Roe v Wade: plaintiff's death highlights weakening of abortion rights in US

Discussion in 'Abortion' started by Publius_Bob, Feb 26, 2017.

  1. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The US Constitution only protects the Rights of the Person and Personhood has always been established at birth.

    Based upon "originalism" there was only one "person" that had Constitutional Rights and that's the woman. The laws restricting and/or prohibiting an abortion were an infringement upon the Rights of the Person and it couldn't be argued that the restrictions or prohibition was for the protection of another person. Under strict scrutiny there was no government interest because the laws did not protect anyone's rights but did infringe upon the woman's rights.

    The striking down of all abortion laws in Roe v Wade was based upon "originalism" (a textual interpretation of the Constitution). If that was all that Roe v Wade had done there would be no basis for disputing the decision.

    Perhaps the best way to understand is to read the dissent by Rehnquist. In the dissent he argues against the different limitations during the pregnancy, he argues against application of a "right to privacy" in the decision, he comments on prior precedent, and he argues semantics but the one thing Rehnquist doesn't argue is that the woman is the only "person" with Constitutionally protected rights.

    Because the woman was the only person, and because the Constitution only protects the rights of the person, the application of the most stringent of all criteria, strict scrutiny, was applied to the case. The criteria for strict scrutiny, because a person's rights are being infringed upon, changes the burden of proof from the plaintiff to the defense.

    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Strict+Scrutiny+Test

    The defense (Texas) had to establish that the abortion laws were necessary but it couldn't do that because the abortion laws weren't about protecting anyone else's rights. Only the woman was a person and only the woman had rights to be protected by the State of Texas.

    So first the State of Texas had to prove it was protecting "someone's rights" but it couldn't and even if it could establish that then it had to prove that the legislation was narrowly tailored to just protect those rights without undue infringement upon anyone else's rights.

    Any challenge to Roe v Wade will never be able to overcome the fact that the woman is the only person and that the state would have to prove that it was protecting another "person's" rights in creating an abortion law and that's impossible to do.

    Even if we had a Constitutional Amendment granting "personhood" to the preborn it wouldn't change the Roe v Wade decision because prior to viability (about the 25th week when there's a 50:50 chance of survival) it can't be argued that an abortion results in the death of the fetus because the fetus would die of natural causes outside of the womb.
     
    FoxHastings and Derideo_Te like this.
  2. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The US Constitution doesn't deal with subjective morality. It only deals with the Rights of the Person and prior to birth the "person" does not exist and the "preborn" have no Constitutionally protected rights.
     
    FoxHastings and Derideo_Te like this.
  3. Doofenshmirtz

    Doofenshmirtz Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    28,014
    Likes Received:
    19,305
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't remember which thread it was, but you were going to tell us what you do to help the cause.
     
  4. Diana7

    Diana7 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2017
    Messages:
    37
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Female
    “I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born.”

    Ronald Reagan
     
  5. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113


    So? Do you have anything to say yourself that makes sense since Reagan's comment didn't make any....?


    I suggest an education, go back and read a few posts and all of Shiva-TD's posts on the Constitution and law.
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  6. Diana7

    Diana7 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2017
    Messages:
    37
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Female
    And I suggest you learn to distinguish between moral law and Constitutional law, least you continue making yourself look silly.

    As for Reagan's quote, it made perfect sense, you simply lack the moral compass to comprehend it. I'll try to dumb it down for you in two easy lil' steps:
    1. Those most affected by abortion -- the aborted -- are given no say in the matter.
    2. Those who are for abortion have already been afforded the right to life. How very selfish of them.
    In what other area of debate can we say those two things are true?

    I eagerly await your terrible response.
     
  7. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Your morals do NOT rule everyone else...too bad :)



    Well, duh, yaaaa....since anyone who hasn't been born has no opinion...:roll:...his Alztheimer's was acting up....he was just saluting Captain Obvious...


    .

    :) ...and you are who to pass judgements on other's morals???? Your compass doesn't rule the earth.




    No. 1 is true......see, if you haven't been born you have no say in anything...did you want fetuses to tap out messages in Morse code?

    No. 2...NO one is afforded the right to life. One can't be selfish to something that never existed. Now do tell me how you have gone through life totally UNselfishly.....hint: no human ever has.

    And Reagan's statement sure didn't need dumbing down, it was as dumb as possible.






    Well, it will be terrible to you since I use facts and not the illogical mumblings of an old man with dementia....

    I take it you haven't bothered to read one word about abortion.
     
    Last edited: May 18, 2017
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  8. Doofenshmirtz

    Doofenshmirtz Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    28,014
    Likes Received:
    19,305
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I absolutely love when people bring morality into the discussion. Why does the person standing on the moral soapbox always seem to point their righteous finger at others while telling them to do that they, themselves, are not willing to?

    There are thousands of unwanted children that will never see the inside of a loving home. How many have you adopted?
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  9. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Guess you're no longer eager ....:)
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  10. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    50,653
    Likes Received:
    41,718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What did St Reagan say about the millions of unwanted children who grew up to become drug addicts and criminals?
     
    Doofenshmirtz and FoxHastings like this.
  11. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113

    I have a funny feeling that poster found out life, and the abortion issue, isn't as simple as a trite old saying by a trite old man......
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  12. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    50,653
    Likes Received:
    41,718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Assuming that St Reagan ever uttered that trite tripe in the first place.

    One thing is predictable and that is anti-abortionists regurgitate the same debunked nonsense over and over again.
     
  13. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113


    Reagan may have said it ( he WAS an actor so he liked drama ) but when an Anti-Choicer brings it up they never follow through and show what Reagan DID about abortion....RvW is still here :)



    I think there must be a rule book for Anti-Choicers with a list of Idiotic, Illogical, Really Old Stupid Things to Repeat Until You Change Someone's Mind.
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  14. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    50,653
    Likes Received:
    41,718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That would be the debunked LifeShiteSpews website.

    If you search the Brainy Quote website for "Abortion Reagan" only 4 quotes show up and 2 are from Nancy and NONE are from St Reagan himself.
     
    FoxHastings likes this.
  15. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Oh, ya, Nancy, the President behind the President ....;)
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  16. Doofenshmirtz

    Doofenshmirtz Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    28,014
    Likes Received:
    19,305
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No need to be nasty about it. Your opinion is no more or less valid than theirs. I only have an issue when opinions are forced on others through laws. If someone is against abortion, I respect their right not to get one. Unlike most of the pseudo-pro-lifers, Reagan at least walked the walk.
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  17. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Besides allegedly (another poster showed he didn't even say it) saying a Really Silly thing how did Ronnie 'walk the walk" ? He didn't make abortion illegal....did he adopt some kids?
     
  18. Doofenshmirtz

    Doofenshmirtz Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    28,014
    Likes Received:
    19,305
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Making something illegal is not walking the walk; it is forcing others to walk your talk. He did adopt a son.
     
  19. Maccabee

    Maccabee Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2016
    Messages:
    8,901
    Likes Received:
    1,062
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I never said pregnancy doesn't cause harm. Of course it. From morning sickness to labor, it's not comfortable for women. However my contention is it's not great bodily harm. That's all.
    Sure I do. I advocate all law abiding women to be armed. If nothing else they should take self defense classes. However abortion is not self defense anymore than killing a newborn is.

    Which is again irrelevant. When dealing with a topic like this, law doesn't come into play. Science, logic, and morals are the only things that are in play.
    So if a mother doesn't want to take care of her newborn, does she have the right to let the baby starve or outright kill him? It's one thing to say you can't be forced to take care of someone. To a certain extant I agree. However it's another to say because you're not forced to take care of someone, you can then kill him. And actually there are many situations where you are forced to take care of someone. Alimony and hospitals taking care of patients are prime examples.







    Again, if it were just part of the woman's body then I wouldn't have much of a problem. If she wants to cut her leg off then ultimately she has that right. However we are not talking about a body part. We are talking about a separate living human being growing inside her. Not only that but if you're right, then how come it's against the law in most states to commit suicide?


    Irrelevant, they have a chance of changing.


    The right to kill?




    First of all they don't. They at least trying to minimize civilian deaths. Secondly I don't support every action of the Pentagon.

    Sure I can. In fact that's the reason why laws exist. Someone had the opinion that killing and stealing is wrong and made a law so everybody must follow it.


    Evidence?
    Why?
    They are not rights. And they are nowhere near the same as the legitimate rights that every American has.
     
    DixNickson likes this.
  20. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Uh, no, it's not "morning sickness to labor" Here's what comes in between:

    Normal, frequent or expectable temporary side effects of pregnancy:

    • exhaustion (weariness common from first weeks)
    • altered appetite and senses of taste and smell
    • nausea and vomiting (50% of women, first trimester)
    • heartburn and indigestion
    • constipation
    • weight gain
    • dizziness and light-headedness
    • bloating, swelling, fluid retention
    • hemmorhoids
    • abdominal cramps
    • yeast infections
    • congested, bloody nose
    • acne and mild skin disorders
    • skin discoloration (chloasma, face and abdomen)
    • mild to severe backache and strain
    • increased headaches
    • difficulty sleeping, and discomfort while sleeping
    • increased urination and incontinence
    • bleeding gums
    • pica
    • breast pain and discharge
    • swelling of joints, leg cramps, joint paininfection including from serious and potentially fatal disease
      (pregnant women are immune suppressed compared with non-pregnant women, and are more susceptible to fungal and certain other diseases)
    • extreme pain on delivery
    • hormonal mood changes, including normal post-partum depression
    • continued post-partum exhaustion and recovery period (exacerbated if a c-section -- major surgery -- is required, sometimes taking up to a full year to fully recover)
    Normal, expectable, or frequent PERMANENT side effects of pregnancy:

    • stretch marks (worse in younger women)
    • loose skin
    • permanent weight gain or redistribution
    • abdominal and vaginal muscle weakness
    • pelvic floor disorder (occurring in as many as 35% of middle-aged former child-bearers and 50% of elderly former child-bearers, associated with urinary and rectal incontinence, discomfort and reduced quality of life -- aka prolapsed utuerus, the malady sometimes badly fixed by the transvaginal mesh)
    • changes to breasts
    • increased foot size
    • varicose veins
    • scarring from episiotomy or c-section
    • other permanent aesthetic changes to the body (all of these are downplayed by women, because the culture values youth and beauty)
    • increased proclivity for hemmorhoids
    • loss of dental and bone calcium (cavities and osteoporosis)
    • higher lifetime risk of developing Altzheimer's
    • newer research indicates microchimeric cells, other bi-directional exchanges of DNA, chromosomes, and other bodily material between fetus and mother (including with "unrelated" gestational surrogates)
    Occasional complications and side effects:

    • complications of episiotomy
    • spousal/partner abuse
    • hyperemesis gravidarum
    • temporary and permanent injury to back
    • severe scarring requiring later surgery
      (especially after additional pregnancies)
    • dropped (prolapsed) uterus (especially after additional pregnancies, and other pelvic floor weaknesses -- 11% of women, including cystocele, rectocele, and enterocele)
    • pre-eclampsia (edema and hypertension, the most common complication of pregnancy, associated with eclampsia, and affecting 7 - 10% of pregnancies)
    • eclampsia (convulsions, coma during pregnancy or labor, high risk of death)
    • gestational diabetes
    • placenta previa
    • anemia (which can be life-threatening)
    • thrombocytopenic purpura
    • severe cramping
    • embolism (blood clots)
    • medical disability requiring full bed rest (frequently ordered during part of many pregnancies varying from days to months for health of either mother or baby)
    • diastasis recti, also torn abdominal muscles
    • mitral valve stenosis (most common cardiac complication)
    • serious infection and disease (e.g. increased risk of tuberculosis)
    • hormonal imbalance
    • ectopic pregnancy (risk of death)
    • broken bones (ribcage, "tail bone")
    • hemorrhage and
    • numerous other complications of delivery
    • refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease
    • aggravation of pre-pregnancy diseases and conditions (e.g. epilepsy is present in .5% of pregnant women, and the pregnancy alters drug metabolism and treatment prospects all the while it increases the number and frequency of seizures)
    • severe post-partum depression and psychosis
    • research now indicates a possible link between ovarian cancer and female fertility treatments, including "egg harvesting" from infertile women and donors
    • research also now indicates correlations between lower breast cancer survival rates and proximity in time to onset of cancer of last pregnancy
    • research also indicates a correlation between having six or more pregnancies and a risk of coronary and cardiovascular disease
    Less common (but serious) complications:

    • peripartum cardiomyopathy
    • cardiopulmonary arrest
    • magnesium toxicity
    • severe hypoxemia/acidosis
    • massive embolism
    • increased intracranial pressure, brainstem infarction
    • molar pregnancy, gestational trophoblastic disease
      (like a pregnancy-induced cancer)
    • malignant arrhythmia
    • circulatory collapse
    • placental abruption
    • obstetric fistula
    More permanent side effects:


    • future infertility
    • permanent disability
    • death.

      ****************************************


      Now go ahead and PROVE none of this happens. No one else ever has...

      Some states even consider pregnancy bodily harm and charge a rapist accordingly.




    IF (please note the word "if") the fetus is ever deemed a person then it will have rights BUT it will also have RESTRICTIONS like every other person. It cannot harm another without their consent.

    Pregnant women do NOT lose their right to self defense and if they do not consent to the harm then they can stop it and there is only one way.

    Oh, don't you wish you could control women without a law......it is ALL about the law protecting women and their rights and protecting them form people like you!




    No, NO one has the right to let starve or kill them. Newborns are BORN, did you see where you typed newborn?
    They are BORN PERSONS therefore they have a right not to be killed.

    NO, NO person is FORCED to use their body to sustain another's life. Alimony does not mean someone has to use their body to say, give someone blood or give them their heart. NO hospital personnel has to give parts of their body to sustain a patients life.

    A pregnant woman's body is used by the fetus to sustain it's life.....she can either CONSENT or NOT...the same choice YOU have.









    YES, we ARE talking about a body part, a part that is attached to the woman and using the woman's body to sustain it's life.

    Suicide is a crime against a PERSON....and NO, I don't think it should be a crime.


    If you think killing a fetus is immoral, don't have an abortion . YOUR morals are not everyone's and your morals don't rule










    YES, the right to kill to protect herself from harm , the same AS YOU!





    How naïve to think that in war at all times efforts are made to minimize civilian death...and if you are a dead civilian that's hardly relevent.

    No, laws are based on more than just opinion...and if you want to take your opinion to the Supreme Court, go ahead :)


    Wars, executions, an attacker....


    Because a fetus's right to live would infringe on the woman's right not be harmed.


    YES, people, even pregnant women , have a right to not be harmed, have a right to their own bodies, the right to self defense....YOU have those rights but wish to take them away from pregnant women....
     
    Last edited: May 19, 2017
    Bowerbird likes this.
  21. DixNickson

    DixNickson Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2012
    Messages:
    1,856
    Likes Received:
    103
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Context is key for understanding scripture and history.

    Do you remember "And again I say to you: It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven."? Jesus Christ is not speaking about the (eye of the) needle and thread, however if you think He is addressing a sewing tool and camels you would be missing the contextual message for the words (taken out of context). Wealthy people have much to be distracted over and the point is, (imo) that there are difficulties associated with wealth that burden the wealthy to the point of impeding a relationship with God. A camel may pass through the eye of the needle but not in the same manner as when entering the town's main gate. I am no theologian and never claimed to be but think you would better serve, when quoting the Bible message, by being certain about the contextual message.

    There is (imo) absolute truth; morality on a sliding scale is our attempt to validate what we choose when we fall short in meeting that standard.

    I believe the Constitution (US) is about is a framework of a Federal Republic Representative form of government and the limitations placed on that government.
     
  22. DixNickson

    DixNickson Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2012
    Messages:
    1,856
    Likes Received:
    103
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't remember that specifically but I remember you asking what I do or did (if memory serves). Spent almost of all my adult professional life in (Federal, County & Municipal) government service (Marines as a teenager, Dept. of Corrections, Law Enforcement & lastly the Fire Service). Today I enjoy a ninety hour work week (the 90 hours includes travel time) and will be retiring soon to a twenty four to fifty hour work week (no travel time included in this work week estimate). At that point (retirement) I hope to become active in charities I have supported mostly by monetary donations (with some volunteerism-several times a year-schedule permitting). Yes, some of those are children, pro-life and faith based organizations. Family members have shared that their experience has been, not every expectant mother outside an abortion mill wants to end her child's life, they are frightened and anxious, looking for a better option on their temporary situation. Hoping to become part of that solution among other worthy pursuits (i.e boots on the ground-feed the hungry/poor).

    If I am given that time to serve it'll be by the Grace of God.
     
  23. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    50,653
    Likes Received:
    41,718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You are entitled to your beliefs and/or morality but you do not have the right to impose them on others under the secular government of We the People.
     
    Bowerbird and FoxHastings like this.
  24. DixNickson

    DixNickson Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2012
    Messages:
    1,856
    Likes Received:
    103
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    You declare that I am entitled to my beliefs/morality, does that entitlement encompass expressing the same? If you believe (assuming here that) I am entitled to free expression, how is that exercise imposing my beliefs/morality on others? If the government is of We the People am I not entitled to a voice in the conduct of that government, or do you believe that there should be some sort of religious test on those who express themselves in a manner contrary to your beliefs and moral position?
     
    Maccabee likes this.
  25. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    50,653
    Likes Received:
    41,718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Inane strawman deflection on your part.

    Onus is entirely on you to PROVE that your freedom of expression is being denied.

    You are free to proselytize your beliefs/morality but that freedom ends when it impinges upon the individual rights of others. You cannot IMPOSE your beliefs/morality on others. That is what I stated originally and I recommend that you look up the term and find out what it means.
     
    Bowerbird and FoxHastings like this.

Share This Page