Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

It's Official: SCOTUS Overturns Roe v. Wade

smac97

By smac97
in General Discussions

Recommended Posts

Amulek Grand Master

Amulek

Posted
Posted (edited)
17 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

But regarding E, abortion should be available on demand, period.

At any stage? Because that kind of makes a difference. 

If you look at the polling data over time (link), there tends to be broad support (i.e., 60-70%) for abortion during the first trimester, but those numbers drop significantly as time goes on, with only 10-15% approval during the third trimester.

So, if you are saying that abortion should be available on demand at any point then you are in the clear minority with your opinion. 

 

Edited by Amulek
3
Tacenda Grand Master

Tacenda

Posted
Posted
17 hours ago, Calm said:

Looks like older kid adoptions are easier or at least quicker:

”A common misconception about adoption is that it’s an expensive process. Not only are older care adoptions quicker, but adoptions from foster care are also much cheaper than private and international adoptions.

Foster care adoptions usually range in cost from $0-$2,500, and can also be partially funded by your state. If you choose to adopt through Adoption STAR’s Adopt an Older Kid program, no placement fees are associated with older child adoption.”

https://www.adoptionstar.com/8-things-you-might-not-know-about-adopting-an-older-child/

There is also a lot of support systems out there for older kid adoptions. Most of the older kid adoptions I know of in the states were by low middle class families. I don’t know if that is a general trend or not. 

I'd love to do this, if I didn't think Alzheimer's is going to hit soon. 

Calm Grand Master

Calm

Posted
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I'd love to do this, if I didn't think Alzheimer's is going to hit soon. 

Foster care could be an option then as you could stop when it got too difficult.  

And maybe you take after your dad’s side (assuming Alzheimer’s isn’t showing up there).  That is what I keep telling myself, there is no reason to assume I will get hit with dementia as I have good odds.

Edited by Calm
pogi Grand Master

pogi

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 7/1/2022 at 5:15 PM, smac97 said:

If he was as cagey and "political" as you think he is, wouldn't he have been better off muting his argument about Substantive Due Process, rather than shouting it from the rooftops (which may have, in effect, pushed the other "conservative" justices to distance themselves from him on that issue)?

Having political intention/motivation and being effective politically are two different things.  I never claimed that he was good at it. 

On 7/1/2022 at 5:15 PM, smac97 said:

I don't think Justice Thomas was doing that.  He was expressing his viewpoint which, if anything, opposes judicial "activism."

To express ones viewpoint to someone that they "should reconsider" something, is an attempt to influence them to reconsider.  There certainly is an irony in his activist attempts of opposing judicial activism.  

Who was he speaking to?

1) The court - the court "should reconsider"...  Basically imploring them to action. 

2) The American people -  Inviting (more like imploring with the word "should") conservatives to bring cases forward to challenge these previous rulings.  

On 7/1/2022 at 5:15 PM, smac97 said:

Justice Thomas concurred with the majority in Dobbs which removed SCOTUS from that 50-year-old "political mine field."  

I think the problem here is that you don't want to consider Griswold, Lawrence and Obergefell as "political mine fields."  Maybe they aren't.  Maybe they are.  That's probably a discussion for another day.  Either way, I appreciate Justice Thomas's principled and restrained approach to constitutional law.

I think you are misunderstanding my point.  On the contrary, I think that reviewing the cases he mentioned would be a political mine field.  I am saying that would give sufficient reason for the court to pass on hearing these cases and leave the previous rulings as they are for now.  

You said that "assuming arguendo"... it would be "improper" for the court to leave previous unconstitutional (assuming arguendo that they are unconstitutional) decisions in place.   Well, my point is that there would be nothing improper whatsoever to hold off on "reconsidering" these previous cases given the political climate and timing of just overturning Roe v Wade.  Nothing "improper" about that.  On the contrary, that would be the proper course of action.  

I simply don't trust the man to not be political.  His recent sole dissent on a case with potential ties to his wife is disturbing to me too.  I trust his wife even less.   

Edited by pogi
2
Duncan Grand Master

Duncan

Posted
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, teddyaware said:

A little reality check for those who are allowing themselves to gradually slip over to the side of the death cult propagandists who stand beckoning at the windows of the large and spacious building.

 

are you talking about the crazy yanks who value guns and a piece of legal paper more than lives of their fellow man?

Edited by Duncan
1
Meadowchik Grand Master

Meadowchik

Posted
Posted
15 hours ago, Amulek said:

At any stage? Because that kind of makes a difference. 

If you look at the polling data over time (link), there tends to be broad support (i.e., 60-70%) for abortion during the first trimester, but those numbers drop significantly as time goes on, with only 10-15% approval during the third trimester.

So, if you are saying that abortion should be available on demand at any point then you are in the clear minority with your opinion. 

 

Sigh. 

Listen to this and get back to me:

https://pca.st/episode/5ea47f0c-7f8d-49c3-aa3a-bfe4b8021df3?t=75

1
teddyaware Grand Master

teddyaware

Posted
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Duncan said:

are you talking about the crazy yanks who value guns and a piece of legal paper more than lives of their fellow man?

I’m talking about the abortion issue and how some members of the Church have have either gone over, or are flirting with the temptation to go over, to the devil’s ‘cult of death’ side on the sanctity of human life issue. And as far as the right to keep and bear arms is concerned, I can understand why a Canadian loyalist to the British Crown would wish that the American Founding Fathers and patriots had been disarmed, and therefore incapable of mounting a successful military uprising against tyranny, so that the landmass of the present-day United States would still be under British control.

Edited by teddyaware
Duncan Grand Master

Duncan

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

I’m talking about the abortion issue and how some members of the Church have have either gone over, or are flirting with the temptation to go over, to the devil’s ‘cult of death’ side on the sanctity of human life issue. And as far as the right to keep and bear arms is concerned, I can understand why a Canadian loyalist to the British Crown would wish that the American Founding Fathers and patriots had been disarmed, and therefore incapable of mounting a successful military uprising against tyranny, so that the landmass of the present-day United States would still be under British control.

if you are so concerned about "human life issue" shouldn't you concerned about the seemingly unending mass shootings in the US today? why stop at abortion for your concerns. Your argument holds no water if you only care about in utero yankees but care for nothing about what happens to them when they are born

1
SteveO Mentor

SteveO

Posted
Posted
55 minutes ago, Duncan said:

if you are so concerned about "human life issue" shouldn't you concerned about the seemingly unending mass shootings in the US today? why stop at abortion for your concerns. Your argument holds no water if you only care about in utero yankees but care for nothing about what happens to them when they are born

“There are ills in the world…so kill the children”

1
Meadowchik Grand Master

Meadowchik

Posted
Posted (edited)
59 minutes ago, SteveO said:

“There are ills in the world…so kill the children”

No, I think for many women, the choice to chose abortion is a choice FOR life. They're the ones who will know when it needs to be made.

Also I'll just add that there seems to be such little awareness of how nature works: half or nearly half of all fertilized eggs are spontaneously aborted...something goes wrong or is wrong and that egg/fetus or unborn are expelled by the body or/and they die in the womb. All the while it is women who live this process throughout their years of fertility. 

What is essential to remember is that every pregnancy is a risk and we shouldn't force women to continue the risk if they don't want to, or even if they change their minds.

People often compare pregnancy to organ donation: If you agreed to give your brother your second kidney to save his life, you could opt out up until the moment they put you under anesthesia. No one can force you to risk your life to save him, even if that means he will die. 

At it's simplest, women who abort are choosing life--their own life--and it's not our choice to make them do otherwise.

Edited by Meadowchik
2
Tacenda Grand Master

Tacenda

Posted
Posted (edited)

I'm seeing things differently now. I'm glad Roe vs Wade is getting a microscopic look now. I think it needs to be brought into the light, maybe it was needed at a critical point with back alley abortions etc. and the thousands being aborted anyway and women dying, and contraceptives weren't as readily available or were frowned upon.

I recently watched a reading on You Tube with a famous Medium named Tyler, forgot his last name. It was with Melissa Joan Hart (actress) and she was a bit skeptical because what the Bible said about people like Tyler. And he had to clear up the differences. She's a devout Christian. Melissa's mom and sister were watching in the next room by way of video. That's sometimes what the show does. And Melissa's grandmother came through along with her grandfather the ex husband. And something else that was a surprise to Melissa's mother and herself. A child had been miscarried in the family that was unknown to the family, the sister that was in the next room had never told anyone she'd had a miscarriage. How would Tyler know that? And here her daughter was coming through from the other side, and she was so emotional about it. 

Reminds me of my meeting with my niece who is a Medium and was given this gift, that we may all have but haven't developed. My niece mentioned that a little girl was with my parents, had dark hair and around 5 I think. Well, my own daughter had a miscarriage around the same time. So we think that is her daughter.

So after all that, I'm starting to wonder about when the spirit enters the embryo. And believe it's sooner than once thought and there are a lot of babies that didn't get to come to earth. But maybe that's an okay thing, not sure. And they are on the other side, not gone out of sight. 

Plus I think there are far too many abortions for no good reason. I believe there must be a darn good reason. No nilly willy stuff, like inconveniences. If the mother is healthy and can bring that child into the world and the child even eventually go to a different mother that so desperately wants a baby that's a good thing. But understand we do have a lot of children in foster care, so that's one thing also. It's all so difficult, but that's the test I guess, and a lot of humans getting tested.

Not too sure, but believe that Roe vs Wade can be better managed at a state level perhaps, and the state's citizens hopefully will have a lot of good input. 

I'm naive and still figuring things out, but these are my thoughts on it today. May evolve to change again, not sure. But do believe women need to know that the baby is a fully human. If it's like some are saying that they think it's not human until fully grown in the womb, if that's what they're really saying. 

 

Edited by Tacenda
smac97 Grand Master

smac97

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
On 7/1/2022 at 11:40 PM, Meadowchik said:
Quote
  • (A) the personhood of the child, - I think the child is a person.  I think personhood is essentially congruent with "human life," such that it (personhood) begins at conception (fertilization).  Nevertheless, I acknowledge that the in utero child, though a "person," is nevertheless uniquely situated in terms of physical location and means of living, and that this unique situation has a necessary and substantial impact on the physical and emotional well-being of another person, namely, the mother.  
  • (B) society's interest in protecting the rights attendant to such personhood, - I think the State has a rational and reasonable basis for intervening to preserve the health and life of an unborn child, though again, the circumstances of this intervention are unique, and hence are not without limits or exceptions.
  • (C) the "assumption of the risk" and "personal responsibility" issues, - I think that absent force, coercion, deceit, mental defect, or substantial ignorance, avoiding or accepting the risks associated with and arising from participating in sexual behavior is within the capacity of women.  I also think that because pregnancy is a known and foreseeable risk associated with engaging in sexual activity, voluntary assumption of that risk carries with it some measure of a personal responsibility, and even a legal obligation, to endure the consequences of having assumed that risk.  I also think that the State can, within constitutional parameters, identify the scope and breadth of that obligation.
  • (D) the tension between the rights of the mother and the rights of the child, - I acknowledge the tension.  I account for it by advocating (very limited) exceptions to an otherwise general prohibition against elective abortion (the reasonable exceptions, in my view, pertaining to rape, incest, competent medical determination 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).  I also account for it by advocating that the mother should, broadly speaking, be obligated to accept some measure of personal responsibility for, and deal with the natural and foreseeable risks arising from, her decision to engage in sexual activity.  I also account for it by advocating for "Safe Haven" laws, increased education/persuasion efforts, facilitating adoptions, etc. 
  • (E) proposals, short of a my-way-or-the-highway "abortion-on-demand" approach, that addresses items (A)-(D) - This is where you come in.

I have addressed all of those things, many times, and the proper resolutions that should be available for E.

Could you point me to where you have "addressed all of those things?" 

On 7/1/2022 at 11:40 PM, Meadowchik said:

But regarding E, abortion should be available on demand, period. 

That does not seem responsive to E.  

On 7/1/2022 at 11:40 PM, Meadowchik said:

Just because it is available, legal, and safe, however, doesn't mean it will be chosen.

I acknowledge that.  But unfettered abortion ("available on demand, period") is, I think, quite the minority view in America.  Take a look at this post, in which I divide up all 50 states into broad policy categories relative to abortion:

Quote

Category #1: Weeks/Trimester Restrictions on Abortion: Some states restrict abortions using a weeks or trimester measurement (and usually with allowances after the time limit as well), such as 

Category #2: "Viability" Restrictions on Abortion: Other states use a "viability" measurement to restrict abortion (most with post-viability exceptions), such as 

Category #3: No Restrictions on Abortion: In contrast, other states have effectively no constraints on abortion, such as

Category #4: "Categorical-but-with-Exceptions" Restrictions on Abortion: And yet other states effectively prohibit abortions (apparently all with at least some exception for health/life of mother, and most with additional exceptions), such as

It looks like a substantial majority of Americans live in jurisdictions where abortions are legal for most or all of the first and second trimesters (Category #1 and #2 above), or else are entirely legal at any time during the pregnancy (Category #3).

Category #3 includes six "available on demand, period" states, with a combined population of about 22.2 million.  That's what, around 7-8% of the population of the country?

I understand you have strong feelings about this (as do we all), but in practical terms, are you capable or willing to go along with any restrictions on abortion?  If so, what would those be, and why?

On 7/1/2022 at 11:40 PM, Meadowchik said:

Our collective responsibility in addition to ensuring that right, is to do our best to prevent the need (or perceived need) for it.

Or it could be that our "collective responsibility" could be to meaningfully account for (A)-(D) above (which you are not doing here) and formulating proposals that take these into account (which you are also not doing here).

Your absolutist approach is simply not going to work in most jurisdictions.  If you are able to formulate some other non-absolute approach, I'd like to hear it.  

On 7/1/2022 at 11:40 PM, Meadowchik said:

The cost of forcing the pro-life way onto women's and children's bodies

Laws "forcing" doctors to refrain from electively killing unborn children are not fairly characterized here.

On 7/1/2022 at 11:40 PM, Meadowchik said:

will have deleterious effects

The elective killing of children also has "deleterious effects."

On 7/1/2022 at 11:40 PM, Meadowchik said:

on the whole system which will undermine any other possibilities for remedies.

The economy of the South was substantially injured for a very long time when the slaves were freed.  Emancipation had "deleterious effects," but the alternative - keeping black men, women and children as slaves without their consent - was far, far worse.

So it is, I think, with prospective "deleterious effects" of restraints on abortion.  Yes, there will be some, but the alternative - the wholesale elective killing of unborn children without without their consent - would be far, far worse.

On 7/1/2022 at 11:40 PM, Meadowchik said:

Specifically, abortion bans treat women as sub-human.

I disagree.  Restrictions on abortion treat women as . . . people.  As people who, barring certain enumerated exceptions, may be legally constrained from killing another person.

If there is a regime of "sub-human" treatment in view, it is . . . the one that utterly disregards the personhood of the child, that says unborn children are not deserving of protection under the law, that allows for the elective killing of unborn children without their consent.

In other words: Abortion on demand, "period."

On 7/1/2022 at 11:40 PM, Meadowchik said:

It's harder for people to flourish when they're being treated as incubators.

With respect, I do not accept this assertion.  It is neither factually accurate nor fairly descriptive.  It is, instead, inflammatory and accusatory.  It is a caricature.  If you disagree, please point me to "pro-life" literature or persons describing women as "incubators."  If you can't (as I suspect will be the case), then you are imputing falsehoods onto other parties.

Pregnancy is a known and foreseeable risk associated with engaging in sexual activity.  Consequently, absent force, coercion, deceit, mental defect, or substantial ignorance, a woman has the capacity to either A) avoid or B) accept that risk.

For that matter, men also have this capacity.  Due to biology, men do not bear the same physiological consequences that women do in the event of a pregnancy, but society has long been quite willing to impose financial consequences.  Thus a man who says "It is wrong that I should be obligated to pay 18 years of child support because I got her pregnant during a one-night stand" is still not going to be excused from those consequences.

On 7/1/2022 at 11:40 PM, Meadowchik said:

But, as you say, at least you're saving babies, so there's that overall perceived benefit.

Can you acknowledge that as an actual benefit, rather than merely as a "perceived" one?

On 7/1/2022 at 11:40 PM, Meadowchik said:

But now those babies are babies of women who are being mistreated by society.

Constraining a woman from electively killing her child is not "mistreatment."

Dealing with the known and foreseeable risks associated with voluntarily and knowingly engaging in sexual activity is not "mistreatment."

And in any event, those babies will be alive.  The mother may choose to keep and raise the child, in which case the child lives.  Or the mother may choose to put the child up for adoption, or may abandong the child under "Safe Haven" laws, in which case the child lives.

On 7/1/2022 at 11:40 PM, Meadowchik said:

Also, abortion bans don't tend to come along alone, they are typically joined by more measures underpinned by the sexism that drives abortion bans.  SCOTUS has just emboldened misogyny and women and everyone they care for will bear costs of that. 

I don't know what you are referencing here.

Also, I reject the accusations of sexism and misogyny.  A substantial portion of women are "pro-life," and many of those who identity as "pro-choice" agree with some constraints on abortion.

Preserving the lives of unborn children is the objective the pro-life movement.  I reject unfair and ugly characterizations of their motives just as much as I reject unfair and ugly characterizations of your motives. For example, I assume you don't like being characterizing as a Moloch worshipper.  And I wouldn't blame you.  Basic civility and decorum should prevail in these discussions.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
2
Durangout Community Regular

Durangout

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Duncan said:

if you are so concerned about "human life issue" shouldn't you concerned about the seemingly unending mass shootings in the US today? why stop at abortion for your concerns. Your argument holds no water if you only care about in utero yankees but care for nothing about what happens to them when they are born

LOl. Strawman 101 but thanks for playing.

SteveO Mentor

SteveO

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

No, I think for many women, the choice to chose abortion is a choice FOR life. They're the ones who will know when it needs to be made.

Also I'll just add that there seems to be such little awareness of how nature works: half or nearly half of all fertilized eggs are spontaneously aborted...something goes wrong or is wrong and that egg/fetus or unborn are expelled by the body or/and they die in the womb. All the while it is women who live this process throughout their years of fertility. 

What is essential to remember is that every pregnancy is a risk and we shouldn't force women to continue the risk if they don't want to, or even if they change their minds.

People often compare pregnancy to organ donation: If you agreed to give your brother your second kidney to save his life, you could opt out up until the moment they put you under anesthesia. No one can force you to risk your life to save him, even if that means he will die. 

At it's simplest, women who abort are choosing life--their own life--and it's not our choice to make them do otherwise.

I gave you a rep point, because this might be the most absurd, selfish, and ignorant thing I’ve read all day.

Well done 

The abortion=organ donation

*chef’s kiss*

Edited by SteveO
1
Duncan Grand Master

Duncan

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Durangout said:

LOl. Strawman 101 but thanks for playing.

when you play with pigs you get dirty, i'll take a shower. Your opinion is garbage

Duncan Grand Master

Duncan

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, SteveO said:

“There are ills in the world…so kill the children”

only those who have been born are those we don't care about. The US lost its moral stance after their total inaction after Sandy Hook

1
SteveO Mentor

SteveO

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, Duncan said:

only those who have been born are those we don't care about. The US lost its moral stance after their total inaction after Sandy Hook

Holding hands with you.  Nihilism is best—life is just so miserable it’s best to end it before it begins.

1
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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