I've noticed something has changed about the abortion debate on DP

[CaughtInThe]

 

[multivita-man]

I don't suppose that you will ever get it, however if a decision by the US Supreme Court is not backed up by actual text in the US Constitution, it will always be up for interpretation by future courts that will not necessarily agree with the previous decision.

Correct, I did understand your position - I understood that all along. But we're debating the reasoning behind reversing that earlier decision. As I've noted before, conservatives' default seems to be the fact that they have the power to do something validates whatever laws they enact in Congress or strike down from the bench. I think - and feel free to push back - what we're debating is the merit of calling access to an abortion a human right. If something is a right, Courts shouldn't step over stare decisis to take that right away.

That's why the left shits itself over any conservative appointed to the supreme court. To expand on that, Abortion is the left's sacred issue, the right to bear arms is the right's sacred issue. We worry less about the left overturning the right to bear arms as it is protected by the 2nd Amendment. Even librul dominated Supreme Courts have not been able to take away the right.

It's not that abortion is a sacred issue; it's that having full autonomy over one's physical self is a sacred issue. Saying that progressives regard abortion as sacred a sick smear in the same vein as labeling gay rights advocates groomer and pedophiles but nothing surprises me anymore from people who guzzle Fox News misinformation the way an alcoholic guzzles vodka. Both are known to cause cognitive decline over time.

The left does not have such protection for Roe Vs Wade.

It obviously does not, but that we once had a good compromise worked out that at least attempted to respect the nuances of the debate. Whether the Supreme Court's judicial review was the right mechanism for settling the matter can be, and I suspect will be, hotly debated in the years ahead. The fact is that this Court is ruining not only the credibility of this particular Court but they are also destroying people's faith in the separation of powers and in the Constitution itself.

 

[minnie616]

When examining a pregnant human female, what, other than a developing human - regardless of it's condition - do you expect to find?

Even a cake is unviable as a cake if you don't fully bake it. It's still a cake, but it's not one many would eat. I'm not arguing that a fetus aborted before it can survive outside the womb should be saved. I am arguing that we should be aware of what that fetus is.

We shouldn't treat humans like vegetable seedlings in which the weaker are culled. You can, but I don't. I prefer to protect the weaker among us if I can.

A cake mix is a cake mix until it is baked.

A pre viable fetus is not viable.
it cannot survive without the woman’s working organs to supply food and excrement for the fetus etc.
If she dies and her body ceases to function there is no way it will survive even if quickly removed and given the best medical technology available.

 

[watsup]

Would it be a fascist overreach to make it legal to kill newborns?

No one is killing newborns. Please stick to facts.

 

[CaughtInThe]

Roe zealots

 

[Josie]

No one is killing newborns. Please stick to facts.

We’re having a political discussion. Sometimes that includes hypothetical questions. Would it be a fascist overreach to make killing newborns legal?

 

[multivita-man]

Of course not.

Should a mother with one kidney be forced to give up her only kidney to her teenage daughter?

Should a father be forced to give up his liver, his heart, his spleen to his son?

 

[trouble13]

That's right. Your abortion ban is gonna make as big of a dent as Abbott's stunts does to illegal immigration

There's still time to change the road your on

 

[NatMorton]

Not impossible at all.

You may not agree with it, but there is no reason to believe other pro-life states will abide by what you consider impossible



Haha, yeah.



Calling your poor attempts at snarky tangents a "case" is an insult to lawyers everywhere.

IMO, the bill you’ve cited would never pass a Constitutionality test.

 

[bubbabgone]

Excuse me, my wife's uterus isn't working? Mind if we borrow yours?

I'd have to assume you should expect an answer to only the second question.

 

[NatMorton]

Not if give up the 2 year old for adoption or foster care or have another caregiver care for the 2 year old.

That option requires the parents take action with bodies. Again, how could you compel them to do that?

 

[NatMorton]

I'll keep it simple then : "very often abortion is all a woman can do to survive".
And in a lot of cases they don't have another way out.
And lastly: people thinking abortion is "convenient" sure as hell have never gone trough it.

I really can't make it more simple for you, But I kinda start to understand why in your op you think those that used to discuss things with pro-lifers stopped discussing things.
To make this also clear : "It's not them, it's you".

Clear ?

No, not very clear at all. You seem to be arguing that someone might be too poor to obey a law against harming another person. Sorry, no, I don’t think there’s any precedent for that.

 

[Josie]

Should a mother with one kidney be forced to give up her only kidney to her teenage daughter?

Should a father be forced to give up his liver, his heart, his spleen to his son?

No. Just as a mother shouldn’t have to die during an ectopic pregnancy.

 

[multivita-man]

No. Just as a mother shouldn’t have to die during an ectopic pregnancy.

Okay, this is reasonable, then.

 

[Jredbaron96]

IMO, the bill you’ve cited would never pass a Constitutionality test.

You'd think.

 

[beefheart]

 

[humbolt]

A cake mix is a cake mix until it is baked.

A pre viable fetus is not viable.
it cannot survive without the woman’s working organs to supply food and excrement for the fetus etc.
If she dies and her body ceases to function there is no way it will survive even if quickly removed and given the best medical technology available.

What kinda cake are we talking about here? I don't often eat cake, but when I do, I prefer a fully baked one.

I'm not among those who support attempting to save every fetus. I'm also not medically knowledgeable enough to determine when it might be possible, and when it's not.

 

[minnie616]

The debate mostly is about 13 to 20 weeks. Is there any chance of both sides coming to some middle ground for a limit?

Will there be exceptions for rape/ incest catastrophic fetal defects, along with threat to pregnant woman’s life or irreparable damage to a major bodily function such as stroke, heart attack, kidney damage or liver damage ?

 

[MAGAnificent]

Correct, I did understand your position - I understood that all along. But we're debating the reasoning behind reversing that earlier decision. As I've noted before, conservatives' default seems to be the fact that they have the power to do something validates whatever laws they enact in Congress or strike down from the bench. I think - and feel free to push back - what we're debating is the merit of calling access to an abortion a human right. If something is a right, Courts shouldn't step over stare decisis to take that right away.

The Stare Decisis is strong if the issue is backed up by clearly worded text in the US Constitution, not so much if it's nothing but a one time SCOTUS decision based on the politics and emotions of the time.

It's not that abortion is a sacred issue; it's that having full autonomy over one's physical self is a sacred issue. Saying that progressives regard abortion as sacred a sick smear in the same vein as labeling gay rights advocates groomer and pedophiles but nothing surprises me anymore from people who guzzle Fox News misinformation the way an alcoholic guzzles vodka. Both are known to cause cognitive decline over time.

Abortion absolutely is a sacred issue to the democrat party. It's all they care about when SCOTUS judges or federal judges are nominated. Dissing Fox News for touting the other side may keep you warm for a few minutes, however it will not help your argument.

The fact is that this Court is ruining not only the credibility of this particular Court but they are also destroying people's faith in the separation of powers and in the Constitution itself.

That statement suggests that you have no real understanding of Separation of Powers or constitutional law. The real threat to the separation of powers is the democrats seeking to intimidate the US Supreme Court with threats of packing it when decision are handed down that they disagree with. And whether you like it or not, Roe vs Wade was a case of attempting to legislate from the Court, not interpret law. If you truly want unrestricted abortion access guaranteed nationally, you should support a constitutional amendment giving it that protection, or just take your battle to the individual states where it was before Roe V Wade.

 

[justoneman]

Will there be exceptions for rape/ incest catastrophic fetal defects, along with threat to pregnant woman’s life or irreparable damage to a major bodily function such as stroke, heart attack, kidney damage or liver damage ?

If I make the rules then of course.

 

[minnie616]

What kinda cake are we talking about here? I don't often eat cake, but when I do, I prefer a fully baked one.

I'm not among those who support attempting to save every fetus. I'm also not medically knowledgeable enough to determine when it might be possible, and when it's not.

Experts agree that that viability will never be lowered to 20 weeks.

At 20 weeks gestation a fetus has no air sacs in the lungs.

…….

For those interested

Biology is different than mechanical science and the lungs of a fetus will need to have already developed some air sacs before it be put in an liquid environment that would mimic a woman’s womb.

That’s why experts agree no fetus could ever be saved before 20 weeks gestation.

At 20 weeks no air sacs have started to develop. Before 20 weeks the lungs are the consistency of gelatin.

……..

From the following article :

Artificial Wombs: How Sci-Fi Could (One Day) Meet the NICU​

https://www.discovermagazine.com/health/artificial-wombs-how-sci-fi-could-one-day-meet-the-nicu

If a fetus is born too early, its small, stiff lungs aren’t yet able to take up oxygen from the air. That’s where artificial uteruses might someday come in. In the sheep trials, the fetus’s heart pumps deoxygenated blood through a tube in its umbilical cord to a machine that oxygenates it. The oxygen-rich blood then flows back into the fetus’s body through another tube in the umbilical cord.In lambs, the technology has been able to keep the fetus alive through the risky developmental stage when the lungs aren’t yet strong enough to go on a ventilator — the 23-24-week mark in humans.

 

[Arlette]

There's still time to change the road your on

English please

 

[SammyCp]

No, not very clear at all. You seem to be arguing that someone might be too poor to obey a law against harming another person. Sorry, no, I don’t think there’s any precedent for that.

My point is that this is a or/or situation. You either protect the unborn or you protect the victim.
Also, I think you interpret my answer too narrow : I clearly stated that
a) If you can't find the rapist to pay for it... what is your solution ? Suck it up, stupid woman that probably asked for it and had fun ??? How would you handle that ?
b) I'm sorry to say there are mentally disabled women that get raped and even don't comprehend in full what the consequences will be
how to solve that ?
c) Women that are forced an abortion by their family or "loving" husband. Your looking at horror-stories there.
The law only protects the ones that can afford it and know of it and are capable of reaching out.
I'm not going into details but I know women that suffered because they were scared, because of the things that might happen to her children... .

See, Nat, you can't help everyone but restricting women's access to abortion isn't going to help or safe anyone.
You'll just get more victims.

Edit : And I know a case in which the woman didn't even had a place to stay after being thrown out of the house because she defended her child. The girl was raped by her uncle and her "loving" husband initiated divorce because they were "real family".
Since the women didn't have anything (husband cleared her account), she handled it with "The lawyer of her husband !!!". Was she stupid ? Maybe. Was she desperate ? Yes.
I don't have to tell you who got child support, right ? So yes, there are plenty of cases people are scared or unable to make use of the rights they are given.
Btw, I helped her out, she's ok.

But the law should have taken care of that. Do you agree or disagree ?

 

[minnie616]

If I make the rules then of course.

You won’t be in charge.

I explained that the fetal deformities cannot be aborted AFTER the state cutoff date.


Borrowed from a Facebook post that she allowed to be shared:

Susanna Roesel

I was 30 years old.
I was married.
We were happy.
We were established.
Our 401k runneth over.
We decided to start a family.
I got pregnant right away.
Like right away.
We were over the moon.
I kept a journal of every day of the magic.
I got a bump.
I felt our baby kick.
I embraced it fully.
I rejected tests because "it won't change our path"
Emily sent out baby shower invitations.
The nursery was under way.

And then.

I'm almost halfway there!
I'm 18 and a half weeks pregnant.
The doctor called.
It was 7pm.
I was out at dinner with my friend Deb.
I stepped outside.
The day before on a whim I agreed to a blood test.
"There's probably nothing to worry about but we need you to come in. There's a 1 in 36 chance something is wrong"
I called Liza sobbing.
My sister told me to lay out 36 straws and see that there's still such a good chance that everything is fine.
I didn't sleep.
We drove up to Forsyth because that was the first available amniocentesis.
The needle was long.
The room was dark.
The news was really bad.
I changed in that moment forever.

It's a girl!
We had named her Audrey.
Audrey Roesel -- the girl who will make me a mom.

She was missing her nasal bone.
Her kidneys were tiny.
Her heart was missing a chamber.
She had an extra chromosome.
Part of her brain wasn't formed.
Her head was growing at a rate 4x faster than her limbs.

I want to be a mom.
This is my girl.
This situation could really hurt my body.
She will be in immeasurable pain.
I didn't understand "incompatible with life"
I cried.
I cried some more.
I was already a mom.
Moms keep their children from pain.

Time is ticking.
I'm 19.5 weeks now.
We are in Georgia.
There's a time limit, you know.
It's Labor Day now.
Doctors go on vacation.
Somehow the world around us keeps on.
Not for me.

In the interest of time...
They sent me to an abortion clinic.
Me.
At an abortion clinic.
After 20 weeks, it's illegal, you know.
It's the night before.
I ran a bath.
I said goodbye to my daughter in that tub.
Just the two of us before the world turned upside down.

Did you know...
You have to go 2 days in a row?
1 to dilate
1 for a D&E
It was brutal emotionally.
It hurt physically.
I begged to be put under.

A kind doctor took my hand.
His hands were large and warm.
He told me I would be a mom one day.
He was an angel.
I woke up in a group recovery room.
In a recliner. Next to a young girl. Maybe 13. She was also recovering. I took her hand.
My milk came in.
Nobody told me.
It hurt in my body and my soul.
I grieved. Hard.
For months and months.
I held onto a teddy bear the size of a newborn.
I ached everywhere inside and out.
It was a fluke they said.

Fast forward four months.
Pregnant again.
Scared.
Excited.
First ultrasound.
Baby’s gone.
Go to the hospital for D&C.
This is also considered abortion.
They tested the tissue.
it was a boy!
Chromosomes were normal.
Isn’t that good news?
Grief ensued.
So did genetic testing B and me.

I’m not ashamed.
I never was.
I’m what abortion looks like.
So is the 13 year old girl in that recovery room.

In Texas we’d be criminals. [And Oklahoma as of 4/14/22]

Access to safe abortion is a woman’s right.
And abortion is a decision to be made between a woman, her doctor, her family, and her god.
...Not a majority white male cohort of politicians with a false sense of morality.

And your judgement?
It matters not.

 

[Lursa]

Oh, they don't think I'm right. What they are is frustrated that they can't prove me wrong.

I have, many times. Let me know any time, where any state or the federal govt recognize rights for the unborn? I have all my sources saved in OneNote, but you've already seen them.

Your 'implied' rights attempts all failed and are all unsourced. Remember...states protect, take 'an interest' in all kinds of things...endangered species, historic buildings, forests, wildlife, etc...and none of those laws, those protections, recognize or even imply rights for those things.