Unit2Sucks said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

The government does not need to be part of this decision making process

---

Exactly. There is no compelling state interest here. These theocrats have passed legislation criminalizing the termination of ectopic pregnancies, fetuses with neural tube defects and other pregnancies that can never result in a viable human. Forcing women to carry fetuses to term that cannot survive outside the womb is far worse than "irresponsible" abortions that the theocrats say they care about. I mentioned previously a story I read about a doctor forced to deliver a fetus with neural tube defects (which was missing the back half of the skull and brain) to a distraught mother who was forced to grieve continuously from the time she learned the fetus was non-viable until the time she was forced to deliver due to being in a state where theocrats controlled medical decisions.

This has been happening for years in states where abortion is almost unobtainable due to a lack of providers (as of a few years ago, half a dozen states had only 1 provider) and it's galling that the greatest country in the world could treat women with so little respect.

More broadly, I don't support the abrogation of rights unless there is a significant state interest and I've yet to hear a single one for abortion. If abortion is legal at 12 weeks, why not 15? Why should a state care if a non-viable fetus is aborted at 25 weeks? How is it ever in a state's interest to force birth?

---

Roe disagrees with you. Trimesters. Viability. State interest in the future life.

I know Casey changed that. But it's worth pausing to see how far many of you are from Roe while also lamenting Roe being overturned.

tequila4kapp said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

The government does not need to be part of this decision making process

---

Exactly. There is no compelling state interest here. These theocrats have passed legislation criminalizing the termination of ectopic pregnancies, fetuses with neural tube defects and other pregnancies that can never result in a viable human. Forcing women to carry fetuses to term that cannot survive outside the womb is far worse than "irresponsible" abortions that the theocrats say they care about. I mentioned previously a story I read about a doctor forced to deliver a fetus with neural tube defects (which was missing the back half of the skull and brain) to a distraught mother who was forced to grieve continuously from the time she learned the fetus was non-viable until the time she was forced to deliver due to being in a state where theocrats controlled medical decisions.

This has been happening for years in states where abortion is almost unobtainable due to a lack of providers (as of a few years ago, half a dozen states had only 1 provider) and it's galling that the greatest country in the world could treat women with so little respect.

More broadly, I don't support the abrogation of rights unless there is a significant state interest and I've yet to hear a single one for abortion. If abortion is legal at 12 weeks, why not 15? Why should a state care if a non-viable fetus is aborted at 25 weeks? How is it ever in a state's interest to force birth?

---

Roe disagrees with you. Trimesters. Viability. State interest in the future life.

I know Casey changed that. But it's worth pausing to see how far many of you are from Roe while also lamenting Roe being overturned.

---

Roe was a compromise at a time when women were treated even worse than they are now. Well, worse than a few days ago, not as bad as today I suppose.

You've spilled a lot of ink about this decision but not once have you mentioned what grievous harm restricting abortion prevents and whether that harm has actually occurred on a meaningful scale such that imposing restrictions on all women is a compelling state interest. We can all agree it permits states to restrict women's rights but no one supporting the opinion has yet to identify any alleged harm or wrongdoing.

If we are going to throw away all existing case law, let's get it right. Restrictions on abortion should be based on medical practices and women's autonomy, not theocratic politicians.

tequila4kapp said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

Cal_79 said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

calbear80 said:

---

calbear80 said:

---

Do I misunderstand that there is nothing in the US Supreme Court decision that bans abortion?

Do I misunderstand that the US Supreme Court decision empowers people of each state and their elected representatives to decide rather than the Big Brother from Washington mandate things?

Go Bears!

---

Thank you for those who provided information on this.

The question is not whether we like or not like the Supreme Court decision (I personally do not like this decision at all). The question is what does the Constitution say.

Could someone refer me to the specific section of the US Constitution that grant right to abortion.

If not, then isn't Supreme Court correct stating that the Constitution does not grant right to abortion?

And, if the Constitution does not grant right to abortion, those who like to see that right be granted, can work to get an Amendment approved (not easy) rather than criticizing Supreme Court for stating what is in the Constitution.

Go Bears!

---

Well previous Constitutional interpreters did declare a "right" up to yesterday. Why should rights be summarily removed by people with no accountability to voters.

---

How were those previous Constitutional interpreters accountable to the voters?

---

They weren't. The system is bogus and an extension of the legislative branch. That said, when something is in place for decades with general agreement and exercised by voters, the criminalization of this activity represents a radical departure and exercise in authoritarianism

---

There was not general agreement. Never has been. More than 1/2 the states filed amicus briefs asking for Roe to be overturned.

---

You appear to conveniently ignore the FACT that 65% of Americans support abortion in the first trimester.

---

Both sides can cherry pick polls because their results are highly dependent on the exact language of the question. Put it this way, if this was a settled issue in our society we'd see it with a lack of special interest groups, law suits, contentious public policy, etc. Again, more than 1/2 the states asked for Roe to be overturned.

---

Which "more than 1/2 the states" are you talking about? The only amicus brief in favor of permitting more restrictions I'm aware of from the states was signed by 18 states representing less than 1/3 of the nation's population. Even in many of those states, RvW was popular - for example in Texas, who drafted the brief, more than half the population supports existing precednet. What other states were you referring to in order to get to "more than half?"

Maybe you erroneously included California's brief which was signed by 22 other states and actually represented more than half of the nation's population?

You aren't fooling anyone. Everyone knows what this is and I appreciate when people who support this acknowledge what it is. This is a religious minority imposing its will to remove rights from a majority. I don't like the deplorables but at least they are honest about what's going on.

tequila4kapp said:

---

Again, more than 1/2 the states asked for Roe to be overturned.

---

Are you serious?
You mean states like South Dakota with a population of 879,000 people?

Oh please....

My COUNTY here in the SF East Bay has a bigger population!

Perhaps I am mistaken but I believe it is a direct quote from the majority opinion. I do not know which states.

Your worldview masks other legitimate possibilities. These are lawyers. This type of debate and discussions happens all the time with law students. This may come as a shock to you but lawyer types can actually form opinions without them being based in religion. As a matter of law this is a difficult - and therefore to me fascinating - area of law. That law intersects with culture and society in profound ways, making it even more interesting to me. Ink is spilled.

I am able to compartmentalize and think about issues with different hats. Most commentary here by me comes from a place of having a JD, having studied liberals arts that explore societies, forms of governance, etc. Don't be so sure you know my real position. I am not sure I do ... it changes and evolves as I listen to others and use their views to challenge my own thoughts. You know, the whole benefit of that Cal liberal arts thing...

Isn't the grievous harm so obvious that it doesn't need to be stated? There is a reason Roe concocted the viability test.

tequila4kapp said:

---

Perhaps I am mistaken but I believe it is a direct quote from the majority opinion. I do not know which states.

Your worldview masks other legitimate possibilities. These are lawyers. This type of debate and discussions happens all the time with law students. This may come as a shock to you but lawyer types can actually form opinions without them being based in religion. As a matter of law this is a difficult - and therefore to me fascinating - area of law. That law intersects with culture and society in profound ways, making it even more interesting to me. Ink is spilled.

I am able to compartmentalize and think about issues with different hats. Most commentary here by me comes from a place of having a JD, having studied liberals arts that explore societies, forms of governance, etc. Don't be so sure you know my real position. I am not sure do ... it changes and evolves as I listen to others and use their views to challenge my own thoughts.

Isn't the grievous harm so obvious that it doesn't need to be stated? There is a reason Roe concocted the viability test.

---

No, the grievous harm is not obvious. Apart from theocracy, which appears to be the main driver of anti-choice views, it's not clear to me why states should be able to prevent the termination of non-viable fetuses. What is the harm in terminating an ectopic pregnancy? What is the harm in not forcing the birth of a fetus with neural tube defects that will not survive outside the womb?

You can be as slippery as you want but we all know the score. Anti-choice is largely driven by old white evangelical protestant men. According to Pew last month, 74% of white evangelical protestants are anti-choice, no other major religious group was above 42%. 63% of women think abortion should be legal in most/all cases. 74% of people 18-29 think it should be legal in most/all cases.

Don't like Pew? Gallup also has a recent poll showing pro-choice views at an all-time high. They show 61% of women and 63% of adults 18-34 identifying as pro-choice. They say 35% of people agree with me that it should be legal under all circumstances and that only 13% agree with the current case law that it can be illegal under all circumstances. Don't bother pretending that the new rational basis standard is preventing complete abortion bans from coming into place. It's already here and Alito and company are loving it.

And to be honest, I don't really care if people whose lives won't be affected whatsoever by abortion want to restrict abortion. It's pretty clear that women who could require abortions for any number of reasons overwhelmingly support having rights. A minority of people who have no compelling interest are taking those rights away. I don't support people being Raiders fans but I don't expect Raiders fans to care what I think about the issue.

In Star Wars terms, I hope that this is the Empire Strikes Back and that the Return of the Jedi is next because the alternative is far too unpleasant to accept.

I am still waiting for someone to refer me to a section of the Constitution that US Supreme Court violated when it stated that Constitution does not grant right to abortion.

Like many of you, I do not like this decision, but, what specific section of the US Constitution says that US Constitution does not grant right to abortion.

As for precedence of overturning a previous US Supreme Court decision, there are previous precedence for it. In 1954, US Supreme Court overturned the previous US Supreme Court ruling which had been the law of the land for 56 years (Plessy which allowed "separate but equal" laws which most of us do not agree with) and replaced it with Brown vs. Board of Education (which most of us agree with) Please remember Plessy had been the law of the land for 56 years while Roe has been law of land for less than 50 years.

Please also remember that a lot of people in many states hated that US Supreme Court had overturned Plessy after a 56 year precedence and were angry about it, just like now that many people in many states are now angry that US Supreme Court has overturned Roe after 49 years.

Go Bears!

calbear80 said:

---

I am still waiting for someone to refer me to a section of the Constitution that US Supreme Court violated when it stated that Constitution does not grant right to abortion.

Like many of you, I do not like this decision, but, what specific section of the US Constitution says that US Constitution does not grant right to abortion.

---

Why are you still playing games? You're not waiting for a cite to specific language in the constitution and you aren't fooling anyone with your "just asking questions" approach here. You may as well ask what specific provision in the constitution permits the SCOTUS to allow restrictions on female bodily autonomy.

Go Bears!

calbear80 said:

---

I am still waiting for someone to refer me to a section of the Constitution that US Supreme Court violated when it stated that Constitution does not grant right to abortion.

Like many of you, I do not like this decision, but, what specific section of the US Constitution says that US Constitution does not grant right to abortion.

---

How many times do we have to answer?

1. No, the Constitution does not specifically mention abortion.

2. It also does not specifically mention marriage, yet the Court has found a few rights related to that.

Can we move on now? Or do you actually want to address the marriage point?

calbear80 said:

---

blungld said:

---

calbear80 said:

---

Do I misunderstand that there is nothing in the US Supreme Court decision that bans abortion?

Do I misunderstand that the US Supreme Court decision empowers people of each state and their elected representatives to decide rather than the Big Brother from Washington mandate things?

Go Bears!

---

Yes, you do misunderstand. Because though the ruling technically hands the decisions back to states, the real results are a de facto ban on abortion knowing that many states already have bans in place; it is a widely proclaimed step in the court banning abortion at the federal level; and the arbitrary nature of how SCOTUS applies state authority shows they they are working to desired outcome not ensuring the power of the people. You can parse words and act as if things are not what they are, but this is entirely the act of a minority to enforce religious beliefs on a secular nation by any means necessary.

Oh, and the Big Brother usage is entirely ironic given that this IS government interceding into personal decisions and it is a part of a larger platform of the ways in which white christian nationalism can dictate everyone else's value system and private choices. Ignore or deny all you want, but when one group is saying you decide for yourself and the other is saying we will decide for you and resort to any and all political gamesmanship to make it happen and will rally our base with propaganda and tribal loyalty, it's NOT the former who are Big Brother.

---

The Supreme Court decision empowers the people by returning the authority to regulate abortion to the people and their elected representatives (please read the decision). How is empowering people to decide their own affairs bad?

The prior Supreme Court decision took the authority away from people and their elected representatives.

Power to people.

Go Bears!

---

Read the decision? Did you read my response? When the application of law is uneven and arbitrary and ignores precedence and the resulting reality, you can not make abstract claims about power to the people (especially when those people had settled law that aligned with the public's desire). What you are saying is cover for minority rule through activist partisan judges. This was not a noble exercise of democratic juris prudence. Don't let yourself off the hook with that lie.

Could you imagine SCOTUS suddenly deciding to give "the power to the people" and revert to states the right for white people to vote? Just because you are comfortable with the states supporting the right for white people being able to vote, and you think the question is absurd on its face, doesn't mean that when the SCOTUS throws an existing right to the states it is not calling that right into question and obviously not guaranteeing it "for the people." If Christian churches did not have theocratic non-biology based opinions on abortion this ruling never happens. This is a religious action. Period. It is total violation of Constitutional separation of church and state.

sycasey said:

---

calbear80 said:

---

I am still waiting for someone to refer me to a section of the Constitution that US Supreme Court violated when it stated that Constitution does not grant right to abortion.

Like many of you, I do not like this decision, but, what specific section of the US Constitution says that US Constitution does not grant right to abortion.

---

How many times do we have to answer?

1. No, the Constitution does not specifically mention abortion.

2. It also does not specifically mention marriage, yet the Court has found a few rights related to that.

Can we move on now? Or do you actually want to address the marriage point?

---

So, you agree that there is nothing in the constitution granting abortion rights and you agree that Supreme Court did not violate the Constitution by overturning Roe. Thank you.

Go Bears!

dajo9 said:

---

The government does not need to be part of this decision making process19

---

Are you saying that it is a good thing that the Supreme Court removed at the Federal government from this decision making process? Millions of people and six Supreme Court Justices strongly agree with you on this.

Go Bears!

calbear80 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear80 said:

---

I am still waiting for someone to refer me to a section of the Constitution that US Supreme Court violated when it stated that Constitution does not grant right to abortion.

Like many of you, I do not like this decision, but, what specific section of the US Constitution says that US Constitution does not grant right to abortion.

---

How many times do we have to answer?

1. No, the Constitution does not specifically mention abortion.

2. It also does not specifically mention marriage, yet the Court has found a few rights related to that.

Can we move on now? Or do you actually want to address the marriage point?

---

So, you agree that there is nothing in the constitution granting abortion rights and you agree that Supreme Court did not violate the Constitution by overturning Roe. Thank you.

---

I agree that the Supreme Court gets to make its own rules about what rights we get and they made a clear choice here.

calbear80 said:

---

So, you agree that there is nothing in the constitution granting abortion rights and you agree that Supreme Court did not violate the Constitution by overturning Roe. Thank you.

Go Bears!

---

You keep shifting the conversation to this speaking point. Them "not violating the Constitution" is neither the point or the best criteria for judging the consequences or justice or justification for the decision. Stop pretending that you would agree with any SCOTUS ruling as long as it did not violate the Constitution, or that this decision was not made on sound Constitutional scholarship but rather a partisan minority religious agenda. They EFFECTIVELY banned abortion in a large portion of America and in so doing took away well-established rights with little legal justification other than finally getting to make America conform to their beliefs. This is not what the highest court in the land should stand for or how to provide wise enduring governance.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Perhaps I am mistaken but I believe it is a direct quote from the majority opinion. I do not know which states.

Your worldview masks other legitimate possibilities. These are lawyers. This type of debate and discussions happens all the time with law students. This may come as a shock to you but lawyer types can actually form opinions without them being based in religion. As a matter of law this is a difficult - and therefore to me fascinating - area of law. That law intersects with culture and society in profound ways, making it even more interesting to me. Ink is spilled.

I am able to compartmentalize and think about issues with different hats. Most commentary here by me comes from a place of having a JD, having studied liberals arts that explore societies, forms of governance, etc. Don't be so sure you know my real position. I am not sure do ... it changes and evolves as I listen to others and use their views to challenge my own thoughts.

Isn't the grievous harm so obvious that it doesn't need to be stated? There is a reason Roe concocted the viability test.

---

No, the grievous harm is not obvious. Apart from theocracy, which appears to be the main driver of anti-choice views, it's not clear to me why states should be able to prevent the termination of non-viable fetuses. What is the harm in terminating an ectopic pregnancy? What is the harm in not forcing the birth of a fetus with neural tube defects that will not survive outside the womb?

You can be as slippery as you want but we all know the score. Anti-choice is largely driven by old white evangelical protestant men. According to Pew last month, 74% of white evangelical protestants are anti-choice, no other major religious group was above 42%. 63% of women think abortion should be legal in most/all cases. 74% of people 18-29 think it should be legal in most/all cases.

Don't like Pew? Gallup also has a recent poll showing pro-choice views at an all-time high. They show 61% of women and 63% of adults 18-34 identifying as pro-choice. They say 35% of people agree with me that it should be legal under all circumstances and that only 13% agree with the current case law that it can be illegal under all circumstances. Don't bother pretending that the new rational basis standard is preventing complete abortion bans from coming into place. It's already here and Alito and company are loving it.

And to be honest, I don't really care if people whose lives won't be affected whatsoever by abortion want to restrict abortion. It's pretty clear that women who could require abortions for any number of reasons overwhelmingly support having rights. A minority of people who have no compelling interest are taking those rights away. I don't support people being Raiders fans but I don't expect Raiders fans to care what I think about the issue.

In Star Wars terms, I hope that this is the Empire Strikes Back and that the Return of the Jedi is next because the alternative is far too unpleasant to accept.

---

My opinion: at some point - I don't know when - life begins. That is too mysterious a question for me for it to be the basis of a legal right in this context. But at some point it is a life. And more tangibly at some point - probably well before viability - that fetus has sensory awareness, responds to stimuli, feels pain, etc. It may not be "alive" in any number of ways but it has some level of being a sentient being. I feel there is a level of barbarism and lack of humanity in performing procedures which inflict pain on another sentient being, much less killing it. Those are grievous harms to a sentient being. None of that is based on religion for me. Zero.

calbear80 said:

---

So, you agree that there is nothing in the constitution granting abortion rights and you agree that Supreme Court did not violate the Constitution by overturning Roe. Thank you.

Go Bears!

---

I heard that SCOTUS just agreed to revert voting rights to the state in an act of "power to the people" and now black Americans get three-fifths vote throughout much of the South (this was predetermined with southern states already passing laws in anticipation of the ruling).

They decided this on the basis of looking at the Bible's passages on slavery, 16th century philosophers, and noticing that there was nothing in the original Constitution that specifivcally guaranteed the right to vote to black Americans. Sure the public didn't want them to do this and this was settled law based on a Constitutional amendment and tons of legal and civil precedence, but the high court isn't about majority rule and technically they didn't violate the Constitution by handing it back to the states. So, we are all totally cool with this and have a really good defense of the action that our tribe will agree with, right?

tequila4kapp said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Perhaps I am mistaken but I believe it is a direct quote from the majority opinion. I do not know which states.

Your worldview masks other legitimate possibilities. These are lawyers. This type of debate and discussions happens all the time with law students. This may come as a shock to you but lawyer types can actually form opinions without them being based in religion. As a matter of law this is a difficult - and therefore to me fascinating - area of law. That law intersects with culture and society in profound ways, making it even more interesting to me. Ink is spilled.

I am able to compartmentalize and think about issues with different hats. Most commentary here by me comes from a place of having a JD, having studied liberals arts that explore societies, forms of governance, etc. Don't be so sure you know my real position. I am not sure do ... it changes and evolves as I listen to others and use their views to challenge my own thoughts.

Isn't the grievous harm so obvious that it doesn't need to be stated? There is a reason Roe concocted the viability test.

---

No, the grievous harm is not obvious. Apart from theocracy, which appears to be the main driver of anti-choice views, it's not clear to me why states should be able to prevent the termination of non-viable fetuses. What is the harm in terminating an ectopic pregnancy? What is the harm in not forcing the birth of a fetus with neural tube defects that will not survive outside the womb?

You can be as slippery as you want but we all know the score. Anti-choice is largely driven by old white evangelical protestant men. According to Pew last month, 74% of white evangelical protestants are anti-choice, no other major religious group was above 42%. 63% of women think abortion should be legal in most/all cases. 74% of people 18-29 think it should be legal in most/all cases.

Don't like Pew? Gallup also has a recent poll showing pro-choice views at an all-time high. They show 61% of women and 63% of adults 18-34 identifying as pro-choice. They say 35% of people agree with me that it should be legal under all circumstances and that only 13% agree with the current case law that it can be illegal under all circumstances. Don't bother pretending that the new rational basis standard is preventing complete abortion bans from coming into place. It's already here and Alito and company are loving it.

And to be honest, I don't really care if people whose lives won't be affected whatsoever by abortion want to restrict abortion. It's pretty clear that women who could require abortions for any number of reasons overwhelmingly support having rights. A minority of people who have no compelling interest are taking those rights away. I don't support people being Raiders fans but I don't expect Raiders fans to care what I think about the issue.

In Star Wars terms, I hope that this is the Empire Strikes Back and that the Return of the Jedi is next because the alternative is far too unpleasant to accept.

---

My opinion: at some point - I don't know when - life begins. That is too mysterious a question for me for it to be the basis of a legal right in this context. But at some point it is a life. And more tangibly at some point - probably well before viability - that fetus has sensory awareness, responds to stimuli, feels pain, etc. It may not be "alive" in any number of ways but it has some level of being a sentient being. I feel there is a level of barbarism and lack of humanity in performing procedures which inflict pain on another sentient being, much less killing it. Those are grievous harms to a sentient being. None of that is based on religion for me. Zero.

---

When does life begin for an ectopic pregnancy, a fetus with neural tube defects or any other fetus incapable of ever surviving outside the womb?

tequila4kapp said:

---

My opinion: at some point - I don't know when - life begins. That is too mysterious a question for me for it to be the basis of a legal right in this context. But at some point it is a life. And more tangibly at some point - probably well before viability - that fetus has sensory awareness, responds to stimuli, feels pain, etc. It may not be "alive" in any number of ways but it has some level of being a sentient being. I feel there is a level of barbarism and lack of humanity in performing procedures which inflict pain on another sentient being, much less killing it. Those are grievous harms to a sentient being. None of that is based on religion for me. Zero.

---

Life has a technical biological definition. Here is a grabbed one of many: life is an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction. A fetus does not meet this description.

Sure, there are some grey areas, but we are not debating viruses here, we are discussing a human being as we understand consciousness and the granting of civil rights. There may be discussion about when exactly the fetus can sustain its own life, but under NO DEFINITION does human life begin at conception. There is no personhood at conception. There is no consciousness. There is no autonomy of the zygote. The idea of life beginning at conception is 100% a religious concept contingent on belief in the soul and when that soul appears. That determination (if souls exists and when they enter bodies for the purpose of worshipping a god) is not the territory of government or court. Even within churches there is debate, present day and historical, about when the soul enters the body. Is it at conception, birth, baptism...?

And this of course completely ignores the rights to autonomy of a KNOWN living person: the mother. So, on the basis of a theorized soul, and a "potential" human being, this court with religious backing took away rights of citizens for imaginary citizens. It's almost like this logic would also extend to immigrants coming over the border. They may someday be citizens so every right of citizenship must be conveyed to them. Let's let the states or my church decide that, right? That's how America was meant to work, right? The Founders were quite clear, their hope was 200 years later America would become an authoritarian theocracy held captive by Christian white patriarchal nationalism. That was the goal, right?

And to think we justify war because those countries practice Sharia law or tolerate religious fanaticism while so many Americans cannot see their own hypocrisy and how their subjective beliefs compromise the noble tenets of the nation. No matter your personal stance on abortion you should be offended by this overstepping by the court and horrendous juris prudence. This is one of those cases of "I may not like what you say, but I will die for your right to say it." Family planning is about as fundamental and intimate as it gets for women and citizens. Don't let religious dogma distract you from what is really at risk and what a violation this was.

calbear80 is not interested in a good faith discussion. Let this thread die. There is already a better thread on this topic.

You and Unit2 walked straight past my post and went directly to the normal talking points about when life begins. I thought I was pretty clear that my opinion isn't based on when life begins.

tequila4kapp said:

---

You and Unit2 walked straight past my post and went directly to the normal talking points about when life begins. I thought I was pretty clear that my opinion isn't based on when life begins.

---

What is the role of the suffering of the sentient mother and the collective sentience of society? Or is the cell cluster the main concern?

This is a position of religious and political orthodoxy, a tribal litmus test, and not sound biological, societal, legal, or Constitutional analysis. You can't stand by and pretend it is something other than what it is.

I think Judge Thomas is really on to something!
If the Republican Party attaches itself to Thomas' ban on contraception, then they are SURE to be rolled!!

Not many people are in the market at any particular time for an abortion.
But EVERYONE wants to F all the time!!!

Go for it, GOP. Please DO!!!!!

calbear80 said:

---

I am still waiting for someone to refer me to a section of the Constitution that US Supreme Court violated when it stated that Constitution does not grant right to abortion.

Like many of you, I do not like this decision, but, what specific section of the US Constitution says that US Constitution does not grant right to abortion.

---

Can you tell me where the U.S. Constitution grants the right of a high school football coach to pray at the 50 yard line?

Where does it say that the religious rights of a public school official are elevated?
One in which this individual accepted public employment and the limits that public employment entails?



Supreme Court rules for former coach in public school prayer case (aol.com)

blungld said:

---

Life has a technical biological definition. Here is a grabbed one of many: life is an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction. A fetus does not meet this description.

---

A fetus can metabolize.
A fetus can grow.
A fetus can react to stimuli. (It's been shown in ultrasounds - kicking upon poking.)
A fetus cannot yet reproduce.
Neither can a 12 year old boy.

Needs a new definition.

tequila4kapp said:

---

My opinion: at some point - I don't know when - life begins. That is too mysterious a question for me for it to be the basis of a legal right in this context. But at some point it is a life. And more tangibly at some point - probably well before viability - that fetus has sensory awareness, responds to stimuli, feels pain, etc. It may not be "alive" in any number of ways but it has some level of being a sentient being. I feel there is a level of barbarism and lack of humanity in performing procedures which inflict pain on another sentient being, much less killing it. Those are grievous harms to a sentient being. None of that is based on religion for me. Zero.

---

I'll also throw away the "life begins at" qualifier in consideration of other aspects.

But first, "harm to sentient beings"??
OMG, can we please just introduce the entire animals for food production line???
Humans cause all sorts of pain to animals.

sen tient:
able to perceive or feel things.

Ants can feel when I squish them.

DiabloWags said:

---

calbear80 said:

---

I am still waiting for someone to refer me to a section of the Constitution that US Supreme Court violated when it stated that Constitution does not grant right to abortion.

Like many of you, I do not like this decision, but, what specific section of the US Constitution says that US Constitution does not grant right to abortion.

---

Can you tell me where the U.S. Constitution grants the right of a high school football coach to pray at the 50 yard line?

Where does it say that the religious rights of a public school official are elevated?
One in which this individual accepted public employment and the limits that public employment entails?



Supreme Court rules for former coach in public school prayer case (aol.com)

---

Would it be the same decision if this was the prayer on the 50 yard line?

Cant wait for all of those good ole folks in Texas to go absolutely bananas when a follower of the Muslim faith brings their prayer rug to a game, or a Jew shows up with their Tallit.

Since many attending those games will be "packing", I cant imagine what could go wrong.

DiabloWags said:

---

Cant wait for all of those good ole folks in Texas to go absolutely bananas when a follower of the Muslim faith brings their prayer rug to a game, or a Jew shows up with their Tallit.

Since many attending those games will be "packing", I cant imagine what could go wrong.

---

To make a point, school A in inner city and full of blacks (who are better athletes, let's accept) should hold a pregame religious ceremony at the 50 yard line which the white Christian team finds offensive.
Then the black team crushes the white team, and walks off as the white is left to their prayers.

I know the feeling, as a longtime Cal Football fan, hoping for that elusive Rose Bowl.

concordtom said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

My opinion: at some point - I don't know when - life begins. That is too mysterious a question for me for it to be the basis of a legal right in this context. But at some point it is a life. And more tangibly at some point - probably well before viability - that fetus has sensory awareness, responds to stimuli, feels pain, etc. It may not be "alive" in any number of ways but it has some level of being a sentient being. I feel there is a level of barbarism and lack of humanity in performing procedures which inflict pain on another sentient being, much less killing it. Those are grievous harms to a sentient being. None of that is based on religion for me. Zero.

---

I'll also throw away the "life begins at" qualifier in consideration of other aspects.

But first, "harm to sentient beings"??
OMG, can we please just introduce the entire animals for food production line???
Humans cause all sorts of pain to animals.

sen tient:
able to perceive or feel things.

Ants can feel when I squish them.

---

It doesn't have to be right or wrong, it my personal opinion and feeling. I shared it in response to the religion comment(s) above.

I don't care as much about non-humans as I do about humans. Again, my own opinion and feelings.

"Hey, Trump & you Mr. GOP Congressman, how many of your wives or girlfriends have had abortions? What? You don't want to answer? You believe in the right to privacy granted in the Constitution. Oh, okay."

Hypocrites all. I would be willing to bet the Christian Donald is responsible for and has paid for many many abortions. But his conviction is sincere. He was chosen by God.

tequila4kapp said:

---

You and Unit2 walked straight past my post and went directly to the normal talking points about when life begins. I thought I was pretty clear that my opinion isn't based on when life begins.

---

I didn't walk past, I asked a question. How does your analysis apply to fetuses which will not ever become capable of surviving outside the womb? Would you consider it barbaric to terminate what you consider a "sentient" fetus if that fetus cannot survive beyond birth? Would you consider it "non-barbaric" to force the birth of a fetus that will never be able to ingest oxygen and will die within minutes post forced birth?

These forced birth laws do not contain exceptions for non-viable fetuses (and by non-viable, I am referring to fetuses that will never become viable). Of course there is a whole other range of fetuses which will become viable but for whom life will be short and brutish. There are numerous genetic disorders which are known and can be tested for and which produce babies that will not even survive infancy or if they do, they will have extremely challenging and short lifespans. I think it's non-barbaric to force people to give birth in those circumstances against their wishes.

I am asking you to connect the dots.

OF COURSE he's had a pregnancy of his terminated!

Let's get serious about what the OVER/UNDER is for Donald.

But first, I suppose it should be split into categories:

A) # of impregnations (by Donald) which he consented to terminating (via payments or "sure, take that pill": ____

B) # of impregnations (by Donald) which were terminated without him ever knowing about it: ______

C) Total # of terminations of Donald's offspring: ______

BONUS:
D) Total # of Ivanka impregnations which were terminated: ____

E) Total # of Ivanka impregnations (by Donald) which were terminated: ____

NOTE: a termination includes (as the Supreme Court is apparently defining it) everything from the "morning after pill" to "ripping the baby out of the womb 1 day before birth", as Donald once described it.

OVER/UNDER BETS:

A: 10
B: 30
C: 40
D: 3
E: 3

tequila4kapp said:

---

concordtom said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

My opinion: at some point - I don't know when - life begins. That is too mysterious a question for me for it to be the basis of a legal right in this context. But at some point it is a life. And more tangibly at some point - probably well before viability - that fetus has sensory awareness, responds to stimuli, feels pain, etc. It may not be "alive" in any number of ways but it has some level of being a sentient being. I feel there is a level of barbarism and lack of humanity in performing procedures which inflict pain on another sentient being, much less killing it. Those are grievous harms to a sentient being. None of that is based on religion for me. Zero.

---

I'll also throw away the "life begins at" qualifier in consideration of other aspects.

But first, "harm to sentient beings"??
OMG, can we please just introduce the entire animals for food production line???
Humans cause all sorts of pain to animals.

sen tient:
able to perceive or feel things.

Ants can feel when I squish them.

---

It doesn't have to be right or wrong, it my personal opinion and feeling. I shared it in response to the religion comment(s) above.

I don't care as much about non-humans as I do about humans. Again, my own opinion and feelings.

---

i wasn't being critical or supportive of your post.

I was only saying "if pain to a sentient being is up for consideration…, WOW!"
Just picking at your wording.

I think that anything that reduces the number of precious babies being born is a sin and should be illegal. Women should be banned from eating dessert because if they get heavier they may be less sexually desirable and therefore produce less offspring. Conception begins at contemplation of dessert. Show me in the Constitution where it says we have a right to dessert. Let's throw it to the states to decide what it is we eat and why. I believe in bodily autonomy for the unborn...actually bodily autonomy for the yet to be conceived. No bodily autonomy for ugly women! It's just good law.

blungld said:

---

I think that anything that reduces the number of precious babies being born is a sin and should be illegal. Women should be banned from eating dessert because if they get heavier they may be less sexually desirable and therefore produce less offspring. Conception begins at contemplation of dessert. Show me in the Constitution where it says we have a right to dessert. Let's throw it to the states to decide what it is we eat and why. I believe in bodily autonomy for the unborn...actually bodily autonomy for the yet to be conceived. No bodily autonomy for ugly women! It's just good law.

---

Smoking and drinking alcohol during pregnancy should also be illegal. Lock her up!