Will Trump overturn the 14th Amendment?

Discussion in 'Abortion' started by Bowerbird, Nov 14, 2016.

  1. Fugazi

    Fugazi New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    0
    not just I but your own courts.

    Lol, what a stupid comparison, "Plenty of women willfully become pregnant, and are happy to do so" yes I expect those who WANT to be pregnant wouldn't equate pregnancy to being shot, those who don't want to be pregnant would be a different matter.

    Pregnancy is already seen as a "grave bodily injury", the number of women who die from childbirth is irrelevant .. care to guess at the number of women who suffer "grave bodily injury" due to childbirth?

    You can sit there and bury your head in the sand as much as you like, you have already amply displayed your ignorance concerning human development, US law and the Constitution, so it is no surprise you stick to your pro-life sound-bites and bumper stickers .. after all you have nothing else.
     
  2. Fugazi

    Fugazi New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What act, the sexual intercourse or the pregnancy, because if you are trying to suggest that pregnancy is an act aided by the female you are, yet again showing your ignorance of biology.

    Complete BS
     
  3. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    66,645
    Likes Received:
    46,476
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You're welcome to google "reproductive system" and find out for yourself how it works.
     
  4. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    66,645
    Likes Received:
    46,476
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If the courts agreed there still wouldn't be decisions on both sides of the argument, now would there?

    I'll tell you what. Do a project where women are allowed the choice between pregnancy and being shot, then post your results. I suspect those that choose the bullet will be a little lower.

    It's not "grave bodily injury" if it's not statistically killing many people, and it's not "grave bodily injury" unless you can reasonably show that you are somehow in substantial danger. The number of women who die from pregnancy each year is about equivalent to the number of people who roll out of bed and die.

    I like how you act like you're right and everyone else who disagrees is wrong. Clearly there is a strong case against abortion, regardless of whether you agree or not.
     
  5. RandomObserver

    RandomObserver Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2016
    Messages:
    1,550
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Again with the false implication that self-defense only applies if you are sure to suffer grave bodily injury. You can defend yourself (or just defend your home from an invader) even if they have not done you any injury but you fear that they might. Do you really dispute that or are you just ignoring it because you cannot admit that your self-defense argument is wrong?

    By the way you also failed to address the obvious flaw in your "natural function" argument. The male reproductive system was designed to impregnate as many women as possible (it does not operate on some kind of synchronous schedule with the mate). If you really believe we are obligated to follow the natural function of the reproductive system, the male should be out there every day impregnating as many women as possible day after day. By your logic, to override that and interfere with the natural function is to "kill" all those potential children who could have been created from that man's sperm cells. If you allow that we can override the natural function of the male reproductive system, then you have to allow that we can override the natural function of the female reproductive system.
     
  6. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    66,645
    Likes Received:
    46,476
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sure, you can shoot someone if they look at you sideways and claim "fear of grave bodily injury". You can claim whatever you want, but I doubt a jury will buy it.

    600 deaths per year is not risk of grave bodily injury. 600 out of 4,000,000 is not having odds in your favor.

    Sure, you can override and seek to control birth, but once a fetus begins growing the only way to stop the process is to kill it. If you don't kill it, it becomes a fully functioning person. A sperm cell or an egg will never grow to become a human on it's own.
     
  7. RandomObserver

    RandomObserver Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2016
    Messages:
    1,550
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Here is just one recent example: http://nbc4i.com/2016/09/23/woman-kills-one-suspect-after-unloading-her-gun-during-home-invasion/
    She was not actually injured. For all we know she was just angry that somebody would dare to steal her TV, but nobody charged her with murder because SHE HAS THE RIGHT TO DEFEND HERSELF FROM ANY NON-CONSENSUAL INJURIES.

    How do you know if you are going to be one of the 600 deaths this year? Savita Halappanavar and her husband begged the Irish hospital to give her an abortion but they ignored the big red flags indicating danger because the hospital staff thought, like you, that she could probably make it without an abortion and it would be a sin to kill that little POTENTIAL person unless you are absolutely positive an abortion is necessary.

    Your complaint was that abortion interferes with the natural reproductive process. Just to be clear, your response indicates that we CAN interfere with the male's natural reproductive process. You even allow that we CAN interfere with the female reproductive process (as long as we don't interfere with the latter part of the process). A fertilized egg will never grow to become a human on it's own either (unless you have the cooperation of a host).

    In summary:

    You have failed to support the case that a homeowner can shoot an intruder based on fear of non-consensual injury but a pregnant woman cannot get an abortion based on fear of non-consensual injury. Your objection is based on the statistical likelihood of harm. Not every break-in results in harm to the homeowner and not every pregnancy results in serious harm to the woman. The statistics do not matter if you are the one awakened in a dark house, afraid of what an intruder might do to you... and the statistics do NOT matter if you are the pregnant woman, afraid of what YOUR intruder might do to you.

    Furthermore, you have provided no logic or evidence to support your position that we CANNOT interfere with the natural reproductive process at some arbitrary point of your choosing. The fertilized egg will never grow to become a person on it's own either.
     
  8. Fugazi

    Fugazi New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm pretty certain it is you who needs to do that.
     
  9. Fugazi

    Fugazi New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    17,057
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There isn't, courts across the whole of the USA agree that pregnancy is an injury in some cases .. again your lack of research shines brightly.

    You seem to think (wrongly) that it is an either/or decision .. equal to a gun shot wound is only one of the things.

    "grave bodily injury" .. which by the way only exists in state laws, not federal laws, is the same as serious bodily injury, which has a legal definition of "Serious bodily injury or harm is the serious physical harm caused to the human body. It usually refers to those injuries that create a substantial risk of death or that cause serious, permanent disfigurement or prolonged loss or impairment of the function of any body part or organ. The term “serious bodily injury” is interchangeably used with serious bodily harm; grievous bodily harm; great bodily injury." .. the highlighted part might further your education a bit, pregnancy certainly is a "prolonged impairment of the function of any body part or organ.", no doubt you will say that pregnancy is the function of the womb, but as you have demonstrated your biology knowledge is lacking because the womb also has the important function of providing structural integrity and support to the bladder, bowel, pelvic bones and organs as well, pregnancy certainly has a prolonged effect on the structural integrity of the womb ergo it meets the legal definition of serious bodily injury or harm.

    You like so many pro-lifers have this myopic viewpoint of what legally constitutes serious bodily harm, you seem to be under some illusion that it requires imminent threat of death or permanent serious injury when in reality it doesn't.

    I don't need to act right, in the discussion we are having I am right. You on the other hand have not produced anything other than your opinion with not a single piece of evidence to back it up. There is no "strong case" against abortion .. there is only the cherry picked, emotional rhetoric uttering of pro-lifers.
     
  10. Aleksander Ulyanov

    Aleksander Ulyanov Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2013
    Messages:
    41,184
    Likes Received:
    16,180
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't think that is going to happen. Trump's ego won't permit it and neither will the Democrats in Congress
     
  11. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Now, if only your response had anything to do with his post, or the issue at hand.
     
  12. Margot2

    Margot2 Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    73,644
    Likes Received:
    13,766
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Trump just reacts to the adulation of whatever crowd he's with.. He'd say anything. I doubt he's given much thought to any of his campaign promises.. So far he seems more interested in building Trump Towers in Mumbia and Buenos Aires.
     
  13. Zeffy

    Zeffy Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2013
    Messages:
    1,654
    Likes Received:
    405
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I'd rather be shot in the stomach than gestate and give birth.
     
  14. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    66,645
    Likes Received:
    46,476
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't think you're familiar with what a JHP can do to your abdomen.

    I think permanently losing parts of your stomach, intestines, and wearing a colostomy bag the rest of your life might be a little bit worse.
     
  15. RandomObserver

    RandomObserver Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2016
    Messages:
    1,550
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    38
    I don't think Savita Halappanavar (or her husband) would agree with you.
     
  16. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    66,645
    Likes Received:
    46,476
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Since the E. Coli that killed her had nothing to do with an abortion I doubt it.

    Of course she could have stayed in India and gotten an abortion with it's 33 X mortality rate in hospitals.
     
  17. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,877
    Likes Received:
    73,632
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Ever heard of a condition called placenta Percreta?

    - - - Updated - - -

    She was in Ireland and if she had had a timely abortion she would have lived
     
  18. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why would she stay in India ??? What did India have to do with it?
     
  19. Zeffy

    Zeffy Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2013
    Messages:
    1,654
    Likes Received:
    405
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I don't think you are familiar with what pregnancy can do to a woman's body.
     
  20. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    66,645
    Likes Received:
    46,476
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And you would be wrong.
     
  21. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    66,645
    Likes Received:
    46,476
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It has about as much to do with her death as her pregnancy.

    The pregnancy did not kill her, nor did it contribute to her death.
     
  22. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    68,085
    Likes Received:
    17,134
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I have to admit that no matter how many times I read the 14th amendment, I can't find out where it speaks of privacy.

    What section are you discussing? [MENTION=17234]Bowerbird[/MENTION]?
     
  23. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    66,645
    Likes Received:
    46,476
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Are you suggesting she got the E coli infection from the fetus, and that removing it would have saved her?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Don't feel bad, SCOTUS couldn't find it either.
     
  24. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,877
    Likes Received:
    73,632
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar

    No and yes -please read the findings of the official inquiry which found that had the termination been carried out earlier she may have survived. A dead foetus is a huge risk to the woman carrying it and there is no real reason to withhold abortion under those circumstances.
     
  25. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    91,877
    Likes Received:
    73,632
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade

    It is part of due process apparently. I am not a constitutional scholar but to overturn Roe versus Wade one would have to overturn the foundation of the decision which rests on that due process clause in the 14th amendment
     

Share This Page