For one the flag burning precedant is much clearer. The court has ruled in multiple cases that is protected speech. Two the movement for the flag burning amendment is fringe at best. It has never come close to passing the senate. Three the court no matter how conservative will likely not overturn the precedent. Haven't had a chance to read up on the Louisiana law. If it is based on the future overturning of Roe V Wade then I think the legislature should wait until that event happens before drafting legislaion. If...then laws are a waste of session time and thus a waste of taxpayer money. The SD law was hardcore.
For one the flag burning precedant is much clearer. The court has ruled in multiple cases that is protected speech. Two the movement for the flag burning amendment is fringe at best. It has never come close to passing the senate. Three the court no matter how conservative will likely not overturn the precedent. Haven't had a chance to read up on the Louisiana law. If it is based on the future overturning of Roe V Wade then I think the legislature should wait until that event happens before drafting legislaion. If...then laws are a waste of session time and thus a waste of taxpayer money. The SD law was hardcore.
It won't be overturned. The last conservative appontments didn't overturn it. Prohibition taught us that it is foolish to make an amendment on a issue upon which there is no national consensus. This country is still in favor of family Choice with no government intervention, and it is a hugely divisive topic that the Court won't open up. Not at this time, anyway.
this is of course your opinion. i believe this country is split right down the middle on this issue, and i can definitely see a 5-4 vote swing towards the other end of the spectrum. not a huge margin but it wasn't in 73 either.
Roe v Wade will likely never be overturned. Too much of our population has been cultured to beleive that their is a difference between a fetus and a baby. Too many people are too stupid to see that abortion is murder.
Is it stupid? Or could there really be a difference? Life must begin at some point, seems reasonable that there would be debate about that point to me. I don't see how stupidity has anything to do with it. If anything, perhaps religion blinds people to forming an opinion on the matter for themselves.
to decide on any point in time and say that "ok, now we have a human, but 6 seconds ago we had a no-value fetus" is completely arbitrary. and surely we can accept that the baby 2 minutes before birth is basically the same as the baby 2 minutes after birth. the new person, the genetically unique "life" clearly begins at conception. of course human life isnt really sacred, that is just lie propogated by the dang jesus.
An argument can easily be made that there is such a non-arbitrary moment . . . and that is birth itself. Before that, a fetus remains a group of cells in a woman's body and completely dependent on the host for life. After birth a human being emerges that can live independently. The fact that certain permature births have produced surviving and sometimes undamaged humans causes us to move that line back to insure that any fetus can conceiveably survive independently. Roe v. Wade, by moving the decision point back to the first trimester, has removed all possibiiity of that happening. Roe v. Wade is as good a compromise between "No abortions--ever" and "Our choice--always" as anyone is going to come up with. It has stood for decades for this reason.
An infant is no less dependent on its mother for survival than a fetus. Roe v Wade is not a compromise. It is a failure to stop a form of genocide. Which of the chracteristics of life are not displayed by a fetus from the moment of its conception? They grow, take in and expend energy, their cells replicate and reproduce, they maintain homeostasis. What you call a group of cells I call a human being and murdering them is wrong.
He is a great deal so, and you know it. A human infant can live as an independent organism once born. He may require care to survive, but not neccessarily the mother's care. Before birth, a fetus can live only through its mother. In fact, it is a legal compromise. You are making a moral issue. In fact, it in no way meets the definition of genocide, a civil crime. I realize you are just being loyal to your religious convictions, but your holy obligations are not mine and your sins are not my laws. The ability to live as an independent entity. You know--animate human life. As do all the other cells of a woman's body. It's all about definitions, ain't it? To many, one is not a human until he is born and takes life. A point where there is 100% agreement that a human life exists.
