carbon dioxide Posted June 25, 2022 Posted June 25, 2022 Abortion has never been a big issue to me. The way I see it, the majority of women who have abortions would have been bad moms anyway and so there are just fewer bad kids running around to deal with. I place them in the same category as those women who are have decided not to have kids due to climate change. I say to those women, THANK YOU. Time to end that branch of the great genealogy tree right there. My problem however is the inconsistency of the argument. Abortion is based on the idea that the woman has a right to do what she wants with her body. If that view is true, then prostitution, drug use, and even assisted suicide should also be legal. We should have a right to do anything with our bodies including terminating it. But I don't see the abortion crowd advocated, safe and legal suicide where a person can get one with no questions asked. So as long as all these other things are illegal even though it is our own body that is affected, why should abortion get an exception? It really comes down to one of accountability. Outside of rape or abuse, there really is no such thing as an unplanned pregnancy. If a woman does not want to get pregnant, don't engage in the activities that would lead to pregnancy. It is no different than a person choosing to take an laxative and then declaring they got an unplanned watery bowel movement. No they did not. The moment they took that laxative, they consented to the biological processes that will lead to them spending more time on the porcelain throne. Same with sex. The biological purpose of sex is pregnancy. Anything else is supplemental. Don't want an unwanted pregnancy, don't have sex. It really is not that complicated.
The Nehor Posted June 25, 2022 Posted June 25, 2022 4 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: Or some may sincerely believe that the person being formed in the womb merits rights and protections. It seems to me that the destruction of millions of children is the catastrophic consequence of abandoning every principle set forth in the Declaration on the Family. Surely we will be held accountable for that. If I believed this change would facilitate the protection of the unborn than I might be inclined to cheer but I don’t. Those who can bear the expense will just cross state and international borders and get the abortions anyways and those who cannot afford it and the most vulnerable (scared young girls) will go back to the days of wire coathangers and back alley abortion providers. The illegal abortion providers will be even easier to locate due to the internet where previously you had to know someone or a friend of a friend to get such a procedure done. This is likely to end up just being performative garbage that is just going to get more unborn children and pregnant women injured or killed. I don’t see an upside beyond people it doesn’t actually impact feeling that something good happened and they will never really look into it again to see if the good actually happens. The factions backing these changes have shown repeatedly that they don’t care about actual results. They just want to feel they are integral to the fight against evil and that they are winning. There are all kinds of things we could do that would actually reduce the ‘need’ or desire for abortions but no one wants to do anything in those areas. I don’t think God is impressed by this showmanship either. 2
Bernard Gui Posted June 25, 2022 Posted June 25, 2022 27 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: Sure, but just like Latter-day Saint prophets we think it has less rights than the woman being forced to carry it. Can you imagine a (modern) prophet allowing a mother to kill a two year child because it’s a product of rape? And yet they allow for a mother to kill a similarly situated fetus, because the rights of the mother outweigh the rights of the unborn child. Even so, Quote Even these exceptions do not automatically justify abortion. Abortion is a most serious matter. It should be considered only after the persons responsible have received confirmation through prayer. Members may counsel with their bishops as part of this process. What rights and protections does it have if it is not the rare result of incest or rape?
Bernard Gui Posted June 25, 2022 Posted June 25, 2022 (edited) 18 minutes ago, The Nehor said: If I believed this change would facilitate the protection of the unborn than I might be inclined to cheer but I don’t. Those who can bear the expense will just cross state and international borders and get the abortions anyways and those who cannot afford it and the most vulnerable (scared young girls) will go back to the days of wire coathangers and back alley abortion providers. The illegal abortion providers will be even easier to locate due to the internet where previously you had to know someone or a friend of a friend to get such a procedure done. This is likely to end up just being performative garbage that is just going to get more unborn children and pregnant women injured or killed. I don’t see an upside beyond people it doesn’t actually impact feeling that something good happened and they will never really look into it again to see if the good actually happens. The factions backing these changes have shown repeatedly that they don’t care about actual results. They just want to feel they are integral to the fight against evil and that they are winning. There are all kinds of things we could do that would actually reduce the ‘need’ or desire for abortions but no one wants to do anything in those areas. I don’t think God is impressed by this showmanship either. All well and good, perhaps. Does the unborn child have any rights or protection from being killed? edit: How will this result in more unborn children being killed or injured? Edited June 25, 2022 by Bernard Gui
Bernard Gui Posted June 25, 2022 Posted June 25, 2022 40 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said: Abortion has never been a big issue to me. The way I see it, the majority of women who have abortions would have been bad moms anyway and so there are just fewer bad kids running around to deal with. I place them in the same category as those women who are have decided not to have kids due to climate change. I say to those women, THANK YOU. Time to end that branch of the great genealogy tree right there. How does one determine who is a bad mom and whether her child would be bad?
sunstoned Posted June 25, 2022 Posted June 25, 2022 11 hours ago, ttribe said: It's official, U.S. women have one less freedom than they did yesterday. According to Clarence Thomas this is the first of many rights that will squashed. Contraception and LGBTQ rights are next. https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/3535841-thomas-calls-for-overturning-precedents-on-contraceptives-lgbtq-rights/
strappinglad Posted June 25, 2022 Posted June 25, 2022 It may have already been said here , but I understand that around 50% of abortions are now induced chemically by pill at home. Also, because of this , abortion clinics are having to close. If true, then all the "crossing State lines " can be done by USPS etc. Of course, gov't can make the pill illegal to send in the mail, but that really stopped the drug trade in its tracks, right?
Ipod Touch Posted June 25, 2022 Posted June 25, 2022 If an incoming member of SCOTUS cannot define what a woman is, how can we expect this court to protect women's rights? LGB, drop the T.
sunstoned Posted June 25, 2022 Posted June 25, 2022 10 hours ago, rodheadlee said: You have Supreme Court nominees that won't even define what a woman is. We also have supreme court appointees who lied through their teeth during conformation hearings. 1
provoman Posted June 25, 2022 Posted June 25, 2022 7 hours ago, The Nehor said: Yeah, so what is the estimated time until states start ignoring Supreme Court rulings? For the Executive Branch, Trail of Tears, 1830's, and the Mississippi case today started years ago with the intent to violate the law and get to SCOTUS.
provoman Posted June 25, 2022 Posted June 25, 2022 21 minutes ago, sunstoned said: According to Clarence Thomas this is the first of many rights that will squashed. Contraception and LGBTQ rights are next. https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/3535841-thomas-calls-for-overturning-precedents-on-contraceptives-lgbtq-rights/ If he isn't careful, he might end up nullifying his own marriage.
provoman Posted June 25, 2022 Posted June 25, 2022 2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: A question for those who are lamenting the decision… Does the person being created in the womb have any rights or protections? When is there a person for which we should bestow rights? But in my experience talk of "rights" for the living unborn, is just words without action.
sunstoned Posted June 25, 2022 Posted June 25, 2022 8 hours ago, JLHPROF said: Not really. If anyone thinks when Christ rules and reigns personally that his government of earth will allow the murder of unborn children without penalty they're dreaming. Do you read the OT much?
The Nehor Posted June 25, 2022 Posted June 25, 2022 16 minutes ago, Ipod Touch said: If an incoming member of SCOTUS cannot define what a woman is, how can we expect this court to protect women's rights? LGB, drop the T. On behalf of the LGBTQ community, HELL NO! 1
The Nehor Posted June 25, 2022 Posted June 25, 2022 1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said: All well and good, perhaps. Does the unborn child have any rights or protection from being killed? edit: How will this result in more unborn children being killed or injured? Flawed abortion in an underground ‘clinic’ might injure the child who is then damaged for life but survives. Going to an actual clinic with real medical personnel might lead the mother to ask about other options and even change their mind. That won’t happen with Tim and his wire coat hangers. 1
The Nehor Posted June 25, 2022 Posted June 25, 2022 16 minutes ago, provoman said: If he isn't careful, he might end up nullifying his own marriage. It would be funny if this happened just in time to eliminate spousal privilege when asked about his wife’s participation in the conspiracy to overturn the election. I mean, it would also be horrifying because it would cost millions of people their marriage but you take the laughs where you can get them when you live in a country determined to become an authoritarian hellhole.
webbles Posted June 25, 2022 Posted June 25, 2022 (edited) 47 minutes ago, sunstoned said: We also have supreme court appointees who lied through their teeth during conformation hearings. They didn't lie through their teeth. Edited to add: Here's factcheck.org going over the confirmation hearings of Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett - https://www.factcheck.org/2022/05/what-gorsuch-kavanaugh-and-barrett-said-about-roe-at-confirmation-hearings/. They all agreed it was precedent. But just because it is precedent doesn't mean it can't be overridden. Edited June 25, 2022 by webbles
The Nehor Posted June 25, 2022 Posted June 25, 2022 16 minutes ago, webbles said: They didn't lie through their teeth. Edited to add: Here's factcheck.org going over the confirmation hearings of Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett - https://www.factcheck.org/2022/05/what-gorsuch-kavanaugh-and-barrett-said-about-roe-at-confirmation-hearings/. They all agreed it was precedent. But just because it is precedent doesn't mean it can't be overridden. This is the standard explanation but Senators on both sides of the aisle are portraying it as a betrayal. Odd that they don’t know that the ‘precedent’ language was a valid weasel word escape. Or they did and are just lying to their constituents. Or everyone is a liar. Probably the last one.
webbles Posted June 25, 2022 Posted June 25, 2022 6 minutes ago, The Nehor said: This is the standard explanation but Senators on both sides of the aisle are portraying it as a betrayal. Odd that they don’t know that the ‘precedent’ language was a valid weasel word escape. Or they did and are just lying to their constituents. Or everyone is a liar. Probably the last one. It's similar to the "woman question". She answered in the standard language that Supreme Court nominees answer with and it is being used as a flag against her by senators. Supreme Court nominees are really specific in how they answer to prevent themselves with being forced into a corner. If a nominee didn't answer like this, it would probably indicate they are a bad nominee. If the nominees had actually lied, it would be really easy to show it since we have both their written answers to senator questions and we have their public testimony. None of the senators that are talking about being lied to have yet to point to where they lied. I think "misunderstood" is a better term to describe what is happening. The senators might have assumed that Roe and Casey were precedents that wouldn't/couldn't be overturned (some called them "super precedents"). But that is not what nominees would consider. Precedents can be overturned but only after going through a specific analysis. Part of the Dobbs ruling includes that analysis. 2
The Nehor Posted June 25, 2022 Posted June 25, 2022 4 minutes ago, webbles said: It's similar to the "woman question". She answered in the standard language that Supreme Court nominees answer with and it is being used as a flag against her by senators. Supreme Court nominees are really specific in how they answer to prevent themselves with being forced into a corner. If a nominee didn't answer like this, it would probably indicate they are a bad nominee. If the nominees had actually lied, it would be really easy to show it since we have both their written answers to senator questions and we have their public testimony. None of the senators that are talking about being lied to have yet to point to where they lied. I think "misunderstood" is a better term to describe what is happening. The senators might have assumed that Roe and Casey were precedents that wouldn't/couldn't be overturned (some called them "super precedents"). But that is not what nominees would consider. Precedents can be overturned but only after going through a specific analysis. Part of the Dobbs ruling includes that analysis. So it may not have been lying. It was just deceptive because they planned to overturn it but wanted to give the impression they would not? I am not sure how that makes it better.
webbles Posted June 25, 2022 Posted June 25, 2022 1 minute ago, The Nehor said: So it may not have been lying. It was just deceptive because they planned to overturn it but wanted to give the impression they would not? I am not sure how that makes it better. They couldn't give a pro or con answer. Some of the answers they gave scared pro-life supporters. I remember reading articles trying to calm down pro-life supporters because they felt like these nominees weren't actually going to strike down Roe/Casey. And that was a real fear for pro-life supporters since Casey was supposed to overrule it as some of the new justices were nominated with that intention. Unfortunately for the pro-life supporters (and fortunately for the pro-choice supporters), the justices reaffirmed Roe (though with a lot of changes that I see it as a new precedent that replaced Roe). That could easily have happened here. For example, Chief Justice Roberts gave the same type of answers during his nomination and yet he voted against overturning Roe. I don't know if we can say if they planned to overturn it or not at the time they went through the nominee process. But no nominee gives an impression on how they will rule on a future case. This is colloquially called the "Ginsburg rule" because she said during her nomination in 1993: Quote A judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts, no hints for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of the particular case, it would display disdain for the entire judicial process. Both sides (Democratic and Republican) argue that the other side uses that rule to "hide" their true intention. Also, go through the timeline. The law in question was passed in 2018. That is right after Kavanaugh had been confirmed. The court now has 5 conservative justices and 4 liberal justices (and Justice Kennedy is no longer on the court). When the case was petitioned to the Supreme Court, Ginsburg was still alive (June 2020). If Ginsburg had not died, this would have been at least 5-4 result that reaffirmed Roe/Casey (Chief Justice Roberts would have not overturned Roe) but with maybe some more restrictions on abortion allowed (something similar to what Chief Justice Roberts wrote in his concurrence). But Ginsburg died and Barrett was confirmed in October 2020. She had always been pretty outspoken about abortion (she is an active and very faithful Catholic) so most people assumed she at least rule to restrict abortion even more (that's what has been happening to abortion ever since Roe). At the oral arguments in December 2021, Mississippi argued (for the first time in this case) to overturn Roe/Casey. I think at this point, Mississippi felt that there was enough buffer in the Supreme Court to "go all in". 2
The Nehor Posted June 25, 2022 Posted June 25, 2022 26 minutes ago, webbles said: I don't know if we can say if they planned to overturn it or not at the time they went through the nominee process. Oh, I can say it. 27 minutes ago, webbles said: But no nominee gives an impression on how they will rule on a future case. Sure they did. They all are or were members of the Federalist Society. Case closed. That is my ruling. *slams gavel* 1
Teancum Posted June 25, 2022 Posted June 25, 2022 16 hours ago, OGHoosier said: Have you considered that maybe...the Constitution doesn't actually confer any of these rights and they were properly the domain of the elected legislature all along? Sure. Have you considered that the Constitution actually confers broader rights and that states don't have the right to limit due process or the right to privacy? You know, the 14th amendment and all that? Have you also considered that the SC issues a ruling in the same week that blatantly contradicts the first amendment? THe court seems a bit inconsistent.
Bernard Gui Posted June 25, 2022 Posted June 25, 2022 (edited) 7 hours ago, The Nehor said: Flawed abortion in an underground ‘clinic’ might injure the child who is then damaged for life but survives. Going to an actual clinic with real medical personnel might lead the mother to ask about other options and even change their mind. That won’t happen with Tim and his wire coat hangers. That already happens in legal abortion clinics. Edited June 25, 2022 by Bernard Gui 1
Bernard Gui Posted June 25, 2022 Posted June 25, 2022 (edited) 7 hours ago, provoman said: When is there a person for which we should bestow rights? But in my experience talk of "rights" for the living unborn, is just words without action. Unless we miraculously come to agreement on the semantics this will continue to be a dangerously divisive issue. What actions would you like to see? Edited June 25, 2022 by Bernard Gui
Recommended Posts