- 20,940
- NJ/USA
- Blitzbay
- Blitzbay
That sounds like it would be a restriction on interstate travel and allow them to stop anyone at the state border for any reason under the pretext of "this woman might have an abortion".
Abortion
- Thread starter Danoff
- 2,611 comments
- 138,164 views
That sounds like it would be a restriction on interstate travel and allow them to stop anyone at the state border for any reason under the pretext of "this woman might have an abortion".
McLaren
Premium
- 45,528
- Texas
And here was Chrunch Houston in the other thread talking about how abortion wasn't outlawed nationwide & the power was given back to the states.
Of course, it would be our own state of Texas wanting to decide the idea of "state's rights" means Texas' stance on abortion extends to other states. Here you go Chrunch, courtesy of our Republicans in charge.
Of course, it would be our own state of Texas wanting to decide the idea of "state's rights" means Texas' stance on abortion extends to other states. Here you go Chrunch, courtesy of our Republicans in charge.
- 20,940
- NJ/USA
- Blitzbay
- Blitzbay
The power will be given to the states until SCOTUS decides that it needs to be dictated by the Federal Government due to states that banned abortion suing states that have allowed it for letting those in banned states receive abortions there. End result is full abortion ban nationwide. Sure, it hasn't happened YET, but there is a lot of momentum going that way.And here was Chrunch Houston in the other thread talking about how abortion wasn't outlawed nationwide & the power was given back to the states.
Of course, it would be our own state of Texas wanting to decide the idea of "state's rights" means Texas' stance on abortion extends to other states. Here you go Chrunch, courtesy of our Republicans in charge.
- 13,892
- Adelaide
- Neomone
The fact that the Constitution actually says "this isn't everything, y'all are gonna have to think for yourselves at some point" and that people then go back to the argument of "this isn't what the founders had in mind back when a shovel was considered high technology" is pretty nuts.
HenrySwanson
(Banned)
- 2,942
- United Kingdom
There's a piece that looks at the most prevalent takes on when personhood begins:
When Does Personhood Begin? :: News & Events :: Swarthmore College
Howard A. Schneiderman Professor of Biology Scott Gilbert admits he can't answer the question he poses at the start of his popular talk. However, he adds with "absolute certainty" that there is also "no consensus among scientists."
www.swarthmore.edu
Danoff
Premium
- 34,011
- Mile High City
It's interesting, but it's also frustrating that (based on my skimming) he seems to think that the deal is done at birth. It's not, one could argue that personhood begins at 21 in the US. Separately, one could argue the personhood is contingent for your entire life. Is personhood your entire possible compliment of rights? That might suggest that personhood requires that you be a patent and copyright holder (or at least be capable of holding such a thing), or that personhood requires at least that you're capable of voting, or perhaps capable of running for president.There's a piece that looks at the most prevalent takes on when personhood begins:
When Does Personhood Begin? :: News & Events :: Swarthmore College
Howard A. Schneiderman Professor of Biology Scott Gilbert admits he can't answer the question he poses at the start of his popular talk. However, he adds with "absolute certainty" that there is also "no consensus among scientists."
If personhood is not your full compliment of rights, is it a subset? Is it defined in some other way? And this is, of course, close to the very thing at question. What makes a person? The idea that we can appeal to some external notion of what personhood is kindof presupposes that we've already answered the question of abortion. To illustrate that, perhaps we should define personhood as the point at which you cannot be aborted.
A person does not necessarily have a right to life. And since it is not personhood being denied by abortion but rather a right to life, I maintain that it is the right to life that is the real metric for abortion. DNA, 24 weeks of gestation, or whatever, is obviously not correct because you can lack a right to life even though you have DNA and have undergone 24 weeks of gestation and this point is not widely argued (see self defense and similar if you don't follow me).
The investigation is into rights, specifically the right to life. Where does it come from, how do you have it, how can you lose it? And when you answer this you will see that unborn humans (and even some born ones) are not entitled to it.
Last edited:
UKMikey
Premium
- 18,308
- Grea'er Laandan
- UKMikeyA
- UKMikeyA
10-year-old rape victim forced to travel from Ohio to Indiana for abortion
Case places prominent anti-abortion figures in position of balancing rights of women and girls while defending restrictions
Last edited:
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,599
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
In news that should surprise no-one, the Pope gets science wrong...
www.buzz.ie
Pope Francis compares abortions to 'hiring a hit man to resolve a problem'
"I ask: Is it legitimate, is it right, to eliminate a human life to resolve a problem?" the pontiff said in a recent interview
Danoff
Premium
- 34,011
- Mile High City
I don't know why he thinks that framing the conclusion into the premise is going to be helpful in this discussion.In news that should surprise no-one, the Pope gets science wrong...
Pope Francis compares abortions to 'hiring a hit man to resolve a problem'
"I ask: Is it legitimate, is it right, to eliminate a human life to resolve a problem?" the pontiff said in a recent interview
Is it right to murder? No! Nobody thinks that moron. It is the thing at question. The disagreement is whether it is murder, not whether murder is right.
ROAD_DOGG33J
Premium
- 14,274
- IL, USA
- holyc0w1
- holyc0w
Wrong thread - delete
Last edited:
- 2,863
- Australia
Then he should probably cease having snipers protect him if no problem should be dealt with via deadly force. He could at least have referred to an innocent human life.In news that should surprise no-one, the Pope gets science wrong...
Pope Francis compares abortions to 'hiring a hit man to resolve a problem'
"I ask: Is it legitimate, is it right, to eliminate a human life to resolve a problem?" the pontiff said in a recent interview
Pro-choice, I see.
HenrySwanson
(Banned)
- 2,942
- United Kingdom
It's more relevant for the medical ethics around abortion rather than what you should legally be allowed to do. The critical issue is that of non-maleficence, and how healthcare workers weigh up the harm caused to the unborn versus the potential harm to the woman. This is probably easier to justify the earlier in the pregnancy the abortion happens, and this article gives the thoughts of a doctor specialising in maternal-foetal medicine practicing in an environment with no gestational limit on abortion (Israel) after coming from one where it was limited (America). Views like that are similar to my own, and help explain why my previous stance was to have a 24 week limit.
What does it mean for the practice of abortion? For the unborn I'd say that means we have to treat them with dignity in death, and that means providing pain relief. This probably won't be necessary for first trimester abortions but certainly I suggest that the medical community suitably anaesthetise foetuses when carrying out the procedure. Later term abortions in the UK generally use an injection of potassium chloride to kill before removal and there's no way to know if that causes pain to the foetus. Anaesthesia is used for foetal surgery, and sedative drugs are used in combination with potassium chloride in lethal injections in the US so recognising the unborn as more than just tissue is reason enough to spare them a potentially painful death.
That essay has bad information....but also highlights instances of bad practice and unrealistic expectations. The ultrasound tech correcting a mother over the use of the term "baby" in such a way is not good (as is telling someone not to cry so much during a miscarriage), as the patient's beliefs should be respected in such scenarios. Consultations should be tailored to the individual without the professional imposing their views on the patient.
The author of the tweet is also technically wrong - he should have said that there is almost never a scenario where a "baby" exists after an ectopic pregnancy. There have been live births around the world of ectopic pregnancies that didn't grow in a fallopian tube but these are incredibly rare. As for "clump of cells", that's scientifically true....but that's true of all of us. Would he dare call a 38 week stillborn a "clump of cells" as well?
Danoff
Premium
- 34,011
- Mile High City
Colorado says they'll not cooperate with other states in investigations into out-of-state abortions.
www.theguardian.com
I consider this to be absolutely necessary, and a fantastic example of why this is not a states' rights issue. You're witnessing another crack in the US, caused by the supreme court and states wishing to prosecute their own laws in the territory of other states.
Colorado governor issues executive order to protect abortion access
Jared Polis pledges that his state will not assist other states in criminal or civil investigations into abortions
I consider this to be absolutely necessary, and a fantastic example of why this is not a states' rights issue. You're witnessing another crack in the US, caused by the supreme court and states wishing to prosecute their own laws in the territory of other states.
- 29,925
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
Pregnant woman says her fetus should count as a passenger in HOV lanes. She got a ticket
Under Texas' new abortion law, does a fetus count as a second passenger in an HOV lane? A pregnant woman from Plano, Texas says she will make that argument in...
www.dallasnews.com
- 87,261
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Is there no differentiation for... well, differentiation?
Danoff
Premium
- 34,011
- Mile High City
There Is No Constitutional Right to Eat Dinner
Claims that Justice Brett Kavanaugh had his rights violated by protesters outside a D.C. restaurant fail on originalist grounds.
newrepublic.com
"There is no constitutional right to eat dinner" is really solidly on point. Kavanaugh had his dinner interrupted by protestors. Morton's (restaurant where he was eating) claimed his rights had been violated. The rebuttal is that this claim fails on originalist grounds. Absolutely well played.
- 29,925
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
This is my favorite response so far:There Is No Constitutional Right to Eat Dinner
Claims that Justice Brett Kavanaugh had his rights violated by protesters outside a D.C. restaurant fail on originalist grounds.
"There is no constitutional right to eat dinner" is really solidly on point. Kavanaugh had his dinner interrupted by protestors. Morton's (restaurant where he was eating) claimed his rights had been violated. The rebuttal is that this claim fails on originalist grounds. Absolutely well played.
McLaren
Premium
- 45,528
- Texas
TMU, he wasn’t even aware of them til after his dinner and skipped dessert when he found out. He was never physically bothered by them.There Is No Constitutional Right to Eat Dinner
Claims that Justice Brett Kavanaugh had his rights violated by protesters outside a D.C. restaurant fail on originalist grounds.
"There is no constitutional right to eat dinner" is really solidly on point. Kavanaugh had his dinner interrupted by protestors. Morton's (restaurant where he was eating) claimed his rights had been violated. The rebuttal is that this claim fails on originalist grounds. Absolutely well played.
- 3,903
- St.Pete, FL
- NotThePrez
- NotThePrez
Clinics and their workers facing harassment, stalking, death threats and murder/attempted murder for trying to help people? I sleep.There Is No Constitutional Right to Eat Dinner
Claims that Justice Brett Kavanaugh had his rights violated by protesters outside a D.C. restaurant fail on originalist grounds.
"There is no constitutional right to eat dinner" is really solidly on point. Kavanaugh had his dinner interrupted by protestors. Morton's (restaurant where he was eating) claimed his rights had been violated. The rebuttal is that this claim fails on originalist grounds. Absolutely well played.
Americans using their 1st Amendment rights to protest the recent abhorrent decisions made by him and the rest of his court? Proceeds to whine like a bitch.
It's very fun to see these people get upset when they have to deal with the consequences of their actions.
HenrySwanson
(Banned)
- 2,942
- United Kingdom
It's interesting, is there a trigger point where a "clump" becomes a "baby"? Would I be saying it's potentially insensitive to refer to a foetus in fetu or a teratoma as a "clump of cells"? Maybe it's a pregnancy thing, in which case a molar pregnancy might be the one that most closely resembles the aforementioned clump. But I'd still word it more carefully, even in that instance (and certainly when talking about ectopic pregnancies) when putting out a tweet replying to someone calling it a "baby" (although he is 100% right to call her out on saying it's a "delivery"). The story in the essay shows the potential harm in being insensitive around pregnancy, with the author choosing to travel to a hospital with a "pro-life" surgeon instead of being, presumably, treated in the first one. What if it had ruptured during the trip? On the other side, by her continually calling it a baby that may put people off getting a necessary abortion, or make them feel guilty about it.
- 29,925
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
If government is going to give a fetus rights and weigh those rights favorably against the rights of the individual carrying it, there's always going an arbitrarily decided point at which the fetus' rights are favored. The only way to avoid such an arbitrary decision is the right way, which is to not weigh the fetus' rights over the rights of the individual carrying it.
Every single anti-choicer purports to struggle with this arbitrary decision, but it's just a facade and they're all going to disregard the rights of the individual that is both physically capable of carrying and sustaining a fetus and deciding for themselves if they're going to, because they've determined that a fetus, which isn't guaranteed to be capable of either of these things, is more important than its host.
Anti-choicers are ****ing garbage.
Every single anti-choicer purports to struggle with this arbitrary decision, but it's just a facade and they're all going to disregard the rights of the individual that is both physically capable of carrying and sustaining a fetus and deciding for themselves if they're going to, because they've determined that a fetus, which isn't guaranteed to be capable of either of these things, is more important than its host.
Anti-choicers are ****ing garbage.
Last edited:
Similar threads
