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

[GrandAdmiral]

Ugh... breaking news I DID NOT want to see.

ETA: Reported on CNN.

 

[Farb]

Not what I said. I said getting an abortion is considered to be constitutionally protected healthcare.

If there is no constitutionally protected right to healthcare then how can an abortion fall into that category? Unless I am completely missing your point which is very possible!

 

[MT15]

The right to an abortion is protected by the Constitution according to two Supreme Court cases about 40-50 years old. As a procedure administered by physicians, abortion is healthcare. Didn’t mean to confuse.

 

[Farb]

They aren't, but interesting that you seemingly take the stance that any funding they receive helps to pay for abortions (when in fact it doesn't; all abortion services are paid for with donations or out-of-pocket by the woman). Assuming that is the case, do you feel this is the same for all organizations -- that if they receive funding from the government for any part of their services, then that funding helps fund all of their services? Should churches and religious-based organizations have all their funding and tax exempt status removed?

Have you ever ran a business? If you have money coming in from one service and you have to keep them separate for accounting, there is a little wiggle you can do to cover expenses from one service to cheapen or make more of a profit from the other. Fairly common practice.

 

[Farb]

Interesting that you want the *federal* government out of the decision, but not the *state* or *local* government. I wonder if this decision is based on knowing more local governments would like to agree with your stance rather than the idea that the government shouldn't be in the decision making process for this at all, letting that decision be up to the woman and her doctor(s) and advisors.

Can you show me where the federal government has that right? It was invented by the SCOTUS out of thin air. Bad case law should be overturned.

Yes, someone view on abortion tends to differ between regions and states. Why not have the states handle it? It is how our government is set to work. The fact that judges created Roe should tell you something. If you want federally protected abortions, let the congress do their job and vote on it. The dolts need to have their votes public so we can see who wants abortion and who doesn't. Do you think they will? They wont because they don't want to lose votes.

 

[MT15]

Most constitutional scholars don’t think Roe is ”bad case law” and most Americans want Roe to stay in effect. (Just thought that a little dose of reality was in order).

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Having a child prevents these things? Single moms across the country must be surprised. I am not going to tell them, you do it.

It can in many cases. I never said it applies to all.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Does a trans woman have eggs? Can they breast feed and carry a child in a womb? They can't. So, no, they are not a 'real' woman.

You seem to hold a lot of opinions that are in direct conflict with reality.

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

Does a trans woman have eggs? Can they breast feed and carry a child in a womb? They can't. So, no, they are not a 'real' woman.

Are you saying if a woman doesn't have eggs, can't breast feed or carry a child in her womb, she is not a real woman? I have a cousin that would not fit your description as a 'real' woman because of her medical problems.. You are a sorry person...

 

[SamAndreas]

Can you show me where the federal government has that right? It was invented by the SCOTUS out of thin air. Bad case law should be overturned.

Yes, someone view on abortion tends to differ between regions and states. Why not have the states handle it? It is how our government is set to work. The fact that judges created Roe should tell you something. If you want federally protected abortions, let the congress do their job and vote on it. The dolts need to have their votes public so we can see who wants abortion and who doesn't. Do you think they will? They wont because they don't want to lose votes.

Judges didn't create Roe from thin air. Roe falls in line with British and Colonial common law rights which date clear back to Old Testament Mosaic law as I have demonstrated to you in previous posts.

Old Common law is the well from which many of our Constitutional rights are derived. Precedent for Roe is sound. Two thousand years of precedent.

 

[V Chip]

Have you ever ran a business? If you have money coming in from one service and you have to keep them separate for accounting, there is a little wiggle you can do to cover expenses from one service to cheapen or make more of a profit from the other. Fairly common practice.

Not if there are many people in government who want to find any reason whatsoever to shut you down completely and are watching your every move like a hawk. You really think if the IRS was watching your business and auditing you every year you could get away with accounting shenanigans?

 

[V Chip]

Can you show me where the federal government has that right? It was invented by the SCOTUS out of thin air. Bad case law should be overturned.

Yes, someone view on abortion tends to differ between regions and states. Why not have the states handle it? It is how our government is set to work. The fact that judges created Roe should tell you something. If you want federally protected abortions, let the congress do their job and vote on it. The dolts need to have their votes public so we can see who wants abortion and who doesn't. Do you think they will? They wont because they don't want to lose votes.

It wasn't created out of thin air. It's based on the idea that in the United States -- and I know this idea will be strange for a righty -- people have rights to privacy, autonomy, personal freedom, and the freedom against government intrusion into personal/medical decisions. You think Brown vs Board of Education "invented" the idea of separate is inherently inequal? It's amazing what illogical twists your brain takes when arguing against something you disagree with.

 

[Farb]

You seem to hold a lot of opinions that are in direct conflict with reality.

What is the reality then?

 

[Farb]

It wasn't created out of thin air. It's based on the idea that in the United States -- and I know this idea will be strange for a righty -- people have rights to privacy, autonomy, personal freedom, and the freedom against government intrusion into personal/medical decisions. You think Brown vs Board of Education "invented" the idea of separate is inherently inequal? It's amazing what illogical twists your brain takes when arguing against something you disagree with.

I think Brown reversed bad case law set from Plessy.
Most truthful lawyers (I know, I know) will admit it was a bad decision by the court simply because there is nothing in the constitution granting a right to abortion. It will not outlaw abortion. This will only create different state laws as was the intention of the founders. Each state being their own little laboratory for democracy. Not ruled over by a judicial branch.
If abortion is legal in this country, it should be done by passing a law on the federal level. If that can't happen because our elected politicians are too timid and weak, then it falls to the states, as intended.

 

[Farb]

Not if there are many people in government who want to find any reason whatsoever to shut you down completely and are watching your every move like a hawk. You really think if the IRS was watching your business and auditing you every year you could get away with accounting shenanigans?

Are you saying IRS is not political?

 

[V Chip]

Are you saying IRS is not political?

Way to avoid the point. Almost Neo-like.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

What is the reality then?

Direct conflict. The opposite of your opinions. You still won't admit that Plan B isn't abortion, even though the science tells you that your opinion is 100% wrong. You ignore the science on vaccinations vs natural immunity. You ignore the science on trans people vs cis people. And the worst part is that you seem proud to do so.

 

[MT15]

I think Brown reversed bad case law set from Plessy.
Most truthful lawyers (I know, I know) will admit it was a bad decision by the court simply because there is nothing in the constitution granting a right to abortion. It will not outlaw abortion. This will only create different state laws as was the intention of the founders. Each state being their own little laboratory for democracy. Not ruled over by a judicial branch.
If abortion is legal in this country, it should be done by passing a law on the federal level. If that can't happen because our elected politicians are too timid and weak, then it falls to the states, as intended.

This sounds a little like the argument for states rights that Southerners used to like. Funny thing is we have seen that Rs don’t really like states rights when “blue” states do something they don’t want them to. I also call BS on your most lawyers statement. The majority of people think Roe is just fine the way it is.

 

[Bolo]

All of this wasted energy when we could be developing an effective, cheap, male birth control option that is safe and effective. Although, conservatives would never back it because "muh traditionalism" and they would def shame men calling them panzy's for using it.

I don't have a dog in this fight, I'm never having kids and I think its crazy that we're still debating this issue decades later. I don't know a single man that is sexually active that wouldn't take a birth control option that was proven to be safe and effective. Unwanted pregnancies would drop significantly.