The Supreme Court, and abortion.

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

39 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

I think it should be left up to the state.  I see no reason to believe the federal government is more adept at creating morality than a state government.

 

Because all we need is 50 different state laws with 50 different criteria for abortion that ranges from legal to illegal and what week is the cut-off and what circumstances are allowed after said cut-off date.   

 

I'm pro choice, but believe that there should be a cut-off at a certain time in the pregnancy.  In my state, it's 20 weeks, which is the halfway point of a 40 week full term pregnancy.  After 20 weeks, I'm sure there are some certain circumstances that would medically justify aborting the pregnancy (e.g. woman or baby's health is in danger, etc.).  

 

But to me, 20 weeks (roughly 4 1/2 months) seems like enough time to decide if you want an abortion just based off of deciding that you don't want to be a mother for whatever reason (financial situation, unplanned and never wanted kids, etc.). 

 

But I disagree with any state or the federal government taking that right away from any woman completely.  

[nonniey]

2 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

It doesnt matter what I'm okay with, it's not my call, and I can live with that.  I dont support controlling the reproductive rights of tens of million of women over 3-10 thousand fetuses.  Like I said, please dont try to use my heart against me.

 

This is from CDC.

 

https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/abortion.htm

 

 

What was the CDC quote for it basically stated the same time frame I did  1.3% after 5 Months (20-21 weeks).  

 

[Renegade7]

5 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

Multiple points,

 

But Alabama has the support of the Supreme Court..

 

Jus because the court is conservative does not mean they support this bill or find it constitutional.  Alabama said they knew they were intentionally reaching here, so I'll believe it when I see it.

 

5 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 And the court of public opinion is also important (which is what you pointed to when you said republicans in Washington won’t support the bill) and that probably leans more Vermont’s way.

 

Good, one less thing to keep moving our laws back and forth over.

[TheGreatBuzz]

4 minutes ago, nonniey said:

If you support the Vermont law you can't possibly be pro-life. Lets be clear a woman can be due in an hour and legally abort the child for any reason.  Yes most doctors wouldn't perform such an abortion nor would most women chose to do so but do you do you really want it to be a legal option for the exceptions to the rule????

I am pro-life.  I would not get an abortion and don't think most others should.

 

But I support the Vermont law because I recognize this isn't a situation where it is my job to impose my morality onto others.

 

This country would be a lot better off if people spent more time looking at what is going on in their own households  and less worrying about other households.

[CousinsCowgirl84]

5 minutes ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

 

Because all we need is 50 different state laws with 50 different criteria for abortion that ranges from legal to illegal and what week is the cut-off and what circumstances are allowed after said cut-off date.   

 

What are the the negative consequences of this?

 

Quote

I'm pro choice, but believe that there should be a cut-off at a certain time in the pregnancy.  In my state, it's 20 weeks, which is the halfway point of a 40 week full term pregnancy.  After 20 weeks, I'm sure there are some certain circumstances that would medically justify aborting the pregnancy (e.g. woman or baby's health is in danger, etc.).  

 

But to me, 20 weeks (roughly 4 1/2 months) seems like enough time to decide if you want an abortion just based off of deciding that you don't want to be a mother for whatever reason (financial situation, unplanned and never wanted kids, etc.). 

 

Our positions on abortion are close, but I’m just saying I don’t see why you think federal government is more representative of that localities want. The role of government is (should be) (set up to be) to represent its people, not create moral code. Ultimately a state will have to find some sort of balance between what thier local population wants and the consequences of enacting those policies.

 

Edited May 21, 2019 by CousinsCowgirl84

[Renegade7]

1 minute ago, nonniey said:

What was the CDC quote for it basically stated the same time frame I did  1.3% after 5 Months (20-21 weeks).  

 

 

That 91% of abortions are done within 13 weeks of gestation.  That's like realizing your pregnant and deciding you dont want to be.  You missed that, but that matters in the scope of this conversation.  Seriously, it feels from some that that 1%-2% after 5 months number we're talking about is much higher and it's not, its built up with all this passion like it is but it's not.

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

20 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

What are the the negative consequences of this?

 

 

Our positions on abortion are close, but I’m just saying I don’t see why you think federal government is more representative of that localities want. The role of government is to represent its people, not create moral code. Ultimately a state will have to find some sort of balance between what thier local population wants and the consequences of enacting those policies.

 

1.  The negative consequences are the fact that there will be women put into a position where they cannot legally get an abortion because that particular state says they can't.  Why should a woman living in Alabama not be able to get an abortion just because she lives in Alabama and the state government decided one day that they were going to make it illegal? 

 

But in other states it's legal?  It needs to be legal in all 50 states and if possible, be consistent in the cut-off date and what circumstances will allow one to be performed after that cut-off date, imo.

 

2.  Because of the idiot states, like Alabama.  Elected officials at the local/state levels should not be able to take away that right from a woman, imo.  I just read a tweet from an article on this and to quote it:

 

"Thank you for the great work your administration has done to protect life, @realDonaldTrump. Rape & incest are horrific, but abortion doesn’t help survivors heal, it only adds more trauma. A baby of rape is innocent & doesn’t deserve the death penalty for her father’s evil crimes"

 

Are you kidding me (not talking about you, just the tweet I quoted)?  Rape and incest victims decide what helps them heal, individually, not because state elected officials believe otherwise.  If I were a woman and was raped and ended up pregnant, I'm wanting an abortion.  I would not want to be reminded of that tragedy for 40 weeks and the rest of my life raising the child.  

Edited May 21, 2019 by Dont Taze Me Bro

[nonniey]

30 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

That 91% of abortions are done within 13 weeks of gestation.  That's like realizing your pregnant and deciding you dont want to be.  You missed that, but that matters in the scope of this conversation.  Seriously, it feels from some that that 1%-2% after 5 months number we're talking about is much higher and it's not, its built up with all this passion like it is but it's not.

That 1-1.5% are thousands.  I'm just not good with that,  I wouldn't be good with even one when no direct life threatening or crippling health issues are involved.

Edited May 22, 2019 by nonniey

[Springfield]

1 hour ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

While it was somewhat a joke, it was also saying what the GOP position boils down to.

 

Truth is often said in jest.

 

 

19 minutes ago, nonniey said:

That 1-1.5% are thousands.  I'm just not good with that,  I wouldn't be good with even one when no direct life threatening or crippling health issues are involved.

 

How about defects that make life unenjoyable?

 

(there’s probably a more accurate term out there)

Edited May 22, 2019 by Springfield

[CousinsCowgirl84]

36 minutes ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

1.  The negative consequences are the fact that there will be women put into a position where they cannot legally get an abortion because that particular state says they can't.  Why should a woman living in Alabama not be able to get an abortion just because she lives in Alabama and the state government decided one day that they were going to make it illegal? 

 

She isn’t forced to live in Alabama... and it’s not like it’s impossibly to travel to another state to get medical care. Does it place additional burden on her? Yes, it does, but there are still options.

 

36 minutes ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

It needs to be legal in all 50 states and if possible, be consistent in the cut-off date and what circumstances will allow one to be performed after that cut-off date.

 

Why?

 

[visionary]

2 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

She isn’t forced to live in Alabama... and it’s not like it’s impossibly to travel to another state to get medical care. Does it place additional burden on her? Yes, it does, but there are still options.

I think some if not all the laws make it a crime to travel and get an abortion elsewhere.

[tshile]

1 minute ago, visionary said:

I think some if not all the laws make it a crime to travel and get an abortion elsewhere.

I don’t understand how that can be constitutional

 

[Renegade7]

4 minutes ago, nonniey said:

That 1-1.5% are thousands.  I'm just not good with that.

 

What's the survival rate of a fetus taken out the womb at 5 months?  From what I'm seeing it's close to zero. What kind of life are we talking about for the survivors?

 

I'm trying to find stats for reasoning behind abortions after 5 months, instead I'm finding demonizing on one side by like the National Review and doctors on the other saying most times it's the health of the baby or mother.  If you have stats to clarify, im all ears.

 

Raising a child is hard and expensive, raising one with debilitating birth defects, its jus not my place to make someone go through that.  If I cant say it to someone's face I'm not going to say it behind a computer screen.  As has been noted, this government does a pretty **** job with kids who actually are born with all the school shootings, so their bleeding heart falls on deaf ears to me now more then ever.  

 

I get you feel passionately about this, and I do, too, but it's not our bodies or our lives effected, shouldnt be our call.  I dont believe the country can agree on a middle ground, why the Vermont law makes sense.

 

[CousinsCowgirl84]

5 minutes ago, visionary said:

I think some if not all the laws make it a crime to travel and get an abortion elsewhere.

 

I thought under the Alabama law the doctors would get punished. Not the women.

[nonniey]

35 minutes ago, Springfield said:

 

Truth is often said in jest.

 

 

 

How about defects that make life unenjoyable?

 

(there’s probably a more accurate term out there)

That is a tough nut.

 

How do you define that?   An example who is to say someone with Down Syndrome can't have an enjoyable productive life (I've even seen it posted that all Down Syndrome should be aborted heck even euthanized post birth), or someone missing a limb, with cleft lip, a club foot.  You start deciding on those issues you are in the same area that Germany was in the late 1930s. 

 

Maybe we could stipulate what isn't an acceptable condition for abortion? 

 

Oh BTW lets not forget the Vermont law also allows for abortions of perfectly healthy fetuses at anytime for any reason.

Edited May 22, 2019 by nonniey

[LadySkinsFan]

Saw this in my FB feed, written by a male.

 

Shared with permission...and permission for others to share far and wide.

 

Reasonable people can disagree about when a zygote becomes a "human life" - that's a philosophical question. However, regardless of whether or not one believes a fetus is ethically equivalent to an adult, it doesn't obligate a mother to sacrifice her body autonomy for another, innocent or not.

 

Body autonomy is a critical component of the right to privacy protected by the Constitution, as decided in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), McFall v. Shimp (1978), and of course Roe v. Wade (1973). Consider a scenario where you are a perfect bone marrow match for a child with severe aplastic anemia; no other person on earth is a close enough match to save the child's life, and the child will certainly die without a bone marrow transplant from you. If you decided that you did not want to donate your marrow to save the child, for whatever reason, the state cannot demand the use of any part of your body for something to which you do not consent. It doesn't matter if the procedure required to complete the donation is trivial, or if the rationale for refusing is flimsy and arbitrary, or if the procedure is the only hope the child has to survive, or if the child is a genius or a saint or anything else - the decision to donate must be voluntary to be constitutional. This right is even extended to a person's body after they die; if they did not voluntarily commit to donate their organs while alive, their organs cannot be harvested after death, regardless of how useless those organs are to the deceased or many lives they would save. That's the law.

 

Use of a woman's uterus to save a life is no different from use of her bone marrow to save a life - it must be offered voluntarily. By all means, profess your belief that providing one's uterus to save the child is morally just, and refusing is morally wrong. That is a defensible philosophical position, regardless of who agrees and who disagrees. But legally, it must be the woman's choice to carry out the pregnancy. She may choose to carry the baby to term. She may choose not to. Either decision could be made for all the right reasons, all the wrong reasons, or anything in between. But it must be her choice, and protecting the right of body autonomy means the law is on her side. Supporting that precedent is what being pro-choice means.

[NoCalMike]

I saw that posted somewhere too.  Pretty good analysis that cuts through the emotional stake both sides have in the issue.

[twa]

Is a fetus HER body?......science seems to say no.

 

If not then logic would dictate she could not harm another's body w/o legal justification.

 

add

we can expand this further

 

Can a Dr violate the fetus's bodily autonomy to benefit the mother?

I would say so if it was self defense.....the rules for self defense are?

Edited May 22, 2019 by twa

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

19 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Why?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[twa]

Physiologically, we must accept that the conceptus is, in a very large measure, in charge of the pregnancy…. Biologically, at no stage can we subscribe to the view that the fetus is a mere appendage of the mother......Sir Albert Liley (the “Father of Fetology”)

[tshile]

35 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

I saw that posted somewhere too.  Pretty good analysis that cuts through the emotional stake both sides have in the issue.

 

I found it a poor a analogy. 

 

Generally I find the whole body autonomy argument dumb when the person has to voluntarily do something to create the situation

[bearrock]

2 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

I found it a poor a analogy. 

 

Generally I find the whole body autonomy argument dumb when the person has to voluntarily do something to create the situation

 

Yeah.  The argument only works if the mother had no role in creating the situation in the first place.  Which may be the case in some scenarios like rape, but if you voluntarily have sex, even with protection, then there is at least a possibility that pregnancy will occur.  

 

Not to mention that "even if you disagree with it morally, xyz is the current law and is consistent with other laws" is a bad argument as well.  Pro life side knows what the law is.  They are saying that the law is bad and it should be changed.  The appropriate response is to discuss why the law shouldn't be changed, not how the law is consistent with other laws.  Then it may simply be an issue that the law is consistently bad across a swath of areas.

 

Lastly, right to privacy is not inviolate anyway.  We could think of any number of extreme hypotheticals where most would probably choose to violate a person's right of bodily autonomy to save the masses.  

[NoCalMike]

I think the post from LadySkinsFan about body autonomy was pointing out that the law currently says your body/life/well-being cannot be forced to save the life of another life.  So if you include a fetus in that category, then the same applies. 

[twa]

13 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

I think the post from LadySkinsFan about body autonomy was pointing out that the law currently says your body/life/well-being cannot be forced to save the life of another life.  So if you include a fetus in that category, then the same applies. 

 

The fetus is not forcing anyone, they merely exist.

 

The person using force is the one wanting to destroy another's body.

 

 

[CousinsCowgirl84]

2 hours ago, LadySkinsFan said:

 

Body autonomy is a critical component of the right to privacy.

 

Right to privacy is not absolute.

 

2 hours ago, LadySkinsFan said:

 

Use of a woman's uterus to save a life is no different from use of her bone marrow to save a life - it must be offered voluntarily.

 

In most cases she already made a voluntary decision to have unprotected sex. The cases are not similar.

 

2 hours ago, LadySkinsFan said:

 

 

By all means, profess your belief that providing one's uterus to save the child is morally just, and refusing is morally wrong. That is a defensible philosophical position, regardless of who agrees and who disagrees. But legally, it must be the woman's choice to carry out the pregnancy. 

 

She has no obligation to show constraint in the first, though, or second, though, or even the third, though.

 

Sometimes you have to face the consequences for your actions.