How about conjoined twins that share a liver? One person or two?
Two. Either could survive without the other. Two lives dependent on each other. If one died, the other would survive.
*But only after 22 weeks 
God gave life to the baby: “the life of the flesh is in the blood,” Lev 17:11. That is not the mother’s blood. Once that baby’s heart pumps the first molecule of blood into its flesh, the nuance is gone, and clearly the baby is a creation of God, whether any Pro-Choice likes it or not.
Sure the mother holds the life of the baby. The baby needs the mother to further develop. The baby needs the mother for many years after birth to develop properly. She can decide to destroy that little creation of God.
2 Likes
Tell me to know my science, and then quote the Bible in back-to-back posts. You don’t see the irony there?
But yeah, I have no interest to debate with someone using the Bible as evidence for their own arguments. It’s just uninteresting and simple.
At least 29 states have fetal homicide laws that apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy (“any state of gestation/development,” “conception,” “fertilization” or “post-fertilization”).
Just thought this was interesting from a legal point of view.
2 Likes
Surprised it’s not more. Pre 22 weeks I think it should be prosecuted similar to manslaughter. As we know, the law doesn’t always get it right.
Yep. Isn’t it nice how they go hand in hand, once science catches up?
It was sorta sad you found it uninteresting, but at least you could see the apology was simple.
Apparently neither do politicians or justices 
.
It’s interesting though that many very liberal pro abortion states have these laws - like California.
1 Like
My other post to you was ignored 
but I’m just cherry picking this sentence out. Genuinely curious what you mean by this?
As a conquered nation of the time, you shouldn’t expect any quarter or fair treatment.
Not saying it was right, but do governments really do any better to this day?
No, they are just better at hiding it. There always has to be losers and my ancestors lost. I don’t see the point of crying over it at this point and guilt tripping people who weren’t alive at the time.
That is the cowardly shit. Let’s guilt trip people that had nothing to do with it and were not alive at the time because I don’t agree with their politics of today. So, I’ll make up some tenuous emotional connection to a time long passed to validate my point and make you a villain.
1 Like
I don’t think this is quite BS. Maybe if pushed by some white liberal who’s just trying to further an “agenda,” but I think some (many?) Native people have this to their peoples past, for better or for worse.
And many do without making white people villains.
Anyway, I guess that’s just not what I thought you were saying. By “celebration of indigenous peoples” I was just thinking literally, a celebration of them, and possibly pride in that heritage. I’m assuming (could be wrong!) that the Cherokee heritage does not play much role in your life. (Otherwise I’d assume your gun collection would feature at least one bow, haha.)
For slaughtering a man?
Im genuinely interested to hear why you feel that way.
Don’t know if this has been discussed on this thread yet (I haven’t read all the posts) but there is a larger issue here that many don’t realize. I was speaking with my law student wife on this topic and Roe v. Wade is cited in over 12k other court cases. It is cited in this many cases because, in the original decision, Roe v. Wade came down to a privacy rights issue. Regardless of one’s feelings are abortion, overturning this may call into question many cases that helped establish ones right privacy as we currently know it.
1 Like
Okay. I thought you were going to be making an “originalist”-type argument in favor of the commerce clause permitting regulation of abortion. If this had been an in-person conversation I could have saved you a lot of time by saying, “Yeah, I know they can do whatever they want, at least for the time being.”
Yeah. It was a terrible clause to permit(but anything can be bent to mean anything, given poor enough intentions…Patrick Henry knew).
Hell, that describes pretty much everything.
I guess my question would be, what falls outside of federal oversight? Is the answer, only that which the Feds don’t deem worth controlling?
1 Like
Nothing falls outside their purview pretty much with where they have gone.
The commerce clause has been so bastardized in my opinion. We are just seeing the fruits of an ever expanding federal government that wields entirely too much power.
The argument that Blackstone establishes a common-law right to pre-quickening abortion is wrong. So is the claim that at the time they ratified the 14th Amendment establishing “equal protection of the laws” for all persons most states only opposed abortion after quickening, if at all.
This is why I wouldn’t go down the originalist argument.
2 Likes
It’s along the same lines as suing for lost future wages. If you made the choice to stop working, that’s one thing, but if someone else did something illegal to take that opportunity away from for you that’s another.
If a woman chooses to end her pregnancy prior to 22 weeks, that’s her choice about her body. If a drink driver hits and kills her and in the process ends the pregnancy, the opportunity for another life she was intent on making with her body is eliminated without her consent. So, the DD should get prosecuted for taking that opportunity away.
This is pretty much alarmist garbage you’ll get in law school especially with how liberal most professors and students lean.
It may bring in to question other medical procedures like IVF and Plan B and other contraceptives, maybe marriage, but not much else.
This is the danger of your Supreme Court trying to play legislature and overstepping their bounds with a shitty decision.
But should it be murder if the fetus isn’t technically a person?
I would say - no. Intent doesn’t magically make the fetus a person becusee if it does - the entire abortion argument is pretty dead.
2 Likes
Nope. I’d prefer there be a charge similar in severity to manslaughter or aggravated assault with a 15-20 year sentence or thereabouts… with reductions if there was no intent to harm anyone (eg drunk driver vs angry BF not wanting the pregnancy).
yeah, no biggie there. That’s doesn’t affect anyone…
That’s a huuuge deal if things like that are affected.