The Supreme Court, and abortion.

[PF Chang]

The worst part is zero exception even for the life of the mother. I have zero respect for that viewpoint. You are not a medieval king who needs to secure lineage at all costs; the life of a woman who is unquestionably a person is more important than a fetus. 

 

Edit: this might actually be the only exception in the law, though it's unclear to me if it covers any possible risk to the life of the mother

Edited May 16, 2019 by PF Chang

[@DCGoldPants]

Well, it's a good thing that Bama doesn't have a higher than normal infant mortality rate because.....ohhh....nevermind.

 

Look, I know the "right" thing for those who are against this is to fight and not give up in places like this. Part of me thinks it would better to let states like this continue to fall because in education and health and personal rights by inviting those people, orgs, companies to leave for states that already offer more opportunistic environment for all of the above. Let them ban whatever. Let them turn Bama into basically a state of Sharia law with the worst of everything. Those people who stay will be dumb, broke, and passing away earlier that the US average life expectancy. I'd just prefer a taker state that needs handouts from the Feds which basically are because maker states put more into the system, were limited to the minimum. 

 

and yeah. I know it's easy to say "just move away" when the reality is very different

 

But wishful thinking.

[bearrock]

55 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

That's certainly one way of looking at it. It doesn't have to be the only one. 

 

For example, someone could ask at which point someone can be legally compelled to allow someone else to use their body as a life support system. 

 

I assume most most would agree that I absolutely am a full and complete person. But my personhood does not give society the right to force you to hook some IV tubing between us, so you can function as my dialasys machine. Not even if I will die without it. 

 

But doesn't the calculus change if I had a direct hand in you needing the dialysis?  If I caused your need for the dialysis, hooked the tube up in the first place, there is no other feasible way for you to obtain that dialysis, and the need for the dialysis is limited to 9 months, then would it tip the balance towards not allowing me to pull the tube?

 

I mean, I agree you could have people take one side or the other even if they start from the same fundamental assumption.  I just thought the different starting point was the predominant reason for the split in opinion and often times irreconcilably so.  But that's just my assumption and I may be wrong of course. 

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

4 hours ago, Warhead36 said:

Why does what someone else do what their body bother you so much?

 

 

I'm sorry I'm in the boat where I just don't consider it a real human life until they're outside the womb. Until then, they're just a part of the woman, and it is HER CHOICE what she does with it.

 

Its hilarious to me how Republicans always preach "individual freedom, government shouldn't be involved in our lives" but then they whine when women make a choice to have an abortion.

 

Party of complete and total hypocrisy.

 

This statement couldn't be further from the truth, IMO.  Maybe one day you will have a child with your gal and get a better understanding of what human life really is.  With that said, I'm pro-choice, but believe there should be some regulations in place as to a deadline when they can have an abortion.  

 

I don't believe abortion should be used as a form of birth control and I certainly don't think anyone should be able to have an abortion (unless birth is a danger to the woman's health/life) after a set number of weeks (it's 20 in NC).  What's a reasonable number of weeks?  I don't know exactly,  but what do know is, unless a danger to the mothers health/life, 20 weeks (again NC law) should be more than enough time to make that decision, IMO.

 

 

 

 

[nonniey]

1 hour ago, Larry said:

 

Could you please mention some states allow abortions at the last minute, without jumping through all kinds of special restrictions?

New York for one.  Raised cutoff to 24 weeks before requirement to consult with a Doctor (as in 1 Doctor).  And I'll throw Gosnell once again out there as he was a Doctor (many of the charges that were brought against him in Pennsylvania would now be legal in New York). Additionally it again doesn't define what health of the mother is or what viability of the baby means which has allowed for some pretty loose use of health of mother or viability of baby excuses.  Additionally penalties for violating law need to be addressed. You mentioned Tiller who had a habit of getting a doctors 2d opinion (that was required in Kansas)  from his own employees (a legal violation) however legally he wasn't risking much by doing so as it was only a misdemeanor.

 

All I'm proposing is at 20 weeks a panel of doctors (at least 3 and they can't have skin in the game) have to approve an abortion once it is decided that a set criteria has been met. I'm also saying the criteria has to be quite a bit less nebulous than it currently is.  

 

 

Edited May 16, 2019 by nonniey

[Bozo the kKklown]

Just remember in the 90s all the violence people did at abortion clinics and to doctors who practice abortions.

 

Now we have these laws. We learned that terrorism works.

Edited May 16, 2019 by BenningRoadSkin

[Springfield]

7 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

Just remember in the 90s all the violence people did at abortion clinics and to doctors who practice abortions.

 

Now we have these laws. We learned that terrorism works.

 

Well it does.  Otherwise we wouldn’t be giving up all of our privacy in the name of security and we wouldn’t be waging wars against random brown people.  Subject for a different thread I suppose.

[Bozo the kKklown]

2 minutes ago, Springfield said:

 

Well it does.  Otherwise we wouldn’t be giving up all of our privacy in the name of security and we wouldn’t be waging wars against random brown people.  Subject for a different thread I suppose.

 

it applies to this thread too since its what happened. 

[tshile]

3 hours ago, MartinC said:

Now I do accept there has to be some legal framework within which that decision is taken. Which brings us back to rooms full of elder white men making that judgement. And making it practically impossibly for a woman to exercise any choice over what is happening with her own body. 

 

It’s not a good look.

 

This seems like a nonsense argument. I say this because if it was a group of women making these judgements the people with this complain would throw an equal complaint out. 

 

The issue isn’t that they’re white men. The issue is they don’t agree with you. You’re just using white men as a cheap shot to score cheep political points. 

 

 

[MartinC]

12 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

This seems like a nonsense argument. I say this because if it was a group of women making these judgements the people with this complain would throw an equal complaint out. 

 

The issue isn’t that they’re white men. The issue is they don’t agree with you. You’re just using white men as a cheap shot to score cheep political points. 

 

 

 

You might want to talk to some women in your life about this - or actually a group of women you don’t know that well. You’d be surprised I think. You also might want to stand at a safe distance.

 

If men reproduced and a group of women held power and started telling you what you could and could not do with your body - how would you feel? And they criminalized your ability to take that decision or even cross State lines. Empowered or oppressed?

[tshile]

1 hour ago, @SkinsGoldPants said:

Part of me thinks it would better to let states like this continue to fall

 

Yeah me too. Except they put politicians in federal positions like senate and the house. And they vote for president. 

 

They can infect the the rest of us. 

14 minutes ago, MartinC said:

 

You might want to talk to some women in your life about this - or actually a group of women you don’t know that well. You’d be surprised I think. You also might want to stand at a safe distance.

 

If men reproduced and a group of women held power and started telling you what you could and could not do with your body - how would you feel? And they criminalized your ability to take that decision or even cross State lines. Empowered or oppressed?

 

There are plenty of women who hold those same opinions, and they’re crushed by the pro choice movement just the same. They just use a term other than “white male”

 

its an unnecessary cheap shot. Women are not the only people who should and do have a voice in this, and being white has nothing to do with it. 

 

I realize some are exactly what you and others are claiming. Plenty aren’t, and just happen to be white men. 

 

But again it doesn’t matter.  You wouldn’t t magically accept their ideas as reasonable if you change them to black women. Which is my point. 

 

As for how I would feel, I generally try to not discount someone’s opinion because of their race and sex. Not only is that a dumb way to judge someone’s opinion, it’s also racist and sexist. 

Edited May 16, 2019 by tshile

[MartinC]

3 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

You would t magically accept their ideas as reasonable if you change them to black women. Which is my point. 

 

 

 

No I wouldn't. Be here is the kicker - black women have very limited ability to make their views and personal morality law. Elderly white men however ...

[tshile]

Just now, MartinC said:

 

No I wouldn't. Be here is the kicker - black women have very limited ability to make their views and personal morality law. Elderly white men however ...

 

Which has nothing to do with it. 

 

Im glad you agree, their race and sex have nothing to do with how you view their opinion. 

 

Youre just criticizing them for being white and male. Good deal. 

[MartinC]

Just now, tshile said:

 

Youre just criticizing them for being white and male. Good deal. 

 

Lets take the House as an example

 

Its 75% male.

 

Its 73% white

 

62% of its members were born before 1964 (so are 54 or older).

 

This demographic make up of elected Government is typical at all levels. How would you describe that as being anything other than white, male and old?

[tshile]

2 minutes ago, MartinC said:

This demographic make up of elected Government is typical at all levels. How would you describe that as being anything other than white, male and old?

I’m not trying to derail the thread on this. 

 

The problem isn’t the description. The problem is using it to discount their opinions. Which is very much a staple of the pro choice movement - that men for some reason aren’t allowed to have a valued opinion (except that it should only be up to women to decide)

 

the whole white thing is just... lol. 

 

The point has been made. You agreed. The idea is what you have a problem with. The rest is just tripe. 

[MartinC]

Just now, tshile said:

The rest is just tripe. 

 

No. This is CENTRAL to this thread. Maybe you don't get my point (not being sarcastic - I may not have explained this clearly).

 

Elected bodies which are overwhelmingly white, middle class, old and Christian are creating legislation which imposes their version of morality on a group (people taking abortions)  which is 100% female, largely of lower income (about 60%), 75% of who are not white, are much much younger (for obvious reasons) and a majority of who do not identify as religious.

 

Do you see the problem?

[NoCalMike]

9 minutes ago, tshile said:

I’m not trying to derail the thread on this. 

 

The problem isn’t the description. The problem is using it to discount their opinions. Which is very much a staple of the pro choice movement - that men for some reason aren’t allowed to have a valued opinion (except that it should only be up to women to decide)

 

the whole white thing is just... lol. 

 

The point has been made. You agreed. The idea is what you have a problem with. The rest is just tripe. 

 

I think the actual point is the folks often making these decisions lack a diversity that is represented in the people they are supposed to be serving.  Does the fact that it is all white males necessarily mean "Conclusion A" No, however you'd have to concede a little bit that it would be better to see representation from different communities and groups when sweeping legislation is being considered. 

[MartinC]

3 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

 

I think the actual point is the folks often making these decisions lack a diversity that is represented in the people they are supposed to be serving.  Does the fact that it is all white males necessarily mean "Conclusion A" No, however you'd have to concede a little bit that it would be better to see representation from different communities and groups when sweeping legislation is being considered. 

 

Bingo. They are not serving - they are imposing. Oppressing is an emotive (and over used) word - but appropriate here I think.

 

And by the way the answer here is GET OUT AND VOTE PEOPLE.

[tshile]

6 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

I think the actual point is the folks often making these decisions lack a diversity that is represented in the people they are supposed to be serving. 

Yet the people with the same ideas that don’t fit neatly into the “white male” box, get blasted just the same. 

 

Its a cheap shot for other reasons. The idea is the issue and plenty of women share that idea. Certain people tend to do this. And if anyone did the same thing about any other group of people they’d get blasted for it, by the same people doing this. Rightfully so. They just can’t see that they do the same thing. 

 

 

[Simmsy]

2 hours ago, @SkinsGoldPants said:

Well, it's a good thing that Bama doesn't have a higher than normal infant mortality rate because.....ohhh....nevermind.

 

Look, I know the "right" thing for those who are against this is to fight and not give up in places like this. Part of me thinks it would better to let states like this continue to fall because in education and health and personal rights by inviting those people, orgs, companies to leave for states that already offer more opportunistic environment for all of the above. Let them ban whatever. Let them turn Bama into basically a state of Sharia law with the worst of everything. Those people who stay will be dumb, broke, and passing away earlier that the US average life expectancy. I'd just prefer a taker state that needs handouts from the Feds which basically are because maker states put more into the system, were limited to the minimum. 

 

and yeah. I know it's easy to say "just move away" when the reality is very different

 

But wishful thinking.

Worst part, these are "welfare states", as in the survive off of federal aide. I say, (when we finally get a competent president) take away their aid when they pass draconian laws like this one.

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

[MartinC]

12 minutes ago, tshile said:

Yet the people with the same ideas that don’t fit neatly into the “white male” box, get blasted just the same. 

 

Its a cheap shot for other reasons. The idea is the issue and plenty of women share that idea. Certain people tend to do this. And if anyone did the same thing about any other group of people they’d get blasted for it, by the same people doing this. Rightfully so. They just can’t see that they do the same thing. 

 

 

 It’s not about who shares these views - it’s about who within that population has the power to impose their view on the rest. 

[TheGreatBuzz]

I have a question for the group.

 

Since abortion rights almost always include discussion about a women's body autonomy, control over her own body/health, etc. do you all think the father should get any say whatsoever in this?

 

If you said no, do you think a father who wanted the women to get an abortion should still be responsible for paying child support?  Or if he wants her to keep the child and and she doesn't want to, should his opinion matter at all?  

 

Is there a way to make the situation more "fair"?

 

@LadySkinsFan I'm very interested in your opinion on this? 

[MartinC]

7 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I have a question for the group.

 

Since abortion rights almost always include discussion about a women's body autonomy, control over her own body/health, etc. do you all think the father should get any say whatsoever in this?

 

If you said no, do you think a father who wanted the women to get an abortion should still be responsible for paying child support?  Or if he wants her to keep the child and and she doesn't want to, should his opinion matter at all?  

 

Is there a way to make the situation more "fair"?

 

@LadySkinsFan I'm very interested in your opinion on this? 

 

Speaking as a father (and grandfather) I do think the man should have a say - but not the final say/decision. That’s the woman’s prerogative in my opinion. 

 

Coming to think about it that rule applies to pretty much any subject you care to mention in our house.

[Cooked Crack]

4 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Since abortion rights almost always include discussion about a women's body autonomy, control over her own body/health, etc. do you all think the father should get any say whatsoever in this?

 

If you said no, do you think a father who wanted the women to get an abortion should still be responsible for paying child support?  Or if he wants her to keep the child and and she doesn't want to, should his opinion matter at all?  

 

 

Even if he wants it he's not the one that's going to be pregnant. If she keeps it and he doesn't want it then enjoy paying child support. His opinion should be taken into advisement but in the end it's not his body.