SCOTUS - Oral Argument on Abortion Rights Case

[SeekingUnderstanding]

59 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

You will be the one tormenting yourself. 

Friendly CFR. Is this taught in the scriptures or official sources or just your opinion?

Edited December 12, 2021 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Stargazer]

11 hours ago, provoman said:

I suppose, in my opinion, that where theists and atheists agree, the theists should argue from the atheists viewpoint and not a religious viewpoint. My first post in the thread was about my experience regarding abortion and perception was I had not experienced opposition to abortion from a non-theists viewpoint.

Not sure I follow you. A theist can argue from both a religious and a secular viewpoint -- the atheist can only argue from a secular point of view. Why should the theist be restricted to one? Fine, if an atheist abortionist wants to argue with the religious, then the theist can trot out the non-religious argument instead. It's just as valid. "Don't kill your babies because God doesn't like it." "Well, I don't believe in God." "Okay then, don't kill your babies because babies are just as human as you, and murder is murder." Or some other secular argument. 

I can argue in favor of laissez-faire economics, for example, from both the practical as well as the theoretical/moral point of view. Why should I be restricted to only one?

[MacGyver]

The Supreme Court used the 14th amendment to defend their decision in Roe v. Wade. The argument being that excessive restriction on abortions violates a woman's rights, and therefore states are not permitted to do this.

But what about the rights of the unborn child? Does the unborn child have any rights that the states are duty bound to protect, such as the right to life? Do the states have the right to allow the life of an unborn child to be taken out of convenience? 

[The Nehor]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

Question:  can they sue in the case of a mother who went to a state where abortion is legal if the mother or anyone involved is a resident of Texas?  Or do the providers or others who assisted the mother have to be located in Texas?

Is it technically a bounty if one is getting damages in a suit rather than a reward for ‘catching’ someone?  Can someone unconnected to the child sue just because they know or do they have to show loss of the baby affects them personally? (I am reading they don’t have to prove damages, which makes absolutely no sense to me and is a major problem if true)

https://www.texastribune.org/2021/09/10/texas-abortion-law-ban-enforcement/

Added:  if this becomes legal for abortion, what is the rational to prevent it from being legal over anything?  And if it actually became popular, could Texas courts handle the increase in lawsuits?

The bounty is for the abortion provider or anyone who worked for the abortion provider or facilitated the abortion and not the mother. You can sue the clinic, the doctors, the nurses, and arguably an Uber driver who dropped a pregnant woman at the clinic. You do not have to be involved in any way to file the lawsuit. You just have to know about it somehow and report it. You don’t have to live in Texas. The law is designed to make it so you can sue and get the money and your court costs if you win and forbids the defendant from getting court costs if you lose no matter how frivolous the lawsuit is.

So far the clinics in Texas have (as far as everyone knows) abided by the time limit in this bounty legislation on providing abortions and no cases have been filed yet. So far the law has succeeded at circumventing previous Supreme Court rulings that had defined to some extent at what stage of a pregnancy abortions are allowed. The Court’s unwillingness to shut down this farce has already led to other states looking at similar laws and there are talks of using this workaround to get around other federal court rulings. California is already talking about using it to punish firearm owners.

It is reported that this is based on a city or county ordinance in Texas that offered the same bounty but it was performative and pointless as it could only apply in that area and there aren’t any abortion clinics there to report.

There is a website that is quasi-connected to the state designed to collect data on abortions for these lawsuits and I can confirm that it is being inundated with reports that Governor Abbott is having hundreds of abortions performed on himself and that he has also been aborted himself hundreds of times. Ted Cruz is also reported to have had dozens of abortions performed on himself.

Edited December 12, 2021 by The Nehor

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, MacGyver said:

The Supreme Court used the 14th amendment to defend their decision in Roe v. Wade. The argument being that excessive restriction on abortions violates a woman's rights, and therefore states are not permitted to do this.

But what about the rights of the unborn child? Does the unborn child have any rights that the states are duty bound to protect, such as the right to life? Do the states have the right to allow the life of an unborn child to be taken out of convenience? 

Do they?

[Calm]

39 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The bounty is for the abortion provider or anyone who worked for the abortion provider or facilitated the abortion and not the mother. You can sue the clinic, the doctors, the nurses, and arguably an Uber driver who dropped a pregnant woman at the clinic.

So a woman intentionally gets pregnant, goes to a clinic and gets an abortion, then she gets a friend to report it and they split the &10,000…is such a scenario possible

[The Nehor]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

So a woman intentionally gets pregnant, goes to a clinic and gets an abortion, then she gets a friend to report it and they split the &10,000…is such a scenario possible

Yeah. In theory anyways.

In practice though clinics in Texas have stopped providing abortions except in the earliest parts of the pregnancy where the bounty law does not apply.

[MacGyver]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Do they?

What's your question?

[The Nehor]

57 minutes ago, MacGyver said:

What's your question?

All you did was ask questions. I was asking if you had an answer to them.

[MacGyver]

58 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

All you did was ask questions. I was asking if you had an answer to them.

In my opinion unborn children have the right to life and the states need to protect that right.

[Ragerunner]

I support the Church’s position on abortion. That includes prayerful approach to several exceptions. Any law that exceeds the church’s position I will not support. I have found it interesting to see many of my member friends ‘jump on the band wagon’ of these new abortion laws that don’t harmonize with the church’s teachings.

With that said the courts and lawmakers better be careful or the Texas law (and others) may very well open a Pandora’s box that many on the right will not appreciate.

Edited December 12, 2021 by Ragerunner

[provoman]

4 hours ago, Ragerunner said:

I support the Church’s position on abortion. That includes prayerful approach to several exceptions. Any law that exceeds the church’s position I will not support. I have found it interesting to see many of my member friends ‘jump on the band wagon’ of these new abortion laws that don’t harmonize with the church’s teachings.

With that said the courts and lawmakers better be careful or the Texas law (and others) may very well open a Pandora’s box that many on the right will not appreciate.

“Indeed, “[i]f the legislatures of the several states may, at will, annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery.” United States v. Peters, 5 Cranch 115, 136 (1809). ”

Can’t help but think the anti-abortion laws are strikes against thread upon which the US Constitution hangs.

 

[Chum]

3 minutes ago, provoman said:

Can’t help but think the anti-abortion laws are strikes against thread upon which the US Constitution hangs.

As are laws crafted to suppress voting by unliked groups.

[rodheadlee]

On 12/11/2021 at 4:16 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Friendly CFR. Is this taught in the scriptures or official sources or just your opinion?

Personal experience from an NDE.

[Calm]

On 12/11/2021 at 5:16 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Friendly CFR. Is this taught in the scriptures or official sources or just your opinion?

This always sounds to me like someone locked in obsessive thinking they are powerless to pull themselves out of:

Quote

And if they be evil they are consigned to an awful view of their own guilt and abominations,

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/mosiah/3.25?lang=eng&clang=eng#p25

I believe if we do not repent of our sins, our sinful actions and the consequences of them for ourselves and others will be replaying over and over in our minds. This will be possible because we will have total recall of our actions as well as new understanding of how they impacted ourselves and others and therefore the cost of our selfishness will be clear.

Only with access to the Atonement will we be able to see how our behaviour fits into eternity and how God is able and willing to not only heal wounds, but is able to turn the bad to good.  Once we understand that through accepting the Atonement, we can forgive ourselves and stop suffering because we see that those we harmed won’t carry those injuries. 
 

I suspect that those who refuse the Atonement continue to live this hell, the obsessive replay in their souls (perhaps a better way to describe the all encompassing nature of it than minds), until they see the balance of their suffering is equal to the impact of their sins and then they are able to accept they have suffered enough. And move on whatever that means for those who do not accept God’s help in achieving progression. 

Edited December 13, 2021 by Calm

[Teancum]

On 12/11/2021 at 11:06 PM, MacGyver said:

The Supreme Court used the 14th amendment to defend their decision in Roe v. Wade. The argument being that excessive restriction on abortions violates a woman's rights, and therefore states are not permitted to do this.

But what about the rights of the unborn child? Does the unborn child have any rights that the states are duty bound to protect, such as the right to life? Do the states have the right to allow the life of an unborn child to be taken out of convenience? 

I guess it depends on how the law defines an unborn child. Is it a person?  If a pregnant woman is murdered is the murderer tried for a double murder? I don't know what legal opinions have had to say on such things.

[MacGyver]

11 minutes ago, Teancum said:

If a pregnant woman is murdered is the murderer tried for a double murder? I don't know what legal opinions have had to say on such things.

In over half of the states this is considered a double homicide. 

There's also the Unborn Victims of Violence Act

https://www.congress.gov/108/plaws/publ212/PLAW-108publ212.pdf

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act

[Scott Lloyd]

On 12/12/2021 at 4:05 PM, Chum said:

As are laws crafted to suppress voting by unliked groups.

Which is a leftist’s way of characterizing laws designed to ensure election integrity. 

[Calm]

32 minutes ago, MacGyver said:

In over half of the states this is considered a double homicide. 

Death of a fetus isn’t considered murder in the Bible though.

Quote

When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall be fined what the woman’s husband demands, paying as much as the judges determine. 23 If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

Quote

If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+21&version=KJV

Edited December 14, 2021 by Calm

[The Nehor]

On 12/12/2021 at 5:00 PM, provoman said:

“Indeed, “[i]f the legislatures of the several states may, at will, annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery.” United States v. Peters, 5 Cranch 115, 136 (1809). ”

Can’t help but think the anti-abortion laws are strikes against thread upon which the US Constitution hangs.

 

I am reminded of Andrew Jackson defying the court to allow a prosecution of a minister who was trying to help the Cherokee understand and use their legal rights when everyone was amped up to get the trail of tears going.

"John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it."

Probably an apocryphal quote but it does show what happened.

20 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Which is a leftist’s way of characterizing laws designed to ensure election integrity. 

Which is a way of confessing that you have fallen for your own propaganda. It is vital to shore up election integrity due to all the almost nonexistent voter fraud that our propagandists scream about but never get around to substantiating and if it coincidentally targets the traditionally disenfranchised as our own internal documents and multiple court rulings show well that is just an unlucky coincidence. Definitely not intentional. That we are doing it right after we lost due to uncommonly high turnout amongst those groups is also a coincidence.

[MacGyver]

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

Death of a fetus isn’t considered murder in the Bible though.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+21&version=KJV

In both of the scriptures you quoted the death of the unborn child was unintentional, so it wouldn't be murder. It would be manslaughter. 

The bible also mentions the abomination of women passing their newborn babes through the fires of Moloch. And that is most definitely murder. 

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, MacGyver said:

In both of the scriptures you quoted the death of the unborn child was unintentional, so it wouldn't be murder. It would be manslaughter. 

The bible also mentions the abomination of women passing their newborn babes through the fires of Moloch. And that is most definitely murder. 

I would need to see a reference that the fires of Moloch were primarily for newborns because I suspect you made it about newborns on your own initiative to try to tie it to abortion.

 

[Chum]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Which is a leftist’s way of characterizing laws designed to ensure election integrity. 

In a quest for integrity, one's own statements are a good place to start. In this case, integrity would include the bit where election fraud began and ended with with people bringing laughably false clams to court and wound up getting repeatedly bench-slapped, after being unable to find sufficiently stupid judges.

All of this you know yet you went there anyway. Compulsions suck.

[MacGyver]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I would need to see a reference that the fires of Moloch were primarily for newborns because I suspect you made it about newborns on your own initiative to try to tie it to abortion.

 

I don't know of a reference that specifically states that it was primarily newborns who were passed through the fires of Moloch. Remains of children ranging in age from newborn to 3 or 4 years old have been found at ancient Phoenician child sacrifice buriel sites. 

I also do not believe that modern abortion out of convience and ancient infant/child sacrifices in the fires of Moloch are an apples to apples comparison. But I do see some distinct similarities. 

Edited December 14, 2021 by MacGyver

[Chum]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Which is a leftist’s way

Nice inference. I think your error here is you assumed this bit in your head was real. 

If I can offer an alternative: Instead of making crap up and projecting it onto me, you could initiate a dialogue to learn about my leanings.