She does have 7 children

This post was edited by addone on Dec 3 2021 11:36pm

Idk why the left wants the Supreme Court to act as activists for what they believe in, but when things come full circle, like idk revisiting a case that was the outcome of judges not doing their jobs, but reaching to invent new laws based on an extremely loose and stretched definition of one amendment they lose their minds.

Setting precedent is not the job of the court.

This post was edited by WickedDarkJuggalos on Dec 3 2021 11:38pm

Well the courts do set precedent just indirectly and hopefully through impartial lense

This post was edited by addone on Dec 3 2021 11:50pm

usa shouldn’t follows backwards policies.

They do by finding ways to apply the constitution to things that are new/different from 1776.

A good example is the end of slavery. They had to set precedent to include the rights of blacks specifically, because it was not explicit in the document. Obviously because the world was different and slavery was just a part of life across the globe, with exceptions. This is something that everybody can agree should not have been left up to the states to decide.

Bad example is abortion. There is a better constitutional argument to simply outlaw abortion flat out. I am not saying this is the way to go but the right to life is written law. At the very least the right to end a life should be up to the states, just like the death penalty.

One of the many arguments against roe is that they were basically pulling at strings to somehow fit abortion into being a right, and made it federal law.

I'm sorry where is the embryo section of the Constitution? Or even the right to life section?

Section 1 of the 14th amendment.

I know your reference to the “embryo section” was a joke made in bad faith.

"No state" and "any person". Doesn't apply to the abortion case because a pregnant woman isn't the government, and a fetus may or may not be a person.

Question is, is a fetus a person?



Nope. That would be the "absolute earliest" we could reasonably infer consciousness. Not any hard line either.

and even then, even if we assume they are conscious, that doesn't mean its an auto-win for the fetus. It means we have to balance rights, and IMO it still goes to the pregnant female until the abortion becomes roughly equivilant to birth.

So being alive doesn't make you a person?

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. 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.

Straight up ending a life because somebody chose to doesn’t sound like due process.

Ending a life altogether sure sounds like abridging the privileges of a citizen.

You could argue the unborn child is not a citizen if you want to focus on that. But the very next sentence says “deprive any person of life”.

This breaks it down into the argument whether or not the unborn child is a person or not, which brings up your question. This is the real question of the entire debate.

Yes. A fetus is a person.