judge blocks Wi abortion law

Socrtease said:
Really? Where is that included in the Constitution, taking the 14th Amendment into account?
Click to expand...

Well, the unborn are not currently protected by the Equal protection clause... which is why the definition of 'person' is important. Which is why I stated the child SHOULD be protected, not that the child already is.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
OK.....it's a human life.....so where talking what......186 little unsentient bags of protoplasm?

There's only one undeniable fact about this debate. Those with views on the extremes, i.e. abortion for no reason/abortion for any reason are both immoral.

So tell me Mr. No-At-All where is morally permisable and who gets to make that decision?
Click to expand...

Uh, everyone on the pro-abortion side wants abortion for any reason.
 
Threedee said:
Uh, everyone on the pro-abortion side wants abortion for any reason.
Click to expand...

We want the decision to be left to the woman, her doctor, and the father if he's still involved. It should be a medical decision, not a legal decision.

Anyone who is against govt intrusion should appreciate that.
 
tekkychick said:
We want the decision to be left to the woman, her doctor, and the father if he's still involved. It should be a medical decision, not a legal decision.

Anyone who is against govt intrusion should appreciate that.
Click to expand...

it would only be a medical decision if it were limited to health reasons.....at present a woman can kill her unborn child if she prefers chocolate over vanilla ice cream......
 
Threedee said:
So, you want abortion for any reason.
Click to expand...

I don't "want" abortion at all...and in a perfect world, there wouldn't be. Everybody would wait until marriage to have sex, everybody would be well adjusted and make perfect parents, there would be no mental illness or drug and alcohol dependency, every child born would be loved, cherished and encouraged to be the best people they can be. They would have plenty to eat and their parents would have a solid, stable roof over their heads.
 
Rana said:
I don't want abortion, I wish there was no need for abortion, so you are wrong. It is not my place to judge others or make decisions for them.
Click to expand...

Steelplate said:
I don't "want" abortion at all...and in a perfect world, there wouldn't be. Everybody would wait until marriage to have sex, everybody would be well adjusted and make perfect parents, there would be no mental illness or drug and alcohol dependency, every child born would be loved, cherished and encouraged to be the best people they can be. They would have plenty to eat and their parents would have a solid, stable roof over their heads.
Click to expand...

Threedee said:
So, you want abortion for any reason.
Click to expand...

No, bud. Looks like everyone's telling you what I said earlier. None of us want abortion, but it's not our choice.
 
Socrtease said:
Your knowledge of the law is seriously lacking.
Click to expand...

gosh.....I've been cut to the quick.......a finding of fact by a court of law or by legislative action, that the unborn is actually a person and they will of necessity be acquired of all constitutional rights already available to persons under the existing provisions of the constitution.....the right to life clearly outweighs a right of privacy under court decisions already in place......now, do you still think my knowledge of the law is lacking, lackey?.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
gosh.....I've been cut to the quick.......a finding of fact by a court of law or by legislative action, that the unborn is actually a person and they will of necessity be acquired of all constitutional rights already available to persons under the existing provisions of the constitution.....the right to life clearly outweighs a right of privacy under court decisions already in place......now, do you still think my knowledge of the law is lacking, lackey?.....
Click to expand...
Legislative action will not be enough you mouthbreathing dolt. A law that finds the unborn is a person would STILL violate the Court's finding of a constitutional right to privacy and a woman's right to seek an abortion. Courts, and ultimately the SCOTUS would find that the legislation's primary purpose was to interfere in a woman's constitutionally protected right to terminate a pregnancy under Roe and it's progeny. You cannot use legislation to overturn constitutionally protected rights. A finding by a court? Who is going to bring that case before a court? We just saw with Prop 8, the people who defended the law lacked standing to assert the law was constitutional. There are numerous cases in lower courts holding that the alleged biological dad has no standing to argue on behalf of the fetus. Cases like that have never even been granted cert by the SCOTUS, and it only takes 4 to grant cert. The ONLY way to change Roe is by Amendment.
 
Socrtease said:
A law that finds the unborn is a person would STILL violate the Court's finding of a constitutional right to privacy and a woman's right to seek an abortion.
Click to expand...

no.....a declaration that the unborn is a person would violate nothing.....the court would have to examine who's right was superior to the other.....a right to life would clearly outweigh a right to privacy.....

Who is going to bring that case before a court? We just saw with Prop 8, the people who defended the law lacked standing to assert the law was constitutional.
Click to expand...

maybe a state government that didn't disregard the votes of its citizens....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top