GrandAdmiral
Well-known member
Offline
Ugh... breaking news I DID NOT want to see.
ETA: Reported on CNN.
ETA: Reported on CNN.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg has passed (Replaced by Amy Coney Barrett)(Now Abortion Discussion) (2 Viewers)
- Thread starterGrandAdmiral
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
Users who are viewing this thread
SamAndreas
It's Not my Fault
Offline
I don't think the ones in charge really want to ban it, that's why I'm optimistic that Roe v Wade in the end, in that last breathless moment will be upheld.
cuddlemonkey
Well-known monkey
- Joined
- May 17, 2019
- Messages
- 4,417
- Reaction score
- 5,515
Offline
The ones that can- and likely will- gut it have lifetime appointments.
Taurus
Well-known member
Offline
The right to kill? But you just got done saying the mother does NOT have that right.
Optimus Prime
Well-known member
Offline
About SCOTUS in general
================
…….On the current court, each conservative justice enjoys the prospect of being able to corral four colleagues, if not all five, in support of his or her beliefs, point of view or pet projects, whether that is outlawing affirmative action, ending constitutional protection for abortion, exalting religious liberty over all other rights or restraining the power of government agencies.
A six-justice majority is emboldened rather than hesitant; so, too, are the conservative advocates who appear before it. Such a court doesn’t need to trim its sails, hedge its language or abide by legal niceties if it seems more convenient to dispense with them.
A conservative justice wary of providing a fifth vote for a controversial position can take comfort in the thought that now there are six; there is strength in that number.
Meantime, a court with a six-justice majority is one in which the justices on the other side of the ideological spectrum are effectively consigned to a perpetual minority.
They craft dissents that may serve as rebukes for the ages but do little to achieve change in the present. The most they can manage is damage control, and that only rarely.
That is the reality — exhilarating for conservatives, chilling for liberals — as the court, with a membership that has not been this conservative since the 1930s, embarks on what could be its most consequential term in decades.
The October 2021 term is the first with six conservatives in place from Day One; the newest, Amy Coney Barrett, was not confirmed until several weeks into the court’s previous term, and the first year for any justice tends to be a time of settling in……..
================
…….On the current court, each conservative justice enjoys the prospect of being able to corral four colleagues, if not all five, in support of his or her beliefs, point of view or pet projects, whether that is outlawing affirmative action, ending constitutional protection for abortion, exalting religious liberty over all other rights or restraining the power of government agencies.
A six-justice majority is emboldened rather than hesitant; so, too, are the conservative advocates who appear before it. Such a court doesn’t need to trim its sails, hedge its language or abide by legal niceties if it seems more convenient to dispense with them.
A conservative justice wary of providing a fifth vote for a controversial position can take comfort in the thought that now there are six; there is strength in that number.
Meantime, a court with a six-justice majority is one in which the justices on the other side of the ideological spectrum are effectively consigned to a perpetual minority.
They craft dissents that may serve as rebukes for the ages but do little to achieve change in the present. The most they can manage is damage control, and that only rarely.
That is the reality — exhilarating for conservatives, chilling for liberals — as the court, with a membership that has not been this conservative since the 1930s, embarks on what could be its most consequential term in decades.
The October 2021 term is the first with six conservatives in place from Day One; the newest, Amy Coney Barrett, was not confirmed until several weeks into the court’s previous term, and the first year for any justice tends to be a time of settling in……..
zztop
Well-known member
Offline
I've got a good idea what Thomas, Alito and Kav will be in favor of. It remains to be seen if Barrett's deeply religious beliefs, or her opinion that women should submit to the will of men, will bias her
SFIDC3
Well-known member
Offline
Dude is so far off the deep end not even worth replying to any longer IMO...
SystemShock
Uh yu ka t'ann
Offline
Well, I don't hear voices in my head, but yes, what else would it mean? Welcome, as in "received with pleasure and hospitality into one's company or home." "Welcome" certainly doesn't mean "go fend for yourself now that I forced your mother to birth you, you lil' fork!", right?
Unlike abortion, which is only referenced in the Bible once, and that is the performance of one.
As for how many children I have supported... I have not adopted one, but me and my wife have certainly helped many in many different ways: food, clothing, school supplies, tuition, money, even emotional support. When we can, of course.
But then, I am godless, so I am not compelled to do anything to please any imaginary being or satisfy any creed looking for salvation.
SystemShock
Uh yu ka t'ann
Offline
The Constitution doesn't define marriage at all, and doesn't say anything about abortion.
coldseat
Well-known member
Offline
That is some extremely republican, conservative thinking right there. In a very strict interpretation. That would mean that all the mother has to do is carry the pregnancy's to term, deliver the baby and then she's free to throw it out on the side of the road. After all, the baby has had it's right to life fulfilled, NOW it's on his own.
And the thing is that Republican policies and callous approach (towards both the mother and child) are consistent with that frame of mind and thinking. And the right wing wonder why there is so much cynicism around their "pro-life" claims.
Optimus Prime
Well-known member
Offline
Hypocrisy on the “life starts at conception” front from a few years ago
Anyone remember the case of a woman pregnant with twins who went to a Catholic hospital
Due to hospital error the woman and twins ended up dying
Husband filed three counts of wrongful death leaving the hospital in the awkward position of arguing that the unborn fetuses did not count as “people”
Hospital: We believe this 100% to the core of our souls unless it’s legally/financially beneficial to believe the opposite
If I'm reading the articles right - the Church did come out and condemn the hospital's stance and I wouldn't be surprised if it happened after the wrongful death suit was thrown out
====================
Life begins at conception, according to the Catholic Church, but in a wrongful death suit in Colorado, a Catholic health care company has argued just the opposite.
A fetus is not legally a person until it is born, the hospital’s lawyers have claimed in its defense. And now it may be up to the state’s Supreme Court to decide….
After about two years of litigation, defense attorneys for the hospital and doctors entered an argument that shocked the widower.
They said that under state law, an embryo is not person until it is born alive, according to court documents. The Stodghills’ twins were deceased when they were removed from their mother’s lifeless body.
“I didn’t even get to hold them,” Jeremy Stodghill said. “I have an autopsy picture. That’s all I’ve got.”
The court agreed with the argument, and Stodghill lost the suit. The court also ruled against Stodghill in the case of his wife for other legal reasons.
The hospital and doctors then sued him for over $118,000 legal fees and attempted to garnish his wages, according to a legal document filed on his behalf.
The defendants offered to forget the fees if Stodghill dropped his appeal. He refused and filed for bankruptcy to avoid having to pay the claim, which he says he can’t afford as he struggles to raise his now-9-year-old daughter, Libby……
www.cnn.com
Anyone remember the case of a woman pregnant with twins who went to a Catholic hospital
Due to hospital error the woman and twins ended up dying
Husband filed three counts of wrongful death leaving the hospital in the awkward position of arguing that the unborn fetuses did not count as “people”
Hospital: We believe this 100% to the core of our souls unless it’s legally/financially beneficial to believe the opposite
If I'm reading the articles right - the Church did come out and condemn the hospital's stance and I wouldn't be surprised if it happened after the wrongful death suit was thrown out
====================
Life begins at conception, according to the Catholic Church, but in a wrongful death suit in Colorado, a Catholic health care company has argued just the opposite.
A fetus is not legally a person until it is born, the hospital’s lawyers have claimed in its defense. And now it may be up to the state’s Supreme Court to decide….
After about two years of litigation, defense attorneys for the hospital and doctors entered an argument that shocked the widower.
They said that under state law, an embryo is not person until it is born alive, according to court documents. The Stodghills’ twins were deceased when they were removed from their mother’s lifeless body.
“I didn’t even get to hold them,” Jeremy Stodghill said. “I have an autopsy picture. That’s all I’ve got.”
The court agreed with the argument, and Stodghill lost the suit. The court also ruled against Stodghill in the case of his wife for other legal reasons.
The hospital and doctors then sued him for over $118,000 legal fees and attempted to garnish his wages, according to a legal document filed on his behalf.
The defendants offered to forget the fees if Stodghill dropped his appeal. He refused and filed for bankruptcy to avoid having to pay the claim, which he says he can’t afford as he struggles to raise his now-9-year-old daughter, Libby……
Lawyers for Catholic hospital argue that a fetus is not a person | CNN
Life begins at conception, says the Catholic Church, but in a wrongful death suit in Colorado, a Catholic healthcare argued the opposite.
www.cnn.com
Last edited:
samiam5211
Well-known member
Offline
Liberal states should make it a crime to get a woman pregnant without her consent.
Even if the sex was consensual.
Even if the sex was consensual.
SamAndreas
It's Not my Fault
Offline
You say that like it wouldn't apply to you.
samiam5211
Well-known member
Offline
Nothing i said there suggested that it wouldn't apply to me, but i can assure you that my days of impregnating anyone have passed.
SamAndreas
It's Not my Fault
Offline
What you said that suggested that is "Liberal states should ..."
samiam5211
Well-known member
Offline
Well, i said it that way because there isn't any way a conservative state would pass it.
Taurus
Well-known member
Offline
Why do you hate sex?
I mean, the way red states are going, no female in her right mind will ever consent to sex and under your plan, no male in a blue state will.Sex tourism to Canada will explode.
samiam5211
Well-known member
Offline
I'm just trying to balance responsibility.Why do you hate sex?
Sex tourism to Canada will explode.
If the woman has to be entirely responsible for gestation and birth and criminally liable if she chooses otherwise, then the man should be legally responsible for preventing conception.
Bigdaddysaints
Well-known member
Offline
so you are saying 100% of the people on life support could never survive on their own? Not even a chance later when maybe new medicines and practices are found?
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.