Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
bpatus297 wrote:You simply don't want to hear the other side of this argument. You are being sanctimonious and want to push your view on everyone else plain and simple. Please spare me that the pro-lifers (using anti-choice clearly shows your position) are trying to push their views on women. I have said over and over, if the embryo is a life, its not about the women's choice to abort the fetus, rather protecting the innocent life. Weather you agree with that or not doesn't change the fact that is what they think. I am done trying to have a conversation with you, it is pointless.
Have a good day.
seb146 wrote:It is great you have an opinion on this. It is based on your own personal morals and feelings. Fine. Stop trying to force that on everyone else. Not all of us have the same opinion nor do we want to be forced to have the same opinion.
bpatus297 wrote:Lets assume for a minute that an embryo is a person. Then you are saying that the killing of an innocent human being isn't anyone's business so we should just ignore it. Got it. While the killing of another person might not technically be anyone's business that is not something that a civilized society can ignore. "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing".
So again, I can't say for sure when life begins, that is the crux of this argument. I am tired of people saying this is about control, for the vast majority of pro-lifers, it has to do with protecting an innocent life. Until that is accepted, we will never have a constructive dialog about this.
Dutchy wrote:seb146 wrote:It is great you have an opinion on this. It is based on your own personal morals and feelings. Fine. Stop trying to force that on everyone else. Not all of us have the same opinion nor do we want to be forced to have the same opinion.
And there is the main argument: people against abortion want to force their opinion on others, other people want to leave the decision by the woman.
scbriml wrote:So where do you stand on abortion for the victims of rape and or incest?
DarkSnowyNight wrote:scbriml wrote:So where do you stand on abortion for the victims of rape and or incest?
This carve out seems to be strangely prevalent among the anti-choice crowd. It does do a good reflecting on the insincerity of their beliefs, as if an embryo were to be granted personhood, those two cases would suddenly become biologically relevant.
par13del wrote:I thought inbreeding had biological consequences by perpetuating genetic abnormalities, did such not wipe out some Royal families?
AirWorthy99 wrote:Aaron747 wrote:AirWorthy99 wrote:
Glad to hear you are against infanticide, because as you can see bellow, a user has already defended what the Dutch do of 'euthanizing newborns' another word for infanticide. Proves my point of all roads lead to infanticide.
par13del wrote:I thought inbreeding had biological consequences by perpetuating genetic abnormalities, did such not wipe out some Royal families?
DarkSnowyNight wrote:par13del wrote:I thought inbreeding had biological consequences by perpetuating genetic abnormalities, did such not wipe out some Royal families?
It does that, but that is not the point made. Anti Choicers claim to believe a fetus is a life worthy of legal protection. The fact that this magically disappears under certain purely non-biological circumstances betrays the invalidity of that belief.
frmrCapCadet wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/17/texas-abortion-ban-jonathan-mitchell-supreme-court-brief
This is a pretty naked statement that the Texas abortion law is really about (angry old white) men controlling the sexuality of women. A neutral Supreme Court would quickly overturn this law. Our current ultra-conservative court may not.
casinterest wrote:frmrCapCadet wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/17/texas-abortion-ban-jonathan-mitchell-supreme-court-brief
This is a pretty naked statement that the Texas abortion law is really about (angry old white) men controlling the sexuality of women. A neutral Supreme Court would quickly overturn this law. Our current ultra-conservative court may not.
We have a Supreme Court that is cherishing their role as technocrats of the law. They are failing to realize they are a branch of Government that is expected to rule on constitutional rights being violated, not whether they want to see how it plays out.
bpatus297 wrote:DarkSnowyNight wrote:It does that, but that is not the point made. Anti Choicers claim to believe a fetus is a life worthy of legal protection. The fact that this magically disappears under certain purely non-biological circumstances betrays the invalidity of that belief.
No one said that, you added that. Care to show where that was ever said?
DarkSnowyNight wrote:casinterest wrote:frmrCapCadet wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/17/texas-abortion-ban-jonathan-mitchell-supreme-court-brief
This is a pretty naked statement that the Texas abortion law is really about (angry old white) men controlling the sexuality of women. A neutral Supreme Court would quickly overturn this law. Our current ultra-conservative court may not.
We have a Supreme Court that is cherishing their role as technocrats of the law. They are failing to realize they are a branch of Government that is expected to rule on constitutional rights being violated, not whether they want to see how it plays out.
For what it is worth, Sotomayor —and oddly enough, Roberts too— wrote pretty scathing dissents on the court's failure to act in this matter.
seb146 wrote:DarkSnowyNight wrote:casinterest wrote:
We have a Supreme Court that is cherishing their role as technocrats of the law. They are failing to realize they are a branch of Government that is expected to rule on constitutional rights being violated, not whether they want to see how it plays out.
For what it is worth, Sotomayor —and oddly enough, Roberts too— wrote pretty scathing dissents on the court's failure to act in this matter.
I think Roberts is center right. I think he is farther to the left than the MAGA appointees and I think he hates that the court has been politicized by the previous administration. I think if Thomas retires or leaves his seat vacant now, Roberts would still make the court 5-4 to the right but I think he would be not as extreme right as the MAGA extremists on the bench.
A Texas doctor has revealed that he recently performed an abortion in violation of the state's new controversial law that prohibits nearly all abortions after roughly six weeks into a pregnancy, arguing that he “had a duty of care to this patient.
casinterest wrote:It appears we have a test case in progress. Will have to wait to see if the expected parties sue.
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watc ... had-a-dutyA Texas doctor has revealed that he recently performed an abortion in violation of the state's new controversial law that prohibits nearly all abortions after roughly six weeks into a pregnancy, arguing that he “had a duty of care to this patient.
The details of the civil suit against Alan Braid, a physician in San Antonio, are as unusual as the law itself, [...]
The plaintiff is a felon serving a federal sentence at home in Arkansas, with no connection to the abortion at issue. He said he filed the claim not because of strongly held views about reproductive rights but in part because of the $10,000 he could receive if the lawsuit is successful. A second suit filed Monday — just four paragraphs long — came from a man in Chicago who asked a state court to strike down the abortion law as invalid.
Tugger wrote:And he has been sued:The details of the civil suit against Alan Braid, a physician in San Antonio, are as unusual as the law itself, [...]
The plaintiff is a felon serving a federal sentence at home in Arkansas, with no connection to the abortion at issue. He said he filed the claim not because of strongly held views about reproductive rights but in part because of the $10,000 he could receive if the lawsuit is successful. A second suit filed Monday — just four paragraphs long — came from a man in Chicago who asked a state court to strike down the abortion law as invalid.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html
And somehow how the weird gets weirder and Texas come off just looking stupider...
Tugg
bpatus297 wrote:Do they even have standing if they don't live in Texas? I guess they could have property there.
Tugger wrote:bpatus297 wrote:Do they even have standing if they don't live in Texas? I guess they could have property there.
Yes. The law is written such that anyone, anywhere in the USA (I am assuming it has to be within the USA) can sue under it. They did that intentionally.
Tugg
Tugger wrote:bpatus297 wrote:Do they even have standing if they don't live in Texas? I guess they could have property there.
Yes. The law is written such that anyone, anywhere in the USA (I am assuming it has to be within the USA) can sue under it. They did that intentionally.
Tugg
Tugger wrote:I don't think that is an issue. You are allowed to sue across state lines. It doesn't automatically make a federal issue.
Tugg
casinterest wrote:Tugger wrote:I don't think that is an issue. You are allowed to sue across state lines. It doesn't automatically make a federal issue.
Tugg
But I think it does. If someone is suing from out of state over a federally protected right, then I think it does make it a federal issue, and i think this is what the Lawyer is testing.
Tugger wrote:casinterest wrote:Tugger wrote:I don't think that is an issue. You are allowed to sue across state lines. It doesn't automatically make a federal issue.
Tugg
But I think it does. If someone is suing from out of state over a federally protected right, then I think it does make it a federal issue, and i think this is what the Lawyer is testing.
But it is not over a "federally protected right" at this point. It is just over a law that say you can sue someone that gets, or assists someone in getting, an abortion after 6 weeks. At this point it is the courts that will decide this (as they always would). And I am sure both state and fed will have something to say and someday it will end up back in front of the USSC.
Tugg
casinterest wrote:
Assisting in a federally protected right, is akin to arresting someone for assisting someone with voting. There is no reason to sue people for helping do something that is legal. If anything, it is harassment, abuse and invasion of privacy by the State of Texas.
tommy1808 wrote:AirframeAS wrote:phatfarmlines wrote:
We've talked about this before on this forum, but Roe v Wade still means anyone can cross the border to a state that does allow abortions, and the private citizens won't be able to sue since it's not within Texas state border.
That isn't necessarily true.... Lets say a woman, living in Texas, decides to go to Colorado and get an abortion and recovers from the procedure and returns to Texas. Once the woman returns to Texas, if anyone found out that she went to Colorado for the procedure, she can still get sued regardless. The abortion does not have to take place in Texas.
Colorado could make a law making it a felony to tell anyone about medical procedures in Colorado. Sue the Texas woman, get 10.000$, spend some years in Colorado prison...
Seems fair...
best regards
Thomas
Tugger wrote:The Federal suit is moving forward:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/federal-ju ... 1633112921
Can legislatures pass laws for which they have not culpability over? Should they be able to do such? I guess you could pass all sorts of laws then for anything and their would be no repercussion (legal at least).
I think ultimately that will be the laws undoing. Otherwise any state can pass anything with this process (empowering the public to sue whomever and get whatever money, for anything they wish to eliminate).
Tugg
Aaron747 wrote:Tugger wrote:The Federal suit is moving forward:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/federal-ju ... 1633112921
Can legislatures pass laws for which they have not culpability over? Should they be able to do such? I guess you could pass all sorts of laws then for anything and their would be no repercussion (legal at least).
I think ultimately that will be the laws undoing. Otherwise any state can pass anything with this process (empowering the public to sue whomever and get whatever money, for anything they wish to eliminate).
Tugg
Exactly why it's so important to test this in court - the implications are far reaching.
Tugger wrote:Tugg
par13del wrote:If it was the GOP who were mostly strict gun control advocates, yes, it would be used in a heartbeat, but they are not, it is mostly the democrats. So do you really see the dems using a GOP inspired law to further the campaign against guns, somehow I don't think they will.
bpatus297 wrote:emperortk wrote:AirWorthy99 wrote:
That's relative. Some science studies say that life begins way before that. For me its in conception. There isn't a complete consensus on that today, not even from scientists.
Yes.
Why not go even further back than conception? Sperm cells are alive, so it's a bit bizarre to say that life "begins" at conception.
In my view, millions of men are responsible for the daily murder of literally quadrillions of lives, and I will not rest until my state government absolutely forbids these wanton crimes and punishes them with the swift and harsh hand of justice!
Sperm, just like an egg only have 23 chromosomes. A zygote, or fetus has 46, pretty big distinction.
chimborazo wrote:bpatus297 wrote:emperortk wrote:
Why not go even further back than conception? Sperm cells are alive, so it's a bit bizarre to say that life "begins" at conception.
In my view, millions of men are responsible for the daily murder of literally quadrillions of lives, and I will not rest until my state government absolutely forbids these wanton crimes and punishes them with the swift and harsh hand of justice!
Sperm, just like an egg only have 23 chromosomes. A zygote, or fetus has 46, pretty big distinction.
Fetuses with Turner Syndrome have 45 chromosomes. So which side of the distinction are they on?
par13del wrote:Republicans claim in relation to Heller, what do democrats and other gun control advocates claim, we can assume for them it is not settled law.
As we digress for this thread topic for a minute, I have always viewed militia's as citizen army, which means for the most part they have their own weapons at their home, so for the Second Amendment, self defense weapons at home would be fine, a tank, artillery piece, bazooka etc, would violate.
Heller was a 5 to 4 decision, who is to say it won't be overturned in another ruling, especially if a state's National Guard can be deemed a militia.
U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman agreed in his 113-page ruling Wednesday night.
"A person's right under the Constitution to choose to obtain an abortion prior to fetal viability is well established," he wrote. "Fully aware that depriving its citizens of this right by direct state action would be flagrantly unconstitutional, the State contrived an unprecedented and transparent statutory scheme to do just that."
He added later:
From the moment S.B. 8 went into effect, women have been unlawfully prevented from exercising control over their lives in ways that are protected by the Constitution. That other courts may find a way to avoid this conclusion is theirs to decide; this Court will not sanction one more day of this offensive deprivation of such an important right.
77Phoebe wrote:If people spent half the time trying to cut unwanted pregnancies rather than having pointless, inane discussions on the viability of foetuses and 'what right do men have in decisions' the whole of society would be better.
At the moment abortion is a necessary evil but it is not consequenceless.
This is a really easy problem to fix. No pregnancy - no abortion.
This is actually a problem that could go away in nine months and there aren't many of those in the world.
(Obviously there are exceptions rape, medical reasons.)
Tugger wrote:The Federal suit is moving forward:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/federal-ju ... 1633112921
Can legislatures pass laws for which they have not culpability over? Should they be able to do such? I guess you could pass all sorts of laws then for anything and their would be no repercussion (legal at least).
I think ultimately that will be the laws undoing. Otherwise any state can pass anything with this process (empowering the public to sue whomever and get whatever money, for anything they wish to eliminate).
Tugg
Dieuwer wrote:Tugger wrote:The Federal suit is moving forward:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/federal-ju ... 1633112921
Can legislatures pass laws for which they have not culpability over? Should they be able to do such? I guess you could pass all sorts of laws then for anything and their would be no repercussion (legal at least).
I think ultimately that will be the laws undoing. Otherwise any state can pass anything with this process (empowering the public to sue whomever and get whatever money, for anything they wish to eliminate).
Tugg
No. It will be the undoing of the Rule of Law.
casinterest wrote:It appears the Supreme Court is about to totally destroy the GOP states business climate.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/22/politics ... index.html
Once again they have failed to allow women control over their bodies. This will cause chills throughout corporate America. Especially as it now seems plausible that the Supreme Court will allow GOP states to destroy women's rights to choose by reversing Roe vs Wade.
bpatus297 wrote:scbriml wrote:bpatus297 wrote:
Again, that is your opinion. When life begins is not settled science. After all, you are just a lump of cells too, albeit a few more than an embryo.
Unviable, being the key word.
You didn’t answer the question - why is it any of their business?
Lets assume for a minute that an embryo is a person. Then you are saying that the killing of an innocent human being isn't anyone's business so we should just ignore it. Got it. While the killing of another person might not technically be anyone's business that is not something that a civilized society can ignore. "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing".
So again, I can't say for sure when life begins, that is the crux of this argument. I am tired of people saying this is about control, for the vast majority of pro-lifers, it has to do with protecting an innocent life. Until that is accepted, we will never have a constructive dialog about this.