Sort of. Plessy was a defendant charged with refusing to leave a whites only train car. Ferguson was the judge in the criminal case. Plessy sued the judge alleging that the law requiring segregation was unconstitutional.

Post RvW, each state will be different in how it handles situations, as it should have always been. Keeping the decision close to the local populace is correct since not all of us believe the same things.
99% of the abortions have nothing to do with violence rape or incest.

Instead of the tax payer paying, I rather the victim had the option to neuter the prick(s) to violated her. As a dad, I'd gladly decimate anyone attempting anything on my family.

Source a liberal rag.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...

side note: I know a woman who was the product of violent rape. She's a good person who raised three good kids. She doesn't define who she is by her origin.And, I personally think the world would be worse off without her and her influence.

Thank you. I wonder if the case was similar in Plessy vs. Ferguson.

In the case of victims of violent crime, does the government not have an obligation to rectify its failure? It tells people not to take private revenge, and, in many cases, tries to prohibit even the right of self-defense.

Thank you.

You're making it sound like abortion is outlawed/illegal? Moloch would never approve. Removing R vs W only put it in the 'practice' hands of the states. People can still murder their unborn children but they may have to pay for it themselves and drive bit. As for it being a crime, it would be in a state where the 'practice' isn't permitted but it in state where it is still is I would think its between the establishment and the patient, a private matter (because it's not subsidized with tax dollars).

As I said prior, there are pre- and post- coitus birth control methods readily available for a price without crossing state lines. I highly doubt a rape victim is going to wait very long to get whats needed to ensure noting take hold. And, birth control shouldn't be subsidized either.

Suppose the sex is non-consensual. Would the woman then have the right to seek an abortion? Would you still consider it to be a crime?

I went on about this ad nauseum some time ago. I'd have to dig to find the posts where it was more thoroughly explained.

My take is akin to contract law. Two parties mutually agree to a service knowing full well the profit and loss, the service is completed, the two go their ways each profiting. Acceptable. However, one party decides that their end didn't work out as it had hoped. Said party decides the contract can't apply because this time didn't go as planned and seeks restitution.

A woman is either equal or not. If yes, then her decision to engage in sex and the protections taken before during and after sex and the consequences of those actions if they aren't sufficient are her own. This also includes her insistence on her chosen male to take measures to prevent an unwanted outcome. With the ability to seek damages (child support) a woman owns the situation entirely due to having the options of birth control and abortion.

Men, equal partners in consensual sex, shouldn't have to pay because they have no voice in the end result. Naturally, this argument cannot apply to broken or common law marriages as that's a different set of circumstances entirely.

Equality. What a concept.

I'll look to see if I can find the old posts but I think I got the gist of it.

Okay, you answered my second question. (I assume that's a "yes".) What about the first? What are your views regarding the rights and obligations of pregnant women?

By my view, was a life taken? Your question answers itself.

Got to appreciate the hypocrisy of the women's liberation movement. A doesn't equal A unless I say it does.

Of course, to a Catholic, masturbation is mass genocide.

Re: "a unique DNA strand, to me, is the deciding factor separating the entity from its host and that makes it murder."

Given this position, what are your views regarding the rights and obligations of pregnant women? Should any woman who voluntarily has an abortion be tried for murder?

Do you call yourself your species name whut is "human?" Har! Har! Just some species allosaur humor there.
At some odd rare times me dino aka the dino also displays me modest formal name whut be His Excellency Dino Philosoraptor Allosaurus Esquire BS for me despite me School Of Hard Rocks college degree be humble in every way in me imperfection for becoming extinct by the end of the Jurassic millions of years before the asteroid hit to end the Cretaceous (T-Rex) Period.
Yeah, youse believe me am a sensitive sweetie if you want to keep breathin'. I am dino~~hear me ROAR!

LibertyBelle as I recall, Wade was the prosecutor and Roe was the woman charged criminally for trying to get an abortion. "Roe" is what lawyers use for unnamed defendants (such as "Doe" for plaintiffs). She appealed the criminal case, hence Roe (the defendant/appellant) v. Wade (prosecutor/appellee).

LibertyBelle and I think even the Catholic Church has acknowledged that neither ova NOR sperm are people. I have never heard a man express regret or remorse for the sperm he spilled that never became a person.

LibertyBelle I agree for so many reasons, not the least of which is that, in the state where I live, there is a presumption that it is in the child's best interest for both parents to have equal time with the child. So, in addition to the physical and mental trauma of rape, then having to go through 9 months of a pregnancy against her will, the victim could also end up battling for custody of the child for years or having to share custody with her rapist. And to anyone who thinks prosecuting the rapist is the solution to the whole problem, the hell a rape victim gets put through in a rape trial is just one more injury to endure and there is no guarantee of a conviction or that the sentence will be more than a slap on the wrist.

LibertyBelle I have made this same argument (brain wave distinction) before. I think it makes a lot of sense.

I think the point is that is only half of a DNA strand and is in itself incapable of becoming a human. No offence but I don't think half of you can still be considered human.

Why do you go by "allosaur", but call yourself "me dino"?

I feel no remorse whatever for the numbers of ova I flushed down the toilet about once a month since shortly before I was 13; I had no obligation to them to hook up with a man and fertilize them, even though that could potentially have been done.They had human DNA in them, too.

Go back to (my) rule number 1. You don't decide policy on the .1% of the population. Also, life is not fair. Life will never be fair. Trying to make life "fair" is an exercise in insanity. Sometimes things are bad, and there's no relief for that. Killing another human is not the answer.

Somebody has to do it. (reply to AJAshinoff)

Maybe you'd like to have my surname. (I'm not going to type what it is here.) It's a foreign name, simple to spell, but pronounced as written; I think that that is what throws people off; that they don't expect a foreign name to be pronounced as written.
I was complaining once to my father about it, and he said, "You'll change it, anyway." Man, what a dream world he was living in!

But if it is in there, where it never was invited, the person whose body was invaded has a right to make it get out. (Not the fault of the entity in there?
Not the rape victim's fault, either.)----
However, I understand that a trial takes a long time, so chances are that unless there were some kind of judicial speed-up (I don't pretend to know much about those things), by the time the perpetrator was convicted, the offspring very likely would have been born anyway.

Brain waves would be a logical dividing line. Ability to feel pain might work. Ability to survive outside the womb would be logical as well. I take issue with the extremes of 'conception' and 'up until birth' as being not very objective, although the DNA argument presented elsewhere in this thread at least has some logic behind it.