So???
If society, or in this case the people of the state of Iowa, create a law to protect life, because they believe the fetus at a specific point during the pregnancy becomes a human being, then it should not matter what space the baby occupies, it has a legally protected Right to life.
1 Like
Figure out a way to remove the fetus and re-implant to someone that wants it.
Or else, what?
Only two things can overturn a SCOTUS ruling and neither of them are laws passed at the state or national level.
she has the right to have it removed from her body if she doesnât want it in there, even if this results in its death.
Two major problems logically:
What do you mean by âitâ? Is the creature/object some sort of mystery here? Could it potentially blossom into a snake, a bug, a rat?
Pro-Choicers love to devalue human life by referring to a fetus as an âitâ.
An abortion is not a removal of the âitâ as you put it. An abortion is the destruction of a human life. Basically they kill the fetus, and tear apart its body and throw it away,
You didnât say it was âpropertyâ per say, but you implied that the fetus was somehow a component of the mother. In other words, the mother âownsâ the fetus and can do whatever she wants with it.
You didnât say it was âpropertyâ per say, but you implied that the fetus was somehow a component of the mother. In other words, the mother âownsâ the fetus and can do whatever she wants with it.
This is, of course, true.
The human inside the woman is imposing a risk to the woman while occupying her womb and taking her resources.
The fetus did not choose to be âoccupyâ the motherâs womb. You cannot logically punish people for committing no sin. Are you suggesting that people should be sentenced to death for committing no crime? Because thatâs what your logic base implies. My view is that abortion violates the 5th and 14th amendment. In other words, no persons should be denied LIFE, liberty, or property without due process of the law.
Notice that life is mentioned first and foremost.
If she so wishes, she can expel that risk unrestricted until viability.
Why viability? I mean, your argument rests on the premise that the baby is âstealingâ or âoccupyingâ the motherâs resources, therefore, itâs her choice on whether the baby should stay or get killed. Why does after the 1st trimester, taking her resources somehow becomes irrelevant? Itâs yet another logically flaw in Pro-Choice Americaâs justification for murder.
Look, I am all for life/health of the mother exceptions to abortions. I am not in the no abortions period. But to me, itâs completely immoral, unconstitutional argue that murder is somehow justified because itâs âoccupyingâ a certain space.
Not knowing if its male or female makes it it, And I didnât say whatever she wanted with it but can definitely have it removed if she doesnât want it there.
Second link was obtained via the first link. First link is a newspaper article with an embeddded copy of the lawsuit, the second link is a direct link to the lawsuit.
To reiterate, this is a State, not Federal, lawsuit. Case name is Planned Parenthood of the Heartland v Kim Reynolds. (In her official capacity as Governor of Iowa.)
Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief and costs.
I have heard the eviction argument raised as in regards to evicting the zygote/embryo/fetus from the uterus. I donât think it has ever been the basis of a court victory, however.
[quote=âCalvin_Reagan, post:149, topic:800, full:trueâ]
The human inside the woman is imposing a risk to the woman while occupying her womb and taking her resources.
The fetus did not choose to be âoccupyâ the motherâs womb. You cannot logically punish people for committing no sin. Are you suggesting that people should be sentenced to death for committing no crime? Because thatâs what your logic base implies. My view is that abortion violates the 5th and 14th amendment. In other words, no persons should be denied LIFE, liberty, or property without due process of the law. [/quote]
It doesnât matter if the fetus chooses to or not. The risk is there regardless of its lack of choice. It does not have the right to impose that risk and occupy the womanâs body. The woman has every right to expel that risk unrestricted up to viability. She also has the right to liberty - the liberty not to assume the risk that a fetus imposes and the liberty to not have her body occupied and its resources taken for 9 months with all of the physiological changes that come with it.
Indeed - and the woman has the right to protect her life and expel the heightened threat to it that the fetus imposes.
Because the courts have argued that at viability the state has an interest in the fetusâ life and each state can impose restrictions from that point on. I donât necessarily agree with that argument, but thatâs the way it is.
But you donât get to make that choice. Youâre basically saying that the woman canât make a medical decision until the risk reaches a certain threshold of imminently causing a great deal of harm to her. Thatâs absurd. She should be able to make the decision to not assume that risk at any point. The mortality rate of carrying to term is higher than having a abortion and therefore the woman should be able to take the less risky avenue if she so chooses.
BTW, the ACLU and Planned Parenthood threw a gigantic monkey wrench into pro-life plans.
They filed this case in State Court, challenging the legislation under the Iowa State Constitution, raising absolutely no federal issues.
The case will eventually go up tot he Iowa Supreme Court. But since there are no federal issues raised, the United States Supreme Court has no appellate jurisdiction over the case, meaning that this whole endeavor could be all for nothing.
1 Like
Nice strategy.
There is less risk to the mother in a normal, healthy pregnancy than there is driving at night on the highway.
Thanks for that irrelevant point.
Irrelevant?
Not hardly.
Completely.
You run with that, weâll keep laughing.
Cool story bro. There is less risk to the mother in having an abortion than carrying to term. The mother can choose which risks she wants to take to her health.
