So what is we stopped all abortion but just let kids starve if they could not make it once off of mother milk. Thats what happens when a population gets out of control.
Fetal homicide in those laws includes murder. And murder is defined as the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought. How is it possible that a victim of murder did not have fourteenth amendment rights? How is it possible that a victim of murder wasn't a person?
I would say that this is a prime example of political/legislative maneuvering, specifically taking advantage of semantic ambiguities. If you'll notice the state provisos... these laws clearly circumvent any violation of women rights regarding abortion. Again, clearly if the unborn were de facto persons such provisos would not be necessary nor present.
Slogan/motto:
Php 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
Reputation:
October 21st, 2012, 01:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by quip
I would say that this is a prime example of political/legislative maneuvering, specifically taking advantage of semantic ambiguities.
Are the fetal homicide laws valid or not? If we are dealing with good law, then how is it possible that a victim of murder did not have fourteenth amendment rights? How is it possible that a victim of murder wasn't a person? You haven't really given a direct answer to those questions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by quip
If you'll notice the state provisos... these laws clearly circumvent any violation of women rights regarding abortion.
They attempt to. However, if the fetal homicide law is good law, the portion of the statute that attempts to allow the killing of a person that would otherwise be protected under the same law is void. It seems blatantly obvious that people killing unborn persons with the consent of the mother are doing so only under color of law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by quip
Again, clearly if the unborn were de facto persons such provisos would not be necessary nor present.
I believe there are several SCOTUS cases that prove otherwise. We can consider the landmark slavery, child labor, and segregation cases if you want. But I think it's obvious that legislators and courts make mistakes, and those mistakes lead to unconstitutional laws which are necessarily void according to the law.
I have liberty to be seen as a failure by you while being seen as a son by my Father.
Slogan/motto:
Php 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
Reputation:
October 21st, 2012, 03:48 PM
Quip,
My position is based on the principle that any law repugnant to the constitution is void, from Marbury v. Madison:
"The question whether an act repugnant to the Constitution can become the law of the land is a question deeply interesting to the United States, but, happily, not of an intricacy proportioned to its interest. It seems only necessary to recognise certain principles, supposed to have been long and well established, to decide it.
"That the people have an original right to establish for their future government such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected. The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it nor ought it to be frequently repeated. The principles, therefore, so established are deemed fundamental. And as the authority from which they proceed, is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent.
"This original and supreme will organizes the government and assigns to different departments their respective powers. It may either stop here or establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments.
"The Government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the Legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the Constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may at any time be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited [p177] and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested that the Constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it, or that the Legislature may alter the Constitution by an ordinary act.
"Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The Constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.
"If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law; if the latter part be true, then written Constitutions are absurd attempts on the part of the people to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.
"Certainly all those who have framed written Constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be that an act of the Legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void.
"This theory is essentially attached to a written Constitution, and is consequently to be considered by this Court as one of the fundamental principles of our society. It is not, therefore, to be lost sight of in the further consideration of this subject.
"If an act of the Legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void, does it, notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the Courts and oblige them to give it effect? Or, in other words, though it be not law, does it constitute a rule as operative as if it was a law? This would be to overthrow in fact what was established in theory, and would seem, at first view, an absurdity too gross to be insisted on."
I have liberty to be seen as a failure by you while being seen as a son by my Father.
Rather depends on who is deciding what is a wrong of course.
I disagree.
Your self control is surely an example for us all.
Then I'd suggest that you simply butt out of other peoples business and mind your own. Particularly so since you seem to have so few genuine worries about two out of every three zygotes that you claim are "persons" that fail to implant.
Well, as you may have gathered my whole point was that I don't agree a zygote can actually be "murdered" because it hasn't got a nervous system and thus isn't in fact a person. You at least surely cannot demonstrate where a person might reside in a few cells and presumably simply base a "personhood" in your religious belief alone.
So I really do think you should concentrate on your own lives and simply butt out of interfering in the lives of those who perhaps think differently to you.
This conversation is as useless as you are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by quip
She hated it. Abortion (and it subsequent right) is not something that you ballyhoo about at the top of your lungs. Its one of those ugly rights that must exist alongside the more popular ones that exemplifies America as a free nation.
The ruling was far more important than Roe's opinion of it.
Too bad Christian Universalists are wrong; not even Hell could purge you of your wickedness.
Are the fetal homicide laws valid or not? If we are dealing with good law, then how is it possible that a victim of murder did not have fourteenth amendment rights? How is it possible that a victim of murder wasn't a person? You haven't really given a direct answer to those questions.
Perhaps states are granting personhood freeheartedly and situationally per this example:
Example from Az. law: The law states that for the purposes of punishment, an unborn child shall be treated like a minor under 12 years of age.
Perhaps, if personhood and/or protection under the 14th are necessary to such laws then perhaps fetal homicide laws are not constitutionally valid. Is it necessary to be a person (as opposed to being a human-being...don't conflate the two.) to be murdered...how did you come by this conclusion?
Quote:
They attempt to. However, if the fetal homicide law is good law, the portion of the statute that attempts to allow the killing of a person that would otherwise be protected under the same law is void. It seems blatantly obvious that people killing unborn persons with the consent of the mother are doing so only under color of law.
I'm not sure of your either/or logic here
Yes, constitutional law. What's the alternative except under the law?
Quote:
I believe there are several SCOTUS cases that prove otherwise. We can consider the landmark slavery, child labor, and segregation cases if you want. But I think it's obvious that legislators and courts make mistakes, and those mistakes lead to unconstitutional laws which are necessarily void according to the law.
I see no parallels between abortion/fetal laws and those three. These are direct violations of established rights...when you include the rights of pregnant women it's transpires into a completely different scenario.
Last edited by quip; October 22nd, 2012 at 06:26 PM.
My position is based on the principle that any law repugnant to the constitution is void, from Marbury v. Madison:
"The question whether an act repugnant to the Constitution can become the law of the land is a question deeply interesting to the United States, but, happily, not of an intricacy proportioned to its interest. It seems only necessary to recognise certain principles, supposed to have been long and well established, to decide it.
"That the people have an original right to establish for their future government such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected. The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it nor ought it to be frequently repeated. The principles, therefore, so established are deemed fundamental. And as the authority from which they proceed, is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent.
"This original and supreme will organizes the government and assigns to different departments their respective powers. It may either stop here or establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments.
"The Government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the Legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the Constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may at any time be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited [p177] and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested that the Constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it, or that the Legislature may alter the Constitution by an ordinary act.
"Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The Constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.
"If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law; if the latter part be true, then written Constitutions are absurd attempts on the part of the people to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.
"Certainly all those who have framed written Constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be that an act of the Legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void.
"This theory is essentially attached to a written Constitution, and is consequently to be considered by this Court as one of the fundamental principles of our society. It is not, therefore, to be lost sight of in the further consideration of this subject.
"If an act of the Legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void, does it, notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the Courts and oblige them to give it effect? Or, in other words, though it be not law, does it constitute a rule as operative as if it was a law? This would be to overthrow in fact what was established in theory, and would seem, at first view, an absurdity too gross to be insisted on."
Slogan/motto:
Php 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
Reputation:
October 22nd, 2012, 11:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by quip
Perhaps states are granting personhood freeheartedly and situationally per this example:
Example from Az. law: The law states that for the purposes of punishment, an unborn child shall be treated like a minor under 12 years of age.
Perhaps, if personhood and/or protection under the 14th are necessary to such laws then perhaps fetal homicide laws are not constitutionally valid.
Either the abortion laws are unconsititutional or the fetal homicide laws are unconstitutional. They are clearly in conflict with each other.
Quote:
Originally Posted by quip
Is it necessary to be a person (as opposed to being a human-being...don't conflate the two.) to be murdered...how did you come by this conclusion?
Do you have an alternative definition of murder?
Quote:
Originally Posted by quip
I see no parallels between abortion/fetal laws and those three. These are direct violations of established rights...
In Hammer v. Dagenhart the Supreme Court ruled the Child Labor Act unconstitutional and declared that children did not have fourteenth amendment rights. We had a couple of decades more of institutionalized child labor as a result. As I said, the courts make mistakes, and the Roe decision is just another example.
Quote:
Originally Posted by quip
...when you include the rights of pregnant women it's transpires into a completely different scenario.
Yes, a scenario involving divided dominion. Under English Common Law the mother was thought to have a trust-dominion over the unborn child, but the unborn child had absolute dominion. According to Blackstone, "Qui in utero, est pro jam nato habetur quoties de ejus commodo quaeritur: One who is in the womb is held as already born, whenever a question arises for its benefit."
The Roe decision was based on a mistaken statement of fact regarding English Common Law and the history of abortion laws. Justice Blackmon accepted NARAL's Cyril Means' argument that early abortion laws were framed to protect the health of the mother due to risks associated with the practice at that time, and because of improvements in health care and technology those risks no longer existed; but that was a mistaken statement of fact. The case was decided on the basis of the principle: "when the reason for a law no longer exists, the law itself ceases to exist."
I have liberty to be seen as a failure by you while being seen as a son by my Father.
Rather, it supports my point that abortion laws are void.
Well, you haven't illustrated how the unborn are persons other than noting a few state laws which seem to provisionally grant the notion for the unborn..... so as to avoid violating women's constitutional right. [and English common law....nuff said]
Last edited by quip; October 23rd, 2012 at 01:55 AM.
Reason: updated
Either the abortion laws are unconsititutional or the fetal homicide laws are unconstitutional. They are clearly in conflict with each other.
Only if you presuppose fetal personhood.
Quote:
Do you have an alternative definition of murder?
The unwarranted killing of a human-being. As stated prior.
Quote:
In Hammer v. Dagenhart the Supreme Court ruled the Child Labor Act unconstitutional and declared that children did not have fourteenth amendment rights. We had a couple of decades more of institutionalized child labor as a result. As I said, the courts make mistakes, and the Roe decision is just another example.
Sure, it's a human convention; prone to mistakes. They've made more mistakes than this one. Asserting Roe/Wade as one of those is different the illustrating it as such.
Quote:
Yes, a scenario involving divided dominion. Under English Common Law the mother was thought to have a trust-dominion over the unborn child, but the unborn child had absolute dominion. According to Blackstone, "Qui in utero, est pro jam nato habetur quoties de ejus commodo quaeritur: One who is in the womb is held as already born, whenever a question arises for its benefit."
The Roe decision was based on a mistaken statement of fact regarding English Common Law and the history of abortion laws. Justice Blackmon accepted NARAL's Cyril Means' argument that early abortion laws were framed to protect the health of the mother due to risks associated with the practice at that time, and because of improvements in health care and technology those risks no longer existed; but that was a mistaken statement of fact. The case was decided on the basis of the principle: "when the reason for a law no longer exists, the law itself ceases to exist."
By what evidence was that a mistaken statement of fact?
An archaic law repealed (principally if not legally) much like similar law against interracial marriages and ones which mandated the sterilization of people of low mental capacity.
Women rights in general are relatively new. Women were not allowed to vote until the early 20th century. Reproductive rights are even more nascent. Olde English common law obviously does not reflect, represent and certainly does not respect the "modern" social view of reproductive rights for women as and when written. Both human entities cannot have equal rights by the simple physiological nature of pregnancy. Both cannot be considered persons under the auspices of abortion thus the courts ruled in favor of the entity that bestows the clear, relevant and obvious characteristics of personhood.....the adult pregnant female. By the very means of what you propose you would set constitutional rights back a few hundred years...back when slavery was legal and women lacked a political voice in issues not simply limited to reproduction.
Linear Mode
