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

[Antityranicals]

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

That applies to you too.

Yes. Good thing I'm going by the letter, which says nothing about judicial review.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

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.

You know Herr Antityranicals. I think I'm going to trust the resident legal guy over somebody wishing for the Moon to fall.

[Galloism]

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.

Let's assume the risk of death in this scenario is less than pregnancy, and there's no way to stop without killing him.

[Godular]

A pregnancy is inherently life-threatening.

No.

Yes.

It's near the bottom of the 20-44 age column, but the point is that it's there, which means that yes it very much is life-threatening.

[Alessandretta]

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.

Humans and Animals give birth from the dawn of time.

Today we Aldo have a good level of medical care

So? We Need to kill a baby only because dont want loose your sarurday party?

[Antityranicals]

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.

A group of people calling themselves originalists does not make them so.

[Kernen]

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.



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.

Are you arguing that pregnancy does not bear significant medical risks?

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

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.

You know Herr Antityranicals. I think I'm going to trust the resident legal guy over somebody wishing for the Moon to fall.

Also wishing for America to turn into Paraguay but
*shrug*

[Antityranicals]

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

Are you arguing that pregnancy does not bear significant medical risks?

No, I'm arguing that pregnancy does not bear significant risks of death. There are other things which can come of them, but death is exceedingly rare, and where it does happen, abortion would not help.

[Antityranicals]

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.

You know Herr Antityranicals. I think I'm going to trust the resident legal guy over somebody wishing for the Moon to fall.

Nothing's as easy as inventing a false metaphor...

[Alessandretta]

No.

Yes.

It's near the bottom of the 20-44 age column, but the point is that it's there, which means that yes it very much is life-threatening.

Then I hope he asked your mother for forgiveness for attempting her life

[Godular]

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.

And then it states that no citizen shall be deprived of their life/liberty/property without due process of law, nor deny equal protection.

It strikes me that forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term without her consent is not at all in keeping with equal protections under the law.

[Kernen]

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.

Someone calling themselves an originalist does not make them so.

No, but generally contributing to the theory is a great qualification, and the people making the Originalist argument in legal contexts, such as Scalia and Dworkin (to the extent that he is an originalist and not a textualist) are the ones making this argument.

Again, your argument is akin to shouting at a wall. No matter how much you yell, the wall isn't moving. No matter how much you argue that it's not constitutional because judicial review isn't an enumerated power, our system has accepted the power and the results.

[Kernen]

Are you arguing that pregnancy does not bear significant medical risks?

No, I'm arguing that pregnancy does not bear significant risks of death. There are other things which can come of them, but death is exceedingly rare, and where it does happen, abortion would not help.

Ending the pregnancy beforehand would neatly avoid the risk.

[Godular]

Yes.

It's near the bottom of the 20-44 age column, but the point is that it's there, which means that yes it very much is life-threatening.

Then I hope he asked your mother for forgiveness for attempting her life

Strawman noted and summarily immolated.

My mother accepted the risks for herself, but is also one of the first people I know that will champion the woman's right to not be forced into accepting that risk against her will.

[Antityranicals]

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.

And then it states that no citizen shall be deprived of their life/liberty/property without due process of law, nor deny equal protection.

It strikes me that forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term without her consent is not at all in keeping with equal protections under the law.

Nobody's forcing her to carry a pregnancy to term. If there were a way to end a pregnancy while the child survives, I'd be happy with it. But the law would force her not to kill the child. I suppose not allowing parents to kill their born children is also not at all in keeping with equal protections under the law, as the parent can be left with an unwanted burden...

[Kernen]

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.



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

Humans and Animals give birth from the dawn of time.

Today we Aldo have a good level of medical care

So? We Need to kill a baby only because dont want loose your sarurday party?

And women died in birth at a comparatively prolific rate. Part of that medical care involves being able to avoid taking risks in the first place. Like getting an abortion.

No, my wife and I aborted her pregnancy because we didn't want to make a financially insane decision.

[Godular]

Are you arguing that pregnancy does not bear significant medical risks?

No, I'm arguing that pregnancy does not bear significant risks of death. There are other things which can come of them, but death is exceedingly rare, and where it does happen, abortion would not help.

Stop lying. The fact that the threat to life is extant at all and would not exist otherwise makes it sufficiently significant. If the woman does not wish to take such risks upon herself, an abortion very much rectifies the problem.

[Kernen]

And then it states that no citizen shall be deprived of their life/liberty/property without due process of law, nor deny equal protection.

It strikes me that forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term without her consent is not at all in keeping with equal protections under the law.

Nobody's forcing her to carry a pregnancy to term. If there were a way to end a pregnancy while the child survives, I'd be happy with it. But the law would force her not to kill the child. I suppose not allowing parents to kill their born children is also not at all in keeping with equal protections under the law, as the parent can be left with an unwanted burden...

Protections don't generally kick in until after birth, so its easy to make a legal distinction between a born child and a fetus.

[Antityranicals]

Someone calling themselves an originalist does not make them so.

No, but generally contributing to the theory is a great qualification, and the people making the Originalist argument in legal contexts, such as Scalia and Dworkin (to the extent that he is an originalist and not a textualist) are the ones making this argument.

Again, your argument is akin to shouting at a wall. No matter how much you yell, the wall isn't moving. No matter how much you argue that it's not constitutional because judicial review isn't an enumerated power, our system has accepted the power and the results.

Sadly, yes, the United States de facto abandoned the constitution a long time ago...

[Vassenor]

And then it states that no citizen shall be deprived of their life/liberty/property without due process of law, nor deny equal protection.

It strikes me that forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term without her consent is not at all in keeping with equal protections under the law.

Nobody's forcing her to carry a pregnancy to term. If there were a way to end a pregnancy while the child survives, I'd be happy with it. But the law would force her not to kill the child. I suppose not allowing parents to kill their born children is also not at all in keeping with equal protections under the law, as the parent can be left with an unwanted burden...

"I'm not forcing her to carry to term, I'm just forcing her to carry to term."

[Kernen]

No, but generally contributing to the theory is a great qualification, and the people making the Originalist argument in legal contexts, such as Scalia and Dworkin (to the extent that he is an originalist and not a textualist) are the ones making this argument.

Again, your argument is akin to shouting at a wall. No matter how much you yell, the wall isn't moving. No matter how much you argue that it's not constitutional because judicial review isn't an enumerated power, our system has accepted the power and the results.

Sadly, yes, the United States de facto abandoned the constitution a long time ago...

You'd make a shit lawyer.

[Godular]

And then it states that no citizen shall be deprived of their life/liberty/property without due process of law, nor deny equal protection.

It strikes me that forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term without her consent is not at all in keeping with equal protections under the law.

Nobody's forcing her to carry a pregnancy to term.

Except you are arguing for very specifically that thing.

If there were a way to end a pregnancy while the child survives, I'd be happy with it. But the law would force her not to kill the child.

Which is forcing her to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term.

[Antityranicals]

Nobody's forcing her to carry a pregnancy to term. If there were a way to end a pregnancy while the child survives, I'd be happy with it. But the law would force her not to kill the child. I suppose not allowing parents to kill their born children is also not at all in keeping with equal protections under the law, as the parent can be left with an unwanted burden...

"I'm not forcing her to carry to term, I'm just forcing her to carry to term."

Any solution which doesn't involve homicide is okay. If IVF is a thing, there's no real reason why the same cannot happen the other way around.

[Antityranicals]

Nobody's forcing her to carry a pregnancy to term.

Except you are arguing for very specifically that thing.

If there were a way to end a pregnancy while the child survives, I'd be happy with it. But the law would force her not to kill the child.

Which is forcing her to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term.

Perhaps for now, similarly to how ending slavery forced slaveowners to accept lower profits. But as technology advances, there's no reason why there cannot be reverse IVF, or something akin to that...