RBG plans 5 more years on SCOTUS

[jayem]

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.

None of that is relevant. Those are all products sold across state lines. That's interstate commerce. Over which Congress has explicit regulatory authority as per Article I, Sec. 8. Now it's true that the commerce clause has been stretched to justify lots of other legislation. Here's a link explaining the powers of Congress as specified in the Constitution:

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/congpowers.htm

 

[pat34lee]

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.

How many of those are due to alcohol or drug use, including tobacco?
Again, it doesn't matter. Right to life doesn't depend on whether every
person will live to 90. Only that they get their best chance to live as
full a life as they can.

 

[TLK Valentine]

How many of those are due to alcohol or drug use, including tobacco?

Unknown. Sadly, there's still a lot of medicine we don't know.

Again, it doesn't matter. Right to life doesn't depend on whether every
person will live to 90. Only that they get their best chance to live as
full a life as they can.

Then your previous stipulation about gestating "normally" meant nothing.

 

[pat34lee]

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.

I can't always remember the date and I have trouble with names sometimes.
Does that mean I can't turn down any medical treatment?

 

[pat34lee]

Unknown. Sadly, there's still a lot of medicine we don't know.

Then your previous stipulation about gestating "normally" meant nothing.

That's why they call it practicing and wear masks when operating.

Gestating normally is still the best way to ensure life, barring complications.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I can't always remember the date and I have trouble with names sometimes.
Does that mean I can't turn down any medical treatment?

Forgetting that Donald Trump is president is more wishful thinking than incompetence. And if you forget the month, year, or your own name, at the very least, you should be checked for a concussion.

 

[TLK Valentine]

That's why they call it practicing and wear masks when operating.

Gestating normally is still the best way to ensure life, barring complications.

Except that you can't ignore complications -- they can happen at any time.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

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

You do. Absent extreme circumstances (which are an extraordinarily small number, relatively speaking, of all the abortions that occur), you - the woman - decide whether to engage in sex or not. If you do, you are accepting the consequences up front. Sex can lead to pregnancy or disease. If you do not, you are declining the consequences.

Life isn't consequence free.

 

[jayem]

Sex can lead to pregnancy or disease. If you do not, you are declining the consequences.

Life isn't consequence free.

Correct. But if a woman has unprotected intercourse and contracts chlamydia, the state doesn’t criminalize giving her azithromycin.

 

[TLK Valentine]

You do. Absent extreme circumstances (which are an extraordinarily small number, relatively speaking, of all the abortions that occur), you - the woman - decide whether to engage in sex or not.

First of all, I'm not a woman. But I get your point.

If you do, you are accepting the consequences up front. Sex can lead to pregnancy or disease. If you do not, you are declining the consequences.

Life isn't consequence free.

Nevertheless, there are ways to minimize the unwanted consequences -- it's the whole point of having birth control.

Otherwise, one could just as easily use your arguments against traffic laws or seat belts. If you decide to engage in driving, you are accepting the consequences up front. Driving can lead to lethal car crashes, can it not?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Correct. But if a woman has unprotected intercourse and contracts chlamydia, the state doesn’t criminalize giving her azithromycin.

Not yet.

 

[FireDragon76]

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.

The Court tried to balance competing interests in Roe vs. Wade.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

First of all, I'm not a woman. But I get your point.



Nevertheless, there are ways to minimize the unwanted consequences -- it's the whole point of having birth control.

Otherwise, one could just as easily use your arguments against traffic laws or seat belts. If you decide to engage in driving, you are accepting the consequences up front. Driving can lead to lethal car crashes, can it not?

Birth control does nothing to prevent most sexually transmitted diseases. That is a consequence one is accepting up front if one engages, just as pregnancy is (assuming fertile, of childbearing age, etc).

No, your seat belt argument is irrelevant. No one is arguing that seat belts are morally right. Just a common sense protective measure required by law.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Correct. But if a woman has unprotected intercourse and contracts chlamydia, the state doesn’t criminalize giving her azithromycin.

Giving a woman an antibiotic to clear her body of infection is hardly the same thing as killing a baby in utero. Are you equating a baby with an infection?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Birth control does nothing to prevent most sexually transmitted diseases. That is a consequence one is accepting up front if one engages, just as pregnancy is (assuming fertile, of childbearing age, etc).

Condoms are form of birth control -- and they are quite effective at preventing most sexually transmitted diseases.

This is why we need comprehensive sex education.

No, your seat belt argument is irrelevant. No one is arguing that seat belts are morally right. Just a common sense protective measure required by law.

And there's the big difference -- you consider sexual activity to be inherently immoral, therefore, any consequences from it are seen as just desserts.

 

[Sistrin]

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

Except with your prior words in this thread, with which you defended abortion on demand without apology.

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

I used the phrase "at least." Do you need me to explain the context of what that means?

In addition, the logic of the pro-abortion left on full display. Begin with a premise such as this:

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.

Conclude therefore abortion on demand.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Except with your prior words in this thread, with which you defended abortion on demand without apology.

Not everyone is as sensible as I am... more's the pity.

And again, who do these people have to apologize to? I suspect they care little about my opinion, and nothing about yours.

I used the phrase "at least." Do you need me to explain the context of what that means?

It would be refreshing.

In addition, the logic of the pro-abortion left on full display. Begin with a premise such as this:



Conclude therefore abortion on demand.

I personally don't approve. But my disapproval is hardly sufficient basis for the law... how's yours?

 

[jayem]

Giving a woman an antibiotic to clear her body of infection is hardly the same thing as killing a baby in utero. Are you equating a baby with an infection?

I'm just pointing out that our laws do not prevent a woman from reversing the medical consequences of sexual activity. And--within reasonable limits--that should apply to pregnancy as well.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

I'm just pointing out that our laws do not prevent a woman from reversing the medical consequences of sexual activity. And--within reasonable limits--that should apply to pregnancy as well.

You are correct that our current law does not prevent killing your baby for your convenience as you euphemistically refer to as "reversing medical consequences of sexual activity". But that doesn't make it right, nor in any way equivalent to clearing up an infection by an antibiotic.

It's a shame that this nation has fallen to that.

 

[jayem]

You are correct that our current law does not prevent killing your baby for your convenience as you euphemistically refer to as "reversing medical consequences of sexual activity". But that doesn't make it right, nor in any way equivalent to clearing up an infection by an antibiotic.

It's a shame that this nation has fallen to that.

Honestly, I agree that terminating a pregnancy for less than medical reasons is morally suspect. The unborn aren't persons in the legal sense, but that doesn't mean they are valueless. They are potential persons, with great value. It would be morally ideal if every pregnant woman cherished and protected that potentiality. But there's a limit to how far government should go to make people behave morally. That's the crux of my position. I'm not so much pro-choice as I am anti-criminalization. Laws that criminalize abortion at all stages of pregnancy give way too much power to the government. It's just too authoritarian. But I totally support a compromise. As I stated earlier, before 24 weeks, abortion should be a private medical decision between doctor and patient. After that time, the state can restrict abortion to life-threatening medical conditions only (both maternal and fetal. Which would be very uncommon at that point.) This is fair and sensible. I fully agree that purely elective abortion is sad and undesirable. But using the police power of the state to outlaw it totally is simply a worse evil.