|
|
#211
02-13-2021, 01:16 PM
|
|||
|
*my definition of moribund
in terminal decline; lacking vitality or vigor. | ||
|
|
|||
|
#213
02-13-2021, 01:30 PM
|
||||
|
Quote:
After dealing with standing, the Court then proceeded to the main issue of the case: the constitutionality of abortion laws. It began with a historical survey of the legal status of abortion across Roman law and the Anglo-American common law.[5] It also reviewed the developments of medical procedures and technology to perform abortions, which had only become reliably safe in the early 20th century.[5] After its historical survey, the Court introduced the concept of a constitutional "right to privacy" that was intimated in earlier cases involving parental control over childrearing (Meyer v. Nebraska and Pierce v. Society of Sisters) and reproductive autonomy with the use of contraception (Griswold v. Connecticut).[5] Then, "with virtually no further explanation of the privacy value",[6] the Court ruled that regardless of exactly which of its provisions were involved, the U.S. Constitution's guarantees of liberty covered a right to privacy that generally protected a pregnant woman's decision whether or not to abort a pregnancy.[5] 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 or not to terminate her pregnancy. — Roe, 410 U.S. at 153.[52] The Court reasoned that outlawing abortions would infringe a pregnant woman's right to privacy for several reasons: having unwanted children "may force upon the woman a distressful life and future"; it may bring imminent psychological harm; caring for the child may tax the mother's physical and mental health; and because there may be "distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child".[53] But the Court rejected the notion that this right to privacy was absolute. It held instead that the abortion right must be balanced against other government interests. The Court found two government interests that were sufficiently "compelling" to permit states to impose some limitations on the right to choose to have an abortion: first, protecting the mother's health, and second, protecting the life of the fetus.[5] [5] A State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life. At some point in pregnancy, these respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision. ... We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation. — Roe, 410 U.S. at 154. The state of Texas had argued that total bans on abortion were justifiable because "life" begins at the moment of conception, and therefore its governmental interest in protecting prenatal life should apply to all pregnancies regardless of their stage.[6] But the Court found that there was no indication that the Constitution's uses of the word "person" were meant to include fetuses, and so it rejected Texas's argument that a fetus should be considered a "person" with a legal and constitutional right to life.[5] It noted that there was still great disagreement over when an unborn fetus becomes a living being.[54] We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, in this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer. — Roe, 410 U.S. at 159.[55] The Court settled on the three trimesters of pregnancy as the framework to resolve the problem. During the first trimester, when it was believed that the procedure was safer than childbirth, the Court ruled that the government could place no restriction on a woman's ability to choose to abort a pregnancy other than minimal medical safeguards such as requiring a licensed physician to perform the procedure.[6] From the second trimester on, the Court ruled that evidence of increasing risks to the mother's health gave the state a compelling interest, and that it could enact medical regulations on the procedure so long as they were reasonable and "narrowly tailored" to protecting mothers' health.[6] Since the beginning of the third trimester was normally considered to be the point at which a fetus became viable under the level of medical science available in the early 1970s, the Court ruled that during the third trimester the state had a compelling interest in protecting prenatal life, and could legally prohibit all abortions except where necessary to protect the mother's life or health.[6] The Court concluded that Texas's abortion statutes were unconstitutional, and struck them down: A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a life-saving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. — Roe, 410 U.S. at 164. | |||
|
|
||||
|
#215
02-13-2021, 01:34 PM
|
|||
|
| ||
|
|
|||
|
#216
02-13-2021, 01:34 PM
|
|||
|
Eugenics is selective and usually targeted at discreet groups. Or traits.
Abortion really is technically not when decriminalized and equally available to all. And people are individually accountable instead of the government. We still sterilized a prisoner recently, and Republicans did it. | ||
|
Last edited by magnetaress; 02-13-2021 at 01:39 PM..
|
|
||
|
#217
02-13-2021, 01:37 PM
|
|||
|
Abortion is selective "I dont want to have a baby right now, I would have a stronger baby if I waited until I was done sucking dicks at nightclubs"
"your baby is going to be born with a birth defect" (the strongest case for abortion: ) "the birth will kill the mother" All of these are eugenics arguments, for stronger healthier offspring. | ||
|
|
|||
|
#218
02-13-2021, 01:41 PM
|
|||
|
It's not eugenics if the person getting the abortion decides.
It is if it's the government. You can't get pregnant sucking dicks. Ever hear of anchor babies? Abusers use them. Fucking mad: irritability [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] | ||
|
|
|||
|
#219
02-13-2021, 01:45 PM
|
|||
|
eugenics has nothign to do with the goverment, its a science of engineering offspring, has nothing to do with groups either, or anything like that.
it just means, you want to genetically engineer your child to be stronger. What I am thinking based on this convo is: Eugenics is inevitable, if we think abortion is ok especially. It's impossible I think to argue against eugenics if the science actually exists. In the 1920's we just were not there. By 2050 it maybe will be. And if it is I think the "courts" will decide that a persons right to privacy, allows them to CRISPR their baby to have batwings if they want to. edit: OR they wont, and in the process will decide that you cant have abortions either.. its a catch 22 | ||
|
|
|||
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
