Supreme Court to Decide on Partial Birth Abortion Ban

[MODU]

Not at all.  He/we are arguing that a developed fetus deserves the same protection rights that any living person would have . . . the right to life.  Again, going back to what was said earlier, if a baby born at 7 months can live and grow up to be a normal person, how can we deny a "fetus" at 8 months the same future?  Abortions after 6 months, unless medical conditions arise which will put the mother at risk, should be illegal. 

You can always identify a similarity between two people, and then point out that they aren't being treated the same way in some respect.

Of course.  However, this is something that is rarely discussed in the abortion debate. 

My point is that it does not establish an Equal Protection violation.

It might not, but it definitely establishes "life," which we are to protect.

[A18]

Not at all.  He/we are arguing that a developed fetus deserves the same protection rights that any living person would have . . . the right to life.  Again, going back to what was said earlier, if a baby born at 7 months can live and grow up to be a normal person, how can we deny a "fetus" at 8 months the same future?  Abortions after 6 months, unless medical conditions arise which will put the mother at risk, should be illegal. 

You can always identify a similarity between two people, and then point out that they aren't being treated the same way in some respect.

Of course.  However, this is something that is rarely discussed in the abortion debate. 

My point is that it does not establish an Equal Protection violation.

It might not, but it definitely establishes "life," which we are to protect.

That was a premise, not a conclusion, and we are under no obligation to protect life.

[Emsworth]

I'm not arguing that. According to your profile you are 17, so you can't do any of those things; drink, smoke, etc. either, but that doesn't mean that its legal for someone to murder you.

If a state wishes to pass a law making it lawful for seventeen year-olds to be murdered, I know of no provision of the Constitution which will prevent it from doing so.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The equal protection clause could mean any number of things. It might mean that states have to treat fetuses and adults equally, by protecting the lives of both. It might also mean that states have to treat rich and poor equally, by taxing both at the same rates. It might also mean that states have to treat homosexuals and heterosexuals equally, by legalizing same-sex marriage.

Almost all laws discriminate between individuals in one way or another. Abortion laws differentiate between fetuses and adults; tax laws differentiate between rich and poor; marriage laws differentiate between homosexuals and heterosexuals. Under your theory, all of these laws would be unconstitutional, because they give one class of citizens (adults, poor people, or heterosexuals) more "protection" than another class. Needless to say, a literal reading of the equal protection clause cannot possibly be sustained.

In the words of Sir William Blackstone, "the most universal and effectual way of discovering the true meaning of a law, when the words are dubious, is by considering the reason and spirit of it; or the cause which moved the legislator to enact it." The most cursory glance at history would indicate that the purpose of the equal protection clause was to obliterate distinctions between the races. It follows, therefore, that the clause prevents any state from engaging in racial discrimination. But there is no evidence that other forms of discrimination (such as age discrimination) are forbidden.

[Brandon H]

I'm pretty sure that the Court will say the PBA is Constitutional or will say it is unConstitutional because of the lack of "health exception". I don't see them striking this down on the grounds that it should be a state issue.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If a state wishes to pass a law making it lawful for seventeen year-olds to be murdered, I know of no provision of the Constitution which will prevent it from doing so. 

We already had that until the recent SCOTUS ruling striking down the death penalty for minors.

[Emsworth]

We already had that until the recent SCOTUS ruling striking down the death penalty for minors.

And?

[A18]

That was execution, not murder, anyway.