SCOTUS Rules Texas Abortion Restictions Unconstitutional

[QMany]

 

 

 

 

 

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?

What was the SCOTUS vote in Roe v. Wade & DC v. Heller?

[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?

What was the SCOTUS vote in Roe v. Wade & DC v. Heller?

 

 

There is a long history of mixed decisions around abortion, partial birth, etc, and I don't care what the vote was in Roe vs DC. You are still missing the point that the right to bear arms is explicitly called out by the Constitution. Can you point me to what part of the Constitution explicitly calls our the right to abort a baby?

 

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/01/16/a-history-of-key-abortion-rulings-of-the-us-supreme-court/

 

Also, as I asked previously, 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?

[zoogs]

@knapp -- Yes. I think it's fair to say that before birth, I don't think you should get much say. That's me, by the way; the current legal status quo takes the question of balance more seriously.

 

I'm a very family-oriented guy. I love kids, and I don't understand why anyone wouldn't want *several* of them. I know what choice I'd make. And I've always had the relative privilege of this not really being a hard question.

 

But a 16-year old high school student from an impoverished background? Or someone who is a rape victim, where no father is going to be around? Even someone who simply didn't want a child, whether then or ever. These people should make their own choices about whether or not to bring their own child into the world -- whether or not you or I agree with them. I'm puzzled at the idea that a third party (judge?) might be considered an equally valid decision-maker. Either the mother has all the choice, or she has zero choice. And as a practical matter, she never quite has zero choice. But that's heartbreaking.

 

There are lives, too, that would not exist today if not for an abortion. Given the statistics, many of us probably know one. And in no circumstance could I trade any of those in and say, "I wish the government had forced your mother to have that earlier child instead of you."

 

Yeah, it's a pretty hard topic. I wish everyone were not only great people and great potential parents, but could also decide completely when and if to have a pregnancy. That's not a reality, but it's something to work towards. Casey holds up two societal interests that must be balanced. Another one, no less important in my view: of the ~4 million or so American births every year, there's an interest that as many of these as possible be born into stable, loving families who wanted them in the first place.

[Red Dead Redemption]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

What is the standard of proof for something living?

Do you think an animal (human or otherwise) needs a beating heart for the rest of the body to be considered alive? It doesnt. It can live (not very long, mind you) without a heart. But It can live longer without a heart if there is some other way to deliver oxygen to its brain.

 

If the brain is dead, a beating heart doesnt mean anthing other than the heart tissue is still spasming.

If the brain is the prerequisite for a living being then the fetus is a living being even sooner by your definition since the brain and spinal cord are the first thing to develop

Not just a brain. A vegetative person has a brain.

 

It's about cognition.

So a vegetative person isn't a human being?

Sure they are.

 

And it's not murder to terminate their life.

 

 

 

Is it to terminate their life against their will?

 

Anyways, red dead, I just asked you what WAS the standard for life? Didn't ask you to refute how a heart isn't.

 

 

Okay, I wasn't sure what you were getting at. It's a difficult question with no clear answer. And depending on how the question is worded it could mean different things.

 

I see a difference between a "human lifeform" and a "human life". A zygote is a human lifeform; it is not a baby. The transition between fetus and baby is blurry, and the transition between embryo and fetus is blurry.

 

When you ask what is the "standard for life", that is still kind of an ambiguous question, because to me that also could be referring to "quality of life" which is another discussion. But to answer what I think the crux of your question might be, I think that a developed brain with brain activity (which I think occurs somewhere in the late embryonic/early fetal stages) would indicate a somewhat independent sentient being, at that point it's right to life should be considered. But it's rights don't yet outweigh the rights of the mother. At some point it might, but where that transition should be is a tough call.

[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.

 

 

For starters, do most humans normally have something inside them with a beating heart. Second, you ignored the latter part of my question regarding the scientific evidence that the pre-born can feel pain, and I asked whether you and others supportive of abortion also approve of it at 25, 30, or even 37 weeks? It's a simply yes or no answer.

 

 

It's not a simple yes or no answer, but I'm sure you want to make it seem like it is.

[knapplc]

@knapp -- Yes. I think it's fair to say that before birth, I don't think you should get much say. That's me, by the way; the current legal status quo takes the question of balance more seriously.

 

I'm a very family-oriented guy. I love kids, and I don't understand why anyone wouldn't want *several* of them. I know what choice I'd make. And I've always had the relative privilege of this not really being a hard question.

 

But a 16-year old high school student from an impoverished background? Or someone who is a rape victim, where no father is going to be around? Even someone who simply didn't want a child, whether then or ever. These people should make their own choices about whether or not to bring their own child into the world -- whether or not you or I agree with them. I'm puzzled at the idea that a third party (judge?) might be considered an equally valid decision-maker. Either the mother has all the choice, or she has zero choice. And as a practical matter, she never quite has zero choice. But that's heartbreaking.

 

There are lives, too, that would not exist today if not for an abortion. Given the statistics, many of us probably know one. And in no circumstance could I trade any of those in and say, "I wish the government had forced your mother to have that earlier child instead of you."

 

Yeah, it's a pretty hard topic. I wish everyone were not only great people and great potential parents, but could also decide completely when and if to have a pregnancy. That's not a reality, but it's something to work towards. Casey holds up two societal interests that must be balanced. Another one, no less important in my view: of the ~4 million or so American births every year, there's an interest that as many of these as possible be born into stable, loving families who wanted them in the first place.

I don't know that the impoverished student or rape victim is in a better place than the unborn child to say who lives & who dies. The person who simply doesn't want a child, and has an abortion for convenience after consensual sex, is totally not on my radar. That's not a fair decision, in my opinion.

 

The mother has all the choice or zero choice - that sucks. Because it's her body. But the baby has all the choice (which is us, choosing for those who can't yet choose) or they have no choice. And that sucks, too.

 

I'd imagine every aborted child, if given the choice, would opt for life instead of death. But they're not the ones giving up their bodies for someone else, so....

 

It's one of the few questions for which I don't think there's a good answer. Each choice is terrible.

[Red Dead Redemption]

 

It's one of the few questions for which I don't think there's a good answer. Each choice is terrible.

 

 

Yup.

[HuskerShark]

For someone who has consensual sex, it was their decision to do so, and they ought to understand the potential result. It's not the woman's life that she's choosing to save or eliminate - it's the baby's. For the woman, it's merely for convenience. Sorry, but if a woman does not want to get pregnant, she needs to exhibit actions that are consistent with that - abstinence or contraceptives.

 

In the case of rape victims, it obviously gets a bit more murky, but there is still no reason to allow murder. There are great stories I've heard of women in that situation who decided to keep the child.

 

Worst case scenario, what's stopping the rape victim from getting the plan B pill and taking it right after the rape to prevent a potential pregnancy?

[Red Dead Redemption]

For someone who has consensual sex, it was their decision to do so, and they ought to understand the potential result. It's not the woman's life that she's choosing to save or eliminate - it's the baby's. For the woman, it's merely for convenience. Sorry, but if a woman does not want to get pregnant, she needs to exhibit actions that are consistent with that - abstinence or contraceptives.

 

In the case of rape victims, it obviously gets a bit more murky, but there is still no reason to allow murder. There are great stories I've heard of women in that situation who decided to keep the child.

 

Worst case scenario, what's stopping the rape victim from getting the plan B pill and taking it right after the rape to prevent a potential pregnancy?

 

I'm guessing cost and availability are a couple of them.

[mrandyk]

For someone who has consensual sex, it was their decision to do so, and they ought to understand the potential result. It's not the woman's life that she's choosing to save or eliminate - it's the baby's. For the woman, it's merely for convenience. Sorry, but if a woman does not want to get pregnant, she needs to exhibit actions that are consistent with that - abstinence or contraceptives.

 

In the case of rape victims, it obviously gets a bit more murky, but there is still no reason to allow murder. There are great stories I've heard of women in that situation who decided to keep the child.

 

Worst case scenario, what's stopping the rape victim from getting the plan B pill and taking it right after the rape to prevent a potential pregnancy?

Great stories about rape victims keeping the child? Even if a couple of those exist they have to be minuscule compared to all the women reminded of the most traumatic moment in their life every time they look at their child. It's pathetic how you will actively seek out whatever uncommon or misguided anecdote you can find to justify a stance that has no place in a modern civilization.

[zoogs]

If a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, then a woman must avoid having sex?

 

A woman choosing against pregnancy is being selfish? Her considerations for her own life are mere convenience?

 

No, no, no, no, and no. Sigh. Women are people, not baby-gestating factories contracted out by society. Every single unwanted pregnancy sucks; we'd all prevent every last one if we could. And as far as heartwarming stories...no conceivable law would ever mandate an abortion, or am I wrong?

[C N Red]

 

Yes, birth control, sex education, and counseling should all be available. No, other people should not be forced to pay for it.

Available. I don't think it means what you think it means.

It's the responsibility of the individual who makes the choice to have sex and get pregnant to deal with the repercussions

Getting pregnant is not just a choice. If it were, then there would be zero unwanted pregnancies.

To say getting pregnant isnt a choice is very shortsided. If you choose to have unprotected sex you are choosing the chance to possibly get get pregnant.

[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?

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.

 

 

For starters, do most humans normally have something inside them with a beating heart. Second, you ignored the latter part of my question regarding the scientific evidence that the pre-born can feel pain, and I asked whether you and others supportive of abortion also approve of it at 25, 30, or even 37 weeks? It's a simply yes or no answer.

 

 

It's not a simple yes or no answer, but I'm sure you want to make it seem like it is.

 

 

Please explain to me how it's not a simple yes or no answer. I'm not talking about cases involving exceptions or if the mother's life is in danger. Should a woman be allowed to have an abortion of a perfectly healthy pre-born child at 25, 30, or 37 weeks?

[Red Dead Redemption]

 

For someone who has consensual sex, it was their decision to do so, and they ought to understand the potential result. It's not the woman's life that she's choosing to save or eliminate - it's the baby's. For the woman, it's merely for convenience. Sorry, but if a woman does not want to get pregnant, she needs to exhibit actions that are consistent with that - abstinence or contraceptives.

 

In the case of rape victims, it obviously gets a bit more murky, but there is still no reason to allow murder. There are great stories I've heard of women in that situation who decided to keep the child.

 

Worst case scenario, what's stopping the rape victim from getting the plan B pill and taking it right after the rape to prevent a potential pregnancy?

Great stories about rape victims keeping the child? Even if a couple of those exist they have to be minuscule compared to all the women reminded of the most traumatic moment in their life every time they look at their child. It's pathetic how you will actively seek out whatever uncommon or misguided anecdote you can find to justify a stance that has no place in a modern civilization.

 

A 12-year-old Yemeni girl, who was forced into marriage, died during a painful childbirth that also killed her baby, a children's rights group said Monday

 

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/09/14/yemen.childbirth.death/

[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.

 

For starters, do most humans normally have something inside them with a beating heart. Second, you ignored the latter part of my question regarding the scientific evidence that the pre-born can feel pain, and I asked whether you and others supportive of abortion also approve of it at 25, 30, or even 37 weeks? It's a simply yes or no answer.

 

It's not a simple yes or no answer, but I'm sure you want to make it seem like it is.

 

Please explain to me how it's not a simple yes or no answer. I'm not talking about cases involving exceptions or if the mother's life is in danger. Should a woman be allowed to have an abortion of a perfectly healthy pre-born child at 25, 30, or 37 weeks?

 

You just explained it yourself by adding more parameters to your original question.