Braineack

iTrader: (62)

It's also a self inflicted ruling as they were trying to sue to get late-term abortions. Because healthcare.

It's a huge win for the Constitution, yes. And a huge hit the federalism.

The thing is it doesn't ban abortions, maybe some states will, but maybe others will allow abortions after birth...

This is how the tenth amendment was supposed to work.

But really, think how awful it would be to get knocked up and not being able to have an abortion if you don't want to keep it, or really have no means to keep it, or not old/Marie enough to keep it. It's a feeling we honestly cannot relate to. So I'm sympathetic to this situation, but woman be emotional and not objective so... Especially when they've been told they are sexual beings for the last 50 years.
​​​​​​

Bajingo

I would vote for the democrat that campaigned on 150month abortions.

cordycord

iTrader: (2)

I've heard that most abortions happen at home now, via medication.

People's thoughts on the unborn almost universally relate to their thoughts on the infirmed, the elderly, the special needs folks. Funny thing is, I heard this issue compared to slavery last week. For some during slavery, black people weren't considered humans. They were 3/5ths human, or at best animals.

Is this the "slavery question" for the 21st Century?

cordycord

iTrader: (2)

DNMakinson

iTrader: (3)

The 3/5 compromise had nothing to do with humanity vs sub-humanity. It was primarily (only??) about representation in congress.

Yes, a great win for the constitution. I read the syllabus, a little of the majority, and a bit of the dissension. The first two sound like legal scholarship, the last, like left wing politics and whining.

DNM

cordycord

iTrader: (2)

14,911 views

Dr Strangetweet or How I Learned to Love the RT

• 14 tweets • 2 min read Bookmark Save as PDF My Authors
You don’t like the decisions yesterday and today?

You’re really not going to like the next part.

I mean, it’s your fault, but you’re not going to like it.
See, we were cool with the status quo.

Yeah, we wanted abortion to go back to the states. Yeah, we wanted gun rights expanded. Yeah, we wanted our kids safe from LGBTQ indoctrination.

But it wasn’t enough to fight about.
We thought you were like us, that we could argue and make small gains and lose some ground but everything staying fairly level and levelheaded.

But boy, were we wrong.

Because while we were copacetic and just going along to get along, you were pushing.
You pushed abortion. From “legal, safe, and rare in these specific instances”, you pushed now to the point of post birth abortion on demand for any reason.
You pushed gun control. From “background checks and gun free zones” to now “red flag laws” which deny due process.
You pushed “the rights of gay marriage” to now the “right of LGBTQ teachers telling kindergarteners about their sex life.”
And during all of this, you pushed disagreeing politically to calling us ***** and justifying violence against us, justifying harming our families and our jobs.
So now, we push back.

We pushed back with Trump.
We pushed back with state legislators.
We pushed back with school boards.

And we haven’t even begun to push back, kiddo.
We’re going to push abortion back to the “rare” side in many states.

We may give you a timeframe like 12 to 15 weeks, about what your beloved “other industrialized nations” give.

We may not.
We’re going to push back on gun control.

We’re not going to accept your offer of “you can keep some guns until we decide to get rid of them.”

We’re going to elect legislators to make ownership easier. We’re claiming our rights back.
We’re going to push back on the LGBTQ agenda.

We’re going to make your lives miserable when you try to get our kids to question their gender.

We’re going to remove the power you think you have and put it in the hands of the parents.
You had a chance to call a truce.
You had a chance to be in control and be happy.
You had a chance to just leave us alone.

You didn’t.
You pushed and prodded and provoked.

And you’re threatening to commit violence now?

Good luck with that.
There’s a saying about the danger of making people who want to be left alone get involved.

You’ve made us get involved.

So all of it, from here on out, is squarely on you.

Enjoy the whirlwind you have so deservedly reaped.

cordycord

iTrader: (2)

3/5 was absolutely about politics, but in order to get to the compromise the legislators made arguments including whether slaves were people or property. That's the juxtaposition to now. Are fetuses people or a "mass of cells?"

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

I was thinking about this earlier today. And I'm happy to see at least one other person acknowledging that understanding this distinction is key to having a productive conversation about the matter.

To those on the far-right, abortion is murder because fetuses are people.

Those on the left have an entirely different opinion. And I'll acknowledge that everything I'm about to say is partly tongue-in-cheek.

It really all comes down to James Cameron's 1984 film The Terminator.

Within the boundaries of that film, a machine exists which can send people back through time. However, for some quirky reason, it only works on living organic matter. Which is why Reese shows up naked and with no weapons (and presumably with no dental fillings.)

But... wait. The T-101 Terminator is a mechanical robot. Well, that's ok for some reason, because it's wrapped up in a meat-suit so that we can't see the robot inside. Somehow, that's enough to fool the time machine.


To the far-left, that's how the abortion argument works. The pregnant person is a meat-suit, and because we cannot see the thing inside of them, it doesn't count.

good2go

iTrader: (2)

Also, let's not look at another glaring hypocrisy of the laws though, where in that same legally abort-able fetus, with no rights whatsoever, suddenly earns the right to life when a drunk driver is charged with two counts of murder for T-boning its mother (who could literally have been on her way to the abortion clinic) and killing it along with the mother. Why two charges for the drunk; not just the one?

poormxdad

Not quite two decades ago, my Dad cut the tops of the two small toes on his right foot. He had neuropathy in his legs and didn't realize what had happened. Those toes got infected and had to be removed. He was put in a nursing home and told he could not put weight on his feet for two weeks. He never got out of bed again. He was also battling diabetes, dementia, and hardening of the brain. He slowly deteriorated to where he couldn't do anything for himself. His last months of life were less than dignified for a former cop. Nursing home costs and insurance copays chipped away at my parent's savings. Dad was never going to get any younger, there was no cure for diabetes or dementia on the horizon, the hardening of his brain would never be reversed, but it would have been illegal to put him out of his misery, and stop the hemorrhaging of their savings.

How is it possible some people are rabidly for the killing of babies, but there are no similarly loud voices for the ethical treatment of people in the last days of their lives? I believe it's all about the money.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

Because state law vs. The Constitution.

Prosecutors love to prosecute. And The Court never said it was OK to kill the fetus without the mothers' consent.

That's an important point- Roe v. Wade never said that Abortion wasn't murder. Only that state laws which prohibited it violated the 14th Amendment.

fooger03

iTrader: (2)

The fetus's only relationship is with the mother, we can make arguments for why the mother might be able to justifiably end that life.

There is no justification for why the drunk driver should be able to end that life.

cordycord

iTrader: (2)

Such a loving person. Mayra Flores (first Mexican-born House member) has her daughter elbowed out of the picture by Nancy Pelosi.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

It does raise an interesting question though...

If the pregnant person is able to decide to terminate the life of the fetus, and that is not homicide, then why does it become homicide when a third party does it without their consent?

By the standard created when states allow a pregnant person to lawfully terminate a fetus, then when someone else does it, it seems as though should be something akin to aggravated battery (assault causing serious injury.)

good2go

iTrader: (2)

Forget the mother. At what point in time does (or should) the fetus gain rights of its own? It certainly can't be simply the point at which it becomes viable on its own and/or birth, because a mother can still choose to abort beyond either of those events. If you look at it from the perspective of the fetus, then the issue of mother vs drunk driver is moot.

cordycord

iTrader: (2)

I watched a black and white of Ronnie Reagan answering that question. He said--among other things--that the fetus may have property rights if it's written into a will (progeny, born and unborn), and abortion at that point is changing the proceeds of the will.

The overarching issue I see with this Supreme Court with all these rulings is that they are taking power away from the government and giving it back to the people, Roe included, because in effect the abortion decision is pushed to the States and not the Feds.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

First, you can't just "forget the mother" if you're going to try to have a rational conversation about the topic with someone who opposes restrictions on abortion. From their point of view, the mother is all that matters, and it's necessary to at least acknowledge that perspective. After all, the 14th Amendment rights of the mother were the key holding in Roe, as well as in Dobbs.


As to when the fetus gains rights of its own? That's almost more of a philosophical question than a scientific one.

From a legal perspective, the fetus becomes a person in most jurisdictions at the moment of live birth. This is not universally agreed upon by philosophers of medicine, but insofar as the state is concerned, you become a person when you are fully born alive.

On the subject of post-birth abortion, I am not aware that this is legal in any US state. I assume that you may be referring to partial-birth abortion, which is a controversial procedure at best. But even in such instances, the fetus has not been fully born alive, and thus falls outside the legal definition of a person in every US state (at least, at present.)

There's a rather good paper which explores the topic of genuinely post-birth abortion (which is functionally infanticide), from a moral and ethical perspective, written by a couple of Australian physicians and published in the British Medical Journal's Journal of Medical Ethics. (eg: a legitimate, scholarly publication.) It can be read in its entirety, paywall-free, here: https://jme.bmj.com/content/39/5/261

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

And that's the point which I fear that many people, on both sides of any given issue, are failing to appreciate.

The Supreme Court isn't banning anything. It's merely acknowledging that the Federal government, either in the form of Congress of that of the Court itself, has overstepped its constitutional authority and usurped power which rightfully is reserved to the States and to the People.

golftdibrad

Yes, and I hope that more decisions are made through this lens in the future. And lets revisit some old ones; lets start with the 'affordable' care act.

cordycord

iTrader: (2)

A couple Germans also had some ideas on this issue, based on the term "Lebensunwertes Leben". Gotta watch that slippery slope.

The California legislature has a re-affirmation of abortion rights in the Assembly now, and funny enough it's called "AB1666".

There was a passage in the bill that would have allowed post-birth abortion, and when people caught the verbiage the authors said "Well gee, how did that get in there? That could totally be construed as post-birth abortion. Whoops."