SCOTUS Rules Texas Abortion Restictions Unconstitutional

[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.

Holy crap... If someone on here (a woman) ever gets raped, or you know someone who gets raped, please message me and i will out of the goodness of my heart buy the plan B pill for them.

 

How's that? Or do you have more excuses?

Not excuses. I have no confirmation, I was just guessing.

Thanks for the offer, but I'll bet with just a little effort on your part you could easily be put in contact with those that need/want them.

How's that? Or do you have excuses as to why you won't own up to your self-righteousness and bluster? Are you habitually dishonest?

I've got a lot of irons in the fire, but I'm always charitable whenever i can be. If i come across someone in need such as this, id be glad to help.

Yeah...don't strain yourself ...

you gotta save your energy to pat yourself on the back

More than I've seen you do, big guy.

 

 

Of course you haven't seen what I do; how could you? You don't know me and you've never seen me.

 

Are you expecting me to humblebrag on here about my charitable/volunteer endeavors?

[Red Dead Redemption]

 

The lack of compassion and empathy in this thread is incredible.

 

I'm sure some of you commenting here know exactly how you would feel if you were a woman, a man raped you and you got pregnant.

I absolutely empathize with a woman who gets raped, and if she gets pregnant as a result. That empathy goes away if she chooses to kill the living human inside of her, no matter how difficult that situation may be.

 

 

Wow.

Did you get that judgmental broad brush at "(That is) Low"'s or "Home Despot"?

[Landlord]

The lack of compassion and empathy in this thread is incredible.

 

I'm sure some of you commenting here know exactly how you would feel if you were a woman, a man raped you and you got pregnant.

 

 

 

While that would be a horrendous and tragic nightmare to endure, whether aborting or keeping a baby, that's the reason for less than .05% of abortions behind many more common and/or likely situations and reasons given, so let's not prop that up as some righteous crusade.

 

Almost 25% of women getting abortions cite financial hardship as the main issue. There is a lot we can do better at towards this, no doubt, and it's unfair that women have to bear such a burden that men don't in this regard.

 

Almost 20% of women report "has all the children she wanted or all children are grown". Not exactly a downtrodden and hopeless victim, but probably had an accident or made a mistake. This reason along with other factors like being too young/immature, not being ready, having problems in a relationship or being unwilling to be a single mother and interfering with career plans make up the large majority of abortion reasoning. Advancements in contraception would be one great way to attack this; I'm still really hoping for contraception options for men that help alleviate so much of the burden and responsibility of childbearing.

 

But, at the same time, even for those that are pro-choice, shouldn't we all be fighting to cut the number of abortions down? Better healthcare, better sex ed, better contraception, better economy, these all work towards that goal from one end, but I guess I can't see why the victims of rape and the mothers who might die in childbirth are the first examples brought up so quickly, as if there is something worth gaining from fighting for looser law and restrictions.

 

Babies have survived (and ended up quite healthy, I might add) being born before the cutoff dates for abortions in almost 1/3 of the states in our country. How is this something that we're collectively okay with?

[Enhance]

 

The lack of compassion and empathy in this thread is incredible.

 

I'm sure some of you commenting here know exactly how you would feel if you were a woman, a man raped you and you got pregnant.

I absolutely empathize with a woman who gets raped, and if she gets pregnant as a result. That empathy goes away if she chooses to kill the living human inside of her, no matter how difficult that situation may be.

 

Once again, I'm sure you know exactly how you would feel if you were a woman, a man raped you and you got pregnant.

 

I personally know a woman who was passionately anti-abortion and devout Catholic, and her rape/subsequent decision completely changed her life and her way of thinking.

 

It is not as cut and dry, black and white as you want it to be.

[Red Dead Redemption]

 

The lack of compassion and empathy in this thread is incredible.

 

I'm sure some of you commenting here know exactly how you would feel if you were a woman, a man raped you and you got pregnant.

 

 

 

While that would be a horrendous and tragic nightmare to endure, whether aborting or keeping a baby, that's the reason for less than .05% of abortions behind many more common and/or likely situations and reasons given, so let's not prop that up as some righteous crusade.

 

Almost 25% of women getting abortions cite financial hardship as the main issue. There is a lot we can do better at towards this, no doubt, and it's unfair that women have to bear such a burden that men don't in this regard.

 

Almost 20% of women report "has all the children she wanted or all children are grown". Not exactly a downtrodden and hopeless victim, but probably had an accident or made a mistake. This reason along with other factors like being too young/immature, not being ready, having problems in a relationship or being unwilling to be a single mother and interfering with career plans make up the large majority of abortion reasoning. Advancements in contraception would be one great way to attack this; I'm still really hoping for contraception options for men that help alleviate so much of the burden and responsibility of childbearing.

 

But, at the same time, even for those that are pro-choice, shouldn't we all be fighting to cut the number of abortions down? Better healthcare, better sex ed, better contraception, better economy, these all work towards that goal from one end, but I guess I can't see why the victims of rape and the mothers who might die in childbirth are the first examples brought up so quickly, as if there is something worth gaining from fighting for looser law and restrictions.

 

Babies have survived being born before the cutoff dates for abortions in almost 1/3 of the states in our country. How is this something that we're collectively okay with?

 

 

Haven't the number of abortions already been steadily declining for almost 30 years?

[Landlord]

Haven't the number of abortions already been steadily declining for almost 30 years?

 

 

Anywhere from ~15-30 depending on what statistic you're looking at but, yes, thankfully.

 

[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?

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

Holy crap... If someone on here (a woman) ever gets raped, or you know someone who gets raped, please message me and i will out of the goodness of my heart buy the plan B pill for them.

 

How's that? Or do you have more excuses?

Not excuses. I have no confirmation, I was just guessing.

Thanks for the offer, but I'll bet with just a little effort on your part you could easily be put in contact with those that need/want them.

How's that? Or do you have excuses as to why you won't own up to your self-righteousness and bluster? Are you habitually dishonest?

I've got a lot of irons in the fire, but I'm always charitable whenever i can be. If i come across someone in need such as this, id be glad to help.

Yeah...don't strain yourself ...

you gotta save your energy to pat yourself on the back

More than I've seen you do, big guy.

Of course you haven't seen what I do; how could you? You don't know me and you've never seen me.

 

Are you expecting me to humblebrag on here about my charitable/volunteer endeavors?

For some reason you felt the need to attack my character, so why don't you jump off your high horse?

[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.

Holy crap... If someone on here (a woman) ever gets raped, or you know someone who gets raped, please message me and i will out of the goodness of my heart buy the plan B pill for them.

 

How's that? Or do you have more excuses?

Not excuses. I have no confirmation, I was just guessing.

Thanks for the offer, but I'll bet with just a little effort on your part you could easily be put in contact with those that need/want them.

How's that? Or do you have excuses as to why you won't own up to your self-righteousness and bluster? Are you habitually dishonest?

I've got a lot of irons in the fire, but I'm always charitable whenever i can be. If i come across someone in need such as this, id be glad to help.

Yeah...don't strain yourself ...

you gotta save your energy to pat yourself on the back

More than I've seen you do, big guy.

Of course you haven't seen what I do; how could you? You don't know me and you've never seen me.

 

Are you expecting me to humblebrag on here about my charitable/volunteer endeavors?

For some reason you felt the need to attack my character, so why don't you jump off your high horse?

 

 

For some reason you felt the need to ridicule my guess to your question, and humblebrag while doing so.

Is your chair comfy?

 

[JJ Husker]

Oh good, another abortion thread on HB. Think I'll sit this one out. Spoiler alert- No new revelations will be had, nobody will change their mind, some on both sides will come off as uncaring jerks, and the over/under on suspensions or bans is 2. But please continue.

 

Fun bonus- we'll be treated to some wild and wholly unsubstantiated definitions of when life begins and explanations of how the rights of completely helpless babies are less important than those who would kill them for no more than financial consideration or convenience. Cases of rape will be invoked numerous times even though actual instances of that scenario pale in comparison to the mind boggling numbers of abortions performed in this country. I'm gonna get the popcorn going right now.

[NM11046]

Tried my darnedest to find a way to do a poll here ... I'd be curious as to the sex of those who are commenting on this thread.

 

I went through the first page, and of 13 commenters there were, 10 men, 2 who were "not disclosed" and 1 female (me).

[JJ Husker]

Tried my darnedest to find a way to do a poll here ... I'd be curious as to the sex of those who are commenting on this thread.

 

I went through the first page, and of 13 commenters there were, 10 men, 2 who were "not disclosed" and 1 female (me).

So gender matters as far as opinions on abortion but it doesn't matter when selecting a restroom? ;-) Just playin. Word of warning, be careful of pronoun use when referring to teachercd.

 

Seriously though, there's you, Moiraine, roxy, and girlknowsfootball and I think that about covers it for the frequent female posters. I'm sure there are more but you and Moiraine are usually the only ones who will brave the politics & religion forum. I'm sure I've forgotten 1 or 3 others....Cina?

[knapplc]

Tried my darnedest to find a way to do a poll here ... I'd be curious as to the sex of those who are commenting on this thread.

 

I went through the first page, and of 13 commenters there were, 10 men, 2 who were "not disclosed" and 1 female (me).

Whether most of us commenting here are men or not is kind of irrelevant. We still have a vote, so we still get to help contribute to the decision.

[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?

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

And what is your answer...

[knapplc]

Was listening to Todd & Tyler (Omaha morning radio for those of you who don't know) and they were talking about the Texas ruling this morning. They're pro-abortion, and were saying a phrase I hadn't heard before: "Safe, Legal & Rare." That makes sense to me.

Safe - if, in the event an abortion must be performed, it should be safe for the woman. That means easy accessibility, free from judgment & rioting/picketing jerks.

Legal - if, in the event an abortion must be performed, the woman shouldn't face legal repercussions.

Rare - this is the best part. I see by the graph above abortions are becoming more rare. I'm guessing that's because of more widespread use of birth control (which is great) and Plan B, and maybe just different sexual practices (oral, anal, handy, etc). If we're going to have abortions in our society, since we can't agree if it's a life being aborted, let's make them as rare as possible. That's best for everyone.

[HuskerNation1]

 

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?

No, that's not what you stated. What you stated was, "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 (sic) clause." Now, as to missing points, you missed three. First, it doesn't matter from where in the Constitution the right is derived. Whether the body of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, Amendments, or interpretation of the rights specified. Every single right enumerated in the Constitution is, and has been, subject to interpretation by the Supreme Court. The right of Free Speech? The Supreme Court has interpreted that to exclude speech that endangers people - the old "shouting fire in a crowded theater" standard, even though no such limitation exists in the Constitution. Right to bear arms? The Supreme Court has interpreted that to exclude felons, even though no such exclusion exists in the Constitution. So, in short, interpretations of the Constitution by the Supreme Court determines the extent of a right - and in the case of abortion, that interpretation is that a woman has a right to choose, balanced against the state's interest. Second, and following the first, all such rights are "equal"; they carry the same Constitutional weight. Third, and derived from the first two, as the Supreme Court interprets all Constitutional rights, it can restrict or expand gun ownership by re-interpreting the Amendment, just as it could the privacy right upon which abortion rests. The only difference - and it makes NO difference as to the validity of the current right of abortion - between the 2nd Amendment and the right to abortion is that the former could only be completely eliminated via Amendment, while the latter could be completely eliminated by the Court. But, again - and most germane to this discussion - it makes no difference as to the current validity of the right. So, the fact that the Constitution does not expressly state a right to abortion, the right is as valid as the right conferred by the 2nd Amendment. Which leads back to my earlier statement - it's a Constitutional right despite your opinion.

 

 

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.

There have been a handful of studies that have addressed the issue of fetal pain. And in each study, the issue of fetal pain was peripheral to the actual study being conducted. Not a single study done to date has conclusively proven that a fetus experiences pain. Not one study that has undergone peer review or that meets the accepted standard of medical evidence. Studies have shown that a fetus reacts to stimulus - but so does a plant or any other form of life. But "more of the science is heading" that way? Simply not true. First, medical ethics generally prohibits that kind of a study; that's one reason that there has never been a study explicitly and expressly to determine the issue. Second, there is no funding to engage in it; until someone comes up with a way to objectively measure "pain" it can't be done. All that can be done is to look at the development of the physical structures that we know are necessary to experience pain. And on that, science is most definitely NOT moving toward it. All that is happening are doctors expressing opinions; for each claiming fetal pain, there is at least one that claims otherwise. So, no, science is not moving that way.

 

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?

No. Re-read my comments. I addressed two errors you made. I did so very narrowly. When you re-read what I wrote, you'll see that I never broached the subject of late-term pregnancy.

My response will be brief as I am typing on my phone so my apologies. I get what you are saying in the first section, so let me ask you this. Lets say Trump gets elected, and names 2 or 3 justices in line with Scalia's views, and Roe v Wade is overturned. Based upon what you just said, you would then feel comfortable stating that women do not have a right to an abortion...is that correct.

 

As for conflicting scientific evidence, it will continue to conflict as long as there are opposing views on this topic, just as we see in the global warming debate where one side cites science to justify their views, and the other side dismisses it. With that said, I still would like an answer to the question on whether you believe its ok for a woman without exceptions to have an abortion at 25, 30, or even 37 weeks.