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

Thread Attachment browser

Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
    Here’s a good illustration about why the SC is getting pushback on their shadow docket.

    49E2A7B7-362F-4B93-992B-85A3E87C040E.jpeg
     
    Just came across this:

    “The unborn” are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus, but actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn.”
    Click to expand...
    Methodist Pastor Dave Barnhart
     
    The best argument made today was one that at least two of the Trump justices just don’t give a shirt about. But all 3 of the more progressive justices raised it in one way or another.

    The people who are writing these new laws have been explicit about the reason they are writing them now. They tell everyone it’s because there are new justices. Nothing about Roe has changed. The science hasn’t changed, the constitution hasn’t changed. Technology hasn’t changed. The composition of the Court is the only thing that has changed.

    It is clearly a political move if they decide to go against 50 years of settled law. Clearly nothing but
    politics. And everyone in the country will know it. They will lose all respect from the majority of the people in the country. And respect for the Constitution and the law is all they have. They will throw it all away.

    I would like to think they will rise above politics. But the person who lied in his confirmation hearing and had six figures of credit card debt resolved suddenly just before the hearing, and the person who accepted a nomination that was rammed through in the middle of a presidential election are not likely to care one whit about respect for precedent and the law.

    I really hope I am wrong.
     
    Hypocrisy of pro life proponents
    ===================
    As the Supreme Court considers the Mississippi abortion case, pro-choice advocates would do well to expose the fundamental dishonesty in the “pro-life” movement that it is about saving innocent life.


    Set aside for a moment all the questions about personhood and the fact that many religious traditions do not recognize personhood at conception. (The arrogance associated with the view that “everyone” agrees when life begins is indicative of a movement that insists that our laws follow one particular religious tradition.)


    Instead, focus on the contention from antiabortion activists that a woman’s right to bodily integrity must be sacrificed for the sake of another. This is a rule that is applicable in no other situation.

    In what other context is someone’s body, health and daily life commandeered to save another? No one would countenance a law that said a person who is a bone marrow or organ match is legally obligated to donate to another.

    There may be a moral imperative (if the person’s life and health would not be impacted), but we do not override an individual’s bodily integrity against his or her will even for noble purposes.

    We generally do not punish bystanders who refuse to come to the rescue of others in distress, especially when there is any risk to themselves…….

    Moreover, these same voices roundly reject the obligation of self-sacrifice for others’ health when the inconvenience is far more trivial than the emotional, physical and financial burden of a nine-month pregnancy.

    The “my body, my choice” slogan from anti-mask and anti-vaccine advocates is the most stunning example of their refusal to compel even minor inconveniences to save innocent life. They refuse to apply that same demand for bodily autonomy in the abortion context.

    Likewise, the same right-wing advocates for criminalizing abortion reject any slight inconvenience for gun buyers, such as background checks, even if it might save hundreds, if not thousands, of lives.

    Their Second Amendment rights trump everyone else’s safety. The only ones denied the right of self-determination are pregnant women.
Indeed, in no other context does “innocent life” eviscerate all other liberties and interests.

    They demand we keep stores open to sustain the economy, even if doing so imperils others. They blithely vote to chop Medicaid funding in the name of fiscal sobriety (even though they are happy to support tax cuts for the wealthy), making lifesaving addiction treatment more difficult to access.

    And they routinely oppose environmental regulations — economic freedom! — to restrict pollutants that threaten the health and lives of others……..

     
    Yea, i was naïve enough to believe that Roe would remain intact even with Beerman and ACB on the court, but it seems pretty clear that it will go down. They probably won't issue a decision until June though.
     
    Roe was garbage decision to begin with and legally speaking, it should have been overturned years ago.

    I think Kavanaugh had a good question, not quoted but something along the lines of 'why is this not a state issue?'

    ETA: Thomas is also my new spirit animal. The documentary about him called "Created Equal" is about a good as you will get. It is a shame all the big streaming serviced pulled it because it was 'controversial'.

    https://www.dailywire.com/videos/created-equal-clarence-thomas-in-his-own-words

    It is also on Tubi (whatever that is) according to IMDB. I highly recommend it.
     
    Last edited:
    Optimus Prime said:
    Hypocrisy of pro life proponents
    ===================
    As the Supreme Court considers the Mississippi abortion case, pro-choice advocates would do well to expose the fundamental dishonesty in the “pro-life” movement that it is about saving innocent life.


    Set aside for a moment all the questions about personhood and the fact that many religious traditions do not recognize personhood at conception. (The arrogance associated with the view that “everyone” agrees when life begins is indicative of a movement that insists that our laws follow one particular religious tradition.)


    Instead, focus on the contention from antiabortion activists that a woman’s right to bodily integrity must be sacrificed for the sake of another. This is a rule that is applicable in no other situation.

    In what other context is someone’s body, health and daily life commandeered to save another? No one would countenance a law that said a person who is a bone marrow or organ match is legally obligated to donate to another.

    There may be a moral imperative (if the person’s life and health would not be impacted), but we do not override an individual’s bodily integrity against his or her will even for noble purposes.

    We generally do not punish bystanders who refuse to come to the rescue of others in distress, especially when there is any risk to themselves…….

    Moreover, these same voices roundly reject the obligation of self-sacrifice for others’ health when the inconvenience is far more trivial than the emotional, physical and financial burden of a nine-month pregnancy.

    The “my body, my choice” slogan from anti-mask and anti-vaccine advocates is the most stunning example of their refusal to compel even minor inconveniences to save innocent life. They refuse to apply that same demand for bodily autonomy in the abortion context.

    Likewise, the same right-wing advocates for criminalizing abortion reject any slight inconvenience for gun buyers, such as background checks, even if it might save hundreds, if not thousands, of lives.

    Their Second Amendment rights trump everyone else’s safety. The only ones denied the right of self-determination are pregnant women.
Indeed, in no other context does “innocent life” eviscerate all other liberties and interests.

    They demand we keep stores open to sustain the economy, even if doing so imperils others. They blithely vote to chop Medicaid funding in the name of fiscal sobriety (even though they are happy to support tax cuts for the wealthy), making lifesaving addiction treatment more difficult to access.

    And they routinely oppose environmental regulations — economic freedom! — to restrict pollutants that threaten the health and lives of others……..

    Click to expand...
    Regardless of ones political and economic stance, taking a life is a no no. Everyone has a right to life. What you do with your life after that is on you. Everyone deserves a chance in the race. No one can guarantee you the race will be easy or fair.
     
    I have always looked at it this way.
    I compare an abortion to pulling the life support plug on someone. Why is it ok to end someone's life in one instance but not the other? neither one can live without support.

    The term PRO LIFE should not be used to oppose abortion. it is a lie when most people call themselves Pro Life. If the were really Pro Life, then they would be just as passionate about lives in every stage of life, not just before they are born. They are just Anti-Abortion. The"Pro Lifers" don't really care what happens to the child once its born, they would assume cutt off the mons welfare because the mom is an addict. punish the child for the terribe mother. if the child dies, then all they say is. well, they should have took better care of the kid, while voting for people who want to get rid of welfare and food stamps. The same 'politicans" want it to be illigal for same sex and single people to adopt children and make it so much red tape to be able for anyone to adopt.
    I am Pro Choice. BUT, i would NEVER recommend a woman get an abortion. But i am not gonna call her a murderer if she does, just like I'm not gonna call someone taking a loved one off of life support a murderer either.
    Also if some one is "Pro Life" shouldn't they be 100% for the covid vaccine? If everyone got the vaccine, then the death rate would drop drastically, saving lives, like children.
     
    Farb said:
    Roe was garbage decision to begin with and legally speaking, it should have been overturned years ago.

    I think Kavanaugh had a good question, not quoted but something along the lines of 'why is this not a state issue?'

    ETA: Thomas is also my new spirit animal. The documentary about him called "Created Equal" is about a good as you will get. It is a shame all the big streaming serviced pulled it because it was 'controversial'.

    https://www.dailywire.com/videos/created-equal-clarence-thomas-in-his-own-words

    It is also on Tubi (whatever that is) according to IMDB. I highly recommend it.
    Click to expand...

    Overturning Roe may make it harder to fight vaccine mandates.
     
    Bigdaddysaints said:
    I have always looked at it this way.
    I compare an abortion to pulling the life support plug on someone. Why is it ok to end someone's life in one instance but not the other? neither one can live without support.

    The term PRO LIFE should not be used to oppose abortion. it is a lie when most people call themselves Pro Life. If the were really Pro Life, then they would be just as passionate about lives in every stage of life, not just before they are born. They are just Anti-Abortion. The"Pro Lifers" don't really care what happens to the child once its born, they would assume cutt off the mons welfare because the mom is an addict. punish the child for the terribe mother. if the child dies, then all they say is. well, they should have took better care of the kid, while voting for people who want to get rid of welfare and food stamps. The same 'politicans" want it to be illigal for same sex and single people to adopt children and make it so much red tape to be able for anyone to adopt.
    I am Pro Choice. BUT, i would NEVER recommend a woman get an abortion. But i am not gonna call her a murderer if she does, just like I'm not gonna call someone taking a loved one off of life support a murderer either.
    Also if some one is "Pro Life" shouldn't they be 100% for the covid vaccine? If everyone got the vaccine, then the death rate would drop drastically, saving lives, like children.
    Click to expand...

    They aren’t pro life

    They are pro birth

    They could care less what happens after that

    They aren’t even pro preventing pregnancy

    Better sex education? No

    Free and easy access to birth control? No
     
    Worth posting again
    ================

    “The unborn” are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus, but actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn.”
    Click to expand...
    Methodist Pastor Dave Barnhart
     
    Farb said:
    Regardless of ones political and economic stance, taking a life is a no no. Everyone has a right to life. What you do with your life after that is on you. Everyone deserves a chance in the race. No one can guarantee you the race will be easy or fair.
    Click to expand...

    When do you consider life to begin?
     

    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!

    Register

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Share this page

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Back
    Top Bottom