Not sure if said upthread or not.
The argument goes to when is a human a human. When the courts “settle” this, it would seem the legal system has already gotten person to person interactions in place.
@pfury Best wishes on your wife getting medical under control.
When she was pregnant I literally blocked tons of IPs from the home router (I miss the days of no internet on phone plans sometimes…)
Nowadays it’s just whackamole. There’s always another bullshit website ready to tell you you’re dying because that hiccup made your left foot move
Agree here. I personally think in most cases the doctor would be right, but I think in every case people should be responsible for decisions about their own health. I think we disagree here?
That’s the same as saying there is no benchmark and it’s fully at their discretion. Of course we disagree. I give rights to the baby prior to being born. You don’t. It’s that simple.
Edit: I also don’t believe in legalizing and deregulating heroine.
I prefer all drugs to be legal. I think I should be able to make decisions for myself.
If a fetus is a human with all the rights that come with that, then killing a fetus would be homicide. It would then fall into the hands of the justice system to determine if it was murder or justifiable because it was self defense. Then it would also become a matter of public record so what was once a medical procedure and thus afforded certain privacy protections would become a criminal investigation and public knowledge. Do we now have the right to know who is getting abortions? It can no longer be a private matter? Do we have to have a legal system in place that can determine if something will be a crime before it happens?
And we have a stalemate.
This isn’t the same thing as saying there’s a stalemate between life and property rights. Own your comments man. Even if they obviously have no merit.
It’s because of the implications of my statements that you didn’t understand initially. The implication of the fetus not having property rights over the mother is that the fetus does not have rights until birth. I’m owning my statements!
Actually, you said
You keep trying to hold multiple sides of a debate at once. Somehow merging the ones that don’t work, which is hard
The implication of the fetus not having property rights is such that there is no implicit contract. The fetus can still have a right to life while having no property rights. Your argument has holes.
Anyways. Really bowing out this time. It’s just repetitive nonsense. It’s like nearly all religious debates.
Rare lurker post - but here is my opinion.
What I care about is the definition of individual vs fetus. In my eyes, fetus is an inviable specimen that cannot survive if birthed. So, in my head, a fetus becomes an individual once they cross the precipice of “viability.” Currently, medical science can keep alive an infant probably at around 28 weeks (full term is 40 weeks). To me, if a law was written that did not define specific weeks that abortion was allowed, but instead said “a fetus does not become an individual with rights until it has reached viability where it can live when birthed” then that would be fair to me. Science will continue to push the envelope and that 28 weeks now may become 20 weeks or 18, but that still seems more fair.
My view doesn’t consider religion or women’s rights in this discussion, which I think are both important issues but they are both very complex and I’m not sure how this can really be reconciled considering the united states has to come up with a solution/comprimise for all stakeholders. But I think the nation has to define in specific, legal language, what we consider alive (or able to live) and dead; fetus vs baby. As of right now, it is clear that the nation does not agree. It doesn’t seem fair to the baby to give it no rights up until it is born at forty weeks, but it also doesn’t seem right to get rid of abortion all together given that the fetus can’t live depending on how early it is in gestational age.
Anyway… carry on.
I don’t know whether that’s completely true. I think States with the Castle Doctrine have just rightfully given the benefit of the doubt to the person that did not enter the dwelling of another uninvited, and recognize doing so as prima facie evidence that the offender was a threat to the residents of the home. It’s not that you can’t shoot an intruder in States without the Castle Doctrine; you just have to defend/articulate your action better than in States that defend their citizens’ rights.
That’s not really an example of a right to life superseding a right to property. Moreso, proportionality.
Isn’t this the same as me saying breaking into a home does not alone constitute the threat? While in castle doctrine states the practical application is you’re covered in all situations?
In an absolute conceptual sense it is. I guess I could have replaced it with a more realistic metaphor, but I worked in the foreclosed home industry for a bit. I personally know a guy from Detroit who took a bullet to the shoulder because the rep thought he was rival gang or some shit. He just thought the house was abandoned and knew the bank would want to secure it.
Point conceded though haha. It’s not exactly realistic as an example.
Edit: I would modify to include the person is standing in your yard and refuses to leave 
You could then push the person off of your property, etc. I think you’d be best served by calling the Police and having them remove a trespasser.
Louisiana has now joined the war.
The argument on abortion has been had here before. I’d be interested to hear arguments on the constitutional foundation of the roe v wade decision.
As I understand it, the decision argues that a right to privacy exists and that said right implies a right to an abortion. The constitution doesn’t promise a right to privacy and privacy doesn’t guarantee a right to an abortion.
Please forgive typos, I am on my phone. But yeah, looking at this from the battle line perspective, either the pro-choice movement got caught sleeping at the wheel or they flat got over powered. Either way pro-life got the upper hand.
Regardless your stance on the issue, abortion just got hammered and any observer can tell that much.
How much damage was done is yet to be seen, but the damage is irreversible.
You can believe me or not, that is irrelevant. What is relevant is abortion-on-demand is over.
And this is just phase 1 or .5 of the pro-life plan. The inevitable slippery-slopes that will follow will only lead to more restrictions.
See the pro-choice move to make abortion a secondary political issue backfired. It’s the elephant in the room. The biggest favor the left could have done is swing very, very far left. It’s a wrapped gift with a bow for the pro-life movement because they never made any bones about what was their number 1 issue.
Pro-choice is in Check-mate. The question only is, do you want to run the king around the board or give up.
I think the prior is most likely. But once phase 2, 3, 4 hits, defeat is inevitable. Fighting is thrashing at this point, pro-choice should have never let it come to this to survive. I think the momentum is overwhelming.
That’s why Trump is saying ‘Now is the time’. Even if you think he’s dumb, the point then is, even dumb people know, it’s over. Pro- choice will lose.
Uh, no. This is simply poor states doing what they do best: make poor decisions that keep them poor.
I would too, @Silyak.
What these States appear to be doing is an all-out, frontal assault (forgive the war analogies…but this is turning into a “war” of sorts) with everything they’ve got…from the legal to the “moral”…and from the age-old argument of States Rights…to the Constitution.
While we keep discussing this from a Supreme Court standpoint; I think that it is worth noting that probably just as important an effect that Trump has had on the Supreme Court…he has also appointed numerous Conservative judges throughout the Federal Judiciary.
While it will be difficult to predict how they will rule; it certainly increases the chances that things will reach the Supreme Court. (IMO). Once there; I think people have to be careful about where Gorsuch, Kavanaugh (and Roberts) will argue/opinion.
This, @pat
I think that posters like @Sloth and others have posted on this issue very passionately…
It’s one thing to fight for a whole race of peoples basic Civil and Constitutional Rights…or to fight for worker’s basic rights. Its quite another to force someone to bake you a cake or to have Unisex Bathrooms.
The Right got pushed…(and to use a phase attributed to Admiral Yamamoto after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor…)…“We have awakened a sleeping giant…and filled them with a terrible resolve…”