RBG plans 5 more years on SCOTUS

[TLK Valentine]

No, it isn't. She has the right to determine whether to have babies or not. Birth control is freely and easily available. Choose before, not after pregnancy.

Again, not your body; not your call.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

Why is the practice of abortion so important to you?

It is not important to me as I will never get one, but it was important enough to be a major issue in the nominations of Supreme Court Justices by President Trump.

"If we put another two or perhaps three justices on, that will happen. And that will happen automatically, in my opinion, because I am putting pro-life justices on the court."

 

[Ana the Ist]

"There is nothing wrong with a woman terminating her pregnancy at any point and for whatever reason she chooses. Fetuses are not babies. Women are not incubators. Abortion is not murder."

If that argument bothers you so much, one could just as easily argue that our legal system extends rights depending upon where you were born. As a fetus has not yet been born, it cannot expect any sort of legally recognized rights.

 

[jayem]

The pro-life crowd argues from the base-line fact in the question of abortion there is another life at stake.

Of course. There is another life in a pregnant woman's uterus. But is it the life of a person with Constitutional rights? It may seem obvious to you that it is. But nowhere does the Constitution state explicitly, or even imply, that the unborn are persons, as that term is used in the 14th Amendment, and elsewhere in the document. And you can't claim original intent --that the founders would have meant for a fetus to be considered as a person. Because in the 18th century, a fetus wasn't even thought to be alive until it quickened--which isn't usually until the 4th or 5th month. Performing an abortion was not considered a crime till later in the 19th century. (And then, it wasn't primarily due to any concern for the fetus. Abortion was criminalized mainly to protect the mother. Because surgical methods were crude, antiseptic technique was unknown, antibiotics didn't exist, and and there was a high risk of maternal mortality from septic abortion in those days.) Fetal personhood is the key legal issue. The Constitution never says the unborn are persons, so in the legal sense, they are not. And thus, it is impossible for a state to show that it has any grounds to interfere with a woman's liberty to choose that a medical procedure be done on her own body which is not harming another person. That's the basic legal reasoning behind Roe v. Wade.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Of course. There is another life in a pregnant woman's uterus. But is it the life of a person with Constitutional rights? It may seem obvious to you that it is. But nowhere does the Constitution state explicitly, or even imply, that the unborn are persons, as that term is used in the 14th Amendment, and elsewhere in the document. And you can't claim original intent --that the founders would have meant for a fetus to be considered as a person. Because in the 18th century, a fetus wasn't even thought to be alive until it quickened--which isn't usually until the 4th or 5th month. Performing an abortion was not considered a crime till later in the 19th century. (And then, it wasn't primarily due to any concern for the fetus. Abortion was criminalized mainly to protect the mother. Because surgical methods were crude, antiseptic technique was unknown, antibiotics didn't exist, and and there was a high risk of maternal mortality from septic abortion in those days.) Fetal personhood is the key legal issue. The Constitution never says the unborn are persons, so in the legal sense, they are not. And thus, it is impossible for a state to show that it has any grounds to interfere with a woman's liberty to choose that a medical procedure be done on her own body which is not harming another person. That's the basic legal reasoning behind Roe v. Wade.

So the Constitutional view would necessarily have to allow abortion till the 4-5th month?

 

[jayem]

So the Constitutional view would necessarily have to allow abortion till the 4-5th month?

The Constitution just addresses personhood. Maybe an originalist would say that personhood starts at that time. But a strict textualist would say that's reading something into the text that's not present. The specifics of how far a state can regulated abortion is a different issue. Justice Blackmun's opinion established a trimester scheme as a guideline. A state has little to no interest in prohibiting abortion in the 1st trimester. It has somewhat more in the 2nd. And it can prohibit abortion--though allowing for appropriate medical exceptions--in the 3rd trimester, when a fetus is closer to viability. I'm not an attorney. But this is the weakest part of the decision. It was fabricated out of thin air, and really has no Constitutional foundation. It's a purely arbitrary framework specifying what abortion regulation the Court would accept as Constitutional. But I guess many, if not most laws are arbitrary in some ways. For practical purposes, they just have to be.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Again, not your body; not your call.

Exactly true - about the baby. Not your body. Not your call. It's the baby's body.

 

[Sistrin]

Of course. There is another life in a pregnant woman's uterus. But is it the life of a person with Constitutional rights?

We are not talking magic here, as in the oft promoted liberal trope there is some magical moment during the reproductive process during which the baby becomes a person. We are talking about science. The human reproductive process is well documented at all levels, to include genetically. The age of viability is defined at twenty-four weeks into the pregnancy, not after the doctor has severed the umbilical cord unless the woman changed her mind at the last moment. To argue a woman has the perfect right to abort her child on the twenty-ninth day of the eighth month of pregnancy based on some idiotic evocation of the Constitution is not only cowardly, partisan, and intellectually dishonest it is barbaric.

The pro-life crowd is, at least, pushing for limitations on abortion which account for the simple and simply understood science of human reproduction. But the pro-abortion crowd wants abortion at any time for any reason, which is exactly the stance they articulate.

Logic alone dictates that if a baby at twenty-four weeks is life which can be saved, then that baby has by default a Constitutional right to life. Except in the mind of the pro-abortion mob, which prefers death to the truth. Kermit Gosnell.

It may seem obvious to you that it is. But nowhere does the Constitution state explicitly, or even imply, that the unborn are persons...

The Constitution does not state explicitly, or even imply, a woman has a Constitutional right to an abortion. That was an interpretation made by the court based on questions of right to privacy and due process. But even Roe took into account the viability of a baby to survive outside the womb if separated from the mother. Modern day abortionist want to scream about the sanctity of Roe v. Wade but fail to properly acknowledge what it the ruling actually stated.

And you can't claim original intent --that the founders would have meant for a fetus to be considered as a person. Because in the 18th century, a fetus wasn't even thought to be alive until it quickened...

Seriously, you are going to evoke 18th Century medical knowledge in an attempt to defend a 21st Century practice? 20th and 21st Century medical knowledge have altered the dynamics of the equation to render this clearly stated position, quote:

"There is nothing wrong with a woman terminating her pregnancy at any point and for whatever reason she chooses. Fetuses are not babies. Women are not incubators. Abortion is not murder."

Insane. Yet this is the position you are defending. And why? Apparently in an attempt to appear sensitive and enlightened. Can you not see the logical incongruence of claiming to care about the sanctity of life while also supporting abortion on demand?

Fetal personhood is the key legal issue. The Constitution never says the unborn are persons...

It never says they are not, either. You are talking about an interpretation, one which when examined in the light of modern science does not pass scrutiny. But as stated prior, for the American left in regard to the question of abortion in any form science can take a hike. It is all emotion and political ideology.

...that a medical procedure be done on her own body which is not harming another person.

And you prove my point.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Exactly true - about the baby. Not your body. Not your call. It's the baby's body.

An interesting way of looking at it -- but then who does make the decisions?

 

[TLK Valentine]

We are not talking magic here, as in the oft promoted liberal trope there is some magical moment during the reproductive process during which the baby becomes a person. We are talking about science. The human reproductive process is well documented at all levels, to include genetically. The age of viability is defined at twenty-four weeks into the pregnancy, not after the doctor has severed the umbilical cord unless the woman changed her mind at the last moment.

Which is why, personally, I find twenty-three weeks to be a sensible cutoff date for legal abortion...

The pro-life crowd is, at least, pushing for limitations on abortion which account for the simple and simply understood science of human reproduction. But the pro-abortion crowd wants abortion at any time for any reason, which is exactly the stance they articulate.

Once more, please, with accuracy. Pro-lifers supporting abortions?

Pull the other one; it's got bells on it!

 

[jayem]

Logic alone dictates that if a baby at twenty-four weeks is like which can be saved, then that baby has by default a Constitutional right to life. Except in the mind of the pro-abortion mob, which prefers death to the truth. Kermit Gosnell.

Roe v. Wade allows states to restrict late term abortions. As long as exceptions are made for rare life-threatening maternal health emergencies (such as a ruptured uterus,) I fully support letting states prohibit abortion after 24 weeks.

The Constitution does not state explicitly, or even imply, a woman has a Constitutional right to an abortion. That was an interpretation made by the court based on questions of right to privacy and due process.

Remember the 9th Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Just because a right isn't explicitly stated, doesn't mean it's non-existent. And you will note that these unenumerated rights belong to the people, not the states. Where does the Constitution specify a right to association, which conservatives frequently cite? The 1st Amendment only specifies a right to peaceably assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances. The right to privacy, like freedom of association, is an extrapolation derived from other language in the Bill of Rights, and from prior court rulings. But it's still valid. From the very start, the US adopted a common law legal system. Court decisions and precedents have the same legal force as written statutes.

Seriously, you are going to evoke 18th Century medical knowledge in an attempt to defend a 21st Century practice?

No. I mentioned that to show that an "original intent" argument for fetal personhood is invalid. The founders would not have considered the unborn to be legal persons at all stages of pregnancy. If you think modern science proves that the unborn should be considered legal persons from the moment of conception, then the Constitution should be amended to reflect that.

"There is nothing wrong with a woman terminating her pregnancy at any point and for whatever reason she chooses. Fetuses are not babies. Women are not incubators. Abortion is not murder."

Insane. Yet this is the position you are defending. And why? Apparently in an attempt to appear sensitive and enlightened. Can you not see the logical incongruence of claiming to care about the sanctity of life while also supporting abortion on demand?

That's not my position. As I said, I favor a 24 week cut-off. Before 24 weeks, abortion should be left as a private medical decision between doctor and patient. After 24 weeks, the states can restrict abortion to life-threatening maternal health crises only.

 

[pat34lee]

Congress doesn't have the authority to regulate abortion. It's a medical procedure.

If they can regulate drugs, mandate health insurance or outlaw incandescent lights, they can regulate anything.
Thank the big-government politicians (R&D) for that.

 

[pat34lee]

Because a woman's body isn't the property of the state.

Do you hold the same reasoning for vaccines or other mandatory medical treatment?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Do you hold the same reasoning for vaccines

While I am personally against people making the idiotic decision not to vaccinate their kids, I must begrudgingly grant them the right to do so... Of course, I also think they should be held liable in civil court when their typhoid toddler starts an outbreak.

or other mandatory medical treatment?

Such as?

 

[pat34lee]

That's not my position. As I said, I favor a 24 week cut-off. Before 24 weeks, abortion should be left as a private medical decision between doctor and patient. After 24 weeks, the states can restrict abortion to life-threatening maternal health crises only.

Why 24 weeks as opposed to 23, or 20?
It doesn't matter if the child would survive at that point.
It matters if the child would survive if left to gestate normally.

 

[pat34lee]

While I am personally against people making the idiotic decision not to vaccinate their kids, I must begrudgingly grant them the right to do so... Of course, I also think they should be held liable in civil court when their typhoid toddler starts an outbreak.

Such as?

If vaccines worked, the few unvaccinated would cause no problems.
But they don't work, as past outbreaks have proven. At best, they
are a temporary protection, not a cure.

Remember this one?
https://www.vox.com/2015/1/8/7513423/why-a-17-year-old-with-cancer-is-being-forced-to-undergo-chemo

Seems all a doctor has to do is tell a judge that any "competent" person
would not refuse whatever treatment they want to carry out.
http://www.poormagazine.org/node/1428

 

[TLK Valentine]

Why 24 weeks as opposed to 23, or 20?
It doesn't matter if the child would survive at that point.
It matters if the child would survive if left to gestate normally.

It matters to you. It need not matter to the courts.

And just out of curiosity, how does one define "normally"? A lot can happen after 24 weeks; sadly, 1 out of every 160 pregnancies in the US results in stillbirth.

 

[pat34lee]

Again, not your body; not your call.

Sure it is. We make value judgments every day in law.
This is acceptable behavior, that is not.
Murder is one of the nots.

 

[pat34lee]

a medical procedure be done on her own body which is not harming another person. That's the basic legal reasoning behind Roe v. Wade.

Any action that lessens the value of all life, especially
all human life, does harm to us all. Why do you think
many young people seem to care about anything?
They learn from what they see, that life is meaningless
when you can kill the most defenseless among us.

 

[TLK Valentine]

If vaccines worked, the few unvaccinated would cause no problems.
But they don't work, as past outbreaks have proven. At best, they
are a temporary protection, not a cure.

And a seatbelt is a temporary protection from automotive accidents, not a cure -- still, it's a pretty good idea.

But try not to change the subject with your anti-vaxxer agenda.

Remember this one?
https://www.vox.com/2015/1/8/7513423/why-a-17-year-old-with-cancer-is-being-forced-to-undergo-chemo

Remember that according to US law, anyone from age 0-18 is considered a minor?

Seems all a doctor has to do is tell a judge that any "competent" person
would not refuse whatever treatment they want to carry out.
http://www.poormagazine.org/node/1428

Seems that all a person has to do to prove their "competence" is know the day, month, year, and current president.... unless you're suggesting that the mentally ill be turned loose to fend for themselves.


Try harder, sirrah... and remember that some people pay attention to context.