Breaking: SCOTUS strikes down Texas abortion restriction

[sandorski]

His assertions aren't any form of substance.

Yours' are far less so.

 

[sandorski]

One is plainly enumerated in the constitution as well.

Plainly? Really?

Regardless if they are or not, when it comes to a Persons Rights, what can be more important than their own Body?

 

[Moonbeam]

I'm not a meat machine, bshole thinks he is. He then talks as if his moral opinion is worth more than his preference in cookie flavors.

I know what you are saying. You asked a question that requires a meat level of understanding to ask. The answer isnT absolute. It depends. You can't separate meat machines from truth seers on the basis of a yes or no answer to your question making asking it meaningless.

PS: the debate on guns and abortion similarities or differences is of no interest to me.

 

[buckshot24]

Yours' are far less so.

Such as?

 

[Jhhnn]

Oh right, the topic of how states harass those who exercise their rights. As I posted in the other thread Texas ought to adopt as its next step the keeping a database of everyone who gets an abortion in the state. Just for the lulz and since it's legal and all.

That wouldn't be legal because it contradicts well established privacy rights wrt medical treatment.

Privacy rights wrt firearms ownership are another matter entirely.

Third, the interest in protecting a firearm owner’s privacy rights was determined to be non-compelling because firearm ownership information is “not sacrosanct”—regulations already exist that require firearm owners to divulge ownership information in certain circumstances.

http://lawreview.law.miami.edu/judg...as-firearms-owners-privacy-act-state-appeals/

Amazing agenda, huh?

 

[buckshot24]

Plainly? Really?

Yes plainly, there is no doubt about it.

Regardless if they are or not, when it comes to a Persons Rights, what can be more important than their own Body?

Selectively determining what a body is is the only way you can apply this to the deliberate killing of babies in the wombs of their mother's. The fetus isn't the mothers body or don't you believe in genetics?

 

[sandorski]

Such as?

Never answering questions, using non-sequitors to dismiss others, and generally just trolling.

 

[zinfamous]

buckshot casts level 4 Fallacio! Logic hole opens and thread begins to swallow itself!

 

[bshole]

Oh, a wild buckshot appears. Thread suffers critical hit!

Yep... complete derailment status achieved. Perfectly executed....

 

[sandorski]

Yes plainly, there is no doubt about it.
Selectively determining what a body is is the only way you can apply this to the deliberate killing of babies in the wombs of their mother's. The fetus isn't the mothers body or don't you believe in genetics?

The Fetus is in a woman's body. Genetics has nothing to do with this issue.

 

[buckshot24]

Yep... complete derailment status achieved. Perfectly executed....

You made a statement the very first response and it is being challenged. What makes your moral opinions valid and others not?

 

[sandorski]

buckshot casts level 4 Fallacio! Logic whole opens and thread begins to swallow itself!

sigh, ya, I should just stop.

Oh, I think you mean "hole".

 

[buckshot24]

The Fetus is in a woman's body. Genetics has nothing to do with this issue.

It isn't her body and genetics has everything to do with that fact.

 

[buckshot24]

Never answering questions, using non-sequitors to dismiss others, and generally just trolling.

Do you have an example of a non sequitur?

 

[bshole]

Do you have an example of a non sequitur?

YOU TALKING ABOUT MY BASIS FOR MORALITY in a thread about Texas getting slapped down by the Supreme Court. That had absolutely nothing to do with any fucking thing said in the entire thread. That is what you do. That is all you fucking do.

 

[zinfamous]

sigh, ya, I should just stop.

Oh, I think you mean "hole".

damnit!

 

[zinfamous]

Do you have an example of a non sequitur?

http://forums.anandtech.com/member.php?u=264085

 

[buckshot24]

YOU TALKING ABOUT MY BASIS FOR MORALITY in a thread about Texas getting slapped down by the Supreme Court. That had absolutely nothing to do with any fucking thing said in the entire thread. That is what you do. That is all you fucking do.

The morality of Christians had nothing to do with this thread and yet you said it THEN blast me for derailing the thread.

 

[bshole]

http://forums.anandtech.com/member.php?u=264085

ROFLMFAO!!!! :thumbsup:

 

[bshole]

The morality of Christians had nothing to do with this thread and yet you said it THEN blast me for derailing the thread.

WTF are you talking about. You think the tactics of the Christians in backdooring this shit in is morally defensible? You think deception is approved by your holy book?

And yes what is happening in Texas is a great example of how Christianity is harming the country. It really really is.

 

[Bird222]

Excellent post. I agree 100% with this ruling. This was just a blatant transparent attempt at an end-run around a constitutional protected activity that some don't want to allow. It had no basis in medical fact, it was just a way to stop the activity without outright banning it (because such a ban would get tossed).

Now, to be consistent, the court should do the exact same thing with all the firearms/ammo/clips/registration restrictions/requirements. It's the same pathetic attempt to do an end-run around the 2nd amendment rights. Unfortunately, we know several of the justices are hacks, they don't mind such an end-around as long as it supports something they agree with.

It looks like they are all guilty of this.

 

[sandorski]

WTF are you talking about. You think the tactics of the Christians in backdooring this shit in is morally defensible? You think deception is approved by your holy book?

His Meat Machine finds your Meat Machine's questions preposterous!

 

[FerrelGeek]

OK, I have a fairly simple question with no agenda as I'm not going to get into the whole 'rights' aspect of this with which there will probably never be anything close to unanimity. I can concede that there doesn't need to be a mandate that docs at the abortion facilities have admitting privileges at the local hospital, but from what I can glean from things (not deeply informed about the dictates of the law that was struck down) is it all that unreasonable to have some level of regulation over the level of cleanliness / practices at the facilities? I get that Roe v Wade is the law of the land, so be it. But I'd think that a woman would like some assurance that if she chooses to abort that she'd want to be sure that the facility and the instruments used are clean and that the staff are properly trained. Abortion is an invasive procedure and as such does carry a certain level of risk. I wouldn't want ANY woman to wind up at a facility like the one run by Goznell; and yes, I know that's the exception. Where do we draw the line between keeping women safe and being an 'undo burden'?

 

[buckshot24]

WTF are you talking about. You think the tactics of the Christians in backdooring this shit in is morally defensible? You think deception is approved by your holy book?

And yes what is happening in Texas is a great example of how Christianity is harming the country. It really really is.

Is that how you justify your moral opinions? It is hilarious that your side is for the murder of these babies and you act like we're the morally reprehensible ones. Simply stunning level of absurdity.

I'd still like you to justify and establish the moral code you're appealing to to make these moral condemnations. Why do you think it is wrong to lie? Why shouldn't one meat bag not lie to another?

 

[PokerGuy]

There is one huge difference between Abortion Rights and Gun Rights: 1 involves a persons own Body, the other the possession of an Object. I think it's pretty obvious, or should be, which should be considered more important.

That's complete drivel of course. First, none are "more important". They are what they are and they are the base law for the country.

Further, there is no part in the constitution that says "the right to an abortion shall not be infringed". It's part of the interpretation of the due process and privacy clauses in the 14th amendment. If you take a look at RvW, you'll note that the court also said the state has a legitimate interest in protecting the rights of both the pregnant woman and the potentiality of human life during pregnancy. It is because of that interest that states can (and have) apply restrictions on abortion. In this case, it's clear the state is not furthering any such interests with these admitting priv requirements, they are just trying to make it more difficult to get an abortion.

The 2nd amendment applies just the same as any other amendment. Just because you don't like the implications of it doesn't mean it's any less important or worthy of protection than any other amendment.

The main point is, the shenanigans to indirectly restrict/ban stuff that is constitutionally protected is wrong. It doesn't matter if it's done as an end-around a right you like or one you don't, you have to be consistent.