• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Roe v Wade is on deck

ZiprHead said:
Jimmy Higgins said:
ZiprHead said:
Trausti said:
blastula said:

Another non sequitur. Roe doesn't say you can limit it to only 15 weeks.
Click to expand...
The first trimester ends at 13-14 weeks.
Click to expand...
Do you support Alito's conjecture that the right to privacy doesn't exist?
Click to expand...
I think the decision says that less than it is more being hyper-technical on Roe and Casey. They seem to be complaining it wasn't a Biology Textbook.
Click to expand...
Alito's words:
Roe, however, was remarkably loose in its treatment of the constitutional text. It held that the abortion right, which is not mentioned in the Constitution, is part of a right to privacy, which is also not mentioned. See 410 U.S, at 152-153. And that privacy right, Roe observed, had been found to spring from no fewer than five different constitutional provisions—the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Id, at 152.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I think that is open to interpretation, but I get where you are coming from. It seems, at best, an awkward aside to mention privacy isn't mentioned in the Constitution explicitly, though it sure "the fuck" is implied in the Fourth Amendment as well as subsequent cases in SCOTUS.
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
TomC said:
ZiprHead said:
You can't take organs from a dead person without their prior permission.
Click to expand...
That's not true.
Upon death, the decision becomes one made by the survivors.
Tom
Click to expand...
News to me. Why bother becoming a "donor" if the family can just decide. But below, that seems to be the case. Odd.

link
study said:
Results: The decision of the family regarding the request for donation took place after they had enough time to reflect on the matter (81.8%). The decision was made by the family (43.5%), by both family and donor (76.8%), by the family with previous knowledge about their deceased relative's wish (63.2%), or only by the donor (11.6%). There was familial conflict after the decision in about 7.2% of donations; 63.2% of the families were aware of their deceased relative's wish, and 90.5% were aware that their relative's wish helped them make the decision. Women were most frequently responsible for the decision to donate (55%).
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
If there is no family to grant donor rights, it still illegal for the state to take organs.
 
Trausti said:
blastula said:
Trausti said:
blastula said:
Trausti said:
So you also feel abortion beyond the first trimester is ghoulish?
Click to expand...

What does Alabama and 40 weeks have to do with overturning Roe?
Click to expand...
Yes, I confused MS and AL. But abortion throughout pregnancy is supported by few people.
Click to expand...

So what? Roe doesn't say abortion must be allowed at any time.
Click to expand...
Which makes the challenge to the Mississippi law bewildering.
Click to expand...
For you, maybe. For actual thinking people they don't have a problem.
 
Women, we don't believe you were raped.

Women, we don't trust your judgment regarding your reproductive system.

- Conservative America
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
What the fuck are you talking about?
Click to expand...
I'm talking about the likelihood that TeaPartiers will acquire more power in 2022.

You can go on and on about how things should be. I'm talking about the reality.

Those are two different things.
Tom
 
TomC said:
Jimmy Higgins said:
What the fuck are you talking about?
Click to expand...
I'm talking about the likelihood that TeaPartiers will acquire more power in 2022.

You can go on and on about how things should be. I'm talking about the reality.

Those are two different things.
Tom
Click to expand...
I know I'm on the outside looking in, but I would have thought any remaining teabaggers were supplanted by or became Trumptards a while ago.
 
Yeah every young girl not under the sway of their mother is gonna vote Democrat this fall.
Oh wait - there’s only four of them. And three of those have fathers who will beat them if they don’t vote for right wing puritans.
:rolleyes:
 
blastula said:
Trausti said:
blastula said:
Trausti said:
So you also feel abortion beyond the first trimester is ghoulish?
Click to expand...

What does Alabama and 40 weeks have to do with overturning Roe?
Click to expand...
Yes, I confused MS and AL. But abortion throughout pregnancy is supported by few people.
Click to expand...

So what? Roe doesn't say abortion must be allowed at any time.
Click to expand...
Roe says abortion cannot be restricted in the first trimester.

During the second semester, laws can impose reasonable health regulations.

The law can restrict abortions during the third trimester so long as it provides exceptions to protect the life and the health of the mother.

So Roe does say abortion must be allowed during the first trimester.
 
Elixir said:
If this “opinion”, opposed by 70% of the American public, is forced upon the nation, the illegitimacy of the Court will have become an unarguable fact. Expanding the court to rectify the situation will be the only course that might preserve the founders’ intent to form a democratic republic with a government representing the will of the governed.
The opinion is not supported by one single scotus member who was appointed by a president who won the popular vote. Not one. It is sheer tyranny of the minority.
Click to expand...
If the job of a judge was simply to support public opinion, then they wouldn't need law degrees.
 
TomC said:
ZiprHead said:
You can't take organs from a dead person without their prior permission.
Click to expand...
That's not true.
Upon death, the decision becomes one made by the survivors.
Tom
Click to expand...
Not if the deceased left unambiguous instructions written prior to their death.

Surviving relatives can often overturn a decision to donate organs, but are pretty much completely debarred from overturning a clear decision not to do so, even when overturning that decision would save one or more lives.

Women, on the other hand, do not appear to be able to withdraw nor withhold consent to the use of their organs to support the life of another individual, except where that individual has already established an independent existence.

So a mother can deny a life saving kidney donation to her fourteen year old daughter, even if that mother is dead and no longer using that kidney herself; But is (obscenely) prohibited from denying a life saving uterus donation to her fourteen week old fetus. Because bodily autonomy apparently doesn't matter in the sole case where the body in question is that of a pregnant woman.
 
Metaphor said:
Elixir said:
If this “opinion”, opposed by 70% of the American public, is forced upon the nation, the illegitimacy of the Court will have become an unarguable fact. Expanding the court to rectify the situation will be the only course that might preserve the founders’ intent to form a democratic republic with a government representing the will of the governed.
The opinion is not supported by one single scotus member who was appointed by a president who won the popular vote. Not one. It is sheer tyranny of the minority.
Click to expand...
If the job of a judge was simply to support public opinion, then they wouldn't need law degrees.
Click to expand...
They are supposed to deal with the law though, not strand arguments as one would see in a web board.
 
Gallup has a lot of polls on abortion:
Attitudes to abortion have been remarkably constant over the time that the Gallup organization has been polling about the issue. That's 1975 for some of the pages' data, and 1995 for some other data. I could get the numbers from the graphs and tables and do things like moving averages and spline fits and autocorrelations.

But it is evident that women are somewhat more accepting of abortion than men.

I think that the discrepancy may be because women tend to feel more strongly about the issue than men, likely because women have a more direct stake in the issue than men do. On the "pro" side, it is bodily autonomy, while anti-abortion women sometimes seem to think that abortion is a rejection of motherhood or something like that. Abortion as ideologically villainous may seem like an odd position, but that's what some anti-abortionists seem to believe.
 
If this becomes a ruling and GQP is in control next January, there will be federal legislation to ban abortion moving through the legislature by March.
 
Has it been mentioned yet that the whole abortion zealotry thing is based in the need for people who are easily enraged to feel like their stunted world view is humane? If not, it should be. It should be liberally (pun intended) sprinkled all over any discussion involving the abortion zealotry of the corrupt and morally bereft religious right.
 
Opponents of abortion often try to regulate it to death, even though it seems contrary to Republican ideology to regulate a business.
Here is a detailed look at Europe:
For the most part, first-trimester abortion is not very restricted, even if abortion later in pregnancy is usually allowed only for good medical reasons.
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
Jarhyn said:
Jimmy Higgins said:
Trausti said:
Jimmy Higgins said:
Trausti said:
Elixir said:
Jimmy Higgins said:
You add justices, it ends
Click to expand...
Why didn’t it “end” when it was done before?
Click to expand...
When did that happen? It's been set at 9 justices since 1869.
Click to expand...
You seemed to have answered your own question.
Click to expand...
Democracy ended in 1869?
Click to expand...
Oh ffs!

Do you not agree that the GOP will stuff judges on SCOTUS after the Dems do it, making it a rubber stamp for partisan policies?
Click to expand...
It depends on how they do it. If they index it on population size, number of representatives, etc, the GOP will not have the power.

It will have already happened, and they will not be able to walk through the same doorway.
Click to expand...
They'd do whatever they damn well please. Schumer said W shouldn't get to appt a hypothetical 3rd conservative justice, McConnell uses that to block a moderate selection for SCOTUS... and then shoves Barrett up SCOTUS's ass in record time at the buzzer.
Click to expand...
So... Republicans abandon all decorum at every convenient or useful opportunity, so we should not do something that is long since overdue because they might break decorum as soon as it is useful and/or convenient...

My gosh, we've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas! Whatever shall we do?
 
John Roberts calls release of draft Roe v. Wade reversal a 'singular and egregious breach' of trust | CNN Politics - he's the Chief Justice
“This was a singular and egregious breach of that trust that is an affront to the Court and the community of public servants who work here. I have directed the Marshal of the Court to launch an investigation into the source of the leak,” Roberts said in a statement Tuesday.

“To the extent this betrayal of the confidences of the Court was intended to undermine the integrity of our operations, it will not succeed,” Roberts said. “The work of the Court will not be affected in any way. We at the Court are blessed to have a workforce – permanent employees and law clerks alike – intensely loyal to the institution and dedicated to the rule of law. Court employees have an exemplary and important tradition of respecting the confidentiality of the judicial process and upholding the trust of the Court.”
Click to expand...
My theory is that one of the Justices did it, for whatever reason. Like to try to influence the other Justices in some way.

Half a century ago, Sec'y of State Henry Kissinger often did leaks to float trial balloons, crediting himself as a "senior official". Is this leak something similar?

I'm reminded of this joke.
In the British TV series Yes, Minister, Sir Humphrey Appleby pointed out that "the Ship of State is the only ship that leaks from the top".
Click to expand...
from  Ship of State
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom