Would you support a pro-choice liberty candidate?

[Tywysog Cymru]

Is it possible that SCOTUS could eventually find that the fourteenth amendment establishes a right to life and overturn any state law legalizing abortion?

 

[eduardo89]

Huh?

I'm pretty sure "naturalized" means being born outside the United States but being made a citizen anyway. Which would, once again, preclude the unborn.

No it doesn't, it simply means to become a citizen by a means other than by birthright. Congress could well say that all persons conceived in the United States are thereby naturalised citizens and at the moment of their birth they become natural born citizens if born in the US.

Also, Congress has the power to determine personhood with regards to federal crimes. If you explicitly say that murder of a person is illegal and define person as any member of the species homo sapiens from the moment of conception, you have automatically made the unborn persons with 14th amendment rights. This is essentially what the Unborn Victims of Violence Act does and should in effect void Roe v Wade's legalisation of abortion.

 

[eduardo89]

Is it possible that SCOTUS could eventually find that the fourteenth amendment establishes a right to life and overturn any state law legalizing abortion?

Yes, if personhood is legally defined as beginning at conception. The Supreme Court's majority opinion in Roe v Wade made this clear.

 

[Origanalist]

Is it possible that SCOTUS could eventually find that the fourteenth amendment establishes a right to life and overturn any state law legalizing abortion?

Possible, anything is. Is it going to happen? No.

 

[eduardo89]

Please back those numbers up.

He thinks that anyone who supports abortion in cases where the mother's life is at great risk but thinks abortion should be illegal in all other cases to be pro-'choice'.

 

[Origanalist]

Yes, if personhood is legally defined as beginning at conception. The Supreme Court's majority opinion in Roe v Wade made this clear.

I missed the word "eventually". It sure isn't going to happen now.

 

[eduardo89]

I missed the word "eventually". It sure isn't going to happen now.

Definitely not as long as traitor-to-his-faith Anthony Kennedy is on the bench.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

Probably not. No doubt their language would annoy me to no end. And even if they somehow presented the issue legitimately, being pro-the choice for women to murder their fetus is not something I take lightly. For someone not to take issue with this issue, or worse, to endorse it, I would find very troublesome.

I also understand that people are not going to quit murdering their fetuses whether the law says one thing or not. As sad as that is to say.

This is one of those issues that leaves me pessimistic. The hell is wrong with people?

 

[MichaelDavis]

It's not hard, it could (and should) have been done in the 6 years the GOP controlled the Presidency, Senate, and House. All it takes is a bill saying that we are persons from the moment of conception and Roe v Wade would have been nullified. In Roe v Wade the majority of the court said that when personhood begins is a matter for Congress to decide and if they decide it begins at conception then abortion could be banned.

It wouldn't have been that simple. The Republicans only heald 55 senate seats. If the Pro-Lifers had less than 60 votes, the liberals would filibuster the bill. I doubt five Democrats would vote for cloture.

 

[eduardo89]

It wouldn't have been that simple. The Republicans only heald 55 senate seats. If the Pro-Lifers had less than 60 votes, the liberals would filibuster the bill. I doubt five Democrats would vote for cloture.

Nuclear option.

If the GOP actually cared about the unborn, they'd have gotten this done years ago.

 

[Neil Desmond]

Huh?

I'm pretty sure "naturalized" means being born outside the United States but being made a citizen anyway. Which would, once again, preclude the unborn.

Well, maybe; but I wonder if that's specifically what "naturalized" meant at the time the 14th amendment was written. The problem is that the thinking back then probably played a role in the way things were worded and what the meaning of words were. Would they have used the word "conceived" instead of "born" had they considered the notion that one day people would be terminating the lives of unborn children? Today we can easily travel very long distances by car, train, plane, etc. for very cheap, but back then the endeavor of traveling so far one ended up in a different country or came from a different country was probably something almost unthinkable because of the risk and expense.

My point is that it seems like the purpose of making "abortion" legal is to compromise the sanctity or respect for life of a human being to make it easier and more acceptable to kill (born as well as unborn) people, and it may involve distorting the wording and intent of things like what's written in the US Constitution. One of the traits that "pro-choicers" tend to have is that they're opposed to the death penalty (on "moral" grounds), as though by being opposed to the death penalty balances out their position on "abortion". It also seems like only "pro-choicers" are opposed to eating meat (on "moral" grounds) for similar reasons.

To me it's unacceptable to kill any innocent human being, whether born or unborn.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Is it possible that SCOTUS could eventually find that the fourteenth amendment establishes a right to life and overturn any state law legalizing abortion?

They could, but I think it would be wrong for the same reasons Roe v Wade is wrong (Solely going by constitutional arguments here, not the immorality of abortion.

No it doesn't, it simply means to become a citizen by a means other than by birthright. Congress could well say that all persons conceived in the United States are thereby naturalised citizens and at the moment of their birth they become natural born citizens if born in the US.

Also, Congress has the power to determine personhood with regards to federal crimes. If you explicitly say that murder of a person is illegal and define person as any member of the species homo sapiens from the moment of conception, you have automatically made the unborn persons with 14th amendment rights. This is essentially what the Unborn Victims of Violence Act does and should in effect void Roe v Wade's legalisation of abortion.

Where in the constitution is congress given the right to define personhood?
If congress has this power, why couldn't they just declare personhood to begin at birth, and then declare any anti-abortion laws invalid on those grounds?

He thinks that anyone who supports abortion in cases where the mother's life is at great risk but thinks abortion should be illegal in all other cases to be pro-'choice'.

Wow, that's bizarre. I'm assuming that by "supporting abortion" you mean "thinks abortion should be legal?" I guess by that definition even I'm pro-choice, as I do believe it should not be illegal for the mother to choose her own life over that of the infant if it comes to that.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Well, maybe; but I wonder if that's specifically what "naturalized" meant at the time the 14th amendment was written. The problem is that the thinking back then probably played a role in the way things were worded and what the meaning of words were. Would they have used the word "conceived" instead of "born" had they considered the notion that one day people would be terminating the lives of unborn children? Today we can easily travel very long distances by car, train, plane, etc. for very cheap, but back then the endeavor of traveling so far one ended up in a different country or came from a different country was probably something almost unthinkable because of the risk and expense.

My point is that it seems like the purpose of making "abortion" legal is to compromise the sanctity or respect for life of a human being to make it easier and more acceptable to kill (born as well as unborn) people, and it may involve distorting the wording and intent of things like what's written in the US Constitution. One of the traits that "pro-choicers" tend to have is that they're opposed to the death penalty (on "moral" grounds), as though by being opposed to the death penalty balances out their position on "abortion". It also seems like only "pro-choicers" are opposed to eating meat (on "moral" grounds) for similar reasons.

To me it's unacceptable to kill any innocent human being, whether born or unborn.

I totally agree with this. In the above, I was arguing against Federal involvement, not for abortion rights.

 

[eduardo89]

Where in the constitution is congress given the right to define personhood?
If congress has this power, why couldn't they just declare personhood to begin at birth, and then declare any anti-abortion laws invalid on those grounds?

The federal government has the power to define personhood for many things, such as the crimes which they have authority to prosecute as well as for federal benefits, as well as for citizenship.

As to the second point, that is exactly the argument that was used by the Court in Roe v Wade. The fact that legal personhood is currently established as beginning as birth gives women the 'right' to murder her unborn child because he does not qualify as a legal person.

 

[Keith and stuff]

In number, maybe. But in terms of population it still would be huge.

California - 38 million
New York - 20 million
Illinois - 13 million
New Jersey - 9 million
Washington - 7 million
Massachusetts - 6.5 million
Maryland - 6 million
Minnesota - 5.5 million
Colorado - 5 million
Oregon - 4 million
Connecticut - 3.5 million
Iowa - 3 million
New Mexico - 2 million
Hawaii - 1.5 million
+ smaller 'blue' states such as Vermont, Rhode Island, New Hampshire.

That's about 120 million in population!

It would probably also remain legal in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Ohio which have a combined population of about 55 million.

So I'd say that states that make up about 180 million people would still have legal abortion were it decided on a state level. That's a majority of where Americans live.

NH isn't a blue state. But yeah, 95% support legalize abortion which is way more than the average state of like 85%. I don't know if the majority of voters in any state is against all abortions. I know MS, the most religious state, recently voted in support of allowing abortions.

 

[Keith and stuff]

In number, maybe. But in terms of population it still would be huge.

California - 38 million
New York - 20 million
Illinois - 13 million
New Jersey - 9 million
Washington - 7 million
Massachusetts - 6.5 million
Maryland - 6 million
Minnesota - 5.5 million
Colorado - 5 million
Oregon - 4 million
Connecticut - 3.5 million
Iowa - 3 million
New Mexico - 2 million
Hawaii - 1.5 million
+ smaller 'blue' states such as Vermont, Rhode Island, New Hampshire.

That's about 120 million in population!

It would probably also remain legal in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Ohio which have a combined population of about 55 million.

So I'd say that states that make up about 180 million people would still have legal abortion were it decided on a state level. That's a majority of where Americans live.

Add to that every single other state. You equal the entire population of the US. 85% or so support legalizing abortions. Where I live, it is like 95%.

 

[Neil Desmond]

I totally agree with this. In the above, I was arguing against Federal involvement, not for abortion rights.

Ah, I see. Personally, I think Federal involvement is ok in the sense that at that level we have things like presumption of being innocent until proven otherwise, the right to remain silent, no deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, the declaration that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, etc.

 

[Origanalist]

Add to that every single other state. You equal the entire population of the US. 85% or so support legalizing abortions. Where I live, it is like 95%.

You either missed this post or chose to ignore it.

Please back those numbers up.

 

[eduardo89]

NH isn't a blue state.

Yes it is. You have a Democrat controlled House (which recently passed gun registration in a committee), a Democrat governor, both your Representatives are Democrats, one Senator is a Democrat and the other might as well be, and voted for Kerry in 2004 and Obama in 2008 and 2012.

 

[Christian Liberty]

The federal government has the power to define personhood for many things, such as the crimes which they have authority to prosecute as well as for federal benefits, as well as for citizenship.

As to the second point, that is exactly the argument that was used by the Court in Roe v Wade. The fact that legal personhood is currently established as beginning as birth gives women the 'right' to murder her unborn child because he does not qualify as a legal person.

I think you understand why Federal involvement here is dangerous. You can't expect centralized tyrants to ever do the right thing with power.

Ah, I see. Personally, I think Federal involvement is ok in the sense that at that level we have things like presumption of being innocent until proven otherwise, the right to remain silent, no deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, the declaration that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, etc.

In theory I wouldn't disagree, but in practice I do because the Federal government is a far greater threat to our liberties than state governments, its easier to move from state to state than country to country, and its impossible to guarantee that the Feds won't use those same powers AGAINST liberty. In fact, not only is it not guaranteed that they won't, its practically guaranteed that they will.

I'm not really 100% settled on this, but if I had to come down one way or another, that's where I'd come down. Of course, competing police, defense, and court systems even within a geographical area would be far superior to even standard decentralization, but I see decentralization as a step in that direction, and centralization as a step away from it.

I also do not object to forcing a state to secede from the Union if it refuses to recognize constitutional rights. With a constitutional amendment, this could apply to abortion as well, and I would support that.