Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights per draft opinion (Update: Dobbs opinion official) (5 Viewers)

[LovesMusic7360]

Not long ago Kari Lake proclaimed Arizona's abortion law was a great law and wanted it the law of the state.

Now that she has gotten her way, she is lobbying for it to be repealed.

As I have been saying since 2022, the overwhelming vast majority of women aren't going to vote for the man who proudly boasts that he got rid of Roe V. Wade. Nor are those women going to vote for a forced birther politician.

Turns out, republican belief in "pro life" was all just lies to get votes. Who is surprised? I sure am not.

How many forced birthers will do the same about face?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/ka ... r-BB1ltx3I.

Arizona Republican Senate candidate Kari Lake is actively lobbying state lawmakers to overturn a 160-year-old law she once supported that bans abortion in almost all cases, a source with knowledge of her efforts told CNN.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Except to protect the life of a separate human growing inside of the woman that with the aid of a male, produced him.

As has been established (and admitted to by you), this is your religious view. The synagogue filing the lawsuit holds a different religious view. Are you saying that their religious view is unworthy of consideration?

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

So who wins in the tug of war between the Jewish faith and the Catholic faith? Are you saying a religious group should be able to make the laws in a free and open society? (I might agree with you on this)

Well the obvious answer is the courts will decide that.... but the way our system of government is set up is for laws to be secular with reasonable accommodations for deeply held religious views.

And yes, religions do differ on when someone becomes a person. In the bible it clearly treats fetuses differently than humans (if you cause a miscarriage you aren't charged with murder or manslaughter, but more like misdemeanor). In Judaism, rabbinic law does not treat a fetus as a person (it's considered fluid for the first 40 days, and part of the woman's body afterwards). They do not grant a miscarriage the mourning rites they would give for a baby. It is of course not cut and dry, and different strains of Judaism disagree on under what circumstances an abortion may be performed, but pretty much all of them believe that abortion can be performed and that an abortion does not end a human life.

Adn that has more or less been the position of most of the world for a very long time. Even our own laws, including the Constitution consider rights to be granted at birth not conception (ie, you can become president 35 years after you were born, not 35 years after you were conceived; if you are born in the US you are an American citizen, not if you were conceived on US soil; etc).

We have never treated fetuses as fully formed humans - we do not do autopsy's for miscarriages. There are no inquiries into how a fetus died. The church does not perform funerals for fetuses that were miscarried (true story, my wife and I lost a pregnancy fairly late and it was pretty horrific, we talked with our priest to get closure and we could not get an actual funeral but we had a very private service of mourning for what we lost).

So, basically, if we decide that fetuses have full human rights, there are a whole host of invasive laws that we'd have to perform if we treated them like a baby. Roughly half of all fertilizations end in miscarriage. Do you want to police that? If you're married and have had children, there is a high probability that you lost a couple of pregnancies to miscarriage that you and your wife never even knew about -- how often do you mourn them? Do you feel the same way about them that you would if one of your children who were born died? I can answer on that, that while I was sad when we lost our pregnancy, it pales in comparison to what I'd feel if one of my children who were born had died.

Abortion for convenience makes me deeply uncomfortable... but that's why I heavily advocate for free and ubiquitous birth control. Comprehensive mandatory sex education. Universal health care. Paid maternity leave. Cheap and abundant child care. As well as other anti-poverty measures.

All of those are immediate and effective ways to dramatically lower abortions, but very, very few pro-life advocates champion those measures.

They're like communists -- full of idealism and self-righteousness, but woefully naive on human behavior.

 

[MT15]

I would also add - just like communists, eager to take away individual rights, at least of women.

 

[Farb]

As has been established (and admitted to by you), this is your religious view. The synagogue filing the lawsuit holds a different religious view. Are you saying that their religious view is unworthy of consideration?

It appears mine are, so I must entertain theirs as mine is not? Seems rather silly.
I have also stated that I was against abortion before I became 'religious'.

The abortion issue is only a religious issue to the left. It makes it easier to defend. There are a lot of non-religious people that are pro-life/anti-abortion. There are even rabid leftys that are against it.

So the repeated false claim that this is a religious issue, is well, false.

 

[bdb13]

It appears mine are, so I must entertain theirs as mine is not? Seems rather silly.
I have also stated that I was against abortion before I became 'religious'.

The abortion issue is only a religious issue to the left. It makes it easier to defend. There are a lot of non-religious people that are pro-life/anti-abortion. There are even rabid leftys that are against it.

So the repeated false claim that this is a religious issue, is well, false.

It's definitely mostly a religious issue. There are exceptions, of course, my dad being one. But most people in this country who are against abortion are Christian.

The ones on the Supreme Court who are expected to vote to overturn it are all openly very religious and I have observed that religious people in general (not just Christians) have a difficult time, when they have the power to do so, not imposing their views of morality onto society at large.

 

[Farb]

Well the obvious answer is the courts will decide that.... but the way our system of government is set up is for laws to be secular with reasonable accommodations for deeply held religious views.

And yes, religions do differ on when someone becomes a person. In the bible it clearly treats fetuses differently than humans (if you cause a miscarriage you aren't charged with murder or manslaughter, but more like misdemeanor). In Judaism, rabbinic law does not treat a fetus as a person (it's considered fluid for the first 40 days, and part of the woman's body afterwards). They do not grant a miscarriage the mourning rites they would give for a baby. It is of course not cut and dry, and different strains of Judaism disagree on under what circumstances an abortion may be performed, but pretty much all of them believe that abortion can be performed and that an abortion does not end a human life.

Adn that has more or less been the position of most of the world for a very long time. Even our own laws, including the Constitution consider rights to be granted at birth not conception (ie, you can become president 35 years after you were born, not 35 years after you were conceived; if you are born in the US you are an American citizen, not if you were conceived on US soil; etc).

We have never treated fetuses as fully formed humans - we do not do autopsy's for miscarriages. There are no inquiries into how a fetus died. The church does not perform funerals for fetuses that were miscarried (true story, my wife and I lost a pregnancy fairly late and it was pretty horrific, we talked with our priest to get closure and we could not get an actual funeral but we had a very private service of mourning for what we lost).

So, basically, if we decide that fetuses have full human rights, there are a whole host of invasive laws that we'd have to perform if we treated them like a baby. Roughly half of all fertilizations end in miscarriage. Do you want to police that? If you're married and have had children, there is a high probability that you lost a couple of pregnancies to miscarriage that you and your wife never even knew about -- how often do you mourn them? Do you feel the same way about them that you would if one of your children who were born died? I can answer on that, that while I was sad when we lost our pregnancy, it pales in comparison to what I'd feel if one of my children who were born had died.

Abortion for convenience makes me deeply uncomfortable... but that's why I heavily advocate for free and ubiquitous birth control. Comprehensive mandatory sex education. Universal health care. Paid maternity leave. Cheap and abundant child care. As well as other anti-poverty measures.

All of those are immediate and effective ways to dramatically lower abortions, but very, very few pro-life advocates champion those measures.

They're like communists -- full of idealism and self-righteousness, but woefully naive on human behavior.

Why would we have to police something that is natural like a miscarriage?
If a woman who is pregnant does drugs, drinks and smokes during pregnancy no one should say or do anything? After all, it is just a fetus, right?
It doesn't sound communist to you have 'mandatory' comprehensive sex education? Where would this be done, schools? Who gets to the decide the sex education because the folks doing now are really bad at their job.
I have no problem with birth control and lots of it. The 100% sure fire way to not get pregnant is to not have sex, but that can't be taught.
Abortion should not be treated as birth control.

 

[Farb]

I would also add - just like communists, eager to take away individual rights, at least of women.

Can I own an AR-15?

 

[Farb]

It's definitely mostly a religious issue. There are exceptions, of course, my dad being one. But most people in this country who are against abortion are Christian.

The ones on the Supreme Court who are expected to vote to overturn it are all openly very religious and I have observed that religious people in general (not just Christians) have a difficult time, when they have the power to do so, not imposing their views of morality onto society at large.

Really? I see that most of the time that when religious people have power, they never use out of fear of being attacked. Like school prayer, removing crosses and such.
Remember safe, legal and rare? But, as per usual, it became a slippery slope and that caused push back.
Look at the violence erupting now against pro-life or religious places of worship because of abortion.

 

[bdb13]

@Farb I brought this up before but.. I'm just curious.

My wife and I are 34 don't have any kids, don't want any kids. I think it'd be fairly unrealistic to say we shouldn't be having sex, but I guess you could say that, but she is taking birth control to make sure that she doesn't get pregnant.

But let's say that she does get pregnant here and we still didn't want the kid. You're going to force my wife to go through Labor and give up our child for adoption now?

Why shouldn't my wife and I be the ones who have to bear the burden of the decisions that we make in this situation? I don't understand why government imposing personal decisions upon my family is an improvement upon our current situation.

I get both sides of this issue to a large extent, but it's always made little sense to me to elevate the rights of the fetus to a level that supersedes our right to make decisions for our family.

 

[bdb13]

Really? I see that most of the time that when religious people have power, they never use out of fear of being attacked. Like school prayer, removing crosses and such.
Remember safe, legal and rare? But, as per usual, it became a slippery slope and that caused push back.
Look at the violence erupting now against pro-life or religious places of worship because of abortion.

I think that if school prayer and everything were to come in front of the supreme Court now, we likely get different results (I honestly don't remember if they were supreme Court cases for that - but probably). Christians have a much greater power on the supreme Court than they did even a few years ago (which has been a major talking point for years that 'if we could just get a bunch of Christian conservatives on the supreme Court we'll be able to flip everything we don't like.")

To the last part, people have been bombing abortion clinics for years as well (one in Pensacola burned down like 10 years ago I think). There are bad and emotional people on every side of every issue, I'm not exactly sure what that says about me and my opinion on things.

 

[brandon]

Can I own an AR-15?

Currently, and for the foreseeable future, yes.

 

[zztop]

remember that time the supreme court said hey, no need to keep a buffer between protestors and abortion clinics because it violated free speech?

Abortion clinic 'buffer zones' violate first amendment – supreme court

Justices side with seven Massachusetts anti-abortion protesters who said 35-foot buffer zone infringed on free speech

www.theguardian.com

something something about hypocrisy

As abortion ruling nears, U.S. Supreme Court erects barricades to the public

Encircled by an ominous security fence and off-limits to the public since March 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court is poised in the coming weeks to issue a major ruling that could dramatically curtail abortion rights from behind closed doors with not a single justice in sight.

www.reuters.com

 

[DaveXA]

remember that time the supreme court said hey, no need to keep a buffer between protestors and abortion clinics because it violated free speech?

Abortion clinic 'buffer zones' violate first amendment – supreme court

Justices side with seven Massachusetts anti-abortion protesters who said 35-foot buffer zone infringed on free speech

www.theguardian.com

something something about hypocrisy

As abortion ruling nears, U.S. Supreme Court erects barricades to the public

Encircled by an ominous security fence and off-limits to the public since March 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court is poised in the coming weeks to issue a major ruling that could dramatically curtail abortion rights from behind closed doors with not a single justice in sight.

www.reuters.com

Eh, I wouldn't call that an equivalent comparison. The barricades are temporary and for obvious security reasons. They'll come back down, probably sometime after the abortion case decision is handed down.

That said, I do think a buffer zone for abortion clinics are reasonable. Not a fan of striking that down.

That decision was over 7 years ago tho. Not really the same court.

Fwiw, the decision didn't say they couldn't have a buffer zone, just that it's limited.

In a unanimous decision, the court said the zone was too sweeping, intruding onto public sidewalks where free debate and leafletting traditionally take place.


The decision, which was relatively narrow, allows the state an opportunity to enact a new, less restrictive law. It did not overturn a previous supreme court decision in 2000, which upheld a buffer zone in Colorado.

 

[zztop]

Eh, I wouldn't call that an equivalent comparison. The barricades are temporary and for obvious security reasons. They'll come back down, probably sometime after the abortion case decision is handed down.

That said, I do think a buffer zone for abortion clinics are reasonable. Not a fan of striking that down.

That decision was over 7 years ago tho. Not really the same court.

Fwiw, the decision didn't say they couldn't have a buffer zone, just that it's limited.

What is allowed is some places (for security) is considered a violation of free speech elsewhere? No. how about apply the same standards to everyone. Willing to bet those barricades are a lot farther back vs what was allowed at those clinics. How about the protestors are allowed to be just as close to them as protestors at clinics? The rules should apply equally to all, but we both know it doesn't.

edit: found a picture. yep a LITTLE further back than 35 feet.



since then another 8 foot tall barricade has been put there as well

'Nonscalable' fence erected outside Supreme Court amid abortion-related protests

Police officers said the 8-foot barrier is similar to the fencing constructed around the Capitol after the Jan. 6 attack.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[DaveXA]

What is allowed is some places (for security) is considered a violation of free speech elsewhere? No. how about apply the same standards to everyone. Willing to bet those barricades are a lot farther back vs what was allowed at those clinics. How about the protestors are allowed to be just as close to them as protestors at clinics? The rules should apply equally to all, but we both know it doesn't.

edit: found a picture. yep a LITTLE further back than 35 feet.



since then another 8 foot tall barricade has been put there as well

'Nonscalable' fence erected outside Supreme Court amid abortion-related protests

Police officers said the 8-foot barrier is similar to the fencing constructed around the Capitol after the Jan. 6 attack.

www.nbcnews.com

Hey, if it makes you feel better...

 

[cuddlemonkey]

It appears mine are, so I must entertain theirs as mine is not? Seems rather silly.

How do we determine what should and should not be law when:

1. We have freedom of religion, and;
2. A potential law upholds one side's religious beliefs while violating the others?

I have also stated that I was against abortion before I became 'religious'.

So? Every argument you have put forth is either religious or religion poorly disguised as secular.

The abortion issue is only a religious issue to the left. It makes it easier to defend. There are a lot of non-religious people that are pro-life/anti-abortion. There are even rabid leftys that are against it.

That's a ridiculous and absurd lie.

So the repeated false claim that this is a religious issue, is well, false.

Again, this is either willful ignorance or you are blatantly lying.

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

And I disagree with Scalia.

But he's Scalia so you lose!

 

[Farb]

@Farb I brought this up before but.. I'm just curious.

My wife and I are 34 don't have any kids, don't want any kids. I think it'd be fairly unrealistic to say we shouldn't be having sex, but I guess you could say that, but she is taking birth control to make sure that she doesn't get pregnant.

But let's say that she does get pregnant here and we still didn't want the kid. You're going to force my wife to go through Labor and give up our child for adoption now?

Why shouldn't my wife and I be the ones who have to bear the burden of the decisions that we make in this situation? I don't understand why government imposing personal decisions upon my family is an improvement upon our current situation.

I get both sides of this issue to a large extent, but it's always made little sense to me to elevate the rights of the fetus to a level that supersedes our right to make decisions for our family.

Good question and I get it.

Tough situation, but I will be honest about what I think and my personal stance on this, so apologies up front if I come off as crass, as not my intent.

I would question why you guys would not want to have a child in the first place but that is a personal decision and it sounds like both you are on board with that so good for you. Glad you are using protection but let us say it failed (I hope it doesn't obviously). Then I would say 'congratulations' because you life is about to get a lot more complicated and difficult but it will be the best thing to every happen to you. Ever. Without a doubt. Having children is the most rewarding experience a person can ever do. The amount of love you have for a little person is something you would never knew to be possible. Ask any parent. Even a parent that lost a kid (I could not imagine) would not do it differently.
I have never met a person that regrets having a little human. I am sure some are out there, but they are probably not able to be happy about anything and more than not just a terrible person.

You asked:

@Farb I brought this up before but.. I'm just curious.

Why shouldn't my wife and I be the ones who have to bear the burden of the decisions that we make in this situation? I don't understand why government imposing personal decisions upon my family is an improvement upon our current situation.

Indeed, you are your wife should have to bear the burden of your decisions. If you guys do get pregnant, then life has found a way and the burden of your decisions led to that life so now it is a mini Mr. and Mrs. bdb13 and you and the Mrs. will wonder how your life was even considered complete before the little one.

To be honest, I understand the situation. My kid was an oops and I we were not even married. I had no interest in kids, especially at that time in my life. I wrestled with that very decision you describe. It was a terrible decision and my liver is still recovering but I am thankful my faith (that has largely been ignored since High School- Catholic school so that tells you why I was not religious at the time) came through and helped me and my soon to be wife make the best and in my mind now the only decision. I was not religious at the time at all, not even Christmas mass. I just knew that is something I could not live with myself if I encouraged her to have an abortion.

Long rambling response, but you all are used to my brain diarrhea by now.