Definitely not a Con Law expert, but I argued with my Con Law professor at length on state’s rights and we usually agreed to disagree because he was a leftist statist.
I took Con Law as required by the ABA and then advanced Con Law as well. I think Con Law fascinates most attorneys in some regard.
My Con Law expertise really rests in the 2nd Amendment. I have written law articles and notes at length on the subject. My legal thesis was also on the 2nd Amendment.
I would say, yes today, because the decision aligns exactly with political alignment of the justices currently sitting, but no previously, because it did not.
EDIT: this presumes that when the decision actually goes through, that alignment stands as it is. We don’t actually know that to be the case, because this is not official.
This is WAY off topic. How many commas are in the 2nd Amendment? 2 or 4? And when were the other 2 either added or removed?
Oh dear god the commas. One, two, four, crunch - the world may never know.
My official answer - “It depends.”
The commas don’t matter at all imo. The right to keep and bear arms existed before the creation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment does not create the right it protects…it only recognizes it against government asshats. Therefore, its wording cannot possibly define, limit, or expand the meaning of the right to keep and bear arms.
We don’t need to get into semantics on this (I don’t think). I agree that the point is to not have a living child for most people, which is probably most people’s understanding of the word.
Would your opinion of the procedure change if doctors just did C-sections or induced labor to unborn children for women seeking to end their pregnancy? I believe that would still be an abortion of pregnancy.
Like my question above, what if they didn’t do any of these things in the abortion process?
As a tangent, what if the woman takes things into her own hands? Should that be illegal? What if she decides to get plastered every night to abort her pregnancy? Does being pregnant cause her to lose her right to drink?
I am trying to have interesting conversion with these questions. It is something I’ve had differing opinions on over the years.
Then I don’t think it would be allowed that you absorb them into your body. I do think I see where you were going with that though. I should have avoided analogy / hypothetical, because not much matches up well with abortion.
My problem is that whenever I was reading the 2nd Amendment I was reading as if it were giving the people the right, and not that it is there to limit the rights of the government to infringe on the people.
Thanks for the wake up.
Maine’s constitution leaves no room for debate.
Section 16. To keep and bear arms. Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned.
Nothing in that particular constitution mentions a right to abortion.
Yes, my moral evaluation would change. And all viable fetus would at least get a shot. Although at least some current abortion providers refuse medical care to live babies and let them die anyway.
Lot of questions and I don’t think I can answer all of them. My thoughts are pretty complicated. There are differences between how I feel, my rational moral evaluation, and my opinion on what should be legislated about each circumstance. I think adult females that willingly create a distinct human shouldn’t then be able to slit its’ throat as done in current abortions. From an emotional standpoint if abortions are to be done, they absolutely should be BEFORE a fetus can experience pain. From a rational standpoint I find it hard to justify abortion all the way back to conception, though I don’t feel that way emotionally.
I agree here. I have differing opinions emotionally compared to rationally. Sometimes trying to be consistent (rational) in my thinking results in some rather cold opinions that emotionally I don’t necessarily agree with.
For example, I think adults should have the right to consume alcohol. To be consistent with that, adult women who are pregnant shouldn’t have that right taken from them. They shouldn’t be lesser citizens with fewer rights because they are pregnant women. Comes across pretty cold, but I do think it’s consistent.
Semantics, but I don’t think most of the women who got abortions willingly created the fetus. I guess I don’t equate consent to sex as being the same as consent to being pregnant.
I agree here (I think). Or at least in a way that if they can feel pain, doesn’t cause pain (I think that is probably possible).
I am willing to say that once the fetus is viable, then abortion should not involve killing the fetus. At most a C-section or induced labor to abort the pregnancy (not the child). At that point though it is pretty much a ban after viability, since I don’t think any women would really care to have that procedure done. So in essence, I am fine with a ban on abortion after viability.
This is like separating willingly jumping off a cliff with willingly hitting the bottom. My point is that that no-one coerced them into it.
This one is tough because now what’s legal is decided by technology. If we invent a chamber that can support a human all the way from fertilized egg, all abortion should be illegal? I’ve never liked assigning rights through the narrow scope of current technology or understanding. It’s also pertinent here that doctors aren’t god and cannot know the moment of viability even when limited to specified technology, so who decides?
God made that mistake first. And he made it twice.
I believe removal of the fetus/baby should be permitted at any time, in the least harmful manner possible, legally. Provided someone is willing to take the child upon its removal, care should be provided(probably paid for or provided by the parties involved in the procedure). The child, assuming it survives, should be adopted.
By reaching into herself to cut up a baby? That woman is not right in the head, and should receive mental health treatment.
I don’t think this should be prohibited by law.
No. But I do believe family should be able to petition the courts for a mental health evaluation of such a person, if it wants.
I think you’re looking for this thread: Antinatalism -- The Immorality of Procreation
absolutely is, I’m guessing
Ideally, children are wanted. If not, hopefully something is done right away (plan B), then if not that an early abortion if it is going to happen.
I don’t see abortion as a great thing. I hope I don’t come off that way. Just that I think it is something that should be available.
That is a good point.
I do think currently we have a fairly good understanding of viability. I am even okay with current understanding of viability - 2 weeks or something. The amount of weeks could change with technology, and we would have to update the law.
Nick, I pretty much agree with your post. An unusual amount of agreement.
On this though, you might be right in a lot of cases, but there can be intense pressure on some women when it comes to sex / abstinence. I can imagine scenarios where a mentally normal woman / girl would do something like this. Teen daughter of the preacher gets pregnant type thing. Can’t bring herself to tell her parents, so she goes and gets a hangar.
What if we decide to bomb a nation and kill pregnant women in the process? Where were all the anti abortion folks when we bombed Iraq?
It also doesn’t seem like very many of the pro life folks are anti IVF either. Lack of consistency. Perhaps they don’t understand or are unaware of how many fertilized fetuses are killed on average for each successful IVF pregnancy?
Definitely mental eval time, if her parents desire it.
(Posted just because there are apparently a lot of laws already dealing with such abortions.)
America would never do that.
Are they actively killed? maybe I misunderstand IVF.