I don't think the SC ruling prevents the federal legislature from making any laws whatsoever about abortion, it acknowledges what should be its own limitation in doing so.
-
40
-
Ex L wrote:
There are tons of federal laws and rulings that are not addressed by the Constitution.
You don’t send everything not addressed in the Constitution to the states.
The Family and Medical Leave Act is not in the Constitution but all states have to follow it.
Not to mention we don’t even live in a democracy anymore if you want to get technical about it. At one point people weren’t allowed I drink alcohol and weed and we all saw how that played out. You people debating law are wasting your time.
01 -
Ron Johnson wrote:
Ex L wrote:
There are tons of federal laws and rulings that are not addressed by the Constitution.
You don’t send everything not addressed in the Constitution to the states.
The Family and Medical Leave Act is not in the Constitution but all states have to follow it.
Not to mention we don’t even live in a democracy anymore if you want to get technical about it. At one point people weren’t allowed I drink alcohol and weed and we all saw how that played out. You people debating law are wasting your time.
Weren’t allowed to drink alcohol and smoke weed**
00 -
These protests are becoming very devisive, non-inclusive. All the signs I see are about women, womens rights, etc.
Birthing people everywhere are being excluded.
43 -
jamb innn wrote:
These protests are becoming very devisive, non-inclusive. All the signs I see are about women, womens rights, etc.
Birthing people everywhere are being excluded.
Give me a break on “birthing people.” I’m not that far left. I’m talking about saving a mother if her pregnancy goes south. So radical.
02 -
utbcw wrote:
bluh wrote:
There simply was never any logical connection between the right to privacy and the right to abort. I have the right to privacy inside my home, but that doesn’t mean I have unrestricted freedom to do whatever I want inside my home. If abortion were legal, one could use the right to privacy to say the state can not require, say, reporting of all abortions in tax returns, but it’s just a leap of logic to say the right to privacy implies a right to abort.
It’s also funny to hear people rattle off a list like the right to privacy, bodily autonomy.. and what not. There is only a bodily autonomy argument here that at least is based on any honest logic. There is no separate right to privacy argument that makes any sense. FWIW, the constitution doesn’t protect bodily autonomy and there’s plenty of precedent for the state restricting bodily autonomy.
The right to privacy was first announced in Griswold v. Connecticut, case involving a state statute which criminalized providing contraceptives. The Court struck down the statute, holding that the right to privacy included the right to use contraceptives. Most people know that Contraception stops pregnancy before conception, and Abortion stops pregnancy after conception. Hard to imagine how any person couldn't understand that those two concepts are "logically related."
Random logic. The two are indeed unrelated. One is before and one is after. One has nothing to do with abortion and the other does. Also, even all afters are clearly not equivalent in most people eyes.
Here’s an analogy for the logically challenged. If I see an unwelcome person in my house, I can shoot him before he actually poses a threat to me. Or I can try to diffuse the situation non-violently and only resolve to violence strictly in self defense. One is before and the other after the unwelcome guest’s manifest threat. Different states have different stand-your-ground laws to deal with such situations. One is before and the other is after doesn’t mean they are all the same.
There is no right to privacy in the 14th, only the right to life, liberty, property, and due process. “Liberty” reasonably applies to contraception as in Griswold and gay marriage. There is no loss of imminent life involved in those situations. In the case of abortion, there are at least two other person stakeholders: the unborn child and the father, and a third state stakeholder that has an interest in preserving any person’s life and therefore by necessity defining what “person” or “life” means. Doesn’t matter if you agree with me or not: SCOTUS does.
30 -
Ron Johnson wrote:
jamb innn wrote:
These protests are becoming very devisive, non-inclusive. All the signs I see are about women, womens rights, etc.
Birthing people everywhere are being excluded.
Give me a break on “birthing people.” I’m not that far left. I’m talking about saving a mother if her pregnancy goes south. So radical.
That's a fair position, but democratic leaders are starting to go on record as supporting no restrictions on abortion in their states. The mantra of "safe, legal, and rare" has long since left the building. Ruth Bader Ginsburg saw this coming. Roe basically took abortion from 0 to 100 in one fell swoop. the 1973 SCOTUS could have taken a more tactful approach, instead they went full speed and that's what caused the knee jerk response from the religious crowd that resulted in the pro life movement.
10 -
Ex L wrote:
There are tons of federal laws and rulings that are not addressed by the Constitution.
You don’t send everything not addressed in the Constitution to the states.
The Family and Medical Leave Act is not in the Constitution but all states have to follow it.
Stater of the obvious, no one disagrees with anything you said above, and it has zero bearing on the abortion debate.
00 -
#749
This post was removed.
-
bluh wrote:
utbcw wrote:
The right to privacy was first announced in Griswold v. Connecticut, case involving a state statute which criminalized providing contraceptives. The Court struck down the statute, holding that the right to privacy included the right to use contraceptives. Most people know that Contraception stops pregnancy before conception, and Abortion stops pregnancy after conception. Hard to imagine how any person couldn't understand that those two concepts are "logically related."
Random logic. The two are indeed unrelated. One is before and one is after. One has nothing to do with abortion and the other does. Also, even all afters are clearly not equivalent in most people eyes.
Here’s an analogy for the logically challenged. If I see an unwelcome person in my house, I can shoot him before he actually poses a threat to me. Or I can try to diffuse the situation non-violently and only resolve to violence strictly in self defense. One is before and the other after the unwelcome guest’s manifest threat. Different states have different stand-your-ground laws to deal with such situations. One is before and the other is after doesn’t mean they are all the same.
There is no right to privacy in the 14th, only the right to life, liberty, property, and due process. “Liberty” reasonably applies to contraception as in Griswold and gay marriage. There is no loss of imminent life involved in those situations. In the case of abortion, there are at least two other person stakeholders: the unborn child and the father, and a third state stakeholder that has an interest in preserving any person’s life and therefore by necessity defining what “person” or “life” means. Doesn’t matter if you agree with me or not: SCOTUS does.
A cluster of cells is NOT a baby or a child!
A frozen zygote is NOT a baby.
A previously frozen zygote that just got thawed is NOT a baby.
Your logic falls apart.
02 -
Government OVER reach! wrote:
bluh wrote:
Random logic. The two are indeed unrelated. One is before and one is after. One has nothing to do with abortion and the other does. Also, even all afters are clearly not equivalent in most people eyes.
Here’s an analogy for the logically challenged. If I see an unwelcome person in my house, I can shoot him before he actually poses a threat to me. Or I can try to diffuse the situation non-violently and only resolve to violence strictly in self defense. One is before and the other after the unwelcome guest’s manifest threat. Different states have different stand-your-ground laws to deal with such situations. One is before and the other is after doesn’t mean they are all the same.
There is no right to privacy in the 14th, only the right to life, liberty, property, and due process. “Liberty” reasonably applies to contraception as in Griswold and gay marriage. There is no loss of imminent life involved in those situations. In the case of abortion, there are at least two other person stakeholders: the unborn child and the father, and a third state stakeholder that has an interest in preserving any person’s life and therefore by necessity defining what “person” or “life” means. Doesn’t matter if you agree with me or not: SCOTUS does.
A cluster of cells is NOT a baby or a child!
A frozen zygote is NOT a baby.
A previously frozen zygote that just got thawed is NOT a baby.
Your logic falls apart.
Your head screw appears to have fallen apart and into the cesspool of irrelevance.
31 -
Ron Johnson wrote:
push it real good wrote:
That's a fair position, but democratic leaders are starting to go on record as supporting no restrictions on abortion in their states. The mantra of "safe, legal, and rare" has long since left the building. Ruth Bader Ginsburg saw this coming. Roe basically took abortion from 0 to 100 in one fell swoop. the 1973 SCOTUS could have taken a more tactful approach, instead they went full speed and that's what caused the knee jerk response from the religious crowd that resulted in the pro life movement.
Democrats are scumbags too and use roe v wade as a wedge issue for votes. Even still; the numbers of mothers having an abortion at eight months or whatever is very rare. To deny a mothers right to terminate a pregnancy at the risk of her life is sinful. And I’m a Catholic who turned his back on religion once priests started having a hard time keeping their d!cks out of little boys mouths.
I keep hearing about the states that won't have any protection in place to save a mother's life, but I'm not really finding anything concrete on that.
Is the issue with ectopic pregnancy and miscarriages? Those are typically classified differently (spontaneous abortion) compared to an elective abortion. Even catholic hospitals will treat a mother having an ectopic pregnancy or a miscarriage since the baby was never viable.
Louisiana, Texas, and Tennessee have exceptions to save a life or a vital organ. South Dakota, Mississippi, and Idaho have exceptions for the life of the mother. Arkansas and Utah provide exceptions for ectopic pregnancies.
That's the info I could find anyway.
20 -
agip wrote:
Roe v Wade, gone. Abortion will become illegal in around half the states.
I've said for years that if this happens, the Dems will get a boost. Tons of people will wake up feeling like the dog who caught the sports car and have some massive buyer's remorse. Millions don't want to live in a theocracy where the government has this kind of power over women.
And many religious Rs can stay at home now and not vote, because they are one-issue voters and the deal is done in their state.
And now moderate pro-life types can vote for Ds for congress, senate and WH. Because abortion doesn't matter any more nationally.
Will be interesting to see if this causes a shift in politics, starting in November 22.You're mental, you're down right mental. You couldn't be more wrong, and you're the guy who said he moved here from Mexico, correct? The Dems will get a boost? Keep telling yourself that old man. The ignorant have gotten even more ignorant.
11 -
push it real good wrote:
Ron Johnson wrote:
Democrats are scumbags too and use roe v wade as a wedge issue for votes. Even still; the numbers of mothers having an abortion at eight months or whatever is very rare. To deny a mothers right to terminate a pregnancy at the risk of her life is sinful. And I’m a Catholic who turned his back on religion once priests started having a hard time keeping their d!cks out of little boys mouths.
I keep hearing about the states that won't have any protection in place to save a mother's life, but I'm not really finding anything concrete on that.
Is the issue with ectopic pregnancy and miscarriages? Those are typically classified differently (spontaneous abortion) compared to an elective abortion. Even catholic hospitals will treat a mother having an ectopic pregnancy or a miscarriage since the baby was never viable.
Louisiana, Texas, and Tennessee have exceptions to save a life or a vital organ. South Dakota, Mississippi, and Idaho have exceptions for the life of the mother. Arkansas and Utah provide exceptions for ectopic pregnancies.
That's the info I could find anyway.
They use an abortion pill if the miscarriage is not clearing on its own. It’s the same pill.
02 -
bluh wrote:
Government OVER reach! wrote:
A cluster of cells is NOT a baby or a child!
A frozen zygote is NOT a baby.
A previously frozen zygote that just got thawed is NOT a baby.
Your logic falls apart.
Your head screw appears to have fallen apart and into the cesspool of irrelevance.
No, if you can't state whether a zygote is a child or not (which you can't do) then you have no argument.
02 -
Ron Johnson wrote:
push it real good wrote:
I keep hearing about the states that won't have any protection in place to save a mother's life, but I'm not really finding anything concrete on that.
Is the issue with ectopic pregnancy and miscarriages? Those are typically classified differently (spontaneous abortion) compared to an elective abortion. Even catholic hospitals will treat a mother having an ectopic pregnancy or a miscarriage since the baby was never viable.
Louisiana, Texas, and Tennessee have exceptions to save a life or a vital organ. South Dakota, Mississippi, and Idaho have exceptions for the life of the mother. Arkansas and Utah provide exceptions for ectopic pregnancies.
That's the info I could find anyway.
They use an abortion pill if the miscarriage is not clearing on its own. It’s the same pill.
Right, but a miscarriage is altogether different from an elective abortion. Even the most religious hospitals understand the difference.
10 -
Government OVER reach! wrote:
bluh wrote:
Your head screw appears to have fallen apart and into the cesspool of irrelevance.
No, if you can't state whether a zygote is a child or not (which you can't do) then you have no argument.
I just don’t care to. You don’t know what I think and your frozen zygote argument is irrelevant to anything I said.
40 -
push it real good wrote:
I keep hearing about the states that won't have any protection in place to save a mother's life, but I'm not really finding anything concrete on that.
Is the issue with ectopic pregnancy and miscarriages? Those are typically classified differently (spontaneous abortion) compared to an elective abortion. Even catholic hospitals will treat a mother having an ectopic pregnancy or a miscarriage since the baby was never viable.
Louisiana, Texas, and Tennessee have exceptions to save a life or a vital organ. South Dakota, Mississippi, and Idaho have exceptions for the life of the mother. Arkansas and Utah provide exceptions for ectopic pregnancies.
That's the info I could find anyway.
The virtue signalers are actually concerned about the small probability (~0.02% or less) of a normal pregnancy causing maternal mortality on the grounds of which they appear to be arguing all abortion should be a woman’s sole decision.
20 -
push it real good wrote:
Ron Johnson wrote:
They use an abortion pill if the miscarriage is not clearing on its own. It’s the same pill.
Right, but a miscarriage is altogether different from an elective abortion. Even the most religious hospitals understand the difference.
If you outlaw abortion pills you outlaw abortion pills which means a physician could be conflicted on whether or not to fill a prescription for someone in that situation. That’s the issue; I’m sure church’s are ok with it but whose to say a Dr can’t be prosecuted for trying to save someone’s life. Miscarriage is technically an abortion in its own right.
01 -
Ron Johnson wrote:
push it real good wrote:
Right, but a miscarriage is altogether different from an elective abortion. Even the most religious hospitals understand the difference.
If you outlaw abortion pills you outlaw abortion pills which means a physician could be conflicted on whether or not to fill a prescription for someone in that situation. That’s the issue; I’m sure church’s are ok with it but whose to say a Dr can’t be prosecuted for trying to save someone’s life. Miscarriage is technically an abortion in its own right.
this is already happening in Texas where medical providers and pharmacies are having this disconnect over the pill. so there have already been instances where women are miscarrying and are being prescribed the abortion pill only to have the pharmacist deny the script.
00
/static.texastribune.org/media/files/19cc1fe3c3791bf69a29cc0b90376735/Womens%20Health%20Clinic%20%20ES%20TT%2007.jpg)
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun
No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.