Skip to main content
No. of Recommendations: 31
Case coming up soon to challenge women’s rights now that Trump and Mitch stacked the courts.

Law Professor Carliss Chatman has a few questions:

1. If a fetus is a person at 6 weeks is that when child support starts?

2. Is that when you can’t deport the mother because she’s carrying a US Citizen?

3. In the case of miscarriage can you get life insurance?

You don’t get to have it both ways.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 14
4. If a fetus is a person at 6 weeks is that when it qualifies as a tax deduction?

5. If a fetus is a person at 6 weeks is that it qualifies for federal and state welfare benefits?

6. Will there be a "pre-birth" certificate given to document the status of the fetus?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Dear Gott!

I might be 9 months older than I thought I was!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
6. Will there be a "pre-birth" certificate given to document the status of the fetus?

The gender of the fetus is undetermined at 6 weeks. Applying the Schrodinger principle it is actually both until someone spots the Oscar Mayer and collapses the duality to one. So should items 1-6 be doubled until said observation takes place. It certainly adds more significance to reveal parties, break out the explosives and the flame thrower.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
You might find this interesting.

https://www.90daykorean.com/korean-age-all-about-age-in-kore....

"Koreans consider a year in the womb as counting towards their age, so everyone is one year old at birth. Everyone gets one year added to their Korean age on New Year’s Day."


TMFEdyboom223
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 10
7. Does a fetus count as a person in a carpool lane?


proton
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
8. Is the voting age now 17 years and 3 months?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Only if they show 9 forms of I.D
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Is Matt Gaetz hoping that the age of consent gets lowered to 17 years 3 months?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
8. Is the voting age now 17 years and 3 months?

For white babies.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Given that the abortion rate of black women is about 5x that of white women and for Hispanic women about 2x that of white women, outlawing abortion/making it very difficult to obtain, will make America majority POC sooner. Not to mention that unwanted children--and their mothers--tend to have more problems than wanted children.

Get ready for laaarge families, America!

PS--With abortion outlawed, can illegal contraception be far behind?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Case coming up soon to challenge women’s rights now that Trump and Mitch stacked the courts.

Law Professor Carliss Chatman has a few questions:

1. If a fetus is a person at 6 weeks is that when child support starts?

2. Is that when you can’t deport the mother because she’s carrying a US Citizen?

3. In the case of miscarriage can you get life insurance?


Rather embarrassing list of questions, if they actually came from a law professor.

First, the case coming up before the SCOTUS does not pose the question of whether a fetus is a person. It is premised on the holding of Roe (that the state has a legitimate interest in protecting the fetus regardless of whether it is a person), but seeks to narrow Roe and Casey by removing the prohibition on the state trying to protect that interest before viability.

Second, two these questions actually have answers - answers that are easily discoverable with a few minutes on Google. The first is pretty easy - many states (like Florida) include support for pre-natal expenses as part of awardable child support already, including pregnancy-related medical expenses and the cost of childbirth itself. And the third question is also very easy - life insurance is a private contract, and you can get such insurance (and you can only get such insurance) if a private party is willing to write it for you. You're not going to be able to get life insurance to cover a fetus. Few life insurance companies write policies for children anyway (the main purpose of life insurance is meant to provide protection against financial loss to beneficiaries due to the absence of the insured - child policies are usually whole-life efforts to provide tax advantaged savings) - and those that do typically won't even write for newborns (GerberLife, one of the most prominent, is unavailable until the infant is 14 days old).

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
GerberLife, one of the most prominent, is unavailable until the infant is 14 days old.

If the claim "life begins at conception" is followed, then policies begin at 15 days after conception.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
If the claim "life begins at conception" is followed, then policies begin at 15 days after conception.

No - you can't apply until 14 days after the baby is born. That's how age is understood to be described in contracts.

If the SCOTUS were to rule that life begins at conception (or more accurately, that personhood begins at conception, since there's no dispute that a fetus is alive), that wouldn't necessarily change how private parties measure age - or even necessarily how the government measures age. It might result in nothing more than contracts and/or statutes including a new definition that clarifies that "age" is measured from date of birth and not date of personhood.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 18
If the SCOTUS were to rule that life begins at conception (or more accurately, that personhood begins at conception, since there's no dispute that a fetus is alive), that wouldn't necessarily change how private parties measure age - or even necessarily how the government measures age. It might result in nothing more than contracts and/or statutes including a new definition that clarifies that "age" is measured from date of birth and not date of personhood.

Well, you could take this a step further, since the sperm and egg are also indisputably alive. If we accept that a fetus is a potential person, then doesn't it stand to reason that a sperm and egg are also a potential person?

This could get VERY messy.

I think, rather than having than having the government involved, we should let the people involved make these kinds of judgements. Funny thing about that, though; The people who claim to be for smaller, less intrusive government and claim to highly value personal liberty are the very same people who WANT the government to take responsibility for these decisions, and to take away the personal liberty of the woman involved.

Weird.

We seem to be heading the way of The Handmaid's Tale. Women need to rise up and fight this craziness.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Well, you could take this a step further, since the sperm and egg are also indisputably alive. If we accept that a fetus is a potential person, then doesn't it stand to reason that a sperm and egg are also a potential person?

Not necessarily. Any given red blood cell is alive - it's not a potential person (given current technology). My point was simply to clarify that the legal issue that is implicated in these debates isn't about when life begins, but when personhood or humanity begins. A caterpillar is alive, but it is not a butterfly.

The case currently going up to the SCOTUS concerns neither of those issues, though. Roe and Casey held that the state has a valid, legitimate interest in protecting the potential human life that exists during pregnancy; however, they held that in adopting regulations to protect that interest, the state could not prohibit abortion prior to fetal viability. The Mississippi law violates that specific precedent, and the Court is being asked to limit that specific holding of Roe and Casey. The Court is not being asked to address whether a fetus is a person or whether it is alive.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
you could take this a step further, since the sperm and egg are also indisputably alive.

That is the point I made years ago about this issue.

As each individual sperm (and egg) are alive, then they must be individually considered as due to the same rights and privileges granted to other living persons under the law.

100-million (too few?) individual graves for 100-million individual sperm is just the start. The right wants to create a cemetery planet, so force them to pay for it.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
How many women suffering a miscarriage will be arrested for murder?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
What happened in Ireland is that doctors were afraid to treat women in the middle of a miscarriage and women died as a result. A mother of two, a doctor, died of sepsis when this happened to her.

This is what happens when you legislate medicine instead of letting doctors handle it.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
7. Does a fetus count as a person in a carpool lane?

Does a fetus need to ride in a car seat? Dollars to donuts the "baby must ride in a car seat" rules don't include a uterus exception and do specify minimum ages/sizes for when a kid can ride without one.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 12
I have often wondered about my soul, especially when exactly did I get it? Did my father's sperm and my mother's egg each contain half a soul? Or was it inserted at the instant I was conceived? Do all souls get inserted in this moment? Did I, as an embryo, send some kind of “ready for my soul” email to the heavens? Does a creator keep an ecclesiastical broad band voyeuristic eye on all sex acts, ever ready to pop in souls where conception has taken place? If we get our souls at the moment of conception, what happens in the case of identical twins? Do they each only get half a soul? Or is there a follow up soul insertion mechanism?

Or maybe we don't get souls until our embryos have expanded to some arbitrary number of cells, like 500? But if this is the case then embryonic stem cells don't have souls and can be guiltlessly used for research. The pope says that animals don’t have souls, he claims that we evolved from lower life forms and at some point we cross threshold into the “better than animals, therefore soul deserving” realm? That sounds like a typical dogmatic rationalization. Of course there is the possibility that souls were an invention of man, and we really don't have souls.

There was a brand of beer named “Soul Beer” sold briefly in LA. Beer can collectors swear they will never sell their Soul.

proton
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
My point was simply to clarify that the legal issue that is implicated in these debates isn't about when life begins, but when personhood or humanity begins. A caterpillar is alive, but it is not a butterfly.

The courts have held that abortion should be unrestricted until the point of fetal viability outside the womb. Times of 22-23 weeks seem to be the consensus view on when this occurs. In a direct challenge to those rulings, Mississippi's law moves that time back to 15 weeks on the grounds that the fetus can feel pain from that point onwards. So can the caterpillar.

The decision is not going to end Roe vs Wade overnight, but if the court sides with Mississippi, it does open a new and huge can of caterpillars in oh so many areas. Euthanasia advocates would be first in line, followed by capital the punishment crew, to mention a few
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The decision is not going to end Roe vs Wade overnight, but if the court sides with Mississippi, it does open a new and huge can of caterpillars in oh so many areas. Euthanasia advocates would be first in line, followed by capital the punishment crew, to mention a few.

That's unlikely to be the case. Euthanasia and capital punishment involve very different legal doctrines, which have been subject to very different bodies of precedent. Even if the SCOTUS decision ended up turning on the issue of fetal pain, it would not really affect those other issues.

But there's a very good chance that the SCOTUS decision won't turn on fetal pain - or even reach the merits of whether the Mississippi law is constitutional. The district court refused to allow the state to introduce evidence on fetal pain (though it was proffered); the circuit court upheld that decision. The legal decision that was made by the courts below was:

1) Roe and Casey prohibit abortion bans before viability;
2) The regulation in question was a fetal ban before viability;
3) No state interest is constitutionally adequate to ban abortions before viability, so evidence relating to fetal pain (or any other matter) is not necessary to decide the constitutional challenge.

IOW, whether a fetus feels pain (or at what stage) is not a constitutionally relevant fact under SCTOUS precedent, so they didn't rule on it.

Because of that, the question before the SCOTUS is simply limited to whether the absolute ban on abortion bans prior to viability should be retained. I believe that's the only question that the Court granted cert. on as well. The Court isn't likely to reach whether fetal pain is something states can base restrictions on, or whether the Mississippi statute should or should not be upheld.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"IOW, whether a fetus feels pain (or at what stage) is not a constitutionally relevant fact under SCTOUS precedent, so they didn't rule on it."

I wonder how they know it's "pain" they feel.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I wonder how they know it's "pain" they feel.

I don't know. The specific testimony wasn't discussed in the pleadings - because, again, the issue of whether or not a fetus feels pain was deemed legally irrelevant to the issues under consideration.
If we're guessing, I'd imagine it's based on the same things we use to figure out whether any creature feels pain - observing their physical reaction to stimuli and seeing they map onto reactions that more complex creatures (up through humans) exhibit in response to pain.

That's obviously not perfect. It still doesn't tell you whether it's "pain" they feel. But depending on how philosophical you get, that's true of a wide range of things, even among humans. If you're a solipsist you don't know whether it's "pain" that any other person feels. And it's not like philosophers don't get themselves tied up in knots occasionally arguing about whether subjective experiences of phenomenon are actually the same across different people (let alone stages of development or species or what have you):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_It_Like_to_Be_a_Bat%3F...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
Rather embarrassing list of questions,

Rather embarrassing overlook of the tongue in cheek nature of the questions.

They are not serious legal questions, they are a compilation of stock right wing talking points about issues relating to children. It is pointing out the hypocrisy on the right- their failure to take positions that would help children, while simultaneously taking a position against abortion. Combined, the two general positions (against abortion and against assistance for children) are a strange juxtaposition: caring deeply for the unborn, then caring not at all once they are born.

—Peter
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Print the post Back To Top