[Abortion Thread] (YET ANOTHER POLL!) Taking measure.

[Antityranicals]

A fetus is a baby!

It has not yet been born, which is a very critical distinction. Before birth, it presents an imposition upon the rights of the woman within whom it resides. After birth, it does not. It is wrong to force a woman to allow another born person to use the woman's body without her consent, and it is by the same logic wrong to force a woman to allow an 'unborn' person to use the woman's body without her consent.

Homicide is not proportional to an unintentional imposition.

[Kernen]

Thats one theory. It isn't the theory held by basically any legal scholars, so it does you about as much good as screaming at a wall.

Legal scholars can go ahead and be wrong. Read the damn constitution.

I have. As have they. Sufficiently that I get to practice law in many states, and for them, sufficiently that they get to be judges.

Yours is a theory. But it isn't remotely supported by basically anybody of repute. Which, again, does you about as much good as screaming at the wall.

[Alessandretta]

Life is precious if you need right, unavoidable cause for kill other people

Using lethal force to protect yourself from substantial physical harm is considered appropriate, even though you can often survive substantial physical harm.

An unavoidable cause, then, needn't be inherently deadly. Which opens up quite a bit of room to argue that avoiding a pregnancy is itself an unavoidable cause.

Is not a life threat... Is a pregnancy.

[Galloism]

It has not yet been born, which is a very critical distinction. Before birth, it presents an imposition upon the rights of the woman within whom it resides. After birth, it does not. It is wrong to force a woman to allow another born person to use the woman's body without her consent, and it is by the same logic wrong to force a woman to allow an 'unborn' person to use the woman's body without her consent.

Homicide is not proportional to an unintentional imposition.

But actually so nonetheless.

Here's an interesting question.

A guy who was drugged against his will goes crazy and breaks into my house and tries to rape my wife. I'm aware of this via the six o clock news. Through whatever means necessary, I can be very sure (but not absolutely positive) he won't kill her. She will be invaded, harmed, but almost certainly not killed.

I have a gun. Can I shoot him to protect her from that? Is it murder? Why or why not?

That's an unintentional imposition (and, arguably, less of an imposition than an unwanted pregnancy). Is homicide a proportionate response?

[Kernen]

Using lethal force to protect yourself from substantial physical harm is considered appropriate, even though you can often survive substantial physical harm.

An unavoidable cause, then, needn't be inherently deadly. Which opens up quite a bit of room to argue that avoiding a pregnancy is itself an unavoidable cause.

No, lethal force is only justified if there is a substantial risk of death. Otherwise, it is not proportional.

Objectively untrue. Lethal force is permissible in many nonlethal circumstances in most, and probably every, state.

[Antityranicals]

Legal scholars can go ahead and be wrong. Read the damn constitution.

I have. As have they. Sufficiently that I get to practice law, and for them, sufficiently that they get to be judges.

Yours is a theory. But it isn't remotely supported by basically anybody of repute. Which, again, does you about as much good as screaming at the wall.

Anyone of repute is irrelevant. Judicial review is not an enumerated power in Article III, and that is what matters. If anything, judicial review falls to the states under the tenth amendment.

[Godular]

Okay, mayhap I should rephrase.

This bit:



Seems to rather specifically state that one does not get full 'citizenship' until such time as they have popped through that birth canal or a C-section has been performed. Before this juncture, attempting to legislate restrictions on a woman's right to control her body, such as by getting an abortion if one is deemed necessary, to be working against this specific amendment.

Not really no - that's about who is a citizen, but there's no requirement to be a citizen to have rights, otherwise aliens (legal or illegal) would have no rights at all. We could summary execute them just because.

Your argument is akin to saying legislating against citizens shooting illegal aliens "just because" is working against the 14th amendment, because they weren't born or naturalized in the United States.

Which would be retarded.

Now you've misrepresented MY argument, though I can see how it might have been implied in my earlier misspeak.

My primary focus was in stating that it is wrong to deny the born woman her established rights in favor of an entity that has not yet qualified for those rights.

[Galloism]

No, lethal force is only justified if there is a substantial risk of death. Otherwise, it is not proportional.

Objectively untrue. Lethal force is permissible in many nonlethal circumstances in most, and probably every, state.

Most.

[Godular]

Using lethal force to protect yourself from substantial physical harm is considered appropriate, even though you can often survive substantial physical harm.

An unavoidable cause, then, needn't be inherently deadly. Which opens up quite a bit of room to argue that avoiding a pregnancy is itself an unavoidable cause.

Is not a life threat... Is a pregnancy.

A pregnancy is inherently life-threatening.

[Alessandretta]

Is not a life threat... Is a pregnancy.

A pregnancy is inherently life-threatening.

No.

[Kernen]

I have. As have they. Sufficiently that I get to practice law, and for them, sufficiently that they get to be judges.

Yours is a theory. But it isn't remotely supported by basically anybody of repute. Which, again, does you about as much good as screaming at the wall.

Anyone of repute is irrelevant. Judicial review is not an enumerated power in Article III, and that is what matters. If anything, judicial review falls to the states under the tenth amendment.

And yet, that isn't how constitutional law works. How you want it to work is entirely irrelevant.

[Antityranicals]

Homicide is not proportional to an unintentional imposition.

Here's an interesting question.

A guy who was drugged against his will goes crazy and breaks into my house and tries to rape my wife. I'm aware of this via the six o clock news. Through whatever means necessary, I can be very sure (but not absolutely positive) he won't kill her. She will be invaded, harmed, but almost certainly not killed.

I have a gun. Can I shoot him to protect her from that? Is it murder? Why or why not?

That's an unintentional imposition (and, arguably, less of an imposition than an unwanted pregnancy). Is homicide a proportionate response?

Because there is a substantial risk of death, yes, though it is your obligation to try to avoid killing him while still stopping him. The risk of death in pregnancy is practially non-existent with modern technology, and to the extent that it does exist, it cannot be reduced by abortion.

[Godular]

It has not yet been born, which is a very critical distinction. Before birth, it presents an imposition upon the rights of the woman within whom it resides. After birth, it does not. It is wrong to force a woman to allow another born person to use the woman's body without her consent, and it is by the same logic wrong to force a woman to allow an 'unborn' person to use the woman's body without her consent.

Homicide is not proportional to an unintentional imposition.

If it is the only means of rectifying the situation, then it falls under necessary force.

[Tropical Isles]

option #'s 3 & 5

[Vassenor]

Yet you want to deprive them of liberty by dictating what they can and cannot do with their own bodies.

Also you still haven't answered my question. What procedure is used to re-implant ectopic pregnancies, as required by the Ohio law?

Re-implanation is not required to save the life of a child in ectopic pregnancies. There have been hundreds of survivors.

The law requires re-implantation. And EPs cause 10% of first trimester deaths. And those hundreds of survivors are due to surgical intervention.

Source:

Cecchino GN, Araujo Júnior E, Elito Júnior J (September 2014). "Methotrexate for ectopic pregnancy: when and how" in Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics. Vol290(3) pp417–23

[Antityranicals]

Anyone of repute is irrelevant. Judicial review is not an enumerated power in Article III, and that is what matters. If anything, judicial review falls to the states under the tenth amendment.

And yet, that isn't how constitutional law works. How you want it to work is entirely irrelevant.

The constitution is constitutional law. Whatever experts make up and call constitutional law is not.

[Kernen]

Objectively untrue. Lethal force is permissible in many nonlethal circumstances in most, and probably every, state.

Most.

That strikes me as difficult to believe. The criminal statutes I'm familiar with seem to make, as a matter of course, exceptions for victims of potential sexual violence.

A pregnancy is inherently life-threatening.

No.

And yet, people go to doctors all the time when reproducing.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

I have. As have they. Sufficiently that I get to practice law, and for them, sufficiently that they get to be judges.

Yours is a theory. But it isn't remotely supported by basically anybody of repute. Which, again, does you about as much good as screaming at the wall.

Anyone of repute is irrelevant. Judicial review is not an enumerated power in Article III, and that is what matters. If anything, judicial review falls to the states under the tenth amendment.

Yet the Moon does not fall from its orbit and strikes down the World despite thousands of people (Giant Meteor 2020 anyone?) wishing for it.

[Antityranicals]

Homicide is not proportional to an unintentional imposition.

If it is the only means of rectifying the situation, then it falls under necessary force.

But it's not. There's also birth.

[Antityranicals]

Anyone of repute is irrelevant. Judicial review is not an enumerated power in Article III, and that is what matters. If anything, judicial review falls to the states under the tenth amendment.

Yet the Moon does not fall from its orbit and strikes down the World despite thousands of people (Giant Meteor 2020 anyone?) wishing for it.

Exactly. Similarly, thousands of people wishing it does not change the constitution.

[Galloism]

Not really no - that's about who is a citizen, but there's no requirement to be a citizen to have rights, otherwise aliens (legal or illegal) would have no rights at all. We could summary execute them just because.

Your argument is akin to saying legislating against citizens shooting illegal aliens "just because" is working against the 14th amendment, because they weren't born or naturalized in the United States.

Which would be retarded.

Now you've misrepresented MY argument, though I can see how it might have been implied in my earlier misspeak.

My primary focus was in stating that it is wrong to deny the born woman her established rights in favor of an entity that has not yet qualified for those rights.

I'd say there's simpler and more defensible justifications.

However, to the original post - the constitution doesn't state nor imply you need to be born to have rights. The 14th does establish a right to citizenship based on birth at a specified location. That's it.

In fact, we inherited it from English common law. The constitution is absolutely silent on it.

SCOTUS wasn't - in Roe vs Wade, they decided that person in the constitution does not include the unborn - based on English Common Law.

[Kernen]

And yet, that isn't how constitutional law works. How you want it to work is entirely irrelevant.

The constitution is constitutional law. Whatever experts make up and call constitutional law is not.

Also not how it works. Even Originalists disagree. So answering on the bar exam would cause you to fail the question, and making that argument before a court, appellate or trial, would result in your losing on the merits.

The entire premise of common law suggests otherwise, really.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

If it is the only means of rectifying the situation, then it falls under necessary force.

But it's not. There's also birth.

And time travel.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Yet the Moon does not fall from its orbit and strikes down the World despite thousands of people (Giant Meteor 2020 anyone?) wishing for it.

Exactly. Similarly, thousands of people wishing it does not change the constitution.

That applies to you too.

[Antityranicals]

Most.

That strikes me as difficult to believe. The criminal statutes I'm familiar with seem to make, as a matter of course, exceptions for victims of potential sexual violence.

No.

And yet, people go to doctors all the time when reproducing.

99% of times when people go to the doctor are not life-threatening incidents.