Stake your position on abortion

[SoCal Deek]

9 minutes ago, Irv said:

I think Demented Biden and his communist buddies will botch any ruling.  That being said, there should be no abortions past the first trimester unless the mother's life is at risk or the baby will be stillborn.  On the other hand no women should be forced to have a baby after she has been raped.  No way.  

Irv, that exactly why we have 50 States. If you don't like the rules, regulations, tax policy, etc in one State you can always move or visit another one. It's been going on for all sorts of laws for the entire history of the nation. 

[Precision]

Roe v Wade should have never made it to the Supreme court.  There is no wording in the constitution addressing reproductive rights and there is no constitutional-based precedent either.  If you watch some old YouTube videos of Anthony Scalia, he addresses this subject much better than I!

 

Our democracy has a really neat branch called the legislative branch.  In our form of government congress is responsible for drafting and passing laws whereas the Supreme court only interprets the laws that are passed.  

 

Roe v Wade should have been addressed in one of three ways:

1.  By congress so federal laws were put in place regarding reproductive rights.  

2.  By constitutional amendment so the court could protect abortion based on the constitutionality in the amendment.

3.  By states writing local (state) laws.

 

Roe v Wade will be rightly overturned.  Not because women shouldn't have the right to choose, but because 9 people in robes shouldn't be making this decision for all Americans.   

 

My hope is overturning Roe v Wade will force congress to negotiate and pass a law somewhere between no and unlimited abortion.  

[The Frankish Reich]

The specific language used in the Right to Privacy cases that gave rise to Roe - primarily Griswold, a case about laws banning contraceptives - was always kind of an object of ridicule in law school. Justice Douglas "found" that right in "penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees [i.e., those found in the Bill of Rights] that help give them life and substance."

 

Well, when you put it that way you're gonna be ridiculed. And rightly so. That flowery language really didn't help Griswold (and later Roe, based on Griswold) stand the test of time.

 

Having said that, I have always wound up thinking that the Supreme Court got it just about right on substance. There is something that makes state intrusion on the body of a pregnant woman, including when only she really even suspects she's pregnant, downright creepy. After all, it's not a whole lot different in the immediate post-conception days than Connecticut outlawing contraception (the exact thing that sent Douglas off on his "penumbras" and "emanations" tangent). And there is also something very disturbing, bordering on infanticide, about aborting a fetus that could live as a baby independent of its mother. 

 

So the Supreme Court drew lines. Nobody's been particularly pleased with the way they drew them. And the viability line, before which the state really has no business outlawing abortion, is an unclear one that changes with science and medicine and that still ought to give people pause as the "right place" to draw the line.

 

So I have no issue with states tinkering - just a bit! - at the margins. But I do have an issue with upsetting the core principle of Roe, even if it was right for the wrong (or poorly elucidated) reasons.

[Irv]

18 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

Irv, that exactly why we have 50 States. If you don't like the rules, regulations, tax policy, etc in one State you can always move or visit another one. It's been going on for all sorts of laws for the entire history of the nation. 

Duly noted.  I live in NY where the baby can be "aborted" 1 second before birth.  Perverted Sexual Predator Cuomo.  What a mess.  

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 3, 2021 by B-Man

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

Republicans are really stupid for making this push now. The democrats love it, its going to rally their bases and pull back a whole bunch of moderates and independents who don’t agree with all abortion, but recognize the practicality of someone getting pregnant who doesn’t want to be having an out. 
 

it might even save the democrats in the mid terms. 

[OrangeBills]

35 minutes ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

Republicans are really stupid for making this push now. The democrats love it, its going to rally their bases and pull back a whole bunch of moderates and independents who don’t agree with all abortion, but recognize the practicality of someone getting pregnant who doesn’t want to be having an out. 
 

it might even save the democrats in the mid terms. 

 

Agree, makes sense

[BillStime]

Control the women - that’s what strong “masculine” men do.

 

 

Insecure idiots

[BillStime]

Once again - it’s women’s fault they got pregnant.

 

Not one mention HOW she got pregnant.

 

MANDATE VASECTOMIES then worry about punishing women you stupid phks.

 

 

[B-Man]

 

‘Miraculous’ Baby Born 18 Weeks Early Home For The Holidays

by Dr. Susan Berry

 

A Houston infant who was born weighing 1 lb. 9 oz. and measuring 11 inches long is being called a “miracle” baby. Jimena “JC” Macias was due to arrive in September, but her mother, Juana Gallegos, went into labor on April 29 when she was only 22 weeks pregnant. “They pretty much told me they weren’t going to be able to resuscitate her or be able to do anything for her if she was born there, at that time, that early,” Gallegos said, according to WCNC News.

 

https://www.wcnc.com/article/news/health/tiny-miracle-baby-born-18-weeks-early-is-home-for-the-holidays/285-73f2ae5c-a673-4878-9e5e-fcc8170962d3

 

https://www.breitbart.com/pre-viral/2021/12/03/texas-miraculous-baby-born-18-weeks-early-home-for-the-holidays/

 

 

 

 

[SCBills]

On 12/3/2021 at 3:50 PM, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

Republicans are really stupid for making this push now. The democrats love it, its going to rally their bases and pull back a whole bunch of moderates and independents who don’t agree with all abortion, but recognize the practicality of someone getting pregnant who doesn’t want to be having an out. 
 

it might even save the democrats in the mid terms. 

Abortion is not the hot button mover politicos think it is.  
 

It’s insanely passion-driven for small groups on each side of the aisle, but most people have their personal beliefs - and then politically - are comfortable with abortion being legal through 12 weeks and then only in medical emergencies. 
 

Sending it to the states is not going to move the needle when most people aren’t comfortable with the laws as they are now. 
 

States that attempt to make abortion illegal altogether will either be supported or voted out.   Many will simply have some variation of heartbeat to 12 weeks, which (12 weeks) is the predominant position of both men and women. 
 

 

Edited December 5, 2021 by SCBills

[The Frankish Reich]

1 hour ago, BillStime said:

MANDATE VASECTOMIES

I get that this is a joke, but ... anti-Roe folks should stop and think for a minute:

 

Q. What federal constitutional right would prevent the government from mandating vasectomies?

A. Good luck finding one. Without relying on constitutional doctrine like Roe (and Griswold, the contraception case before it) you won't succeed.

 

This seems like a far-fetched scenario now. It wasn't far-fetched around the time of Roe! Back when I was a law student I had occasion to look at some lengthy discussions of legal scholars from the late 1960s/early 1970s when everyone was concerned about "The Population Bomb." That was even the title of a popular book.

The question was whether states or the federal government could mandate things like birth control and vasectomies/tubal ligations (much like China a little later on) to defuse the population bomb. The consensus was pretty much, "Yes, they can, and they may have to if other measures don't succeed in limiting birth rates." The idea was that overpopulation was going to lead to ecological destruction and the very end of humanity as we know it, so drastic measures like this may be necessary. And guess what? You won't find anything in the Bill of Rights to stop states from setting, say, a 2 child limit per woman.

 

So if you find this now wild scenario absolutely unacceptable, you're probably likely to shout "it's unconstitutional." But when you shout that, remember that you're drawing on cases like Griswold and Roe in saying that the government has no right to dictate what we do with our own bodies.

And some of you may shout "it's unconstitutional" when talking about vaccine mandates. And you too will be relying on Griswold and Roe in doing so, even if you don't realize it.

 

Food for thought.

[SCBills]

1 hour ago, The Frankish Reich said:

I get that this is a joke, but ... anti-Roe folks should stop and think for a minute:

 

Q. What federal constitutional right would prevent the government from mandating vasectomies?

A. Good luck finding one. Without relying on constitutional doctrine like Roe (and Griswold, the contraception case before it) you won't succeed.

 

This seems like a far-fetched scenario now. It wasn't far-fetched around the time of Roe! Back when I was a law student I had occasion to look at some lengthy discussions of legal scholars from the late 1960s/early 1970s when everyone was concerned about "The Population Bomb." That was even the title of a popular book.

The question was whether states or the federal government could mandate things like birth control and vasectomies/tubal ligations (much like China a little later on) to defuse the population bomb. The consensus was pretty much, "Yes, they can, and they may have to if other measures don't succeed in limiting birth rates." The idea was that overpopulation was going to lead to ecological destruction and the very end of humanity as we know it, so drastic measures like this may be necessary. And guess what? You won't find anything in the Bill of Rights to stop states from setting, say, a 2 child limit per woman.

 

So if you find this now wild scenario absolutely unacceptable, you're probably likely to shout "it's unconstitutional." But when you shout that, remember that you're drawing on cases like Griswold and Roe in saying that the government has no right to dictate what we do with our own bodies.

And some of you may shout "it's unconstitutional" when talking about vaccine mandates. And you too will be relying on Griswold and Roe in doing so, even if you don't realize it.

 

Food for thought.

Government has laws as to what you do to another’s body.  I.e. you cannot kill another person. 
 

Nothing you just posted matters if someone believes that an innocent life is being killed. 
 

We all know that’s what’s happening, some just want to pretend it’s not. 
 

And for the record, I think it should absolutely go to the states, and I would be ok with the predominant position of most Americans… legal through the first trimester and then only in medical emergencies after…. Also, the position of most of the world. 
 

Abortion is evil, but we have a lot of evil in this world and Pandora’s box has already been opened on this issue. 
 

Edited December 5, 2021 by SCBills

[BillStime]

[B-Man]

 

Back to the thread.

 

 

 

Anothjer one;

 

[Tiberius]

On 12/3/2021 at 3:12 PM, B-Man said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's also going to mean many young and poor women are going to be seriously harmed in seeking illegal abortions. Horrible nightmare awaiting these poor women. 

[Tiberius]

On 12/3/2021 at 10:12 AM, Irv said:

Duly noted.  I live in NY where the baby can be "aborted" 1 second before birth.  Perverted Sexual Predator Cuomo.  What a mess.  

Soon Mississippi, a "pro-life" state, will ban abortions, so that should make you happy. This is the same state that refused to expand medicare for the poor, ranks dead last in infant mortality and ranks dead last in child hunger. Pro-life my butt. They just want to harass people under the guise of some "Christian morality" Blah 

[SoCal Deek]

4 hours ago, Tiberius said:

Soon Mississippi, a "pro-life" state, will ban abortions, so that should make you happy. This is the same state that refused to expand medicare for the poor, ranks dead last in infant mortality and ranks dead last in child hunger. Pro-life my butt. They just want to harass people under the guise of some "Christian morality" Blah 

Christian Morality? You’re clueless. 

[Chef Jim]

5 hours ago, Tiberius said:

It's also going to mean many young and poor women are going to be seriously harmed in seeking illegal abortions. Horrible nightmare awaiting these poor women. 

 

Awwww these poor women.  Birth control is free isn't it?  

[SoCal Deek]

52 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

 

Awwww these poor women.  Birth control is free isn't it?  

And/or they can simply drive to a state where abortion will still be available on demand.  That's all this case is really about.

[Chef Jim]

59 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

And/or they can simply drive to a state where abortion will still be available on demand.  That's all this case is really about.

 

I don't agree with that.  It's not easy to just pack up and travel to a state that allows them.  If you're state outlaws abortion (and I disagree with outlawing them) you move to a state that allows them. 

 

 

[SoCal Deek]

6 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

 

I don't agree with that.  It's not easy to just pack up and travel to a state that allows them.  If you're state outlaws abortion (and I disagree with outlawing them) you move to a state that allows them. 

 

 

Why pack and move your entire life? I assume you’re not planning on using abortion as birth control, so it shouldn’t become a regular  thing. 

[Irv]

On 12/6/2021 at 10:44 AM, Tiberius said:

Soon Mississippi, a "pro-life" state, will ban abortions, so that should make you happy. This is the same state that refused to expand medicare for the poor, ranks dead last in infant mortality and ranks dead last in child hunger. Pro-life my butt. They just want to harass people under the guise of some "Christian morality" Blah 

 

More often than not, you divert the focus from the current topic to some other idea you have.  Repeatedly mentioing Trump when other topics are being discussed.  This is another example of that.  Can you address my original thought?  How do you feel about a Doctor performing an abortion on a mother's due date? 

[Tiberius]

31 minutes ago, Irv said:

 

More often than not, you divert the focus from the current topic to some other idea you have.  Repeatedly mentioing Trump when other topics are being discussed.  This is another example of that.  Can you address my original thought?  How do you feel about a Doctor performing an abortion on a mother's due date? 

How often does that happen? Do you have any examples of that taking place? 

 

I'd say that if it's a full baby, and the mother's life is not in danger its wrong. 

[B-Man]

 

 

1 hour ago, Irv said:

How do you feel about a Doctor performing an abortion on a mother's due date? 

 

1 hour ago, Tiberius said:

I'd say that if it's a full baby, and the mother's life is not in danger its wrong. 

 

 

Good.

 

Now we are getting somewhere.

 

You have admitted that it is a baby inside the mother,

 

now we are just arguing about when it is okay to murder it or not.

 

 

 

 

[Tiberius]

8 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

 

 

Good.

 

Now we are getting somewhere.

 

You have admitted that it is a baby inside the mother,

 

now we are just arguing about when it is okay to murder it or not.

 

 

 

 

At 9 months???? Ya, ok. 

 

So how about at 9 weeks? 

[BillStime]

22 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

 

 

Good.

 

Now we are getting somewhere.

 

You have admitted that it is a baby inside the mother,

 

now we are just arguing about when it is okay to murder it or not.

 

 

 

 

 

Enough. Why do you not care about the kids being shot in schools?

 

What is your cult doing to stop that?

 

 

[B-Man]

 

A Science Lesson for Justice Sotomayor

 

Does Justice Sonia Sotomayor even read the briefs in cases before the Supreme Court?

 

I ask because the cases don't come any bigger than Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which addresses Mississippi's limit on abortion after 15 weeks. The Court is being asked to overturn the 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade and 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. I joined two other female physicians (a neonatologist and an obstetrician) in an amicus brief detailing advances in fetal science that have happened since 1973.

 

During oral arguments, Justice Sotomayor displayed abysmal ignorance of the most basic scientific and medical facts about developing human life.

 

The exchange came right after Mississippi's solicitor general Scott Stewart argued it was no longer appropriate to use fetal viability (the gestational age at which a prematurely-born infant can survive in an intensive care unit) as the point after which states can protect an unborn child from elective abortion. He said this was due—in part—to 30 years of medical advances. In a piqued, incredulous tone, Sotomayor demanded to know just "What are the advancements in medicine?" As Stewart began to list them, mentioning new knowledge of fetal pain, the Justice abruptly cut him off.

 

Our brief and others document the medical and scientific advances Mr. Stewart was referring to, in language easily accessible to lay people and rigorously sourced in the latest scientific journals and currently accepted medical practices. It's there for anyone with eyes—or the will—to see.

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/a-science-lesson-for-justice-sotomayor-opinion/ar-AARwkJ7

 

 

 

 

 

[Irv]

3 hours ago, BillStime said:

 

Enough. Why do you not care about the kids being shot in schools?

 

What is your cult doing to stop that?

 

 

 

More often than not, you divert the focus from the current topic to some other idea you have.  Repeatedly mentioing Trump when other topics are being discussed.  This is another example of that.  Can you address my original thought?  How do you feel about a Doctor performing an abortion on a mother's due date? 

[SoCal Deek]

4 hours ago, BillStime said:

 

Enough. Why do you not care about the kids being shot in schools?

 

What is your cult doing to stop that?

 

 

Come on Hilary! You were in Washington for DECADES….what did you do about any of it?

[B-Man]

 

 

If the Supreme Court Overturns Roe v. Wade, What Happens?

By Larry Elder

 

 

The Supreme Court, in a case involving abortion, may, repeat, may overturn or at least dramatically cut back the scope of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case that invalidated all states' anti-abortion laws. Sixteen years ago, I wrote the following:

 

NBC's Tim Russert quoted Justice Antonin Scalia, saying, "(Scalia's quote) may surprise some people: ... 'If a state were to permit abortion on demand, I would and could in good conscience vote against an attempt to invalidate that law. ... I have religious views on the subject, but they have nothing whatever to do with my job.'"

 

Note Russert's assertion that this "may surprise some people."

 

This "surprise" is because leftists in academia, mainstream media and Hollywood confuse people on the issue. Roe did not legalize abortion. Rather, the Court discovered a "right to privacy" -- nowhere mentioned in the Constitution.

 

After John Roberts' nomination to become a Supreme Court justice, a Los Angeles Times reporter wrote: "The president of the National Organization for Women (NOW), Kim Gandy, warned that of the high court candidates considered by Bush, Roberts was one of the most extreme when it came to the question of overturning the Roe v. Wade ruling, which legalized abortion emphasis added)." Legalized abortion?

 

Our Founding Fathers restricted the duties, powers and obligations of the federal government, leaving the remainder to the people and to the states themselves. This includes abortion.

 

{snip}

 

 

In other words, as it stands now, conservative states reduce abortion to almost nonexistence, so a post-Roe world, at least in those states, changes little.

 

Despite NOW's support, regular Americans appear wary of Roe's scope. Yes, according to a recent CBS poll, 59% of Americans call Roe a "good thing." But when pressed more specifically, people give answers that change the picture dramatically. Only 25% want abortion on demand -- effectively the Roe position. Fourteen percent want abortion permitted with more restrictions; 38% want abortions permitted in cases of rape, ***** and to save women's lives; 15% want abortion permitted only to save women's lives; and 3% want abortion not permitted at all. When added together, 70% want greater, not fewer, restrictions on abortion.

 

With a reversal of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court says this: Where the Constitution fails to provide a specific empowerment for the federal government -- butt out.

 

https://townhall.com/columnists/larryelder/2021/12/09/if-the-supreme-court-overturns-roe-v-wade-what-happens-n2600340

 

 

 

 

Now that may surprise some people.

[B-Man]

 

 

 

                            

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

[BillStime]

21 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

 

Bonnie - can you think of any laws that give the government power to make decisions about the male body?

[B-Man]

 

 

Could have gone under the "Lefties are Mentally Disturbed" thread also

 

 

Planned Parenthood Action argues that restricting or banning abortion that specifically targets minority communities is racist

 

 

But now that Roe v. Wade may once again hang in the balance, Planned Parenthood really needs to up their game.

And what better way is there to convince people than to cry “racism”?

 

 

 

https://twitchy.com/sarahd-313035/2021/12/13/planned-parenthood-action-argues-that-restricting-or-banning-abortion-that-specifically-targets-minority-communities-is-racist/

 

 

[B-Man]

 

 

Black Americans are 14% of the population.

 

Black babies are 38% of those killed by abortions.

 

Planned Parenthood is racist.

 

 

[B-Man]

😡

 

Oh, those thorny babies!

 

I'm reading "Medical advances saving premature babies pose thorny issues for abortion rights advocates/Babies are surviving earlier in pregnancy than ever before, complicating the debate over fetal viability at issue in the Mississippi abortion case before the high court" (WaPo).

 

Many hospitals have held firm to a 23- to 24-week line, and, as a matter of policy, do not provide lifesaving care to babies under that gestational age, arguing it’s unethical to subject a baby, parents and medical providers to such procedures, only to have the child die. But a growing number are offering aggressive treatment to babies in that difficult 22- to 23-week “gray zone,” — or even younger...

 

 

Click for more »

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/12/17/premature-birth-viability-abortion/

 

 

The comments over there are what I expected.

 

Highest-rated: "It complicates nothing. The woman decides. 'Religious' folks need to mind their own beeswax."

Also: "Not that complicated. A women gets pregnant and decides to abort. It's simple actually. Only religion zealots think it's complicated.

 

So if science shows that the baby is viable........that changes nothing, kill it.

 

 that's where we are.

 

 

 

 

[B-Man]

 

 

NY Times: Pre-natal tests for genetic disorders are inaccurate about 85% of the time

by John Sexton

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/01/upshot/pregnancy-birth-genetic-testing.html

 

https://hotair.com/john-s-2/2022/01/01/ny-times-pre-natal-tests-for-genetic-disorders-are-inaccurate-about-85-of-the-time-n438796

 

 

 

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

6 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

 

NY Times: Pre-natal tests for genetic disorders are inaccurate about 85% of the time

by John Sexton

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/01/upshot/pregnancy-birth-genetic-testing.html

 

https://hotair.com/john-s-2/2022/01/01/ny-times-pre-natal-tests-for-genetic-disorders-are-inaccurate-about-85-of-the-time-n438796

 

 

 

This doesn’t seem like a story one would expect from this outlet

[Tiberius]

Look at you guys praising and posting The NY Times and Wash Post! The American media can’t be trusted?