It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
but what was Trump rambling on about feti being ripped out of women's wombs in the ninth month of gestation? Is this a fact?
originally posted by: windword
There's been a lot of talk and speculation about overturning the landmark case of Roe V Wade;
Roe v. Wade was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1973. It made abortion legal in many circumstances. The decision said that a woman's right to privacy extended to the unborn child. Roe v. Wade - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
President elect Trump has promised to stock the Supreme Court with justices that will remove federal oversight on the abortion issue, giving it back to the states.
My question to you, ATS, is; "What possible legal case/argument will be brought forward that will compel such a ruling?
Will it be in defense of the unborn life, whose right to life "trumps" privacy? Or will it be brought forward by a state claiming their right to interfere on behalf of a nonviable life "trumps" federal oversight?
My question to you, ATS, is; "What possible legal case/argument will be brought forward that will compel such a ruling?
Roe v. Wade Section XI,
1(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.
(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.
(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life [410 U.S. 113, 165] may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.
2. The State may define the term "physician," as it has been employed in the preceding paragraphs of this Part XI of this opinion, to mean only a physician currently licensed by the State, and may proscribe any abortion by a person who is not a physician as so defined.
www.sacred-texts.com...
1. A critically ill, 27-year-old Washington D.C. woman was 26 weeks pregnant when a judge ordered her to have a Cesarean section. He did so with the understanding that the procedure would very likely kill her. It did. The baby died as well.
2. A pregnant woman in Iowa fell down a flight of stairs and went to the hospital. The hospital reported her to the police who arrested her for “attempted fetal homicide.”
3. A Utah woman gave birth to twins, one of which was stillborn. Her doctors blamed the death on her decision to delay a C-section. She was arrested for fetal homicide.
4. A Louisiana woman checked in to a hospital due to vaginal bleeding. She was locked up for a year on charges of “second-degree murder before medical records revealed she had suffered a miscarriage at 11 to 15 weeks of pregnancy.”
5. A Florida woman “was held prisoner at a hospital to prevent her from going home while she appeared to be experiencing a miscarriage. She was forced to undergo a Cesarean.” She still lost the baby, and her two small children at home were left without her while she was held. A state court ruled that this detention was wrong, although it would have been fine if she was further along in her pregnancy.
6. Another Florida woman who went into labor at home was picked up by a sheriff, driven to the hospital and forced to have a Cesarean against her will. She filed suit, and the court concluded that the woman’s personal constitutional rights “clearly did not outweigh the interests of the State of Florida in preserving the life of the unborn child.”
7. A severely depressed, pregnant 22-year-old woman in South Carolina tried to commit suicide. She was jailed for child abuse.
www.alternet.org...
originally posted by: SaturnFX
It has to be then a discussion on when life becomes a person.
personally, I see this as simply, if the brain is active, then its a person. a person is a thinking being. before and after thinking, its just life that has far less rights..
The brain activates around, absolute earliest, 3 month mark. really it takes the central nervous system a bit longer to form and activate, giving the first sensations.
Once that happens, only in cases of actual physical emergency, or perhaps massive birth defects that is doing a mercy more than anything...otherwise..its pretty much murder.
you've decided at 3 months.
You must remember that it takes a lot to get an amendment even officially proposed, let alone ratified into the constitution--the proposed amendment would have to go to all states, and 38/50 would have to ratify it. There is no circumventing state's rights when it comes to amending the constitution, as every single state has a right to vote yes or no--a 'yes' vote being a relinquishing of said authority over the matter.
originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: windword
First, realize I'm pro choice.
However, an argument could well enough be made that once a heart starts beating - which is very, very early in pregnancy, that it's indicative of a new life, a new individual, and thus fetal rights talk could come into play in which case it'd be a battle between mothers rights and the babies rights, plenty of religious people would fight for the fetus without caring about it after it's born, though.
For you pro life conservatives on this thread, that's a major point in which you'll likely never compromise on. Giving a damn about a person after they are born. "life is sacred" - unless of course they're asking for your tax money to support a baby, in which case you flip out. You're not consistent.
I believe in states rights, but as far as abortion goes... I'd rather just take the responsible steps to minimize them, which includes easy and cheap access to contraceptives and birth control, day after pills, focusing on building families, and things like that.
originally posted by: windword
a reply to: SlapMonkey
You must remember that it takes a lot to get an amendment even officially proposed, let alone ratified into the constitution--the proposed amendment would have to go to all states, and 38/50 would have to ratify it. There is no circumventing state's rights when it comes to amending the constitution, as every single state has a right to vote yes or no--a 'yes' vote being a relinquishing of said authority over the matter.
Yes. I recently, since the election, found out just hard it is to ratify a new amendment. I feel much safer knowing that.
AND, I only just became aware that the Citizen's United decision is being formally appealed, when I saw that there was a measure rescinding it was on our California ballot. It passed.
Nothing will get passed if it is vehemently opposed. That is why, for example, Trump is limiting the approach to deportations to criminals that have done much more than just break the law by entering and staying in the country illegally).