You think abortion can't be prosecuted just because the woman crosses state lines?

The fact that you have referred tonabortion as baby killing is a clear indication that this is an emotional issue for you (as it is for many Americans).

I recommend you do some reading on the science of fetus development, the statistics on how far along most pregnancies are at the time of abortion, and above all, I beg you and other righties to actually read the Roe v Wade decision. It was more about the right to privacy, including our medical conditions, than about abortion specifically.

 

Uh, you can't tell countries from states???

 

Within the same country? But you think the attempt to extend the power of one country over every other is perfectly okay?

 

WillReadmore said: ↑
In general, the right wing attempt to extend the power of a state to cover OTHER states is seriously deranged.

WHAT TF does that have to do with the post you quoted? NOTHING... you are in desperation mode

 

You don't seem to be able to follow conversations spanning over more than two posts very well, or remember what you said.

 

BUT yet YOU could NOT explain:

WillReadmore said: ↑
In general, the right wing attempt to extend the power of a state to cover OTHER states is seriously deranged."""

↑
kazenatsu: ""Within the same country? But you think the attempt to extend the power of one country over every other is perfectly okay?"""


The poster you quoted never mentioned "country"...and you were ONCE GAIN, putting words inn other poster's mouths because you have NOTHING...

 

But YOU did.

 

You guys need to get a room.
Heh heh heh ...

 

BUT the poster YOU QUOTED didn't and you claimed he did....

 

Where is that vomit icon...

 

Because he was responding to me even though I was responding to you.

Geese, do you think you could be bothered to go back and read the conversation?

 

There is truth here

 

That's not necessarily true if you bring a minor across state lines, and the home state doesn't like what is happening to that minor.

It is a complex legal area.

 

The state doesn't decide that. Rather the state just exerts it's jurisdiction (via extradition) over individuals whom the state has jurisdiction over because they were prior in the state. This could include someone who committed a crime, or it could include custody over a minor (for example if there is a dispute with the other parent).

This isn't any new idea, it is already established law and precedent, numerous examples in other areas that do not have anything to do with abortion.

 

Duck dodge duck dodge

 

??? We went over that.

States agreed that in this special case the state of origin should have some say.

So, an agreement was written and 49 states and Washington, DC signed it.

One state did NOT sign it.

Your example shows that the state of origin does NOT have the influence you suggest without there being special agreements made.

 

States decide whether to extradite.

And, once again you bring up your failed example of parental disputes over kids that required a special agreement, because the law does NOT operate the way you claim it does.

 

The federal level of government can force them, or step in to carry out the extradition, on behalf of the claims of the other state.

 

Oh, so you claim a parent involved in a divorce can take their child to another state to escape having to give up custody? Or a man can move to another state to give up alimony or child support obligations?
(If so, I think you are out of touch with reality)

 

You just refuse to listen or learn.

You case is a special case where states signed an agreement between themselves.

NOT all states signed that agreement.

 

That "agreement" is called the US Constitution.
No, I am not talking about special other agreements between individual states.

 

No, that is absolutely false.

The signed agreement concerning decisions involving children is the one YOU STATED in an earlier post.

That is an agreement between states, NOT a federal agreement.

And, it only applies to states that signed that agreement.

 

I think you have a misimpression of how these sorts of custody disputes actually work.

To be entirely fair, the Constitution is not the most clear on exactly how jurisdictional custody claims between states should actually work. It simply presumes that in some cases one state could have jurisdiction concerning someone who leaves their territory and goes to another state.

By the way, the US already criminalizes US citizens doing several things in other countries. So this claim that you seem to have that you have to be in the territory when the crime was carried out for them to have legal jurisdiction is not always accurate.

But I know you wanted to focus the discussion on being between individual states, not countries.

 

YOU stated the agreement.

And, that IS the agreement used between states.

Your attempt to claim that those issues are controlled by the federal government is nonsense.

Yet you still think it is a precedent in cases of one state trying to extradite people from some other state over an abortion that is completely legal.

 

Could you refer to the post where you allege I stated that and quote it?

I think you may be misinterpreting what I said.