SCOTUS Rules Texas Abortion Restictions Unconstitutional

[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).

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?

 

 

"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."

Now now, I said nothing about men or women having more or less opinion or relevance on this topic - I was just curious. Yes, everyone has a vote or opinion, it just impacts a few of us more directly and I always find it interesting how opinions break. Just like I find it interesting that there aren't more females commenting on our current recruiting class. Nothing more.

[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.

And what is your answer...

 

 

You've badgered multiple people with this same question multiple times, and you seem frustrated you aren't getting the answer you want. It seems you are trying to set up ideal conditions and are waiting to pass judgement on those who don't take the the most noble and brave action to save a "pre-born child"

 

You know that recent event of the Houston mom who shot and killed her 2 teenage daughters? She shot one in the house, then the daughters and her father fled outside. The father got away, but the other daughter was shot. Both daughters died. I saw a comment from someone condemning the father for not trying to stop the mother from shooting; one or both daughters could have possibly been saved had he risked his own life and confronted the mom. Was that you who made that comment? Judging, shaming and condemning the father for not acting in the most noble way and risking his health to save a "post-born child"? That father should go to jail, right? That fathers selfish act resulted in the death of his perfectly healthy "post-born" child.

 

In an ideal world, everyone acts very nobly and selflessly in every conceivable situation. But in reality, many don't. Oh sure, most people SAY, "well, _I_ would have done this", or "_I_would do that", but it's easy to say those things until it's "YOU" that is actually facing the situation. When push comes to shove, it's a different story. Granted some people may follow through with their convictions, but I believe many, when faced with the situation with no hindsight or little pre-consideration as most people are in real life, they would act in a similar manner as those they are condemning.

[AR Husker Fan]

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.

Not that it matters what I "feel comfortable" with, or you, or anyone other than the Justices, but yes, that is correct. The odds of that happening are relatively small if whomever is appointed honors the doctrine of stare decisis upon which the Court is based, but it could.

 

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.

To say that the evidence "conflicts" is to say that there is no proof that there is fetal pain at 20 weeks, as I pointed out.

 

Your question is unclear. If you are asking me whether it is legal, then the answer is no - what is legal is what was determined by the Court. If you are asking me what I believe should be the standard, then my first response is to refer you to my answer immediately above - it does not matter. I do believe that the Roe decision utilized a flawed legal reasoning. Not on the issue of a right to abortion, but on the framework for determining the "balancing point" between a woman's right to choose and the state's interest. All rights are finite - they must be weighed in relation to all other rights, and at times the balance falls in favor of one right than another. In the case of abortion, I have no problem with the concept that the state has an interest in regulating abortion. But that regulation should be limited to ensuring that the abortion is performed in a manner that is safe and that uses medically appropriate means, both of which means presenting the woman with the requisite knowledge of the risks of whatever procedure is to be used. So long as those parameters are met, the state's interest should end and the woman's interest should take precedence. If that allows abortions at 25, 30, or even 37 weeks, then that would be fine with 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?

 

 

"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."[/size]

Now now, I said nothing about men or women having more or less opinion or relevance on this topic - I was just curious. Yes, everyone has a vote or opinion, it just impacts a few of us more directly and I always find it interesting how opinions break. Just like I find it interesting that there aren't more females commenting on our current recruiting class. Nothing more.

I think the anticipation may have been the "our bodies, our choice" approach was about to emerge. IDK, I can't and wouldn't attempt to speak for knapp.

 

I'll refrain from sharing my views until I have more free time, maybe later on today. This is one of those subjects that draws me in.

[AR Husker Fan]

And as a follow up to the Court's decision...

 

 

[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).

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?

 

 

"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."[/size]

Now now, I said nothing about men or women having more or less opinion or relevance on this topic - I was just curious. Yes, everyone has a vote or opinion, it just impacts a few of us more directly and I always find it interesting how opinions break. Just like I find it interesting that there aren't more females commenting on our current recruiting class. Nothing more.

I think the anticipation may have been the "our bodies, our choice" approach was about to emerge. IDK, I can't and wouldn't attempt to speak for knapp.

 

I'll refrain from sharing my views until I have more free time, maybe later on today. This is one of those subjects that draws me in.

 

I can appreciate that you felt it might go that way - I'm on the other hand going to try my best to not participate in this thread, hard as it may be. :-)

[Guy Chamberlin]

 

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.

 

 

This.

 

There are moral, religious and ethical arguments that can go on forever and deserve mutual empathy and understanding.

 

But in terms of law and policy the simple truth is that men would not stand for the same restrictions placed on their bodies. Abortion is also practiced by many species within the natural order, so I don't think it qualifies as unnatural either.

 

Just as outlawing guns won't stop gun violence, outlawing abortions will not stop abortions. Instead we'd get an unregulated black market requiring new governmental oversight and intrusion.

 

I can't believe HuskerBoard hasn't solved the abortion and gun control issues yet.

[knapplc]

But in terms of law and policy the simple truth is that men would not stand for the same restrictions placed on their bodies.

This is not a truth. If men carried babies, we'd still be having this discussion. It's not about men vs women, it's about whether or not that's a life being ended.

[Guy Chamberlin]

Men and women approach life very differently, based on the fact that women get pregnant and men don't.

 

This has been going on forever.

[JJ Husker]

 

 

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.

This.

 

There are moral, religious and ethical arguments that can go on forever and deserve mutual empathy and understanding.

 

But in terms of law and policy the simple truth is that men would not stand for the same restrictions placed on their bodies. Abortion is also practiced by many species within the natural order, so I don't think it qualifies as unnatural either.

 

Just as outlawing guns won't stop gun violence, outlawing abortions will not stop abortions. Instead we'd get an unregulated black market requiring new governmental oversight and intrusion.

 

I can't believe HuskerBoard hasn't solved the abortion and gun control issues yet.

Could you go into more detail about abortion being practiced by many species within the natural order? Hoping I may learn something today.

[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.

This.

 

There are moral, religious and ethical arguments that can go on forever and deserve mutual empathy and understanding.

 

But in terms of law and policy the simple truth is that men would not stand for the same restrictions placed on their bodies. Abortion is also practiced by many species within the natural order, so I don't think it qualifies as unnatural either.

 

Just as outlawing guns won't stop gun violence, outlawing abortions will not stop abortions. Instead we'd get an unregulated black market requiring new governmental oversight and intrusion.

 

I can't believe HuskerBoard hasn't solved the abortion and gun control issues yet.

Could you go into more detail about abortion being practiced by many species within the natural order? Hoping I may learn something today.

Have you learned Google yet?

Googling "infanticide" might be a good place to start. Then maybe try "bruce effect".

[zoogs]

Let's remember not to be hostile at one another...

 

I tend to agree with Guy. If, somehow, men were both the ones to get pregnant and also retained their historically dominant positions in the social and professional arenas, then abortion would have much more quickly been treated as a fairly common medical procedure. It isn't that rare, although I do wonder if advances made in contraceptives won't drive this number down starkly in the future. One can hope, right?

[Enhance]

Men and women approach life very differently, based on the fact that women get pregnant and men don't.

 

This has been going on forever.

Which is why I'm often times surprised men try to insert such a powerful voice into the abortion debate.

 

I think everyone is entitled to their opinion regarding the topic, but I don't think men put themselves in a woman's shoes near enough during the discussion.

[knapplc]

 

Men and women approach life very differently, based on the fact that women get pregnant and men don't.

 

This has been going on forever.

Which is why I'm often times surprised men try to insert such a powerful voice into the abortion debate.

 

I think everyone is entitled to their opinion regarding the topic, but I don't think men put themselves in a woman's shoes near enough during the discussion.

 

 

I don't want to sound like I disagree because I see what you're saying here. But in a democracy, how can we have an issue on which only one part of the populace has a voice?

[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...

 

 

You've badgered multiple people with this same question multiple times, and you seem frustrated you aren't getting the answer you want. It seems you are trying to set up ideal conditions and are waiting to pass judgement on those who don't take the the most noble and brave action to save a "pre-born child"

 

You know that recent event of the Houston mom who shot and killed her 2 teenage daughters? She shot one in the house, then the daughters and her father fled outside. The father got away, but the other daughter was shot. Both daughters died. I saw a comment from someone condemning the father for not trying to stop the mother from shooting; one or both daughters could have possibly been saved had he risked his own life and confronted the mom. Was that you who made that comment? Judging, shaming and condemning the father for not acting in the most noble way and risking his health to save a "post-born child"? That father should go to jail, right? That fathers selfish act resulted in the death of his perfectly healthy "post-born" child.

 

In an ideal world, everyone acts very nobly and selflessly in every conceivable situation. But in reality, many don't. Oh sure, most people SAY, "well, _I_ would have done this", or "_I_would do that", but it's easy to say those things until it's "YOU" that is actually facing the situation. When push comes to shove, it's a different story. Granted some people may follow through with their convictions, but I believe many, when faced with the situation with no hindsight or little pre-consideration as most people are in real life, they would act in a similar manner as those they are condemning.

 

 

Regarding your topic about the Houston shooting, I was not aware and have not commented. That is a horrific situation and an "in the moment" response where I understand there is not much time to think but rather react. Meanwhile, the decision to have an abortion if something that allows for ample time in later stages of a pregnancy to make such a decision. It's apples and oranges. As for badgering, its a simple question on a pretty straightforward topic, but if you choose not to, so be it.