Roe v. Wade overturned?

The_Foxer

House Member
Aug 9, 2022
3,084
1,838
113
If women aren't persons as he says they don't have a chance on legal abortions.
Well the whole thing is ridiculous. And it's something we see on the left quite often - they decide they like an idea then make irrational statements trying to cover for it.

Obviously at some point you have an egg, then at another point you have a human. Virtually nobody thinks an unfertilized egg is a human being. Virtually everybody would say that a 3 year old toddler is. At some point it goes from being one to the other. When it does human rights attach and you can't just kill humans because they're 'inconvenient'. A fact many of my clients benefit from daily.

And that's basically the whole argument as much as the left likes to try to change that channel.

And that's why he stumbled, he's trying desperately to dodge that argument because it is very difficult to make the argument that a child is only a child after it moves that last few inches through the birth canal. Tho some do - and some cultures believe that a baby gets its soul days or more after being born and isn't a real human before then. Just as some believe it gets its soul at the moment of fertilization. But it's a hard case to make.

So the last thing he wanted to do was discuss what a human being is - that weakens his argument. And some how that morphed into saying slaves were considered a person under the law, which he defined as someone who could own property, and that women somehow were not despite the fact many do :)

Oh what a tangled web we weave.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: petros and Serryah

Taxslave2

House Member
Aug 13, 2022
2,918
1,773
113
Ok - so why? If that's your position you need to make an argument. You can't expect people to just accept that any more than others could expect you to just accept "a fetus is a human from the moment of fertilization! End of story".

You seem to be suggesting that it's the "breathing" part that makes someone a human being with rights attached. So if someone stops breathing they cease to be a human? What is it about breathing that confers humanity on a human?

You'll have to defend that position a little better than that.
Only if you have enough of a medical background to follow. Cease breathing and you are a cadaver. Modern medicine kind of skews things, however a fetus in the womb is really a parasite that depends completely on the host(mother) for survival.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
56,076
7,324
113
Washington DC
Only if you have enough of a medical background to follow. Cease breathing and you are a cadaver. Modern medicine kind of skews things, however a fetus in the womb is really a parasite that depends completely on the host(mother) for survival.
Wutabout people on repirators?
 

The_Foxer

House Member
Aug 9, 2022
3,084
1,838
113
Only if you have enough of a medical background to follow. Cease breathing and you are a cadaver.
That's not remotely true. People cease breathing all the time. No medical professional anywhere uses the cessation of breathing as the time of death for a patient. Anyone who hunts can tell you that you can completely destroy the lungs of an animal and it can still fully function and run around for upwards of 1 - 3 minutes depending on the animal. And we're talking intelligent deliberate actions not just some nerve reaction flopping around like a chicken. So - definitely not dead.

And in fact it's possible to use "artificial lungs" to oxiginate the blood. You are just entirely wrong here.

you are a 'cadaver' medically speaking when your brain stops. When all brain activity ceases you're dead. That's an accepted standard. If the lungs stop the brain will USUALLY follow in a short time but it's not the lungs stopping that indicate death. It's the brain.

So if you're going to make that argument then the logical conclusion is that life starts and stops when the brain does. The moment the brain shuts off completely you're dead even if other parts of your body and the rest of your cells are still 'alive'. The moment that the brain starts would logically be the moment you as a human being are 'alive'.
Modern medicine kind of skews things, however a fetus in the womb is really a parasite that depends completely on the host(mother) for survival.
No more than a newborn is. A newborn is also completely dependent on an outside source for food and life.

But it's not completely dependent amusingly. In the womb the brain will have already started and will be taking care of a number of the bodily functions, regulating heat, controlling heart rate, etc. Initially those things will be controlled by the mother's body but once the brain fires up then it's taken over by the fetus. It's acting autonomously at that point.

So all you've done is demonstrate that at the time the brain becomes active inside the fetus it should be considered to be 'alive' and therefore a human being.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Twin_Moose

French Patriot

Council Member
Sep 17, 2012
2,005
30
48
I like that men in both camps are worried about how some states will have men responsible for their children in a more direct financial way.

Women will rightfully say, you made me have this child, now pay up.

Regards
Dl
 

Serryah

Executive Branch Member
Dec 3, 2008
9,091
2,107
113
New Brunswick
Yeah, don't tell me that "state rights" was a good idea.

When the state ignores the will of the PEOPLE of the state then the excuse of "state rights" is absolute bullshit.




 

The_Foxer

House Member
Aug 9, 2022
3,084
1,838
113
Yeah, don't tell me that "state rights" was a good idea.
You've voiced support for "state rights" issues before. Can't pick and choose.
When the state ignores the will of the PEOPLE of the state then the excuse of "state rights" is absolute bullshit.
Well if that's true they'll get voted out next election. Although in fairness this is more of a case of refusing to ask the people what their will is, not that that's any better.

I would agree in general that good politicians should support the idea of bringing contentious issues to the voters one way or another. But obviously the republican thinks he's representing the will of his constituents in this case.
 

Serryah

Executive Branch Member
Dec 3, 2008
9,091
2,107
113
New Brunswick
You've voiced support for "state rights" issues before. Can't pick and choose.

And when did I do this?

Well if that's true they'll get voted out next election. Although in fairness this is more of a case of refusing to ask the people what their will is, not that that's any better.

A petition of over 700K people - 200 beyond the threshold of normal petitions - isn't 'refusing to ask the people what their will is'? Give me a break. Near three quarters of a million people signed it, which is pretty damn clear what the will of the people is, vs. 2 Republican asshats. Or did you even read the 'excuses' given to deny the petition to have the question even be put on the BALLOT?


I would agree in general that good politicians should support the idea of bringing contentious issues to the voters one way or another. But obviously the republican thinks he's representing the will of his constituents in this case.

LMAO - sure he is...
 

The_Foxer

House Member
Aug 9, 2022
3,084
1,838
113
And when did I do this?
A number of occasions - i seem to recall you were in favour of the travel mandates as well (correct me if i'm wrong, i didn't take the time to look that up). And by and large the liberal policy package is crammed with 'for the good of the state' legislation and policy, so your support of them is support of that as well.
A petition of over 700K people - 200 beyond the threshold of normal petitions - isn't 'refusing to ask the people what their will is'?
Well the way you phrased that probably isn't what you meant. I specifically said it's refusing to ask what their will is, i suspect you meant to use a period or exclamation mark, indicating you disagree.

And yes it absolutely is. The petition is to put it on a ballot. A ballot is when you ask people what their opinion is. The petition is NOT an indication one way or another what all of the people think. I would personally sign such a petition no matter what side i was on because i think that's the right thing to do for example.

Now - you may THINK you know what the people really want - but that would make you no better than those two republicans. The correct thing to have done would be to put the actual question to the people.
Give me a break. Near three quarters of a million people signed it, which is pretty damn clear what the will of the people is, vs. 2 Republican asshats.
They signed saying the question should be asked. They didn't sign saying how they would answer that question. This is a question to be put on a ballot.

By assuming what people want without asking them, you bring the total to 3 asshats :)
Or did you even read the 'excuses' given to deny the petition to have the question even be put on the BALLOT?
No, i don't need to. They're wrong to do that. I know that without reading the excuses. In any given situation like that they should ALWAYS ask the people. They're being partisan and that's wrong.' Unfortunately both the democrats AND the republicans are hyper partisan these days.
LMAO - sure he is...
I'm quite sure he THINKS he is :) The dangers of assuming what other people think....
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Serryah

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
56,076
7,324
113
Washington DC
You've voiced support for "state rights" issues before. Can't pick and choose.
Of course you can. Some things are most appropriately done by the states. Speed limits. Crimes that only exist in one state (cutting a wild saguaro is illegal. Saguaro only grow wild in Arizona). Laws on waterways contained in a single state. Choice of penalties for crimes.

Fundamental rights are a national matter.
 

The_Foxer

House Member
Aug 9, 2022
3,084
1,838
113
Of course you can. Some things are most appropriately done by the states. Speed limits. Crimes that only exist in one state (cutting a wild saguaro is illegal. Saguaro only grow wild in Arizona). Laws on waterways contained in a single state. Choice of penalties for crimes.
You cannot. All you're doing is arguing that 'state rights' issues are appropriate. My argument was that they either are or they aren't, you can't say you support it AND don't support it. Her argument was they weren't.

Fundamental rights are a national matter.
The word "fundamental" is what people throw in when they want to say 'you can't argue with this'. But that's wrong.

In the US, the 'fundamental' rights are those spelled out by the constitution. The constitution does not mention abortion. The courts have recently ruled that none of the other provisions actually can be applied to securnig the right to abortion on a national level. Therefore it is not a 'fundamental right'. it's just a right you personally feel SHOULD be fundimental. And fair enough but that's not how it works.

Secondly i do believe states do pass laws which address rights on a pretty regular basis. So it can't be said to be the exclusive pervue of the feds.

And finally, as we've discussed it's a question of who's rights. The right to life is certainly a pretty fundamental right. So IF you believe that the fetus is a human being then that's an issue. If you don't then it isn't. So who gets to decide that? That's not really a 'federal' job. In the absence of a clear scientific answer (which we will never get because it's going to be an arbitrary definition) then the people have to decide what they believe.

Dismissing the states role is not terribly defensible as far as i can see.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Serryah

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
56,076
7,324
113
Washington DC
You cannot. All you're doing is arguing that 'state rights' issues are appropriate. My argument was that they either are or they aren't, you can't say you support it AND don't support it. Her argument was they weren't.


The word "fundamental" is what people throw in when they want to say 'you can't argue with this'. But that's wrong.

In the US, the 'fundamental' rights are those spelled out by the constitution. The constitution does not mention abortion. The courts have recently ruled that none of the other provisions actually can be applied to securnig the right to abortion on a national level. Therefore it is not a 'fundamental right'. it's just a right you personally feel SHOULD be fundimental. And fair enough but that's not how it works.

Secondly i do believe states do pass laws which address rights on a pretty regular basis. So it can't be said to be the exclusive pervue of the feds.

And finally, as we've discussed it's a question of who's rights. The right to life is certainly a pretty fundamental right. So IF you believe that the fetus is a human being then that's an issue. If you don't then it isn't. So who gets to decide that? That's not really a 'federal' job. In the absence of a clear scientific answer (which we will never get because it's going to be an arbitrary definition) then the people have to decide what they believe.

Dismissing the states role is not terribly defensible as far as i can see.
States are allowed to pass laws that grant MORE rights than the Constitution, but never LESS rights. For example, the city of Cincinnati, Ohio, has a civil-rights ordinance that forbids discrimination based on "Appalachian heritage," i.e., hillbillies from western Kentucky. The city can do that. What it cannot do is permit discrimination against, say Black people.

Your interpretation of the Constitution betrays an ignorance of the Ninth Amendment.