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

Discussion in 'Abortion' started by kazenatsu, May 9, 2022.

  1. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    AZ is not inside CA's jurisdiction.
    This was a federal law. Everywhere is federal jurisdiction.
    First, this doesn't involve a state charging someone for a criminal act in another state that is legal in that state.
    Second A state can lay child support an alimony on someone when it has the jurisdiction to do so - the divorce was granted in in CA or the child lives with the custodial parent in CA.
    CA cannot, however, compel another state to make sure the payments are collected from and transferred to the appropriate parties.
    First, this doesn't involve a state charging someone for a criminal act in another state that is legal in that state.
    Second, this is a federal law. Everywhere is federal jurisdiction.
     
    Last edited: May 24, 2022
  2. Sleep Monster

    Sleep Monster Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2019
    Messages:
    13,466
    Likes Received:
    9,020
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Neither do the vast majority of aborted fetuses.

    A fetus is not a person, not an individual, until viability, which rarely occurs prior to 22 weeks. More than 92% of abortions occur before week 13. Only about 1% occur past week 20. When it can live and breath on its own, only then does it have legal standing as a person.

    Those who call themselves pro life disgust me. They call it "killing babies" because that evokes emotional responses that get people to the polls, but the real agenda of those in power who have been working towards criminalizing abortion for decades is to control young women. Period.
     
    FoxHastings likes this.
  3. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,608
    Likes Received:
    11,192
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So what? That is a moot point to this specific argument involving state jurisdiction.

    Yes, hypothetically, if you could prove the fetus is a non-person, the whole pro-life argument collapses. It doesn't have anything specifically to do with interstate jurisdiction though.

    That's certainly a discussion we could have in the abortion debate, but it seems off topic in this discussion.
     
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2022
  4. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,608
    Likes Received:
    11,192
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Control them so they can't get an abortion, or control them for some other purpose?

    Maybe you think Pro-Lifers are "just jealous" and want to rain on her parade.
     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2022
  5. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
    . It can't be counted in the census, can't get a SSN.,
     
  6. CornPop

    CornPop Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2022
    Messages:
    4,901
    Likes Received:
    4,367
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I keep seeing people talk about this "census" nonsense. I'm not sure why people think this matters, at all. It doesn't. Whoever told you it did lied to you. Look at fetal homicide laws. Most/many states can, and do, classify fetuses as persons and have laws prohibiting their illegal termination of life. The state has the power to make this determination.
     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2022
  7. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sleep Monster said:
    the real agenda of those in power who have been working towards criminalizing abortion for decades is to control young women. Period.

    BOTH...once women's rights are destroyed , losing their right to bodily autonomy, they are nothing more than slaves which means anything can be done with them including rape which wouldn't be a crime since women would have no rights....seems to be the goal of some.


    What Sci-fi magazine did that come from???? What a totally ridiculous idea ....seems to come from desperation since there is no other source..
     
  8. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
    NO, the UVVA does NOT classify fetuses as persons, it has NOT got that power. They classify fetuses as VICTIMS.
     
  9. CornPop

    CornPop Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2022
    Messages:
    4,901
    Likes Received:
    4,367
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Here's a couple quick samples:
    Alabama (link): Definitions. (3) PERSON.  The term, when referring to the victim of a criminal homicide or assault, means a human being, including an unborn child in utero at any stage of development, regardless of viability.

    Arkansas (link): 5-1-102. Definitions.(B) (i) (a) As used in 5-10-101 -- 5-10-105, "person" also includes an unborn child in utero at any stage of development.

    Again, who lied to you?
     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2022
  10. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
    NOPE , doesn't matter what anyone calls it is NOT a legal person....if someone wants to say it's a person to meet their own ends that STILL does not make it a legal person....where are the fetus's SSNs?

    Just because evil people took away women's rights doesn't mean the fetus has more rights....or any rights..[/QUOTE]
     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2022
  11. CornPop

    CornPop Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2022
    Messages:
    4,901
    Likes Received:
    4,367
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The law that defines person in those states includes a fetus. I provided the laws in these states for you. How can you say it doesn't matter what classifies a "legal person" when the state's legal definition of person includes a fetus? You're not making any sense whatsoever right now. It's okay to admit you were wrong.

    Why do you care about a SSN? What does that have to do with anything? Hint: it doesn't. A SSN doesn't define a person. It never has. A SSN is also a federal identifier, just like the census. It has absolutely nothing to do with state law. States, can and do, use their own legal definitions and create their own laws. That's kind of the whole point of having states in the first place. Again, who has been lying to you?
     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2022
  12. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
    One has to be a person to get an SSN which is why fetuses don't have one.


    AND IF a fetus was deemed a person, sure, it would have rights but with rights comes RESTRICTIONS and we are restricted from harming others without their consent, we are restricted from using another's body to sustain our lives...
    SO, even IF a fetus is called a "person" it is not a legal person

    If it's deemed a legal person it would still not have MORE rights than anyone else and the woman it's in should be free to kill it.


     
  13. CornPop

    CornPop Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2022
    Messages:
    4,901
    Likes Received:
    4,367
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A Social Security Number is a federal identifier and is not required to be a "person." Whoever told you otherwise lied to you. Rights do not get conveyed by having an optional identifier.

    These "restrictions," as you call them, would be determined by state law, not by your weird view of Social Security Numbers and US Census data.

    Your arguments haven't made much sense up to this point, but this one is of the utmost ridiculous silliness.
     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2022
  14. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,608
    Likes Received:
    11,192
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Technically a fetus should be counted as three-fifths of a person, since it is inside the woman's womb and not "free".

    However, I think everyone is content not to count them because it would not really change the ratio of representation much at all. Women are about equally likely to be pregnant in different states.
     
  15. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,608
    Likes Received:
    11,192
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If it's deemed a legal person then it would have the same rights as one conjoined twin who is sharing the same body with another twin.

    Would you not agree?

    Like twins Abbey and Brittany. There is no way to separate them without killing one of them. And you have said in the past the fetus is part of her body... which means they are sharing the same body!
     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2022
  16. Sleep Monster

    Sleep Monster Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2019
    Messages:
    13,466
    Likes Received:
    9,020
    Trophy Points:
    113
    States should not have the right to deny women their 4th Amendment protections for privacy and personal autonomy. See Section 1 of the 14th Amendment.
     
  17. Sleep Monster

    Sleep Monster Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2019
    Messages:
    13,466
    Likes Received:
    9,020
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Control them in part because the Christian right, who are driving this effort, want women to "behave" according to their religious tenets. The Christian Patriarchy doesn't like independent women who dare to actually enjoy sex.
     
  18. CornPop

    CornPop Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2022
    Messages:
    4,901
    Likes Received:
    4,367
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Fourth Amendment says nothing about "autonomy." Abortion also has nothing to do with searches and seizures, but even if it did, states can still do so with due process... you know, like passing an abortion law.

    Citing section 1 of the 14th Amendment is a fun way of saying "anything I like is a right." It's nonsense.
     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2022
  19. CornPop

    CornPop Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2022
    Messages:
    4,901
    Likes Received:
    4,367
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm not sure what you think enjoying sex has to do with anything, but study after study shows that religious individuals enjoy sex more than non-religious individuals.
     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2022
  20. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    14,838
    Likes Received:
    4,814
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Only in those specific contexts. There will be other laws where "person" is defined to exclude unborn foetuses. This doesn't really support your point though. If foetuses were simply "persons" by fundamental definition, the laws you quoted wouldn't need to specifically include them in their definitions.

    The simple fact is that it is more complex than the simple "person or not-person" argument. Foetuses are different from a born person in a number of ways, and different at various stages of development. How those difference relate to the various clinical and legal aspects that may apply to them are going to vary widely.
     
  21. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,608
    Likes Received:
    11,192
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I see, so this is actually about women enjoying a vivacious sex life, you say?
     
  22. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
    :roflol::roflol::roll: I NEVER SAID IT WAS DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

    I NEVE SAID a SSN is required to be a person...

    But one must be a PERSON TO GET ONE LOLOL....and a ZEF canNOT get one






    OMGAWD! Do you EVER READ the posts you quote???

    This is what I posted and DUH it has NOTHING TO DO WITH SSNs or the census and I NEVER SAID IT DID

    """"FoxHastings said:
    AND IF a fetus was deemed a person, sure, it would have rights but with rights comes RESTRICTIONS and we are restricted from harming others without their consent, we are restricted from using another's body to sustain our lives...""""


    NOW can you READ what I posted... ARE YOU DENYING THAT those ARE RESTRICTIONS ON OUR RIGHTS ????
    And they do NOT go state by state....they are applied to all UNITED Americans in the UNITED states

    Try to answer AFTER reading the question slowly and calmly..



    LOL I am SURE (and it's obvious) my posts haven't made sense to you since you got them all wrong and backward....try not being so desperate and come up with answers after you read my posts...and maybe have someone explain them because you are obviously confused on what I wrote.
     
  23. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
    FoxHastings said:
    . It can't be counted in the census, can't get a SSN.,


    NO.
    Only BORN PEOPLE ARE counted....
     
  24. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why do you continually go off topic when you're stumped?
     
  25. Sleep Monster

    Sleep Monster Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2019
    Messages:
    13,466
    Likes Received:
    9,020
    Trophy Points:
    113
    4th Amendment:

    "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

    I can think of no search more unreasonable than that of my uterus. At the very least, shouldn't any state or local government be forced to obtain a warrant before they can invade my private medical records? Pregnancy is a medical condition, that's an established norm, so why does the government have the right to even know when a woman is pregnant? And why should any state be allowed to violate that guaranteed right to personal privacy?
     
    Bezukhov and FoxHastings like this.

Share This Page