The State has an interest in the life of the unborn, and is allowed under current precedent to advocate for that life and its interest therein. If it is found unconstitutional, it will not be on this basis, it will be because it presents a significant obstacle to obtaining an abortion.
Rights are not "assigned". Inalienable rights come from our identity as human beings. This is a rather important concept in America, even if our society hasn't followed it to the extent they should have.
And western civil and legal traditions declare the rights of Personhood apply to born, living humans, you or Missouri wants to change that, a compelling argument needs to be made.
And I notice that in the article you've linked, the only people bringing up religion are the opponents of the bill and the author of the article.
Strangely, there's a lack of secular-humanist legislation about forced propaganda requirements to get a legal abortion. 99.9% of the time, it's coming from some Bible-thumping red state legislator.
No, Personhood is a well-understood and applied concept, the Missouri legislature has taken it upon itself to change, but like when other states(North Dakota, Alabama) have attempted to do so, the court has hit the NO! buzzer pretty hard.
I question your ability to see the apparent - again, legislation like this is always coming from the religious right.
I understand you don't like Roe V. Wade's conclusions but the Court has never seen fit to reverse it, so it's a reality that your side is just going to have to agree to disagree on.
If it's the business of the states to keep people from murdering other people, why wouldn't it be the business of the states to keep people from murdering fetuses, which are a few months away from being people?
The basic problem is that the other mini-fiefdoms making up America, along with the Federal part of government, disagrees with their definition of murder. And so will the courts, yet again. This is not an approach to the Personhood debate that's worked in the past, so it's just a waste of legislative and court time.
And yes, I distrust the altruistic motivations of legislators attempting to throw up roadblocks to legal abortion because it makes them feel squicky inside.
I think I've been arguing this debate my entire adult life, including in person and I can say that the "crux of their argument" comes down to control issues(women doing things they don't like) and a frothy mix of sentimentality and superstition.
Given a fetus can't talk and that all the ones that advocate for their rights happen to be old rich white people who probably have three mistresses and one wife while simultaneously bemoaning the decay to marriage that would be gays getting married.....
Republicrats: The Big government party that is pro big business, anti big labor and wants to tell you what you have to believe regarding god, religion and morality
Democans: The Big Government party that is pro big business, Pro Big Labor, and wants to tell you what you have to believe regarding equality, fairness, and Social Justice.
Then a handful of inconsequential cranks running 3rd parties than can't capture 1% of the electorate between them.
Comments 117
Reply
(And as it happens, I've got plenty to donate in the clothes hamper...some of 'em sufficiently rank to stun a rhino at 50 yards.)
Reply
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
And western civil and legal traditions declare the rights of Personhood apply to born, living humans, you or Missouri wants to change that, a compelling argument needs to be made.
And I notice that in the article you've linked, the only people bringing up religion are the opponents of the bill and the author of the article.
Strangely, there's a lack of secular-humanist legislation about forced propaganda requirements to get a legal abortion. 99.9% of the time, it's coming from some Bible-thumping red state legislator.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
I question your ability to see the apparent - again, legislation like this is always coming from the religious right.
I understand you don't like Roe V. Wade's conclusions but the Court has never seen fit to reverse it, so it's a reality that your side is just going to have to agree to disagree on.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
The basic problem is that the other mini-fiefdoms making up America, along with the Federal part of government, disagrees with their definition of murder. And so will the courts, yet again. This is not an approach to the Personhood debate that's worked in the past, so it's just a waste of legislative and court time.
And yes, I distrust the altruistic motivations of legislators attempting to throw up roadblocks to legal abortion because it makes them feel squicky inside.
I think I've been arguing this debate my entire adult life, including in person and I can say that the "crux of their argument" comes down to control issues(women doing things they don't like) and a frothy mix of sentimentality and superstition.
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Since when?
Last I checked we had
Republicrats: The Big government party that is pro big business, anti big labor and wants to tell you what you have to believe regarding god, religion and morality
Democans: The Big Government party that is pro big business, Pro Big Labor, and wants to tell you what you have to believe regarding equality, fairness, and Social Justice.
Then a handful of inconsequential cranks running 3rd parties than can't capture 1% of the electorate between them.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment