The Supreme Court, and abortion.

[Springfield]

If God didn’t want abortions then he wouldn’t have made sex so pleasurable.

[TradeTheBeal!]

Female Spousal Unit:  Talk dirty to me.

 

Male Spousal Unit:  I am fully capable to repeatedly deliver my seed for the mutually acknowledged benefit of our chosen political movement.

 

Female Spousal Unit:  *cue waterworks*

[Larry]

17 minutes ago, TryTheBeal! said:

Female Spousal Unit:  Talk dirty to me.

 

Male Spousal Unit:  I am fully capable to repeatedly deliver my seed for the mutually acknowledged benefit of our chosen political movement.

 

Female Spousal Unit:  *cue waterworks*

 

[MartinC]

5 hours ago, tshile said:

 

Its things like this that reinforce to me that most people are stupid

 

occasionally I start to wonder if I’m just a jerk that’s overly pessimistic and have serious concerns about that, then I read stuff like this and it’s a huge relief. I’m right. There are just a lot of dumb people running around. 

 

Here is what I say on that subject (when i'm in a grumpy old guy mode - which as per my wife is pretty much all the time).

 

Think about the average person. Think how uniformed, narrow minded, poorly read, unmotivated and just dumb that person is. Well half the population is worse than that.

[Larry]

15 minutes ago, MartinC said:

 

Here is what I say on that subject (when i'm in a grumpy old guy mode - which as per my wife is pretty much all the time).

 

Think about the average person. Think how uniformed, narrow minded, poorly read, unmotivated and just dumb that person is. Well half the population is worse than that.

 

George Carlin beat you to it.  

[MartinC]

Just now, Larry said:

 

George Carlin beat you to it.  

 

Did he! I'm in good company.

[LD0506]

[Larry]

Subtle.  

 

And an argument which I really don't like.  (Although I don't think it's 100% invalid.)  

[Destino]

3 hours ago, MartinC said:

 

Here is what I say on that subject (when i'm in a grumpy old guy mode - which as per my wife is pretty much all the time).

 

Think about the average person. Think how uniformed, narrow minded, poorly read, unmotivated and just dumb that person is. Well half the population is worse than that.

I think of those kids in English class, both late high school and early college, that when asked to read out loud struggled to do so.  Struggled with the only language they've ever known in their lives.  i imagine millions of them.  Each repeating, in their halting manner, bumper sticker slogans on complicated political issues.

 

Behold the electorate. 

 

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

4 hours ago, MartinC said:

Think about the average person.

I’m thinking of @LD0506

 

 

4 hours ago, MartinC said:

Think how uniformed, narrow minded, poorly read, unmotivated and just dumb that person is.

How long have you hated LD0506?

Edited May 18, 2019 by Sacks 'n' Stuff

[Larry]

17 minutes ago, Destino said:

I think of those kids in English class, both late high school and early college, that when asked to read out loud struggled to do so.  Struggled with the only language they've ever known in their lives.  i imagine millions of them.  Each repeating, in their halting manner, bumper sticker slogans on complicated political issues.

 

Behold the electorate. 

 

 

Liberal elitist.  

[MartinC]

44 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Liberal elitist.  

 

When did being elite become a bad thing?

[MartinC]

1 hour ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

I’m thinking of @LD0506

 

 

How long have you hated LD0506?

 

There are a few posters on the board who aspire to average - @LD0506 is above that 🙂

[tshile]

25 minutes ago, MartinC said:

 

When did being elite become a bad thing?

 

When the non-elite people were convinced the elite people were the cause of their problems 

[Larry]

1 hour ago, MartinC said:

 

When did being elite become a bad thing?

 

When it was discovered that it helped the Republican Party. 

[Cooked Crack]

 

[Renegade7]

3 hours ago, Destino said:

I think of those kids in English class, both late high school and early college, that when asked to read out loud struggled to do so.  Struggled with the only language they've ever known in their lives.  i imagine millions of them.  Each repeating, in their halting manner, bumper sticker slogans on complicated political issues.

 

Behold the electorate. 

 

If you see the world the same way at 50 that you did at 20, you wasted 30 years of your life.  I don't live in an area dominated by that at all, its starting to feel like a divide between urban and rural areas with rural states failing terribly at education.  

[twa]

 

Edited May 19, 2019 by twa

[visionary]

 

[Dan T.]

 

 

 

This writer raises some interesting questions about the unintended consequences of states redefining the concept of personhood with these abortion bans...

 

 Carliss Chatman

Carliss Chatman, an assistant professor at Washington and Lee University School of Law, studies corporate personhood, corporate governance and ethics, among other legal topics.

 

We ought to take our laws seriously. Under the laws, people have all sorts of rights and protections. When a state grants full personhood to a fetus, should they not apply equally?

 

For example, should child support start at conception? Every state permits the custodial parent — who has primary physical custody of the child and is primarily responsible for his or her day-to-day care — to receive child support from the noncustodial parent. Since a fetus resides in its mother, and receives all nutrition and care from its mother’s body, the mother should be eligible for child support as soon as the fetus is declared a person — at conception in Alabama, at six weeks in states that declare personhood at a fetal heartbeat, at eight weeks in Missouri, which was on the way to passing its law on Friday, but at birth in states that have not banned abortion.

 

And what about deportation? Can a pregnant immigrant who conceived her child in the United States be expelled? Because doing so would require deporting a U.S. citizen. To determine the citizenship of a fetal person requires examination of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, which declares, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” The word “born” was not defined by the drafters. Presumably, they intended the standard dictionary definition: brought forth by birth. Our dates of birth are traditionally when our lives begin; we do not celebrate our dates of conception or the date of our sixth week in utero. But in states with abortion bans, “born” takes on new meaning. Now legislatures assign an arbitrary time during gestation to indicate when life, personhood and, presumably, the rights that accompany these statuses take hold. This grant of natural personhood at a point before birth brings application of the 14th Amendment into question and may thus give a fetus citizenship rights — but only in those states.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/if-a-fetus-is-a-person-it-should-get-child-support-due-process-and-citizenship/2019/05/17/7280ae30-78ac-11e9-b3f5-5673edf2d127_story.html?utm_term=.1fc4426b6784

 

 

Edited May 19, 2019 by Dan T.

[Larry]

I'll wade in to some of these.  

 

7 hours ago, Dan T. said:

For example, should child support start at conception?

 

I think I'd support that.  Pregnancy, prenatal care, and childbirth, certainly involve costs  I think I would actually support compelling Dad-to-be to chip in for those costs.  

 

7 hours ago, Dan T. said:

And what about deportation? Can a pregnant immigrant who conceived her child in the United States be expelled? Because doing so would require deporting a U.S. citizen.

 

Might want to think before introducing that argument into court.  I could easily see the "OMG! We're under attack from demon anchor babies!" crowd deciding that anchor babies aren't citizens unless the parents can prove that the egg was fertilized in the US.  

[LD0506]

17 hours ago, Larry said:

Subtle.  

 

And an argument which I really don't like.  (Although I don't think it's 100% invalid.)  

Ha

 

It is to laugh

 

Subtlety is not and never has been my forte, not is it aspirational. For reasons that don't belong here, any chance for subtlety was burned off of me long ago, and TBH I can't say I miss it. All those charming attributes like subtlety and diplomacy and the rest are little more than excuses to avoid uncomfortable truth.

 

The uncomfortable truth here is that women WILL be forced back to the days of coathangers. If it doesn't literally come to that it will be more because wire coathangers are an anachronism more than them having better options. Talibama has actually floated a Fugitive Slave Law to pursue and punish women who leave the state, a goddam coathanger meme is the problem here?

 

Again, it is to laugh

 

 

[LadySkinsFan]

Not to mention all the wonderful new laws that will control how a female behaves while pregnant, including what she eats, drugs she takes (legal or illegal), what activities, and so on. 

 

If you don't think that these laws aren't about control of females, you're kidding yourself. It's hiding behind religion to seem legitimate, when it's old fashioned patriarchy.

[LD0506]

While I find myself agreeing  with a lot of what you say LSF, I still think your focus is too narrow. This isn't just about women or gender(although that is a huge theme within it), this is about power and control PERIOD! Women, gays, blacks, immigrants, multi-racial children in commercials, artists, comedians, intellectuals, loudmouths, boatrockers, snarky T shirt wearers, yadda yadda yadda, absolutely anyone that disagrees or even doesn't support their disease enough can fall into their crosshairs. Zyklon B does not discriminate.

[Larry]

Was half listening to a Republican congressman on Meet the Press discussing the new wave of abortion laws.  And I caught something that I think He mentioned that new technology was allowing parents to screen their children for genetic disorders, and he "didn't want our country to be performing these barbaric third world practices."  

 

Might be worth discussing.  Should a woman be allowed to decide to abort a pregnancy if, say, it's determined that the fetus has Down's?  (That's the only genetic condition that I know might be screened, but I assume there's others.)  

 

(Or to pick a different case, I remember reading recently that I think it was India has made it illegal for doctors to tell parents the gender of their fetus, because so many were choosing to abort females.  Is your opinion of screening for Down's and gender different?)