sturg33
I
Dude you did this exact thing with ACB and when i called you on it, you disappeared like you always do.
As striker explained he was simply pointing out the states arguments for and against extending the deadline. He wasnt taking a position
The SCOTUS Nomination and Confirmation Thread
- Thread starter striker42
- Start date
Dude you did this exact thing with ACB and when i called you on it, you disappeared like you always do.
As striker explained he was simply pointing out the states arguments for and against extending the deadline. He wasnt taking a position
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
I think that was about what Republcans did to Merrick Garland. There will not be a supreme court nomination without a lot of crying by the other side for a long time.
striker42
Well-known member
You'd think they'd have died on the Gorsuch hill if that was the case.
I think the Dems were hoping to hold up the process until after the midterms in hopes of winning back the Senate and being able to demand a moderate.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
The Satanic Temple filed a motion asking ACB to recuse herself from their case because of her stated beliefs about abortion. It's a really interesting case for the court as they claim abortion to be a part of their religion. Should be fun seeing the court rule against religious freedom.
striker42
Well-known member
Not a big deal at all. Suppose i decide my religion requires ritual human sacrifice. The government can absolutely prevent me from grabbing a hobo and sacrificing him on a dark alter.
There's no such thing as an absolute right. If the conservative justices want to limit abortions they could grant constitutional rights to a fetus. The free exercise rights of someone who claims their religion mandates abortion wouldn't trump those rights.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
I know they will rule against it. You seem to have good legal knowledge so I have a few questions.
Who would be the victim? It has no birth certificate, no social security number, and no name.
Seeing as we all have individual rights can a mother get a court order for the fetus to stop trespassing in her body? What would legally obligate her to take care of it inside her body? You can give away your kid but how does that work with a fetus?
If its life couldnt a woman have an operation to remove it rather than abort it. That it cant survive outside her body isnt her problem legally.
Can a woman sue her fetus for damaging her body or for trespassing in her body or property?
Can a woman bill this "life" for services rendered?
If its life and given full rights of a person wouldn't it have to be treated the same legally as any other person?
Who would be the victim? It has no birth certificate, no social security number, and no name.
Seeing as we all have individual rights can a mother get a court order for the fetus to stop trespassing in her body? What would legally obligate her to take care of it inside her body? You can give away your kid but how does that work with a fetus?
If its life couldnt a woman have an operation to remove it rather than abort it. That it cant survive outside her body isnt her problem legally.
Can a woman sue her fetus for damaging her body or for trespassing in her body or property?
Can a woman bill this "life" for services rendered?
If its life and given full rights of a person wouldn't it have to be treated the same legally as any other person?
Dalyn
Fredi Gonzalez Supporter
They absolutely will. Religious freedom in this country has been twisted into Christian freedom.
Dalyn
Fredi Gonzalez Supporter
The whole argument against abortion is rooted in the idea that a religious mandate trumps the right to an abortion. But that's more Christian so it's okay!
Tapate50
Well-known member
I'll be honest, it was a chunk but I scrapped it together. I probably should have just bought Apple stock instead though.
striker42
Well-known member
I'll start with this disclaimer. I'm not advocating the legal positions I'm putting out here, just explaining how there could be defensible legal positions here.
In every crime, the ultimate victim is society. It's why criminal cases are prosecuted by "The State" or "The People" and not the named victim. Think of cruelty to animals. Who is the victim? The animal has no birth certificate, no social security number, and often no name. The victim is society. We've determined as a society to extend certain protections to animals and violating those protections opens you up to prosecution.
You're getting into the balance of rights here which is something that does happen. If rights are extended to a fetus, can those rights trump the mother's rights? A court could determine that a fetus' right live is greater than the mother's right's to autonomy over her body. You could analogize it to how necessity is a defense against other crimes. If I'm freezing to death and break into a cabin to survive, I've not committed a crime. My right to live has been given preference over a property owner's property rights.
As for the operation example, the same tactic has been tried against abortion in criminalizing the performing of the procedure and punishing doctors. You're not infringing upon a woman's right's to her body, the law doesn't apply to the woman at all. It only applies to the doctor. The end result is abortions being unavailable so the fact that the law doesn't apply to women doesn't matter. The result is what matters, not the process. The same is true in your operation example. The fact that the fetus dies outside the mother's body on its own isn't relevant. The result of the action taken is the death of the fetus and so if the fetus has rights, those rights might be violated.
Interesting question about trespass. The answer is no. Minor children are not responsible for their tortious conduct. Their parents are. The woman would actually be responsible to herself.
As for billing the fetus, again the answer is almost certainly no. Parents can't bill their children for the cost of food, clothing, etc. The same would extend here.
Would a fetus given personhood have to be treated the same legally? Not necessarily. Children are treated differently under the law than adults. Men and women are also still treated differently (for example, a woman can't commit rape in Georgia and a man can't be raped, the definition of rape requires it be a man on woman crime). Married people are treated differently than single people. The most common horrible people throw out is that any miscarriage would have to be investigated as a murder. That's not how it would work in practice at all. Not every death is investigated as a murder. The vast majority aren't. So people are often treated differently under the law and if you had fetal personhood there would undoubtedly be ways that a fetus was treated differently.
Again, I'm not advocating any position here. I'm just throwing out the legal counterarguments.
striker42
Well-known member
It's far more complex than that. It's not whether a religious mandate trumps the right to an abortion. It's whether the fetus has rights that trump a right to an abortion. The question at the root of abortion is what legal and moral duties do we owe to a fetus?
The ideas of rights, duties, and obligations and even the idea of personhood are all artificial concepts. Science cannot create a device that measures when rights attach. So it's a question that people have to decide on for themselves. Religion is one way people inform their opinion on this subject. Philosophy is another. Others try to use logic while still others go with gut feelings. Some even decide based on self interest.
It's a very difficult question to answer which is why I consider my feelings to be a personal decision and freely admit that others can have equally valid opinions that differ completely from mine.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
Is the bible even against abortion? Personally I loathe abortion but I am not for using violence against people to enforce anything that isnt overwhelmingly accepted as something that should be illegal. 51% shouldn't have the ability to impose their morality on 49%. Imo it should take 2/3rds majority in Congress to make something a crime and it should have to be renewed every 20 years.
Last edited:
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
https://lawandcrime.com/awkward/bre...-claim-about-vermont-vermont-still-not-happy/
Kavanaugh corrects his error at the request of Vermont
Kavanaugh corrects his error at the request of Vermont
BedellBrave
It's OVER 5,000!
In all seriousness, for someone to ask these questions further convinces me of my anthropological views.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
These were questions, I am as anti-abortion as you can get without wanting to use violence against people over it. Before I was ****ting on the police I posted quite a few rants about abortion here. I just accepted it and moved on. We should work to create the conditions where people dont want to get abortions and not try to stop them through shady tactics like restricting access. Imo if its legal in Canada and Mexico then we would only be criminalizing poor people and lazy rich people. I dont want to live in a country where some religious nutjob can call the police on my wife who had a miscarriage simply because that person knows we are atheist. That can and will happen if it was illegal. Innocent people have been executed for simply liking heavy metal because of religious nutjobs. Dont want.