bsjkki Posted May 11, 2022 Posted May 11, 2022 Senate fails to vote for the abortion legalization bill. Defeated 51-49. It would have expanded abortion rights beyond Roe. It was far more radical than the Alito opinion, IMO. 2
Analytics Posted May 11, 2022 Posted May 11, 2022 41 minutes ago, mtomm said: The states with the strictest abortion laws are the suckiest at helping women and children. You can kind of see why the they've received the nickname "pro-birth" instead of being pro-life. Yep. ObamaCare was a good-faith attempt to create a free-market healthcare system that would provide affordable, universal healthcare. The basic structure of it actually came from a conservative think tank. Its chassis had three interconnected points: Require everyone to purchase health insurance Require health insurers to give everyone coverage without underwriting Give subsidies to the poor to purchase insurance in the market If we as a society did those three things, we could have universal healthcare without a single provider or a single payer. However, Republicans immediately did everything they could to repeal this law and take health insurance away from people who depended upon this law to have it. They cried the mantra "repeal and replace," but they had no ideas of what to replace it with that would be better. They claimed ObamaCare was illegal because it required people to purchase something. Ironically, the same people who worked so hard to take health insurance away from the poor and claimed it was unconstitutional to require people to purchase insurance are the same ones who want to force women to purchase the very expensive services of bringing a baby to full term. I suppose a woman could elect to have a baby without incurring the costs of medical care, but that would be extremely dangerous to both the mother and baby. Can the government require people to take that risk? Why is it okay to require a woman to pay for the costs of having a baby, but it isn't okay to require somebody to purchase health insurance? 4
pogi Posted May 11, 2022 Posted May 11, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, mtomm said: when women are faced with an unwanted pregnancy they will do desperate things. The more difficult the situation the more hazardous and risky chances they'll take. I disagree with the absolute nature of your statement in what women are willing to risk in relation to abortion when faced with desperation. If you talk to any of the millions of persons currently imprisoned (around 2 million in the US), more likely than not you are going to find that some people, regardless of gender (but men are statistically more likely), do desperate things when faced with desperate measures - some, but not all. We don't give a free pass to those who violate human life or property of others because they are desperate. We don't believe in lawlessness which protect others because some people might do desperate things when they are desperate and they need a pass to do so. Our malnourished and skeletal preventive measures and focus are a failure of society - no doubt about that. Our system is more punitive than preventative, and that is wrong. That is a system-wide failure that needs correction. It needs to change. I 100% believe in investing more in prevention than punishment, but I do not believe in removing laws and legal consequences because people might get desperate and break them. That is not a sound principle of good governance that we can apply across the board. II don't see any good reason to make an exception here where the violation of human life is absolute without possibility of making that life whole again in restitution. 1 hour ago, mtomm said: Wouldn't it be great if the economic fears that cause so many women to consider abortion be diminished? Absolutely, yes! Now this is something I can get behind! What do you suggest? 1 hour ago, mtomm said: I am not convinced that the pro-lifers appreciate the economic impacts of their stance. Therefore...abortion is the only, or best way forward??? I don't see the logic there. Again, I don't agree with the absolute nature of your statement. I think you are going to find way more success convincing pro-lifer's of investing in prevention than you are going to have with convincing them that killing unborn human beings is ok because people might get desperate. Your petition might go further if you drop the blanket accusations and absolute statements. Edited May 11, 2022 by pogi 2
Teancum Posted May 11, 2022 Posted May 11, 2022 On 5/10/2022 at 1:12 PM, smac97 said: Again, I hold the concept of bodily autonomy in high regard. The only reason I think about abortion is because it involves the life of a baby. The personhood of the unborn child merits attention and emphasis. Can you provide any evidence that the unborn child, which by definition is not alive yet, is a person. Other than your religious beliefs? You keep using these words because they are super charged right? By they way I an generally opposed to abortion but I am also opposed the the conservative religious trying to impose laws on everyone because they think their god says so. 2
pogi Posted May 11, 2022 Posted May 11, 2022 4 minutes ago, Teancum said: Can you provide any evidence that the unborn child, which by definition is not alive yet... Serious? 2
Teancum Posted May 11, 2022 Posted May 11, 2022 21 hours ago, rodheadlee said: As fascinating as the biology discussion is are there any comments on protesters entering Our Lady of the Angels Catholic church during services and disrupting them? What about protesting at a Supreme Court justice's home? These things are illegal but not being enforced. Peaceful protests outside the SCJ homes is not illegal. 1
Teancum Posted May 11, 2022 Posted May 11, 2022 8 minutes ago, pogi said: Serious? Serious. Unborn is not alive is it. Legally you have a birth date and some day a death date. Before your birth date you technically are not alive.
filovirus Posted May 11, 2022 Posted May 11, 2022 1 hour ago, Analytics said: Why is it okay to require a woman to pay for the costs of having a baby, but it isn't okay to require somebody to purchase health insurance? I advocate for universal child income. It would get us started in the right path. If future parents in poverty knew they could provide for a child, it would go a long way. WIC just doesn’t cut it. 3
pogi Posted May 11, 2022 Posted May 11, 2022 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Teancum said: Serious. Unborn is not alive is it. Legally you have a birth date and some day a death date. Before your birth date you technically are not alive. I’m sorry, but that is a well deserved sigh. Edited May 11, 2022 by pogi 2
Teancum Posted May 11, 2022 Posted May 11, 2022 Just now, pogi said: Sigh Feel free to rebut it. Like I said I am mostly opposed to abortion but Smac uses language all through his posts here that he makes is simply his opinion based on his religious beliefs. Legally, since we are talking about laws here, when does life start? Religiously we can debate where life starts and Mormonism seems to imply life does NOT start in the womb since the church does not do temple work for still borns and miscarried babies.
Teancum Posted May 11, 2022 Posted May 11, 2022 8 minutes ago, filovirus said: I advocate for universal child income. It would get us started in the right path. If future parents in poverty knew they could provide for a child, it would go a long way. WIC just doesn’t cut it. Yes that would be great!
pogi Posted May 12, 2022 Posted May 12, 2022 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Teancum said: Feel free to rebut it. You haven’t been following along, have you? I have rebutted it for the last 10 pages or so. If it is a living human does not seem to be in question for anyone here but you. Do you really think it is “technically” correct for a physician to tell a woman before she is about to deliver a healthy baby that the fetus is not alive? I don’t think that will go over so well! This has nothing to do with religion and you are wrong about our beliefs and what we “imply” Edited May 12, 2022 by pogi 2
ttribe Posted May 12, 2022 Posted May 12, 2022 26 minutes ago, Teancum said: Serious. Unborn is not alive is it. Legally you have a birth date and some day a death date. Before your birth date you technically are not alive. I don't think 'not alive' is the correct definition. I don't think anyone would argue that a fully developed fetus isn't alive just before it is born. I suppose you could argue that it is not independently alive insomuch as it is still attached to its mother (being a mammal and all), but 'not alive' is probably a non-starter for the conversation. 2
Teancum Posted May 12, 2022 Posted May 12, 2022 11 minutes ago, pogi said: You haven’t been following along, have you? I have rebutted it for the last 10 pages or so. If it is a living human does not seem to be in question for anyone here but you. Yes I have. 11 minutes ago, pogi said: Do you really think it is “technically” correct for a physician to tell a woman before she is about to deliver a healthy baby that the fetus is not alive? I don’t think that will go over so well! Ok fait point. So can we distinguish between alive and personhood? And can we distinguish between alive and legally alive? 11 minutes ago, pogi said: This has nothing to do with religion It certainly has to do with religious beliefs for many/most who oppose abortion. 11 minutes ago, pogi said: and you are wrong about our beliefs and what we “imply” THen you tell me why doe the LDS Church not do temple ordinances for stillborns and miscarried babies? is it because they died before the age of accountabilty?
Teancum Posted May 12, 2022 Posted May 12, 2022 10 minutes ago, ttribe said: I don't think 'not alive' is the correct definition. I don't think anyone would argue that a fully developed fetus isn't alive just before it is born. I suppose you could argue that it is not independently alive insomuch as it is still attached to its mother (being a mammal and all), but 'not alive' is probably a non-starter for the conversation. Apparently it is a not starter. Sort of like Smac's words of killing an unborn baby.
Popular Post Raingirl Posted May 12, 2022 Popular Post Posted May 12, 2022 34 minutes ago, pogi said: You haven’t been following along, have you? I have rebutted it for the last 10 pages or so. If it is a living human does not seem to be in question for anyone here but you. Do you really think it is “technically” correct for a physician to tell a woman before she is about to deliver a healthy baby that the fetus is not alive? I don’t think that will go over so well! This has nothing to do with religion and you are wrong about our beliefs and what we “imply” I’m flabbergasted at some of the comments in this thread. The baby I carried for nine months was not alive during that time? It was dead? Then why did she have a heartbeat? Why could I feel her kicking and moving? Why did she get the hiccups or suck her thumb? Amazing the the things something dead can do, isn’t it? 🤦♀️ 5
ttribe Posted May 12, 2022 Posted May 12, 2022 41 minutes ago, Raingirl said: I’m flabbergasted at some of the comments in this thread. The baby I carried for nine months was not alive during that time? It was dead? Then why did she have a heartbeat? Why could I feel her kicking and moving? Why did she get the hiccups or suck her thumb? Amazing the the things something dead can do, isn’t it? 🤦♀️ Yeah, I think that was an unfortunate rhetorical maneuver. 1
Kenngo1969 Posted May 12, 2022 Posted May 12, 2022 (edited) On 5/10/2022 at 8:32 PM, rodheadlee said: As fascinating as the biology discussion is are there any comments on protesters entering Our Lady of the Angels Catholic church during services and disrupting them? What about protesting at a Supreme Court justice's home? These things are illegal but not being enforced. 6 hours ago, Teancum said: Peaceful protests outside the SCJ homes is not illegal. [sic] No, but "interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice" is. See 18 U.S.C. § 1507. And I noticed your deft moving of the goalposts, as Rod's comment was about disrupting a worship service. Whatever you think of the attempts of those who believe abortion should be regulated heavily to invoke § 1507, several states have statutes penalizing interfering with worship services. Edited May 12, 2022 by Kenngo1969 1
SeekingUnderstanding Posted May 12, 2022 Posted May 12, 2022 10 hours ago, pogi said: I truly do not understand your hang up on this term. Perhaps it is all of the philosophical meaning that you personally are injecting into it. I am genuinely confused Perhaps you could explain why you are insisting she use your words? I mean she nailed the scientific here: ”An enbryo made of a human sperm and egg is a human embryo at conception. It has the specific genetic markers that if tested would distinguish it as homo sapien sapien with code that will bring on a human form and structure if it’s functional and given an adequate environment.” What specifically do you object to? Perhaps if you could spell out why you think everyone should use your terminology that would be helpful in demonstrating you aren’t arguing from a point of bad faith.
Kenngo1969 Posted May 12, 2022 Posted May 12, 2022 7 minutes ago, bsjkki said: It’s alive. This is awesome! Thanks for sharing it. As someone, who, Alas!, well into middle age and careening rapidly toward geezerhood, still, is "My Only Child," (having, Alas!, been ignored by the Female of the Species in its entirety ), I have determined (hopefully without being branded "A Dirty Old Man" ) as much as I can, to take delight in the hijinks and antics of the Little People of others. And as much as I believe in allowing for abortion in certain circumstances, it's a huge blind spot for me, since I didn't make it very far into the third trimester before making my appearance here in mortality. (Candidly, sometimes I wonder what the heck I was in such a hurry for!) 1
BlueDreams Posted May 12, 2022 Posted May 12, 2022 14 hours ago, bsjkki said: Senate fails to vote for the abortion legalization bill. Defeated 51-49. It would have expanded abortion rights beyond Roe. It was far more radical than the Alito opinion, IMO. I read most of the bill (it’s pretty short). It seems to follow the amendment made by roe v Casey in a number of ways. In the since that it prohibited restrictions pre-viability, and abortion post viability for concern of mother’s life/health…I could picture that being debated by the senate and it could have likely been amended to some degree…but of course it never got that far because filibuster. The rest were what I would expect to maintain that regulation…mostly prohibiting misinformation, setting a framework to reduce practices that unduly reduce abortion services access, etc. It didn’t seem that radical to me considering the existing court cases. I’m still reading the añito opinion. It’s very off putting in tone which makes it hard to want to continue. with luv, BD
bsjkki Posted May 12, 2022 Posted May 12, 2022 6 minutes ago, BlueDreams said: I read most of the bill (it’s pretty short). It seems to follow the amendment made by roe v Casey in a number of ways. In the since that it prohibited restrictions pre-viability, and abortion post viability for concern of mother’s life/health…I could picture that being debated by the senate and it could have likely been amended to some degree…but of course it never got that far because filibuster. The rest were what I would expect to maintain that regulation…mostly prohibiting misinformation, setting a framework to reduce practices that unduly reduce abortion services access, etc. It didn’t seem that radical to me considering the existing court cases. I’m still reading the añito opinion. It’s very off putting in tone which makes it hard to want to continue. with luv, BD The trick is ‘health’ of the mother. They allow mental health issues in this and don’t define it so in reality, most any abortion up until birth would be allowed. Same trick used in Colorado and New York. It is more radical because it would immediately override all state laws and expand abortion nationwide. So even the patchwork of protections provided state to state would be gone. The bill didn’t even garner 50 votes. So, even if the Senate nuked the 60 vote filibuster, it would not have mattered. This one was doa. 1
Teancum Posted May 12, 2022 Posted May 12, 2022 8 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said: No, but "interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice" is. See 18 U.S.C. § 1507. And I noticed your deft moving of the goalposts, as Rod's comment was about disrupting a worship service. Whatever you think of the attempts of those who believe abortion should be regulated heavily to invoke § 1507, several states have statutes penalizing interfering with worship services. Actually I chased the legality of protesting outside a judge's home last night and as you point out it could be illegal. I did not move the goal posts. I just addressed one of two points he made.
Recommended Posts