Sorry Anti-Choicers - SCOTUS is wrong.

[Lursa]

Legal meaning an opinion, not objective truth.

Your "objective truth" has nothing to do with morality, such as abortion being right or wrong.

 

[Gordy327]

Legal meaning an opinion, not objective truth.

The letter of the law and it's application is not opinion. Neither is your opinion truth or worth more than the law. But the constitution itself does prove you wrong!

 

[DrewPaul]

The letter of the law and it's application is not opinion. Neither is your opinion truth or worth more than the law. But the constitution itself does prove you wrong!

No, while law aims to be objective by establishing clear rules and standards, it is not considered a purely objective fact due to the inherent subjectivity involved in interpreting and applying those rules to specific situations, which can vary depending on individual judges, legal arguments, and societal context; meaning that the application of law can be subjective even if the law itself is written objectively.

I wonder where you come from. Have there ever been laws passed you disagreed with? How can you disagree if is not opinion and its a fact!? Its not eternal truth, scientific fact its just what the people believed was right when they wrote it.

 

[Lursa]

No, while law aims to be objective by establishing clear rules and standards, it is not considered a purely objective fact due to the inherent subjectivity involved in interpreting and applying those rules to specific situations, which can vary depending on individual judges, legal arguments, and societal context; meaning that the application of law can be subjective even if the law itself is written objectively.

I wonder where you come from. Have there ever been laws passed you disagreed with? How can you disagree if is not opinion and its a fact!? Its not eternal truth, scientific fact its just what the people believed was right when they wrote it.

Do you think the abortion issue can be resolved by following an "objective truth?" If so, what is that obj. truth?

 

[Gordy327]

No, while law aims to be objective by establishing clear rules and standards, it is not considered a purely objective fact due to the inherent subjectivity involved in interpreting and applying those rules to specific situations, which can vary depending on individual judges, legal arguments, and societal context; meaning that the application of law can be subjective even if the law itself is written objectively.

I wonder where you come from. Have there ever been laws passed you disagreed with? How can you disagree if is not opinion and its a fact!? Its not eternal truth, scientific fact its just what the people believed was right when they wrote it.

The Constitution is as legally objective as it gets. The fact the Constitution and federal law explicitly states "persons born" leaves no room for subjectivity. Nether has that ever been significantly challenged in the courts. It's also 1 reason why no states has actually provided or acknowledged full personhood orrights for the unborn.

Legal meaning an opinion, not objective truth.

What is "objective truth?" Define it and explain how it relates to abortion or the permissibility surrounding it!

 

[weaver2]

I recognize the right to life,

So do pro-choice advocates. They recognize a whole family of people that have a right to life. You recognize only one life and don't give a shit what happens to the rest of the family. Why is that? What in your religion says you have the right to intrude on a family with your religious belief that women's don't have a choice about giving birth once they are pregnant. You think you are doing your god's work so it is your right to jeopardize and entire family by inserting insert your god's cruel and stupid dogma into families

I don't recognize the right to terminate life based on some artificial criteria.

Artificial criteria? You think terminating a pregnancy because adding a child or another child to an unstable an unsafe situation that will harm the whole family is artificial criteria? You think not being to pay rent is artificial criteria. How about losing your job? Is that artificial criteria? You want artificial criteria defined? It's telling women that your religious dogma is better than their lives and you get to tell them what they can and can't do based on what your god wants. That's artificial criteria up the wazoo.

The non-person status is an arbitrary classification that allows people to terminate a child before birth.

No it is not an arbitrary classification. The writers of the Constitution made that classification long before religious conservatives invented a god that told them it was OK to intrude on families' private lives.

They understood that in order to have rights you have to be part of the real world, have needs and be able to accept responsibilities of obeying the law, being a good citizen, supporting the Constitution. An embryo or fetus in utero has no rights because it has no needs and no responsibilities . That's why the Constitution starts out " We the People of the United States in order to form a more perfect union..........." not "We the People, the Embryos and Fetuses of the United States,

Again as we learned in kindergarten the freedom to swing your arms ends where the nose of another begins.

OK start following your kindergarten wisdom and stop swinging your hard inflexible religious fists that are busting permanently the the lives of entire, already born families of women, men, children, parents, grand parents and extended family.

How about starting a humane and useful project like promoting honest, science based sex ed instead of supporting Abstinence Only which has shown beyond doubt that it increases unwanted children.

 

[weaver2]

I wonder where you come from.

Before you start condemning other people and their perceptions of themselves have you ever wondered what the hell you are doing invading the lives of struggling families, consigning them to poverty and worse, supporting the politicians that pass laws that control women's most personal private reproductive decisions, force birth of children that families cannot care for that will end up in the foster care pipeline to incarceration. Have you ever wondered about the enormity and cruelty of what you are cheering on in your chosen political party. Have you ever wondered at a god and his priests that asks you to do this to children and families?

Nope? You've never considered anything, you know you are 100% free from error? The rest of the world is wrong?

 

[choiceone]

Good question.

Equally good question.

Another good question. I want to resort to violence when I'm told by religious conservatives that they own my reproductive decisions about my body. But by putting first woman's right to her body makes it's too easy for religious conservatives to make the argument that women who abort are irresponsible, selfish and immoral.

By keeping the focus first and foremost on what happens to the fetus and the family when a child is added to a poor family conservatives are forced to acknowledge the statistics of the future of unplanned children born into poor families which is the cohort in which 75% of all abortion take place.

With the help of the Supreme Court and their Dobb's decision religious conservatives took way women's right to make personal and private decisions about the child, the family and their futures. In doing that the court and the church condemned many children, families and women to unstable and unsafe lives with bleak futures of poverty, unemployment, foster care, abuse, homelessness and early deaths.

Putting the emphasis on the child and the family puts the onus back on religious conservatives to explain why requiring the birth of an unwanted child that will result in disaster to the child and the family is better than aborting the fetus when it is a non-sentient entity.

I'm going to disagree with the part I bolded above. One could, based on that statement, say, But by putting first woman's right to her body makes it too easy for religious conservatives to make the argument that women who don't consent to sexual intercourse are irresponsible, selfish and immoral.

The one is not really different from the other. Religious conservatives don't want women to have the right to say no to sex any more than they want them to have the right to say no to pregnancy, whether by contraception or abortion.

That's why it's good to take the confrontative stand. They are refusing to recognize the right of women to say no, and they've been doing that all along.

 

[Lursa]

I'm going to disagree with the part I bolded above. One could, based on that statement, say, But by putting first woman's right to her body makes it too easy for religious conservatives to make the argument that women who don't consent to sexual intercourse are irresponsible, selfish and immoral.

The one is not really different from the other. Religious conservatives don't want women to have the right to say no to sex any more than they want them to have the right to say no to pregnancy, whether by contraception or abortion.

That's why it's good to take the confrontative stand. They are refusing to recognize the right of women to say no, and they've been doing that all along.

Well dont they think that unmarried women shouldnt have sex? And should have the right to say no? They certainly slander the crap out of them.

 

[choiceone]

The states are the people.

Are you a socialist or what?

 

[choiceone]

No one should assert that SCOTUS decisions are always right or always wrong. However, unless overturned by subsequent rulings on the subject, or no longer valid due to specific changes in the law, they hold the force of legal interpretation which must be followed in all lower courts in the USA.

The terms "right" and "wrong" are often relative to the ideals and beliefs of the Society one lives in. Such ideals and beliefs can change over time, and thus so too the laws can be modified or changed. Hence your list of examples.

Even using your examples, when related to abortion "society" remains divided in the USA on the issue, not just the act, but when and if it can be conducted.

We have people who argue it must be an absolute right, and at the sole discretion of the woman carrying the developing life or lives (twins, triplets, etc.) within her at any point up to and including immediately after birth. That NO ONE, not the father, the family, the physicians, nor Lawmakers/Judges should have any say whatsoever.

IMO this is a ridiculous assertion of absolute rights. It ignores all the "rights" both human and legal we grant to any citizen of this nation, and often to visitors legal or illegal. It ignores the fact that we ALL exist via this process, including every woman who survived their birth. It also ignores all the methods available to prevent this from occurring, from products to inhibit insemination (condoms/diaphragms, IUD's, birth control pills), to morning after pills and so on. Not to mention simple abstinence.

Basically, especially in the latter period of this process, we are not dealing with a "thing," we are dealing with what every one of us was at some point during the nine or so months leading to birth and our continuing lives thereafter.

My argument is not to deny choice, but to point out that this is not like some "accident," it occurs because of choices made that allowed it, when it could have easily been prevented by choices before it became an issue of another human life.

States have the power to regulate medicine. Abortion outside of medicine was considered dangerous, so Roe was about making abortion medically available but regulating medicine.

Roe never recognized the right of women to DIY abortions. It was about state power to regulate medicine and limits on it. Abortion was considered dangerous outside of medicine but pregnancy and childbirth were also dangerous.

In the first trimester abortion was much safer than childbirth. In the second trimester, pregnancy itself became less safe, so there could be restrictions for the safety of the woman. In the third trimester, the state's interest in the potential fetal life past viability, there could be other restrictions only with exceptions to protect the woman's life AND HEALTH.

Women have one absolute right to bodily autonomy - not to be raped. If she is pregnant from rape, she should certainly have a right to eradicate the result, including pregnancy. However much the state might want the embryo or fetus to be grown, it is fruit of the poison tree, among all the other things it is. But there is one limit on medical abortion in these cases - a licensed doctor has to be willing to perform the abortion.

Rape pregnancy is not from a woman's own choice, and the effectiveness of preventing it with Plan B or Ella is an issue of statistical probability.

No form of contraception has a 100% success rate, either. And coerced pregnancy can occur if a sex partner sabotages the contraception.

Again, there's no "other life" there even as potential until the fetus reaches viability, and it may be non-viable even after that.

Ultimately, though, some pregnancies threaten not just the life of the woman but her health so seriously that she could be paralyzed if she continues. And even when there is no medically foreseeable complication, a woman can die.

There's a reason she's a person with rights to liberty and property and not just life, while a fetus isn't a person and doesn't have rights.

 

[choiceone]

What makes a state legislature qualified to make medical decisions for parents instead of doctors? Politicians getting involved is why women are suffering in some states. Abortion is simply a medical procedure between the woman and her doctor.

There's a disagreement among doctors. The state can figure out how to put pro-life doctors on its medical board instead of neutral ones.

 

[choiceone]

I didnt refer to or dispute any of that. But the factual outcome of Dobbs did decide that states can allow women to kill their unborn with no due process.

Women dont need a Const right to abortion any more than they need a Const right to knee surgery. *We, just like men, are entitled to the safest medical procedures...correct? Dobbs, just like RvW, punted and hid from the real issue here.

So women still have to fight, in some states, for the safest medical procedure while there's no valid, legal reason to sacrifice our health and lives to protect the unborn. The Const supposedly DOES protect us...yet apparently Dobbs decided it doesnt...but where does it justify allowing states to abrogate the Const to deny us those protections?


*The challenge case in RvW was specifically based on states denying women a safer medical procedure.

They punted.

They had to admit that a woman had a right to life, and if that is taken in the most limited sense, Dobbs recognized that before Roe, every state had an exception to save the life of the woman. However, Dobbs itself didn't even say that the woman's life required an exception in state abortion laws.

The reasons why are clear. They didn't need a definition of life in the most limited sense, but they certainly didn't offer a particular definition of either the liberty a woman has a right to OR abortion. As a result, they could completely ignore the problem of a pregnancy seriously endangering a woman's health and the problem of whether abortion merely ended a pregnancy relationship or deliberately killed an embryo/fetus.

 

[choiceone]

Correct its the Declaration of Independence. However, the declaration provides the philosophical basis for inalienable rights and subsequently the rights outlined in the constitution. If they are social constructs, then they are privileges granted by the state. Privileges, unlike rights, can be revoked at anytime.



Autonomy is the ability to make your own decisions about what to do rather than being influenced by someone else or told what to do.

Pretty sure that's how I viewed it. The idea of our government is to allow as much autonomy as possible without infringing on the autonomy of others. For a society to function there are limits on what we can do and co-exist. We can't piss and shit where ever we want to. There are mandatory vaccines. So what if the penalty isn't jail. We can't parade nude in public. You agree with the prohibitions against the killing of another human being except if the human being isn't born yet. That's ageism.




There is no right to terminate another human. At the moment it is merely legal option. I'm sure southerners bellyached about their right to own human property being violated by freeing the slaves.

Human beings do not have rights. Only persons have rights. If you are a person, whether born or naturalized, you are a citizen with privileges. And by the way, persons have rights to life, liberty, and property that can't be abridged. But no implanted embryo or fetus IS a person.

The pregnant woman is a person. Hence, she has the right to liberty to leave the state she's in and no one can stop her. She has the right to liberty to leave the nation, too. Then she won't be subject to the jurisdiction of the US if she doesn't want to be. She has the right to renounce her citizenship and become a citizen of another nation, and when she gives birth, the child that is born is a person subject to the jurisdiction of that second nation, and be its citizen, not the first one.

 

[choiceone]

Maybe so when you were in the womb. Its arbitrarily not a person just as blacks weren't considered persons by the supreme court. Wasn't that a wonderful legacy?

First, free blacks were always considered persons. There were free blacks in many states. Only in the states that had slavery was there an issue. Slaves weren't considered persons even though they had the characteristics of persons. To be a person meant to have a living mind that was capable of human reason. No embryo has a mind - it doesn't have even a brain in which to house one.

 

[choiceone]

Never failed to understand it. I disagree with the idea of any human having no rights based on some immutable characteristic whether its developing as a fetus, because skin is brown or black or because of religious beliefs, sexual preference or gender. You agree with me based on all those immutable characteristics no one should be deprived of life or liberty except if it's an unborn human. A human totally incapable of defending for itself. At one time as you know Black people in the United states were sold as slaves had no rights. I assume you would argue as tenaciously for Blacks remaining in slavery because legally they were deemed to have no rights. Why should I think otherwise? You don't have an issue depriving living humans of any rights on the basis they're not born.


What if the reason for abortion is because its a girl and Daddy wanted a boy? Any qualms with terminating a human life because its not the gender they wanted? How about eye color? Is that also none of our business?

Demanding what you believe is true again. I'm sure there are pro-life folks lurking about.

Implanted human embryos live off the woman's body and do her harm. If the woman eats something bad for the embryo, its presence makes her throw up. It IS defending itself. But it is not capable of killing off the woman and still surviving, because it absolutely has to use her body or die. It is not capable of doing anything else. This is absolutely not like a slave before the Civil War. If you were a slave, you could run away and follow the Underground RR and go to Canada, and if you did, you could reenter the US as a free black and some people did. An embryo cannot leave the woman's body without dying.

Human life isn't the issue and has never been the issue. If you want to be a person, you have to leave the woman's body to be one.

 

[CLAX1911]

Are you a socialist or what?

No. The states are where the people live, and the government of the state serves the people of the state.

 

[Bodi]

No. The states are where the people live, and the government of the state serves the people of the state.

Gay men shouldn't be allowed to vote on this issue at all... what a ****ing joke that is. LOL

 

[Bodi]

Implanted human embryos live off the woman's body and do her harm. If the woman eats something bad for the embryo, its presence makes her throw up. It IS defending itself. But it is not capable of killing off the woman and still surviving, because it absolutely has to use her body or die. It is not capable of doing anything else. This is absolutely not like a slave before the Civil War. If you were a slave, you could run away and follow the Underground RR and go to Canada, and if you did, you could reenter the US as a free black and some people did. An embryo cannot leave the woman's body without dying.

Human life isn't the issue and has never been the issue. If you want to be a person, you have to leave the woman's body to be one.

The best thing that can happen is abortion doctors find out how to make peas and mash potatoes into a miscarriage...

No matter how bad it gets the government can not ban peas and mash potatoes.

 

[choiceone]

No. The states are where the people live, and the government of the state serves the people of the state.

When I was living in Japan, I was still an American, but I had been gone long enough not to be considered a resident of the state of Illinois any more. Hence, when I voted, I could vote for the offices of President and Vice President, but I could not vote for a US senator or congressman. Not all Americans live in the states. And FYI, people who live in Washington, DC, don't live in a state, either, but they are still part of "the people."

 

[CLAX1911]

When I was living in Japan, I was still an American, but I had been gone long enough not to be considered a resident of the state of Illinois any more. Hence, when I voted, I could vote for the offices of President and Vice President, but I could not vote for a US senator or congressman. Not all Americans live in the states. And FYI, people who live in Washington, DC, don't live in a state, either, but they are still part of "the people."

Living in DC means you are likely wealthy.

 

[choiceone]

The best thing that can happen is abortion doctors find out how to make peas and mash potatoes into a miscarriage...

No matter how bad it gets the government can not ban peas and mash potatoes.

It's not peas and mash potatoes, but there is something similar reported just recently.

The active ingredient in Ella, a plan b type product that works for up to five days instead of three to prevent ovulation after sex, appears to have a different effect in a doubled dose - it can substitute for the abortion drug mifepristone in combination with misoprostol to effect an abortion.

Since misoprostol is common for treatment of ulcers and Ella can be prescribed for fibroids, it would be virtually impossible to take them off the market, making it easy to think of a new combination in case anyone tries to mess with medication abortion.

ACOG Responds to New Study on Ulipristal Acetate

“Abortion is an essential part of reproductive health care, and so is emergency contraception. Critically, this study does not conclude—and should not be misrepresented as concluding—that emergency contraception causes abortion.”

www.acog.org

 

[choiceone]

Living in DC means you are likely wealthy.

I don't live in DC, and I don't understand what this has to do with the state versus people discussion.

 

[Bodi]

It's not peas and mash potatoes, but there is something similar reported just recently.

I made it up on a whim suggesting that science can come up with some combo action undetectable to woman haters that it is undetectable to them

The active ingredient in Ella, a plan b type product that works for up to five days instead of three to prevent ovulation after sex, appears to have a different effect in a doubled dose - it can substitute for the abortion drug mifepristone in combination with misoprostol to effect an abortion.

Since misoprostol is common for treatment of ulcers and Ella can be prescribed for fibroids, it would be virtually impossible to take them off the market, making it easy to think of a new combination in case anyone tries to mess with medication abortion.

ACOG Responds to New Study on Ulipristal Acetate

“Abortion is an essential part of reproductive health care, and so is emergency contraception. Critically, this study does not conclude—and should not be misrepresented as concluding—that emergency contraception causes abortion.”

www.acog.org

 

[DrewPaul]

Human life isn't the issue and has never been the issue. If you want to be a person, you have to leave the woman's body to be one.

Of course no one who terminates a life (their own daughter or son) will admit they are killing a human being. Everyone who is pro-choice rationalizes abortion.