*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 15330
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« Reply #400 on: June 29, 2022, 09:09:30 AM »
Unremarkably, the perp would face TWO counts of homicide. Are you arguing the charge for the second should be dropped because no human was killed?
No sockpuppet accounts, please. You can continue the discussion from your main account.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2022, 09:11:03 AM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

شاحنات صعبة للغاية

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 9850
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« Reply #401 on: June 29, 2022, 11:31:58 AM »
So again, the issue has not been determined.

Whether you agree with that is neither here nor there. Your opinion doesn't matter. Just like my opinion doesn't currently matter against the SCOTUS recent ruling. Until such point I put forward a case to challenge that decision and the SCOTUS rules in my favor.

If you would like to change that, take it up with the courts. In the meantime, SCOTUS rules and you do not.

Simply wrong. The courts of a country do not "rule" on the topic of secession. If a territory of Algeria is feeling persecuted and wants to form its own country because of irreconcilable differences it is not for the persecutors to decide. That falls into an outside structure such as International Law. When you have a dispute with someone you appeal to an outside source or structure, not the person you are having a dispute with. In secession the US Colonies originally appealed to outside principles of Natural Law and the Law of Nations, under principles which are still used and cited by territories who have seceded from their countries.

In International Law the topic of secession is still a very much debated and controversial subject and is nowhere near settled:

E-International Relations - Is There a Right to Secession in International Law?

    ...

    Conclusion

    The principle of self-determination, particularly the right to remedial secession, is still a much-debated topic in international law. Its development from a colonial to post-colonial doctrine has been highly controversial for many states, scholars and international lawyers alike. The lack of recent ICJ opinion and judgement on the matter has only served to add further confusion to the principle, and there is a pressing need for the Court to resolve this before its ambiguous interpretation impacts further on the international legal system.

According to you, if a country doesn't want its territories to secede, that's the end of the story and there is no need for any form of outside law to determine that. This would be a ridiculous position to hold and is clearly and blatantly wrong.

International law appears to disagree with the US law as interpreted by SCOTUS. It wouldn’t be the first time the US disregarded international law and international law is not held to be as binding as domestic law. It’s largely irrelevant though since in the case of a state declaring their secession, the choice for the federal government would be to either let them go peacefully or not.

Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

*

Offline rooster

  • *
  • Posts: 3956
    • View Profile
Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« Reply #402 on: June 29, 2022, 04:34:39 PM »
Also for a fun statistic, the number one cause of death for pregnant women is homicide. A lot of women don't know they're even pregnant by six weeks (which is the ban limit in TN now). Let's watch those homicides go up when women are forced to carry unwanted pregnancies.
Unremarkably, the perp would face TWO counts of homicide. Are you arguing the charge for the second should be dropped because no human was killed?
Can't believe someone made a throw away just to say that smh
The consent of the pregnant woman makes the entire difference.

Quote
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law that recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence.
*Note that is says legal victim, not legal person

Quote
Bars prosecution under this Act: (1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman (or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf) has been obtained or is implied by law or for conduct relating to any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or (2) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.
This is also called the Laci and Connor's (Peterson) Law where Laci was 8 months pregnant. Looking around some legal sites, some have a prerequisite on how far along the fetus needs to be and specify death must be the result of a malicious and violent criminal act.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3371
    • View Profile
Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« Reply #403 on: June 29, 2022, 07:06:02 PM »
So again, the issue has not been determined.

Whether you agree with that is neither here nor there. Your opinion doesn't matter. Just like my opinion doesn't currently matter against the SCOTUS recent ruling. Until such point I put forward a case to challenge that decision and the SCOTUS rules in my favor.

If you would like to change that, take it up with the courts. In the meantime, SCOTUS rules and you do not.
According to you, if a country doesn't want its territories to secede, that's the end of the story and there is no need for any form of outside law to determine that. This would be a ridiculous position to hold and is clearly and blatantly wrong.

Wrong, not according to me. According to the SCOTUS.

If you have an issue with it, put forth a case to the SCOTUS to reverse Texas v White. Or, take the issue to the ICJ and see if they will back you up.

In the meantime, the SCOTUS ruling on Texas v White interprets that State succession is forbidden by the constitution, whether you like it or not. Simple as that.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7118
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« Reply #404 on: June 29, 2022, 07:56:05 PM »

Quote
I take methotrexate to control my Rhumatoid. I was told today I could not be prescribed it any longer as I am viably fertile and it is a medication that can be used for abortion.

I'm sure that's fine, yeah?  Who cares if SOME medications are banned.  There's still freedom... right?  Next y'all will ban Coat Hangers, I bet.



Seriously, this is exactly the same as the damn gun debate.

One side: "We need to stop the senseless killing"
The other side: "If you ban (Guns/Abortions) only criminals will have (Guns/Abortions)!"
One side: "We'll ban everything related to (gun/abortions)"
The other side: "You can't stop it all so its pointless!  Give us OUR FREEDOM!"
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 2024
    • View Profile
Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« Reply #405 on: June 29, 2022, 08:49:12 PM »
Also for a fun statistic, the number one cause of death for pregnant women is homicide. A lot of women don't know they're even pregnant by six weeks (which is the ban limit in TN now). Let's watch those homicides go up when women are forced to carry unwanted pregnancies.
Unremarkably, the perp would face TWO counts of homicide. Are you arguing the charge for the second should be dropped because no human was killed?
Can't believe someone made a throwaway just to say that smh
The consent of the pregnant woman makes the entire difference.
So anyone can determine the legal definition of a person at any given moment?

Yeah, that seems totally cool. ::)

Quote
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law that recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence.
*Note that is says legal victim, not legal person.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/94.102

Seems a crime victim is a person

You are just flat-out wrong.

So, there you have it.

An unborn fetus is a person.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2022, 08:53:52 PM by Action80 »
It's so hard to have faith in humanity when they do shit like this.

"I hate the police so I'm gonna burn a Walgreen's!"

*

Offline rooster

  • *
  • Posts: 3956
    • View Profile
Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« Reply #406 on: June 29, 2022, 09:15:11 PM »
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/94.102

Seems a crime victim is a person

You are just flat-out wrong.

So, there you have it.

An unborn fetus is a person.
This is just so lazy. You're telling me I'm wrong for pasting a literal law that explicitly excludes abortions and pretending like you understand legal terms better than people who write the laws.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3371
    • View Profile
Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« Reply #407 on: June 29, 2022, 09:22:40 PM »
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/94.102

Seems a crime victim is a person

You are just flat-out wrong.

So, there you have it.

An unborn fetus is a person.

In Citizens United v. FEC, the Supreme Court asserted that corporations are people. Seems like a lot of things can be a person. Until such time that States out-and-out ban all abortions with no exceptions, all abortions are crimes against victims/persons?

If the mother dies and her death could have been prevented if she aborted, yet a law states that abortion under any circumstances is a crime, is the mother not a person, a victim? Who deserves to live, the Mother or the fetus?

*

Offline rooster

  • *
  • Posts: 3956
    • View Profile
Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« Reply #408 on: June 29, 2022, 09:32:55 PM »
Legally speaking, there is a difference between person and natural person.

Quote
legal person
Primary tabs
Overview
Legal person refers to a human or non-human entity that is treated as a person for limited legal purposes.

Quote
In law, a human person is called a natural person (sometimes also a physical person), and a non-human person is called a juridical person (sometimes also a juridic, juristic, artificial, legal, or fictitious person, Latin: persona ficta).

I should have specified "natural" not "legal" but I'm not a lawyer and so got it mixed up.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10177
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« Reply #409 on: June 29, 2022, 11:56:49 PM »
Wrong, not according to me. According to the SCOTUS.

If you have an issue with it, put forth a case to the SCOTUS to reverse Texas v White. Or, take the issue to the ICJ and see if they will back you up.

In the meantime, the SCOTUS ruling on Texas v White interprets that State succession is forbidden by the constitution, whether you like it or not. Simple as that.

You have been wrong in so many ways, and you are fundamentally wrong on this too. The ruling did not determine that secession is forbidden. It ruled that unilateral secession is forbidden.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/74/700/

    White, 74 U.S. 700 (1868) - States do not have the right to unilaterally secede from the United States, so the Confederate states during the Civil War always remained part of the nation.

Even according to this botched ruling that you cannot seem to defend the validity of if your life depended on it, secession is not forbidden.

Your original argument was that states should not have differing laws because it wasn't like the EU to where states could leave. You are incorrect. According to the ruling you are unable to defend it is possible for secession to occur. The majority states do have an option if they don't like that some states have different laws that they don't like; they could secede, or try to force those states to secede, or potentially accept their secession.



So, you're wrong. You have been wrong on every level, and are wrong about what you think this ruling determined.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2022, 12:58:07 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3371
    • View Profile
Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« Reply #410 on: June 30, 2022, 12:33:34 AM »
Interesting interpretation of constitutional law you're making. I'll stick with lawyers making the actual interpretation, not you.

In the meantime, according to lawyers, you are wrong:

1.1 The distinction between a (mere) justification and having a claim-right
We begin with a distinction between unilateral and consensual secession. The former is secession without the consent of the state from which a portion of territory is taken by the seceding group or without constitutional sanction.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/secession/

From Cornell’s Legal Information Institute (LII), Justia, and Chicago-Kent College of Law re Texas v White 1869:

Conclusion
In a 5-to-3 decision, the Court held that Texas did indeed have the right to bring suit. The Court held that Texas had remained a state, despite joining the Confederate States of America and its being under military rule at the time of the decision. The Court further held that individual states could not unilaterally secede from the Union and that the acts of the insurgent Texas legislature--even if ratified by a majority of Texans--were "absolutely null." Even during the period of rebellion, however, the Court found that Texas continued to be a state.
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1850-1900/74us700

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10177
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« Reply #411 on: June 30, 2022, 12:37:16 AM »
Interesting interpretation of constitutional law you're making. I'll stick with lawyers making the actual interpretation, not you.

In the meantime, according to lawyers, you are wrong:

1.1 The distinction between a (mere) justification and having a claim-right
We begin with a distinction between unilateral and consensual secession. The former is secession without the consent of the state from which a portion of territory is taken by the seceding group or without constitutional sanction.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/secession/

From Cornell’s Legal Information Institute (LII), Justia, and Chicago-Kent College of Law re Texas v White 1869:

Conclusion
In a 5-to-3 decision, the Court held that Texas did indeed have the right to bring suit. The Court held that Texas had remained a state, despite joining the Confederate States of America and its being under military rule at the time of the decision. The Court further held that individual states could not unilaterally secede from the Union and that the acts of the insurgent Texas legislature--even if ratified by a majority of Texans--were "absolutely null." Even during the period of rebellion, however, the Court found that Texas continued to be a state.
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1850-1900/74us700

Wow. You did not even read your own posted text you pasted from "the lawyers" -

"The Court further held that individual states could not unilaterally secede from the Union"

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3371
    • View Profile
Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« Reply #412 on: June 30, 2022, 03:05:15 AM »
Interesting interpretation of constitutional law you're making. I'll stick with lawyers making the actual interpretation, not you.

In the meantime, according to lawyers, you are wrong:

1.1 The distinction between a (mere) justification and having a claim-right
We begin with a distinction between unilateral and consensual secession. The former is secession without the consent of the state from which a portion of territory is taken by the seceding group or without constitutional sanction.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/secession/

From Cornell’s Legal Information Institute (LII), Justia, and Chicago-Kent College of Law re Texas v White 1869:

Conclusion
In a 5-to-3 decision, the Court held that Texas did indeed have the right to bring suit. The Court held that Texas had remained a state, despite joining the Confederate States of America and its being under military rule at the time of the decision. The Court further held that individual states could not unilaterally secede from the Union and that the acts of the insurgent Texas legislature--even if ratified by a majority of Texans--were "absolutely null." Even during the period of rebellion, however, the Court found that Texas continued to be a state.
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1850-1900/74us700

Wow. You did not even read your own posted text you pasted from "the lawyers" -

"The Court further held that individual states could not unilaterally secede from the Union"

Law Definition:

Unilaterally means that the Declarant may take the authorized action without the consent, approval, vote, or joinder of any other person, such as Owners, mortgagees, and the Association.
https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/unilaterally

"The Court further held that individual states could not unilaterally secede from the Union and that the acts of the insurgent Texas legislature..."

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10177
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« Reply #413 on: June 30, 2022, 03:32:49 AM »
Yes, the definition of unilateral was posted already. It means that if the blue and red states don't like each other's laws and would rather govern themselves, secession is possible.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3371
    • View Profile
Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« Reply #414 on: June 30, 2022, 04:02:26 AM »
Yes, the definition of unilateral was posted already. It means that if the blue and red states don't like each other's laws and would rather govern themselves, secession is possible.

How do you get that from this:

"The Court further held that individual states could not unilaterally secede from the Union and that the acts of the insurgent Texas legislature..."

Essentially, they (Texas) could not unilaterally (may NOT take the authorized action to secede without the consent, approval, vote, or joinder of any other person, such as Owners, mortgagees, and the Association (The US Governmment).

It's pretty clear. What laws or rulings are you looking at that say the SCOTUS' interpretation of the Constitution was wrong?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10177
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« Reply #415 on: June 30, 2022, 04:30:37 AM »
Yes, the definition of unilateral was posted already. It means that if the blue and red states don't like each other's laws and would rather govern themselves, secession is possible.

How do you get that from this:

"The Court further held that individual states could not unilaterally secede from the Union and that the acts of the insurgent Texas legislature..."

Essentially, they (Texas) could not unilaterally (may NOT take the authorized action to secede without the consent, approval, vote, or joinder of any other person, such as Owners, mortgagees, and the Association (The US Governmment).

It's pretty clear. What laws or rulings are you looking at that say the SCOTUS' interpretation of the Constitution was wrong?

As bad as the constiutional argument was to get there in that case, the feeling Justices wanted to express about secession had at least a little logic.

They are saying that single state could not do it alone. If the Nortern states decided that they did not want to tolerate slavery in the Union they could have decided with the Southern states to split apart in secession. There was a secessionist solution there. They could have mutually split apart from each other if they wanted to, without resorting to violence.

You were simply incorrect about it being impossible to leave and about it necessitating war. If the states do not like each other's laws they are free to split up, even by the opinion of that court.

As an alternate to secession, it was also possible for the states to simply decide that slavery was prohibited with the proper process of a Constitutional amendment and could have simply accepted the loss with sportsmanship and understanding if the country was not ready for it. Waiting for a super majority of states to agree on slavery would have solved the issue. A number of other countries largely came to reject slavery, so there is no excuse for calling for violence or workarounds when you are unable to pass a law in your own. Britain was able to pass legislation properly and end slavery without bloodshed. France managed to do it. Spain did it. Germany did it. All did it by their established and accepted process of abridging their national laws.

In this case when you are told that you need a Constitutional amendment for abortion and to follow the rules the liberal response is "Noooo" and an insistance that everyone must accept an unwritten law about abortion. It is pretty sad that you can't seem to accept rules and the proper process of amending the Constitution to your liking.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2022, 06:55:52 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3371
    • View Profile
Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« Reply #416 on: June 30, 2022, 06:56:07 AM »
Yes, the definition of unilateral was posted already. It means that if the blue and red states don't like each other's laws and would rather govern themselves, secession is possible.

How do you get that from this:

"The Court further held that individual states could not unilaterally secede from the Union and that the acts of the insurgent Texas legislature..."

Essentially, they (Texas) could not unilaterally (may NOT take the authorized action to secede without the consent, approval, vote, or joinder of any other person, such as Owners, mortgagees, and the Association (The US Governmment).

It's pretty clear. What laws or rulings are you looking at that say the SCOTUS' interpretation of the Constitution was wrong?

As bad as the constiutional argument was to get there in that case, the feeling Justices wanted to express about secession had at least a little logic.

They are saying that single state could not do it alone. If the Nortern states decided that they did not want to tolerate slavery in the Union they could have decided to split apart from the Southern states in secession. There was a secessionist solution there. They could have mutually split apart from each other if they wanted to, without resorting to violence.

They could of, but didn't. Hence a little thing called the 'Civil War'.

Your argument seems to be that they could have done something different. Whatever. They chose not to take the path you outlined. And that is that.

You were simply incorrect about it being impossible to leave and about it necessitating war. If the states do not like each other's laws they are free to split up, even by the opinion of that court.

Who said something was "impossible"? Anything is possible, but the fact remains that SCOTUS ruled secession unconstitutional. Period.
States are allowed to split themselves. There have been attempts to do so in at least California and Texas. But as evidenced by the Texas vs White decision, States are not allowed to wholly secede even if their people vote for it. Simple as that. And, even though those States did secede, the SCOTUS said that's all fine and good, but under our Constitutional eye, the secession was not recognized and the Feds determined they were still part of the union, even during Reconstruction. It's all right there in the decision.

As an alternate to secession, it was also possible for the states to simply decide that slavery was prohibited with the proper process of a Constitutional amendment and could have simply accepted the loss with sportsmanship and understanding if the country was not ready for it. This would have solved the issue. A number of countries largely came to reject slavery, so there is no excuse for calling for violence or workarounds when you are unable to pass a law in your own. Britain was able to pass legislation properly and end slavery without bloodshed. France managed to do it. Spain did it. Germany did it. All did it by their established and accepted process of abridging their national laws.

We're not talking about "could of's" because the fact of the matter is the actual history that occurred. Not what you would have preferred as an option.

In this case when you are told that you need a Constitutional amendment for abortion and to follow the rules the liberal response is "Noooo" and an insistance that everyone must accept an unwritten law about abortion. It is pretty sad that you can't seem to accept rules and the proper process of amending the Constitution to your liking.

It's sad they I can't accept the rules? Talk about talking out both sides of your mouth. As has already been shown, SCOTUS deemed secession unconstitutional. There's your rule to follow which you don't seem to want to accept.
As for abortion, the SCOTUS ruled that RvW is out and States can make their own rules. I'm not happy about it, find fault with it, but SCOTUS has ruled. So I must abide by the rule and work toward getting it changed.

Same for you. If you don't like the secession ruling from SCOTUS, work to have it changed. I'm not sure why you're getting all hypocritical and not grasping these simple facts.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 15330
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« Reply #417 on: June 30, 2022, 07:06:29 AM »
Your argument seems to be that they could have done something different. Whatever. They chose not to take the path you outlined. And that is that.
And how, exactly, does that affect the legality of that path?
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

شاحنات صعبة للغاية

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3371
    • View Profile
Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« Reply #418 on: June 30, 2022, 07:24:34 AM »
Your argument seems to be that they could have done something different. Whatever. They chose not to take the path you outlined. And that is that.
And how, exactly, does that affect the legality of that path?

I'm not sure I understand the question. But Tom's point is that if the Southern States wanted to keep slavery and leave the Union and the North was like, "Ok cool, let's draw up the paperwork" - That would be legal. I agree. If everyone agrees, great, off we go. No harm, no foul, legal or otherwise. But that's not what happened, obvi. Why the North didn't just let the South bail out of the Union, I don't know. But they obviously didn't.

The legal issue we're discussing is around the post-Civil War decision handed down by SCOTUS in Texas v White. Nothing to do with the legality of the North deciding to not let the South secede back in 1861. The ruling in question was made a few years after the war ended and a year or so before Reconstruction basically ended. Though I suppose retroactively, it basically said it was unconstitutional for the South to secede prior to the war and the Feds didn't recognize secession States as a separate entity from the Union throughout the war - It was considered a rebellion instead.

Probably similar to how Jan 6th is classified, was it a protest, a demonstration, a rebellion, an insurrection, or a coup. Depends on who you ask.

Not sure if I addressed your question.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 15330
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« Reply #419 on: June 30, 2022, 07:37:42 AM »
It sounds to me like you're completely misunderstanding Tom's argument. You claim that secession in the USA is illegal. He presented a route which would lead to secession, and which is not covered by your argument. Whether or not it happened is utterly irrelevant to what you're trying to propose.

To be blunt: Tom is right and you are wrong about the legality of states' secession in the USA. It is possible to establish a process for secession that isn't unconstitutional (within SCOTUS's current implementation).

Similarly, it is perfectly possible to create legislation to protect abortion rights at a federal level. It is difficult to accomplish, and that's by design. Roe v Wade was an attempt at circumventing that design.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

شاحنات صعبة للغاية