No State shall make or enforce any law
nor shall any State

These are explictly about what states can do. They are not about what individuals can do among their own business.



Even if we accept a fetus is a person that still doesn't mean abortion has to be illegal, because at that point it becomes a balancing act between rights, and they don't automatically go to the fetus.

This post was edited by NetflixAdaptationWidow on Dec 4 2021 01:50am

If a law allows abortion, then enforcing that law can be applied here.

The actual argument in the courts has been whether or not a fetus is a person, more specifically at what point does the fetus become a person, and whether or not it should be left to the states to decide. This is why after roe we went from focusing on the third trimester to viability.

If you listen to the current argument in the court, the pro life argument is constitutional rights, while the pro abortion argument is basically no backsies.

Now on your point, if you were to outright accept a fetus as a person, then you are conceding that when you end it’s life you are essentially committing first degree murder.

If you have a person in front of you, and another person consciously decides to end it’s life, that is 99.9x% of the time murder. The rest could only be argued as euthanasia.

Let me ask you something. When a pregnant woman is injured by another person, their baby dies and the person is charged with the murder of that child, do you believe that individual should instead just be charged with assaulting the mother?

This post was edited by WickedDarkJuggalos on Dec 4 2021 02:06am

Some proper backwards third world shit this lads.

Mistakes happen, especially in younger folk. You shouldn't have to ruin your whole life over it.

And even beyond that, abortions will still happen whether they are banned or not, better to have them done properly than to put people at risk.

No lol. Things not prohibited are legal. 9th and 10th amendments. A state not having a law on something cannot be construed to be the state abridging privileges or or depriving a person.

The chance of abortions being flat out banned is minuscule, and is not even on the radar right now. The reason it is in the Supreme Court is because the federal government overreached back in the 70s. The problem is there are conservative states that want to make their own laws. Abortion was legal in several states before roe. Roe made it so states could not restrict abortion law in the first two trimesters. Before that ruling, it was 100% up to the states, which many believe it still should be.

You are just wrong. If a state has a law that allows somebody to end another life without due process, it is unconstitutional.

You are acting like legal abortion is just Willy nilly with no regulation and rules to it. Your argument would be valid if there was just no written law on the subject.

You should listen to the actual cases presented in court the other day, then come back to me and argue the points made by the lawyers who are arguing this from a legal standpoint, as opposed to you just playing word games trying to show me up.

This is not an accurate description of the situation. A state not having a law is not a state abridging your rights. So for instance, the state could repeal all laws around murder. That wouldn't be the state abridging your rights in any way shape or form. However, if the state said "murdering Christians is legal" that would be because it targets Christians, and religion is a protected class. In this case it would be the state not having laws against abortion. You are then presumed allowed to do it, and if somebody does it then that person is the infringer, not the state.

My rights are infringed on every single day, thousands of times. But it's not illegal because it's not the state doing it. The state isn't allowed to implement consequences for my free expression of speech, but my wife is. That's why the amendment specifically calls out the state as being the one it's talking about, because living with other humans is a constant infringement on your rights. The government isn't supposed to do the infringing, but others can.

This post was edited by NetflixAdaptationWidow on Dec 4 2021 02:44am

So is the fetus a US citizen then? Should we give pregnant woman a tax credit for hosting a US citizen in their womb?

You can also read amendment 14 to give women the right to an abortion.

Bro.

If there is a law allowing abortion.

And the state upholds that law.

The state is upholding a law.

The fuck do you not understand about that.



Say there is a law specifically allowing your wife (lol) to infringe upon your freedom of speech. It is unconstitutional.

This post was edited by WickedDarkJuggalos on Dec 4 2021 02:51am

Like I said in that quote, you could argue the fetus is not a citizen. The very next line says “deprive any person of life”.

You are now only playing word games.

This argument here comes down to whether or not a fetus is a person. I say it is. You may say it is not. There is no law defining what a person is, therefore in 2021 we are having this argument still.