Seahawks Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,313882,00.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirwoofalot Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 Wow, a very interesting case with plenty of twists. But off hand it looks like murder. If you assume that abortion is a choice, and if you assume if a women does NOT want an abortion, then you must protect the right of the unborn child. But that reasoning opens up another can of worms. Is it murder if the Women induce the abortion with out the man’s consent? If the answer is no, then why should be different for the reversal or roles  Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary_Yngve Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 Our abstinence education failed them! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 Wow, a very interesting case with plenty of twists. But off hand it looks like murder. If you assume that abortion is a choice, and if you assume if a women does NOT want an abortion, then you must protect the right of the unborn child. But that reasoning opens up another can of worms. Is it murder if the Women induce the abortion with out the man’s consent? If the answer is no, then why should be different for the reversal or roles  A woman's fundamental right to an abortion, as decided by Roe v. Wade, requires no consent from her husband or partner.  This is not an abortion case, because the state did not attempt to violate this right.  Roe v. Wade ruled that the 14th amendment does not grant personhood to the unborn. The court did recognize, however, that the states do have two legitimate interests: to protect the health and well being of the mother and to protect the unborn. A woman's right to privacy, implicit in the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th amendment, the court argued, must be weighed against these two state interests. It finally settled on a compromise solution:  States cannot restrict abortions in the 1st trimester. States may, with compelling reason, place some restrictions on abortions in the 2nd trimester. States may prohibit abortions in the 3rd trimester.  In this case, the man commited a form of assault against both the woman and her unborn child, risking or destroying their health. Since the Supreme Court upheld the State's legitimate interest in protecting these two things, and since the state did not attempt to restrict the woman's fundamental right to an abortion, it seems like a cut and dry case whereby the state's prohibition against fetal suicide was violated, with no legal ramifications for Roe v. Wade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary_Yngve Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 Is it murder if the Women induce the abortion with out the man’s consent? If the answer is no, then why should be different for the reversal or roles  Until a man can carry a fetus, there's no need for symmetry in the laws. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 Does the state have a compelling interest in restricting a man's right to give birth to an ass baby? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sampdx Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 Amen, brutha. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClimbingPanther Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 fetal suicide... . . . proof you're born emo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 Now THAT was funny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TREETOAD Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 By the looks of the guy I would consider it a mercy killing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 Seahawks.....you pulled that from "foxnews". Nuff said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks Posted November 30, 2007 Author Share Posted November 30, 2007 Seahawks.....you pulled that from "foxnews". Nuff said. Â Got give you liberal freaks something to read, sitting around circle jerking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 The point being Foxnews is not credible. They are the joke of the media industry. Well….these days most of the media is a joke…..but foxnews…..come on dude. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks Posted November 30, 2007 Author Share Posted November 30, 2007 The point being Foxnews is not credible. They are the joke of the media industry. Well….these days most of the media is a joke…..but foxnews…..come on dude.  And the liberal boys are??? Come on (dude), wake up yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crux Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 In the backwash of Fennario The black and bloody mire The Dire Wolf collects his due while the boys sing round the fire  Don't murder me I beg of you don't murder me Please don't murder me   Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 Wow, a very interesting case with plenty of twists. But off hand it looks like murder. If you assume that abortion is a choice, and if you assume if a women does NOT want an abortion, then you must protect the right of the unborn child. But that reasoning opens up another can of worms. Is it murder if the Women induce the abortion with out the man’s consent? If the answer is no, then why should be different for the reversal or roles It's not like she did not give consent, she didn't even know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 And the difference in roles is that it is the woman who has to carry and birth the child. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
selkirk Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 And the difference in roles is that it is the woman who has to carry and birth the child. Â at quite a large personal risk (life, long term and shot term physical well being, emotional, financial, etc.) Â When guys stand to lose as much as women do, due to their wives/gf getting pregant than they might deserve say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClimbingPanther Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 In the backwash of Fennario  I must leave you for a season Go out logging that hardwood timber Hardwood timber that grows so low In the forest of Fennario  Tell me what you need to live, love Do you ask that you might own Keep my blue-eyed hound to guard you I will make my way alone  I will not return in winter If I be not back by fall Seek me when this small sunflower Stands above the garden wall  Fare you well and I would not weep Bid you tend your prayers to keep Hill by dale now I must go To the forest of Fennario  Nine-month blew with sleeted rain And still he came not back again Summoned she the hound to go To seek him in Fennario  He came back the fated day To find his lady gone away Made haste to follow in her track Where she could go but not turn back  The blue-eyed hound at her side did bay While fast her breath did fade away She cried out: "Turn, my love, and go I would not you see me so"  Fare you well and I would not weep Bid you tend your prayers to keep Hill by dale now I must go To the forest of Fennario  I shall not turn, I shall not yield Oh, selfsame serpent sting my heel That bleeds my lady's blood away Beside the blue-eyed hound to lay Angels sing their souls to sleep Four winds grace their breath to keep Up above yon garden wall Stands the sunflower, straight and tall  Fare you well and I would not weep Bid you tend your prayers to keep Hill by dale now I must go To the forest of Fennario Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirwoofalot Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 Wow, a very interesting case with plenty of twists. But off hand it looks like murder. If you assume that abortion is a choice, and if you assume if a women does NOT want an abortion, then you must protect the right of the unborn child. But that reasoning opens up another can of worms. Is it murder if the Women induce the abortion with out the man’s consent? If the answer is no, then why should be different for the reversal or roles   ... Roe v. Wade ruled that the 14th amendment does not grant personhood to the unborn. The court did recognize, however, that the states do have two legitimate interests: to protect the health and well being of the mother and to protect the unborn. ....  How is this NOT a contridition? Our law does not grant personhood to the unborn, but at the same time is called to protect the unborn; the one who does not have personhood.  Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ericb Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 Wow, a very interesting case with plenty of twists. But off hand it looks like murder. If you assume that abortion is a choice, and if you assume if a women does NOT want an abortion, then you must protect the right of the unborn child. But that reasoning opens up another can of worms. Is it murder if the Women induce the abortion with out the man’s consent? If the answer is no, then why should be different for the reversal or roles   ... Roe v. Wade ruled that the 14th amendment does not grant personhood to the unborn. The court did recognize, however, that the states do have two legitimate interests: to protect the health and well being of the mother and to protect the unborn. ....  How is this NOT a contridition? Our law does not grant personhood to the unborn, but at the same time is called to protect the unborn; the one who does not have personhood.  Last I checked, it was not OK to kill a 3-day old infant, even with its mother's permission Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirwoofalot Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 This is adressing the unborn.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ericb Posted November 30, 2007 Share Posted November 30, 2007 This is adressing the unborn.... Â Yep, and the legal position is that whether it is abortion or murder in the case cited seems to depend on whether the mother was in agreement - seems a bit inconsistent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted December 1, 2007 Share Posted December 1, 2007 Wow, a very interesting case with plenty of twists. But off hand it looks like murder. If you assume that abortion is a choice, and if you assume if a women does NOT want an abortion, then you must protect the right of the unborn child. But that reasoning opens up another can of worms. Is it murder if the Women induce the abortion with out the man’s consent? If the answer is no, then why should be different for the reversal or roles   ... Roe v. Wade ruled that the 14th amendment does not grant personhood to the unborn. The court did recognize, however, that the states do have two legitimate interests: to protect the health and well being of the mother and to protect the unborn. ....  How is this NOT a contridition? Our law does not grant personhood to the unborn, but at the same time is called to protect the unborn; the one who does not have personhood.  The 14th amendment specifies those born or naturalized; not the unborn. The supreme court weighed this very clear wording, a women's right to privacy as implied by the due process and equal protection clause of that same amendment, and the legitimate interest of States to protect the unborn and came up with what it considered a balanced compromise. In so doing it considered historical precedence, both legal and otherwise.  A contradiction is unidimensional. Balancing two or more competing interests, as in this decision, is not.  Essentially, the abortion issue is a balancing act between the rights of the mother and the unborn. As long as there are those two competing interests involved, it's never going to be a simple issue.  Some things to consider:  Make abortions illegal across the board, and the State forces women to bear unwanted children. This constitutes a pretty grave and invasive harm for an unwilling individual to bear for simply engaging in a legal act; sex. Public safety and well being is also at issue. Such a prohibition would also constitute a self defeating direction for an overpopulated and increasingly resource starved society to take. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.