Miscarriage illegal?

[chefTENGU]

Originally Posted by Arainach

That's....the exact opposite of what the decision said. If they let the states decide it, it'd be illegal in a pile of states.

I should have been more clear.

With regards to the question "does a fetus deserve recognition as a human being, deserving of all the rights a human being is entitled to?" the Supreme Court took a pass, avoiding the knot of contention at the heart of the entire debate completely.

Instead, they decided that regardless of whatever moral or ethical concerns were involved, it was far more beneficial to allow women access to legal, safe, and cheap abortions, instead of criminalizing them.

40 years later, we're no closer to finding an answer to the question that continues to fuel the debate, and we get all this quasi-abortion ban legislation as a result.

Originally Posted by Tiger

they are the same thing just one word is more taboo than the other

In a historical context, I think that "abortion" (as it's been practiced since antiquity) refers to a human-induced miscarriage, something someone sets out to do; there have been laws regarding the proper practice of it since laws have existed.

"Miscarriage" implies an unintentional loss of a pregnancy. I think the language of the law we're talking about was chosen to show that what this girl did is something that doesn't involve a surgical procedure (so as not to confuse us modern day folk), but I doubt her method is all that different from how abortions were performed in ancient Greece and Rome.

[Arainach]

With regards to the question "does a fetus deserve recognition as a human being, deserving of all the rights a human being is entitled to?" the Supreme Court took a pass, avoiding the knot of contention at the heart of the entire debate completely.

In Section IX of the decision, the court said the following:

A. The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. [Footnote 51] On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument [Footnote 52] that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words. ... None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application. All this, together with our observation, supra, that, throughout the major portion of the 19th century, prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn. [Footnote 55] This is in accord with the results reached in those few cases where the issue has been squarely presented.

Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.

Doesn't really sound like punting to me. They clearly established that Fetuses have no constitutional rights. They punted on the definition of when "life" begins, but on the issue of if fetuses have rights, they were quite clear.

[Stupidthing0]

they are still considered different medically... not by definition.

forgot to quote that didn't see the 2nd page.

[chefTENGU]

They clearly established that Fetuses have no constitutional rights. They punted on the definition of when "life" begins, but on the issue of if fetuses have rights, they were quite clear.

I dunno, it seems kind of vague to me. Summation:

First paragraph: "If a fetus is indeed a person, it is protected under the 14th amendment."

Second paragraph: "Except the Constitution doesn't define what 'person' means, but we're pretty sure they weren't talking about the unborn when they wrote the 14th amendment 100 years ago."

Third paragraph: "The State may argue that life begins at conception, and therefore, the State has an obligation to protect that life. However, since no one else seems to be able to define when life begins, we're not going to even try here. Maybe later. Go ask your mother."

[Seegtease]

Originally Posted by chefTENGU

Second paragraph: "Except the Constitution doesn't define what 'person' means, but we're pretty sure they weren't talking about the unborn when they wrote the 14th amendment 100 years ago."

Heh, and they're probably right. They weren't going to word it in such a way as to include the unborn, because the fact that their laws would be looked at in this context never even occurred to them.

If our founding fathers had known what would happen hundreds of years later, I guarantee you they would have been very specific in their wording. The courts these days are always looking at things in a "well they didn't say this" kind of way rather than be sensible and realize that "duh, of course they didn't say that because it didn't occur to them. But from what we know about the founding fathers (quite a lot), we can tell they wouldn't have wanted things to be this way."

We need to spend more time looking at the spirit of the law rather than the phrasing of the law.

[Stupidthing0]

people are always gonna argue the law until they need it on their side.... *sigh* gotta love it.

[SpaceProg]

Which is why I go to bed and have dreams about being back at school with Bill O'Rielly as my teacher, for some fucked-up reason.

[chefTENGU]

Originally Posted by Seegtease

If our founding fathers had known what would happen hundreds of years later, I guarantee you they would have been very specific in their wording. The courts these days are always looking at things in a "well they didn't say this" kind of way rather than be sensible and realize that "duh, of course they didn't say that because it didn't occur to them. But from what we know about the founding fathers (quite a lot), we can tell they wouldn't have wanted things to be this way."

That debate (the Constitution doesn't say anything about letting us X!/the Constitution doesn't say we can't X!) has been raging since there's been a Constitution to refer to.

At every point in history where the Federal government has wanted to do something it hasn't done before, it's met resistance from states' rights advocates who argue "But the Constitution doesn't say the Feds can poke their ass into our business!"