I hope he did! that's one reason I voted for him. Now, whether or not it actually happens, we'll see. Kavanaugh said many times what his position is on Roe.Originally Posted by Guisslapp
|
|
|
|
|
I hope he did! that's one reason I voted for him. Now, whether or not it actually happens, we'll see. Kavanaugh said many times what his position is on Roe.
Exactly, fetuses are not a legally cognizable “person” so the referenced federal law creates a special class of victim in certain crimes (that doesn’t apply to abortion). In this case, the fetus doesn’t have a constitutional right but a statory right not to be killed in the commission of a federal crime.
There are other crimes that can be committed against victims that are not “persons” under the constitution/law, as well.
There is not a decent human being on here that could sit through a gynecologist's detailed description of an abortion, and walk away thinking..."well, it's her right to do this..."
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c45545...inos-testimony
Since you qualified it as a "decent human being," goosey could watch the murdering of babies and ask for more popcorn.
"We stand for women's health and the children." - Democratic Socialist Party of Irony
https://www.vox.com/first-person/201...n-obstetrician
And this seems logical to you?
And for every diagnosis like this, another baby supposedly has the same thing, but is born healthy. Miracle of science, or just a miracle? Or the doctor was wrong. It happens. Lady has multiple tests run showing she has a mass in her breasts, then when the doctor goes to biopsy the mass, it’s gone. How many times have we read or heard similar? Doctors aren’t omniscient and test results give false positives and negatives all the time.
Logical that fetuses don’t have constitutional rights? Yes-ish. That is the beauty of Roe.
It also makes sense that you can give them statutory rights. If you can give statutory rights to animals (Animal Welfare Act and state cruelty laws) then it would be strange that you wouldn’t be able to give statutory rights to fetuses.
Which is why you have to let the woman decide, with whatever open advice she can get from her health care provider, because she has to live (or die) with the consequences.
But if you want to reduce these later second term abortions, one of the best ways is to make first term abortions easier to get and to invest heavily into education. But Republicans, in general, aren’t fans of these options.
An interesting thread was started about this on another website. Currently it is totally up to the woman if she chooses an abortion or not. The guy involved in the situation has absolutely no say what so ever, even though he is party to the "event". If the "dad" wants to have the baby, tough, not his decision. So why then does the "dad" have to financially support the baby if the girl decides to go through with it? Should he be able to waive his rights and responsibilities?
For the record, I am totally against abortion, but this was an interesting perspective.
Very interesting thought.
Because we don’t believe someone else, such as “the guy”, should have any say with what a woman does with her body. Somewhere starting around the 1920s and the 19th Amendment we started that women are their own people and not the chattel of “the guy.”
Then don't hold "the guy" responsible financially for what she does with her body.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote