Sorry Anti-Choicers - SCOTUS is wrong. (4 Viewers)

[choiceone]

Jimmy Carter was a feckless Twit who was rolled by the Soviets, the Iranian Mullahs, and even some Latin American tinpots.

You may quarrel with his national defense policies/practices, but not with his prescience as regards fossil fuels, the need for national health insurance, and much more. And in any case, my concern has never been just what a person did during his term of office, but what he did afterward with the rest of his life. And using that as a standard, Carter was a truly great man - he was never a traitor and spent his life doing good deeds all over the world as an informal diplomat so loved that the US has been forgiven a lot of Republican crap.

No, I call him that because the guy couldn't give a straight answer on a bet. "I did not have sex with that woman". "I didn't inhale". He was a truly slimy human being, who was effective because there were no great challenges during his uneventful 8 years.

I have to say that, by many people's standards and the official definition of having sexual intercourse in that court, he probably didn't have sex with that woman. And FYI, I was in college in the late sixties and early seventies, and in grad school in the late seventies and eighties, and I went to parties where people smoked pot, but I never inhaled, either, because I don't believe in using mind-altering drugs.

Harris Lost. After spending 2 Billion dollars (500 million more than Trump did.)

So what?

Trump won people making less than 50 K, and he won people making 50-100 K. That's middle class. (He barely lost people making over 100K, which is funny for all the mewling about Republicans only being for the rich.)

Apparently those people had to work so hard to make such amounts that they didn't bother to do enough reading and analysis to understand that he was going to deconstruct their nation and refuse to live up to his promise to made inflation and prices go down "on day one." Of course, I may not have ever made so much, but fortunately, my higher education made me a much more responsible voter.

 

[Ahlevah]

But back then, life wasn't even defined the same way. Before so-called "quickening," no one considered the unborn "alive," because voluntary movement was not detected and so-called "menstrual blockage" could be remedied as an illness. Furthermore, abortion, which happened after quickening, wasn't murder. Since quickening occurred at about 4.5 months, no one protected the first 18+ weeks, and afterward, it still wasn't murder, as the unborn was not equal to a person.

“Back then” when? Because that matters. Thanks to heavy lobbying by the newly-created AMA that claimed life began at conception and that terminating a pregnancy at any stage should therefore be under the purview of physicians, states began enacting statutes that classified abortion at any stage of pregnancy as a form of homicide, some even calling it murder. Or they enacted variants of the “born alive” rule under English common law. Apparently, characterizing midwives or “doctors” with questionable credentials as Public Enemy #1 was a great way to eliminate the competition. At least, that’s my understanding of the plan. Sometimes all that was lacking was the proper execution.

Evans v. People of the State of New York [Brief] (1872) | Embryo Project Encyclopedia

Attempts by the New York legislature to make abortion a crime regardless of the stage of gestation were permanently frustrated because the court decided that manslaughter cannot occur until the law recognizes a living being in gestation and that only happens after quickening.

embryo.asu.edu

 

[Ahlevah]

Why should you be allowed to have one when it's not your pregnancy? Every pregnancy is dangerous enough to justify a woman deciding not to continue it.

One what? An opinion? Why should women be allowed to vote on entering wars if they’re not eligible for the draft? Because it’s a stupid argument, that’s why. Logic and reason don’t have a penis or a vagina, and even if they did it would be irrelevant.

 

[choiceone]

Right. Someone who was murdered is called a “victim.” In our presumably civilized society, we prosecute people who murder other human beings.

Sure, but the unborn is not "someone" and isn't a victim. The notion that the embryo in a rape pregnancy is a second victim is absurd. You would have to have a conscious experience of mind to be a victim. A woman either chooses to grow an embryo into a human being or is a victim against whom the embryo functions as a weapon. The notion that an embryo/fetus is a human being and not a potential human being isn't true.

No, human beings don’t own other human beings. We tried that already, and ended up rejecting it.

That's correct, except that an implanted human embryo/fetus is NOT a human being. I have already explained why this particular expression, with the article "a" and informal species adjective modifying the countable noun "being," implies capacities it doesn't have.

Obviously not, since the State of California charged Scott Petersen with a separate count of murder. So it completely rejected your argument. While Laci Petersen’s feelings became irrelevant and ended once she was killed by her husband, the state’s interest in insuring justice was served in the murder of her unborn son did not. And why was that? Because the people of the State of California placed value on his life, which was brutally ended before he had a chance to enjoy it. That’s what.

No, they placed value on the fetus's life as a fetus (not a person) because his wife placed value on it while she was still living.

 

[choiceone]

Actually, I was referring to abortions that would be performed by clinicians who are not physicians at facilities that are not located near hospitals with the proper facilities to deal with a major medical emergency. As far the safety of medication-administered abortions goes, they’re not without their own complications, and if safety and avoiding pregnancy is the object I would suggest a safe method of birth control. These can be more than 99% effective. I think we will increase safety by encouraging women to use more caution and preparation before getting pregnant.

I also agree that women should use good contraception, but the best types aren't safe for all women. I also think they should be more cautious. Most guys actually aren't worth the risk, anyway.

Nothing now. I didn’t think abortion ever should have been a federal issue. By the time Roe was decided, states were already moving towards loosening restrictions. What we got instead was half a century of acrimony and militancy from both sides. I think a lot of that could have been avoided.

I don't agree, obviously, because frankly I have no understanding of why material out of which a woman can make a future human being if she wants to should be deeply valued. I still do believe that the 14th A implied right of privacy, backed by the 4th and 9th As, and a more objective history than Dobbs asserted (despite the American Historical Association's brief), is broad enough to include abortion. Also, I don't think this acrimony or militancy would ever have been avoided, and I don't think it will be avoided in the future. Life and liberty are both ultimate values, and forced pregnancy is so much like rape that it's hard for me to sympathize either with an anti-choice law or the weapon used to control the woman's body. If anything, it makes me have no capacity for respect of embryonic or fetal life.

It’s up to the people of each state to decide how they want to approach the issue. After all, we still live in a federal representative republic. But under the rational basis standard in Dobbs, SCOTUS did determine that there are state interests, such as preserving fetal life and protecting maternal health, that justify regulating that aspect of medical care, just as it does all other issues involving public health and safety.

I just don't buy any of it and believe that, in the future, we'll get back a liberal SC that will revisit Dobbs and overturn it, and return to something like Roe v Wade, as Dobbs overturned Roe by only 5-4, and Roe v Wade itself was a 7-2 decision.

 

[choiceone]

Correct. And my son and daughter-in law attempted to share with friends a short ultrasound video of their daughter on social media, but the platform blocked it. So much for “net neutrality.” I guess we can’t have shared images of little hands and feet moving in Mommy’s tummy now, can we?

Frankly, I don't particularly like ultrasounds spread around any more than I like people putting photos of their naked bodies or sex acts on line. It's sexual and kind of gross.

 

[choiceone]

“Back then” when? Because that matters. Thanks to heavy lobbying by the newly-created AMA that claimed life began at conception and that terminating a pregnancy at any stage should therefore be under the purview of physicians, states began enacting statutes that classified abortion at any stage of pregnancy as a form of homicide, some even calling it murder. Or they enacted variants of the “born alive” rule under English common law. Apparently, characterizing midwives or “doctors” with questionable credentials as Public Enemy #1 was a great way to eliminate the competition. At least, that’s my understanding of the plan. Sometimes all that was lacking was the proper execution.

Evans v. People of the State of New York [Brief] (1872) | Embryo Project Encyclopedia

Attempts by the New York legislature to make abortion a crime regardless of the stage of gestation were permanently frustrated because the court decided that manslaughter cannot occur until the law recognizes a living being in gestation and that only happens after quickening.

embryo.asu.edu

The newly created AMA was a highly elitist organization made up of a really tiny proportion of the population. The larger population did not necessarily hold that view at all. I remember reading about a legal case in the late 19th century in which a witness's statement indicated that a doctor involved in the case had performed an abortion on a woman. The judge was shocked by his act of killing until one of the attorneys informed him that the abortion had been performed before quickening. He immediately changed, saying something like, Oh, that's not illegal then. I will try to find the reference again.

 

[choiceone]

One what? An opinion?

A vote.

Why should women be allowed to vote on entering wars if they’re not eligible for the draft?

Because our nation's wars affect the entire population of the US. They're supposed to be defensive and/or in furtherance of being true to allies, and when we fight them, the enemy may hurt any of us in relatiation, whether we are abroad or they invade this nation. Declaring war risks everyone's life and limb, not just draftees'.

Because it’s a stupid argument, that’s why. Logic and reason don’t have a penis or a vagina, and even if they did it would be irrelevant.

No, I just gave you a very good reason why women as well as men should be allowed to vote on entering wars - they affect the entire population. Huge numbers of people aren't drafted - should old and middle-aged men be excluded, too, since they won't be draftable? Any guy who wears glasses too think don't be drafted.

Logic and reason having or not having a penis or a vagina is irrelevant. If you're specific body and private parts are being harmed by a pregnancy, you have the right to seek medical relief safer than continuing your being harmed, and a doctor has the right to offer it to you and you then have a right to accept that offer.

 

[Ahlevah]

Frankly, I don't particularly like ultrasounds spread around any more than I like people putting photos of their naked bodies or sex acts on line. It's sexual and kind of gross.

That’s fine. At least you can choose what content you view on social media—as long as it meets the “net neutral” progressive censor’s standards. Do you have the same discerning standards when it comes to women sporting vagina hats or wearing giant vagina costumes in public, or public drag shows and Pride parades?

 

[Ahlevah]

The newly created AMA was a highly elitist organization made up of a really tiny proportion of the population. The larger population did not necessarily hold that view at all. I remember reading about a legal case in the late 19th century in which a witness's statement indicated that a doctor involved in the case had performed an abortion on a woman. The judge was shocked by his act of killing until one of the attorneys informed him that the abortion had been performed before quickening. He immediately changed, saying something like, Oh, that's not illegal then. I will try to find the reference again.

I liken it to a medieval guild, which is simply the professional equivalent of a trade union. The stated intention is raising professional standards and the quality of care, but the unstated purpose is limiting competition and access into the profession.

 

[Ahlevah]

A vote.

Because, unlike killing a fetus, voting is an enumerated right under our constitution.

Because our nation's wars affect the entire population of the US. They're supposed to be defensive and/or in furtherance of being true to allies, and when we fight them, the enemy may hurt any of us in relatiation, whether we are abroad or they invade this nation. Declaring war risks everyone's life and limb, not just draftees'.

Okay, but your point was men should not be allowed to vote on the issue of abortion because pregnancy presents risks and forced obligations that don’t affect men personally. You don’t address issues involving possible collective justifications or state interests for regulating it. You reserve that aspect for draftees. Being drafted into the army and deposited into a war zone is not only dangerous, but can result in the complete deprivation of one’s liberty. Women aren’t required to face that, ergo under your logic they should not be permitted to vote on military or defense policy at all.

 

[Lursa]

When did we become such a bunch of snowflakes. "Oh, I have to kill my baby because I might be slightly depressed for a few weeks!"

Wow, so you hate women and the mentally ill. PS...suicidal women also kill their fetus. However if women can go without fear to the doctor, she will get counseling, not an abortion on demand. The likelihood is high that she will receive treatment, not an abortion.

In your scenario, they both just croak. You dont even apply reason to your responses anymore

So have the doctor document it's for a legitimate medical reason, I don't have an issue.

That's not an acceptable reason in the red states, so it's a fail.

Then the time to take care of that is in month 2, not month 8.

And ~97% are if the woman realizes she's pregnant by then. And the rest are almost all medically necessary and thus, they're women that wanted their pregnancies and have medical emergencies, ectopic pregnancies, defective fetuses, etc. So all you want is laws that punish women that wanted to be pregnant. How's your dream of holding the moral High Ground doing? It's subway level

Women dont have elective abortions in the 8th month of healthy fetuses. You should stop lying about that until you can provide the data showing it. It gets tiresome pointing out your moral blindness on lying.

 

[Lursa]

The point is you need to read the citations.

No, they're too long. If you want to use them to support your points, as requested over and over, you need to quote them specifically.

Even though a case is overruled, it can still be cited when used to offer a historical context.

As a failure, not support. To show the reasoning for disregarding it.

Which, as I’ve said from the beginning, is there is no constitutional right to an abortion.

"Which, as I've said from the beginning," I've never claimed there is Your diversion claiming it over and over shows the weakness of your argument.

Even in Blackstone’s England, for criminal purposes a “person” was still someone who had actually been born. But killing a fetus after the quickening was nonetheless considered a crime. Since there is no enumerated constitutional right to an abortion, abortion proponents would have to rely on the 14th Amendment in order to assert a constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy. However, at the time that amendment was adopted, abortion was illegal in virtually every state that existed, thanks in large part to the caring physicians at the AMA.

You already wrote this. And repeating it doesnt change my responses. And it was not always a crime, even when abortions were denied to women. Esp not for the women having them. (Sound familiar red states?)

And there are other Const amendments that support it...which have also been covered...that other judges have presented...if you have to keep repeating the same thing without addressing the refutations, it's clear your 'needle is stuck.' Still wont change magically into accurate.

Sure thing, as soon as you explain to me how the millions of men who were conscripted to die at places like Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima, and Normandy weren’t forced into “involuntary servitude.” Same concept.

Another regurgitation? You ignored my question, please answer it:

"The draft was for national security. Abortion has no negative consequences on society. If you disagree, please list some?"​

And since there's no similar justification, as for the draft which I disagree with anyway, your use of the daft to support your argument fails.

Sometimes “slavery” is the price we pay to live in a free, civil society that respects all of the living, including the most innocent and vulnerable among us.

Wow, no. That's a whole 'nother thread...feel free to start it but no. No. Very much no.

But it is your admission that the govt demanding women remain pregnant against their will is "slavery." Involuntary servitude. Thanks.

 

[Lursa]

Well, if the “experts” hadn’t been crushing skulls, pulling off limbs, and discarding human remains in landfills, they might have had more credibility. Alas, some of them did, so none has much in the way of credibility these days.

So then your comments didnt have any credibility either. You just use doctors as valid experts when convenient to your argument. Fine...then we can disregard any meaning to the Hippocratic Oath and the saints that started the AMA and your broadbrushing of doctors ever being able to be trusted for anything. Holy shit...you post that they're monsters AND that they're saints. Because it wouldnt serve your arguments if you could admit that doctors in general ARE all about doing the best for their patients. The anti-abortite crowd seems to think they can be...except when it comes to abortions

Why dont doctors just rip apart severely defective newborns? Smother them? Why arent they fullscale overdosing patients and killing them? Why arent doctors abusing patients wholesale everywhere? Why can we only not trust them with abortions?

If you want to use emotionally manipulative hyperbole...live with it...admit it either applies in general that doctors are cruel and untrustworthy...or it doesnt and your agenda-based convenient examples are BS.

Btw, the process for those procedures was to kill the unborn before any extraction occcured. It was humane when done correctly. Unfortunately, that method was to use forceps to snap the spine, painlessly. Or pierce the skull. It was not "an exact" method. Sometimes the unborn didnt die. There was no ultrasound, they couldnt see. So the severely damaged fetus was killed when it emerged. It was still partially dismembered with a snapped spine or pierced skull. So it was killed immediately. Yes horrible and barbaric but not intentional. It was due to the limitations of the technology at the time.

Doctors didnt remove entire whole viable fetuses from women in abortions...they'd kill or cause too much internal damage to the woman. That's why they were dismembered and still are today.

This is why partial birth abortions were federally outlawed. You knew that, right? Medical advances made them unnecessary.

Today, better technology enables administering a lethal dose of anesthetic and the unborn are by law and policy dead before removal. So you cruel untrustworthy doctor diatribe is empty and just emotionally manipulative. The unborn still have to be dismembered in D&C's...you know that right? But why does it matter if it's already dead? If it does to you, that's you unable to control your feelings.

And the only reason to care about human remains in landfills...is emotional manipulation...which doesnt work and shows a weak arbument, and public health concerns, which are legit. Please document where that has legally taken place in the past 50 yrs. Hospitals/clinics dont do that, nor did they n the past decades so it would have been back alley abortions.

Look, there are pros and cons on each side of this debate. Everyone can make a credible argument as to why an abortion can be a good idea under some circumstances and maybe not in others. But in the final analysis, it’s up to the people of each state to decide how they want to handle it by electing politicians who represent their points of view. That’s it.

Then why didnt the people in the South have the right to decide about keeping Jim Crow laws and segregation? About denying interracial marriage? Is the US a country where we submit to tyranny of the majority? The Founding Fathers specifically said we're not.

If the decision is made by the govt and not a woman and her Dr, then the govt is not respecting her as an individual, independent American NOR concerned with the preservation of her life. It's placing the unborn ahead of HER CONSENT to her own life...yes or no? If it's in the states' interest...demanding she have the kid...please explain how that's not involuntary servitude? (These are things that have not yet been tested in court. But that other justices including RBG talked about.)

That's why those decisions should stay with the people best able to "know" those circumstances." Then we wont have women that wanted that pregnancy bleeding out in parking lots. The current situation in red states puts MORE women's lives who WANT their pregnancies at risk...because a lot of pregnancies go bad. It seems like more than the # of women that have abortions that late. Again, ~97% of all abortions take place early, before there's any threat to the woman. Why should the govt be involved in these medical decisions? Again, at that point...they're punishing women that WANTED to have a baby.

 

[Ahlevah]

No, they're too long. If you want to use them to support your points, as requested over and over, you need to quote them specifically.

No, I don’t. I’m not writing a college term paper or doctoral dissertation. But if you take issue with something I write, it’s a good idea to make sure you know what you’re talking about and are prepared to support your claim. For example, what is your specific beef with the citation in Dobbs of Gonzales v. Carhart that I cited in Post #1474? Gonzales needed to be consistent with Casey at the time that case was handed down in 2007, so it’s not surprising it was mentioned in my quote. But the point being supported in Dobbs—the Court’s traditional rule that states and the federal government were given wide discretion to regulate human life at all stages of development—was incidental to Casey being overruled due to its “undue burden” test.

As a failure, not support. To show the reasoning for disregarding it.

Support that. I’m sure if there’s a problem with the citation someone wrote about it somewhere.

"Which, as I've said from the beginning," I've never claimed there is Your diversion claiming it over and over shows the weakness of your argument.

So you forfeit that point? Because that’s a biggie. Okay, I accept.

You already wrote this. And repeating it doesnt change my responses. And it was not always a crime, even when abortions were denied to women. Esp not for the women having them. (Sound familiar red states?)

It was wasn’t a crime (for the first 14 weeks or whatever), but it was a tradition! They’d hoist brewskis afterwords to celebrate.

And there are other Const amendments that support it...which have also been covered...that other judges have presented...if you have to keep repeating the same thing without addressing the refutations, it's clear your 'needle is stuck.' Still wont change magically into accurate.

So the claim is the Constitution still supports killing babies? Somehow I doubt it.

Another regurgitation? You ignored my question, please answer it:

"The draft was for national security. Abortion has no negative consequences on society. If you disagree, please list some?"​

And since there's no similar justification, as for the draft which I disagree with anyway, your use of the daft to support your argument fails.

Not at all. You claim abortion has no negative consequences on society. How about drowning pets in bathtubs? If it’s my pet, I should be able to kill it with no negative consequences, correct? And if I want to just slowly carve it up with a knife or pull its limbs off at the joints while it’s living, what’s wrong with that? How does that impact society?

IMHO, routinely taking human life, sometimes for no other reason than it’s interfering with a woman’s career or lifestyle, is morally abhorrent. No “just” society would condone that.

 

[Lursa]

No, I don’t. I’m not writing a college term paper or doctoral dissertation. But if you take issue with something I write, it’s a good idea to make sure you know what you’re talking about and are prepared to support your claim. For example, what is your specific beef with the citation in Dobbs of Gonzales v. Carhart that I cited in Post #1474? Gonzales needed to be consistent with Casey at the time that case was handed down in 2007, so it’s not surprising it was mentioned in my quote.

If the context isnt there and you tell me to 'look it up,' it means you cant quote the specifics and explain how it supports your argument. I'm not going fishing for it. Those documents are long.

And I answered the bold in my next response in that post.

But the point being supported in Dobbs—the Court’s traditional rule that states and the federal government were given wide discretion to regulate human life at all stages of development—was incidental to Casey being overruled due to its “undue burden” test.

The discretion to regulate human life at all stages of development was an afterthought buried at the end. And btw...does the state and federal govt have the right to regulate human life at all stages of development? That includes born. So can the states/feds proscribe laws to allow people to kill other born people with no due process? (the way Dobbs does for the unborn) Are you sure you want to keep beating that drum?

2nd post in thread:

Dobbs states " That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.” link

My response: When in our traditions and Nation's history have we denied safer medical treatment to persons? What about it disrupts the concept of ordered liberty? It does the opposite, it imposes restrictions on women's freedom to access a safer medical procedure. (Neither RvW nor Dobbs address protections for the unborn...which have no fed rights to protect.)

Support that. I’m sure if there’s a problem with the citation someone wrote about it somewhere.

It's clear in the usage where they describe why it's no longer valid or supports their new decision, etc. That's what you just responded to, reworded. Not sure how to make it simpler.

So you forfeit that point? Because that’s a biggie. Okay, I accept.

There's nothing to forfeit...so your desperation for some kind of win is null. I've never made that point...so you are imagining victory

It was wasn’t a crime (for the first 14 weeks or whatever), but it was a tradition! They’d hoist brewskis afterwords to celebrate.

Thanks! They could and did penalize doctors. Men could beat their wives if they did it without their knowledge. But yeah, otherwise it was just one of those societal things that traditionally people didnt support. Societies generally want babies.

Do the claim is the Constitution still supports killing babies? Somehow I doubt it.

The Constitution supports protecting people's rights. Is this news to you? Women are people. The unborn are not. Is this new information? The 13th Amendment, for instance, protects people from involuntary solitude, like the govt forcing women to remain pregnant against their will in the interests of the state/govt.

And that right to due process and the 4th Amendment right to security of the person (bodily autonomy) that they still cant overcome and those are some of the Const protections that keep states from charging women with murder, going to other states to commit murder, from taking pills to kill their unborn, etc.

 

[Lursa]

Not at all. You claim abortion has no negative consequences on society. How about drowning pets in bathtubs? If it’s my pet, I should be able to kill it with no negative consequences, correct? And if I want to just slowly carve it up with a knife or pull its limbs off at the joints while it’s living, what’s wrong with that? How does that impact society?

Correct and that is current law. There are laws against animal cruelty. There is no cruelty involved in abortions, since the unborn are not caused pain and do not suffer. Correct?

IMHO, routinely taking human life, sometimes for no other reason than it’s interfering with a woman’s career or lifestyle, is morally abhorrent. No “just” society would condone that.

Well you're living in one then, because the majority of Americans support elective abortions up to some extent. Your words implying that's a primary motivation for women shows judgement and disrespect which fortunately, again, the majority of Americans dont concur with. Yours is certainly no moral High Ground in a country where the majority DO value women more.

And in practice, we even have proof since Dobbs: it punishes women that wanted their pregnancies...women with medical emergencies, miscarraiges, 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...again, any idea your perspective hold any moral High Ground is ridiculous.

 

[Ahlevah]

Correct and that is current law. There are laws against animal cruelty.

What is the societal consequence if people are allowed to torture and kill their pets?

There is no cruelty involved in abortions, since the unborn are not caused pain and do not suffer. Correct?

I don’t know. Can you support that claim by supplying quotes with links? Is it your contention that aborted fetuses never felt pain!? How do you know that?

Well you're living in one then, because the majority of Americans support elective abortions up to some extent. Your words implying that's a primary motivation for women shows judgement and disrespect which fortunately, again, the majority of Americans dont concur with. Yours is certainly no moral High Ground in a country where the majority DO value women more.

You’re being disingenuous again, because you’re making a blanket statement about where I stand on the issue, or that my position is somehow out of alignment with the mainstream. I’m with the vast majority of Americans who believe abortion restrictions should be ramped up as the fetus gets closer to full-term. An abortion should be done only under very limited circumstances in the 3rd Trimester. From what I can tell, you equate forcing a women to carry a pregnancy for any period to involuntary servitude, and that puts you well outside the mainstream.

 

[Lursa]

What is the societal consequence if people are allowed to torture and kill their pets?

Those are 2 different things, remember?

And dont forget, we have thousands of laws that protect things...coral reefs, wildlife, forests, livestock, etc. They're not all based on their effects on society.

Now back to the actual context for that conversation OTOH, we were discussing the govt forcing women to risk their lives without their consent. And that the draft is the only other example in our nation where the govt does that. It's for national security purposes.

In your examples, pets, and mine...none of those things have a right to consent to anything "Context."

There are no negative consequences on society from abortion. If there are, please list some? Otherwise what justification is there for the govt to deny women consent to risking their own lives?

I don’t know. Can you support that claim by supplying quotes with links? Is it your contention that aborted fetuses never felt pain!? How do you know that?

I dont speak to the past, only the present and I just went into that in the last couple of posts for you. Specifically. Please review for your answers.

LOL Dont forget to consider the pain the fetus goes thru during labor...hours and hours of contractions then the final "squeeze." Never heard of anyone concerned about that.

You’re being disingenuous again, because you’re making a blanket statement about where I stand on the issue, or that my position is somehow out of alignment with the mainstream.

I'm basing it on what you write...and what you refuse to address, acknowledge." Your last statement was very clear on disrespecting and judging women and I called it out exactly based on your words.

I’m with the vast majority of Americans who believe abortion restrictions should be ramped up as the fetus gets closer to full-term. An abortion should be done only under very limited circumstances in the 3rd Trimester.

We had that under RvW. This is why I keep calling out the bullshit hypocrisy. Even in the 2nd trimester, women rarely have abortions for non-medical reasons. They dont want to...they're more painful and more expensive. To suggest they do so casually is complete crap. It may depend on their finances, work, when they discovered they were pregnant, etc tho.

From what I can tell, you equate forcing a women to carry a pregnancy for any period to involuntary servitude, and that puts you well outside the mainstream.

Yes, any force whatsoever without her consent is morally wrong and should be illegal and AFAIK, not permitted under the Const. I dont worry about women with no medical reasons aborting healthy, viable fetuses because they dont.

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.

 

[weaver2]

“....... Thanks to heavy lobbying by the newly-created AMA that claimed life began at conception and that terminating a pregnancy at any stage should therefore be under the purview of physicians, states began enacting statutes that classified abortion at any stage of pregnancy as a form of homicide, some even calling it murder. Or they enacted variants of the “born alive” rule under English common law. Apparently, characterizing midwives or “doctors” with questionable credentials as Public Enemy #1 was a great way to eliminate the competition. At least, that’s my understanding of the plan. Sometimes all that was lacking was the proper execution.

Evans v. People of the State of New York [Brief] (1872) | Embryo Project Encyclopedia

Attempts by the New York legislature to make abortion a crime regardless of the stage of gestation were permanently frustrated because the court decided that manslaughter cannot occur until the law recognizes a living being in gestation and that only happens after quickening.

embryo.asu.edu

Where did you get that muddled history of the AMA? Almost nothing in it has any relation to the actual facts of how the AMA came into being, why abortion was condemned by them, midwives faulted, and abortion banned.

 

[Lursa]

Where did you get that muddled history of the AMA? Almost nothing in it has any relation to the actual facts of how the AMA came into being, why abortion was condemned by them, midwives faulted, and abortion banned.

In one sentence doctors are monsters shredding fetuses and in another they're saving the world by creating the Hippocratic Oath and the AMA.

Abortion medical practices have come after both of those. If there are legal abortion practices that are cruel and cause suffering for the unborn...I'd like some evidence of that. But the federal partial abortion act was created in 2003...more than 20 yrs ago. Are practices unethical now? Or is it just abortion opponents using emotional manipulation and lies to just try and end abortion?

They are doing society harm by sowing such distrust of the medical community. The vast majority of doctors become doctors to help their people and not harm their patients, and perform their practices that way.

 

[Ahlevah]

Where did you get that muddled history of the AMA? Almost nothing in it has any relation to the actual facts of how the AMA came into being, why abortion was condemned by them, midwives faulted, and abortion banned.

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

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.

 

[Ahlevah]

In one sentence doctors are monsters shredding fetuses and in another they're saving the world by creating the Hippocratic Oath and the AMA.

Your friends at Planned Parenthood seem to have a special beef with doctors, at least the male dead ones from the 19th Century.

 

[Ahlevah]

Those are 2 different things, remember?

But I’m asking what is the state interest? Is society going to collapse if people drown their cats in their bathtubs? Why IS it different?

 

[Lursa]

Your friends at Planned Parenthood seem to have a special beef with doctors, at least the male dead ones from the 19th Century.

What does that have to do with today? And with the opposing comments you've made about them: dismembering monsters and saviors creating the Hippocratic Oath and the AMA? How do you reconcile those?

post 1514 and post 1521 for context on those.