It's Official: SCOTUS Overturns Roe v. Wade

[webbles]

15 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Susan said he was misleading and she is upset.  She was there, you weren't.

You are right, I wasn't there.  But I can read her statement and she doesn't say "lie" or "mislead".  She says:

Quote

This decision is inconsistent with what Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh said in their testimony and their meetings with me, where they both were insistent on supporting long-standing precedents that the country has relied upon.

The bolded part is where she feels like they were inconsistent.  And that bolded part is what they actually did say in public testimony.  So she isn't bringing up anything from a private conversation that we aren't aware of.

And, even though I actually disagree with the ruling (I would have preferred something similar to Chief Justice Roberts with maybe a better constitutional foundation for the right of abortion), I'm glad that nominees aren't forced to make promises and that they can overturn precedent.

[Teancum]

On 6/25/2022 at 1:04 PM, smac97 said:

SCOTUS has become very politicized because people apparently want to treat its members as if they "represent the people of the US," as if they are supposed to listen to polls and pressure groups and do what is popular in the moment.  I submit this is wrongheaded, and that the role of the Court is to support and defend the Constitution and impartially administer justice.

Take a look at the oaths the justices take:

"Represent{ing} the people of the US" is what the legislature does.

SCOTUS has also become very politicized by people throwing accusations at one side, while ignoring their own politicization.

Thanks,

-Smac

Smac

As an attorney what is your take on Judicial review? I did not realize till this week that really there could be a position to ignore judicial review. It is not in the constitution. Why does the SC have authority to invoke or revoke law?  Can their decisions be simply ignored?  I read an article that said this really started with the Marbury decision and Chief Justice John Marshall.  And while Jefferson did not favor judicial review he accepted it in this case as the outcome was one he wanted.  

[Meadowchik]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

No, it's not my call.  But if the only difference between killing a child in the womb and killing a child out of the womb is location you bet it should be considered wrong.

As far as I'm concerned it's shedding of innocent blood and always will be.  And yes, people have the right to choose sin.

Location is substantial and meaningful difference, and caution should be taken to being dismissive about that as you seem to be doing. And of course in actuality location in reference to pregnancy is a specific and unique physiological relationship. Nothing else in human life is quite like it. 

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, Fether said:

The baby’s life is still of more worth than the teenage girl’s discomfort.

Downplaying like this seems woefully ignorant. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

I have many friends who have posted women will die and seem to think states have not made exceptions for the life of the mom. I have not found that to be true. I will go read Iowa’s law. 

Not the angle I’m questioning. People are saying we need to deal with the foreseeable consequences or our actions in regards to sexual activity. Doesn’t that necessitate celibacy in marriage for women who have been informed that pregnancy is a life threatening condition? I mean it’s one thing if they didn’t know they were at risk, but what about those who willingly put themselves in that position?

[webbles]

4 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Smac

As an attorney what is your take on Judicial review? I did not realize till this week that really there could be a position to ignore judicial review. It is not in the constitution. Why does the SC have authority to invoke or revoke law?  Can their decisions be simply ignored?  I read an article that said this really started with the Marbury decision and Chief Justice John Marshall.  And while Jefferson did not favor judicial review he accepted it in this case as the outcome was one he wanted.  

Have you heard of Worcester v Georgia (1832)?  Andrew Jackson supposedly said "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!".  The governor of Georgia did say

Quote

The Supreme Court of the United States . . . have, by their decision, attempted to overthrow the essential jurisdiction of the State, in criminal cases . . . I have, however, been prepared to meet this usurpation of Federal power with the most prompt and determined resistance.

This is years after Marbury v Madison when judicial review became a thing (1803).

[bsjkki]

2 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Not the angle I’m questioning. People are saying we need to deal with the foreseeable consequences or our actions in regards to sexual activity. Doesn’t that necessitate celibacy in marriage for women who have been informed that pregnancy is a life threatening condition? I mean it’s one thing if they didn’t know they were at risk, but what about those who willingly put themselves in that position?

I was only answering your question about my comment.

[Fether]

52 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I am guessing you have no idea what an abusive home is like for a 15 year old pregnant girl when you act like this is an “out there” scenario that doesn’t happen often. It happens. Quite a bit.

I’m saying that parents killing their daughter because she got pregnant is just as rare as being forced to do crack at gun point.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

18 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I was only answering your question about my comment.

Well your comment was in response to me making the point above so I’m just confused I guess. 👍

[Meadowchik]

7 minutes ago, Fether said:

I’m saying that parents killing their daughter because she got pregnant is just as rare as being forced to do crack at gun point.

To be fair, the first cause of death for pregnant women is murder at the hands of their husband/partner, so other immediate family is no so far off the mark.

[bsjkki]

4 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Well your comment was in response to me making the point above so I’m just confused I guess. 👍

Went back and read thread. I married woman who gets pregnant and has severe health issues due to a pregnancy will fall into the health exceptions all states currently have. Kentucky does require serious health problems more in the realm of threatening the ‘life’ of the mom. 
 

I just see a lot of fear mongering based on disinformation on my Facebook. 
 

 

 

 

[Fether]

36 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Downplaying like this seems woefully ignorant. 

As does downplaying the value of a life

[The Nehor]

19 minutes ago, Fether said:

I’m saying that parents killing their daughter because she got pregnant is just as rare as being forced to do crack at gun point.

LOL!

[The Nehor]

7 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Went back and read thread. I married woman who gets pregnant and has severe health issues due to a pregnancy will fall into the health exceptions all states currently have. Kentucky does require serious health problems more in the realm of threatening the ‘life’ of the mom. 
 

I just see a lot of fear mongering based on disinformation on my Facebook. 
 

 

 

 

Don’t worry. If nothing changes we won’t need to worry about arguing hypotheticals soon.

[Fether]

11 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

To be fair, the first cause of death for pregnant women is murder at the hands of their husband/partner, so other immediate family is no so far off the mark.

I would happily consider the abortion of a baby in a scenario where the parents would kill the daughter. 
 

My point, however, is that we can’t use such fringe cases to decide laws.

[Vanguard]

48 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Location is substantial and meaningful difference, and caution should be taken to being dismissive about that as you seem to be doing. And of course in actuality location in reference to pregnancy is a specific and unique physiological relationship. Nothing else in human life is quite like it. 

Your way of characterizing the special relationship between the relationship between mother & baby resonates with me. But what is your position on abortion regards to the right of a woman to terminate said baby's life for any reason and at any time?

[The Nehor]

6 minutes ago, Fether said:

I would happily consider the abortion of a baby in a scenario where the parents would kill the daughter. 
 

My point, however, is that we can’t use such fringe cases to decide laws.

Sure we can.

[CV75]

3 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I know several people who have either had vasectomies or tubal ligations because a pregnancy was too risky to their health. These people are married. They continue to have sex. If they get pregnant are they required to carry the baby? Who gets to decide?

What about a single mother on birth control who has difficult pregnancies. Who takes care of her existing children and family responsibilities while she is forced to take over nine months off of work. 
 

Consent to sex doesn’t equal consent to pregnancy and outside of some religious punishment fantasy it makes no sense to treat it as such. Once you allow for any abortion exceptions , you have already conceded the mother’s right exceeds the fetus. Refusing other exceptions can only be  is a religious position. 

Exceptions can be a secular, societal position as well. This is what we see in determining what constitutes a right for the pregnant mother (your term) and balancing her interests and those of the broader society, which may also value the future of the fetus.

[Meadowchik]

3 minutes ago, Fether said:

As does downplaying the value of a life

And I don't advocate that. There's definitely points in favor of abortion rights which are in direct support of life. Pregnant women wrestle with the valley of the shadow on multiple levels. Their own lives, the lives of others in their sphere including other children in their care, the life of the unborn.

The harsh reality is that pregnancy can pose actual dilemmas based on a woman's personal circumstances. It can represent a direct and indirect to her life and personal safety. By the same token it can to threaten the safety and well-being of her already-born children. And we in society are not doing enough to mitigate these dangers.

So pregnant women are frequently being propped between a metaphorical rock and hard place. Who are we to tell her what to do, or make her do our will?

[Meadowchik]

5 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

Your way of characterizing the special relationship between the relationship between mother & baby resonates with me. But what is your position on abortion regards to the right of a woman to terminate said baby's life for any reason and at any time?

My position is that, like God/nature who takes and gives life, women are goddesses of their own bodies and the life inside them is their province, not ours. Who are we to know better than them about their own body and child? Who are we as a society if we cannot give due respect to women? We would not exist without their travail.

[MikeFoxtrot]

2 hours ago, provoman said:

Sex is making babies ONLY. If enjoy sex, even when making a baby, you are doing it wrong

If pregnancy-less sex is wrong, I don’t wanna be right.

 

3 hours ago, Fether said:

This analogy would work wonderfully with the addition that the driver and pedestrian decided together that the driver should run over the pedestrian, as that would be fun for both parties. As this is how pregnancy happens. In which case, both must deal with the consequence of their decision to run into each other.

Now imagine a scenario where half the population is never allowed to drive the car, but their DNA makes them want to engage in silly “run me over” activities. Should the guys driving the cars be the ones making the rules about how pedestrians deal with being run over?

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I'll say it again.  It's not just the woman's body.  It's the child's body.  As soon as there's another person there it's no longer just the woman's body.  It's one person destroying another person's body.

I’m going to ask again. At what point is there a human body inside of a pregnant woman? I’d accept estimates. Is it two weeks? Is it two trimesters? Is it at conception?

[Fether]

4 minutes ago, MikeFoxtrot said:

Should the guys driving the cars be the ones making the rules about how pedestrians AND THE CAR DRIVERS deal with being run over?

I fixed your question. And whoever is elected to make the laws ought to make the laws. Whether the majority are male or female is up to the populace

Edited June 26, 2022 by Fether

[Meadowchik]

24 minutes ago, Fether said:

I would happily consider the abortion of a baby in a scenario where the parents would kill the daughter. 
 

My point, however, is that we can’t use such fringe cases to decide laws.

But it doesn't just represent a fringe overall fact about pregnancy; pregnancy poses a direct risk to a woman's life. Always.

Edited June 26, 2022 by Meadowchik

[MikeFoxtrot]

6 minutes ago, Fether said:

I fixed your question.

An answer would have been preferable to a fix, but thanks for responding.

6 minutes ago, Fether said:

Whether the majority are male or female is up to the populace

At the risk of getting political in this completely apolitical discussion, this just isn’t how politics works.

[Fether]

24 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Who are we to tell her what to do, or make her do our will?

For a pro-lifer, the woman’s choice has little to do with the conversation. There is a living person in her stomach and the only reason they are on with abortion is because they are emotionally detached. There would be no woman who would willingly kill a baby that is newly born.