We are all Slave now.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

I suppose that conclusion depends on which person's body you are considering.

Put another way, are you suggesting that an unborn fetus is a "person?" That would have a lot of impiications. Lawsuits from the father to enjoin the mother from having a glass of wine? Is the fetus entitled to legal counsel? And, then, to your point about state control - can we imprison pregnant women to make them go to term? Mandate what they eat and drinik? Matrix-like fetus farms?

I, in some ways, support so-called states rights, but not when the claimed state's right is fundamentally abhorrent to a basic human right, to control my own body, to choose whether to have a child. Anyone who denies this choice to someone is a slaver.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Put another way, are you suggesting that an unborn fetus is a "person?" That would have a lot of impiications. Lawsuits from the father to enjoin the mother from having a glass of wine? Is the fetus entitled to legal counsel? And, then, to your point about state control - can we imprison pregnant women to make them go to term? Mandate what they eat and drinik? Matrix-like fetus farms?

I, in some ways, support so-called states rights, but not when the claimed state's right is fundamentally abhorrent to a basic human right, to control my own body, to choose whether to have a child. Anyone who denies this choice to someone is a slaver.

And, since I'm on a roll, assuming that forced baby-making is not prohibited for the reasons in Roe, why isn't it a violation of the 4th, 6th, 13th or 14th Amendment? You can argue that the government can abrogate all those rights with a rational basis, but all the people and arguments on the forced-birth side are religious, and - by definition - irrational.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

And, since I'm on a roll, assuming that forced baby-making is not prohibited for the reasons in Roe, why isn't it a violation of the 4th, 6th, 13th or 14th Amendment? You can argue that the government can abrogate all those rights with a rational basis, but all the people and arguments on the forced-birth side are religious, and - by definition - irrational.

And, if is not an irrational religious thing, please explain the rational basis for the state allowing the parasite to control the host.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

And, if is not an irrational religious thing, please explain the rational basis for the state allowing the parasite to control the host.

Stop me. But, in the current era of "compelled speech" arguments, can you compel a woman to have a child if she believes in population control, or if that child may some day say something she disagrees with? Or if her "religion" is against miscegenation but she really likes Hennessy and went to a Kardashian party?

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

And, if is not an irrational religious thing, please explain the rational basis for the state allowing the parasite to control the host.

As my hippie Con Law professor put it, without Roe the state could compel abortions just as easily as it can forbid abortion.

He also convinced me that Babe Ruth was a beneficiary of affirmative action because the American League turned away more qualified black pitchers in order to reserve slots on the pitching staff for less qualified white dudes. (Yes, he said “dudes” but it was more in the chill former surfer Gen X version than the Lebowski version.)

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

As my hippie Con Law professor put it, without Roe the state could compel abortions just as easily as it can forbid abortion.

He also convinced me that Babe Ruth was a beneficiary of affirmative action because the American League turned away more qualified black pitchers in order to reserve slots on the pitching staff for less qualified white dudes. (Yes, he said “dudes” but it was more in the chill former surfer Gen X version than the Lebowski version.)

We are all Babe Ruth.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

We are all Babe Ruth.

Add to this the fact that alongside Ruth, slavery indirectly built Yankee Stadium...

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

As my hippie Con Law professor put it, without Roe the state could compel abortions just as easily as it can forbid abortion.

I hated con law and still do. I'd boil the argument on Roe down to the following:

There must be a federal rule that precludes states from telling women they cannot end their pregnancies because without such a rule, states would be allowed to effectively make women second class citizens.

I don't offer a con law theory to support this argument because I never paid attention in the class, except regarding First Amendment issues, which I find interesting. But it seems to me that compelling women to carry a pregnancy to term discriminates against them. Men can never be so compelled, and so enjoy complete autonomy over their bodies. Women must also have such complete control.

Partial birth abortion introduces a viable third person into the mix whose rights must be measured against the woman's. But I think that can be handled. We can weigh interests and reach logical decisions on that.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I hated con law and still do. I'd boil the argument on Roe down to the following:

There must be a federal rule that precludes states from telling women they cannot end their pregnancies because without such a rule, states would be allowed to effectively make women second class citizens.

I don't offer a con law theory to support this argument because I never paid attention in the class, except regarding First Amendment issues, which I find interesting. But it seems to me that compelling women to carry a pregnancy to term discriminates against them. Men can never be so compelled, and so enjoy complete autonomy over their bodies. Women must also have such complete control.

Partial birth abortion introduces a viable third person into the mix whose rights must be measured against the woman's. But I think that can be handled. We can weigh interests and reach logical decisions on that.

This is the most sense you've made in a long time. Including on con law.