Ruth Bader Ginsburg has passed (Replaced by Amy Coney Barrett)(Now Abortion Discussion) (2 Viewers)

[GrandAdmiral]

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

ETA: Reported on CNN.

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

Yes, I am against Plan B. I said some time ago on here that I would could make exceptions for Plan B, I was wrong about that.

I agree with most of the science that was posted. Nature is nature. Not all sperm is going to fertilize an egg. Not all eggs are going to be fertilized. Not all pregnancies will come to term. These are natural.
It is what happens after the zygote is formed by fertilization by 2 different organism to create a single life that is important. That should be protected. Our ancestors thought that was to be protected at all costs, even to the life of the male, hence the differences between males and females.

Do you know how the Plan B works? I do not think you do...

 

[MT15]

There’s a huge article on Ginni and Clarence Thomas out today in NYT. Buried in there is a casual statement that they and their ilk do not believe in the right to privacy which is cited by Roe v Wade, which is what I referenced with my post above about Griswold.

How do all these so-called conservatives square their belief in regulating all these aspects of people’s lives with conservatism?

I wish the news would quit calling these people conservatives - they are anything but that. They are more authoritarian than anything else. They believe that the state should know everything and regulate everything you do. We are seeing it play out in all the school laws which turn teachers into people to be harassed and spied upon.

And then they gaslight that the left wants to lead us into socialism.

 

[SystemShock]

Meanwhile in Colombia, their high court decriminalized abortions up to the 24th week, without the need to provide any justification.

I don't know about that one, though.

Colombia's highest court legalizes abortion up to 24 weeks

Colombia has become the latest country in Latin America to expand access to abortion, with the nation’s Constitutional Court voting to legalize the procedure until the 24th week of pregnancy

abcnews.go.com

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

@Farb , i'm assuming you didn't know how Plan B worked, looked it up and realized it wasn't what you thought it was. Tell how how it is any different than regular birth control? are you against ALL birth control?

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

There’s a huge article on Ginni and Clarence Thomas out today in NYT. Buried in there is a casual statement that they and their ilk do not believe in the right to privacy which is cited by Roe v Wade, which is what I referenced with my post above about Griswold.

How do all these so-called conservatives square their belief in regulating all these aspects of people’s lives with conservatism?

I wish the news would quit calling these people conservatives - they are anything but that. They are more authoritarian than anything else. They believe that the state should know everything and regulate everything you do. We are seeing it play out in all the school laws which turn teachers into people to be harassed and spied upon.

And then they gaslight that the left wants to lead us into socialism.

The legal philosophy is that because a 'right to privacy' is not explicitly in the Constitution, then states should be allowed to regulate abortion on an individualized basis. It's not an intellectually bankrupt opinion. If you look at the cases a 'right to privacy' sort of evolved over time (when the Court had more liberal members) and Substantive Due Process is almost entirely a judicially created concept. But, then again, that's how common law works -- evolving through jurisprudence.

Most conservative jurists these days -- notably Amy Barrett and Clarence Thomas -- simply don't like abortion from a religious perspective. Regardless of how they craft their legal positions its patently obvious what drives them. Yet somehow we don't consider that an Establishment Clause violation because Establishment Clause jurisprudence was gutted a long time ago. Now you have religious conservatives wielding the Free Exercise Clause as a weapon.

 

[SamAndreas]

The legal philosophy is that because a 'right to privacy' is not explicitly in the Constitution, then states should be allowed to regulate abortion on an individualized basis. It's not an intellectually bankrupt opinion. If you look at the cases a 'right to privacy' sort of evolved over time (when the Court had more liberal members) and Substantive Due Process is almost entirely a judicially created concept. But, then again, that's how common law works -- evolving through jurisprudence.

Most conservative jurists these days -- notably Amy Barrett and Clarence Thomas -- simply don't like abortion from a religious perspective. Regardless of how they craft their legal positions its patently obvious what drives them. Yet somehow we don't consider that an Establishment Clause violation because Establishment Clause jurisprudence was gutted a long time ago. Now you have religious conservatives wielding the Free Exercise Clause as a weapon.

That's a good analysis. Bespeaking the reality of the situation. Throwing the cards that are on the table.

 

[MT15]

The legal philosophy is that because a 'right to privacy' is not explicitly in the Constitution, then states should be allowed to regulate abortion on an individualized basis. It's not an intellectually bankrupt opinion. If you look at the cases a 'right to privacy' sort of evolved over time (when the Court had more liberal members) and Substantive Due Process is almost entirely a judicially created concept. But, then again, that's how common law works -- evolving through jurisprudence.

Most conservative jurists these days -- notably Amy Barrett and Clarence Thomas -- simply don't like abortion from a religious perspective. Regardless of how they craft their legal positions its patently obvious what drives them. Yet somehow we don't consider that an Establishment Clause violation because Establishment Clause jurisprudence was gutted a long time ago. Now you have religious conservatives wielding the Free Exercise Clause as a weapon.

Banning abortion is bad enough, as it denies women the full bodily autonomy that men own. But they will not stop at that - or rather if people think they will, they’re hopelessly naive.

They will outlaw embryo transfers, they will force children to carry pregnancies that are the result of incest or rape (this is already the case in TX, unless the 12-13 year old can discern that she is pregnant before 6 weeks pass), they will get around to outlawing birth control. They will re-criminalize homosexuality. And I haven’t even gotten to the educational crap that includes turning in teachers to the state for saying “forbidden” words.

They’re not conservative. What they are doing is not conservative at all. So, to me that is morally bankrupt, whether some people think it has intellectual merit or not. (not aimed at you).

Oh, and about that 6 weeks, anyone who has been married or been involved with a woman knows that this is a bogus number of weeks. By the time a woman knows she has missed her period, and this is if she is paying very close attention and has really regular cycles, she is already 3-4 weeks into the “6 weeks” that she is allotted to decide on her own body and healthcare. If you have been raped, or under any other type of stress, or if you are very young, if you have irregular cycles, or if you forget the date of your last period, you have very little chance of making that deadline. The stupidest thing I ever saw was Greg Freaking Abbott saying “a woman still has 6 weeks to make up her mind”. Topped only by his assertion that there didn’t need to be a rape exception because he was going to stop the rapes in TX. What a complete and total clown. What complete cluelessness.

 

[Farb]

@Farb , i'm assuming you didn't know how Plan B worked, looked it up and realized it wasn't what you thought it was. Tell how how it is any different than regular birth control? are you against ALL birth control?

You would be correct on both!

 

[brandon]

You would be correct on both!

And while that is your personal opinion (specifically speaking only regarding to "regular" birth control), do you believe it is something that should be legislated upon those with differing opinions?

That no one should have the right in America to any medical form of birth control?

 

[insidejob]

You would be correct on both!

You're against condoms and the pill? Opposed to pulling out too? Weak.

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

You would be correct on both!

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

You would be correct on both!

And do you think all birth control should be banned? Should it be a crime to have sex without the purpose of procreation?

 

[Farb]

And do you think all birth control should be banned? Should it be a crime to have sex without the purpose of procreation?

a crime? No. Should society establish that is against the societal norm. Yes, but we both know that won't happen as our society has fractured and devolved into the vanity and narcissism.

 

[brandon]

a crime? No. Should society establish that is against the societal norm. Yes,

Why are you against criminalizing mass murder? Isn’t that the reason you believe abortion should be criminalized?

Why are you inconsistent on mass murder being a crime?

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

a crime? No. Should society establish that is against the societal norm.

Sounds a lot like the Islamic caliphates.

And again with the vanity and narcissism stuff. I'll refer you to my earlier post on that -- the irony coming from one who espouses religious indoctrination is overwhelming. Also blatantly inconsistent with your alleged libertarian values.

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

a crime? No. Should society establish that is against the societal norm. Yes, but we both know that won't happen as our society has fractured and devolved into the vanity and narcissism.

If you believe birth control and abortion is the same, I'm pretty sure you have said abortion should be illegal. If they are the same, them you should want birth control illegal. Am i missnig something?

 

[Farb]

Sounds a lot like the Islamic caliphates.

And again with the vanity and narcissism stuff. I'll refer you to my earlier post on that -- the irony coming from one who espouses religious indoctrination is overwhelming. Also blatantly inconsistent with your alleged libertarian values.

Is the caliphate backed by the Islamic state? It is, so you perception is just wrong, but it sounded like a good zinger to you no doubt.

Having society police morality vs the state actually policing morality is the same to you obviously. Hey, you do you my friend.

 

[Farb]

If you believe birth control and abortion is the same, I'm pretty sure you have said abortion should be illegal. If they are the same, them you should want birth control illegal. Am i missnig something?

I was replying to this:

Should it be a crime to have sex without the purpose of procreation?

What point of a pregnancy do you think abortion should be illegal?