Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "How DEMOCRATS Caused The Abortion Crisis" video.

First of all, abortion was not widely criminalized in 1776. Second, the Fourteenth Amendment was passed AFTER the Civil War. Third, a husband and father cannot be forced to donate a pint of blood to save his pregnant wife's life. We all agree it is monstrous to refuse, no argument. The state STILL cannot force him. That is because the Fourteenth Amendment protects bodily integrity and autonomy. This is implicit in the concept of liberty. Or, used to be. I have an idea: end school massacres and sex trafficking of 14-year-olds. Try that first. See if you can. One court reconsidering abortion, another trying Ghislaine Maxwell. Awkward.
10
A husband and father cannot be forced to donate a pint of blood to save his pregnant wife's life. We all agree it is monstrous to refuse, no argument. The state STILL cannot force him. That is because the Fourteenth Amendment protects bodily integrity and autonomy. This is implicit in the concept of liberty. Or, it used to be. Be careful what you wish for. We have fallen far fast.
6
@migarsormrapophis2755 It is fundamentally a part of the concept of LIBERTY. P. S. OF COURSE I oppose mandatory vaccination against COVID. Law almost always involves balancing interests, very much like in abortion. The vaccines are not nearly safe enough, nearly effective enough, nor necessary to stem an illness that is both highly contagious and highly lethal, to justify encroaching on LIBERTY. The Fourteenth Amendment also protects the right to marry whomever you choose, the right to have children and to parent them, to use birth control if you choose, or refuse it. So, which do you want to give up? More to the point, how do you propose to police pregnancy? You'll have to. Have bounty hunters, like Texas? An inquiry in cases of miscarriage? Manslaughter charges against a bar that unknowingly serves a pregnant woman, who then miscarries? And what do you do with the embryos created at fertility clinics? What happens if a pregnant woman attempts suicide? Incarcerate her? Capital punishment if she survives but the baby doesn't? What happens if someone carries RU 486 across state lines?
5
@Jimi_Lee I agree.
4
@migarsormrapophis2755 I don't care what the latest dog's dinner served up by the DNC happens to be. They are beyond disgusting. I don't want to see any politicians running anybody's life, if I can help it.
3
@blackjackjester That has been settled. An embryo is definitely not a legal person, no more than a zygote, no more than an ovum. You have every right to disagree, but anyone who suggests the abortion question is about legal personhood (distinct from what religions teach, parents believe, etc., etc.) is not being straight with you. If a zygote or embryo or early fetus WERE a legal person, abortion could not be left up to each state. It would be unconstitutional to make it legal anywhere.
3
Nearly a third of the period since the Civil War, nearly half since women got the right to vote. Essentially the entire period since the end of legalized segregation.
3
@brandonbath6097 A husband and father cannot be forced to donate a pint of blood to save his pregnant wife's life. We all agree it is monstrous to refuse, no argument. The state STILL cannot force him. That is because the Fourteenth Amendment protects bodily integrity and autonomy. This is implicit in the concept of liberty. Be careful what you wish for. Every right to be free of state control is being eviscerated. Don't think it won't affect you. It already has.
3
@brandonbath6097 You're the one who needs to think this through. I didn't say some guy. I said the father. If you haven't noticed that all of our rights are being trashed, and that it has already affected you, and that you have every right to try to persuade people never to choose abortion, but not to have state power decide for them, and that stuff like abortion pills can cross state lines, and that your jails are filled, and that school massacres are ubiquitous, as are drug overdoses, as is teenage sex trafficking, as is child homelessness . . . Well, I guess I don't understand anymore. This is your focus? And you think it won't haunt you?
3
@brandonbath6097 We're not talking about "murdering babies." We're talking about things that a state has no right to intrude upon. How do you expect to protect this life? How will pregnancy be policed? Because you will have to. Who will be punished, and in what way? You're saying it is murder. Does a pregnant woman who attempts suicide have to be incarcerated after she gives birth? Or during the rest of her pregnancy, then be subject to capital punishment afterwards? What about embryos created at fertility clinics? Are they people? What about selling RU 486? What about carrying it across state lines? It's obvious you don't like to think much. Or persuade instead of force, whenever force will get you your way.
3
@brandonbath6097 This is the Internet. The longest emoji string wins.
3
@o77eh I have an idea. Look up whether noncitizens (including undocumented immigrants) have constitutional rights. You'll get some interesting stuff from that. Start there.
2
@brandonbath6097 Okay. So tell me about your pregnancy policing plan. And what happens to a pregnant woman who attempts suicide and lives, but loses the pregnancy. Capital offense? Is deciding to abandon an embryo at a fertility clinic punishable as well? The parents did create it.
2
@brandonbath6097 Something else you should consider: regular, old Boy Meets Girl and they fall in love has gotten massively problematic. In the meantime, school massacres and sex trafficking of 14-year-olds is in the news again. Not to mention overdose deaths. Not to mention intense encroachment on the right to decline medical intervention, like a vaccine. Maybe just back off on this one, calm down a little, and ponder. Maybe you don't have all the answers; maybe less encroachment on personal liberty is the way to go.
2
@brandonbath6097 Ad hominem and name calling elects presidents and creates millionaires. You have much bigger things to worry about than a stranger's pregnancy. And you don't see it.
2
@brandonbath6097 Let's see you fix one thing that cries out for fixing, without ruining ten other things in the process. Let's hear you make several rational points in a coherent sequence, without jeering or ad hominem. You can't, can you? But you should order other people around. You should be consulted on devising a plan for pregnancy policing. I see you're qualified all right.
2
@brandonbath6097 You even refuse to read "a long paragraph." So, you are deeply committed to saving lives? Just not so much to reading, or refraining from name calling. Shows what Trump did to this country.
2
@brandonbath6097 How do you propose to police pregnancy? You'll have to. Have bounty hunters, like Texas? An inquiry in cases of miscarriage? Manslaughter charges against a bar that unknowingly serves a pregnant woman, who then miscarries? And what do you do with the embryos created at fertility clinics? What happens if a pregnant woman attempts suicide? Incarcerate her? Capital punishment if she survives but the baby doesn't? What happens if someone carries RU 486 into a state where abortion is illegal? Suppose they are just driving through? Can a woman with an IUD travel through a state where a fertilized ovum is a legal person? Answer some questions. Prove you're fit to govern, and to tell others how to live.
2
@brandonbath6097 If abortion is murder, how can it be left up to the states? Doesn't it have to be illegal everywhere?
2
I love this point.
2
@o77eh That argument proves too much. What do you mean by "the fetus has no rights until it is born?" Do you mean that the week before birth, it has no legal protections? I'm not arguing that at all. It has no Fourteenth Amendment liberty interest (just like it owns no property, cannot enter into a contract for any purpose, and does not have a right to free speech) but that's an entirely different point. It is always the woman's liberty interests and privacy interests that are in question. Some people seem to think they are close to nil with respect to how she deals with her pregnancy at any stage.
1
@Jimi_Lee That was funny. You sound like a cool guy.
1
@o77eh We have all kinds of protections for sentient beings, even nonhuman ones, and rights and protections for persons who are not citizens. But you're right in that the courts focus on the woman where pregnancy is concerned. She's the target.
1
@johnjames5459 Legal personhood does not apply to embryos and nonviable fetuses. If it did, no state could allow the destruction of embryos at fertility clinics or abortion at any stage. An IUD might be illegal birth control. Plan B and RU 486 would be illegal. What faiths teach about the presence of a soul is not the law. You have a First Amendment right to campaign to make it the law. You might not like the result, though.
1
@o77eh Actually, that does not define "person." It talks about how a "person" attains citizenship.
1
@johnjames5459 I'm more concerned about the kids in the Crumbley cases and in the Ghislaine Maxwell case, but thanks.
1
@o77eh Not so. The First Amendment applies to noncitizens, the Fourth Amendment applies to noncitizens, the Fifth Amendment applies to noncitizens, etc. "FFS" Cornell has good information. I bet all the wikis do, too.
1
@o77eh Plyler v. Doe, 1984 or thereabouts, Supreme Court case . . . Children of undocumented immigrants are "people" under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Bill of Rights never mentions "citizens" at all.
1
@o77eh Look it up. I'm not wasting any more time. LOOK IT UP. Really, really easy research. EDIT: Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 1982, where the Supreme Court "struck down . . . a state statute denying funding for [public] education to undocumented immigrant children" based on the Fourteenth Amendment use of the term "person." Emphasis mine.
1
@o77eh Done with this thread.
1
@o77eh So, you refuse to look. No prob. Welcome to 21st century life.
1
@o77eh The quote said the kids were undocumented immigrants.
1
@o77eh You DO NOT NEED to be a CITIZEN to BE PROTECTED by the U S Constitution.
1
@o77eh A text defines "citizen," for obvious reasons (a Civil War amendment, hello) and you think the rest of what it states is therefore limited to citizens, even where it says "persons" -- and you refuse to look it up. But you think someone else is daft. Hey, if it works for you. That's all that matters.
1
@o77eh Why? Lack of citizenship cannot deprive anyone of legal personhood, or the liberties the Fourteenth Amendment protects, but if you are not (yet) a person, you're not a citizen anywhere. So what? You don't have to be a citizen to have your liberty protected. You have to be a person. If embryos and fetuses were legal persons, the question would not be up to the states to protect them or not, and to what extent. The Constitution would protect them, setting some minimum standard. "Let the states decide" means they aren't legal persons, and applies because they aren't. Overturning Roe v. Wade (and its progeny) would take us exactly there: the states get to decide how to regulate abortion. In fact, if any state choses not to regulate abortion, offhand I know of no federal law that would step in to do it. There might be one (a federal ban on "partial birth" abortions, based on a federal statute, obviously, not the Constitution). It's obvious Cavanaugh and Barrett want the law to go there. This case won't let them. If you have another argument in mind, let's see it.
1
@o77eh Undocumented immigrants have constitutional rights. For some reason, you've fallen in love with your discourse to the point where you decline to research and read and rethink. You have interesting ideas. Don't stand guard over them by refusing to consider other ideas. But in any case, your prerogative.
1
@o77eh So, where did you study law?
1
@o77eh Like Michael Ratner and Flint Taylor? (I knew you weren't. Rhetorical question.)
1
Not that it matters. /s
1
@brandonbath6097 Your commitment is touching and inspiring. If only everyone were like you!
1