LogFAQs > #902797230

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, Database 3 ( 02.21.2018-07.23.2018 ), DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Did you know that it is illegal to abort a child with down syndrome in Ohio?
Howl 06/08/18 7:13:06 PM #140:	Zeeak4444 posted... Howl posted... Zeeak4444 posted... Howl posted... ShutTheF---_Up posted... It's legal for both reasons. And ultimately those people don't think of it as dumb shit like "genocide". So I don't know why you're telling someone to face reality when reality doesn't even agree with anything you say in the first place. The Supreme Court outright stated in Roe V Wade that the State has a compelling interest in protecting the life of a fetus in the third trimester. They do not agree with your interpretation which is why so many regulations on abortions exist today. You are the one who is not in touch with reality supporting abortions untill the moment of birth. But they agree with the topic which is all that matters. So what point are you making here? You're just looking for a user to be upset with or something? The point is that the Supreme Court did not rule on the consciousness of unborn babies at all. The only indication in their ruling they even considered the question was that they said that existing laws that protect "persons" did not have any evidence to fall under that definition legally at the time. That does not mean in any way that the Supreme Court favors your argument. If there were sufficient evidence brought before the court that a fetus is a person legally, then Roe V Wade would be overturned because that was the sole reason for their judgement at the time. Ya except for the whole "a right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion". They said it had to be balanced by a states interest hence why it was decided on third trimesters. So once again you're wrong. Also the fetus being legally a human part is such a reach I'll just say you go on fighting that fight. If you someone get there we can discuss that more in depth. The protections under the 14th was only ruled on as part of the State having insufficient evidence that a fetus is legally a person and therefore did not have a greater interest in providing protection to it than what the 14th Ammendment affords. --- Posted with GameRaven 3.5 <cite>Howl posted [p:902797230] in Did you kn... [t:76686545]...</cite> <quote><cite>Zeeak4444 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Howl posted...</cite> <quote> <cite>Zeeak4444 posted...</cite> <quote> <cite>Howl posted...</cite> <quote> <cite>ShutTheF---_Up posted...</cite> <quote> It's legal for both reasons. And ultimately those people don't think of it as dumb shit like "genocide". So I don't know why you're telling someone to face reality when reality doesn't even agree with anything you say in the first place. </quote> The Supreme Court outright stated in Roe V Wade that the State has a compelling interest in protecting the life of a fetus in the third trimester. They do not agree with your interpretation which is why so many regulations on abortions exist today. You are the one who is not in touch with reality supporting abortions untill the moment of birth. </quote> But they agree with the topic which is all that matters. So what point are you making here? You're just looking for a user to be upset with or something? </quote> The point is that the Supreme Court did not rule on the consciousness of unborn babies at all. The only indication in their ruling they even considered the question was that they said that existing laws that protect "persons" did not have any evidence to fall under that definition legally at the time. That does not mean in any way that the Supreme Court favors your argument. If there were sufficient evidence brought before the court that a fetus is a person legally, then Roe V Wade would be overturned because that was the sole reason for their judgement at the time.</quote> Ya except for the whole "a right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion". They said it had to be balanced by a states interest hence why it was decided on third trimesters. So once again you're wrong. Also the fetus being legally a human part is such a reach I'll just say you go on fighting that fight. If you someone get there we can discuss that more in depth.</quote> The protections under the 14th was only ruled on as part of the State having insufficient evidence that a fetus is legally a person and therefore did not have a greater interest in providing protection to it than what the 14th Ammendment affords. --- Posted with GameRaven 3.5</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1