- 26 Aug 2009 01:28
#13141822
Why is crushing the skull and sucking out the brains of a baby in the womb is a "constitutional right"?
Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
Is killing a fetus and executing a convicted killer constitutional?
Niether are. DUH!But that does not explain why the Democrats/liberals think crushing a babies skull and sucking it's brains out is a constitutional right!
I think there's something about cruel and unusual and punishment somewhere in the Constitution. Killing people is certainly cruel.
The point is, DanDaMan, a 'fetus' is not on par with a 'woman.' Children aren't even on par with adults, but they are much more independent than fetuses. The main reason for not killing children is the lack of function in it. Killing a fetus has a function, however. Much like killing a tree or shooting a deer wouldExcept a deer or tree never grows to an adult human. So your logic is flawed.
DDM wrote:But that does not explain why the Democrats/liberals think crushing a babies skull and sucking it's brains out is a constitutional right!
The Supreme Court wrote:State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here [Roe v. Wade], that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy.
The Supreme Court wrote:1. A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a lifesaving 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.
...
2. The State may define the term "physician," as it has been employed in the preceding paragraphs of this Part XI of this opinion, to mean only a physician currently licensed by the State, and may proscribe any abortion by a person who is not a physician as so defined.
In Doe v. Bolton, post, p. 179, procedural requirements contained in one of the modern abortion statutes are considered. That opinion and this one, of course, are to be read together. 67
This holding, we feel, is consistent with the relative weights of the respective interests involved, with the lessons and examples of medical and legal history, with the lenity of the common law, and with the demands of the profound problems of the present day. The decision leaves the State free to place increasing restrictions on abortion as the period of pregnancy lengthens, so long as those restrictions are tailored to the recognized state interests. The decision vindicates the right of the physician to administer medical treatment according to his professional judgment up to the points where important state interests provide compelling justifications for intervention. Up to those points, the abortion decision in all its aspects is inherently, and primarily, a medical decision, and basic responsibility for it must rest with the physician. If an individual practitioner abuses the privilege of exercising proper medical judgment, the usual remedies, judicial and intra-professional, are available.
DanDaMan wrote:Except a deer or tree never grows to an adult human.
Being and becoming are two separate things.
@FiveofSwords For background... According to […]
You aren't American, you don't get a vote in my go[…]