The meaning of life and other ill sh!t

[HeloDude]

2 minutes ago, Prozac said:

Ahh yes, the old everything must be black and white argument. My personal view is that abortion should generally be restricted at some point in a pregnancy, generally in the third trimester except in extreme circumstances (mother’s life at risk). Otherwise, it’s none of my fucking business what a woman chooses to do with her body.

But it’s your business if I choose to have a magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition…even though no one is being harmed at all if I own one.  But if I only have a magazine that can hold 10 rounds then I’m somehow in better standing in your eyes?
 

And why are you ok with abortion in the 27th week but not in the 28th/29th week?
 

 

[Prozac]

5 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

And why are you ok with abortion in the 27th week but not in the 28th/29th week?

I don’t have an answer for that other than it strikes a balance that reflects where we are as a country. Let’s use another example since abortion and guns seem to be uniquely likely to elicit an emotional response: Speed limits. The hardcore libertarian might argue that speed limits are wholly unnecessary. They impede upon the individual’s liberty to drive his highly capable German sports car as fast as he wants, and if exceeds the vehicle’s or his own capabilities we should accept that as natural selection at work. Problem is, this is not just potentially dangerous to the car’s owner. There are other road users to consider. So we limit the individual’s liberty to protect the rights of others not to be exposed to undue risk. One part of that is a speed limit. Where do you set that limit? If you want to protect life and property to the maximum extent, the limit might be absurdly low (and for the record, it is!). But if you favor considerations like the capabilities of modern vehicles and the economic value of time, you might be tempted to set it too high. So we settle on a somewhat arbitrary number that attempts to reflect our values as a society. I don’t necessarily like it, but I mostly abide by it because I accept the fact that I don’t exist in a vacuum. This kind of debate happens all the time & somewhat arbitrary limits are set when we make laws for the benefit of society. 

[1:1:1]

18 minutes ago, Prozac said:

I don’t have an answer for that other than it strikes a balance that reflects where we are as a country. [...] This kind of debate happens all the time & somewhat arbitrary limits are set when we make laws for the benefit of society. 

But that kind of debate hasn't been allowed to happen because a 7-2 majority made abortion the law of the land 50 years ago. Think about that -- this issue that countless people have anguished over and debated since time immemorial (there are records of arguments on abortion at least as far back as the Roman empire) was "settled" in 1973 by 7 people on behalf of a nation of over 300,000,000.

If it's truly about striking a balance and making the best law for the benefit of society, the issue should be left up either to the state legislatures and/or Congress so that they can enact the will of their representatives via the legislative process.

Edited May 6, 2022 by 1:1:1

[HeloDude]

19 minutes ago, Prozac said:

 One part of that is a speed limit. Where do you set that limit?

If I own my own private track, is there a speed limit?  I don’t own a public road…I can’t just go firing my gun if it’s in a public parking lot of the county court house.  Again, who am I bothering if I have a magazine that can carry more than 10 rounds?

I appreciate you admitting you don’t have answers for arbitrary limits you like to see/don’t like to see.  But isn’t that what Texas and Mississippi originally did?  They didn’t ban abortion…they just put limits on when you could get one.

[Prozac]

2 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

But isn’t that what Texas and Mississippi originally did?  They didn’t ban abortion…they just put limits on when you could get one.

Prior to Roe, abortion was essentially banned in Texas. It will be essentially banned there again when it is repealed. Not limited. Banned. It will be in states like Texas where debate will be stifled because there will no longer be any debate. Oh and BTW, there is already a bill being put forward in Missouri that will allow private citizens to sue anyone, including, say, a doctor in Illinois, who enables a Missouri resident to get an abortion in or out of that state. I expect other states will follow. This ruling will have the definite and unfortunate effect of further pitting Americans against Americans. 

[HeloDude]

1 minute ago, Prozac said:

Prior to Roe, abortion was essentially banned in Texas. It will be essentially banned there again when it is repealed. Not limited. Banned. 

So why was their new law limiting abortions to a heartbeat is detected challenged if it was in accordance with Roe?  The Dems started going much further left on abortion and in turn, the GOP started going much further to the right (or mixture of both).  Politically it wasn’t too smart for the left to challenge these laws if they were concerned they could lose at the Supreme Court.  Don’t worry man, you and others can donate as much money as you want to organizations which will help women in Texas go to a different state to get their abortion.  And unlike if I go buy an AR-15 in Texas and move to Massachusetts and bring my property with me (I will be prosecuted), I’m not aware of any state that plans on prosecuting a woman who had an abortion out of state…though I guess crazier stuff has been suggested, so we’ll see.
 

And I’m pretty sure if I’m caught bringing in a magazine holding more than 10 rounds in a few states that I can be prosecuted…you know, because they’re banned.  
 

Additionally, you asked the other day what politicians/states were against any government restrictions on abortions…well, I just read that the Dem nominee for Senate in Ohio is recently on record for saying he doesn’t support any government restrictions.  Ohio is definitely more of a  “middle of the road” state in the US, especially compared to California, Maryland, Massachusetts, etc.  So will Ryan beat Vance, since Ryan is for zero restrictions and Vance is for banning abortions?  

 

[ViperMan]

3 hours ago, jazzdude said:

There's a long standing supreme court precedent that abortion is legal...

Yep, I'm tracking the conversation, thanks.

The point is that there are other court cases that govern rights regarding birth control et al, so the argument that all these other derivative rights from the 14th amendment (i.e. non-enumerated rights) will instantly disappear because Roe v Wade is overturned is a void argument. It's pearl clutching.

[bfargin]

5 hours ago, Day Man said:

seems legit:

just because you find something that supports your side, doesn't mean it's settled

when you find errors or lies in the research let me know.

[Day Man]

52 minutes ago, bfargin said:

when you find errors or lies in the research let me know.

Anyone can cherry-pick science and apply their own opinions...that's what we're discussing here.

Quote

1. The product of fertilization may be a tumour, an hydatidiform mole or chorioepithelioma. Though the mole is alive and of human origin, it is definitely not a human individual or human being. It lacks a true human nature from the start and has no natural potential to begin human development.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7245522/

[HuggyU2]

2 hours ago, Prozac said:

...pitting Americans against Americans. 

You mean like the "unborn Americans"?  I'd say they are being "pitted against" already.

[Guardian]

Hate to be the person that follows Huggy

Edit: oh….dang it. It’s me. The radical person who agrees with life. Very radical.

[Lord Ratner]

8 hours ago, Prozac said:

Exactly. The rabbit hole is open. Part of the court’s rationale is that there is no specific right to abortion in the constitution. Well, there is no specific right to birth control either. No one should be the least bit surprised when conservative states start banning things like IUDs. And it doesn’t necessarily stop there. There are any number of rights that we currently enjoy that are not specifically enumerated in the constitution. Where does it say you have a right to interstate travel for instance? This ruling and the logic behind it has much further reaching implications than just abortion & has the potential to put many of the rights we enjoy at risk. 

Y'all are seriously struggling with the concept of representative democracy and a republic.

 

What states are enacting laws that aren't supported by the population? How? 

 

All of these (mostly) stupid hypotheticals and comparisons, which I know you guys are smart enough to know the difference, are exactly what the legislature is supposed to decide.

 

Miscarriage vs Abortion? Write the law.

 

Confused about the line between preventing conception and aborting a fetus? Debate it and legislate.

 

If you think the issue is so huge that a country-wide rule must be enacted... Guess what? There's a process for that too!

 

If the issue was as obvious and settled as some of you are implying, we wouldn't still be fighting over it 50 years after Roe was decided. And if it's so important that it needs constitutional protection... Holy shit! There's a process for that too!

 

Sometimes I wonder what constitution you guys pledged to defend.

[Lord Ratner]

6 hours ago, Prozac said:

Negative ghostrider. The Supreme Court has continually affirmed unenumerated rights through its interpretation of the 14th and 9th amendments. You have a ton of rights in this country that are not codified in specific laws. That’s why this ruling is concerning. And yes, I understand that justice Alito intends this only to apply to abortion but that’s not how legal precedent works and the logic behind this ruling will absolutely be used when states and other entities desire to limit rights for one reason or another. Alito argues that abortion is specifically a threat to human life. Well, many would say the same of gun violence. See how this case could be used as a precedent to re-interpret the second amendment? Alito may be earnest in his intention to limit this ruling to abortion, but what happens when he is gone? This ruling will have far reaching and long lasting consequences. 

And those rights all have a basis in common law. The ruling clearly shows that not to be the case with abortion.

 

It's getting easy to tell who has and hasn't read the ruling.

Edited May 6, 2022 by Lord Ratner

[tac airlifter]

7 hours ago, nsplayr said:

See above. The right to abortion is an unenumerated right based largely on the 14th Amendment, and as a constitutional right, it therefore does not require a law stating it’s legality specifically. That’s the legal theory, you are of course free to disagree or not like that.

Yes I understand what you’re saying, that is exactly the foundation of Roe vs Wade.

all I’m saying is this new draft opinion postulates that is not the case.  And I personally think the draft opinion is more convincing than Roe vs. Wade… which I’ve read.

The only reason I waded into this thread is to discuss the core legal issue.  This is such an emotionally explosive topic, it is easy to sidebar into our various opinions on abortion.  A discussion which I believe will be unproductive; I’ve never actually seen someone change their opinion on this issue after a discussion either online or in person.  
 

My point was simply that in this ruling as I understand the leak document, the issue of abortion itself is largely irrelevant.  And even if you disagree with the draft opinion, this is the kind of thing the Supreme Court is supposed to be looking at.  

[Stoker]

What if we allow abortions, but we require a certificate of no abortions in order to dine in at bars and restaurants, use the gym, or cross the border?

[nsplayr]

11 minutes ago, tac airlifter said:

Yes I understand what you’re saying, that is exactly the foundation of Roe vs Wade.

all I’m saying is this new draft opinion postulates that is not the case.  And I personally think the draft opinion is more convincing than Roe vs. Wade… which I’ve read.

The only reason I waded into this thread is to discuss the core legal issue.  This is such an emotionally explosive topic, it is easy to sidebar into our various opinions on abortion.  A discussion which I believe will be unproductive; I’ve never actually seen someone change their opinion on this issue after a discussion either online or in person.  
 

My point was simply that in this ruling as I understand the leak document, the issue of abortion itself is largely irrelevant.  And even if you disagree with the draft opinion, this is the kind of thing the Supreme Court is supposed to be looking at.  

Word, fair enough. I’m with you, I’m up for discussing the legal arguments at stake but not really much of the core issue of abortion - it’s too emotionally charged and people get big mad either way.

I’ll just add that Alito at least seems to think the core issue (abortion) does matter here, because in the draft opinion he’s saying specifically that the 14th Amendment doesn’t protect abortion but still does protect the other rights that currently fall under the same logic on which Roe and Casey were built.

I’m really skeptical of this and think there’s absolutely no reason why future courts, even ones with the exact same makeup of the current court, couldn’t use Alito’s logic here to strip away gay marriage or free public education or any number of other unenumerated rights.

I think the most at-risk thing next would be many common forms of birth control that function by inhibiting fertilized zygotes from implanting in the uterus. If those fertilized zygotes are in fact full human beings with full rights no different than you or I, I’m not sure why those methods of birth control should remain legal. That’s not my personal opinion, just following the reasoning if someone who enthusiastically supports the draft Alito opinion.

Folks are rightfully concerned about the specific way in which Roe and Casey seem to be being stuck down here, let alone their dismay at losing the rights Roe and Casey specifically clarified. If Roberts were writing a 6-3 majority opinion upholding Mississippi’s ban and just further degrading Roe without striking it entirely, along with the entire logic that Roe and Casey were built on, I think the reaction would be a bit different.

Cheers 🍻

[HeloDude]

The left:  We are a democracy and the right is trying to destroy our democracy.

Also the left:  States are going to use democracy to ban abortion…that’s horrible!

[Boomer6]

Here’s hoping there aren’t any riots at the Supreme Court building, but if there are that the rioters are prosecuted as feverishly as the Jan 6 ppl.

[Sim]

[Demonrat]

8 minutes ago, Sim said:

I'll bite on the obvious post meant to bring about an emotional response. I will attempt to describe this from the emotional point-of-view of a pro-lifer (complete satire) with my counterarguments in parentheses.

Panel 1: Fetus's hands are out, which makes it seem like he is reaching out to the world. Fetus really wants to join the world. The area surrounding him is colored blue because blue is a calming color.

(That fetus has no cognition and can't think about anything. The eyes of a fetus don't open until week 27-28, so an accurate depiction of this piece of work would be complete darkness.)

Panel 2: Huge, scary scissors that are wide open are coming down to murder the fetus. The blue area around the fetus is significantly more strained because of the scissors. The fetus is beginning to freak out due to the position of it's hands and feet.

(Fetus would have no idea this is happening, and the use of forceps directly on a baby and other tools are typically only used for late term abortions, which are very rare and typically only accomplished for medical emergencies.)

Panel 3: The big scary scissors have come together, meaning the fetus has been cut and the fetus is seeing blood dripping down it's face. The clash between red and blue makes this panel particularly scary, knowing that the fetus is now gone. I'm basically crying right now.

(See above argument for panel 2. Fetus knows nothing and feels nothing. Fetus never knew it existed, and it's the right of the mother to determine whether or not she wants this fetus to enter the world)

Panel 4: Some dumb THOT just got that baby cut so she could laugh and party and have a drink in her hand. She got rid of that fetus because she is an irresponsible monster and just wants to laugh and have fun.

(Women are allowed to have fun, and they are allowed to control everything that is in their body. It does not affect you AT ALL what ANY woman on the Earth does besides those closest to you. You need to focus on those people rather than this woman in panel 4 enjoying herself which is her God given right.)

Pro-lifers don't care for life at all. They want her to be saddled with debt taking care of this baby in a society that doesn't give two craps about the fetus once its born. This picture might be the most ridiculous piece of work I have ever seen in my entire life. Bravo for posting such an obvious piece of bait trash.

[FourFans]

5 hours ago, nsplayr said:

I’m really skeptical of this and think there’s absolutely no reason why future courts, even ones with the exact same makeup of the current court, couldn’t use Alito’s logic here to strip away gay marriage or free public education or any number of other unenumerated rights.

This is kinda the crux of the matter though.  The supreme court does not (ok...should not...) strip rights, or grant rights.  They interpret law.  In the case of Roe, they CREATED a law completely outside the purview of the legislative process, where elected officials debate, deliberate, then vote on laws.  That's the key.  Each state has the right to listen to it's constituents and create laws in accordance with the will of those people.  Roe completely bypassed that process.  Reading the first 9 pages of the thorough 98 page decision makes that obvious.

Unless legislation around those other rights you mentioned was put into place in an equally sloppy manner, there should be no problem.  The only precedent I see being set is that the Court is willing to be thorough and examine it's own former mistakes.  Roe stripped states of the right to legislate this topic in accordance with the will of the people, and gave voice to only one side of the debate.  It's honestly more about correcting civics than it is about abortion.  

[FourFans]

1 hour ago, Demonrat said:

Pro-lifers don't care for life at all. They want her to be saddled with debt taking care of this baby in a society that doesn't give two craps about the fetus once its born. This picture might be the most ridiculous piece of work I have ever seen in my entire life. Bravo for posting such an obvious piece of bait trash.

Way to take a very nuanced topic and expose your (non?)-binary colors.  Both you and Sim are welcome to take your inflammatory hyperbolic crap over to some other forum.  What you're saying is BS and you know it.  Stop. 

[dream big]

3 hours ago, Demonrat said:

 

Pro-lifers don't care for life at all. They want her to be saddled with debt taking care of this baby in a society that doesn't give two craps about the fetus once its born. This picture might be the most ridiculous piece of work I have ever seen in my entire life. Bravo for posting such an obvious piece of bait trash.

Your argument was valid until you made the logical fallacy here by assuming that all “pro lifers” think/act the same.  Some of the most charitable people I know (multiple foster children, etc) happen to be pro life and do more for impoverished children than many of the vocal “my body my choice” crowd.  

[Hunter Rose]

8 hours ago, Demonrat said:

Pro-lifers don't care for life at all. They want her to be saddled with debt taking care of this baby in a society that doesn't give two craps about the fetus once its born. This picture might be the most ridiculous piece of work I have ever seen in my entire life. Bravo for posting such an obvious piece of bait trash.

 

This is a point that never seems to get discussed enough. there never seems to be any proposed legislation by the Pro-Life crowd to care for these children they forced to be brought into the world. It just seems they want to control women.

My opinion has always been if Pro-Lifers want to force a woman to carry a baby to term using the threat of force from the state,  then the state should be responsible for the financial obligation and legal responsibility of raising the child. This should include full medical care/zero bills for the mother when pregnant annd zero legal responsibility for the unwanted child once born.

I'd be curious how many rabid Pro-Lifers would be outraged at a bill that raised their taxes to provide the financial well being for all these saved babies they proclaim to want to protect? Or would they be perfectly content letting a child live in squalor and then blame the mother for being irresponsible?

Edited May 7, 2022 by Hunter Rose

[Guardian]

You pro death advocates are pretty out there.