?? What? Are suggesting a fetus isn't a person? And that they magically become a person when they slide out of a vagina?
Why is it that it's considered a double murder if you kill a pregnant woman.... but it's ok to drag out and kill a fetus in the third trimester.
I'm not 100% pro-choice/life... this this is a retarded argument that guarantees conservatives will 100% reject.
I'm not a religious conservative, so I don't have those hang ups about abortion. Especially early term abortions.
I believe there is an approximate duration where a baby can survive most unassisted being born.... I think somewhere in the mid 20 weeks. That should be cut off... The idea that a potentially healthy fetus/baby has to be killed to perform abortion in late terms is complete abhorrent. Its disgusting.
The hard religious republicans kill the entire conservative movement with total abortion bans because Democrats can always circle back to the abortion issue... Even if their other policies completely suck. I think the Abortion issue killed Republicans in the mid-terms.
And to think Bump Stocks even have a minute effect on violent crime and gun murders is ridiculous. It’s a distraction from what's really going on. By far the highest demographic of murders are young black men killing each other with handguns.... No one on the left wants to address this. Why?
I think maybe you are misunderstanding me.
I am not talking about whether a fetus has human DNA or something. I am talking about
personhood, and there are different types.
One example is
legal personhood. Fetuses don’t have legal personhood. Try entering into a contract with one and see if it holds up in court. Try suing one
You can’t do those things because they aren’t considered persons in the legal sense.
I am talking about another type of personhood, called
constitutional personhood.
Put simple, when the Due Process Clauses in the 5th and 14th Amendments say, “No
person may be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law”—who exactly is a “person,” in the sense that the Constitution means it?
I think the inescapable conclusion is that the Constitution means one is a “person” once they have been born. That’s the conclusion the
Roe court came to, and I don’t even know of a Supreme Court justice that’s disagrees with this—not even the ones that overturned
Roe. I don’t know how anyone could disagree, even. Go read the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, Federalist Papers, debates in Congress at the time, and try to find an example of the word “person,” “persons,” or “the people” referring to the unborn.
You won’t, because it didn’t.
Fetal homicide laws are fairly recent, and I think they basically used the last trimester/viability idea that was present in
Roe/Casey to criminalize the killing of a fetus at those stages. In the post-
Roe world, all kinds of goofy shit is being asserted: AL recently defined a person to include an embryo that is t even implanted in the uterus, which is just bizarre.
As for bump stocks, I’m all in favor of banning them but agree with SCOTUS that they wouldn’t be included in the ban on machine guns as it is currently written, and Congress needs to fix it.
I suppose it would be prudent to get that defined. Back when the document was made, most people weren’t killing their fetuses. Also note that im on your side about the rape, deformity and woman’s health side of abortions. This should clearly be an option in these circumstances. Unfortunately they make up about 15% of abortions. Did you have a plan for the other 85% or do we just accept that depraved shit with the real cases?
It would be prudent to define it, but don’t expect our current SCOTUS to do it anytime soon. They could’ve done it in
Dobbs, but they know full well there’s no originalist or textualist basis for what they want to do, so they just sidestepped it.
But never fear. I do have a plan as to how we should deal with abortions which have nothing to do with rape, incest, or health of the mother.
Under the BFoe Plan:
Women would make the decision privately, without government interference, with the help of their physicians. Everyone else would stay out of their business.
Of course, you could always exercise your own 1st Amendment right to scream at a cloud at how depraved you think it is, protest in an appropriate way at an appropriate place, and so forth.
Anyway no more abortion talk from me, we’ve derailed the shit out of this poor TS’s thread. There’s plenty of abortion threads to tag me in if we want to debate it.
Oh—before anyone says “what about legal, safe, and
rare,” that was Bill Clinton’s opinion, and he’s entitled to it.
