AUDub 11,974 Posted February 8, 2019 Share Posted February 8, 2019 Roberts seems to be taking his role as the new swing vote in stride. Some background, an article from this morning. https://thinkprogress.org/supreme-court-may-kill-roe-v-this-week-a014778b1db9/amp/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jj3jordan 2,172 Posted March 1, 2019 Share Posted March 1, 2019 That would be great! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I_M4_AU 8,978 Posted March 1, 2019 Share Posted March 1, 2019 I wonder if this is a result of the overreaching of the pro-choice legislation in NewYork and attempt in VA? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,914 Posted March 1, 2019 Share Posted March 1, 2019 It truly amazes me watching a conversation develop, grow, gain strength and suddenly some closed minded party hack that hasnt had an original thought in years gives it a driveby facepalm. People talking out ideas and beliefs that are not part of one party's talking points is almost ALWAYS a good thing. Whether on the Right or the Left, approaching any subject with a mind already made up is always bad. I dont care how cocksure of yourself you are, no one has this all figured out and i can assure no party has anything figured out other trying to remain in power by whatever means possible. If your complete conversation has no more depth than an emoji, please do us all a favor and stfu. 2 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ATX 13,654 Posted March 1, 2019 Share Posted March 1, 2019 2 hours ago, I_M4_AU said: I wonder if this is a result of the overreaching of the pro-choice legislation in NewYork and attempt in VA? Um, this ruling was in favor of pro-choice advocates. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I_M4_AU 8,978 Posted March 2, 2019 Share Posted March 2, 2019 21 hours ago, Brad_ATX said: Um, this ruling was in favor of pro-choice advocates. Um, if it’s going to the Supreme Court there are two sides to the controversy. The OP indicated the court may kill Roe v Wade. I was asking if there would be further discussions once reaching the Supreme Court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ATX 13,654 Posted March 2, 2019 Share Posted March 2, 2019 (edited) 4 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said: Um, if it’s going to the Supreme Court there are two sides to the controversy. The OP indicated the court may kill Roe v Wade. I was asking if there would be further discussions once reaching the Supreme Court. It's already gone to the SC. They granted a stay, meaning that the proposed Louisiana law which was very restrictive for women there cannot go into effect at this time. Edited March 2, 2019 by Brad_ATX 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I_M4_AU 8,978 Posted March 2, 2019 Share Posted March 2, 2019 1 minute ago, Brad_ATX said: It's already gone to the SC. They granted a stay, meaning that the proposed Louisiana law which was very restrictive for women there cannot go into effect at this time. Thanks for the info, I’ll have to look at the date of the OP next time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,914 Posted March 3, 2019 Share Posted March 3, 2019 (edited) Hey, yesterday I got a driveby "thumbs down!!!!!" Woohoo!! Edited March 4, 2019 by DKW 86 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NolaAuTiger 3,295 Posted March 3, 2019 Share Posted March 3, 2019 On 3/2/2019 at 10:17 AM, Brad_ATX said: It's already gone to the SC. They granted a stay, meaning that the proposed Louisiana law which was very restrictive for women there cannot go into effect at this time. Two things I always remember: Roe and Casey are settled law. People often forget how rare it is that the Court overturns their own precedent Even if those rulings ever are overturned, it would not ban abortion, but just sends it back to the states. Abortion, like gay marriage, made tremendous strides at the state level prior to the respective SCOTUS rulings. The "federalism" argument is an intelligible one if you're a pro-life advocate. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomcat 591 Posted March 4, 2019 Share Posted March 4, 2019 Sorry, what a woman chooses to do with her body is none of my business....nor yours. It is totally inappropriate for anyone to apply their values and opinions, religious or otherwise, to a situation where they have no interest....beyond an opinion. Let people do the best they can without judgement. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aubearcat 2,163 Posted March 4, 2019 Share Posted March 4, 2019 11 hours ago, tomcat said: Sorry, what a woman chooses to do with her body In your opinion, when is the baby it’s own distinct person? A baby has it’s own completely separate and different DNA from the moment of conception. When does basic humanity and to a somewhat lesser extent (it would seem the nature to protect life would be more prevalent) the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution begin? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NolaAuTiger 3,295 Posted March 4, 2019 Share Posted March 4, 2019 12 hours ago, tomcat said: Sorry, what a woman chooses to do with her body is none of my business....nor yours. It is totally inappropriate for anyone to apply their values and opinions, religious or otherwise, to a situation where they have no interest....beyond an opinion. Let people do the best they can without judgement. Broadly speaking, no one is completely free to do to their bodies whatever they choose. But I get that you’re probably speaking to abortion only. It’s unique that you assert the inappropriateness of others due to the notion that they “have no interest” in the situation - the very cases that upheld abortion as a fundamental right also recognized that the States do actually have an interest in the situation. In fact, that’s precisely why the rigid trimester test in Roe v Wade was forsaken in Casey. The absolute autonomy argument isn’t a good one. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 12,262 Posted March 4, 2019 Share Posted March 4, 2019 1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said: Broadly speaking, no one is completely free to do to their bodies whatever they choose. But I get that you’re probably speaking to abortion only. It’s unique that you assert the inappropriateness of others due to the notion that they “have no interest” in the situation - the very cases that upheld abortion as a fundamental right also recognized that the States do actually have an interest in the situation. In fact, that’s precisely why the rigid trimester test in Roe v Wade was forsaken in Casey. The absolute autonomy argument isn’t a good one. ....from a strictly legal standpoint maybe. But it's a valid principle from a personal philosophical standpoint, which is where many women are coming from. And I agree with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,914 Posted March 4, 2019 Share Posted March 4, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, homersapien said: ....from a strictly legal standpoint maybe. But it's a valid principle from a personal philosophical standpoint, which is where many women are coming from. And I agree with them. And it is logically, scientifically, rationally and reasonably in error. The babies DNA is not the Mothers, therefore it is not her body, end of story. Facts are a bitch. If this was about the weather, half of America would be screaming GW Deniers!!! What we have here is biological logic, science, rationality, and reason deniers. From a strictly legal standpoint...it is taking the life of another because you are too stupid or too lazy to do the right thing: 1) Get birth control, 2) USE birth control, 3) When that fails, act like an adult and take responsibility for your actions. Edited March 4, 2019 by DKW 86 1 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aubearcat 2,163 Posted March 4, 2019 Share Posted March 4, 2019 1 hour ago, DKW 86 said: And it is logically, scientifically, rationally and reasonably in error. The babies DNA is not the Mothers, therefore it is not her body, end of story. Facts are a bitch. If this was about the weather, half of America would be screaming GW Deniers!!! What we have here is biological logic, science, rationality, and reason deniers. From a strictly legal standpoint...it is taking the life of another because you are too stupid or too lazy to do the right thing: 1) Get birth control, 2) USE birth control, 3) When that fails, act like an adult and take responsibility for your actions. Indeed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aubearcat 2,163 Posted March 4, 2019 Share Posted March 4, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 12,262 Posted March 5, 2019 Share Posted March 5, 2019 22 hours ago, DKW 86 said: And it is logically, scientifically, rationally and reasonably in error. The babies DNA is not the Mothers, therefore it is not her body, end of story. Facts are a bitch. If this was about the weather, half of America would be screaming GW Deniers!!! What we have here is biological logic, science, rationality, and reason deniers. From a strictly legal standpoint...it is taking the life of another because you are too stupid or too lazy to do the right thing: 1) Get birth control, 2) USE birth control, 3) When that fails, act like an adult and take responsibility for your actions. This is exactly why debating abortion is an exercise in futility IMO. While I am male, I can view this issue from the perspective of a woman. I completely understand the "pro-life" argument and it's a valid one as far as it goes. My position - along with that of many women - is that it goes too far in intruding on the personal liberty of the woman. In other words, I consider it a personal decision to be made by the woman not a state decision. If you feel differently, that's fine. Don't have an abortion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triangletiger 1,599 Posted March 5, 2019 Share Posted March 5, 2019 4 hours ago, homersapien said: This is exactly why debating abortion is an exercise in futility IMO. While I am male, I can view this issue from the perspective of a woman. I completely understand the "pro-life" argument and it's a valid one as far as it goes. My position - along with that of many women - is that it goes too far in intruding on the personal liberty of the woman. In other words, I consider it a personal decision to be made by the woman not a state decision. If you feel differently, that's fine. Don't have an abortion. If abortion is okay, what about infanticide? Why stop with the pre-born? Princeton bioethicist Peter Singer thinks it's acceptable. https://www.newsweek.com/life-and-death-princeton-166078 At what point is the taking of innocent human life unacceptable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 12,262 Posted March 6, 2019 Share Posted March 6, 2019 23 hours ago, triangletiger said: If abortion is okay, what about infanticide? Why stop with the pre-born? Princeton bioethicist Peter Singer thinks it's acceptable. https://www.newsweek.com/life-and-death-princeton-166078 At what point is the taking of innocent human life unacceptable? Once a baby is born, the mother's interest are no longer paramount and the baby has it's own rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triangletiger 1,599 Posted March 7, 2019 Share Posted March 7, 2019 6 hours ago, homersapien said: Once a baby is born, the mother's interest are no longer paramount and the baby has it's own rights. That’s kind of vague. How are the mother’s interests no longer paramount after the baby is born? What causes this shift in interests? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,914 Posted March 7, 2019 Share Posted March 7, 2019 8 minutes ago, triangletiger said: That’s kind of vague. How are the mother’s interests no longer paramount after the baby is born? What causes this shift in interests? The narrative, and nothing but the narrative., Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 12,262 Posted March 7, 2019 Share Posted March 7, 2019 13 hours ago, triangletiger said: That’s kind of vague. How are the mother’s interests no longer paramount after the baby is born? What causes this shift in interests? Birth, which physically separates the baby from the mother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triangletiger 1,599 Posted March 7, 2019 Share Posted March 7, 2019 2 hours ago, homersapien said: Birth, which physically separates the baby from the mother. That sort of answers the second question, but not the first. You're not really addressing the point. What makes the mother's interests paramount? Are saying the mother's life is more valuable? If so, on what basis is this value determined? What causes a human life to have value? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 12,262 Posted March 7, 2019 Share Posted March 7, 2019 1 minute ago, triangletiger said: That sort of answers the second question, but not the first. You're not really addressing the point. What makes the mother's interests paramount? Are saying the mother's life is more valuable? If so, on what basis is this value determined? What causes a human life to have value? Because I think they are. Yes Because she already exists as an independent, conscience entity. Depends. Value to whom? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now