The Supreme Court, and abortion.

[bearrock]

4 hours ago, MisterPinstripe said:

I'm definitely on the pro-life side of the argument. In my day to day life I dont go out of my way to talk politics or topics like abortion so I'll ask this here to try to get a better idea of where people are coming from.

 

If you are pro-choice are you pro-choice all the way up to 9 months and the baby is born? If not, at what month/point do you think abortion should be illegal? I'll probably have some follow up questions depending on what people say, so if you are willing to answer I appreciate it.

 

I think most people support the idea of late term abortion for significant cause only (health/life of the mother or the baby, rape and incest, although I don't know why those pregnancies would go so long before a decision is made).  I don't think very many are for abortion for any reason at all at a very late stage of pregnancy.

 

I don't think life, at least life as we ordinarily mean it, begins at conception.  I don't know, much less mourn, the loss of a zygote, though statistically, I assume it may have happened at some point in my marriage.  At the same time, if legislature wanted to pass a law ascribing protection against or aggravation for harming a pregnant person, I wouldn't oppose that either.  We have two kids.  I know from my personal experience that the little ones were nothing close to mere property long before they were due.

 

I assume there's a correct moral line somewhere.  Life begins somewhere along those 9 months.  Some abortions are abhorrent.  Some abortions are the right thing to do.  But I also assume that human beings are incapable of accurately drawing that line and we sure as heck can't seem to agree on it.  And as far as I can tell, criminalizing abortion has not stopped it anywhere in the world, at any point in human history.  As such, I believe this is a moment where law and government has to recognize their limitation and leave the decision up to those actually involved.  As for the baby who will never see the light of day, I'd rather humbly bow and pray that God has a solution that is better than creating a dystopian society where we impose majority's view of morality on to the whole to the point of forcing woman to carry and give birth.

 

I believe pro-lifers' energy is better focused on actually reducing the need for abortion.  Create a system and societal support that empower those who want to have kids with the means and support to do so.  Support sex education and wide availability of birth control so that unplanned and undesired pregnancies are minimized to begin with.  I'm sure there are host of things that society can do publicly and privately to help those faced with the difficult choice of terminating a pregnancy.  But I dare not make that decision for them.

[Renegade7]

29 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Granted, I'm probably better at picking a super bowl winning football team to cheer for than I am at predicting SC decisions, but . . . 

 

If the court doesn't want to be legislating this issue from the bench, (a qualifier which I am not certain is fact), then I could see the court deciding that they don't want to be writing law, and simply throwing the entire thing out.  In effect ruling that "we're not going to decide where to draw the line, here, but we're certain that y'all went past it.  Try again."  

 

35 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

 

You're forgetting appeals to a higher court, and the control crowd will surely appeal.

 

This went too far intentionally to see if it would stick.  The political pressure from moderates not wanting to be an issue that galvanizes the left for 2020 has already started.  I'm no legal expert, but I would hope this would be looked at as a precedent that effects the entire country instead of just what Alabama wants to do.

Edited May 19, 2019 by Renegade7

[No Excuses]

14 hours ago, visionary said:

 

 

The party of Trump and Roy Moore being pro-rape is the least surprising thing. 

 

Back in 2012, twa was here defending Todd Akin’s “is it really rape if the women gets pregnant”? Weirdo religious creeps and violent misogyny are like bears and ****ting in the woods. 

Edited May 19, 2019 by No Excuses

[twa]

4 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

 

 

 

Back in 2012, twa was here defending Todd Akin’s “is it really rape if the women gets pregnant”? Weirdo religious creeps and violent misogyny are like bears and ****ting in the woods.

 

I think your memory is faulty, among other things.

 

Of course some of what ya'll call defending is rather a reach as well

[abdcskins]

I don't get anti-abortion arguments.  I really don't.  Their position seems to rest on mostly religious rationale.  I just saw one Alabama senator, Clyde Chambliss, say that, "life is a gift of our creator."  To me this is clearly a reference to the bible and appeals to those pro-life Christians.

 

Bottom line is that a woman has the right to choose what she wants to do with her body.  Having a raising a child is serious business, to put it lightly.  If someone is not prepared to do that then then shouldn't have to, nor would it lead to a fruitful life for the baby.  Matter of fact it would probably be a detrimental thing.  

Edited May 20, 2019 by abdcskins

[No Excuses]

30 minutes ago, twa said:

 

I think your memory is faulty, among other things.

 

Of course some of what ya'll call defending is rather a reach as well

 

The 25 page thread, with multiple people calling you out for defending a moron is easily searchable and can be found using google. 

 

As is typical, you side with **** grabbers and defenders of rape and the rights of rapists to become fathers.

[MartinC]

1 hour ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Just because want it to get to supreme court doesnt mean they will take it up.  It's so far reaching a lower court can stop it.

 

Yeah. But then that lower court ruling will be appealed, and the higher court will deny that appeal. And then that decision will be appealed to SCOTUS ...

[twa]

2 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

 

 

 

As is typical, you side with **** grabbers and defenders of rape and the rights of rapists to become fathers.

 

I never sided with the Clintons , how bout you?

[No Excuses]

3 minutes ago, twa said:

 

I never sided with the Clintons , how bout you?

 

Never voted for Bill. Never voted for Trump.  Can proudly say that. Can you?

 

As is typical, you will support even heinous sexual predators as long as an R is next to the name. Grab em by the **** and then force women to give birth, just like Jesus wanted. 🙏

[volsmet]

14 minutes ago, twa said:

 

I never sided with the Clintons , how bout you?

 

[twa]

1 minute ago, No Excuses said:

 

Never voted for Bill. Never voted for Trump.  Can proudly say that. Can you?

 

 

 

So you voted for the defender.

 

Care to get back on topic?

[Renegade7]

26 minutes ago, MartinC said:

 

Yeah. But then that lower court ruling will be appealed, and the higher court will deny that appeal. And then that decision will be appealed to SCOTUS ...

 

What happens if SCOTUS denies the appeal?  Are they allowed to do that?

[No Excuses]

9 minutes ago, twa said:

 

So you voted for the defender.

 

Care to get back on topic?

 

Women should be forced to give birth after rape and held responsible for the rape committed by men surely is an interesting position. 

 

We can get back to the topic of how the party of sexual predators wants to force women to give birth to the offspring of said predators? 

 

I think its abundantly clear that Republican voters vote for rapists and then advocate for the rights of the rapists to bear children. This is a 100% accurate statement. See: Trump, Alabama and Roy Moore.

[Larry]

20 minutes ago, twa said:

Care to get back on topic?

 

Says the poster who, in the last hur, in this one thread, has:  

 

1)  Whined about how unfair it is that people accuse him of defending Republicans when he isn't.  

 

2)  Responded to a comment about the moral failings of Republicans with "But the Clintons".  

 

[twa]

2 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Says the poster who, in the last hur, in this one thread, has:  

 

1)  Whined about how unfair it is that people accuse him of defending Republicans when he isn't.  

 

2)  Responded to a comment about the moral failings of Republicans with "But the Clintons".  

 

 

I'll take that for a No.

 

By the Clintons you mean the accused rapist and his defender/enabler?

 

I guess asking No excuses if he voted for Bill was foolish though, I forget many here were not old enough to vote then.

[LadySkinsFan]

[TradeTheBeal!]

[MartinC]

1 hour ago, Renegade7 said:

 

What happens if SCOTUS denies the appeal?  Are they allowed to do that?

 

Yes they are allowed to deny, in which case depending exactly what they rule the law(s) would be struck. They could also, I suppose, decline to hear the case (but given its importance/profile it’s hard to see that happening). If it makes it to SCOTUS we will find out if Susan Collins faith in the word of Brett Kavanaugh was justified ...

[Berggy9598]

3 hours ago, twa said:

 

I'll take that for a No.

 

By the Clintons you mean the accused rapist and his defender/enabler?

 

I guess asking No excuses if he voted for Bill was foolish though, I forget many here were not old enough to vote then.

What do the Clintons have to do with the evil and absurd concept of forcing women to bear the burden of carrying their rapists child to term? 

[twa]

3 minutes ago, Berggy9598 said:

What do the Clintons have to do with the evil and absurd concept of forcing women to bear the burden of carrying their rapists child to term? 

 

Who is doing that?

 

There is the morning after pill and other options.

 

But since you want to talk evil and absurd......how many innocent's will you sacrifice to choice while hiding behind rape and incest provisions?

 

or behind it's not a person ect.

[MartinC]

52 minutes ago, twa said:

 

Who is doing that?

 

There is the morning after pill and other options.

 

But since you want to talk evil and absurd......how many innocent's will you sacrifice to choice while hiding behind rape and incest provisions?

 

or behind it's not a person ect.

 

If only some people cared as much about the kids who have been born as the ones yet to be.

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/1-700-additional-separated-migrant-children-identified-trump-administration-n1007426

 

 

[Berggy9598]

54 minutes ago, twa said:

 

Who is doing that?

 

There is the morning after pill and other options.

 

But since you want to talk evil and absurd......how many innocent's will you sacrifice to choice while hiding behind rape and incest provisions?

 

or behind it's not a person ect.

Innocent zygotes? Not really my business to take a moral stance in this case. Late term abortions for the sake of backing out isn’t something I agree with but unless I’m mistaken I don’t think anyone is arguing in support of that. Why do you use the term “hiding behind” rape and incest? They are provisions that should be looked at independently imo. One woman being forced by law to a carry a rapists baby in a first world country in 2019 is reprehensible and should never happen. 

[PeterMP]

6 hours ago, No Excuses said:

 

The 25 page thread, with multiple people calling you out for defending a moron is easily searchable and can be found using google. 

 

As is typical, you side with **** grabbers and defenders of rape and the rights of rapists to become fathers.

 

https://es.redskins.com/topic/354121-raw-story-gop-senate-nominee-women-don%E2%80%99t-get-pregnant-from-%E2%80%98legitimate%E2%80%99-rapes/?page=3

 

I didn't read the whole thread, but he doesn't seem to defend the guy or the comment.  In that thread is he for rape victime having to bear the child.

 

 

[No Excuses]

14 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

https://es.redskins.com/topic/354121-raw-story-gop-senate-nominee-women-don%E2%80%99t-get-pregnant-from-%E2%80%98legitimate%E2%80%99-rapes/?page=3

 

I didn't read the whole thread, but he doesn't seem to defend the guy or the comment.  In that thread is he for rape victime having to bear the child.

 

 

 

There are pages and pages of him either twisting what the guy said and at one point, trying to point to some scientific validation (there wasn’t) for Akins bogus comments. 

 

At best he was obfuscating (and that’s being generous).

Edited May 20, 2019 by No Excuses

[CousinsCowgirl84]

13 hours ago, LadySkinsFan said:

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.

 

I can picture it now... drunk pregnant **** at a bar... “YOU AINT CONTROLLING ME, I KNOW MY RIGHTS!!!”. You go girl!

Edited May 20, 2019 by CousinsCowgirl84