Sorry Anti-Choicers - SCOTUS is wrong. (2 Viewers)

[Lursa]

I have answered your questions. It’s just that you don’t like them, and refuse to acknowledge that so you can act like a kindergartner and use it as a perpetual copout to avoid addressing mine, such as my uncomfortable cat retort.

No, now you are trying to manipulate the conversation into another argument...and not the one we were in at the time. You DIDNT answer the questions regarding the justification for the govt demanding a woman risk her life without her consent...dont lie. There would need to be the level of public service/benefit comparable to national security to do so. It's about a woman risking her life against her will, based on the state's demand (involuntary servitude) in order to preserve something with no rights or legal status.

So what is the justification for taking away women's right to consent to risking their lives?

Of course we can "protect" things by law for lots of reasons...but those laws are dependent on what federal/Const rights they may violate when they are enforced. Why dont any of the red states charge women with murder for having abortions? Some sure want to. What's stopping them?

Regarding the state interest in protecting and preserving human life, I said, “The ‘why’ is rooted in the moral and philosophical belief that human life has value above all other creatures in nature,” followed by a passage in Blackstone’s Commentaries on the law and the unborn in which he says, among other things, “Life is a gift form God.” I quoted from several Supreme Court decisions on the long-standing state interest in preserving and protecting all human life through its regulation of maternal care though all stages of pregnancy. But I can’t even get you to acknowledge that the state might have an interest in how a fryer hen being raised as someone’s Spicy Chicken Sandwich is treated, since, if answered properly, it would lay bare your inconsistency and hypocrisy. Af least now I have the same childish out you do.

This has been posted for days with nothing back:

And in practice, we even have proof since Dobbs: it punishes women that wanted their pregnancies...women with medical emergencies, miscarriages, septic, dying unborn....almost ALL such later term (after the 97% early term) are for medical reasons. These women WANTED to have babies and ended up at greater risk for death, infertility, pain, suffering...all while grieving the loss of that anticipated new family member.​

You refuse to even acknowledge this...it means that the red state laws punish pregnant women that want to have babies FOR NO GOOD REASON since elective abortion is so uncommon in the 2nd term (<1%) (and for that <1%, they're not suffering a medical emergency, they can drive to another state ) ...again, you keep trying to say your position is ethical, the morally correct one. Yet you wont touch this? You cut it out the last time you responded to that post.

 

[Ahlevah]

Philosophy, morality, and religion do not provide any legal basis or justification for depriving a person with rights in favor of a non person without rights.

So why would we have a law in which someone who deliberately drowns his pet cat in his bathtub could be charged with a felony and potentially sent to prison? I’m dumbfounded that no one on this board, including you or @Lursa, will answer that simple question.

They are just excuses. Morality & Philosophy is subjective anyway and cannot be legislated. Religion is irrelevant as the separation of church and states prevents religion from making law. Besides, what is the "value" of human life? I have noticed every time someone tries to invoke or argue the "value" of human life are never able to actually define or explain this mysterious "value."

The law legislates morality all the time. Some of our most basic “Thou Shalt Nots,” like commit murder or steal, are at their core questions of morality. Most laws in civil society that explicitly regulate behavior are enacted precisely because people don’t behave “morally” and exercise some level of self-restraint. So Mommy teaches Little Johnny not to drown Garfield or Baby Brother in the family bathtub not because they were born, but because she and society value their lives.

They just declare its a state's interest. The interest itself is not legally defined or universally applied. It's completely arbitrary and lacking in a legal basis.

While a law may not explicitly state its rationale for being brought into existence, courts often find themselves weighing these issues and looking for guidance elsewhere, such as in legislative debates, legal or philosophical texts, public proclamations, legal precedent, historical practice, etc. So, yeah, courts then lay out possible state interests, such as regulating public health and safety. So it’s not arbitrary, and it does have a legal basis no matter how many times you imagine it doesn’t:

These legitimate interests include respect for and preservation of prenatal life at all stages of development, Gonzales, 550 U. S., at 157–158; the protection of maternal health and safety; the elimination of particularly gruesome or barbaric medical procedures; the preservation of the integrity of the medical profession; the mitigation of fetal pain; and the prevention of discrimination on the basis of race, sex, or disability.

Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, 597 U.S. ___ (2022)

Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization: Abortion presents a profound moral question, and the Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each state from regulating or prohibiting abortion. This decision overrules Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood of Pennsylvania v. Casey.

supreme.justia.com

The state may have an interest in how it's processed and prepared, for sanitary and public health reasons. Abortion does not affect the public or society in general. So there is no compelling "interest" for the state.

Again, an act does not need to directly affect the public in general in order for the state to have an interest in regulating it. I mean, does it matter to the pubic whether livestock is stunned or not before being slaughtered? When it comes to the food they eat, most people tend to focus on things like the price they paid for that ribeye steak or pork chop they bought at their local Kroger, not what happened to the cow or pig before it got there.

And unless you’re going to argue that a woman is entitled to use a coat hanger at home to terminate her pregnancy, the state has an interest in regulating doctors, hospitals, and the procedures they perform in those facilities.

 

[Lursa]

So why would we have a law in which someone who deliberately drowns his pet cat in his bathtub could be charged with a felony and potentially sent to prison? I’m dumbfounded that no one on this board, including you or @Lursa, will answer that simple question.

You're allowed to drown your own cat, you are not allowed to torture it. And no one else can drown your cat. These are distinctions you dont seem to have managed yet. That you only have a simple understanding does not make it a simple question.

Can you answer it? If so, please do. Again...I'm not here to pass your test, it's a discussion, back and forth. If you do and refuse to answer them...why? If you dont, then please find the answers so that I wont have to go thru some runaround with you disagreeing and demanding "I" provide the answers that you wont be able to verify without your own research anyway.

 

[weaver2]

What do you mean where did I get it? It’s an internet meme. It’s everywhere:

View attachment 67569068

Historical Abortion Law Timeline: 1850 to Today

Follow the journey of abortion law in the United States — from criminalization in the late 1800s to legalization in the early 1970s — and the ongoing battles for abortion access.

www.plannedparenthoodaction.org

Is it true? Knowing how professional trade associations have operated historically, probably.

That's not what you posted first. Anyway there is quite a bit more chicanery to the AMA's 19th century anti-midwifery campaign than even the PP time line shows.

 

[choiceone]

Actually, Japan has a problem with Abandoned Houses, because they don't have people to live in them. Toykoa is overcrowded, but much of the rest of the country is increasingly becoming a ghost town.

Japan struggles to address growing number of empty houses

Nearly nine million homes remain abandoned, even in Tokyo, where officials on bikes keep an eye on empty buildings so they don’t pose a threat to neighborhoods

english.elpais.com

That isn't because of underpopulation. It's because young people don't want to live in rural villages and towns, because there's nothing for them there. They go to big cities for the same reasons young people did in the US - it's where they can get out of a rural or small town life and be upwardly mobile.

Wow, you see, this is the crazy point. Pregnancy is "dangerous". Really?

Yes, pregnancy is dangerous. Most women who know anything about pregnancy and childbirth know that it is, and they usually make it their business to know because that is a significant future possibility. They grow up seeing what it means to other women unless the latter hide it. Women have known about this going back into prehistory unless people hide it from them.

Wow, so you broke up with a guy for being... a guy? Really?

No, I broke up with a guy who wasn't in love with me for being highly insensitive. Millions of women have done that.

Wealth disparity is a problem.

But here's the thing. When you've told Ms. Welfare Person that if she marries her Baby Daddy, and works a full 40-hour week to earn some more money, she loses her ACA Subsidy, her Section 8 Voucher, and her SNAP Card. That's when you've normalized welfare.

Most women realize that, if you work 40 hours a week, you have to be able to cover childcare costs, which are so high they can't afford it on a normal 40 hour a week income. But the guy who knocked her up can't afford to support him, her, and a kid on his normal 40 hour a week income, either. You know when you've refused to provide a stable living wage income for families to one guy that women will get jobs, and kids will become a costly luxury, that you've normalized welfare. It's nothing but company/corporate greed and always has been.

But here's the thing. You don't see women celebrating prostitution, do you? They can scream about bodily autonomy, but no one really wants to do an undesirable thing.

Very few women think prostitution is a good job. Selling sex to men, whether in prostitution or marriage, has always been dangerous. Abortion isn't selling sex. It's taking control of your life after an accident happened.

What about the woman who wants to have a baby but is pressured into an abortion by her boyfriend? (Again, I go back to that story about the lady I knew when I was in the service who was dating the dirtbag.) She was heartbroken when he dumped her anyway.

The guy was scum, but her naivete is nothing to celebrate in a world where she's made to feel inagequate by the guy. She should be surrounded by other people who step up and don't penalize her. Before Roe, I assure you, that was not usual at all.

I knew a woman whose boyfriend was actually engaged to someone else and told her to have an abortion. And when she did, he said, "You killed my kid." Because fortunately not all men are that bad, she ended up finding someone else and getting married and having a kid and a happy life. The bad guy actually fell off a cliff in Switzerland. Nature does some things right.

Um, we have malpractice laws for incompetent doctors. That's good enough. Again, the very few women who die from pregnancy are usually poor ones who make bad health choices to start with.

No, it isn't good enough. You're willing to write off women who die in pregnancy and childbirth as if it's their fault for being women. The easiest way not to do so is never to have sex and never marry because it puts you in a situation where you may be written off like that. But of course, everyone complains when women do it, because men think they have the right to have sex and never pay a price for it, and societies usually let them.

 

[choiceone]

OR some people are truly abusing the system. If you are capable of working, we should find work for you. I am all for getting rid of welfare and replacing it with workfare. You want your government Cheese, you need to work for it.

Some people are abusing the system. However, in many places, there isn't enough work available. In 2000, The New York Times did a study of recidivism on workfare and found that fully 20% of women recidivists had been sexually abused as minors or raped as adults. Wanna get rid of 10% of female recidivism? Stop men from raping girls and women and turning them into dysfunctional people. And FYI, you can get rid of a lot more by making men pay child support - their rate of avoiding it is huge. The druggies are a major problem. And some people are just too disabled - that's a huge problem, too.

The problem with an online site is that you have no verification. I see people with SNAP Cards filling their carts with junk food. I see people with Section 8 vouchers moving into nice condos who didn't have the good sense to invoke an owner residency rule.

I won't disagree with this - but it doesn't help to ban abortion so women produce lots of kids, because that's a common problem. If a sect of Christianity wants that, let that sect take care of it with their money - many of those churches are rich. And your imitating the rich in gated communities isn't helping, either.

Why is it crazy?

Anmesty happened because of Jimmy Carter. Abortion happened because of Roe. So that just left the Acid. We haven't legalized Acid, but we have legalized pot. So it didn't really sound crazy that Democrats with traditional values were horrified by what took over their party in 1972 and led to a string of losses from 1972 to 1988. (The exception being 1976, which Carter BARELY won against an unelected president who pardoned Nixon.

I don't understand the amnesty thing - please explain it. Acid is a serious problem. Why did anyone want to drop acid, a drug that was made by the US Army for a possible weapon of war?

You can't explain the political result that way. Nixon won in 1972, Ford didn't because he was a caretaker president who wasn't elected, and Carter won because many people hated the Republicans for Watergate. Reagan won because he was a former movie star, the Moral Majority mobilized anti-abortion people, and people still believed our economy wasn't ruined. Bush won for the same reason, and when Republicans couldn't stand the anti-abortion people, they turned to Perot.

Yes, the old NY Hag who said, "I don't know how Nixon could have won, no one I knew voted for him!"

I'm not turning you in for calling me an old hag, though you truly deserve it. In fact, almost everyone in my extended family was a Republican, and I was thought awful until Watergate all came out. Then, I was treated as the family prodigy, though my nuclear family didn't support that creep.

Nixon won 49 states and 61% of the vote in 1972. That's how offended people were by the Hippies.

When the scandal broke, many more people turned against him. I for one didn't consider McGovern as a stellar choice on the part of the Democratic Party.

End Part 1

 

[choiceone]

Actually, the reason why they broke in is that they thought the Democrats were getting help from either North Vietnam or Cuba, and they were looking for evidence. Kind of how Obama's people were convinced Trump was working for the Russians.

First, that reason is stupid, so it condemns Republicans. Second, that is not a good reason for violating the Constitution, unless you think you're above the law. And FYI, Trump wanted a Trump hotel in Moscow enough to curry favor from Russia and has proven how little respect he has for fair elections and the Constitution.

Again, context. No one in 1972 thought we were going to go all crazy and start using abortion as birth control.

No one uses abortion as bc. They use it when bc didn't work.

Actually, my Dad was a Nixon Supporter. His position until he died was Nixon didn't do anything his predecessors hadn't done, he just got caught. in many ways, Nixon was a victim of his time, a period when people stopped trusting government.

Well, I don't think Nixon was a victim, I don't think Nixon's predecessors violated the right to a fair election that every citizen of the country has, and people should not trust government. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, and that, together with Give me liberty or give me death, should be taught in required civics in hs.

Again. 61% of the vote. 49 states.

Now, I say this as a point of order, that we were better off in those days before hyper-partisanship of a 50/50 electorate where you support your guy no matter how awful he is. That's how we got Biden vs. Trump, neither one of whom should have been anywhere near the White House.

I don't think we were better off with a WH staff and a political party willing to cheat in an election then any more than we were in 2020, with a political party willing to cheat in an election. Though I agree that Biden was not the best choice for the Democrats, I don't think he was that bad, and I wish Trump could have been prosecuted for slandering Obama with his birther crap.

Back in those days, if one party crapped the bed and nominated an unacceptable candidate (Goldwater in 1964, McGovern in 1972) enough of the electorate voted for the other guy even if they thought he was a big shady.

No Republicans thought Nixon was shady until Watergate, which was a lot worse than shady.

End Part 2

 

[choiceone]

Carter was the only president since 1968 who had control of both houses of Congress for his full term and STILL couldn't get stuff done.

He killed a perfectly workable National Health Insurance plan because it was Ted Kennedy's idea. If he hadn't been bailed out by the Iran Hostage Crisis, Kennedy probably would have taken the nomination from him in 1980.

Now, yes, the things he did for charity after he was booted from the white house were commendable. But as President, he was a bucket of fail.

I admit that, as I was living in Japan and studying in Hawaii then, so I wasn't exactly keeping tabs on everything in Washington, DC. I would have loved a National Health insurance plan to pass. But he was more than merely commendable after his term - no former president in US history has done so much good for our international reputation and ties as this man.

Um, nonsense. Clinton's problem was always that he just couldn't tell the truth unless you caught him red-handed in a lie. Absolutely no one in his right m ind was going to deny he had sex with Lewinsky. But he thought he could pull a fast one.

A study on midwest college students at the time showed that the majority of single people didn't think oral sex or what Clinton did to Lewinsky was sexual intercourse - the majority of married couples did. My married sister and I fought over the phone about this. So I'm guessing you were married. But the official definition used in that court made it other than sexual intercourse - and it's quite plausible that he didn't have sex with her, though he certainly took advantage of that definition.

And here's the problem. Even though Nixon was a pretty good president, the fact is, when he was caught in Watergate, Republicans went to the White House and told him he had to resign. The system worked.

When Clinton was caught lying about Lewinsky, Democrats went to the mattresses for him. When Trump was caught trying to shake down Zelenskyy, Republicans went to the mattresses for him and did it again after he unleashed an angry mob.

As a Captain of mine used to say, "When you see something wrong and do nothing about it, you've set a new standard."

I would agree with this except the part about Clinton lying. I really don't think Clinton had actual sex with Lewinsky by the court's official definition, just a very vulgar encounter and possibly others which were quite trivial. He was guilty of vulgarity and trivial sexual play.

Clinton was a bulwark against far right wing forces that were extremely threatening for centrists in the nineties because he was a way better president than the Republican globalists who preceded him.

Um, okay. Or maybe they just looked at Biden and Harris and said, "Yeah, we don't want four more years of THAT!"

But keep thinking you are the smartest person in the room.

She was a woman, we've never had a woman president, some men and some women, too, refuse to consider voting for a woman for that office, she didn't pick a great VP candidate, and she still lost by only 1.5 points and tiny margins in WI, MI, and PA. So go on trying to excuse yourself for exaggerating - it won't work.

Um, right. So women are such snowflakes that killing yourself rather than just waiting another month to have the baby an put it up for adoption is a good plan.

Keep talking, you might get people behind repealling the 19th Amendment.

You're truly as misogynist as that guy in Chicago for trivializing a woman who could be pregnant by rape.

If they aren't having elective abortions in the 8th month, then you shouldn't have a problem without lawing them with severe penalties for guys like Gosnell who perform them.

I don't like the idea of any state govenment having that kind of power. I've felt that way since the day I didn't know whether I was pregnant after rape in 1969 and realized that the state in which I was raped and my own state had anti-abortion laws that didn't make an exception even for rape. I realized, you see, that I was living in "states of rape," that living in such a state was philosophically like being raped, for all the obvious differences. That one had to fight that state to its oblivion or yours if you were raped, that you owed it to every woman in America to fight to the death.

 

[choiceone]

They had two PP Officials on tape, drinking wine and haggling over baby parts.

This is stupid.

Then why did Harris lose?

This is explained above.

If you can't afford kids, don't have sex.
Or find a man who is good father material.

Why is is that you never complain about the behavior of the man, but always complain about the woman? Maybe she was completely fooled by him, validating every argument for women never having sex and never getting pregnant.

Worked find for decades in this country.

? I do not understand this grammar.

 

[choiceone]

I’m just asking a question: what is the state interest in keeping people from drowning their pet cats in their bathtubs? You keep accusing me of not answering your questions. If you only answer one question of mine, please make it this one. Saying the cat is already born isn’t an answer. So the cat’s born. Who cares? If people care, why? The state has no idea whether a cat exists or not. Yet killing it by intentionally drowning it is considered a crime, generally a misdemeanor or felony depending on the jurisdiction. There is even a federal law against it. So what is the state interest here? The fact that you take pains to deflect on this issue tells me all I need to know.

18 U.S.C. 48: Federal Law on Animal Cruelty and Exceptions

Learn how 18 U.S.C. 48 defines animal cruelty under federal law, its exceptions, enforcement mechanisms, penalties, and possible legal defenses.

legalclarity.org

The state interest is that it is against cruelty, as the law says. The state does care about that for obvious reasons. A born cat has a conscious living mind and can clearly and unequivocally feel pain, and that is not true of an implanted embryo or pre-viable fetus. In fact, even a 22 week human fetus can't be said to feel pain clearly and unequivocally. It is causing pain that is cruel.

So being born is an answer.

 

[choiceone]

Until fairly recently, there was no federal law against animal cruelty, yet no one could reasonably argue that there was ever a “history and tradition” or torturing or killing pets for personal pleasure. In most jurisdictions, it was considered a crime, even if it was classified simply as a local infraction requiring a defendant to pay a small fine. Animals weren’t always considered living beings worthy of legal protections as much as they were someone’s property, like a toaster or lawn mower. Then “animal rights”’activists like the SPCA and PETA came along to rewrite societal attitudes on the way we treat ALL animals, including those we hunt or trap or raise for food. Now we have “cage-free” eggs at places like Costco and Walmart, which permits women who have no moral qualms about terminating human life feel better about their protein shakes before heading off to the gym.

Psychologists and cops today know that people who like causing pain to animals and torturing them turn to people next, and then you have a serious criminal on society's hands.

Animal rights is another issue. It's worth noting that domestic cows, chickens, and lambs provide us with milk and milk products, eggs, and wool - they work for their living. Why is it okay to slaughter them for food when they already do all that?

I still remember when, back in the sixties, my mom decided to bring home "organic eggs" to try. They were totally delicious. Today, we know that how chickens are treated affects the quality of the eggs. Treat a chicken better and the eggs have better nutrition, less bad fat. more omega 3 fatty acids; they are bigger and much better tasting, too. And fyi, the eggs we sell are not fertilized and can't turn into baby chicks. If you value your own health, you eat the better eggs.

 

[choiceone]

I have answered your questions. It’s just that you don’t like them, and refuse to acknowledge that so you can act like a kindergartner and use it as a perpetual copout to avoid addressing mine, such as my uncomfortable cat retort.

Regarding the state interest in protecting and preserving human life, I said, “The ‘why’ is rooted in the moral and philosophical belief that human life has value above all other creatures in nature,” followed by a passage in Blackstone’s Commentaries on the law and the unborn in which he says, among other things, “Life is a gift form God.” I quoted from several Supreme Court decisions on the long-standing state interest in preserving and protecting all human life through its regulation of maternal care though all stages of pregnancy. But I can’t even get you to acknowledge that the state might have an interest in how a fryer hen being raised as someone’s Spicy Chicken Sandwich is treated, since, if answered properly, it would lay bare your inconsistency and hypocrisy. Af least now I have the same childish out you do.

I am frankly tired of your use of the expression "human life." Human life doesn't have value above all other creatures in nature. If you mean, "Live human beings have value above all other creatures in nature," then say so. Otherwise, you would have to say, "Human life has value above all other life in nature." Creatures should be reserved for those entities that are actually completely made.

Liberty is also a gift from God. The only justification for live human beings being superior to the live rats or cats is that, having more inherent mind, live human beings have more inherent liberty.

Once again, why would you slaughter a living creature and cause pain to that creature? In Genesis 1, nobody is given them for food.

 

[JoeB131]

I hope you're not referring to the "tape" that was shown to be fraudulent.

When did this happen? the video shows what it shows. Some PP Cow drinking wine and haggling over liver prices.

It was such a complete fiasco that PP immediately got out of the Baby Parts business.

Or have an abortion. Problem solved.

Kind of the wrong way to solve a problem that never should have happened. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.


You can tell when Lursa is losing an argument when she makes her comments "quote proof".

I dont get on my moral High Horse and pretend that's "a thing" when it doesnt happen in any remotely significant way just to use it manipulatively to get more restrictions on women's healthcare. The entire country of Canada doesnt have any...and has no such abortions. Neither do the US states that have no such restrictions. It's a bullshit hypocritical, false anti-abortite manipulation.

If it isn't happening, you shouldn't have a problem with there being laws against it.

 

[JoeB131]

That isn't because of underpopulation. It's because young people don't want to live in rural villages and towns, because there's nothing for them there. They go to big cities for the same reasons young people did in the US - it's where they can get out of a rural or small town life and be upwardly mobile.

Actually, that's only part of the problem. Japan is truly undergoing a demographic death spiral, in that the fertility rate in Japan is only 1.26 per woman. 2.1 is required to maintain a healthy population level. The US has a 1.6 rate, which isn't healthy, but we make up for it with immigration, which causes its own problems.

Yes, pregnancy is dangerous.

The maternal mortality rate is 18.6 per 100,000 live births. Statistically, that's insignificant. Also, as stated, pregnancy is 100% avoidable. Just don't have sex with men who aren't good father material.

No, I broke up with a guy who wasn't in love with me for being highly insensitive. Millions of women have done that.

I guess. Now, if we can get them to start figuring that out before the sex and making a baby part, we'd be making progress.

Most women realize that, if you work 40 hours a week, you have to be able to cover childcare costs, which are so high they can't afford it on a normal 40 hour a week income.

Again, not defending corporate greed, but still not a good reason to kill babies. "Citibank made me do it" is not an excuse.

Very few women think prostitution is a good job. Selling sex to men, whether in prostitution or marriage, has always been dangerous. Abortion isn't selling sex. It's taking control of your life after an accident happened.

An accident? Really?

The guy was scum, but her naivete is nothing to celebrate in a world where she's made to feel inagequate by the guy. She should be surrounded by other people who step up and don't penalize her. Before Roe, I assure you, that was not usual at all.

Everyone around her told her the guy was no good for her, but she kept going back. I put in a basic rule after that, "Never get involved in someone else's soap opera". Some woman tries unloading on me about her no-good boyfriend or husband, I shut that nonsense down on the spot now. "Wow, 4 Billion men on planet Earth, and that's the one you picked? Have you considered becoming a Lesbian? You get to wear sensible shoes and no one leaves the toilet seat up!"

I knew a woman whose boyfriend was actually engaged to someone else and told her to have an abortion. And when she did, he said, "You killed my kid." Because fortunately not all men are that bad, she ended up finding someone else and getting married and having a kid and a happy life. The bad guy actually fell off a cliff in Switzerland. Nature does some things right.

Men are jerks. Women will jump over the decent guys to get to the jerks, because they have a little more money or they are a little better looking.

No, it isn't good enough. You're willing to write off women who die in pregnancy and childbirth as if it's their fault for being women. The easiest way not to do so is never to have sex and never marry because it puts you in a situation where you may be written off like that. But of course, everyone complains when women do it, because men think they have the right to have sex and never pay a price for it, and societies usually let them.

I've known guys who have gotten stuck with child support payments for life for girls they broke up with. If a woman can have an abortion, a guy should be able to walk away from Child Support.

Some people are abusing the system. However, in many places, there isn't enough work available. In 2000, The New York Times did a study of recidivism on workfare and found that fully 20% of women recidivists had been sexually abused as minors or raped as adults. Wanna get rid of 10% of female recidivism? Stop men from raping girls and women and turning them into dysfunctional people. And FYI, you can get rid of a lot more by making men pay child support - their rate of avoiding it is huge. The druggies are a major problem. And some people are just too disabled - that's a huge problem, too.

Well, you have freedom of choice and eliminate any consequences, that's an issue.

 

[Ahlevah]

No, now you are trying to manipulate the conversation into another argument...and not the one we were in at the time. You DIDNT answer the questions regarding the justification for the govt demanding a woman risk her life without her consent...dont lie.

I have been consistent and answered your questions throughout this discussion. I pointed out that as citizens in a free and civil society, our individual rights and freedoms are balanced against the duties and obligations we have to that society as represented by the state, including how we treat other living beings, like unborn babies and animals. You refused to acknowledge any societal interest in protecting prenatal life, and even if we presumed the existence of such an interest it would never outweigh a woman’s right to bodily autonomy, because the unborn human embryo or fetus isn’t legally a “person.” So ethical questions involving how we weigh the societal interest in preserving prenatal life against the woman’s interest in killing her unborn baby never entered your calculus beyond equating the regulation of abortion at any point during pregnancy to indentured servitude. This point of view is decidedly out of the mainstream, and I pointed that out as well. Only a small minority of the public supports taking the life of a fetus in the 3rd trimester, unless it’s done to protect the life of the mother. This was also the point in the discussion at which I noted that the military draft was the closest thing we have to slavery in this country, which you then rationalized because you viewed it as having societal utility. According to you, people can lose their liberty and be forced to potentially sacrifice their lives if the cause is great enough, like providing a means for a fashion model concerned about developing stretch marks to kill her unborn baby, all because the unborn child isn’t legally a “person.” Well, a chicken being raised to be slaughtered and have its carcass dedicated to becoming someone’s meal isn’t a person either, but I’ll bet you’d treat it with more dignity and respect than an unborn human being.

On the question of depriving people of their liberty in the name of national security, isn’t having people part of that discussion? Putin seems to think so. He wants more Russians so he can increase the size of his army and become a demigod. Maybe we need more Americans so we can draft them at some future date to sacrifice in the name of freedom, eh? I mean, what’s more important? Avoiding stretch marks or a cramped lifestyle, or preserving the Union?

 

[Ahlevah]

So what is the justification for taking away women's right to consent to risking their lives?

If you haven’t gotten it by now, you’re like @Gordy327: you never will.

Of course we can "protect" things by law for lots of reasons...but those laws are dependent on what federal/Const rights they may violate when they are enforced. Why dont any of the red states charge women with murder for having abortions? Some sure want to. What's stopping them?

Asked and answered as well.

This has been posted for days with nothing back:

And in practice, we even have proof since Dobbs: it punishes women that wanted their pregnancies...women with medical emergencies, miscarriages, septic, dying unborn....almost ALL such later term (after the 97% early term) are for medical reasons. These women WANTED to have babies and ended up at greater risk for death, infertility, pain, suffering...all while grieving the loss of that anticipated new family member.

You refuse to even acknowledge this...it means that the red state laws punish pregnant women that want to have babies FOR NO GOOD REASON since elective abortion is so uncommon in the 2nd term (<1%) (and for that <1%, they're not suffering a medical emergency, they can drive to another state )

I promise you, unlike some people around here, I have an answer for any question one might ask me, and sometimes I answer disingenuous inquiries more than once. There are times I may not immediately address a particular point for various reasons, but it’s never due to a conscious refusal to do it because I can’t.

Now, to your current inquiry, is it the object or intent of states to punish pregnant women? No, it’s not, any more than it was the intent of the federal government to punish draftees sent for their deaths in the jungles of Guadalcanal during WWII. So drop that canard. Dobbs was not about guaranteeing outcomes. It was about returning the regulation of prenatal care and protecting unborn human life to where it constitutionally belonged: the states.

And aren’t you doing what you accused me of doing? Pointing to outliers or extremes in order to drive home a point? Life comes with risk. There is a risk that a woman who uses an IUD, planning to have kids down the road, suffers a perforated uterus and ends up being rushed to an emergency operating room where she undergoes a hysterectomy. So that means we should follow the Roman Catholic plan and ban IUDs, correct?

...again, you keep trying to say your position is ethical, the morally correct one. Yet you wont touch this? You cut it out the last time you responded to that post.

Like I said, I oppose abortion on ethical grounds, but we also live in a federal representative republic in which the people delegate to their respective state governments how they want maternal care regulated. Like a solid majority of Americans, I don’t support abortion on demand at any stage of pregnancy. But if a state decides to go that route, it’s a certainty that countless lives will be snuffed out before they were ever given any sort of choice or opportunity to realize their potential. Besides, it’s just plain wrong.

 

[JoeB131]

I don't understand the amnesty thing - please explain it. Acid is a serious problem. Why did anyone want to drop acid, a drug that was made by the US Army for a possible weapon of war?

Amnesty at the time referred to giving Amnesty to people who had avoided the draft. Most people were against it in 1972, and Jimmy Carter eventually did it in 1977, and everyone hated him for it.

You can't explain the political result that way. Nixon won in 1972, Ford didn't because he was a caretaker president who wasn't elected, and Carter won because many people hated the Republicans for Watergate. Reagan won because he was a former movie star, the Moral Majority mobilized anti-abortion people, and people still believed our economy wasn't ruined. Bush won for the same reason, and when Republicans couldn't stand the anti-abortion people, they turned to Perot.

or... Wait for it.

Jimmy Carter was elected because he presented himself as a good Christian man and a Southern conservative. Then he got in and let the Hippies that snuck under the wire with McGovern call all the shots.

When people saw what a mess Carter had made (He gave away the Panama Canal, for Chrissakes) they turned to Reagan. The problem is that even Liberals were sick of Carter, first supporting Ted Kennedy and then John Anderson.

Reagan did a pretty good job by most accounts, which is why he won 49 states, and why Bush won the first time.

Perot was a similar situation to Anderson. Just as liberals got sick of Jimmy Carter, Conservatives got fed up with Bush's wishy-washiness. They supported first Pat Buchanan and then Perot.

I'm not turning you in for calling me an old hag, though you truly deserve it. In fact, almost everyone in my extended family was a Republican, and I was thought awful until Watergate all came out. Then, I was treated as the family prodigy, though my nuclear family didn't support that creep.

I didn't call you anything. I was referring to an elite NYT reporter who said that she didn't understand how Nixon won, no one she knew voted for him.

Nixon did wrong in Watergate and should have resigned. Clinton should have resigned over Lewinsky. Trump should have resigned over the Ukraine scandal.

When the scandal broke, many more people turned against him. I for one didn't consider McGovern as a stellar choice on the part of the Democratic Party.

But he's what happened when the Hippies took over, that's the point. Abortion, Amnesty and Acid. A lot of Democrats didn't consider him "Stellar" either, which is how Tricky Dick got 61% of the vote.

First, that reason is stupid, so it condemns Republicans. Second, that is not a good reason for violating the Constitution, unless you think you're above the law. And FYI, Trump wanted a Trump hotel in Moscow enough to curry favor from Russia and has proven how little respect he has for fair elections and the Constitution.

Yes, Trump is a jerk. But he manages to connect with people.

 

[JoeB131]

Well, I don't think Nixon was a victim, I don't think Nixon's predecessors violated the right to a fair election that every citizen of the country has, and people should not trust government. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, and that, together with Give me liberty or give me death, should be taught in required civics in hs.

I think it would be a waste of effort to unravel the previous 200 years of history to find guys who did much worse things than Nixon did.

I don't think we were better off with a WH staff and a political party willing to cheat in an election then any more than we were in 2020, with a political party willing to cheat in an election. Though I agree that Biden was not the best choice for the Democrats, I don't think he was that bad, and I wish Trump could have been prosecuted for slandering Obama with his birther crap.

I think Biden did a pretty good job, but he should have realized he wasn't up for the rematch and withdrew. Instead he stayed on to that disastrous debate where Trump mopped the floor with him. After that, the Democrats, who insisted up and down he was right as rain, had no credibility.

No Republicans thought Nixon was shady until Watergate, which was a lot worse than shady.

Oh, come on. A lot of Republicans thought Nixon was shady. Eisenhower thought Nixon was shady.

I admit that, as I was living in Japan and studying in Hawaii then, so I wasn't exactly keeping tabs on everything in Washington, DC. I would have loved a National Health insurance plan to pass. But he was more than merely commendable after his term - no former president in US history has done so much good for our international reputation and ties as this man.

So he built some houses for poor people.

I think Carter was a decent man. The problem was he wasn't politically ruthless enough to be an effective president. The iron fist in the velvet glove.

A study on midwest college students at the time showed that the majority of single people didn't think oral sex or what Clinton did to Lewinsky was sexual intercourse - the majority of married couples did. My married sister and I fought over the phone about this. So I'm guessing you were married. But the official definition used in that court made it other than sexual intercourse - and it's quite plausible that he didn't have sex with her, though he certainly took advantage of that definition.

I don't think any man is going to say to his wife "Honey, it wasn't sex... it was just oral!"

I would agree with this except the part about Clinton lying. I really don't think Clinton had actual sex with Lewinsky by the court's official definition, just a very vulgar encounter and possibly others which were quite trivial. He was guilty of vulgarity and trivial sexual play.

See above.

Clinton was a bulwark against far right wing forces that were extremely threatening for centrists in the nineties because he was a way better president than the Republican globalists who preceded him.

So it didn't matter how much he abused women as long as he kept the right to abortion.

The real problem with Clinton was in 1992, he presented himself as this centrist, and when he got in, he let the Hippies run things. Then after getting his backside handed to him in the midterms, he went to the center. (The GOP did itself no favors nominating Dole.)

She was a woman, we've never had a woman president, some men and some women, too, refuse to consider voting for a woman for that office, she didn't pick a great VP candidate, and she still lost by only 1.5 points and tiny margins in WI, MI, and PA. So go on trying to excuse yourself for exaggerating - it won't work.

She was running against a convicted felon. A guy who tried to overthrow the government. A guy who regularly insulted women, minorities, the disabled, etc. A guy who lost the popular vote twice. A guy who was impeached twice.

And with a 2 billion dollar war chest and favorable media coverage, she still lost.

Let's not do that again, or we'll be saying President Vance for the 8 years after that.

You're truly as misogynist as that guy in Chicago for trivializing a woman who could be pregnant by rape.

Not sure what you are referring to here and don't care.

 

[JoeB131]

This is explained above.

Badly.

On another board, I go into detail about why the Democrats lost, but a big one is that Harris put too much emphasis on abortion on demand, which was not as good of an issue as she thought it was. She tried to make this election a referendum on abortion, and she lost. Bigly.

Why is is that you never complain about the behavior of the man, but always complain about the woman? Maybe she was completely fooled by him, validating every argument for women never having sex and never getting pregnant.

Men are dogs.

But we aren't the ones who get pregnant.

 

[Ahlevah]

You're allowed to drown your own cat, you are not allowed to torture it. And no one else can drown your cat. These are distinctions you dont seem to have managed yet.

As usual, you’re wrong. Drowning a pet today is generally considered a form of animal cruelty. It’s a type of torture—like terminal waterboarding for Sylvester or Scooby-Doo—and it doesn’t matter whether it’s your animal or someone else’s:

18 U.S.C. 48 criminalizes the creation, sale, and distribution of depictions of animal cruelty when intended for commercial gain and crossing state or international borders….

Amended by the Preventing Animal Cruelty and Torture (PACT) Act of 2019, the law now also criminalizes direct acts of cruelty. It prohibits intentional acts of crushing, burning, drowning, suffocating, impaling, or inflicting serious bodily harm on non-human mammals, birds, reptiles, or amphibians.

18 U.S.C. 48: Federal Law on Animal Cruelty and Exceptions

Learn how 18 U.S.C. 48 defines animal cruelty under federal law, its exceptions, enforcement mechanisms, penalties, and possible legal defenses.

legalclarity.org

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/724/text

That you only have a simple understanding does not make it a simple question.

It’s simple when I understand that even though a pet isn’t: 1) human; 2) isn’t legally a person, 3) has already been born; and 4) is legally considered personal property, the state has an interest in ensuring it’s treated humanely. This is true whether the state is aware of a particular pet or not, or its impact on the society is minimal or non-existent. I mean, will the world stop if someone drowns his pet cat?

Can you answer it? If so, please do. Again...I'm not here to pass your test, it's a discussion, back and forth. If you do and refuse to answer them...why? If you dont, then please find the answers so that I wont have to go thru some runaround with you disagreeing and demanding "I" provide the answers that you wont be able to verify without your own research anyway.

Ball’s in your court. The world. Will it stop? Who cares about cats, anyway? All they do a shit and give people toxoplasmosis. At least a human fetus has the potential to become the person who will cure Alzheimer’s or something.

 

[Lursa]

I am frankly tired of your use of the expression "human life." Human life doesn't have value above all other creatures in nature. If you mean, "Live human beings have value above all other creatures in nature," then say so. Otherwise, you would have to say, "Human life has value above all other life in nature." Creatures should be reserved for those entities that are actually completely made.

Liberty is also a gift from God. The only justification for live human beings being superior to the live rats or cats is that, having more inherent mind, live human beings have more inherent liberty.

Once again, why would you slaughter a living creature and cause pain to that creature? In Genesis 1, nobody is given them for food.

The idea that human life is "sacred" is a religious one. It is a belief. It is a belief that some higher authority imbued humans with something special...even if that's just a philosophical perspective it's still dependent on a higher authority. Being special, sacred, valuable, etc are all man-made concepts.

And in both cases it's based on, unsurprisingly, human ego and self-awareness We're still just one of the more highly evolved mammals.

 

[Lursa]

The maternal mortality rate is 18.6 per 100,000 live births. Statistically, that's insignificant.

"Bookmarked"

Excellent! Now consider how dramatic you get over your imagined women aborting healthy, viable fetuses with out you providing any data at all. Any very rare cases then would be, according to you, "incredibly insignificant."

Please keep this in mind, in your own words, and dont bother bringing up the false and emotionally manipulative need for abortions restrictions in the 3rd term.

 

[Lursa]

I have been consistent and answered your questions throughout this discussion. I pointed out that as citizens in a free and civil society, our individual rights and freedoms are balanced against the duties and obligations we have to that society as represented by the state, including how we treat other living beings, like unborn babies and animals. You refused to acknowledge any societal interest in protecting prenatal life, and even if we presumed the existence of such an interest it would never outweigh a woman’s right to bodily autonomy, because the unborn human embryo or fetus isn’t legally a “person.” So ethical questions involving how we weigh the societal interest in preserving prenatal life against the woman’s interest in killing her unborn baby never entered your calculus beyond equating the regulation of abortion at any point during pregnancy to indentured servitude. This point of view is decidedly out of the mainstream, and I pointed that out as well. Only a small minority of the public supports taking the life of a fetus in the 3rd trimester, unless it’s done to protect the life of the mother. This was also the point in the discussion at which I noted that the military draft was the closest thing we have to slavery in this country, which you then rationalized because you viewed it as having societal utility. According to you, people can lose their liberty and be forced to potentially sacrifice their lives if the cause is great enough, like providing a means for a fashion model concerned about developing stretch marks to kill her unborn baby, all because the unborn child isn’t legally a “person.” Well, a chicken being raised to be slaughtered and have its carcass dedicated to becoming someone’s meal isn’t a person either, but I’ll bet you’d treat it with more dignity and respect than an unborn human being.

On the question of depriving people of their liberty in the name of national security, isn’t having people part of that discussion? Putin seems to think so. He wants more Russians so he can increase the size of his army and become a demigod. Maybe we need more Americans so we can draft them at some future date to sacrifice in the name of freedom, eh? I mean, what’s more important? Avoiding stretch marks or a cramped lifestyle, or preserving the Union?

See the bold: You could say so. OTOH, if we allowed in as many legal immigrants as we needed for our economy or other interests, we'd have ready-to-go people ready to add to our security forces and military and not have to wait 18 yrs for them. So...it seems accurate but it's certainly not dependent on us breeding our own security forces. And there were shitloads of immigrants that fought for the US in the 2 World Wars.

 

[Lursa]

If you haven’t gotten it by now, you’re like @Gordy327: you never will.

No you havent. If you want to lie to get out answering it...that's the case and let it stand. Or quote it.

Asked and answered as well.

Yes and you even recognized it the point and example as true...about women not being charge with murder because of Constitutional protections. So then to continue to argue honestly, your future arguments need to keep that in mind rather than ignoring it. That's why I have to keep posting it. You've acknowledged it yet argue as if it's not true.

That's dishonest and arguments ignoring what you know and wont incorporate into an ongoing discussion arent valid.

Now, to your current inquiry, is it the object or intent of states to punish pregnant women? No, it’s not, any more than it was the intent of the federal government to punish draftees sent for their deaths in the jungles of Guadalcanal during WWII. So drop that canard. Dobbs was not about guaranteeing outcomes. It was about returning the regulation of prenatal care and protecting unborn human life to where it constitutionally belonged: the states.

I'm not sure about that however, in practice...that's exactly what's happening...yes or no? We've seen the many news stories coming out of Idaho, Texas, etc.

And if no one will discuss it or even acknowledge it...how do we get it changed???? If you are acknowledging it, you are the FIRST here. Are you? And as such, if that's the case...then arent the red state laws that restrict abortion before viability useless re: stopping abortion and mainly punitive, harming women with wanted pregnancies?

And if so, shouldnt we fight to have that changed? Even that awareness brought into the abortion discussion nationally?

And aren’t you doing what you accused me of doing? Pointing to outliers or extremes in order to drive home a point? Life comes with risk. There is a risk that a woman who uses an IUD, planning to have kids down the road, suffers a perforated uterus and ends up being rushed to an emergency operating room where she undergoes a hysterectomy. So that means we should follow the Roman Catholic plan and ban IUDs, correct?

Back to consent. We are Americans and have the right to consent to our own lives. We are responsible for the risks we take...not the ones the govt forces on us to preserve the life of something that does not have a moral or legal right to supersede our own lives.

Every woman that has sex risks death and health complications. I have always written that for a woman that gets pregnant, there is no escape...there are always consequences:

--she has a kid
--she miscarries
--she has an abortion (painful, costly, but with fewer health risks)
--she dies during pregnancy/childbirth

There's no exceptions...and women accept these risks.

Do you really not understand the difference in being responsible for the risks you take and the ones the govt forces you to take? By denying a much safer medical procedure?

Like I said, I oppose abortion on ethical grounds, but we also live in a federal representative republic in which the people delegate to their respective state governments how they want maternal care regulated. Like a solid majority of Americans, I don’t support abortion on demand at any stage of pregnancy. But if a state decides to go that route, it’s a certainty that countless lives will be snuffed out before they were ever given any sort of choice or opportunity to realize their potential. Besides, it’s just plain wrong.

So then you support the punitive laws that punish women that wanted to have babies. Enough said.

 

[Lursa]

As usual, you’re wrong. Drowning a pet today is generally considered a form of animal cruelty. It’s a type of torture—like terminal waterboarding for Sylvester or Scooby-Doo—and it doesn’t matter whether it’s your animal or someone else’s:

18 U.S.C. 48: Federal Law on Animal Cruelty and Exceptions

Learn how 18 U.S.C. 48 defines animal cruelty under federal law, its exceptions, enforcement mechanisms, penalties, and possible legal defenses.

legalclarity.org

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/724/text

OK, I was wrong about drowning. As a park ranger it was one of the, sadly, approved means to euthanize certain animals.

It doesnt change anything about the actual point of the discussion. You can kill your own pet, you cant torture it, and no one else can legally kill.

Gee...a small win for you. It still doesnt make your point.

It’s simple when I understand that even though a pet isn’t: 1) human; 2) isn’t legally a person, 3) has already been born; and 4) is legally considered personal property, the state has an interest in ensuring it’s treated humanely. This is true whether the state is aware of a particular pet or not, or its impact on the society is minimal or non-existent. I mean, will the world stop if someone drowns his pet cat?



Ball’s in your court. The world. Will it stop? Who cares about cats, anyway? All they do a shit and give people toxoplasmosis. At least a human fetus has the potential to become the person who will cure Alzheimer’s or something.

As I mentioned, until you answer other questions directly, I'm not interested in a tangent that I dont see relevant to abortion. You have not connected it to abortion (A human fetus also has the potential to be the next Hitler or Pol Pot or Stalin...that old cliche has never worked.)