Jump to content

SCOTUS & the Texas abortion law


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 388
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Lol angry rednecks scared about Muslims bringing “sharia law” to their country when their own governments basically are religious nuts like them and have installed a form of “sharia law” lmao   

As soon as you start promoting better public schools, free lunches for the poor, and generally improved welfare policies for kids and families I'll start respecting your opinion on why poor women shou

I agree that murdering babies is wrong. Fortunately, abortion isn’t murdering a baby.   And it has everything to do with welfare policies because the primary reason women have an abortion is

Posted Images

1 hour ago, OILERMAN said:

 

Did you see the TED talk from the DRs and nurses at the abortion clinics? It specifically talked about the protestors who came in for abortions. It was amazing. They would tell the DRs and nurses why their case was different and why they needed an abortion and then they would return to protest and start heckling women getting abortions again after they got an abortion. 

This should be surprising yet isn’t. They’re all Trump supporting non-vaxing idiots, though I’m sure this happened well before Dummy #1 came onto the political scene. 
 

I try and have for the most part continued not to be jaded, but I give you credit that you’ve held the same position about these idiots since I’ve been on the forum and every passing year I get closer to your overall philosophy of fuck these people. Goddamn hypocrites. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, abenjami said:

 

 

 

Do you believe a woman should have the right to have a third trimester abortion even when there is no medically warranted reason for it?

Back to this classic gem, though...

 

Since when is 6 weeks gestation the third trimester?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, unauthorizedcinnamon said:

I think your the only one that really needs help on here as you accused me of saying or implying something that I never said.

 

You said, and I quote:

 

"It sounds to me like you are in favor of third trimester abortions, warranted or not."

 

Nothing in my post says or implies that. So, why are you lying? I really don't like liars.

Benji is a lawyer. When he converses with you about topics like this he’s making his point and also asking you to clarify your stance. Stop being defensive. It’s just his style. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, unauthorizedcinnamon said:

Back to this classic gem, though...

 

Since when is 6 weeks gestation the third trimester?

 

It isn't and I obviously never said it was.

 

You should stick to talking about your favorite snack foods in the off topic forum and let the adults handle the political topics.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, abenjami said:

 

It isn't and I obviously never said it was.

 

You should stick to talking about your favorite snack foods in the off topic forum and let the adults handle the political topics.

So you enganged in a topic that you had no idea about.

 

Good shit, lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, unauthorizedcinnamon said:

So you enganged in a topic that you had no idea about.

 

Good shit, lawyer.

 

LOL laughable and makes no sense.  Seriously, stick to your favorite snack foods and other less complicated issues.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone should take a moment to study and read up on ensoulment. Its at the heart of this debate (no pun intended) but no one addresses it because to do so would acknowledge that all religions are widely opposed, which makes the whole abortion argument comical from a scientific and policy debate.

 

Most modern iterations of christian faith (other than Catholicism) have broken from their original interpretation of ensoulment. Abortion is a 20th century argument mostly because its a political argument, not a religious one. At its core, the modern day abortion debate is a manifestation and derivative of entitlement over another and the ultimate disdain for the poor, which is pretty ironic because the "christians" are the greatest offenders of judgement.

 

The rabbinical Jewish faith just laughs at the hemming and hawing of christians and abortion. The interpretation is simple: the embryo and the fetus are simply organic matter. Ensoulment hasn't occurred and even if it did, the concept of "original sin" is absent of the faith so that soul has been given the ultimate pass to skip a miserable life on earth. 

 

In short, arguing abortion without arguing the point of ensoulment is a fruitless debate. 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Downtown said:

In short, arguing abortion without arguing the point of ensoulment is a fruitless debate. 

 

 

Only if you believe in ensoulment.  For those who don't it's a non-issue.

 

But generally I agree with what I think is your broader point.  Other than the extremists on both ends, the abortion debate is really about where one draws the line between a naturally occurring petri dish and an actual life or a person.  People discuss it using scientific terms like embryo and fetus but really they're making a distinction between what they consider to be a valid life and what they don't.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@abenjami which eventually brings us to the more technical survival/law portion of the debate: 

 

can one citizens’ rights supersede another citizens’ rights? 
 

Logically, acknowledging a consensus can’t be formed to the validity of life of a fetus; then how can a fetus be guaranteed rights, and more importantly, how can the assumed rights of the fetus supersede the rights of the mother? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Downtown said:

@abenjami which eventually brings us to the more technical survival/law portion of the debate: 

 

can one citizens’ rights supercede another citizens’ rights? 
 

Logically, acknowledging a consensus can’t be formed to the validity of life of a fetus; then how can a fetus be guaranteed rights, and more importantly, how can the assumed rights of the fetus supercede the rights of the mother? 

Does the fetus have rights if it isn’t an American citizen? I mean, show me the birth certificate…

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Downtown said:

@abenjami which eventually brings us to the more technical survival/law portion of the debate: 

 

can one citizens’ rights supercede another citizens’ rights? 
 

Logically, acknowledging a consensus can’t be formed to the validity of life of a fetus; then how can a fetus be guaranteed rights, and more importantly, how can the assumed rights of the fetus supercede the rights of the mother? 

 

I wouldn't say a consensus can't be formed as to the validity of life for a fetus.  I think many agree at some point the fetus is a valid life and either has rights and/or deserves our protection.  The debate is more about exactly when that occurs.

 

But for purposes of answering your questions, let's assume there is a consensus that after 30 weeks the fetus is a valid life and/or deserves legal protection.  The law could simply define whose rights (mother or fetus) are superior and that would end it legally speaking.

 

But more likely, the law wouldn't be so black and white and would involve some kind of weighing interests test or balancing of the scales.  This is common in the law when you have two competing interests, such as when an individual's constitutional right to privacy conflicts with a policy of the law that can only be served by invading upon those privacy rights to some degree.

 

In the context of a late term abortion, one would have to balance the interests of the mother vs. the interests of the fetus.  In a situation where the mother is likely to die without an abortion and the fetus has a good chance of being stillborn or disabled, it's easy to say the mother's rights trump the fetus.  But in a situation where the fetus is healthy and the mother has a small risk of a complicated labor and delivery, the opposite is true.  Of course things like this are easy to see using extreme examples and the real challenge comes from the cases where the interests are of a more similar weight.

 

If you want my personal opinion, in a case where the rights of the mother are equal to the rights of the fetus, I think the mother's rights should supersede the fetus.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...