User Name
Password
AppleNova Forums » AppleOutsider »

Roe Vs. Wade Rehash (update: RvW officially dead as of 2022-06-24)


Register Members List Calendar Search FAQ Posting Guidelines
Roe Vs. Wade Rehash (update: RvW officially dead as of 2022-06-24)
Page 2 of 5 Previous 1 [2] 3 4 5  Next Thread Tools
turtle
Lord of the Rant.
Formerly turtle2472
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Upstate South Carolina
 
2022-05-03, 16:24

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quagmire View Post
Freedom for you to impose your view on it maybe( especially if based on religion). How about those that disagree ( and again if religious view, don't share your religious beliefs)? Too bad suck it up and take the harm?

The difference is I am not here to change your view. You view abortion as wrong and murder? Fine that is your view and don't get an abortion. I do not view it as murder. I do not view it as birth control either. Abortion should be the last resort and the limit of viability ( unless of course it threatens the life of the mother) on it right now are more than reasonable. This issue is not something to put up on a vote for. Why? Because when life begins is matter of opinion and view, not fact. The choice of how you view abortion should be left to the individual, not the state. I do not see life beginning at conception. It's fine if you disagree with me. It's wrong for you to impose your view on me. I see this as we are losing our freedom here. The loss of individual choice.
Ah... but we live in a democracy. I'm not forcing my view on you any more than you can force your opinion on me! That is the whole point you are missing! The People are voting as they see fit and electing people who vote with their ideology and "morals" for lack of a better way to put it. If the state I live in allows abortions, then I hold nothing against those who do it. I can believe it is wrong and not judge you because you do. That is God's job, not mine.

I believe it is wrong to eat Brussels sprouts. REALLY wrong if you bath them in vinegar of some kind. I still love and adore Mrs T. I don't even judge her for such a sinful thing.

Really though, the joy in the opinion is that we get the right to choose. If you live in a place where you can vote then I would highly recommend you find someone who is running for office that will do things you would like done and press them to make legal change.

Legalizing pot is another example. I personally think it should not be legal. I'm not going to move somewhere that it is legal. I'm also not going to be mad at someone who lives where it is legal and partakes of it. If it becomes legal where I live, I'm just going to avoid it. I do not think the government should regulate it for the whole USA. Just like alcohol shouldn't be a federal level edict. States themselves should be able to properly represent their people within their borders. Larger as member of federal branches by election as well.

Louis L'Amour, “To make democracy work, we must be a notion of participants, not simply observers. One who does not vote has no right to complain.”
MineCraft? mc.applenova.com | Visit us! | Maybe someday I'll proof read, until then deal with it.
  quote
Dr. Bobsky
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: UK's most densely packed city. It's not London...
 
2022-05-03, 16:41

Wow ok. Tony compared forcing raped little girls to bear their daddy’s offspring to being forced to tolerate his wife eating Brussels sprouts. Good to know.

Last edited by Dr. Bobsky : 2022-05-03 at 16:53.
  quote
Dr. Bobsky
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: UK's most densely packed city. It's not London...
 
2022-05-03, 16:43

States shouldn’t be involved in your lives, and Tony shouldn’t make culinary choices for anyone but himself (let alone what they do with their bodies).

Last edited by Dr. Bobsky : 2022-05-03 at 16:56.
  quote
Quagmire
meh
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2022-05-03, 16:53

I think it is quite wild that he wouldn't move to a state simply because weed is legal there...... ( turtle, don't take this as a personal attack, I just find weird based on my own views).

That is far from my list of why I would want to move to Texas vs California or whatever. Heck I don't think it is anywhere on my list......

But it highlights the growing issue in the US...... Need to dig up the article, but read people are moving to states that align with their beliefs. People just want to move where they have an echo chamber. Where we view each other as the enemy simply because we share different views. They don't want to live in a democracy/republic, they want to live in a totalitarian state they agree with. They are christian? They want to live in a country that bases their laws on christian beliefs. They are conservative? they want a government run by conservatives. Liberal? Vice versa. There is no longer a desire to govern to represent all Americans. Just a desire to govern by their own beliefs, screw the other side. Feel like the country is regressing back to pre-Civil War era where our identity isn't as Americans, but whatever state we live in.

giggity
  quote
Dr. Bobsky
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: UK's most densely packed city. It's not London...
 
2022-05-03, 17:02

It is telling. Religious hatred of specific drugs is bizarre: you’re told to drink wine in the very ritualistic practice of being a Catholic ffs. And wine kills more people than pot ever could. Pro life my ass.
  quote
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2022-05-03, 17:13

You don’t have the same freedom to vote. Republican office holders have systematically opposed measures to enfranchise larger numbers of voters and simultaneously gerrymandered districts to make the right wing vote considerably more efficient in electing office holders at every level. A great number of republican policies wouldn’t ever pass through American democracy if every vote were in fact equal.
  quote
crazychester
Dick in the Abstentia, The
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2022-05-03, 18:30

"He who hath not a uterus
Should shut the Fucketh up."

Fellopians 13:13
  quote
drewprops
Space Pirate
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Atlanta
 
2022-05-03, 19:22

I am not an expert in Constitutional law.

Maybe the interpretation is correct.

I don't like it.

What a dark day for a majority of American women.

...
  quote
PB PM
Sneaky Punk
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Send a message via Skype™ to PB PM 
2022-05-03, 19:43

What's wrong, these people are just making America great again! Not.

Sad day indeed, when the freedom to choose is stripped away.
  quote
Capella
Dark Cat of the Sith
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Send a message via AIM to Capella  
2022-05-03, 21:38

Quote:
Originally Posted by turtle View Post
The federal government shouldn't be involved with our lives.
Yet you think it should be up to the state government to be involved with the decision of what happens within my body, with my reproductive organs? I think the federal government ought to preserve my right to make a healthcare decision affecting my body between myself and my medical provider(s).

Quote:
Originally Posted by turtle View Post
Ah... but we live in a democracy. I'm not forcing my view on you any more than you can force your opinion on me! That is the whole point you are missing! The People are voting as they see fit and electing people who vote with their ideology and "morals" for lack of a better way to put it. If the state I live in allows abortions, then I hold nothing against those who do it. I can believe it is wrong and not judge you because you do. That is God's job, not mine.
1: I would argue that keeping things pro-choice as they are right now isn't me forcing my will on you, it's allowing you and I to freely decide which of us has an abortion and which of us does not. In contrast, an anti-abortion law voted into place by folks like you enforces on me the inability to make a choice about my own body. Your votes lead to preventing me from accessing care. Do you see the difference?

2: Regarding God, remember that it's your opinion of your God's job as to whether or not it is judgeworthy or murder. The Jewish belief on abortion is that god values the life of the individual who is pregnant. Our opinions of your God and how He will judge are going to vary by our religions.

If you've ever thought you don't want to live in a country or state under Muslim religious laws (so called sharia rule), please consider how you felt about that, then imagine how people who don't believe in your God feel about living under your religious impositions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by turtle View Post
I believe it is wrong to eat Brussels sprouts.
Jewish and Muslim individuals believe it's morally wrong to eat pork. I suppose you'd be comfortable with religious laws preventing pork from being sold? Because it's morally contaminating to have it available to tempt people to eat it, which they think is sin? Just like it's morally corruptible to live in a state where abortion is possible, in case someone else gets one?

You know, I thought/hoped you'd go for discussing the mask mandate instead, because I think discussing masks and vaccines would be a batter comparison. You're against masking and vax mandates iirc because you believe in the integrity of your own body to make a healthcare decision, yes? Because you weigh your personal right to bodily autonomy higher than the goods to society? So why are you not in favor of me being allowed to make a decision that affects my bodily health?

Quote:
Originally Posted by turtle View Post
Really though, the joy in the opinion is that we get the right to choose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by turtle View Post
States themselves should be able to properly represent their people within their borders. Larger as member of federal branches by election as well.
But not everyone within a state's borders believes the same thing? I have a sincerely held religious believe that by reform Jewish law I should be permitted an abortion. If I live in your state, which does not allow it, and I do not have the finances or opportunities to be taken to another state where I can receive my abortion, then the state is preventing me from exercising both my religious freedom and my personal autonomy over my own body.

What part of "people who don't have the resources to move to another state" don't ACTUALLY have a right to choose are you missing? It's no choice if you say "you can get one over there" if I can't get over there; I'm fundamentally denied it.

If all the people supporting this ruling are willing to put their money where their mouth is and donate to help people who don't want to live in a state with anti-abortion laws out so they can pursue their own religious and physical freedoms, then I'm OK with your words about "well it can be allowed elsewhere". Great. Make it possible for people to get it elsewhere. Otherwise, acknowledge there will be trapped and helpless people who will be forced into not being allowed to have choices about their body based on something arbitrary like a state line that they may not be able to handle. Is it fair to take away their choices?

I'm gonna out myself here and say that I've had an abortion. I have had one. I'm willing to talk about my why if people want to know. I'm not ashamed of it. It was a decision I made in order to preserve my personal life and health and because of that decision I graduated university and I have a valuable job in healthcare work and I have never once regretted this decision because it was between nobody but me and my doctor at the time.

Why do I bring this up? Because what I'm seeing is an awful lot of people who physically cannot have one, or who may be able to have one but choose not to, get to determine what forms of healthcare I'm allowed to have. Much of it comes from anti-vaxxers. If you're not OK with being forced to get a vax, why are you okay with forcing other people to carry a child to term? You do realize that not having abortion is forcing someone to endure months of pregnancy and the risks of birth, right? Why are you okay with enforcing that on someone else?

I want to know why the hell anyone - the Supreme Court, my State governor and legislature, etc - is allowed to make this decision about my healthcare, for this specific type of healthcare alone. Why me and my doctor can't make that choice. None of you would accept this level of restriction on any type of care for you, but make it about abortion and it's "the cell clumps can't defend themselves, they're a precious life". And this is a case where our definitions of life can differ and that's okay. Even if it's a full human, it's entirely dependent on my body, and that means I should have some say about what happens, to me.

You know what else is a precious life, according to me, and according to my rabbi and my beliefs? My. Own. Fucking. Life. And I believe that the life of the person who is currently alive and capable of living independently should outweigh the life of the cells inside which is not yet born and independent. Because one of them can support and protect itself and one cannot and the one who is already here and viable now, versus the one who isn't guaranteed to be, should outweigh things.

Turtle or Ken, if you took me and you, both adult humans, and said our lives are equal, I agree with you. If you can look me in the (virtual) eye and say that a small fetus is just as valuable as my life? That I have to sacrifice to it and just be its incubator? Then honestly, I think you're prioritizing its rights and its existence and its personhood over mine. And I don't know how you can look at someone who is a viable, walking, talking adult like you and say "no you're just a vessel".

"A blind, deaf, comatose, lobotomy patient could feel my anger!" - Darth Baras
twitter ; amateur photographer ; fanfiction writer ; roleplayer and worldbuilder

Last edited by Capella : 2022-05-03 at 21:53.
  quote
turtle
Lord of the Rant.
Formerly turtle2472
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Upstate South Carolina
 
2022-05-04, 08:30

All of us have our own beliefs. My personal views on abortion is that is it killing babies. Many say I'm wrong for wanting to keep babies alive... because it is the woman's body. Just to clear things up a little, it isn't because my religious beliefs that I believe it is wrong to kill babies. Yes I am a Jesus loving, born again Christian. I don't deny that one bit. However, it is not why I feel it is wrong to kill babies. Murder is murder and that is how I see this in a black and white world.

If a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, there are ways to prevent that.* I very much do believe life starts at conception. Everything is there in that embryo/fetus other than the nutrients it needs to grow and sustain life. No different than a child/adult who needs to eat and drink to sustain life and grow.

We each are standing for the side most important to us. I applaud the victory for the Constitution, it is a side benefit that the net effect in the end is more babies will be saved.



* For those who care to indulge I'm not delving into the rare and obscure corner cases that just suck across the board.

Louis L'Amour, “To make democracy work, we must be a notion of participants, not simply observers. One who does not vote has no right to complain.”
MineCraft? mc.applenova.com | Visit us! | Maybe someday I'll proof read, until then deal with it.
  quote
PB PM
Sneaky Punk
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Send a message via Skype™ to PB PM 
2022-05-04, 08:42

To me it’s not about when a person becomes a person, or religious vs not, it’s about peoples freedom to choose. I may or may not agree with peoples choices, but that doesn’t give me the right to take away that choice.
  quote
Capella
Dark Cat of the Sith
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Send a message via AIM to Capella  
2022-05-04, 09:03

[same as below]

Last edited by Capella : 2022-05-04 at 09:08. Reason: this double-posted and the second one is more complete, please remove
  quote
Capella
Dark Cat of the Sith
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Send a message via AIM to Capella  
2022-05-04, 09:08

Contraceptives fail more often than we like to admit and those 'rare and obscure corner cases' are also more frequent than we like to admit.

The difference of a child/adult needing to eat and drink to grow is they can do it on their own without being dependent on someone else's body in order to do so. A fetus/baby cannot do so; it is dependent on someone else's body to nourish it, as you acknowledge.

As far as I can tell, there's 2 different issues at play that frequently get conflated:

* is abortion murder of a baby
* can the state dictate the healthcare one receives from a physician and prevent someone from a medical procedure

I note that you didn't directly answer my question: do you consider a hypothetical baby in my womb more important than me, the living person carrying it? Because when you say "standing for the side more important to us", that's what it seems to come across as to me - if there's a contest between two lives, the one who is a full person and the one who is inside the womb and yet independently alive - you think the baby is more important than the carrier. If that isn't your opinion, please tell me what it is.

This is also why I think the "authority of a government" argument is separate from the "morality of abortion/if a baby is a person" argument. Because if you think the government should be allowed to prevent abortion, then you believe the government is allowed to decide what one does with their body. If abortion is denied, then pregnant individuals are forced by the state to carry. Do you think I should be I obligated by the state to be forced to give birth and denied my own medical decisions? Is that consistent with any of your other beliefs about the role of the government in health care?

Look, very few people are going out and getting dozens of abortion over their lifespan for fun and cackling every time about how they're killing babies for fun and profit. That's an over the top demonic caricature. Most people who get an abortion are doing it for a variety of deep personal reasons, but they all boil down to "I value my life". It's that simple. If there are two lives in play, and one is the life of me, and one is a life that can't survive outside of me, how can you think that it is fair to subsume and destroy my right to my own body in order for it to be timeshare rented out for a bit. It's a choice between two humans and I value the formed and extant person over the potential one - and if that's murder to you, fine, but at least consider why you think the baby should matter more than the pregnant person.

I'm curious if you've actually sat down and imagined what it would be like to have your body held hostage to something you don't want in it unwillingly. If you've thought about being hooked up to say a dialysis machine, to your wife or one of your kids, for 9 months, unable to get away, no matter the cost to your body. It's one thing to choose this and say you'd be okay with it. But when the state tells you "you must do this and it doesn't matter"... how do you not see how viscerally horrifying it is for me to imagine my right to my own body can be taken away by a law?

I referred to your religious beliefs because you referred to God first. I am genuinely curious as to what you think about the fact that the Jewish faith, which has a shared God with your Christian faith, generally supports abortion for the reasons mentioned above - because in a contest of two lives, Judaism values the existing one. And sometimes there is a situation where you have to choose between lives. If you shoot a man, do you consider that murder? If it's in self-defense because he's threatening your right to exist (say he's got a gun on you, he's broken into your house, and you shot first), would you still consider it murder, but justified to protect yourself? Do you believe in the death penalty - I feel like I've read you post in favor of it before? if so, it sounds like you're okay with murder (the intentional ending of a human life) in some circumstances.

"A blind, deaf, comatose, lobotomy patient could feel my anger!" - Darth Baras
twitter ; amateur photographer ; fanfiction writer ; roleplayer and worldbuilder
  quote
Bryson
Rocket Surgeon
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Whitby
 
2022-05-04, 09:10

I always thought that a good analogy would be if people were in favour of compulsory organ donation for everyone. ie: If you had to donate a kidney to someone who needs one on request. Are you in favour of that?
  quote
Capella
Dark Cat of the Sith
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Send a message via AIM to Capella  
2022-05-04, 09:13

Quote:
Originally Posted by PB PM View Post
To me it’s not about when a person becomes a person, or religious vs not, it’s about peoples freedom to choose. I may or may not agree with peoples choices, but that doesn’t give me the right to take away that choice.
Key to all of this, really - it's not even about you, PB PM, taking it away from me, Capella. It's about the state deciding what I can and can't do with my body and my healthcare. Hell, I'll be the first to Godwin too, and point out that Nazi Germany used the power of the state to criminalize abortion and prevented whole groups of individuals from making their own medical decisions. Their rationale was also to support the primacy of the family and the importance of keeping babies alive, at the cost of turning the people carrying the baby into nothing but a walking incubator-chattel. The state shouldn't be allowed to forcibly sterilize me like it has done to so many Black, Hispanic, Indigenous, low-income women. It also shouldn't be allowed to force me to carry a child.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryson View Post
I always thought that a good analogy would be if people were in favour of compulsory organ donation for everyone. ie: If you had to donate a kidney to someone who needs one on request. Are you in favour of that?

I think it's a good analogy, except you can donate a kidney and walk away after. Sure, there's not no consequences, but your recovery is done alone in your own hospital bed after it's removed. It's like being forced to be someone's living kidney/dialysis machine for 9 months and tied to them.

"A blind, deaf, comatose, lobotomy patient could feel my anger!" - Darth Baras
twitter ; amateur photographer ; fanfiction writer ; roleplayer and worldbuilder
  quote
PB PM
Sneaky Punk
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Send a message via Skype™ to PB PM 
2022-05-04, 09:21

Quote:
Originally Posted by Capella View Post
Key to all of this, really - it's not even about you, PB PM, taking it away from me, Capella. It's about the state deciding what I can and can't do with my body and my healthcare. Hell, I'll be the first to Godwin too, and point out that Nazi Germany used the power of the state to criminalize abortion and prevented whole groups of individuals from making their own medical decisions. Their rationale was also to support the primacy of the family and the importance of keeping babies alive, at the cost of turning the people carrying the baby into nothing but a walking incubator-chattel. The state shouldn't be allowed to forcibly sterilize me like it has done to so many Black, Hispanic, Indigenous, low-income women. It also shouldn't be allowed to force me to carry a child.
I used the I don’t have the right to take the choice away, as a round about way of saying I shouldn’t be able to vote about the matter, so it shouldn’t be in government hands anyway. It’s not something to be decided by any one group, or another, just the doctor and patient, just like any medical choice.

Now to play hardball, the government does make medical choices for us all the time, they regulate what drugs and medical procedures can and cannot be used all the time. Those decisions do limit our medical choices, but generally it is for our safety.

Edited because auto correct, as usual.

Last edited by PB PM : 2022-05-04 at 14:41.
  quote
turtle
Lord of the Rant.
Formerly turtle2472
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Upstate South Carolina
 
2022-05-04, 09:24

So the crux of if abortion is ok really boils down to if you call it murder.

No civilized country is it legal to murder at will.

If the baby is a baby from conception, then it is murder to kill it. Period.

If the baby isn't a baby until X weeks of gestation, then it isn't murder if you kill it before that time.

All of this Nazi, religion, organs... etc... is just masking the point.

When is the baby a baby and when is it murder. That is the bottom line. States have laws to criminalize murder. Having a law to criminalize murdering a baby is not out of line nor it is extreme.

So at what point do we call it a human, at that point killing it is murder. Freedom of choice sounds great, unless you argue I should be able to walk around and kill people at will at any age because I should have the choice.

Louis L'Amour, “To make democracy work, we must be a notion of participants, not simply observers. One who does not vote has no right to complain.”
MineCraft? mc.applenova.com | Visit us! | Maybe someday I'll proof read, until then deal with it.
  quote
Capella
Dark Cat of the Sith
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Send a message via AIM to Capella  
2022-05-04, 09:43

That's why I personally favor the viability call - it's murder once the baby can survive outside of me. If it's outside of me and I kill it, that's murder. If it's inside of me and my body is essential to supporting it, it's personal healthcare focusing on my body and my life as the priority.

It feels like you're the one trying to dodge all the other questions by claiming they're just masking the point. I would like to hear your answers to some of them:

The death penalty is killing a human. That's murder. But it's state-sanctioned murder. Isn't that the state having a law to allow murder in certain situations?

Is killing a hostile intruder into your house murder? Is that mitigated when it's self-defense?

Basically, I want to know when you think it's okay for the state to outlaw murder in general, but what circumstances it's allowable or forgivable to commit a murder and get away with it because circumstances justify it.

And again, stepping away from murder and solely to state authority over bodies, I want to know why you think the government shouldn't make decisions about or force a vaccination on you, but it should be able to force carrying a baby on me. For someone so concerned with avoiding governmental overreach on your body, it seems like you're ok with them doing it to me. How is the precedent of the state controlling my body not something you see as a horrifying slippery slope?

"A blind, deaf, comatose, lobotomy patient could feel my anger!" - Darth Baras
twitter ; amateur photographer ; fanfiction writer ; roleplayer and worldbuilder
  quote
kieran
Tweeting @kierankelly
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
 
2022-05-04, 09:56

I tweeted this, but figured I'd copy it here as well.

Quote:
@kierankelly:

I have a fairly simple 3 part thought process about abortion.

#1. Pro-choice is the only reasonable stance. Don’t like abortion? Don’t have one.

#2. Only people with uteruses get to make a decision about abortion. Don’t have a uterus? You get no say.

#3. There is no step 3
The entire conversation is much more nuanced than that and it's such a mix of so many things, but at the end of the day, that's as simple as I can boil it down.

EDIT: Capella brought up a good point. My stance should be updated to be "people who have/had a uterus."

Last edited by kieran : 2022-05-04 at 10:08.
  quote
turtle
Lord of the Rant.
Formerly turtle2472
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Upstate South Carolina
 
2022-05-04, 11:35

Quote:
We end this opinion where we began. Abortion presents a profound moral question. The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives. The judgment of the Fifth Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Again, the point of this is that the court overstepped its power when Roe was originally upheld and again with Casey. The Constitution does not protect abortion as a human right. Agreeing or disagreeing with this does not change the Constitution.

I've said my beliefs about abortions and understand that most of the people on this forums disagree with me on my stance. I'm good with that and glad we can continue to interact like normal even though we don't see eye to eye.

Once this is formally ordered, we can handle it on the state level as it should have always been. The is what actually makes America great.

Louis L'Amour, “To make democracy work, we must be a notion of participants, not simply observers. One who does not vote has no right to complain.”
MineCraft? mc.applenova.com | Visit us! | Maybe someday I'll proof read, until then deal with it.
  quote
Quagmire
meh
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2022-05-04, 11:52

Why should one beliefs dictate what a person with different beliefs can do?

No one is here to change your opinion Turtle. Not until the scientific community can come out and clearly have a definition of when life begins. Until then, you will have different view points. I respect your view and you should respect ours. Banning the ability to choose is not respecting our views. It’s forcing yours on to us.

I respect your view on the issue. I do not respect your forcing your view through banning the personal decision that the individual has, especially since this has a religious connection. You may not have a religious opinion, but others do. The moment someone utters, “ my religious beliefs say abortion is bad” is when those beliefs should not dictate law. We do not live in a country that should have its laws based on Christian beliefs.

giggity

Last edited by Quagmire : 2022-05-04 at 12:03.
  quote
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2022-05-04, 11:53

Hmmm. Turtle, I call bullshit. Substitute slavery for abortion and read that states’ right garbage again. For decades this is how a segment of America has resisted human rights, by conveniently claiming the question ought to be deferred to individual states. My dissatisfaction with the SCOTUS doesn’t even have to do with the yea or nay of abortion, it has to do with the dissonance between this consideration of morality and simultaneous abrogation of responsibility to uphold the constitution (and interpretations thereof) over and above each constituent, including crucially, each and every state in the union.
  quote
turtle
Lord of the Rant.
Formerly turtle2472
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Upstate South Carolina
 
2022-05-04, 12:13

I'm not forcing my opinion on any one of you. I vote, just like all of you should. I don't like many things that get passed but at least I voted so I have the right to complain about it. Religion isn't part of the legislative, executive or judicial process. It isn't relevant other than how voters tend to make their choices at the poll. Christian, Muslim, Pastafarian... doesn't matter. We all go to the polls voting for what we believe is best. I could express the same emotions you are all expressing about this topic for a topic you vote in favor of and I oppose.

For the SCOTUS, you all do realize the Judicial Branch is there to ensure the laws are upheld, not make laws right? So they did their job, like it or not.

Don't like it, vote to have laws the way you want. Don't be mad because they did their job on a topic that you care about and it didn't go correctly for your opinion.

Edit: Here, easy reference: Branches of the US Government
Quote:
The Constitution of the United States divides the federal government into three branches to make sure no individual or group will have too much power:
  • Legislative—Makes laws (Congress, comprised of the House of Representatives and Senate)
  • Executive—Carries out laws (president, vice president, Cabinet, most federal agencies)
  • Judicial—Evaluates laws (Supreme Court and other courts)

Each branch of government can change acts of the other branches:
  • The president can veto legislation created by Congress and nominates heads of federal agencies.
  • Congress confirms or rejects the president's nominees and can remove the president from office in exceptional circumstances.
  • The Justices of the Supreme Court, who can overturn unconstitutional laws, are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate.

This ability of each branch to respond to the actions of the other branches is called the system of checks and balances.

Louis L'Amour, “To make democracy work, we must be a notion of participants, not simply observers. One who does not vote has no right to complain.”
MineCraft? mc.applenova.com | Visit us! | Maybe someday I'll proof read, until then deal with it.

Last edited by turtle : 2022-05-04 at 12:29.
  quote
Capella
Dark Cat of the Sith
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Send a message via AIM to Capella  
2022-05-04, 12:30

Quote:
Originally Posted by turtle View Post
Once this is formally ordered, we can handle it on the state level as it should have always been.
It sure looks like you've said "abortion is murder" and then chosen to run away from literally everything anyone has asked you. You started out upthread talking about states rights and being able to move away if you don't want it, but when pressed on the issues like:
* what do you do if you cannot move to a state where it's supported?
* do you feel like the government should have the ability to coercively define someone's healthcare?
* why is the state and not the federal government the okay arbiter for you?
* where does the right to bodily autonomy and medical privacy end?

All of that can be handled in the states rights part and was asked and you've ducked from answering any of it.

"A blind, deaf, comatose, lobotomy patient could feel my anger!" - Darth Baras
twitter ; amateur photographer ; fanfiction writer ; roleplayer and worldbuilder
  quote
Anonymous Coward
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2022-05-04, 12:38

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Bobsky View Post
It is telling. Religious hatred of specific drugs is bizarre: you’re told to drink wine in the very ritualistic practice of being a Catholic ffs. And wine kills more people than pot ever could. Pro life my ass.
Yes, you are told that this is an essential practice, but this argument is really stretching the point. First of all, whether you believe it or not, at the point in the ritual, it is no longer considered wine. It is one cup (not the fluid measurement) shared between a number of people, probably 50 to 100. It is only a sip. The only one to drink more is the priest or assistant finishing the cup at the end of that portion of the ritual. There is no encouragement of the use of wine to any other use outside the ritual. Not to mention that even though the use is encouraged, even in children, it is still optional for the congregation to the point that the practice is sometimes suspended in the event of a contagious disease outbreak.
  quote
turtle
Lord of the Rant.
Formerly turtle2472
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Upstate South Carolina
 
2022-05-04, 12:56

Quote:
Originally Posted by Capella View Post
...
was asked and you've ducked from answering any of it.
Plainly, I'm not going to engage in every question or finger wagging in my direction. I take no offense, I'm just not going to delve in. I'm not ducking away, just not engaging in everything. I think I've been very up front in standing my ground. I'm not even trying to speak for others, just myself and my opinion of how the system actually worked like it was supposed to.

I have already invested more time in this thread than I really should have to be frank. I'm trying to help others see a side that is factual and not shrouded in emotion. Sure it is an "easy position" for me because I happen to like the end result, but the point is still the same; the SCOTUS did their job in handing the case properly and explained their reasoning well in the (draft) opinion.

Louis L'Amour, “To make democracy work, we must be a notion of participants, not simply observers. One who does not vote has no right to complain.”
MineCraft? mc.applenova.com | Visit us! | Maybe someday I'll proof read, until then deal with it.
  quote
Dr. Bobsky
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: UK's most densely packed city. It's not London...
 
2022-05-04, 13:05

More to the point: echoing what Capella has already said: Judaism values the life and wellbeing of the mother over any fetus. Forcing a Jewish woman to bear a child to the point of physical or emotional injury or death is a violation of her constitutionally protected right to practice her religion by devaluing her life. This doesn’t pass the sniff test.

Edit: I want to be absolutely clear on this: life for Jews doesn’t begin at egg fertilisation or implantation, it begins at birth; but we don’t even bother naming newborns until they’re over a week old because the likelihood is that they would die. There is no handwringing about this: women are encouraged to consult their elders and rabbi for counselling not to discourage them, because the religion has long recognised this is a fucking hard choice that the woman makes herself because it is her body and existence that are at risk.
  quote
709
¡Damned!
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Purgatory.
 
2022-05-04, 13:14

You know what else isn't in the Constitution? Nine Supreme Court Justices. Expand the court, if only to make up for the ones put in place by un-democratically elected Presidents.

So it goes.
  quote
drewprops
Space Pirate
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Atlanta
 
2022-05-04, 13:15

While I'm all about personal responsibility, Capella wins.

Also, to copy a thing going around:

"If it was about babies, we'd have excellent and free universal maternal care. You wouldn't be charged a cent to give birth, no matter how complicated your delivery was.

If it was about babies, we'd have months and months of parental leave, for everyone.

If it was about babies, we'd have free lactation consultants, free diapers, free formula. If it was about babies, we'd have free and excellent childcare from newborns on.

If it was about babies, we'd have universal preschool and pre-k and guaranteed after school placements."



...
  quote
Posting Rules Navigation
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Page 2 of 5 Previous 1 [2] 3 4 5  Next

Post Reply

Forum Jump
Thread Tools
Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
2022 MacBook Air Capella Apple Products 48 2022-08-10 20:26
2022 MacBook Pro Capella Apple Products 27 2022-06-16 18:24
Wwdc 2022 Frank777 Speculation and Rumors 43 2022-06-07 08:47
Michael Jackson rushed to hospital in cardiac arrest (update: dead at age 50) PKIDelirium AppleOutsider 330 2009-08-31 17:01
Missing CNET Reporter (update: found dead) drewprops AppleOutsider 61 2006-12-10 17:29


« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:36.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2022, AppleNova