Roe vs Wade Overturned

#2,876
#2,876
Ashevolle said:
It's apparent she's highlighting the hypocrisy of granting personhood to a fetus only where it can be used to commandeer womens' bodily autonomy, but withholding it in all other regards where it might benefit a woman (or the child). No law on the books confers any rights to a fetus outside of the abortion laws. That's telling....
Click to expand...
Thats not true
 
#2,877
#2,877
Ashevolle said:
It's apparent she's highlighting the hypocrisy of granting personhood to a fetus only where it can be used to commandeer womens' bodily autonomy, but withholding it in all other regards where it might benefit a woman (or the child). No law on the books confers any rights to a fetus outside of the abortion laws. That's telling....
Click to expand...
I don't think you are correct about the legal rights of a fetus. Some, if not most, states will charge the murderer of a pregnant woman with the murder of both the pregnant woman and the fetus. The charge of murdering the fetus may depend on viability, depending on the state; but nevertheless the state is protecting the right of the fetus to not be murdered, at least to some degree. I'm not an attorney, but I suspect some states would recognize a fetus' claim to its father's estate if the father dies before the fetus is born. Maybe some of our resident lawyers can offer some insight on this point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, MemphisVol77, McDad and 1 other person
#2,878
#2,878
NCFisher said:
The sort of imbecility that goofy people shell-game as profound thought.

HOV lanes are intended to promote ride-sharing, consolidating the number of butts in seats to fewer cars and reducing traffic. Until a child is born, he or she is unable to occupy a seat in another vehicle. Further, SCOTUS did not establish national law regarding personhood or the unborn but simply remitted the question to states.

Her logic is wanting in all respects.
Click to expand...

The actual SCOTUS decision is a fair argument, but the law states HOV is reserved for more than one passenger. I don't know that it says anything specifically about number of seats taken. If we have a full person at conception as some argue, then we have two people with a pregnant woman.

We either have a full person or a simple stage in life development. Can't have it both ways.

I do think this would have been a fair argument before the SCOTUS decision, I don't think the latest ruling changes it.
 
#2,879
#2,879
rjd970 said:
The actual SCOTUS decision is a fair argument, but the law states HOV is reserved for more than one passenger. I don't know that it says anything specifically about number of seats taken. If we have a full person at conception as some argue, then we have two people with a pregnant woman.

We either have a full person or a simple stage in life development. Can't have it both ways.

I do think this would have been a fair argument before the SCOTUS decision, I don't think the latest ruling changes it.
Click to expand...
Did the SCOTUS reversal affirm life at conception or did it defer the decision to the States?
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, GroverCleveland, MemphisVol77 and 2 others
#2,880
#2,880
McDad said:
Did the SCOTUS reversal affirm life at conception or did it defer the decision to the States?
Click to expand...

Deferred to the states. I'm not arguing otherwise, nor do I understand where you would have gotten that from my post. Read the last sentence of my post.
 
#2,881
#2,881
Ashevolle said:
It's apparent she's highlighting the hypocrisy of granting personhood to a fetus only where it can be used to commandeer womens' bodily autonomy, but withholding it in all other regards where it might benefit a woman (or the child). No law on the books confers any rights to a fetus outside of the abortion laws. That's telling....
Click to expand...

I’m pretty sure pregnancy is covered in the HOV rules while also stating a passenger is someone who occupies a different seat. I suppose women that do drugs while pregnant aren’t held responsible. I also thought if you murder a pregnant woman you’re charged with two murders.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, MemphisVol77 and Rickyvol77
#2,882
#2,882
SIAP

Pregnant woman ticketed for driving on carpool lane in Texas says unborn baby should count as passenger

Coming soon:

* Pregnant women in prison will have to be released, as the child didn't have due process and is the subject of wrongful imprisonment.

* Pregnant women cannot be deported. Same as above.

* Welfare $ collection will begin at inception.

* Pregnant women can be convicted by the state of manslaughter in any instance the unborn child dies (i.e. traffic accident where mom is at fault).
 
  • Like
Reactions: TRUEFANVol
#2,883
#2,883
rjd970 said:
Deferred to the states. I'm not arguing otherwise, nor do I understand where you would have gotten that from my post. Read the last sentence of my post.
Click to expand...
Your last sentence was unclear to me.

You believe pregnant women who use HOV have a case in states with abortion access restrictions in the supreme courts of those states?
 
#2,884
#2,884
MontyPython said:
SIAP

Pregnant woman ticketed for driving on carpool lane in Texas says unborn baby should count as passenger

Coming soon:

* Pregnant women in prison will have to be released, as the child didn't have due process and is the subject of wrongful imprisonment.

* Pregnant women cannot be deported. Same as above.

* Welfare $ collection will begin at inception.
Click to expand...

Good thing is all of that will be decided at the state level now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, GroverCleveland and MemphisVol77
#2,887
#2,887
MontyPython said:
SIAP

Pregnant woman ticketed for driving on carpool lane in Texas says unborn baby should count as passenger

Coming soon:

* Pregnant women in prison will have to be released, as the child didn't have due process and is the subject of wrongful imprisonment.

* Pregnant women cannot be deported. Same as above.

* Welfare $ collection will begin at inception.

* Pregnant women can be convicted by the state of manslaughter in any instance the unborn child dies (i.e. traffic accident where mom is at fault).
Click to expand...
* Silly
* Silly
*It already does (for mom)
*Similar already occurs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols and Rickyvol77
#2,890
#2,890
McDad said:
* Silly
* Silly
*It already does (for mom)
*Similar already occurs.
Click to expand...

Not so fast...

If one argues that an unborn fetus is not a citizen, then the federal government could argue that laws by states to protect the life of a non-citizen (a fetus) are unconstitutional according to a strict interpretation.

This argument is not that protecting non-US citizens is unconstitutional.

The argument is that US laws mandating protection of non-US citizens are unconstitutional.
 
#2,891
#2,891
MontyPython said:
Not so fast...

If one argues that an unborn fetus is not a citizen, then the federal government could argue that laws by states to protect the life of a non-citizen (a fetus) are unconstitutional according to a strict interpretation.

This argument is not that protecting non-US citizens is unconstitutional.

The argument is that US laws mandating protection of non-US citizens are unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

You're barking up the wrong tree because the 14th amendment is pretty clear:

Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, MemphisVol77, McDad and 1 other person
#2,892
#2,892
MontyPython said:
What's to decide?

If the unborn fetus is considered a child at X weeks (or conception), then it has ALL the rights of any American citizen.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's a question of "rights" but a question of what the actual practice in question dictates. Literally the point of HOV lanes is

"The goal of HOV lanes is to provide an incentive to use ridesharing".

High-Occupancy Vehicle Lanes | US Department of Transportation

A woman pregnant with triplets is no more "ridesharing" than any individual dude going down the road.

If we were to really run with a pregnant person taking up actionable occupancy why not require an extra full ticket for an unborn on a plane, train or bus? To see a movie? Sporting events? I don't think this argument is particularly useful when trying to parse rights vs taking up physical space as separate entities.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, GroverCleveland and MemphisVol77
#2,893
#2,893
hndog609 said:
I don't think it's a question of "rights" but a question of what the actual practice in question dictates. Literally the point of HOV lanes is

"The goal of HOV lanes is to provide an incentive to use ridesharing".

High-Occupancy Vehicle Lanes | US Department of Transportation

A woman pregnant with triplets is no more "ridesharing" than any individual dude going down the road.

If we were to really run with a pregnant person taking up actionable occupancy why not require an extra full ticket for an unborn on a plane, train or bus? To see a movie? Sporting events? I don't think this argument is particularly useful when trying to parse rights vs taking up physical space as separate entities.
Click to expand...

HOV lanes are a waste and need to go away.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, Franklin Pierce, MemphisVol77 and 3 others
#2,894
#2,894
McDad said:
Your last sentence was unclear to me.

You believe pregnant women who use HOV have a case in states with abortion access restrictions in the supreme courts of those states?
Click to expand...

I believe they have an argument, sure. Not sure it is a good one though. If in a state where there is the view that a pregnant woman can't decide what to do with a person in her body even as an embryo, then it seems to me that embryo should be considered a passenger in the car because it is in fact a person with its own rights. We have a second person in the car or we don't. That said, if the law is stated such that it is number of seats taken in the car, then there isn't a case. But if it is written as number of passengers, then clearly they would have to agree there are two passengers in the car, at least in those restrictive states.

I'm more interested in the opinion of those that believe we have a person at conception as to how many people are in the car. This is immaterial of the SCOTUS pushing this to a states issue, as it's an intriguing question even before the latest SCOTUS decision.

FWIW, this was an argument made by somebody that got a HOV ticket several years ago and the state court basically said it is not the determination of traffic court to decide when life begins, which seems like a cop-out. I don't have time to search for a link but I distinctly remember seeing it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols and McDad
#2,895
#2,895
hndog609 said:
I don't think it's a question of "rights" but a question of what the actual practice in question dictates. Literally the point of HOV lanes is

"The goal of HOV lanes is to provide an incentive to use ridesharing".

High-Occupancy Vehicle Lanes | US Department of Transportation

A woman pregnant with triplets is no more "ridesharing" than any individual dude going down the road.

If we were to really run with a pregnant person taking up actionable occupancy why not require an extra full ticket for an unborn on a plane, train or bus? To see a movie? Sporting events? I don't think this argument is particularly useful when trying to parse rights vs taking up physical space as separate entities.
Click to expand...

Great question. Why don't we do that?
 
#2,897
#2,897
rjd970 said:
Great question. Why don't we do that?
Click to expand...

Actually going the other way I know there are policies with airlines where if you are too big to be limited to one seat you are required to pay for two seats. Literally nobody is arguing you in fact ARE two separate entities but if you take up two seats then it again goes back to the occupancy standard.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77
#2,899
#2,899
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top