SCOTUS hearing on Roe V Wade

[fskimospy]

You've posted this before and it's a fallacy. The women experiencing spontaneous abortion aren't 'choosing' to have an abortion. It's just a consequence of aging. Most miscarriages in young women are due to genetic defects or failure of the women's body to adequately ramp up the necessary hormones. All of this is just a consequence of our biology. There is no extant relationship to abortion pills at all.

I agree it's not the same as an intentional decision to abort but there's a reason we have negligent homicide laws. If you undertook an activity that would result in the death of a child 80% of the time, even if your intent wasn't to kill the child, you're going to be in a heap of legal trouble.

 

[JD50]

You've posted this before and it's a fallacy. The women experiencing spontaneous abortion aren't 'choosing' to have an abortion. It's just a consequence of aging. Most miscarriages in young women are due to genetic defects or failure of the women's body to adequately ramp up the necessary hormones. All of this is just a consequence of our biology. There is no extant relationship to abortion pills at all.

And women having sex aren't "choosing" to get pregnant. I guess these women that are so concerned about the life of a fetus should stop having sex altogether, as they are potentially murdering their own fetus. And of course men shouldn't be having sex with them either.

 

[HomerJS]

Im not kidding. She totally rejected abortion later in her life, her baby was never aborted, she had a spiritual awakening, followed God, and became a Christian and an outspoken advocate against the use of abortion in society, by exposing the lies that started with the deceptions of Roe v Wade. They don't want you to know this, because it's obviously contrary to their entire "pitch" regarding the abortion debate. It's also very very damaging to have the key figure in the entire court case totally flip on abortion adovcates.

Do you remember the last time politicians tried to intervene in a families private medical decisions? In case you forgot, I suggest googling Terry Schivo

 

[ch33zw1z]

And women having sex aren't "choosing" to get pregnant. I guess these women that are so concerned about the life of a fetus should stop having sex altogether, as they are potentially murdering their own fetus. And of course men shouldn't be having sex with them either.

Yea right, lol

 

[fskimospy]

Do you remember the last time politicians tried to intervene in a families private medical decisions? In case you forgot, I suggest googling Terry Schivo

Also I can't emphasize enough: what he's saying there is a complete lie. At the end of her life she admitted the entire show of her turning against abortion was a sham - she said those things because right wing groups paid her to and she never actually changed her views.

 

[nakedfrog]

This nation has roots in slavery, but we have turned away from that. I mean that's a good thing right? Just because American founders had some roots in something doesn't mean shit in an of itself. It could be good just as it has often turned out to be very not good. It's just a terrible argument for people with no critical thinking skills.

It's like these assholes don't realize the Treaty of Tripoli exists.

 

[IronWing]

It's like these assholes don't realize the Treaty of Tripoli exists.

I remember Tripoli.

 

[shortylickens]

Sounds like the pro-life defense violates the separation of church and state. The entire defense of a fertilized egg being a person is based strictly on religion.

It is. And the reason they keep going back to that is its the only thing that gets millions of supporters on their side. They cant win without the invisible man in the sky making up weird ass rules and enforcing them with weird methods.

 

[Paratus]

You've posted this before and it's a fallacy. The women experiencing spontaneous abortion aren't 'choosing' to have an abortion. It's just a consequence of aging. Most miscarriages in young women are due to genetic defects or failure of the women's body to adequately ramp up the necessary hormones. All of this is just a consequence of our biology. There is no extant relationship to abortion pills at all.

I know we’ve had this discussion before and I think you are missing my point about responsibility.

If the harm is causing the death of a fetus then choosing to take an abortifacient that is almost guaranteed to cause the abortion makes the person choosing responsible for the harm.

If a couple decides to have a child at an age that is almost guaranteed to cause a spontaneous abortion then the persons making that choice are responsible for the harm.

You can argue intent, that the one’s trying to have a child aren’t intending to cause harm - it’s only happening by accident but that doesn’t negate responsibility for the harm.

I’ll be quite frank here. I do risk analysis in my current job. There is not a single activity in your life or anyone else’s life that they do that has catastrophic risk likelihoods of 1 in 6 to 5 in 6. Not drunk driving, not skydiving , not even wingsuit flying (1/500).

You would absolutely hold someone accountable if they killed a child doing something with a known risk of killing them with a likelihood similar to pointing a partially loaded revolver at their head.

The fact that our biology leads to the risk of spontaneous abortion and miscarriage at these likelihoods should be your second clue that assigning moral personhood status to fetuses is wrong.

The first clue should be turning women into incubators is morally wrong.

 

[shortylickens]

I have noticed something about America. Since its inception, the government has had almost no success in forcing people to be responsible. They can punish people for being grossly irresponsible to the point it causes harm to others, but thats it. Any time one section of the country tries to force its moral system on another part of the country, everything fails. Prohibition is one example. Slavery is another. Segregation is another. Suffrage or rather lack of suffrage is the last one. Abolition worked because it was about giving human beings their freedom, not morality. Many white Americans and some blacks were fine with the morality of slavery, so it didnt matter to them. You had to change the argument from morals to rights, which made it work.

So all of this goes back to my previous argument: We cant and shouldn't let the Supreme Court constantly reinterpret morality every few years. The abortion debate comes up way too often and never gets resolved. Congress needs to grow balls and pass a law: Either fetuses are citizens, and need to be counted in the census for population and the electoral college and given rights, OR, fetuses are not citizens and what a pregnant woman does with it is her own fucking business and literally no one else.

Since congress is full of slimy cowards this issue will never be resolved and we will have nothing but problems. This is not a compromise issue. It needs to be decided once and for all.

 

[fskimospy]

I have noticed something about America. Since its inception, the government has had almost no success in forcing people to be responsible. They can punish people for being grossly irresponsible to the point it causes harm to others, but thats it. Any time one section of the country tries to force its moral system on another part of the country, everything fails. Prohibition is one example. Slavery is another. Segregation is another. Suffrage or rather lack of suffrage is the last one. Abolition worked because it was about giving human beings their freedom, not morality. Many white Americans and some blacks were fine with the morality of slavery, so it didnt matter to them. You had to change the argument from morals to rights, which made it work.

So all of this goes back to my previous argument: We cant and shouldn't let the Supreme Court constantly reinterpret morality every few years. The abortion debate comes up way too often and never gets resolved. Congress needs to grow balls and pass a law: Either fetuses are citizens, and need to be counted in the census for population and the electoral college and given rights, OR, fetuses are not citizens and what a pregnant woman does with it is her own fucking business and literally no one else.

Since congress is full of slimy cowards this issue will never be resolved and we will have nothing but problems. This is not a compromise issue. It needs to be decided once and for all.

What makes you think SCOTUS wouldn't just strike down such a law?

The real issue here is the courts have gotten out of control and have become a super legislature of sorts where even relatively mundane aspects of governance are subject to constant litigation and wildly various judicial interpretations that take years to sort out because in America when you pass a law that's only the beginning, you still have to see if the courts will permit you to govern.

The elected branches of government need to reign the courts back in. Honestly the federal judiciary's caseload has expanded hugely in the last few decades and the number of seats hasn't kept up anyway. We should kill two birds with one stone and expand the federal courts at ALL levels.

 

[shortylickens]

What makes you think SCOTUS wouldn't just strike down such a law?

The real issue here is the courts have gotten out of control and have become a super legislature of sorts where even relatively mundane aspects of governance are subject to constant litigation and wildly various judicial interpretations that take years to sort out because in America when you pass a law that's only the beginning, you still have to see if the courts will permit you to govern.

The elected branches of government need to reign the courts back in. Honestly the federal judiciary's caseload has expanded hugely in the last few decades and the number of seats hasn't kept up anyway. We should kill two birds with one stone and expand the federal courts at ALL levels.

For the same reason they could not "strike down" the prohibition amendment or "strike down" the amendment repealing prohibition. The Supreme Court does not have the power to kill or pass laws. They can only interpret the law. The legislative branch. My beef is since we do not specifically have an amendment that grants abortion as a right, or outlaws it entirely, they can keep "reinterpreting" the 14th Amendment any damn way they please. Which is what they have been doing. You get some old school conservatives up there who simply do not want abortion all they have to do is say "no, abortion is not a right as such". And that looks like a very real possibility right now.

On a somewhat related topic the other problem is branch number 3 (executive) has too much leeway in how they enforce laws, to the point where they can prohibit activity that is supposed to be legal, and allow activity that is clearly a crime but they dont feel like dealing with for any number of reasons.

 

[MrSquished]

What makes you think SCOTUS wouldn't just strike down such a law?

The real issue here is the courts have gotten out of control and have become a super legislature of sorts where even relatively mundane aspects of governance are subject to constant litigation and wildly various judicial interpretations that take years to sort out because in America when you pass a law that's only the beginning, you still have to see if the courts will permit you to govern.

The elected branches of government need to reign the courts back in. Honestly the federal judiciary's caseload has expanded hugely in the last few decades and the number of seats hasn't kept up anyway. We should kill two birds with one stone and expand the federal courts at ALL levels.

We'd have better luck splitting up the country than any of those. Dems will never get enough power to do any of that, and will never have the marketing skills of the GQP to sell it to enough people anyway. It's much easier to sell hate and fear to dumb and/or shitty people than intellectual ideas that get into the shortcomings of a judicial and legislative system designed in many ways over 200 years ago in an era that is so outdated now.

It's easier to sell - communism bad, brown people bad, gays bad, guns good, environment bad!

 

[fskimospy]

We'd have better luck splitting up the country than any of those. Dems will never get enough power to do any of that, and will never have the marketing skills of the GQP to sell it to enough people anyway. It's much easier to sell hate and fear to dumb and/or shitty people than intellectual ideas that get into the shortcomings of a judicial and legislative system designed in many ways over 200 years ago in an era that is so outdated now.

It's easier to sell - communism bad, brown people bad, gays bad, guns good, environment bad!

I mean they have enough power to do it now if they wanted to. If you think Manchin and Sinema won't go for it that's probably true but that would mean you would need a 2 seat majority. This is hardly a herculean lift.

 

[MrSquished]

I mean they have enough power to do it now if they wanted to. If you think Manchin and Sinema won't go for it that's probably true but that would mean you would need a 2 seat majority. This is hardly a herculean lift.

I don't think all other 48 senators would go for packing the supreme court at all. Like I said it can't be marketed simply and the Dems aren't good marketers anyway most of the time. Many more than those two would not do it.

 

[fskimospy]

For the same reason they could not "strike down" the prohibition amendment or "strike down" the amendment repealing prohibition. The Supreme Court does not have the power to kill or pass laws. They can only interpret the law. The legislative branch. My beef is since we do not specifically have an amendment that grants abortion as a right, or outlaws it entirely, they can keep "reinterpreting" the 14th Amendment any damn way they please. Which is what they have been doing. You get some old school conservatives up there who simply do not want abortion all they have to do is say "no, abortion is not a right as such". And that looks like a very real possibility right now.

On a somewhat related topic the other problem is branch number 3 (executive) has too much leeway in how they enforce laws, to the point where they can prohibit activity that is supposed to be legal, and allow activity that is clearly a crime but they dont feel like dealing with for any number of reasons.

SCOTUS rules that a federal definition of personhood doesn't apply to the states, who are permitted to make their own determinations on this due to dual sovereignty. Bam - federal bill is largely useless and states can ban abortion however much they want again.

As I've said before laws at this level aren't based on any neutral governing principles or a determination of the appropriate part the courts should play, it's a political body where they decide the outcome first and then invent some Calvinball type legal justification to back into it. I don't think the courts SHOULD do this, but that's my point - they ARE doing it and we need to make them stop.

 

[fskimospy]

I don't think all other 48 senators would go for packing the supreme court at all. Like I said it can't be marketed simply and the Dems aren't good marketers anyway most of the time. Many more than those two would not do it.

Meh, we'll never know unless it comes up as part of a real push but I suspect well over 40 currently support it and that number will continue to grow.

 

[DaaQ]

For the same reason they could not "strike down" the prohibition amendment or "strike down" the amendment repealing prohibition. The Supreme Court does not have the power to kill or pass laws. They can only interpret the law. The legislative branch. My beef is since we do not specifically have an amendment that grants abortion as a right, or outlaws it entirely, they can keep "reinterpreting" the 14th Amendment any damn way they please. Which is what they have been doing. You get some old school conservatives up there who simply do not want abortion all they have to do is say "no, abortion is not a right as such". And that looks like a very real possibility right now.

On a somewhat related topic the other problem is branch number 3 (executive) has too much leeway in how they enforce laws, to the point where they can prohibit activity that is supposed to be legal, and allow activity that is clearly a crime but they dont feel like dealing with for any number of reasons.

But back during prohibition, the court wasn't an activist court. It was doing it's job and being impartial.

 

[mect]

For the same reason they could not "strike down" the prohibition amendment or "strike down" the amendment repealing prohibition. The Supreme Court does not have the power to kill or pass laws. They can only interpret the law. The legislative branch. My beef is since we do not specifically have an amendment that grants abortion as a right, or outlaws it entirely, they can keep "reinterpreting" the 14th Amendment any damn way they please. Which is what they have been doing. You get some old school conservatives up there who simply do not want abortion all they have to do is say "no, abortion is not a right as such". And that looks like a very real possibility right now.

On a somewhat related topic the other problem is branch number 3 (executive) has too much leeway in how they enforce laws, to the point where they can prohibit activity that is supposed to be legal, and allow activity that is clearly a crime but they dont feel like dealing with for any number of reasons.

You are correct that they don't have the power to pass laws, but incorrect that they don't have the power to strike them down. In addition to interpreting laws, part of their mandated is determining if laws are unconstitutional. While this is an important power for them to have (since we don't want our legislators passing unconstitutional laws), it becomes a problem when the court becomes politicized and use this power inconsistently to strike down laws simply because they don't agree with them.

 

[shortylickens]

But back during prohibition, the court wasn't an activist court. It was doing it's job and being impartial.

And again, that doesnt matter. A law was passed. The judicial branch has no say in that. Somebody made an amendment, got it thru congress, and the president agreed to sign it. He can veto, then congress needs a larger majority to force it thru.

The basic issue we have and for some reason people keep fighting me on this is: We do not have a constitutional amendment which specifically protects the rights of pregnant women or the rights of fetuses. And until we get one the courts can interpret the laws we do have in any manner they want. Which is also legal and also their fuckin job. Right to privacy is mentioned, but not specifically medical privacy or abortions, its just been understood that way since 1973. And since they blocked abortions after 24 weeks or whatever, its clear those rights are not absolute anyway.

It doesnt matter if the courts are batshit conservative or hands off liberal or aggressive or passive or whatever. This issue keeps getting pushed up TO the supreme court and eventually they are forced to deal with it. Its not an issue of being impartial. They have to interpret the law as they see it, and that obviously changes with new justices.

 

[shortylickens]

You are correct that they don't have the power to pass laws, but incorrect that they don't have the power to strike them down. In addition to interpreting laws, part of their mandated is determining if laws are unconstitutional. While this is an important power for them to have (since we don't want our legislators passing unconstitutional laws), it becomes a problem when the court becomes politicized and use this power inconsistently to strike down laws simply because they don't agree with them.

Sorry, what I meant was if they found a state law to not follow the constitution or amendments, they can strike it down.
They can NOT tell congress what kind of amendments to pass. Or that they have to pass an amendment. They arent in the legislative business.

 

[MrSquished]

Christianity in America is MOSTLY horrific. There are good Christians, but they are the minority. The more Christian you are, the most likely you are to vote for evil people.

As this documentary shows, early on she yells about how God created this country and Trump is here to, you know, save it - it's in the similar vein of how our recent misogynist religious loon says America was founded by Christian men therefore...

These people are evil. There is no two ways about it.

 

[Storm-Chaser]

That’s not entirely accurate which is of course why you rabid pro-lifers are also such huge hypocrites.

The chance of a pregnancy ending in spontaneous abortion runs from Russian Roulette odds to basically the same risk as taking an abortifacient depending on the age of the parents at conception.

Did you know that? That trying to have a kid in your 40’s results in abortion at the same chance as taking an abortion pill?

Of course that’s different. The woman taking the abortion pill only aborts one pregnancy while the “good” pro-lifers will keep aborting pregnancies until a child is born.

This is one reason why I don’t believe you when you say you hate abortion. It’s obvious your fine with it

You also say it’s because you care about kids but of course you and the church are fine with raped 9 year olds being forced to potentially die in childbirth. So I don’t believe you there.

I mean there’s nothing you claim is fundamental to the pro-life position you guys actually follow so why should we be forced to follow it?

I am going to give you a thumbs up on this post as you make some good points. However, I will counter each one I just don't have time right now.

 

[cytg111]

Christianity in America is MOSTLY horrific. There are good Christians, but they are the minority. The more Christian you are, the most likely you are to vote for evil people.

As this documentary shows, early on she yells about how God created this country and Trump is here to, you know, save it - it's in the similar vein of how our recent misogynist religious loon says America was founded by Christian men therefore...

These people are evil. There is no two ways about it.

Lol, lost people be lost. Also, member fee for The Cult of the Retarded: Everything you got.

Wonder how many R's those lead pipes have produced over the years.

 

[Storm-Chaser]

Christianity in America is MOSTLY horrific. There are good Christians, but they are the minority. The more Christian you are, the most likely you are to vote for evil people.

Almost accurate.

*The more religious (and therefore self-righteous) you are the more likely you are going to vote for evil people. There is a clear distinction between knowing God through Christianity as Lord and savior versus building up your own righteousness through religious rituals. God said no man is righteous, so he is actually in agreement with you. There is a remnant.

I also agree that many people in the faith have either a)sold out b)lost their faith or c) turned back to sin. The churches have totally gone to hell in a handbasket because God has been sold down the river.