Roe v Wade is on deck

[Jimmy Higgins]

Add "reading graphs" to the pile of "Things Trausti doesn't understand".

Again, most people do not support abortion beyond the first trimester.

Again? You cited a chart indicated women support abortion at over 4 to 1 (men just shy of 4 to 1). It doesn't say anything about first trimester. You'll need another chart, but you'd need to be able to understand it first to know if it supports what you are claiming.

There’s the NYT link just above.

And Oklahoma, which banned abortion? Hopefully a woman can hold that pregnancy while that goes through the courts.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Oh, I think they will. Here we agree Jimmy. Here we agree.

I agree as well. What mystifies me is Jimmy’s assumption that they won’t do it the first time they have the legislature and a centrist or leftist court. The Gorsuch and Barrett charades demonstrate their utter disregard for their own stated principles, let alone for examples set by Democrats. Refraining from fixing it isn’t going to make them any more or less eager or willing to break it again, or to keep it broken as it is.

It isn't fixing anything. It will just be temporarily adding duct tape until the GOP destroys it for good.

 

[ZiprHead]

Heard today: Women now have less bodily autonomy than dead people.

What is a woman?

Cut the derail crap.

Just trying to see if progressives are consistent or just make shit up as they go. Apparently, the latter.

In what way is my use of the word woman above inconsistent?

If the most recently appointed justice to the Supreme Court can't define what a woman is, why are you making this about women?

 

[blastula]

So you also feel abortion beyond the first trimester is ghoulish?

What does Alabama and 40 weeks have to do with overturning Roe?

Yes, I confused MS and AL. But abortion throughout pregnancy is supported by few people.

So what? Roe doesn't say abortion must be allowed at any time.

 

[Elixir]

It isn't fixing anything. It will just be temporarily adding duct tape until the GOP destroys it for good.

So we should wait a decade or five, try to re-capture a court majority, and THEN let them destroy it for good?
No, my friend. It’s “destroyed for good” NOW if they make this opinion into a ruling.

 

[Trausti]

So you also feel abortion beyond the first trimester is ghoulish?

What does Alabama and 40 weeks have to do with overturning Roe?

Yes, I confused MS and AL. But abortion throughout pregnancy is supported by few people.

So what? Roe doesn't say abortion must be allowed at any time.

Which makes the challenge to the Mississippi law bewildering.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So you also feel abortion beyond the first trimester is ghoulish?

What does Alabama and 40 weeks have to do with overturning Roe?

Yes, I confused MS and AL. But abortion throughout pregnancy is supported by few people.

So what? Roe doesn't say abortion must be allowed at any time.

This feels like a Pascal's Wager deal, where it is easier to argue a time limit on abortion instead of supporting the ban of it. Trausti hasn't indicated if they support Oklahoma's ban on abortion.

 

[Trausti]

Trausti hasn't indicated if they support Oklahoma's ban on abortion.

I wouldn’t support the 6 week cutoff. But that’s a question for the legislature / people to debate, not the courts.

 

[Trausti]

Little Miracles Trust - Home

www.neonataltrust.org.nz

 

[blastula]

Yes, I confused MS and AL. But abortion throughout pregnancy is supported by few people.

So what? Roe doesn't say abortion must be allowed at any time.

Which makes the challenge to the Mississippi law bewildering.

Another non sequitur. Roe doesn't say you can limit it to only 15 weeks.

 

[blastula]

Little Miracles Trust - Home

www.neonataltrust.org.nz

Another Trausti irrelevancy.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Trausti hasn't indicated if they support Oklahoma's ban on abortion.

I wouldn’t support the 6 week cutoff. But that’s a question for the legislature / people to debate, not the courts.

Again, you reference people, but people's rights shouldn't be at the whim of gerrymandering legislatures, nor popular opinion. And popular opinion is for Roe v Wade not being overturned, so referencing it is silly.

 

[Trausti]

Yes, I confused MS and AL. But abortion throughout pregnancy is supported by few people.

So what? Roe doesn't say abortion must be allowed at any time.

Which makes the challenge to the Mississippi law bewildering.

Another non sequitur. Roe doesn't say you can limit it to only 15 weeks.

The first trimester ends at 13-14 weeks.

 

[Trausti]

Little Miracles Trust - Home

www.neonataltrust.org.nz

Another Trausti irrelevancy.

Not at all. These’s discussion upthread on the moral equivalence of abortion at 30 weeks and murder of a 30 week premie.

 

[atrib]

California will still let you kill your baby.

That is a blatant lie. Killing babies is illegal in every state.

A 30 week viable fetus and a 30 week premie.

A fetus is not a baby. You yourself call it a fetus in order to distinguish it from a premature baby that has been delivered.

 

[ZiprHead]

Yes, I confused MS and AL. But abortion throughout pregnancy is supported by few people.

So what? Roe doesn't say abortion must be allowed at any time.

Which makes the challenge to the Mississippi law bewildering.

Another non sequitur. Roe doesn't say you can limit it to only 15 weeks.

The first trimester ends at 13-14 weeks.

Do you support Alito's conjecture that the right to privacy doesn't exist?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Another non sequitur. Roe doesn't say you can limit it to only 15 weeks.

The first trimester ends at 13-14 weeks.

Do you support Alito's conjecture that the right to privacy doesn't exist?

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.

They are complaining about why Roe doesn't explain why viability matters. How often do SCOTUS decisions reference red herrings?

This arbitrary line has not found much support among philosophers and ethicists who have attempted to justify a right to abortion. Some have argued that a fetus should not be entitled to legal protection until it acquires the charac- teristics that they regard as defining what it meanstobe a “person.” Among the characteristics that have been offered as essential attributes of “personhood” are sentience, self- awareness, the ability to reason, or some combination thereof.” By this logic, it would be an open question whether even born individuals, including young children or those afflicted with certain developmental or medical con- ditions, merit protection as “persons.” But even if one takes the view that “personhood” begins when a certain attribute or combination of attributes is acquired, it is very hard to see why viability should mark the point where “personhood” begins.

Jebus... it is like reading a web forum post on a Christian Site.

Baselines don't make sense because there are standard deviations.

 

[Patooka]

If Roe v Wade was a tweet, Republicans would be bending over backwards to preserve it. It certainly sounds like they have their priorities sorted out.

 

[Toni]

Little Miracles Trust - Home

www.neonataltrust.org.nz

Another Trausti irrelevancy.

Not at all. These’s discussion upthread on the moral equivalence of abortion at 30 weeks and murder of a 30 week premie.

The thing is, you honestly do not know what you are talking about when you talk about an abortion at 30 weeks gestation. Such late term abortions are rare and are done only when terminating the pregnancy is safer for the mother than delivering a full term non-viable fetus. In many cases, an abortion is performed in order to remove a deceased fetus from the woman’s body. Few providers will perform late term abortions for any reason, meaning that women who learn late in pregnancy that their fetus has fatal abnormalities —conditions so severe that it cannot live outside the womb. Only a man would be so clueless that he fails to recognize how devastating such a diagnosis is.

Depending on how stupid or how cruel the legislators of various states are, a woman could potentially be forced to retain a deceased fetus in her body until ‘natural labor’ or at some point at which her body is poisoned by the decaying fetus. A woman who suffers a serious accident while pregnant could lose her life because delivering her baby prematurely could result in the loss of the life if the fetus. Women could be forced ti delay life saving treatment for their own health concerns—including cancer—to protect the fetus which may or may not be viable. Women who learn that they are pregnant with multiple fetuses can be forced to carry the pregnancy of all fetuses, regardless of the cost to her health or the health of any one or some of the fetuses rather than ejecting to selectively abort less viable fetuses early in the pregnancy in order to give the others a better chance at a healthy life.

Here is an article that talks about some circumstances under which late term abortions are sought -and reasons some are declined. The standard is: which is safer for the mother. https://www.denverpost.com/2019/10/13/late-abortion-women-2020/amp/

I realize some who are writing in this thread do not care about the woman at all.

 

[ZiprHead]

Another non sequitur. Roe doesn't say you can limit it to only 15 weeks.

The first trimester ends at 13-14 weeks.

Do you support Alito's conjecture that the right to privacy doesn't exist?

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.

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.