There is no 'convoluted logic', save in your mind. -- If a specific act of abortion, - or assisted suicide, -- is deemed to be murder, a prosecutor can get an indictment, and so charge.
Roe v Wade did not change that state power, nor does Oregons new law.
Roe v Wade said that states cannot make laws claiming that abortion in the first trimester is presumptive murder. -- They said that the viabilty of the baby/person to be is not yet established, - thus, -- there can be no murder, as the mother to be has a perfect right to remove part of her own body.
No one likes this legal solution to a moral dilemma, but fanatical cries of 'baby killing' offer nothing better.
190 posted by tpaine
I guess it all depends on what your definition of "due process" is. If due process can be defined as having a doctor write a prescription for poison, then physician-assisted suicide would be constitutionally protected.
Nonsense bafflegab language, - 'due process' is a non-issue, -- and many drugs are poisionous. So what?
The fact remains that people of a state can write law protecting assisted suicide from being considered as murder. -- That right IS constitutionaly protected in the 9th & 10th amendments.
-------------------------
"If a specific act of abortion, - or assisted suicide, -- is deemed to be murder, a prosecutor can get an indictment, and so charge."
Abortion was deemed to be murder but Roe v. Wade essentially changed the definition and gave women a "right" that had not been in existence in the majority of states.
Abortion of a viable fetus has always been, and is now, chargeable as murder. R-v-W did not change that.
I guess it all depends on what your definition of "person" is. You seem to be asserting that states would first have to pass a law recognizing the "personhood" of the unborn child before they could outlaw abortion. The convoluted logic behind Roe v. Wade is that it basically denied the personhood of the unborn child , something most states took for granted. That's why abortion is "constitutional" in the eyes of many Americans.
According to the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade, "If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment..."
Exactly. -- You make my case by quoting the court. -- The point being that NO ONE has established that a first trimester non viable fetus is a person under the law.
-- And never will, imo. ---
So, using the same argument, could a state can write law protecting the killing of Mexican immigrants from being considered as murder?
"Abortion of a viable fetus has always been, and is now, chargeable as murder. R-v-W did not change that."
We are back to square one because now we have to define "viable." Some could make the argument that a child or a fetus isn't viable until 18 years of age. I know that sounds ridiculous but where do we draw the line? Everyone knows that even a three-month-old child cannot survive on its own outside the womb. That child requires constant care.
The point in all of this is that if issues like "viability" and "personhood" are left to individual states to decide, how could there be any uniform enforcement of the Constitution?