SCOTUS Rules Texas Abortion Restictions Unconstitutional

[NM11046]

If we do ever live in a country where everyone has the guaranteed right to own guns, but women who get pregnant lose their rights to agency over their own lives and bodies, I'd hope that we as a freethinking people could look at this situation and think, "Huh. Maybe we should change those things."

+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1

[Guy Chamberlin]

 

We are not not a Socialist country, too.

 

Unfortunately, you're right. There are certain programs in our country of a socialist ideology (Social security, medicare, medicaid, etc), all of which should be done away with.

 

 

Sometimes people mistake "socialism" for "civilization."

[AR Husker Fan]

 

 

We are not not a Socialist country, too.

 

Unfortunately, you're right. There are certain programs in our country of a socialist ideology (Social security, medicare, medicaid, etc), all of which should be done away with.

 

 

Sometimes people mistake "socialism" for "civilization."

 

And Fox for news.

[Lil' Red]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you're talking about taking care of the poor, I'm all for that idea. But the idea that a government would step in, require us to pay our hard earned money, and then divvy it out to poor people is NOT the way Jesus would have intended it. It should be an entirely free will thing, not something that's forced upon people.

Matthew 25: 37-40 Then the righteous will answer him, Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you? The King will reply, Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.

 

Mark 12:17 And Jesus answering said unto them, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." And they marveled at him.

Notice how he didn't say "Render unto Caesar your money so he can give it to those less fortunate."

 

Once again, I believe Jesus would have it be a free will offering rather than a payment to the government for them to disburse.

Acts 4:32-35 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And Gods grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.

 

We can quibble about who's doing the distributing - the government or the church - but it's still about as Socialist as Medicare.

 

And we can quibble about the government being "them" or "us" all you want, but Abraham Lincoln said the government was "Of the people, by the people, for the people." If the government is "them," then who is "us?"

The dots don't connect the way you want them to. Bottom line is, people work hard for their money. They shouldn't be forced to hand over a portion of it so that it can be distributed by a current-day government that has shown time and again not to be trustworthy. Giving money to the poor should be entirely by choice.

It isn't by choice. You've been commanded to do so by Jesus. He couldn't have been more clear about it.

So you're forcing the Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Pagans, and Satanists to participate in a Christian program through the government? That doesn't seem right...

Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security aren't Christian programs.

That's what you're trying to argue. Bottom line, no government should force anyone to give money in order for them to re-disburse to those they deem worthy. It should be entirely by free will choice, as Jesus intended it if that's what you're coming back at me with.

Let's try that for 2 years. Get back to me when your car is done falling into a giant pothole that didn't get repaires because people didn't freely donate their time and money to repair it.

(facepalm)

 

Like usual, you're not understanding the issue. We're not talking about taxation in general. Just social security and other socialist programs to pay for poor people.

Oh I underatand the issue perfectly. You just don't understand what you're saying.

 

All tax money is used for things that people can't afford on their own. The police help everyone including poor people. As do road repairs. As would help for parents of newborns.

 

I guess you're only agains things that ONLY help poor people. 'Cause they just don't deserve it.

 

I'm pro-life but the Republicans are completely ass-backwards on their philosophy about it. You want people to help their babies? Don't be such jerks to people of need.

 

 

No, you really don't, but just to hopefully educate you, I'll bite.

 

There is a difference between government socialist programs and government taxation to build infrastructure.

 

Yes, helping the poor is a good thing to do, but the government should not be Robin Hood. People should have the freedom to choose to give money to the poor or not.

 

 

And if people choose not to give money, should we just let them die?

[Landlord]

If we do ever live in a country where everyone has the guaranteed right to own guns, but women who get pregnant lose their rights to agency over their own lives and bodies, I'd hope that we as a freethinking people could look at this situation and think, "Huh. Maybe we should change those things."

 

 

zoogs how do you fit the idea of everyone having the right to be able to keep living into this?

 

 

Almost all of your posts come from a perspective of not controlling what women do with their bodies or forcing them into decisions without their consent or desire, which I'm sympathetic towards. How do you view the thing that is growing inside of the women?

[zoogs]

I'd say that in order to start living, a consenting mother is required. To reach a point where there's a "you" who can have rights -- which, if female, should include lifelong agency over her own body -- there has to first be a woman who carries the pregnancy. In any civilized society, she only does this of her own accord, and becomes a mother to have this child for herself -- not for the government, not for an adoption agency, not for anybody else.

 

JMO -- I know it's a difficult, and fraught subject. I'm sure I've expressed myself more eloquently past times this has come up than I am doing currently, also.

 

I'm sympathetic to the idea that there's a hazy boundary; when can you consider them two separate lives? But impelling women who do not want their pregnancies to go through with them is a non starter for me.

[Landlord]

I'm sympathetic to the idea that there's a hazy boundary; when can you consider them two separate lives? But impelling women who do not want their pregnancies to go through with them is a non starter for me.

 

 

In most cases (with obvious, legitimate exceptions), assuming there's even a 1% chance that it's a human baby with personhood in the womb, shouldn't the right of life trump the right of being able to do what we want with our bodies? I understand there is no consensus in the scientific community as to when personhood begins, but there is at least new, uniquely created DNA in there from the start, and that seems to be the way we approach these scenarios between adults (my right to swing a knife through the air ends where your face begins kind of thing).

 

 

On a different note, what kind of restrictions would you put on legal abortion law, if any? I'm curious where lines should be drawn, if anywhere.

[Red Dead Redemption]

I'd say that in order to start living, a consenting mother is required. To reach a point where there's a "you" who can have rights -- which, if female, should include lifelong agency over her own body -- there has to first be a woman who carries the pregnancy. In any civilized society, she only does this of her own accord, and becomes a mother to have this child for herself -- not for the government, not for an adoption agency, not for anybody else.

 

JMO -- I know it's a difficult, and fraught subject. I'm sure I've expressed myself more eloquently past times this has come up than I am doing currently, also.

 

I'm sympathetic to the idea that there's a hazy boundary; when can you consider them two separate lives? But impelling women who do not want their pregnancies to go through with them is a non starter for me.

I agree. To not give a woman any choice over her own body, it seems to objectify them and/or render them an unperson, as though they are nothing more than a baby-making machine controlled by others.

[HuskerNation1]

 

 

 

I really think this discussion is getting too philosophical. As I pointed out earlier, science is proving the pro-life movement right with each passing day. With the pre-born able to feel excruciating pain beginning around 20 weeks, there is no justification for allowing abortions to continue unless the mother's life is in danger and it's an either/or choice where someone must feel the pain.

Except that's not what the scientific evidence establishes.

 

While I am ok if some oppose abortion based upon their own religious believes, it's also ok to declare something morally wrong that is not based upon a religious doctrine. It's comical to me that the same group that claims we must pass gun control legislation which has its basis in a Constitutional amendment, and by which ownership of a gun does not mean someone will be hurt or die, approves of the right to have unlimited abortions which GUARANTEES pain and suffering of the innocent pre-born.

Which, like guns, said right is derived from the Constitution.

 

While it's not 100% alignment, I will guarantee you that most who staunchly believe in gun control also believe in the right to kill the pre-born. It's no different than saying Republicans are against gun control...I'm sure there are some who are in favor of it, but a high majority will always side with the 2nd amendment.

 

As for the Constituation, I was referring to an amendment specifically calling out the right to an abortion. Last I checked, there is no amendment offering this right, and the only way it's legal is through what I consider the wrong interpretation of a Constiutional clause. The right to bear arms is listed as the 2nd Amendment right after freedom of speech, religion, press, etc...

 

Ah, I see. It's a constitutional right so long as you think it is. Fortunately, that's not the way it works. It's a constitutional right despite your opinion. That's how it works.

 

 

You are missing the point. What I stated is that there is no amendment calling out the right to have abortions like there is the right to bear arms. The Supreme Court in the 1970s decided abortion was ok, not our founding fathers, and a new Supreme Court in the future could alter that. Meanwhile, it would take a heck of a lot more to alter the 2nd amendment, as is evidence by this process.

 

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/a/amendments.htm

 

So as a general point, are you ok with late-term abortions, and do you feel that if there are no exceptions at play, any woman should be able to end a pregnancy at 25 weeks, 30 weeks, or even 37 weeks?

[HuskerNation1]

 

Wrong. That's why there the there are opposing medical opinions on the subject - it hasn't been conclusively proven.

 

 

More of the science is heading in the direction of the articles I offered up. Sure, those who believe abortion, including late-term abortion, is acceptable will find opinions to support their cause, but most controversial topics like these will never have fully conclusive evidence. Taking science out of it, you can hear a heartbeat at 6 weeks, a baby kicking around 15-20 weeks, and continue to kick for the remainder of the pregnancy. And you are debating whether there is a human inside and think it's ok to kill this baby in the latter stages of pregnancy?

[Red Dead Redemption]

 

 

 

Wrong. That's why there the there are opposing medical opinions on the subject - it hasn't been conclusively proven.

 

More of the science is heading in the direction of the articles I offered up. Sure, those who believe abortion, including late-term abortion, is acceptable will find opinions to support their cause, but most controversial topics like these will never have fully conclusive evidence. Taking science out of it, you can hear a heartbeat at 6 weeks, a baby kicking around 15-20 weeks, and continue to kick for the remainder of the pregnancy. And you are debating whether there is a human inside and think it's ok to kill this baby in the latter stages of pregnancy?

A beating heart is not proof of a living sentient being.

 

A heart is just a collection of muscle cells with involuntary spasms. A sentient being can be dead with a still beating heart, or can be alive without a beating heart.

[Red Dead Redemption]

.

[Landlord]

A beating heart is not proof of a living sentient being.

 

What is the standard of proof for something living?

[cm husker]

 

 

We are not not a Socialist country, too.

 

Unfortunately, you're right. There are certain programs in our country of a socialist ideology (Social security, medicare, medicaid, etc), all of which should be done away with.

Because you know; Jesus said "f#*k your fellow man, get yours." Or was that Trump?

I also don't think Jesus said, require or rely on government to help your fellow man.

[cm husker]

 

 

A beating heart is not proof of a living sentient being.

What is the standard of proof for something living?

We have rules and thresholds for when can ethically remove living people from life support. I've often wondered why we can rely on those sorts of brain activity/cognitive functions as the threshold prior to life, too.