If you are speaking of the legal meaning, what is constitutional and unconstitutional is defined by the courts, especially the Supreme Court. And currently it is constitutional. It may become unconstitutional some day if the court so rules, but for now it is constitutional. Now if you are speaking of the moral question, then don’t use the legal language. Use the language of morality.Nepperhan:
Abortion is unconstitutional.
Jane Roe (Also known as Norma McCorvey) lied in order to set the law. That makes it an invalid law, doesn’t it?
That depends on how you define “invalid”. From a Catholic moral standpoint or a SCOTUS standpoint? Certainly from a Catholic standpoint it is an unjust law that shouldn’t be obeyed, but as far as the US is concerned, which does not follow Catholic morality, it is part of the Law of the Land. The SCOTUS didn’t uphold her story, they upheld her argument. And as far as the judicial system of the US goes, the only ways that interpretation is ever going to be made invalid is either by another SCOTUS case that overturns the previous decision, or a Constitutional amendment.Jane Roe (Also known as Norma McCorvey) lied in order to set the law. That makes it an invalid law, doesn’t it?
what have the Dems done but expanded access and now some are pushing infanticide.
are you saying it is not the murder of the unborn?
But what you claimed (“Every Dem appointee voted to make late term abortion a “constitutional right” that could not be banned.”) is not what Gonzales v. Carhart said. The reasoning of the dissent was that the law had two problems: First, it could apply before the point of viability, and, more importantly, it did not have a health exception. (“It [the majority decision] blurs the line, firmly drawn in Casey, between previability and postviability abortions. And, for the first time since Roe, the Court blesses a prohibition with no exception safeguarding a woman’s health.”) Had the law been corrected for those, it would have, per the reasoning, been constitutional. To claim that this means they “voted to make late term abortion a constitutional right that could not be banned” is to misrepresent what was actually said in the dissent.JSRG:
Gonzales vs. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007)
The line that makes abortion “on demand”. And regardless, why should there be a “line” between “previability” (abortion with no restriction) and “postviability” (some restrictions permissible)
What does it matter–in the context of this conversation–whether that line makes it abortion on demand? You claimed that "Every Dem appointee voted to make late term abortion a “constitutional right” that could not be banned.” I asked when they did this, you pointed to a case, and then I explained how that case was not doing what you claimed. Rather than supporting the original claim you made, you’re bringing up a different topic altogether.JSRG:
The line that makes abortion “on demand”. And regardless, why should there be a “line” between “previability” (abortion with no restriction) and “postviability” (some restrictions permissible)
Killing is killing.
The case was exactly about whether partial birth abortion would be deemed a constitutional right, and that’s exactly what the “Dissent” considered, reviewing the principles enunciated in other cases in which abortion was considered a right.
Except it didn’t say that partial birth abortion was a constitutional right. It stated that abortion in general (including partial birth abortion) prior to the point of viability was a constitutional right, and the law needed to specify that to pass constitutional muster. While there might be some disagreement as to the exact timeframe of a “late-term abortion”, I doubt anyone would argue that an abortion prior to the point of viability would count.JSRG:
The case was exactly about whether partial birth abortion would be deemed a constitutional right, and that’s exactly what the “Dissent” considered, reviewing the principles enunciated in other cases in which abortion was considered a right.
Same thing.
I’m not a neonatologist, so I couldn’t say any more than you could. But medical science has a way of pushing the “point of viability” back with some degree of regularity. That’s one of the reasons why the original Supreme Court cases dividing the right to kill among the three trimesters is ridiculous. And when you add the “health” of the mother, which the dissent did for partial birth abortion in Carhart, that’s basically abortion on demand, including partial birth abortion. But then, it has really always been abortion on demand at all stages until Carhart.
It certainly isn’t the same thing as your original claim of them saying late-term abortions were a constitutional right, which again, they didn’t say. You keep pivoting on this; rather than point to proof they said what you claimed they did, you keep pointing to them saying different things than you claimed they did.JSRG:
Same thing.
I’m not going to deny that the original trimester rules were absolutely ridiculous, the most ridiculous part of Roe v. Wade–which is saying something (even those who later upheld the central holding of Roe had no patience for its absurd trimester rules). But again, this isn’t proving your original statement.
That has nothing to do with preventing unwanted pregnancies. And you know what prevention of unwanted pregnancies does.
OK. Look for a right to privacy in the Constitution. Your equating supporting an accurate reading of Constitutional law with being complicit in killing is inaccurate, morally.
Tell the Supreme Court. I don’t think your view is accurate.
Considering your question seriously, and not just rhetorically, I would say Catholic Democrats in Mass were led down the path to acceptance of sexual immorality by the Kennedy family, whom the citizens revered beyond reason, buttressed by clerics who were of the same mind. Ultimately, a very great number of Catholics was led astray.
Even Ginsberg, a definite abortion supporter, thinks that reason is flawed. They just invented a right to abortion out of the whole cloth. Might as well have squeezed it out of the Commerce Clause because, after all, people sometimes cross state lines for abortions.
what have they done to prevent it?