Ruth Bader Ginsburg has passed (Replaced by Amy Coney Barrett)(Now Abortion Discussion) (1 Viewer)

Users who are viewing this thread

cuddlemonkey

Well-known monkey
Joined
May 17, 2019
Messages
1,609
Reaction score
2,023
Offline
So if there is a question, the natural response is to kill it?

No. Maybe try to stop assuming so much and just have a conversation instead.

To answer your question, my beliefs.

Your religious beliefs?

Can I ask when you think the destroying of a human life in the womb should be limited?

Ignoring the clearly loaded wording, I don't. The vast majority of abortions occur in the first trimester, which means the vast majority of abortions could be prevented through methods other than changing laws that punish women and medical care providers.

As someone who is very firmly in favor of staying out of a woman's healthcare decisions, I would be thrilled to see zero abortions except those that are medically necessary. That is much more easily accomplished by providing free birth control to women and comprehensive sex ed in every single school.
 

MT15

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 13, 2019
Messages
5,204
Reaction score
8,505
Location
Midwest
Offline
You know, that’s the whole thing. Hate abortion due to your own religious-based beliefs? That’s fine, don’t have one. Counsel other members of your church and anyone who asks your opinion to not have one. Tell them your beliefs. Be passionate about defending them to those who want to hear.

But don’t invite the government to enforce your religious beliefs. Don’t prevent other people from making their own decisions. If I can hazily remember, I thought a hallmark of Christianity is “free will”.

Forcing a woman to give birth isn’t really any different than forcing a woman to get an abortion or forcing a man to get a vasectomy. All are invasions of bodily autonomy.
 

Farb

Mostly Peaceful Poster
Joined
Oct 1, 2019
Messages
2,247
Reaction score
1,233
Age
46
Location
Mobile
Offline
This is why this is my least favorite topic to discuss. There's such a large gap in between what we each believe that I don't believe it can be bridged. You believe it's murder absolutely and that's your right and I can't really formulate anything to tell you that you're wrong. I strongly don't believe it's murder if the abortion is performed within a reasonable time frame following conception (reasonable subject to debate of course, but I would define it I think with the parameters from my last post), and while I'm open to hearing what someone has to say and willing to change my mind, I haven't ever heard anything that I found particularly compelling.

I get what you're saying with it affecting three of us.. I just don't see it the same way man. In my view the decision affects two people and also ends the potential life of a fetus that still had a decent chance of ending early anyway due to miscarriage. I don't view an 8-week-old fetus to be the same as my wife and I and I don't have any moral hang ups in my own head on viewing it that way.

I can certainly understand why someone who thinks it's murder believes I should have some hang ups, but my younger sister had a friend from childhood die while giving birth a couple months ago and it only served to reaffirm and strengthen how I feel on the subject.
This is a good one and this is why I actually enjoy discussing things with you. Being able to agree to disagree is not a thing that is acceptable in todays super charged world so I appreciate it man.
I don't see a bridge built on this issue either because both sides realize it is not like we are discussing taxes or where to put an embassy. This is a brutal topic and it tears at peoples souls and goes to the very center of human instinct, to protect the young and self preservation.
To be honest, I wasn't always pro-life, I was more in the safe, legal and rare but now obviously I fall on the side of very very rare. Attitudes and positions change as you grow older. Most grow wiser, I just grow older and more stubborn but we all have our own journey.
 

Farb

Mostly Peaceful Poster
Joined
Oct 1, 2019
Messages
2,247
Reaction score
1,233
Age
46
Location
Mobile
Offline
This law will not get by SCOTUS unless they are willing to overturn 50 years of precedent and the basic constitutional rights of women. With this court, stacked by radicals, it’s going to be close.
Let us not use the 50 years of precedent as we all know that bad laws have been around a lot longer than 50 years and where rightfully overturned.

I obviously disagree that there is a basic or any at all constitutional right for abortion. Most people on both sides agree that is the main problem with Roe, the reasoning was invented whole cloth and that is why Roe will hopefully be overturned when it is time.
 

Taurus

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
742
Reaction score
1,641
Age
53
Location
Yacolt, WA
Offline
This law will not get by SCOTUS unless they are willing to overturn 50 years of precedent and the basic constitutional rights of women. With this court, stacked by radicals, it’s going to be close.

My man, they can just simply refuse to hear the cases, leaving state-level laws in place indefinitely.
 

MT15

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 13, 2019
Messages
5,204
Reaction score
8,505
Location
Midwest
Offline
Let us not use the 50 years of precedent as we all know that bad laws have been around a lot longer than 50 years and where rightfully overturned.

I obviously disagree that there is a basic or any at all constitutional right for abortion. Most people on both sides agree that is the main problem with Roe, the reasoning was invented whole cloth and that is why Roe will hopefully be overturned when it is time.
Did you read the post I made about the constitutionality? It’s on solid ground, whether you think so or not. I am not saying that this hyper partisan court won’t strike it down, but if they do, it will be a grave error on their side, and will be talked about in history books in that way.

It will be a stain on this SC that will be hard to get rid of.
 

SystemShock

Uh yu ka t'ann
Joined
May 17, 2019
Messages
1,418
Reaction score
1,600
Location
Xibalba
Offline
And the church of Satan, they are pro-choice allies.
There's no church of Satan in MX, but there is La Santa Muerte.
I do think this law will be challenged in the SCOTUS, they just couldn't take it on now because no one was been effected by this new law.
Something tells me, that's not why it was not taken on.
 

SystemShock

Uh yu ka t'ann
Joined
May 17, 2019
Messages
1,418
Reaction score
1,600
Location
Xibalba
Offline
It is challenged - but still at the district court. The unusual (private) enforcement mechanism of the law is what complicates the legal challenge and ultimately why the SCOTUS refused to issued an injunction.
I'd call it problematic instead of unusual, and also think that would be a very good reason why take it on,
The Court basically said there was no party to the case that they could enjoin.
What about the 160-some million handmaids?
 

MT15

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 13, 2019
Messages
5,204
Reaction score
8,505
Location
Midwest
Offline
Yeah, I think that was just an excuse. This law is clearly not meeting the bar for Roe.
 

Saintman2884

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 7, 2020
Messages
286
Reaction score
119
Age
41
Location
Mobile, Alabama
Offline
Another interesting tidbit of note is that the GOP will never be able to entirely outlaw abortion in the United States. The most the Supreme Court can do is allow states to restrict abortion -- it cannot, under any interpretation of the Constitution -- compel states to ban abortion.

The only way a total ban on abortion could be achieved is by way of Constitutional amendment (not happening) or federal statute (also probably not happening given the filibuster) should the GOP eventually control the House, Senate, and Presidency (and then you are always going to have some GOP Senators and Congressman that won't go along with it).

In short, opponents of abortion are fighting a mostly philosophical battle. One that usually ends up hurting their metrics in objective categories. It's no coincidence that more conservative states tend to be less affluent, have less centers of tech and education, etc. Texas does not count because it is a fairly position in having lots of oil.
You do know that red states like Texas, Arizona, and even Florida are seeing a lot of major Fortune 500 companies like Tesla, Hewlett-Packard, Oracle are moving their headquarters from California to cities like Austin, TX and even Tucson or Phoenix, ARZ.

In terms of major US cities on the rise, and as it regards incoming tech, information software corporations, multi-national conglomerates, Austin, Texas is a city that is on a blazing fast track. Some NFL analysts have even suggested or rumored they might be in contention for a relocated NFL team or a new NFL expansion team within next 10-15 years.
 

SaulGoodmanEsq

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 19, 2020
Messages
880
Reaction score
1,433
Age
42
Location
New Orleans
Offline
Florida is a bit of an anomaly, too given its metropolitan areas. Arizona -- although conservative in the past -- is basically purple now. I don't really consider either part of the deep south or great plains states there are guaranteed red states for the next few decades.
 

SaulGoodmanEsq

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 19, 2020
Messages
880
Reaction score
1,433
Age
42
Location
New Orleans
Offline
I had read this before, but just found it again. This is in response to Farb’s assertion that women have no constitutional right to make their own decisions about their bodies.

AE639D48-5699-4C1E-8680-2CB7751282CC.jpeg

To shed some light on the dispositions of the conservative members of the Court, most of them come from the Scalia school that asserts no right to privacy should have ever been interpreted from the Due Process clause, i.e., Substantive Due Process. It's a textualist view. That is how you get people who argue your right to firearms (because it's specifically delineated in the 2nd Amendment) is more important than the right of not having the government commandeer your body.

Or course, that's another example of why relying on a 250 year old document to govern you is a terrible idea.
 

MT15

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 13, 2019
Messages
5,204
Reaction score
8,505
Location
Midwest
Offline
It’s a perverse way of looking at things, if you ask me. So we could legally harvest bone marrow or organs from people without their consent according to them? Nothing in the Constitution would cover that sort of personal violation? That’s just crazy.
 

Booker

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
312
Reaction score
670
Location
Colorado
Offline
Merrick Garland enters the room...


Announcing the lawsuit at a news conference in Washington, Attorney General Merrick Garland said the Texas law's "unprecedented" design seeks "to prevent women from exercising their constitutional rights by thwarting judicial review for as long as possible."
"The act is clearly unconstitutional under longstanding Supreme Court precedent" Garland said.

The lawsuit, filed in a federal court in Austin, alleged that the Texas law is unconstitutional because it conflicts with "the statutory and constitutional responsibilities of the federal government."
"The United States has the authority and responsibility to ensure that Texas cannot evade its obligations under the Constitution and deprive individuals of their constitutional rights by adopting a statutory scheme designed specifically to evade traditional mechanisms of federal judicial review," the lawsuit states.
The Justice Department is seeking a declaratory judgment declaring the Texas abortion ban invalid, as well as a "preliminary and permanent injunction against the State of Texas -- including all of its officers, employees, and agents, including private parties" who would enforce the abortion ban.
 

SaulGoodmanEsq

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 19, 2020
Messages
880
Reaction score
1,433
Age
42
Location
New Orleans
Offline
The private enforcement thing is insane and will absolutely be struck down. But we'll have to wait to see what mental gymnastics the conservatives perform to effectively overrule Roe.
 

zztop

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 5, 2020
Messages
1,351
Reaction score
1,657
Age
121
Location
in a van down by the river
Offline
Saw this earlier today


Justices must be “hyper vigilant to make sure they’re not letting personal biases creep into their decisions, since judges are people, too,” Barrett said at a lecture hosted by the University of Louisville’s McConnell Center.

Barrett said the media’s reporting of opinions doesn’t capture the deliberative process in reaching those decisions. And she insisted that “judicial philosophies are not the same as political parties.”

“To say the court’s reasoning is flawed is different from saying the court is acting in a partisan manner,”
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Advertisement

General News Feed

Fact Checkers News Feed

Sponsored

Top Bottom