12 ms·

For those who say this is the logically correct decision, how exactly did you conclude that? - USA Constitution 14th Amendment Section 1 ...no State shall

For those who say this is the logically correct decision, how exactly did you conclude that? - USA Constitution 14th Amendment Section 1 ...no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws... - The constitution clearly says that states cannot enforce laws that deprive citizens of their lives and liberties. Now, states have renewed authority to deprive at-risk women their right to life-saving medical procedures. Please explain to me how this doesn't violate 14A.

batmansmom1 4y ago
If you believe that life begins at conception you could say that abortion deprives that "unborn person" of their right to life, as long as carrying the fetus to term would not put the life of the mother at risk.
- gobrewers14 4y ago
  > If you believe that life begins at conception Someone believing life begins at conception is a reason for THEM to not get an abortion, it is not a reason for the government to outlaw it.
  - brigandish 4y ago
    To deprive someone of life is a crime, hence, someone who believes life begins at conception is advocating against unlawful killing, and crimes are certainly the purview of the state and society.
    - Jason_Protell 4y ago
      The issue here is that this belief is not based in reality. A fertilized egg is not a human.
      - brigandish 4y ago
        > Someone believing life begins at conception That's the claim, not whether a fertilized egg is a human.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
        Jason_Protell 4y ago
        14A gives protections to citizens and persons, not lives.
        brigandish 4y ago
        Please don't quibble, it's not worth anyone's time, yours as much as anyone's. I'd like you to explain the personhood and citizenry rights of the non-living. Regardless, from section 1 of the 14th amendment[1]: > nor shall any state deprive any person of life, Did you not think to check it first? [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv
        Jason_Protell 4y ago
        I've entertained this discussion in good faith, yet now you're belittling my diction and accusing me of wasting time. I'm done here. Have a nice day.
      - dpbriggs 4y ago
        Are you willfully misrepresenting other arguments? There's a curious pattern in these threads of you ducking out of conversations when nuance is attempted. The remainder of the reasonable discussion around this topic is centered around the blurry point between inception and when viable birth is possible. The vast majority of people would classify a fetus, minutes before birth, being aborted as murder. As well, in most countries restrictions occur at some point in the pregnancy (recognition of the trade-off between bodily autonomy and the rights of the unborn). In my country that happens to be nine weeks unless there's an emergency.
    - gobrewers14 4y ago
      I don't give a shit what other people believe. People believing in things is not a sufficient condition for the government to prohibit something.
      - brigandish 4y ago
        This ruling does not prohibit anything. Regardless, in a democracy other people's beliefs are entirely a sufficient condition in what the government will do. Maybe not sufficient reasoning for you, but again, it's a democracy, not your fiefdom.
        gobrewers14 4y ago
        > This ruling does not prohibit anything Missouri just banned abortion as a result of this being overturned, so yes, it does. > other people's beliefs are entirely a sufficient condition in what the government will do False. Other people's beliefs are a necessary condition. If I convince 51% of the populace geminis are evil and should be imprisoned, this is not a sufficient condition for the government to implement this policy. We would need to scientifically demonstrate that astrology is in fact true. This is the sufficient condition. The necessary condition is a majority believing it. Likewise, having an objective, unambiguous, scientific definition of what life is and when it begins is the sufficient condition for outlawing abortion and a majority believing that is the necessary condition. A characteristic of a free society is not one where the government creates laws based on the whims of particular religious groups.
        brigandish 4y ago
        > > This ruling does not prohibit anything > Missouri just banned abortion as a result of this being overturned, so yes, it does. No, it doesn't, Missouri's laws have prohibited abortion. > If I convince 51% of the populace geminis are evil and should be imprisoned, this is not a sufficient condition for the government to implement this policy. We would need to scientifically demonstrate that astrology is in fact true. Government is not bound by what is scientifically demonstrated, thus making this statement and the rest of what you wrote, incorrect. > A characteristic of a free society is not one where the government creates laws based on the whims of particular religious groups. Hundreds, if not thousands of years of fairly consistent belief that life is sacred is hardly a whim, neither is the opposition to Roe v Wade from certain religious groups. It's also not characteristic of free society, governments put in place plenty of silly laws "on a whim" in free societies.
  - mminer237 4y ago
    How would you differentiate this argument for abortion versus for slavery? Should it be legalized, and the government just tell people not to do it if it violates their conscience? In the eyes of roughly half the country, it's plainly injust to allow anybody to murder what they believe to clearly be a human being just because the other half believes they're subhuman. It's the government's job to punish injustice, even if the actors don't believe they're being unjust. Very few people in prison will say they did anything wrong. In their eyes, their crime was justified. Everybody thinks they're doing the right thing. Like it or not, it's the government's job to determine if that's true or not in many cases.
    - gobrewers14 4y ago
      > How would you differentiate this argument for abortion versus for slavery? Slavery unambiguously violates the autonomy of another human being. If it could be demonstrated scientifically what life is and when it begins and that happens to be at conecption, then yes, abortion should be outlawed. But we don't know this. In a free and open society, in the absence of knowledge, we should default to people making their own choices; we should default to freedom and not restriction.
    - Jason_Protell 4y ago
      I don't have the energy to continue engaging with these conversations, but I'd just like to point out one inconsistency in your comment. "In the eyes of roughly half the country..." 61% of the country believes abortion should be legal. 39% is closer to 1/3 than 1/2. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/06/13/about-six-in-ten-americans-say-abortion-should-be-legal-in-all-or-most-cases-2/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/06/13/about-six-i...
      - dragonwriter 4y ago
        > 39% is closer to 1/3 than 1/2. 37% is even more closer to 1/3; I wouldn’t count the 2% that don’t have a position with the pro-ban faction.
        4y ago
- decebalus1 4y ago
  The government doesn't believe that life starts at conception. Otherwise you'd be able to get tax deductions for an unborn fetus. This has nothing to do with when life begins. This has everything to do with population control and with religious fundamentalism.
  - ars 4y ago
    > The government doesn't believe that life starts at conception. Otherwise you'd be able to get tax deductions for an unborn fetus. You are incorrect. When you apply for benefits, they ask you how many people in your family, and an unborn child counts as a person. Most tax benefits work on a yearly calendar, but the ones that work on a monthly calendar certainly count an unborn child.
- Jason_Protell 4y ago
  If you believe a fetus is a person, then you are simply incorrect.
  - mminer237 4y ago
    What is the difference between a baby in the womb on day 280 versus the same baby an hour later outside the womb? One is called subhuman and often perfectly legal to kill for any reason, and a person would get life in prison for killing the other.
    - syspec 4y ago
      One has a birth certificate,
      - Jason_Protell 4y ago
        That is one of many differences.
SkyPuncher 4y ago
I'm not taking a stance for or against your argument. I'm simply point out a logical gap that doesn't make this as simple as your suggesting. The root of the issue is not the rights provided by the 14th amendment, but when, exactly, those rights apply during the process of conception, gestation, and birth. This is further complicated by the fact that scientific advances enable situations that our founders could have never predicted. I see two facts that are very clear: * A person cannot exist without conception. * At some point during pregnancy, a baby can survive as an independent living human. The youngest living baby was born on day 132 of pregnancy. Unfortunately, that leaves a massive grey area and your opinion on those is likely highly personal - including religion and living situation.
- Jason_Protell 4y ago
  This doesn't affect the reasoning. American women are indisputably citizens and people, whereas fetuses are not. The existence of this grey area doesn't preclude obvious constitutional rights.
  - brigandish 4y ago
    > American women are indisputably citizens and people, whereas fetuses are not. Foetuses are disputably citizens and people. There's your grey area.
    - Jason_Protell 4y ago
      Did you read my comment? I don't dispute the existence of the grey area.
      - brigandish 4y ago
        Yes, I read your comment, thanks. You didn't appear to making reference to the same grey area that was referred to in the comment you responded to. It's not often that I see absolutism and the acknowledgement of a grey area within the same breath so do forgive my mistake, if it is one.
andonisus 4y ago
You do not have a right to life saving medical procedures. You do not have a right to an abortion. There is no law or constitutional amendment that grants this. This is the flaw in your reasoning. That being said, I believe women SHOULD have a right to get an abortion enshrined in law. It is up to our re-elected representatives to achieve this, not for the courts to invent rights thereof.
- Jason_Protell 4y ago
  Did you read the amendment? There doesn't need to be explicit protection for medical procedures or abortion. 14A protects people from being deprived of life and liberty by state action or legislation. Eliminating access to abortion can deprive someone of their life and / or liberty, so eliminating access to abortion contradicts 14A.
  - andonisus 4y ago
    > nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law There is no federal law granting the right to abortion. Therefore, states may have enact their own laws to either affirm or restrict access to abortion. This process is due process.
    - Jason_Protell 4y ago
      I feel like I am talking to a brick wall. Any state law that deprives someone of life and / or liberty is unconstitutional. If someone needs a life-saving abortion, the state cannot deprive that person their constitutional right to life.
      - andonisus 4y ago
        I could say the same about you. There is no right to an abortion. Therefore the state is not depriving a person of anything.
        4y ago
InTheArena 4y ago
Roe v Wade didn't argue that. You can argue that independently if you wish - but it was not a justification for it. Also, people who oppose Abortion believe that this is the government _taking away_ a life. Which would also be at odds with the constitution.
- Jason_Protell 4y ago
  You are incorrect. "This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or ... in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether to terminate her pregnancy." — Roe, 410 U.S. at 153
Ekaros 4y ago
Now, which is more important life or liberty and property of owner of the host body in pregnancy. And if life is is more important should we force organ transplants? After all at least there is lot of spare kidneys around... Maybe half a lung is also workable.
- Jason_Protell 4y ago
  This is a separate conversation, but I believe organ donation should be an opt-out system.

batmansmom1 4y ago

If you believe that life begins at conception you could say that abortion deprives that "unborn person" of their right to life, as long as carrying the fetus to term would not put the life of the mother at risk.

gobrewers14 4y ago
> If you believe that life begins at conception Someone believing life begins at conception is a reason for THEM to not get an abortion, it is not a reason for the government to outlaw it.
- brigandish 4y ago
  To deprive someone of life is a crime, hence, someone who believes life begins at conception is advocating against unlawful killing, and crimes are certainly the purview of the state and society.
  - Jason_Protell 4y ago
    The issue here is that this belief is not based in reality. A fertilized egg is not a human.
    - brigandish 4y ago
      > Someone believing life begins at conception That's the claim, not whether a fertilized egg is a human.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - Jason_Protell 4y ago
        14A gives protections to citizens and persons, not lives.
        brigandish 4y ago
        Please don't quibble, it's not worth anyone's time, yours as much as anyone's. I'd like you to explain the personhood and citizenry rights of the non-living. Regardless, from section 1 of the 14th amendment[1]: > nor shall any state deprive any person of life, Did you not think to check it first? [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv
        Jason_Protell 4y ago
        I've entertained this discussion in good faith, yet now you're belittling my diction and accusing me of wasting time. I'm done here. Have a nice day.
    - dpbriggs 4y ago
      Are you willfully misrepresenting other arguments? There's a curious pattern in these threads of you ducking out of conversations when nuance is attempted. The remainder of the reasonable discussion around this topic is centered around the blurry point between inception and when viable birth is possible. The vast majority of people would classify a fetus, minutes before birth, being aborted as murder. As well, in most countries restrictions occur at some point in the pregnancy (recognition of the trade-off between bodily autonomy and the rights of the unborn). In my country that happens to be nine weeks unless there's an emergency.
  - gobrewers14 4y ago
    I don't give a shit what other people believe. People believing in things is not a sufficient condition for the government to prohibit something.
    - brigandish 4y ago
      This ruling does not prohibit anything. Regardless, in a democracy other people's beliefs are entirely a sufficient condition in what the government will do. Maybe not sufficient reasoning for you, but again, it's a democracy, not your fiefdom.
      - gobrewers14 4y ago
        > This ruling does not prohibit anything Missouri just banned abortion as a result of this being overturned, so yes, it does. > other people's beliefs are entirely a sufficient condition in what the government will do False. Other people's beliefs are a necessary condition. If I convince 51% of the populace geminis are evil and should be imprisoned, this is not a sufficient condition for the government to implement this policy. We would need to scientifically demonstrate that astrology is in fact true. This is the sufficient condition. The necessary condition is a majority believing it. Likewise, having an objective, unambiguous, scientific definition of what life is and when it begins is the sufficient condition for outlawing abortion and a majority believing that is the necessary condition. A characteristic of a free society is not one where the government creates laws based on the whims of particular religious groups.
        brigandish 4y ago
        > > This ruling does not prohibit anything > Missouri just banned abortion as a result of this being overturned, so yes, it does. No, it doesn't, Missouri's laws have prohibited abortion. > If I convince 51% of the populace geminis are evil and should be imprisoned, this is not a sufficient condition for the government to implement this policy. We would need to scientifically demonstrate that astrology is in fact true. Government is not bound by what is scientifically demonstrated, thus making this statement and the rest of what you wrote, incorrect. > A characteristic of a free society is not one where the government creates laws based on the whims of particular religious groups. Hundreds, if not thousands of years of fairly consistent belief that life is sacred is hardly a whim, neither is the opposition to Roe v Wade from certain religious groups. It's also not characteristic of free society, governments put in place plenty of silly laws "on a whim" in free societies.
- mminer237 4y ago
  How would you differentiate this argument for abortion versus for slavery? Should it be legalized, and the government just tell people not to do it if it violates their conscience? In the eyes of roughly half the country, it's plainly injust to allow anybody to murder what they believe to clearly be a human being just because the other half believes they're subhuman. It's the government's job to punish injustice, even if the actors don't believe they're being unjust. Very few people in prison will say they did anything wrong. In their eyes, their crime was justified. Everybody thinks they're doing the right thing. Like it or not, it's the government's job to determine if that's true or not in many cases.
  - gobrewers14 4y ago
    > How would you differentiate this argument for abortion versus for slavery? Slavery unambiguously violates the autonomy of another human being. If it could be demonstrated scientifically what life is and when it begins and that happens to be at conecption, then yes, abortion should be outlawed. But we don't know this. In a free and open society, in the absence of knowledge, we should default to people making their own choices; we should default to freedom and not restriction.
  - Jason_Protell 4y ago
    I don't have the energy to continue engaging with these conversations, but I'd just like to point out one inconsistency in your comment. "In the eyes of roughly half the country..." 61% of the country believes abortion should be legal. 39% is closer to 1/3 than 1/2. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/06/13/about-six-in-ten-americans-say-abortion-should-be-legal-in-all-or-most-cases-2/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/06/13/about-six-i...
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > 39% is closer to 1/3 than 1/2. 37% is even more closer to 1/3; I wouldn’t count the 2% that don’t have a position with the pro-ban faction.
      - 4y ago
decebalus1 4y ago
The government doesn't believe that life starts at conception. Otherwise you'd be able to get tax deductions for an unborn fetus. This has nothing to do with when life begins. This has everything to do with population control and with religious fundamentalism.
- ars 4y ago
  > The government doesn't believe that life starts at conception. Otherwise you'd be able to get tax deductions for an unborn fetus. You are incorrect. When you apply for benefits, they ask you how many people in your family, and an unborn child counts as a person. Most tax benefits work on a yearly calendar, but the ones that work on a monthly calendar certainly count an unborn child.
Jason_Protell 4y ago
If you believe a fetus is a person, then you are simply incorrect.
- mminer237 4y ago
  What is the difference between a baby in the womb on day 280 versus the same baby an hour later outside the womb? One is called subhuman and often perfectly legal to kill for any reason, and a person would get life in prison for killing the other.
  - syspec 4y ago
    One has a birth certificate,
    - Jason_Protell 4y ago
      That is one of many differences.

SkyPuncher 4y ago

I'm not taking a stance for or against your argument. I'm simply point out a logical gap that doesn't make this as simple as your suggesting. The root of the issue is not the rights provided by the 14th amendment, but when, exactly, those rights apply during the process of conception, gestation, and birth. This is further complicated by the fact that scientific advances enable situations that our founders could have never predicted. I see two facts that are very clear: * A person cannot exist without conception. * At some point during pregnancy, a baby can survive as an independent living human. The youngest living baby was born on day 132 of pregnancy. Unfortunately, that leaves a massive grey area and your opinion on those is likely highly personal - including religion and living situation.

Jason_Protell 4y ago
This doesn't affect the reasoning. American women are indisputably citizens and people, whereas fetuses are not. The existence of this grey area doesn't preclude obvious constitutional rights.
- brigandish 4y ago
  > American women are indisputably citizens and people, whereas fetuses are not. Foetuses are disputably citizens and people. There's your grey area.
  - Jason_Protell 4y ago
    Did you read my comment? I don't dispute the existence of the grey area.
    - brigandish 4y ago
      Yes, I read your comment, thanks. You didn't appear to making reference to the same grey area that was referred to in the comment you responded to. It's not often that I see absolutism and the acknowledgement of a grey area within the same breath so do forgive my mistake, if it is one.

andonisus 4y ago

You do not have a right to life saving medical procedures. You do not have a right to an abortion. There is no law or constitutional amendment that grants this. This is the flaw in your reasoning. That being said, I believe women SHOULD have a right to get an abortion enshrined in law. It is up to our re-elected representatives to achieve this, not for the courts to invent rights thereof.

Jason_Protell 4y ago
Did you read the amendment? There doesn't need to be explicit protection for medical procedures or abortion. 14A protects people from being deprived of life and liberty by state action or legislation. Eliminating access to abortion can deprive someone of their life and / or liberty, so eliminating access to abortion contradicts 14A.
- andonisus 4y ago
  > nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law There is no federal law granting the right to abortion. Therefore, states may have enact their own laws to either affirm or restrict access to abortion. This process is due process.
  - Jason_Protell 4y ago
    I feel like I am talking to a brick wall. Any state law that deprives someone of life and / or liberty is unconstitutional. If someone needs a life-saving abortion, the state cannot deprive that person their constitutional right to life.
    - andonisus 4y ago
      I could say the same about you. There is no right to an abortion. Therefore the state is not depriving a person of anything.
      - 4y ago

InTheArena 4y ago

Roe v Wade didn't argue that. You can argue that independently if you wish - but it was not a justification for it. Also, people who oppose Abortion believe that this is the government _taking away_ a life. Which would also be at odds with the constitution.

Jason_Protell 4y ago
You are incorrect. "This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or ... in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether to terminate her pregnancy." — Roe, 410 U.S. at 153

Ekaros 4y ago

Now, which is more important life or liberty and property of owner of the host body in pregnancy. And if life is is more important should we force organ transplants? After all at least there is lot of spare kidneys around... Maybe half a lung is also workable.

Jason_Protell 4y ago
This is a separate conversation, but I believe organ donation should be an opt-out system.