Abortion: Pro-Life or Pro-Choice?

[Wallenburg]

States can't ignore Constitutional protections, laws, and rights.

The precedent in Roe v. Wade is based upon the assumption that a fetus is not a person. However, if a state were to pass a law declaring personhood to begin at conception (or attachment to the uterine law, or what not), it would be able to prohibit abortion without violating Roe v. Wade.

Why hasn't Texas done this yet? That confuses me. If they could get away with it, I imagine they'd do it.

[Stellonia]

The precedent in Roe v. Wade is based upon the assumption that a fetus is not a person. However, if a state were to pass a law declaring personhood to begin at conception (or attachment to the uterine law, or what not), it would be able to prohibit abortion without violating Roe v. Wade.

Why hasn't Texas done this yet? That confuses me. If they could get away with it, I imagine they'd do it.

Sadly, politicians are either too obsessed with staying in power or too misinformed to take action. Of course, both may be the case at once.

[Godular]

The precedent in Roe v. Wade is based upon the assumption that a fetus is not a person. However, if a state were to pass a law declaring personhood to begin at conception (or attachment to the uterine law, or what not), it would be able to prohibit abortion without violating Roe v. Wade.

Why hasn't Texas done this yet? That confuses me. If they could get away with it, I imagine they'd do it.

Because no person has the right to use another person's body against their will. Apparently this has a sound basis!

[Stellonia]

Why hasn't Texas done this yet? That confuses me. If they could get away with it, I imagine they'd do it.

Because no person has the right to use another person's body against their will. Apparently this has a sound basis!

The Supreme Court has never established such a precedent. The Supreme Court declared that the Fourteenth Amendment protects the right to abortion on demand if the law does not recognize a fetus as a person.

[Wallenburg]

Why hasn't Texas done this yet? That confuses me. If they could get away with it, I imagine they'd do it.

Because no person has the right to use another person's body against their will. Apparently this has a sound basis!

I agree with that. I'm staunchly pro-choice. What confuses me is why staunch pro-lifers wouldn't sneak past this "flaw" in the Supreme Court's justification of Roe v. Wade.

[Stellonia]

Because no person has the right to use another person's body against their will. Apparently this has a sound basis!

I agree with that. I'm staunchly pro-choice. What confuses me is why staunch pro-lifers wouldn't sneak past this "flaw" in the Supreme Court's justification of Roe v. Wade.

That is because there are not enough politicians in our legislature who are actually staunch (loyal and committed in attitude) pro-lifers. They just pretend to be pro-life so they can stay in power.

[Godular]

Because no person has the right to use another person's body against their will. Apparently this has a sound basis!

The Supreme Court has never established such a precedent. Instead, according to the Supreme Court, no non-person has the right to use another person's body against their will.

Oh, I'm terribly sorry, you seem to have no damn clue what the fourteenth amendment is. Please remedy this.

[Wallenburg]

Because no person has the right to use another person's body against their will. Apparently this has a sound basis!

The Supreme Court has never established such a precedent. Instead, according to the Supreme Court, no non-person has the right to use another person's body against their will.

So rape is legal?

[Stellonia]

The Supreme Court has never established such a precedent. Instead, according to the Supreme Court, no non-person has the right to use another person's body against their will.

So rape is legal?

What do you mean? Are you trying to imply that a rapist does not constitute a person?

[Stellonia]

The Supreme Court has never established such a precedent. Instead, according to the Supreme Court, no non-person has the right to use another person's body against their will.

Oh, I'm terribly sorry, you seem to have no damn clue what the fourteenth amendment is. Please remedy this.

No. The Supreme Court had (and technically speaking, has) no idea as to what the Fourteenth Amendment is. Section 1 of said amendment, which was misconstrued to legalize abortion, states, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

[The Alma Mater]

So rape is legal?

What do you mean? Are you trying to imply that a rapist does not constitute a person?

No, he is implying that a rapist IS a person. You were claiming that only non-persons were not allowed to use a persons body against their will.
According to that, rape would therefor be legal.

[Stellonia]

What do you mean? Are you trying to imply that a rapist does not constitute a person?

No, he is implying that a rapist IS a person. You were claiming that only non-persons were not allowed to use a persons body against their will.
According to that, rape would therefor be legal.

Ugh, typos.

[Wallenburg]

No, he is implying that a rapist IS a person. You were claiming that only non-persons were not allowed to use a persons body against their will.
According to that, rape would therefor be legal.

Ugh, typos.

Address the issue. If legal persons may violate other legal persons' bodily sovereignty, what makes rape illegal?

[Stellonia]

Ugh, typos.

Address the issue. If legal persons may violate other legal persons' bodily sovereignty, what makes rape illegal?

I edited my post:

Because no person has the right to use another person's body against their will. Apparently this has a sound basis!

The Supreme Court has never established such a precedent. The Supreme Court declared that the Fourteenth Amendment protects the right to abortion on demand if the law does not recognize a fetus as a person.

[Wallenburg]

Address the issue. If legal persons may violate other legal persons' bodily sovereignty, what makes rape illegal?

I edited my post:

The Supreme Court has never established such a precedent. The Supreme Court declared that the Fourteenth Amendment protects the right to abortion on demand if the law does not recognize a fetus as a person.

You still claim that "[t]he Supreme Court has never established such a precedent" that "no person has the right to use another person's body against their will". Therefore, there is no right to bodily sovereignty.

[Godular]

Oh, I'm terribly sorry, you seem to have no damn clue what the fourteenth amendment is. Please remedy this.

No. The Supreme Court had (and technically speaking, has) no idea as to what the Fourteenth Amendment is.

And your sage wisdom regarding the constitution has gone unnoticed this long for what reason?

Section 1 of said amendment, which was misconstrued to legalize abortion, states, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Firstly: misconstrued, huh? Such an authority on this subject you are, I chortle in metaphysical terror.

Secondly: Born. Derp.

Thirdly: Just because it is not explicitly stated in the wording does not mean it is disregarded. The constitution was meant to be mutable and evolving in order to accomodate a similar change in the constituency and circumstances.

So please, tell me how it is that a blanket statement against having the rights of citizens denied for any reason somehow has a magical exemption that turns a woman into a gestation pod on the basis of 'need moar baybays'?

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Which speaks rather heavily against denying a woman the right to determine how her body is used, when, and by what. So what was the basis of your argument again?

[Kernen]

Address the issue. If legal persons may violate other legal persons' bodily sovereignty, what makes rape illegal?

I edited my post:

The Supreme Court has never established such a precedent. The Supreme Court declared that the Fourteenth Amendment protects the right to abortion on demand if the law does not recognize a fetus as a person.

If they did, they would have to start treating drinking while pregnant as attempted murder. That, and anything else potentially harmful to the fetus. Yay, criminalizing excessive sushi intake while pregnant...

No state would actually do that.

[Godular]

I edited my post:

If they did, they would have to start treating drinking while pregnant as attempted murder. That, and anything else potentially harmful to the fetus. Yay, criminalizing excessive sushi intake while pregnant...

No state would actually do that.

"How dare you eat bacon while pregnant! Don't you know free radicals can prove extremely harmful in a developing fetus? Strap her down and keep her on a feeding tube until she goes into labor!"

[Stellonia]

Just because it is not explicitly stated in the wording does not mean it is disregarded. The constitution was meant to be mutable and evolving in order to accomodate a similar change in the constituency and circumstances.

Please provide a good example from at least 100 years ago.

[Arbitrary Humans]

Just because it is not explicitly stated in the wording does not mean it is disregarded. The constitution was meant to be mutable and evolving in order to accomodate a similar change in the constituency and circumstances.

Please provide a good example from at least 100 years ago.

*cough* 13th amendment *cough*

[Stellonia]

Please provide a good example from at least 100 years ago.

*cough* 13th amendment *cough*

Yes. That was an amendment. Give me a good example related to the Supreme Court.

[Arbitrary Humans]

*cough* 13th amendment *cough*

Yes. That was an amendment. Give me a good example related to the Supreme Court.

Your point was that there was no example of the constitution changing with the times. I just provided a counter point according to your original specifications. Don't try and change it, cause I'm watching.

[Godular]

*cough* 13th amendment *cough*

Yes. That was an amendment. Give me a good example related to the Supreme Court.

No... no those goalposts stay right the fuck where they are.

[Divitaen]

*cough* 13th amendment *cough*

Yes. That was an amendment. Give me a good example related to the Supreme Court.

Bowers v. Hardick overturned by Lawrence v. Texas, Plessy v. Ferguson overturned by Brown v. Board of Education, or the Dred Scott decision being changed with the addition of the 14th Amendment to ensure slavery remained banned, all examples of constitutional interpretations changing over the years.

[United States of White America]

Anti-abortion. It's despicable. It's against God.