 'rights'. I am using the strictly legal concept of a right: in no underlying basis of law, nor in any case in the last arbiter of what that law is, has any right been conferred to an unborn.

There has been no legal recognition that such a right exists.

The closest thing that has been presented in the specific arena is a 'state's interest' in an unborn being born. That is because of the legal relationship being examined: an individual with such a right, and a state that wishes to push into the realm of that right (i.e. a state law that supposedly infringes that right). Those are the only two items being examined in the case of abortion rights legal decisions.

A state can assert the right of a third party in tertia pars, and this sometimes happens. For example the Trump Immigration Freezes Cases -- Hawaii, California and other states claim that they could use the right to freely travel of certain people as their basis for bringing suit. But, each state when it does so has severe standing issues (is the state a proper party to assert a right of another, or can a state assert locos parentis standing for third parties).

No abortion case has ever been brought with locos parentis standing, and no state has ever asserted that. The framing of the issue is always done in the terms 'does the State have an interest in making the particular rule', but has *never* been presented as 'the state serving as the plaintiff based on the assertion of the rights of others' for these cases.

Look, to a degree I do think that there is a certain moral basis for addressing the issues of the 'viability' standard in terms of moral rights -- does a viable fetus have a moral right to be brought forth? And the State's arguments in restriction of abortion are usually grounded in those moral rights -- Texas's basis for its recent 'need to have a hospital around' and 'need to have admitting privileges' is certainly based in the concept of such moral rights to do everything possible for certain classes of fetuses.

But such indirect moral basis does not mean there is a legal basis for such a right. The question of 'where does a right to life begin' is certainly a question that needs to be debated as a moral issue for our society. And undoubtedly a great case can be made for such a moral basis in the later stages of pregnancy.

But, as for a conferring of a legal right to the unborn -- one has never been recognized by the Court. Nor has one ever been put forth by a State that is defending its particular restriction on abortion.

Does not the charge of homicide applied to a suspect for the killing on an unborn child confer a legal bases to some degree?

(05-17-2019 08:31 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-17-2019 08:11 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(05-17-2019 08:03 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I'm just saying that viewing RU-86 as morally the same as a Gosnell practice is fairly warped. Funny thing each side of the extremist viewpoint views RU-86 as exactly the same as Gosnell -- albeit with different polarities.

One side has no compunction about 7th, 8th, or 9th month abortions.

The other side has zero compunction about forcing *every single* pregnancy to term.

Each of those sides is absolutely warped imo, for their own specific reasons.

I find it very interesting on one side, the absolute compassion for 6 cells, yet zero compunction for compassion when their viewpoint is essentially 'Carry it to term, *****. Your choice, your problem.'

I mean, that is the 'meany poo' translation of a previous post which noted that 'She is open to childhood', but it is the same effect in the real world, is it not?

And I find the zero compassion on the other side as well when they think that an abortion in a very viable situation is justified.

From my viewpoint, the extremists are very much taking over their respective ships.

One extreme bill gets passed in one state house and that constitutes a takeover by the extremists on the entire issue?

I'm sorry but that i just a load of crap and you know it.

Even that Alabama bill appears NOT to be what those legislators actually desire, but are trying to use it as a tool for more reasonable limits on abortions.

The extremism of the Alabama bill is equal to the extremism of the VA law.

Depends on what you mean by extremeism. If you mean at the far-end, well ok. But if you mean equally messed up, well no.

You see, on one extreme the law is to protect the babies life at every point.

The other extreme is to have the option to kill the baby at every point, including when its crying on the delivery table.

Both measures are extreme, but one is righteous and the other is not. Therefore, they are not equal.

(05-20-2019 12:23 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(05-17-2019 08:31 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-17-2019 08:11 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(05-17-2019 08:03 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I'm just saying that viewing RU-86 as morally the same as a Gosnell practice is fairly warped. Funny thing each side of the extremist viewpoint views RU-86 as exactly the same as Gosnell -- albeit with different polarities.

One side has no compunction about 7th, 8th, or 9th month abortions.

The other side has zero compunction about forcing *every single* pregnancy to term.

Each of those sides is absolutely warped imo, for their own specific reasons.

I find it very interesting on one side, the absolute compassion for 6 cells, yet zero compunction for compassion when their viewpoint is essentially 'Carry it to term, *****. Your choice, your problem.'

I mean, that is the 'meany poo' translation of a previous post which noted that 'She is open to childhood', but it is the same effect in the real world, is it not?

And I find the zero compassion on the other side as well when they think that an abortion in a very viable situation is justified.

From my viewpoint, the extremists are very much taking over their respective ships.

One extreme bill gets passed in one state house and that constitutes a takeover by the extremists on the entire issue?

I'm sorry but that i just a load of crap and you know it.

Even that Alabama bill appears NOT to be what those legislators actually desire, but are trying to use it as a tool for more reasonable limits on abortions.

The extremism of the Alabama bill is equal to the extremism of the VA law.

Depends on what you mean by extremeism. If you mean at the far-end, well ok. But if you mean equally messed up, well no.

You see, on one extreme the law is to protect the babies life at every point.

The other extreme is to have the option to kill the baby at every point, including when its crying on the delivery table.

Both measures are extreme, but one is righteous and the other is not. Therefore, they are not equal.

You speak truth!

(05-20-2019 12:20 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(05-17-2019 08:42 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-17-2019 08:16 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(05-17-2019 03:54 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-17-2019 01:57 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Disagree....

From Roe
However, the Court rejected the notion that a pregnant woman's right to abort her pregnancy was absolute, and held that the right must be balanced against other considerations such as the state's interest in protecting "prenatal life."

Why does the state have an interest in protecting pre-natal life if that life has no rights at all under the Constitution?

The state only has the rights granted to it by the Constitution, right?

I understand that they don't really specify here, but the 'right to life' is pretty strongly implied by the ability to block an abortion.

We may be arguing semantics? You know law isn't my area, but the above is pretty clear to me.

I think the law in question is designed specifically to clarify this... though again, it's hard to argue that rights don't exist if the state has an interest in protecting them from being 'ended'.

A state can have an 'interest in' a bajillion and one things: ozone output, concrete factories, sentencing guidelines, speed limits....

They can even have an 'overriding interest' in things.

A state having 'an interest' in something doesnt even get you to the ante in that 'rights are involved' card game.

In any case where there is a balance of rights, the Court will say: this a case that balances the rights of XYZ against the right of ABC.

For example, many of the cases in the 70s dealing with discrimination had to employ that since many of cases dealt with statutes that were based on fundamental rights under the Civil War amendments versus the 1st amendment right of freedom of association.

When there is a balancing of rights, the Court notes it and notes the specific rights. It doesnt happen often because the nature of the rights in question are such that they really dont come into conflict much.

But the 'balancing' of a right versus a state interest is *only* an indication of how far the state can 'push into a right' (you know, that 'shall not be infringed type stuff' and only government action can 'infringe').

I dont believe there has ever been a 'right' as such accorded to the unborn by the Court.

I hear you, but I don't follow you.

The state's interest in the things you mention are for the benefit of the people it represents.... promote the general welfare or any of a number of other concepts that are generically (and sometimes clumsily as you note) referred to...

There is a difference in saying the state has an interest in protecting pre-natal life and saying they have an interest in ozone output. I believe that is using the definition of the word 'interest' differently. The interest (concern) in ozone output comes from an interest (obligation) in protecting citizens, right? We don't owe an obligation to the ozone under the Constitution. It doesn't say it has an interest in the mother's well being as a result of a later term abortion, it says an interest in protecting.... life.

I agree with you that nowhere does it specifically recognize the rights of the unborn... I think this is the purpose of this law and why it specifically excludes rape and incest... it also doesn't, nor should it ever 'accord' such a right. All it can do is recognize them as they are endowed by our Creator... not the courts...

But I'm still having trouble rectifying your statement that it isn't recognizing pre-natal's right to life when it recognizes the states interest to protect it.

If the state's interest in protecting that life is so great by this point that it outweighs the mother's previously inviolate right to terminate that life... how can you argue that the pre-natal life has no recognized rights? Please don't use metaphors unless you have to (I'm notorious for doing so myself) as there are few close ones I can think of. I greatly respect your opinion here, but I'm having trouble understanding how this doesn't do exactly what I said.... and absolutely recognize and enshrine the state's 'right' to protect pre-natal life... semantics aside... I mean, I see it there in black and white. Apparently they didn't have an obligation, or the obligation was outweighed earlier in the pregnancy... but at this point, SOMETHING changed.

I think we are talking abut two differing concepts of 'rights'. I am using the strictly legal concept of a right: in no underlying basis of law, nor in any case in the last arbiter of what that law is, has any right been conferred to an unborn.

There has been no legal recognition that such a right exists.

The closest thing that has been presented in the specific arena is a 'state's interest' in an unborn being born. That is because of the legal relationship being examined: an individual with such a right, and a state that wishes to push into the realm of that right (i.e. a state law that supposedly infringes that right). Those are the only two items being examined in the case of abortion rights legal decisions.

A state can assert the right of a third party in tertia pars, and this sometimes happens. For example the Trump Immigration Freezes Cases -- Hawaii, California and other states claim that they could use the right to freely travel of certain people as their basis for bringing suit. But, each state when it does so has severe standing issues (is the state a proper party to assert a right of another, or can a state assert locos parentis standing for third parties).

No abortion case has ever been brought with locos parentis standing, and no state has ever asserted that. The framing of the issue is always done in the terms 'does the State have an interest in making the particular rule', but has *never* been presented as 'the state serving as the plaintiff based on the assertion of the rights of others' for these cases.

Look, to a degree I do think that there is a certain moral basis for addressing the issues of the 'viability' standard in terms of moral rights -- does a viable fetus have a moral right to be brought forth? And the State's arguments in restriction of abortion are usually grounded in those moral rights -- Texas's basis for its recent 'need to have a hospital around' and 'need to have admitting privileges' is certainly based in the concept of such moral rights to do everything possible for certain classes of fetuses.

But such indirect moral basis does not mean there is a legal basis for such a right. The question of 'where does a right to life begin' is certainly a question that needs to be debated as a moral issue for our society. And undoubtedly a great case can be made for such a moral basis in the later stages of pregnancy.

But, as for a conferring of a legal right to the unborn -- one has never been recognized by the Court. Nor has one ever been put forth by a State that is defending its particular restriction on abortion.

Does not the charge of homicide applied to a suspect for the killing on an unborn child confer a legal bases to some degree?

The law in Austin makes it illegal to kill a tree (without a permit) whose trunk is over 36 inches in diameter. Does the live oak in my backyard have a 'right to life'?

I think that the 'rights' we are talking about with respect to the Constitution go beyond what individual jurisdictions define in their criminal code or in their administrative code.

But, good question.

Now the question actually asked is does that designation 'confer a legal basis' to that unborn child. Sure it does, but limited solely to the extent of the state or local law in question. And those vary greatly.

For example, in Queens New York earlier this year some creep stabbed his pregnant girlfriend and killed her -- also killing the viable infant she was carrying. The Queens DA did not bring any charges against the creep for the viable infant. They noted that under the new NY law that was enacted, the act of harming or destroying that life (and yes, I very much agree a viable fetus is 'alive') cannot be charged.

So, under the jurisdiction of New York, there plainly is no basis in your question.

In the Rice political sub-board on this site there is a *huge* discussion on the New York law as it stands.

(05-20-2019 12:23 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(05-17-2019 08:31 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-17-2019 08:11 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(05-17-2019 08:03 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I'm just saying that viewing RU-86 as morally the same as a Gosnell practice is fairly warped. Funny thing each side of the extremist viewpoint views RU-86 as exactly the same as Gosnell -- albeit with different polarities.

One side has no compunction about 7th, 8th, or 9th month abortions.

The other side has zero compunction about forcing *every single* pregnancy to term.

Each of those sides is absolutely warped imo, for their own specific reasons.

I find it very interesting on one side, the absolute compassion for 6 cells, yet zero compunction for compassion when their viewpoint is essentially 'Carry it to term, *****. Your choice, your problem.'

I mean, that is the 'meany poo' translation of a previous post which noted that 'She is open to childhood', but it is the same effect in the real world, is it not?

And I find the zero compassion on the other side as well when they think that an abortion in a very viable situation is justified.

From my viewpoint, the extremists are very much taking over their respective ships.

One extreme bill gets passed in one state house and that constitutes a takeover by the extremists on the entire issue?

I'm sorry but that i just a load of crap and you know it.

Even that Alabama bill appears NOT to be what those legislators actually desire, but are trying to use it as a tool for more reasonable limits on abortions.

The extremism of the Alabama bill is equal to the extremism of the VA law.

Depends on what you mean by extremeism. If you mean at the far-end, well ok. But if you mean equally messed up, well no.

You see, on one extreme the law is to protect the babies life at every point.

The other extreme is to have the option to kill the baby at every point, including when its crying on the delivery table.

Both measures are extreme, but one is righteous and the other is not. Therefore, they are not equal.

And the outcome of the 'righteous' outcome is essentially 'tfb, *****. You knew what could happen, so carry it to term'.

And no, I am not in the camp that a clump of 10 cells is correctly defined as 'baby'. No more than a clump of Lacks cells are a 'human'.

One extreme does allow the killing of babies as we all know it. And makes the actions of Gosnell liability-free --- which is absolutely terrible.

The other extreme says 'Too bad, those clump of cells have to be carried to term, *****.' Which is, imo, another absolutely terrible outcome.

There is absolute zero empathy on the liberal side for the results of the late term abortion. And there is absolute zero empathy on the conservative side for the effects of 30 cells on a woman's life.

(05-20-2019 04:15 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-20-2019 12:20 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(05-17-2019 08:42 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-17-2019 08:16 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(05-17-2019 03:54 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  A state can have an 'interest in' a bajillion and one things: ozone output, concrete factories, sentencing guidelines, speed limits....

They can even have an 'overriding interest' in things.

A state having 'an interest' in something doesnt even get you to the ante in that 'rights are involved' card game.

In any case where there is a balance of rights, the Court will say: this a case that balances the rights of XYZ against the right of ABC.

For example, many of the cases in the 70s dealing with discrimination had to employ that since many of cases dealt with statutes that were based on fundamental rights under the Civil War amendments versus the 1st amendment right of freedom of association.

When there is a balancing of rights, the Court notes it and notes the specific rights. It doesnt happen often because the nature of the rights in question are such that they really dont come into conflict much.

But the 'balancing' of a right versus a state interest is *only* an indication of how far the state can 'push into a right' (you know, that 'shall not be infringed type stuff' and only government action can 'infringe').

I dont believe there has ever been a 'right' as such accorded to the unborn by the Court.

I hear you, but I don't follow you.

The state's interest in the things you mention are for the benefit of the people it represents.... promote the general welfare or any of a number of other concepts that are generically (and sometimes clumsily as you note) referred to...

There is a difference in saying the state has an interest in protecting pre-natal life and saying they have an interest in ozone output. I believe that is using the definition of the word 'interest' differently. The interest (concern) in ozone output comes from an interest (obligation) in protecting citizens, right? We don't owe an obligation to the ozone under the Constitution. It doesn't say it has an interest in the mother's well being as a result of a later term abortion, it says an interest in protecting.... life.

I agree with you that nowhere does it specifically recognize the rights of the unborn... I think this is the purpose of this law and why it specifically excludes rape and incest... it also doesn't, nor should it ever 'accord' such a right. All it can do is recognize them as they are endowed by our Creator... not the courts...

But I'm still having trouble rectifying your statement that it isn't recognizing pre-natal's right to life when it recognizes the states interest to protect it.

If the state's interest in protecting that life is so great by this point that it outweighs the mother's previously inviolate right to terminate that life... how can you argue that the pre-natal life has no recognized rights? Please don't use metaphors unless you have to (I'm notorious for doing so myself) as there are few close ones I can think of. I greatly respect your opinion here, but I'm having trouble understanding how this doesn't do exactly what I said.... and absolutely recognize and enshrine the state's 'right' to protect pre-natal life... semantics aside... I mean, I see it there in black and white. Apparently they didn't have an obligation, or the obligation was outweighed earlier in the pregnancy... but at this point, SOMETHING changed.

I think we are talking abut two differing concepts of 'rights'. I am using the strictly legal concept of a right: in no underlying basis of law, nor in any case in the last arbiter of what that law is, has any right been conferred to an unborn.

There has been no legal recognition that such a right exists.

The closest thing that has been presented in the specific arena is a 'state's interest' in an unborn being born. That is because of the legal relationship being examined: an individual with such a right, and a state that wishes to push into the realm of that right (i.e. a state law that supposedly infringes that right). Those are the only two items being examined in the case of abortion rights legal decisions.

A state can assert the right of a third party in tertia pars, and this sometimes happens. For example the Trump Immigration Freezes Cases -- Hawaii, California and other states claim that they could use the right to freely travel of certain people as their basis for bringing suit. But, each state when it does so has severe standing issues (is the state a proper party to assert a right of another, or can a state assert locos parentis standing for third parties).

No abortion case has ever been brought with locos parentis standing, and no state has ever asserted that. The framing of the issue is always done in the terms 'does the State have an interest in making the particular rule', but has *never* been presented as 'the state serving as the plaintiff based on the assertion of the rights of others' for these cases.

Look, to a degree I do think that there is a certain moral basis for addressing the issues of the 'viability' standard in terms of moral rights -- does a viable fetus have a moral right to be brought forth? And the State's arguments in restriction of abortion are usually grounded in those moral rights -- Texas's basis for its recent 'need to have a hospital around' and 'need to have admitting privileges' is certainly based in the concept of such moral rights to do everything possible for certain classes of fetuses.

But such indirect moral basis does not mean there is a legal basis for such a right. The question of 'where does a right to life begin' is certainly a question that needs to be debated as a moral issue for our society. And undoubtedly a great case can be made for such a moral basis in the later stages of pregnancy.

But, as for a conferring of a legal right to the unborn -- one has never been recognized by the Court. Nor has one ever been put forth by a State that is defending its particular restriction on abortion.

Does not the charge of homicide applied to a suspect for the killing on an unborn child confer a legal bases to some degree?

The law in Austin makes it illegal to kill a tree (without a permit) whose trunk is over 36 inches in diameter. Does the live oak in my backyard have a 'right to life'?

I think that the 'rights' we are talking about with respect to the Constitution go beyond what individual jurisdictions define in their criminal code or in their administrative code.

But, good question.

Now the question actually asked is does that designation 'confer a legal basis' to that unborn child. Sure it does, but limited solely to the extent of the state or local law in question. And those vary greatly.

For example, in Queens New York earlier this year some creep stabbed his pregnant girlfriend and killed her -- also killing the viable infant she was carrying. The Queens DA did not bring any charges against the creep for the viable infant. They noted that under the new NY law that was enacted, the act of harming or destroying that life (and yes, I very much agree a viable fetus is 'alive') cannot be charged.

So, under the jurisdiction of New York, there plainly is no basis in your question.

In the Rice political sub-board on this site there is a *huge* discussion on the New York law as it stands.

OK, so if the U.S. had not assume supremacy when it came to abortion then each state would have been able to protect human life to the extent it chose.

If that was the case currently I would be less inclined to care what California did as opposed to Tennessee given that I'm a citizen and taxpayer of TN. I would think CA is disgusting, but would understand it's their right to choose.

However, the United States did decide to dictate that the right of the mother to kill her baby was ensured due to the right of privacy. Interesting legal twist given that the right of privacy doesn't allow us to kill other people.


I dislike very much having my money funneled against my will to an organization whose primary business is to kill babies. We assume it's for profit but I think there are other motivations linked back to its founder's original eugenics motivations.

I also dislike very much living under a government that places more value on the life of pre-born bird in an egg than that of pre-born human child.

(05-20-2019 04:15 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-20-2019 12:20 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  Does not the charge of homicide applied to a suspect for the killing on an unborn child confer a legal bases to some degree?

The law in Austin makes it illegal to kill a tree (without a permit) whose trunk is over 36 inches in diameter. Does the live oak in my backyard have a 'right to life'?

I think that the 'rights' we are talking about with respect to the Constitution go beyond what individual jurisdictions define in their criminal code or in their administrative code.

But, good question.

Now the question actually asked is does that designation 'confer a legal basis' to that unborn child. Sure it does, but limited solely to the extent of the state or local law in question. And those vary greatly.

For example, in Queens New York earlier this year some creep stabbed his pregnant girlfriend and killed her -- also killing the viable infant she was carrying. The Queens DA did not bring any charges against the creep for the viable infant. They noted that under the new NY law that was enacted, the act of harming or destroying that life (and yes, I very much agree a viable fetus is 'alive') cannot be charged.

So, under the jurisdiction of New York, there plainly is no basis in your question.

In the Rice political sub-board on this site there is a *huge* discussion on the New York law as it stands.

But the crime is not MURDER.

IIRC, in most states.... (36 stands out in my mind but I could be way off) killing a pregnant woman is double murder... as opposed to murder of the mom and then some other charge. It doesn't surprise me that NY (or CA or a few others) would go another way.

(05-20-2019 12:23 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(05-17-2019 08:31 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-17-2019 08:11 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(05-17-2019 08:03 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I'm just saying that viewing RU-86 as morally the same as a Gosnell practice is fairly warped. Funny thing each side of the extremist viewpoint views RU-86 as exactly the same as Gosnell -- albeit with different polarities.

One side has no compunction about 7th, 8th, or 9th month abortions.

The other side has zero compunction about forcing *every single* pregnancy to term.

Each of those sides is absolutely warped imo, for their own specific reasons.

I find it very interesting on one side, the absolute compassion for 6 cells, yet zero compunction for compassion when their viewpoint is essentially 'Carry it to term, *****. Your choice, your problem.'

I mean, that is the 'meany poo' translation of a previous post which noted that 'She is open to childhood', but it is the same effect in the real world, is it not?

And I find the zero compassion on the other side as well when they think that an abortion in a very viable situation is justified.

From my viewpoint, the extremists are very much taking over their respective ships.

One extreme bill gets passed in one state house and that constitutes a takeover by the extremists on the entire issue?

I'm sorry but that i just a load of crap and you know it.

Even that Alabama bill appears NOT to be what those legislators actually desire, but are trying to use it as a tool for more reasonable limits on abortions.

The extremism of the Alabama bill is equal to the extremism of the VA law.

Depends on what you mean by extremeism. If you mean at the far-end, well ok. But if you mean equally messed up, well no.

You see, on one extreme the law is to protect the babies life at every point.

The other extreme is to have the option to kill the baby at every point, including when its crying on the delivery table.

Both measures are extreme, but one is righteous and the other is not. Therefore, they are not equal.

All of this^

(05-20-2019 04:52 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  OK, so if the U.S. had not assume supremacy when it came to abortion then each state would have been able to protect human life to the extent it chose.

To a limited extent

Quote:However, the United States did decide to dictate that the right of the mother to kill her baby was ensured due to the right of privacy.

The right only exists to a certain point in the pregnancy. After that point the states have a complete ability to regulate. The right to an abortion certainly does not exist unfettered in the slightest.

(05-20-2019 06:37 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(05-20-2019 04:15 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-20-2019 12:20 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  Does not the charge of homicide applied to a suspect for the killing on an unborn child confer a legal bases to some degree?

The law in Austin makes it illegal to kill a tree (without a permit) whose trunk is over 36 inches in diameter. Does the live oak in my backyard have a 'right to life'?

I think that the 'rights' we are talking about with respect to the Constitution go beyond what individual jurisdictions define in their criminal code or in their administrative code.

But, good question.

Now the question actually asked is does that designation 'confer a legal basis' to that unborn child. Sure it does, but limited solely to the extent of the state or local law in question. And those vary greatly.

For example, in Queens New York earlier this year some creep stabbed his pregnant girlfriend and killed her -- also killing the viable infant she was carrying. The Queens DA did not bring any charges against the creep for the viable infant. They noted that under the new NY law that was enacted, the act of harming or destroying that life (and yes, I very much agree a viable fetus is 'alive') cannot be charged.

So, under the jurisdiction of New York, there plainly is no basis in your question.

In the Rice political sub-board on this site there is a *huge* discussion on the New York law as it stands.

But the crime is not MURDER.

IIRC, in most states.... (36 stands out in my mind but I could be way off) killing a pregnant woman is double murder... as opposed to murder of the mom and then some other charge. It doesn't surprise me that NY (or CA or a few others) would go another way.

But it still does not impact the issue of 'rights' under the Constitution.

911 memorials honors the unborn, seems a weird thing to do when its just a clump of cells right guys?

https://www.newsday.com/911-anniversary/...-1.3138677

(05-21-2019 08:45 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-20-2019 06:37 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(05-20-2019 04:15 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-20-2019 12:20 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  Does not the charge of homicide applied to a suspect for the killing on an unborn child confer a legal bases to some degree?

The law in Austin makes it illegal to kill a tree (without a permit) whose trunk is over 36 inches in diameter. Does the live oak in my backyard have a 'right to life'?

I think that the 'rights' we are talking about with respect to the Constitution go beyond what individual jurisdictions define in their criminal code or in their administrative code.

But, good question.

Now the question actually asked is does that designation 'confer a legal basis' to that unborn child. Sure it does, but limited solely to the extent of the state or local law in question. And those vary greatly.

For example, in Queens New York earlier this year some creep stabbed his pregnant girlfriend and killed her -- also killing the viable infant she was carrying. The Queens DA did not bring any charges against the creep for the viable infant. They noted that under the new NY law that was enacted, the act of harming or destroying that life (and yes, I very much agree a viable fetus is 'alive') cannot be charged.

So, under the jurisdiction of New York, there plainly is no basis in your question.

In the Rice political sub-board on this site there is a *huge* discussion on the New York law as it stands.

But the crime is not MURDER.

IIRC, in most states.... (36 stands out in my mind but I could be way off) killing a pregnant woman is double murder... as opposed to murder of the mom and then some other charge. It doesn't surprise me that NY (or CA or a few others) would go another way.

But it still does not impact the issue of 'rights' under the Constitution.

Agreed

I think that was an earlier test of RvW. If it's murder to kill the unborn and NOT murder to kill a tree, then the unborn is clearly not 'a clump of cells'... and if it's double murder to kill a mom and fetus, then clearly the fetus is a separate legal entity with the right to not be killed.... If that weren't the situation, it wouldn't be double murder. It's not double murder to kill someone and take their kidneys... or murder them and steal their car.

the courts seemingly bypassed a decision here, which is I suspect again why the Alabama law contains no exceptions to allow them to wiggle out of such a distinction.

(05-21-2019 05:08 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(05-21-2019 08:45 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-20-2019 06:37 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(05-20-2019 04:15 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-20-2019 12:20 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  Does not the charge of homicide applied to a suspect for the killing on an unborn child confer a legal bases to some degree?

The law in Austin makes it illegal to kill a tree (without a permit) whose trunk is over 36 inches in diameter. Does the live oak in my backyard have a 'right to life'?

I think that the 'rights' we are talking about with respect to the Constitution go beyond what individual jurisdictions define in their criminal code or in their administrative code.

But, good question.

Now the question actually asked is does that designation 'confer a legal basis' to that unborn child. Sure it does, but limited solely to the extent of the state or local law in question. And those vary greatly.

For example, in Queens New York earlier this year some creep stabbed his pregnant girlfriend and killed her -- also killing the viable infant she was carrying. The Queens DA did not bring any charges against the creep for the viable infant. They noted that under the new NY law that was enacted, the act of harming or destroying that life (and yes, I very much agree a viable fetus is 'alive') cannot be charged.

So, under the jurisdiction of New York, there plainly is no basis in your question.

In the Rice political sub-board on this site there is a *huge* discussion on the New York law as it stands.

But the crime is not MURDER.

IIRC, in most states.... (36 stands out in my mind but I could be way off) killing a pregnant woman is double murder... as opposed to murder of the mom and then some other charge. It doesn't surprise me that NY (or CA or a few others) would go another way.

But it still does not impact the issue of 'rights' under the Constitution.

Agreed

I think that was an earlier test of RvW. If it's murder to kill the unborn and NOT murder to kill a tree, then the unborn is clearly not 'a clump of cells'... and if it's double murder to kill a mom and fetus, then clearly the fetus is a separate legal entity with the right to not be killed.... If that weren't the situation, it wouldn't be double murder. It's not double murder to kill someone and take their kidneys... or murder them and steal their car.

the courts seemingly bypassed a decision here, which is I suspect again why the Alabama law contains no exceptions to allow them to wiggle out of such a distinction.

A state can define a 'murder' however the fk they want to.

The problem is that you are know implicating rights under some state's laws (which a state feels the need to do) to an overarching Federal right. What you dont understand is that rights under Consitution are looked at as a 'floor' -- a level under which no government can delineate.

But, a state (any state) can define for their own purposes for the residents of that state what is to be afforded that is *greater* than the floor the Constitution allows.

But one cannot ad nauseum point to state treatment of an issue and blindly declare that an overarching 'right' (in the legal sense) exists in all cases and to everything in the United States (which is what you are seemingly trying to do here).

For example, in Texas I am accorded a far wider 'right of free speech' than that delineated under the Federal system. But, my wider right of free speech in Texas isnt transitive -- that wider right doesnt exist to the Federal viewpoint (which is a 'cant be worse than this' standard), nor is it applicable in the slightest to any other jurisdiction.

But you are seemingly not just mixing and matching jurisdictional definitions, you also engage in mixing and matching moralistic definitions of the term 'rights' in your analysis.

For all that you say that a zygote (the proverbial clump of cells) has 'rights' (legally you are dead wrong in a Constitutional sense), I personally dont draw the line at that distinction. I dont have the moralistic outrage such that as expressed here at an individual taking RU-86 at the 'clump of cells' stage.

You want to call that clump a 'human' and get indignant over it --- knock yourself out.
Your choice and you have every right to indulge yourself in that choice. As time passes and that collection has the ability to be viable, then I would tend to agree with you.

But, if the definition of a 'clump of cells' is 'human', then why arent the pro-lifers charging headfirst into an attack on the *entire* in vitro industry, where, in there viewpoint, effectively the entire murderous regime of Stalin *and* Hitler combined is wiped out each and every year with the disposal of what happens in those culture dishes?

To be blunt, the treatment of IVF clinics in isolation really utterly debunks the idea that the states afford 'rights' to such. I mean, even in states that have 'unborn child' laws, there have been *zero* prosecutions of *any* IVF clinic that destroy such 'babies' by the proverbial metric ton. Kind of either makes such laws 'nonsense' or the states themselves the biggest hypocrites possible when one thinks of that industry and what you say the laws suggest.

actually I'm not doing anything other than observing and speculating

I believe the right (on the issue) in Alabama is seeking to force the court to assign rights to the unborn... hence why the law is specifically crafted this way. I think previous attempts to do that have failed for a variety of reasons just as you have described. I can't really tell you why they haven't done what you suggest they should... though certainly SOME have..... I think it clear as you go further 'left' on the issue, you find that as you move from a culture dish to a baby... the support increases

Like all other rights, the right to life is not unlimited. The court could easily decide that the unborn have rights, but not as much as the born. Sort of like how voting is a right that can be limited by age. I'm not saying they will or should. I'm saying they could. I'm saying that this is what the right sees in Roe and what they are challenging.

I am pro choice... all I want to do is to hasten the choice for a variety of reasons, not the least of which are that it is far less controversial, dangerous and expensive to do it sooner. That's really not at issue here.

I think if you leave RvW in place, the (far) left has to accept that the state has the power/authority/interest however you want to say it and for whatever reason you want to say it, to place limits on the right to an abortion that it also 'finds' as you note. We can debate WHY the state has that power, but RvW clearly says it exists.