Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

It's Official: SCOTUS Overturns Roe v. Wade


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

A small minority of people believe the answer to that question ought to be yes. The overwhelming majority of people disagree. I'm just trying to see which camp you fall into. Certainly you can provide that information without me having to waste a half hour of my life listening to some stupid podcast.

Among that minority is a radical fringe contingent that bald-facedly advocates for the right of "parents" to terminate the life of a child up to the age of eight years!

Link to comment
On 6/30/2022 at 3:04 PM, mtomm said:

This is what we are dealing with on the SUPREME Court of the United States. Holy hell. If that doesn't scare all of us it should. 

Clarence Thomas is very stupid or just plain evil.

Well, no.

Not even Snopes (!) is buying into this hokum.  See here:

Quote

Did Clarence Thomas Claim Vaccines Contain Cells of Aborted Fetuses?

Some mainstream news outlets misrepresented a statement the Supreme Court justice made in a dissenting opinion.

  • Published 1 July 2022
 

...

Claim

In a June 2022 dissenting opinion, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas asserted a debunked claim about the use of aborted fetal cells in COVID-19 vaccines.

Rating

False
False
...

When the COVID-19 vaccines were being developed in 2020, one persistent rumor held that these vaccines contained the cells of aborted fetuses. This is false.

As we wrote in December 2020, again in March 2021, and again in October 2021, none of the COVID-19 vaccines contains aborted fetal cells. However, many vaccines, including the most commonly used COVID-19 vaccines, were developed using what researchers describe as “historic fetal cell lines” in their research and testing phases. James Lawler, associate professor in the Department of Internal Medicine at the Nebraska Medical Center, defined “fetal cell lines” and explained how they’re different from aborted fetal cells as follows:

The COVID-19 vaccines do not contain any aborted fetal cells. However, fetal cell lines – cells grown in a laboratory based on aborted fetal cells collected generations ago – were used in testing during research and development of the mRNA vaccines, and during production of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine … Fetal cell lines are cells that grow in a laboratory. They descend from cells taken from abortions in the 1970s and 1980s.

The practice of using fetal cell lines in the development of the COVID-19 vaccines resurfaced as an issue in June 2022, after U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas mentioned it in a dissenting opinion published after the court declined to take up a case related to New York’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate.

Thomas wrote that COVID-19 vaccines were “developed using cell lines derived from aborted children.” This is true.

When news outlets reported on Thomas’ dissent, many suggested Thomas had cited a debunked claim. NBC News, for example, wrote that the Supreme Court justice had cited the “debunked claim that Covid vaccines are made with cells from ‘aborted children.'” Politico and Axios published similar stories, with Axios’ story originally being published under the title “Clarence Thomas suggests COVID vaccines are made with ‘aborted children.'”

On social media, this claim was even further exaggerated, with one Instagram post with more than 170,000 likes falsely stating that Thomas had written that the COVID-19 vaccines “contain the cells of aborted children.”

But that isn’t what Thomas wrote.

What Did Thomas Write about COVID-19 Vaccines and Aborted Fetal Cells?

Thomas did not claim that COVID-19 vaccines contain aborted fetal cells. What Thomas did say is that the COVID-19 vaccines were “developed using cell lines derived from aborted children.” Despite his use of the highly politicized term “aborted children” (as opposed to “aborted fetuses”), his claim that such cell lines were used in the development of COVID-19 vaccines is accurate. Here’s the full quote from Thomas’ dissent:

Petitioners are 16 healthcare workers who served New York communities throughout the COVID–19 pandemic. They object on religious grounds to all available COVID–19 vaccines because they were developed using cell lines derived from aborted children. Pet. for Cert. 8. Ordered to choose between their jobs and their faith, petitioners sued in the U. S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, claiming that the State’s vaccine mandate violated the Free Exercise Clause.

Again, for clarity, “fetal cell line” refers to cells that were grown in a lab. While it is true that these cell lines were derived from a fetus that was voluntarily aborted in the 1970s, none of the original fetal tissue remains in these cell lines.

So let's review the factual errors here:

There is a difference between "fetal cell lines" and "aborted fetal cells."  As noted above:

Quote

The COVID-19 vaccines do not contain any aborted fetal cells. However, fetal cell lines – cells grown in a laboratory based on aborted fetal cells collected generations ago – were used in testing during research and development of the mRNA vaccines, and during production of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine … Fetal cell lines are cells that grow in a laboratory. They descend from cells taken from abortions in the 1970s and 1980s.

From the above: "Thomas wrote that COVID-19 vaccines were 'developed using cell lines derived from aborted children.' This is true."  However, NBC News falsely attributes words to Justice Thomas words that did not originate with him (he was quoting one of the parties to the lawsuit) : 

Quote

Justice Thomas cites claim that Covid vaccines are made with cells from 'aborted children'
...
In a sharply worded dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas expressed support Thursday for a misleading claim that all Covid vaccines are made with cells from “aborted children.”
...
Thomas, citing the plaintiffs, wrote that the health care workers “object” to the state’s vaccine mandate “on religious grounds to all available COVID–19 vaccines because they were developed using cell lines derived from aborted children.”

Here is the actual quote from Justice Thomas's dissent:

Quote

Petitioners are 16 healthcare workers who served New York communities throughout the COVID–19 pandemic. They object on religious grounds to all available COVID–19 vaccines because they were developed using cell lines derived from aborted children. Pet. for Cert. 8. Ordered to choose between their jobs and their faith, petitioners sued in the U. S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, claiming that the State’s vaccine mandate violated the Free Exercise Clause.

NBC News and many other outlets are either patently misrepresenting Justice Thomas (as you seem to have done here) or else are demonstrating some substantial unfamiliarity with how legal opinions are written (also as you seem to have done here).

First, what Justice Thomas wrote was factually correct.

Second, Justice Thomas was summarizing the position taken by the plaintiffs in the lawsuit.  His summary was also factually correct.

Third, the plaintiffs did not claim that the vaccines were made from aborted fetuses.  They instead claimed that fetal cells were used in the development process, which they were.

Fourth, NBC News does a bit of mindreading when it says that Justice Thomas "expressed support Thursday for a misleading claim."  Summarizing a litigant's factual claims and/or legal arguments is not equivalent to "express{ing} support" for them.

Fifth, AFAICS, none of the "news" outlets that passed on these falsehoods has retracted or corrected or apologized for doing so.

This post sums things up well:

Quote

Politico on Twitter said,

Clarence Thomas claimed in a dissenting opinion that Covid vaccines are derived from the cells of “aborted children.”

No Covid vaccines in the U.S. contain the cells of aborted fetuses.

2,061 Retweets. 1,537 Quote Tweets. 5,676 Likes. Dozens of sneering replies.

And two egregious falsehoods in one tweet.

As Egon Alter (@AlterEgon75) put it in their reply,

This is a gross mischaracterization of Thomas’ words.

HE is not making the claim, the plaintiffs in the case are.

And he said they object because aborted fetus cells were used in the development of the vaccine, which your reporting verifies, not that the vaccine contains them.

UPDATE:

You can see a screenshot of Justice Thomas’s exact words in this tweet from AGHamilton29. Thomas said,

They object on religious grounds to all available COVID-19 vaccines because they were developed using cell lines derived from aborted children.

Firstly, note that he is paraphrasing the opinion of the petitioners, not giving his own opinion. Secondly, note that the petitioners themselves did not claim that the vaccines were made from aborted foetuses, they claim that foetal cells were used in the development process, which they were. As one would expect from a judge, Thomas has noted this crucial distinction.

Again via the estimable AGHamilton29, I see that it was not just Politico spreading this false story.

Axios: Clarence Thomas suggests COVID vaccines are made with “aborted children”

NBC News: Justice Thomas cites debunked claim that Covid vaccines are made with cells from ‘aborted children’

Of course, once the fake news seed is sown, it sprouts up everywhere.

The Daily Mail: Clarence Thomas cites debunked claim that Covid vaccines are created with cells of ‘aborted children’ in dissent on SCOTUS decision upholding New York state’s vaccine mandate for healthcare workers

The Independent: Clarence Thomas wrongly suggests ‘aborted children’ cells are used in Covid vaccines

SECOND UPDATE: The Politico tweet has now been disappeared, and the story to which it linked corrected. It is now mostly accurate and completely pointless, a breathless account of a Supreme Court judge doing a normal part of his job.

Politico memory-holed its inept reporting of this "story."  No retraction.  No correction.  No apology.  

Now that you are more familiar with what happened, and now that you have had a chance to consider the abundant errors in the story you propagated, do you retract your disparagement of Justice Thomas on this point?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment

It seems like our abortion extremist posters are fairly typically most concerned about any limits on women, especially any consequences from sexual activity.  It seems to be a highly emotionally rooted position.

Life is about consequences for choices.  If one indulges in poor decision-making of any type, there will be reasonably foreseeable consequences.   

A driver may run every stop sign claiming stop signs are a restriction on freedom.   The driver may avoid accidents for months or even years.   The driver may even avoid tickets for months and years.   But consistently engaging in a pattern of risky behavior has foreseeable consequences, consequences that likely will hurt others.

A stop sign is a limit on freedom, but it also enables freedom.   When everyone obeys the stop signs, cars can quickly go through intersections.  Anyone who has driven in countries with the same laws but less obedience to those laws has seen the difficulties. 

 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

You asked a question I had already made clear. It's not your decision or anyone else's whether a woman continues a pregnancy. I was clear.

You stated that you believe in abortion on demand, and I just wanted to clarify if you really meant on demand at any stage. 

It appears that you do. That is not a position I can get behind, either legally or morally, but thank you for clarifying. 

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Now that you are more familiar with what happened, and now that you have had a chance to consider the abundant errors in the story you propagated, do you retract your disparagement of Justice Thomas on this point?

She already retracted her comment about his "stupidity" here:

Though she still believes he is evil. Because...Anita Hill, or something.

 

Link to comment
23 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

A reality check for those active Church members who are allowing themselves to be lured away from the Church’s official pro-life position to the so-called pro-choice position on abortion.

 https://youtu.be/wjhl3fSP8d

and another about Judging Others also from Pres. Oaks

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1999/08/judge-not-and-judging?lang=eng

and it's weird that the Church allows for abortion in certain circumstances without penalty of church discipline but yet we have some leaders who won't allow it under any circumstance. I'd rather take God's position than any leader's opinion any day. 

 

Edited by Duncan
Link to comment
57 minutes ago, Amulek said:

You stated that you believe in abortion on demand, and I just wanted to clarify if you really meant on demand at any stage. 

It appears that you do. That is not a position I can get behind, either legally or morally, but thank you for clarifying. 

 

Sure thing.

The thing is, we can never get around the absolute that the unborn is within her. We cannot Dr. Frankenstein the issue. It cannot be won by force.

In fact, it's really not ours, it's hers. Help her--if she needs it. But most of all, respect the universe that is within her.

PS regarding popularity, how much of the population actually understand pregnancy and human reproduction enough to be able to vote on what one among them does?

Link to comment
34 minutes ago, Duncan said:

[...] it's weird that the Church allows for abortion in certain circumstances without penalty of church discipline but yet we have some leaders who won't allow it under any circumstance.

Which leaders? And what exactly do you mean by "won't allow it under any circumstance?" It isn't like you need an ecclesiastical endorsement for an abortion.

 

Link to comment
48 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Yeah, that was the post I was asking for clarification about. 

By "on demand, period" did she really mean on demand at any stage of pregnancy

Lots of people believe that abortion ought to be available on demand if performed early enough (e.g., within the first trimester).

There are, however, very few people who believe a mother ought to have an unrestricted right to terminate the child late into her pregnancy. 

Meadowchick has clarified that she really believes in on demand abortion at any stage. So, even at 39 weeks, when a child is perfectly healthy and fully capable of living independently, Meadowchick believes that a mother should have the right to end that child's life. As I said before, that is not really a position that I can get behind - either legally or morally. 

 

What about the real cases? Do you know what they are or are you merely indulging hypotheticals?

Link to comment

Amulek,

Consider that mythical woman who wants to abort her healthy term baby. If it's legal, we could give her the option of inducing and adoption, of course. So that increases the chances of the baby's survival.

If it's illegal and she's still desperate, perhaps she pays someone to do it for her and dispose of the dead, or she delivers the baby alone--both with risk her and the baby.

But, enlarge the perspective where she is allowed to chose. Imagine a world where she has choice and help available to her. She's going to be more likely to seek help earlier. She's more likely to have preventative care. She's more likely to have birth control. All in all, a world where she is humanised is a world where where she'll be more willing and able to be pregnant and give life to her baby.

Link to comment
19 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Which leaders? And what exactly do you mean by "won't allow it under any circumstance?" It isn't like you need an ecclesiastical endorsement for an abortion.

 

well, Pres. Oaks for one as teddyaware shared.  He and others are pro life and by that definition believe that women shouldn't get an abortion regardless. In the Church you can get exed for having an abortion or paying for one even.  Personally I don't think that should be the case but I like others am not in charge

Link to comment
23 hours ago, Duncan said:

So tell me, what is your country doing to curb the tide on gun deaths? You seem to care about abortion but it ambivalent towards killing people already here.  Are you lacking political will or incompetent or something to figure it out? The hypocrisy is staggering

They're just late term abortions. 

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

What about the real cases? Do you know what they are or are you merely indulging hypotheticals?

I don't believe that all late term abortions are unjustified. 

I have had close friends who have had to make difficult decisions due to complications arising during pregnancy.

That being said, I have also seen women who have decided to abort their child late into pregnancy for...far less morally justifiable reasons. 

I can understand the former. The latter, not so much. 

 

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, Duncan said:

well, Pres. Oaks for one as teddyaware shared. 

CFR. Please provide me with the direct quote from President Oaks saying that abortion is "not allow[ed] under any circumstance."

If teddyaware has already done the research, this ought to be trivially easy for you to cite. 

 

16 minutes ago, Duncan said:

He and others are pro life and by that definition believe that women shouldn't get an abortion regardless.

I believe one can characterize their belief as being "pro life" while simultaneously allowing for the possibility of abortion under limited circumstances. 

 

16 minutes ago, Duncan said:

In the Church you can get exed for having an abortion or paying for one even. 

Lot of wiggle room with the word "can" there. 

 

16 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Personally I don't think that should be the case but I like others am not in charge

Can you think of any situation where such ought to be the case? 

 

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, Amulek said:

CFR. Please provide me with the direct quote from President Oaks saying that abortion is "not allow[ed] under any circumstance."

If teddyaware has already done the research, this ought to be trivially easy for you to cite. 

from Pres. Oak's talk given by teddyaware

"Our leaders have taught that the only possible exceptions are when the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest, or when a competent physician has determined that the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy or that the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth. But even these exceptions do not justify abortion automatically."

also from the same talk

"She herself chose what would happen to her body by risking pregnancy. She had her choice. If she has no better reason, her conscience should tell her that abortion would be a highly irresponsible choice.

“What constitutes a good reason? Since a human fetus has intrinsic and infinite human value, the only good reason for an abortion would be the violation or deprivation of or the threat to the woman’s right to choose what will or will not happen to her body. Social, educational, financial, and personal considerations alone do not outweigh the value of the life that is in the fetus. These considerations by themselves may properly lead to the decision to place the baby for adoption after its birth, but not to end its existence in utero."

19 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Lot of wiggle room with the word "can" there. 

 

probably so
 

17 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I believe one can characterize their belief as being "pro life" while simultaneously allowing for the possibility of abortion under limited circumstances. 

I suspect that is the position of almost everyone but if you don't allow for the "limited circumstances" option than you can't choose option A or B

20 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Can you think of any situation where such ought to be the case?

I can't think of any situation where I should be in charge

Link to comment
28 minutes ago, Amulek said:

CFR. Please provide me with the direct quote from President Oaks saying that abortion is "not allow[ed] under any circumstance."

If teddyaware has already done the research, this ought to be trivially easy for you to cite. 

 

I believe one can characterize their belief as being "pro life" while simultaneously allowing for the possibility of abortion under limited circumstances. 

 

Lot of wiggle room with the word "can" there. 

 

Can you think of any situation where such ought to be the case? 

 

All one has to do is actually watch the video to see that Duncan is wrong. Big surprise…

Link to comment
Just now, teddyaware said:

All one has to do is actually watch the video to see that Duncan is wrong. Big surprise…

it's weird you say because Pres. Oaks also said at another time the following

"A related distortion is seen in the practice of those who select a few sentences from the teachings of a prophet and use them to support their political agenda or other personal purposes. In doing so, they typically ignore the contrary implications of other prophetic words, or even the clear example of the prophet’s own actions. For example, I have corresponded with several Church members who sought to use something President Ezra Taft Benson was quoted as saying as a basis for refusing to file an income tax return or to pay income taxes.

I have tried to persuade these persons that their interpretation cannot be what President Benson intended, because all who have held that sacred office, and all of the General Authorities, have faithfully filed their income tax returns and paid the taxes required by law. The servants of God are under the Master’s commands to follow him and to be examples to the flock (see 1 Tim. 4:12; 1 Pet. 5:3). We should interpret their words in the light of their works. To wrest the words of a prophet to support a private agenda, political or financial or otherwise, is to try to manipulate the prophet, not to follow him."

it's Traitor day today for you people, shouldn't you be out shooting at people or getting a lynch mob formed? What kind of horse do you have?

 

 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Amulek said:

I don't believe that all late term abortions are unjustified. 

I have had close friends who have had to make difficult decisions due to complications arising during pregnancy.

That being said, I have also seen women who have decided to abort their child late into pregnancy for...far less morally justifiable reasons. 

I can understand the former. The latter, not so much. 

 

There is a price with every choice. The choice she makes, but also the choices we make about her choices.

You might have missed this:

Amulek,

 

Consider that mythical woman who wants to abort her healthy term baby. If it's legal, we could give her the option of inducing and adoption, of course. So that increases the chances of the baby's survival.

 

If it's illegal and she's still desperate, perhaps she pays someone to do it for her and dispose of the dead, or she delivers the baby alone--both with risk her and the baby.

 

But, enlarge the perspective where she is allowed to chose. Imagine a world where she has choice and help available to her. She's going to be more likely to seek help earlier. She's more likely to have preventative care. She's more likely to have birth control. All in all, a world where she is humanised is a world where where she'll be more willing and able to be pregnant and give life to her baby.

 

2 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

They're just late term abortions. 

No, they are not.

Link to comment

In the example of the late term abortion I provided with the podcast link, the woman must decide quickly because of Missouri law. The law doesn't help her, it just accelerates her choice, because she doesn't want to lose the ability to stop her baby from suffering for weeks and weeks.

If this example is compelling to you, please consider other stories and how the women are impacted by the law.

As I said, the better way is for abortion to be safe, accessible, and legal but something that women rarely need to consider. What can we do to help them?

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Obehave said:

I think I get your point. The womb of a woman is not the only place where children are killed. We're all children, even when we are also adults. 

Or were you thinking something different?

Adults are not living inside another person.

Link to comment
22 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Adults are not living inside another person.

I remember my dad telling me that he had an embryo inside his body, so I guess that would be his twin. But now I'm second guessing my memory, or he was pulling my leg.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Obehave said:

I think I get your point. The womb of a woman is not the only place where children are killed. We're all children, even when we are also adults. 

Or were you thinking something different?

Sarcasm? Irony?

Edited by rodheadlee
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...