Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Captain Cranks

Why is Roe v Wade so important?

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Stealthycat said:

really ?

if you're not pro-abortion then by definition you do not favor legalization of abortions which would remove a woman's choice in having a legal abortion. You cannot be pro-choice without being pro-abortion

 

 

 

 

proabortion

adjective pro·abor·tion \ (ˈ)prō-ə-ˈbȯr-shən \

medical Definition of proabortion

: favoring the legalization of abortion

 

 

pro-choice

adjective

Definition of pro-choice for English Language Learners

: believing that pregnant women should have the right to choose to have an abortion

 

Those aren’t remotely the same thing, and when you pretend they are you firmly signal to everyone that you have made up your mind, you’ve decided to accept something as fact that the scientific community still wrestle with (and they are way smarter than you) and you have no respect for other view points and no interest in any discussion. 

No, don’t respond that it’s not true. It is. We all know it. That’s what happens when you use a term like pro abortion. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Stealthycat said:

call it a cactus or a porcupine or a puppy or a fetus or a baby ... whatever you call it does not remove the fact that its alive.

Abraham Lincoln's favorite joke:

Q. How many legs does a dog have if we call the tail a leg?

A. Four. Calling the tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.

It doesn't matter what we call things. That's why arguments that are based on semantics ("A fetus is a human life; human lives are valuable; therefore fetuses are valuable.") are generally unpersuasive. It doesn't matter whether we call something a fetus or a child; alive or not alive; human or not human. What matters are the actual qualities that it has.

Normally, we especially value things like sentience, intelligence, capacity for joy or suffering, etc. That's why we value teenagers more than we value mice. They're both alive, but we're not all that shy about killing mice because they seem to be less than 5% as sentient as most teenagers. We're also not shy about killing unfertilized human eggs even though they are both alive and human: because they're not sentient.

Human eggs -- both fertilized and unfertilized -- can become sentient if given enough nurturing and time. In fact, they can become teenagers. But they're not teenagers yet. So it's tricky to figure out what lengths we should go to in order to protect their lives. Are they more like mice or more like teenagers? They're more like mice at the moment (in fact, far below mice). But they'll be more like teenagers if we put enough time and resources into them. So how much should we value them, and who gets to make that call?

It's complicated, but the person who's supposed to put the time and resources into them seems like a reasonable candidate to make the call. There are other reasonable candidates as well, like the State of Texas, I suppose. But either way, arguments from definitions will never change anyone's mind. That's true on both sides of the debate.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, msudaisy26 said:

You are really reaching with some of your connections here. 

if we are over populated in the United States and need less people here, its not reaching at all

kill 850,000 unborn to stop population increasing, but allow 1 million immigrants ? that isn't fixing the supposed population issue at all is it ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Frostillicus said:

Those aren’t remotely the same thing, and when you pretend they are you firmly signal to everyone that you have made up your mind, you’ve decided to accept something as fact that the scientific community still wrestle with (and they are way smarter than you) and you have no respect for other view points and no interest in any discussion. 

No, don’t respond that it’s not true. It is. We all know it. That’s what happens when you use a term like pro abortion.

 

the definitions are what they are - pro-choice means believing women should have the legal ability to have their unborn baby killed thus ending the pregnancy ..... to do that, one must also support the legalization ..... I mean you can't really believe women have that choice if you believe abortion should be outlawed right ?

you don't like the word because it means you support medical people killing unborn babies and ending pregnancies at the request of the mother - that's a horrible thing to support and so people don't call it an unborn baby, they dehumanize and use fetus and they refuse to say they support abortion.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Stealthycat said:

call it a cactus or a porcupine or a puppy or a fetus or a baby ... whatever you call it does not remove the fact that its alive. It HAS to be alive, if it isn't, there is no pregnancy. That's the entire concept of an abortion - to kill the unborn life, to stop the pregnancy.

at least you're honest - I'm curious just what stages of life you think a person should be able to kill another at ....  and the current rules and laws? they can change. Remember for over 200 years this country wouldn't allow killing unborn children. That's a recent developement and it can change, quickly

 

 

How many funerals for a 1 week old fertilized egg that didn't make it have you ever attended?

Also, if a fertilized egg is an unborn child deserving all the rights of a born child, why are we not holding women whose bodies miscarry criminally liable for involuntarily ending the life of an unborn baby?  It was an accident? C'mon.  The definition of life starts at fertilization after all, so these mothers who miscarry are at best guilty of involuntary manslaughter, and at worst...murder...if they have been irresponsible with their bodies doing things like drinking, smoking, running too fast, being overweight, you name the risk.  Negligent.

It's just so absurd to take this life beginning at fertilization thing seriously.  No one means it.  No one.  If they did, the world would be a pretty super ####ty place for women.  These folks only pay lip service to this "definition" and apply it where it suits them.

Edited by adonis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Frostillicus said:

Militantly pro life and anti immigration. I feel like I can fill in all the blanks with just that much info. 

ok i'm pro life and anti illegal immigration now fill in the rest of the blanks for me

I am ___ death penalty

I am ___ gay marriage

I am ____ prostitution, drugs, and gambling

i am ____ gun control

against the

for legalization of

for legalization of

a supporter of common sense

Most people out in the real world aren't in a single little neat box

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

 

the definitions are what they are - pro-choice means believing women should have the legal ability to have their unborn baby killed thus ending the pregnancy ..... to do that, one must also support the legalization ..... I mean you can't really believe women have that choice if you believe abortion should be outlawed right ?

you don't like the word because it means you support medical people killing unborn babies and ending pregnancies at the request of the mother - that's a horrible thing to support and so people don't call it an unborn baby, they dehumanize and use fetus and they refuse to say they support abortion.

Thanks for making my point for me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, by_the_sea_wannabe said:

ok i'm pro life and anti illegal immigration now fill in the rest of the blanks for me

I am ___ death penalty

I am ___ gay marriage

I am ____ prostitution, drugs, and gambling

i am ____ gun control

 

  Reveal hidden contents

against the

for legalization of

for legalization of

a supporter of common sense

 

Most people out in the real world aren't in a single little neat box

 

I wasn’t talking about you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

It's complicated, but the person who's supposed to put the time and resources into them seems like a reasonable candidate to make the call. There are other reasonable candidates as well, like the State of Texas, I suppose. But either way, arguments from definitions will never change anyone's mind. That's true on both sides of the debate.

if a couple made the call 10 minutes after birth to kill the child because or whatever reason, would you support that ?

how about 1 minute after birth? what about 1 minute before ?

 

there is no "magic moment" during a pregnancy when life magically starts - if there is a pregnancy, that life has ALREADY started. simply biology will tell you that - a pregnancy in almost every case, is a living mother and living unborn and at the moment that pregnancy begins, that mothers body knows it, starts working in amazing ways with the pregnancy and unborn as the two live and grow ..... if that baby dies, the pregnancy ends

 

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb".

The bill contained the alternate title of Laci and Conner's Law after the California mother (Laci Peterson) and fetus (Conner Peterson) whose deaths were widely publicized during the later stages of the congressional debate on the bill in 2003 and 2004. Husband Scott Peterson was convicted of double homicide under California's fetal homicide law.

the day before the above murder, Laci could have legally had an abortion somewhere and the same baby would have died ..... nothing changed about the physical baby and it being alive and human, right ? (actually maybe not, because she  was 8 months, but lets say whatever trimester she was in was legal abortion window, I'm not sure at 8 months that was in CA)

only thing is if Laci said kill it or if Scott decided for her - neither of their views or opinions changed what the unborn baby Conner was right ?

 

isn't it crazy ........ same baby, same stage of development, call it whatever you want but we know for a fact the baby HAS to be alive or there would be no pregnancy ...... that doesn't change and if someone murders the mother and the unborn die? double murder .......... if the mother one hour before the murder ... has an abortion? no murder and yet, same baby, same stage of development

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, adonis said:

How many funerals for a 1 week old fertilized egg that didn't make it have you ever attended?

Also, if a fertilized egg is an unborn child deserving all the rights of a born child, why are we not holding women whose bodies miscarry criminally liable for involuntarily ending the life of an unborn baby?  It was an accident? C'mon.  The definition of life starts at fertilization after all, so these mothers who miscarry are at best guilty of involuntary manslaughter, and at worst...murder...if they have been irresponsible with their bodies doing things like drinking, smoking, running too fast, being overweight, you name the risk.  Negligent.

It's just so absurd to take this life beginning at fertilization thing seriously.  No one means it.  No one.  If they did, the world would be a pretty super ####ty place for women.  These folks only pay lip service to this "definition" and apply it where it suits them.

a miscarriage is very natural, happens often, didn't you know ?

 

question - if that unborn isn't live .... how could drinking, smoking, or anything affect it ? hard to affect something not alive isn't it ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, by_the_sea_wannabe said:

I am ___ death penalty

I am ___ gay marriage

I am ____ prostitution, drugs, and gambling

i am ____ gun control

 

I am pro-death penalty for those who commit heinous crimes - I do not believe in killing innocents

I am "pro" gay marriage in that if a State's people wants to issue said license, I don't care, its a license, however the State's people want to issue them is fine

I am pro-prostitution - a woman's body, she can sell it if she wants to. Pro drugs for medicinal use, not recreational. Pro gambling

I am pro gun control, the common sense laws we have right now are there for a reason. Its worked well, especially the concealed carry laws

I'm pro getting rid of legally killing unborn babies, I cannot fathom how anyone would think a civilized society can allow killing unborn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

a miscarriage is very natural, happens often, didn't you know ?

 

question - if that unborn isn't live .... how could drinking, smoking, or anything affect it ? hard to affect something not alive isn't it ?

You missed my point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Stealthycat said:

why do you want less births ?

 

if this is true, that there is an overpopulation in the United States .... ya'll must hate immigration then ?

Link

Many scientists estimate the world can only sustain about 10 billion people. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

if we are over populated in the United States and need less people here, its not reaching at all

kill 850,000 unborn to stop population increasing, but allow 1 million immigrants ? that isn't fixing the supposed population issue at all is it ?

Like I said, reaching.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:
1 hour ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

It's complicated, but the person who's supposed to put the time and resources into them seems like a reasonable candidate to make the call. There are other reasonable candidates as well, like the State of Texas, I suppose. But either way, arguments from definitions will never change anyone's mind. That's true on both sides of the debate.

if a couple made the call 10 minutes after birth to kill the child because or whatever reason, would you support that ?

Probably not, but that's changing the subject pretty sharply. I said that the person who's supposed to put the time and resources into developing the fetus seems like a reasonable candidate to determine whether to abort it or to carry it to term.

Once it's been born (or comes close enough to being born that aborting it isn't any easier than birthing it), the time and resources have already been expended. They're a sunk cost. At that point, nobody fits the description I gave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, adonis said:

You missed my point.

Yeah, don't bother. He is so locked in his position that he can't even the other side

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Stealthycat said:

 

the definitions are what they are - pro-choice means believing women should have the legal ability to have their unborn baby killed thus ending the pregnancy ..... to do that, one must also support the legalization ..... I mean you can't really believe women have that choice if you believe abortion should be outlawed right ?

you don't like the word because it means you support medical people killing unborn babies and ending pregnancies at the request of the mother - that's a horrible thing to support and so people don't call it an unborn baby, they dehumanize and use fetus and they refuse to say they support abortion.

You should just stop. I am a woman and have had a child. I am pro choice, and at the same time I would like to think that I would never have had an abortion. I also never had to deal with being raped and getting pregnant because of it. I have no idea the kind of mental toll it could take on a person having to look at a child they loved so much and see the resemblance of a person that did one of the worst things in the world to them. I also have been lucky enough to have a pregnancy without complications. I am not going to pretend to know the feeling a women would have if the doctor told her if he she didn't end the pregnancy she would most likely die. I am not going to pretend to know what I would do in the spot and really don't like thinking about it.

With all that said I am not going to judge or take an issue with someone that can't give their own life for an unborn, or doesn't think they are strong enough to raise a child that looks like their attacker, or doesn't think they are strong enough to have the child and give it up for adoption and have to know their child is in the world and they will never know their mother and I as their mother will never know them.

You shouldn't pretend like you know either/

Edited by msudaisy26
  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, by_the_sea_wannabe said:

ok i'm pro life and anti illegal immigration now fill in the rest of the blanks for me

I am ___ death penalty

I am ___ gay marriage

I am ____ prostitution, drugs, and gambling

i am ____ gun control

 

  Reveal hidden contents

against the

for legalization of

for legalization of

a supporter of common sense

 

Most people out in the real world aren't in a single little neat box

 

It isn't that cut and dry for all these issues.

I would be for a death penalty, but only if guilt is 100 percent certain and the case is reviewed after the guilty verdict by 2 more judges/juries/whatever (I am not a lawyer and not going to pretend I know how appeals work) I don't care if it would cost more, we are talking about a life here, I want to be certain. I also only want it for certain crimes. I am not going to list them all, but 1st degree murder, rape of minors, sex trafficking.

I am for gay marriage, I don't care if it is against your religion. Separation of church and state.

I am for all of those if they are legal and highly regulated. They are high risk industries and should be treated and monitored as such.

I am for gun control, but also want people to be able to own all the guns they want if they are responsible.

Edited by msudaisy26
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Stealthycat said:

that doesn't change and if someone murders the mother and the unborn die? double murder .......... if the mother one hour before the murder ... has an abortion? no murder and yet, same baby, same stage of development

 

 

It is literally insane to me that you consider these the same thing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Stealthycat said:
2 hours ago, adonis said:

How many funerals for a 1 week old fertilized egg that didn't make it have you ever attended?

Also, if a fertilized egg is an unborn child deserving all the rights of a born child, why are we not holding women whose bodies miscarry criminally liable for involuntarily ending the life of an unborn baby?  It was an accident? C'mon.  The definition of life starts at fertilization after all, so these mothers who miscarry are at best guilty of involuntary manslaughter, and at worst...murder...if they have been irresponsible with their bodies doing things like drinking, smoking, running too fast, being overweight, you name the risk.  Negligent.

It's just so absurd to take this life beginning at fertilization thing seriously.  No one means it.  No one.  If they did, the world would be a pretty super ####ty place for women.  These folks only pay lip service to this "definition" and apply it where it suits them.

a miscarriage is very natural, happens often, didn't you know ?

 

question - if that unborn isn't live .... how could drinking, smoking, or anything affect it ? hard to affect something not alive isn't it ?

Would be nice to hear you address my point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/13/2018 at 9:58 AM, toshiba said:

I don't remember ever paying to vote.

 

 

I don’t remember Roe v Wade having taxes pay for abortion, either. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Stealthycat said:

a miscarriage is very natural, happens often, didn't you know ?

 

question - if that unborn isn't live .... how could drinking, smoking, or anything affect it ? hard to affect something not alive isn't it ?

All of those things affect sperm, too.  Should we charge people with thousands of homicides for waxing the German helmet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Henry Ford said:

All of those things affect sperm, too.  Should we charge people with thousands of homicides for waxing the German helmet?

Relevant

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U. S. 250, 251 (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment...; in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights...; in the Ninth Amendment...; or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment... . These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed "fundamental" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," ..., are included in this guarantee of personal privacy. They also make it clear that the right has some extension to activities relating to marriage,...; procreation, ...; contraception ...; family relationships...; and childrearing and education....

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation.

On the basis of elements such as these, appellant and some amici argue that the woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree. Appellant's arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all in regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong enough to support any limitation upon the woman's sole determination, are unpersuasive. 

 

- This has always been the choicest part of Roe.

- IMO they could have added the Third Amendment.

- But this right of privacy and the reference to penumbras has always been this opinion's weakness. I say that because people read this when it came out and since as the USSC inventing rights. Just rely on the 9th Amendment, that one says it all, and that is that all rights not expressed by the Constitution are reserved to the People. Boom, done. However I think the Court felt that the 9th has certain unfortunate states rights implications and they did not want to endorse that potentially very powerful and liberating Amendment. I think a lot of liberals still feel uncomfortable with this.

- Also, privacy is not at issue here (though I am big advocate of that), it's the right to have or not have a surgery. What if the government were to issue a law stating when people must have an abortion? What if the government ordered men undergo sterility or vasectomy operations under certain conditions? This seems to me to be the flipside of the same issue of state power.

- The opinion does not give women sole control over her body. The USSC was explicit about that.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like a lot of folks could become familiar with "pro-mind your own business".

Do what you do for you and your family.

Men really are dumb animals sometimes. "Do what I say or you support killing babies!"

You feel the way you feel. Noted. You're a freaking saint and a martyr. Now stop trying to force that on other people. 

Cue the whataboutisms in 3,2,1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

- This has always been the choicest part of Roe.

- IMO they could have added the Third Amendment.

- But this right of privacy and the reference to penumbras has always been this opinion's weakness. I say that because people read this when it came out and since as the USSC inventing rights. Just rely on the 9th Amendment, that one says it all, and that is that all rights not expressed by the Constitution are reserved to the People. Boom, done. However I think the Court felt that the 9th has certain unfortunate states rights implications and they did not want to endorse that potentially very powerful and liberating Amendment. I think a lot of liberals still feel uncomfortable with this.

- Also, privacy is not at issue here (though I am big advocate of that), it's the right to have or not have a surgery. What if the government were to issue a law stating when people must have an abortion? What if the government ordered men undergo sterility or vasectomy operations under certain conditions? This seems to me to be the flipside of the same issue of state power.

- The opinion does not give women sole control over her body. The USSC was explicit about that.

I agree with all of this. There may be something like a right of privacy emanating from the penumbras of the Bill of Rights, or in the Ninth Amendment, or as part of the liberty protected by the 14th Amendment ... with the Ninth Amendment probably being the best candidate, IMO.

But abortions aren’t very private affairs. The right of privacy was solidified in Griswold, the contraception case, because what happens in the bedroom is nobody else’s business. Although Griswold and Roe both involved reproductive issues, the domain of Roe’s was not the bedroom. I feel like the Roe Court shoehorned abortion into privacy because they wanted it to seem like a natural extension of the same right announced in Griswold rather than yet another newly identified constitutional right.

In any case, I think a good case can be made for a constitutional right for a woman to make her own reproductive choices. I would have emphasized the Ninth Amendment more, but he 14th works as well. Either way, while it’s not a slam dunk, I’m on board with calling that right ‘fundamental’ and applying heightened scrutiny to any government infringement of it.

The more questionable aspect of Roe, to me, is whether laws prohibiting abortion can meet that heightened scrutiny. To violate run-of-the-mill liberties, a state has to show that its law is rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest. To violate a fundamental right, a state has to show that its law is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.

Protecting the lives of fetuses is certainly a legitimate interest of a state, same as protecting the lives of certain owls or whatever. But is it compelling? That turns on how much value people put on the lives of fetuses, which seems like something that should probably be determined by the people themselves, through their legislatures, rather than by judges. I don’t want to automatically defer to states about what they find compelling and what they find merely legitimate, but the importance of protecting the lives of fetuses seems like an especially good candidate to defer to the people on. So I’d grant states that their interest in protecting the lives of human fetuses can be compelling.

Are laws prohibiting abortion narrowly tailored to serve that interest? It may depend on exactly how they’re drafted, but in general, I can’t think of a less intrusive means of protecting fetuses.

So while I recognize that it’s a hard case in several respects (and I’ve flipped back and forth on it a number of times), my own feeling is that Roe was probably wrongly decided back in 1973. Does that mean it should be overturned today? That’s also a hard question because there is value in the principle of stare decisis — the idea that we don’t want major laws to change every time the Court changes its composition. Here’s where I think it matters that Roe isn’t obviously bad policy the way Dred Scott was. I’d be much more inclined to overturn a case that was disfavored by a strong majority of the public than one that most of the citizenry have come to accept. But I don’t think it’s a slam dunk.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

 

But abortions aren’t very private affairs. The right of privacy was solidified in Griswold, the contraception case, because what happens in the bedroom is nobody else’s business. Although Griswold and Roe both involved reproductive issues, the domain of Roe’s was not the bedroom. 

I’m not a lawyer or any kind of expert on legal definitions of privacy, but it has always seemed to me that what one does with one’s doctor should be just as private as what one does in the bedroom. I don’t understand the difference here. I’ve always regarded an abortion as a very private affair. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I’m not a lawyer or any kind of expert on legal definitions of privacy, but it has always seemed to me that what one does with one’s doctor should be just as private as what one does in the bedroom. I don’t understand the difference here. I’ve always regarded an abortion as a very private affair. 

I think that’s a reasonable position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I’m not a lawyer or any kind of expert on legal definitions of privacy, but it has always seemed to me that what one does with one’s doctor should be just as private as what one does in the bedroom. I don’t understand the difference here. I’ve always regarded an abortion as a very private affair. 

Well said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I’m not a lawyer or any kind of expert on legal definitions of privacy, but it has always seemed to me that what one does with one’s doctor should be just as private as what one does in the bedroom. I don’t understand the difference here. I’ve always regarded an abortion as a very private affair. 

Someone publicly revealing your treatment is a privacy issue. Your treatment itself is a medical issue. Privacy does not mean "personal" IMO, in the context of individual rights that would be redundant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Someone publicly revealing your treatment is a privacy issue. Your treatment itself is a medical issue. Privacy does not mean "personal" IMO, in the context of individual rights that would be redundant.

Are you making a distinction here? I’m confused. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’d be more on board with a judge taking the position that medical treatments are private (and therefore constitutionally protected) if the judge struck down anti-drug laws on that basis to the extent that such laws prevent doctors from prescribing marijuana or ecstasy to their patients.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, timschochet said:

Are you making a distinction here? I’m confused. 

Yes, I am and I'm doing a lousy job of it. MT's explanation is totally correct. I'm just pointing out that privacy literally means information which is private versus what can be made public or what would be under the government's control. So to me HIPAA is a privacy issue, but not the surgery which HIPAA covers. - I acknowledge I have some weird ideas which are not generally accepted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

I’d be more on board with a judge taking the position that medical treatments are private (and therefore constitutionally protected) if the judge struck down anti-drug laws on that basis to the extent that such laws prevent doctors from prescribing marijuana or ecstasy to their patients.

Right. Just as an example:

- The ACA/Obamacare regs allow the government to regulate pricing and even coverage of certain procedures, and doing so certain procedures can become price prohibitive, almost impossible to afford. In general state medical boards also regulate procedures. Are these not "private" decisions by the patient? 

- As you point out medical marijuana, or even just using MJ to self-medicate, is just as much a private medical decision as abortion. 

:shrug:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

The right of privacy was solidified in Griswold, the contraception case, because what happens in the bedroom is nobody else’s business. Although Griswold and Roe both involved reproductive issues, the domain of Roe’s was not the bedroom. I feel like the Roe Court shoehorned abortion into privacy because they wanted it to seem like a natural extension of the same right announced in Griswold rather than yet another newly identified constitutional right.

In any case, I think a good case can be made for a constitutional right for a woman to make her own reproductive choices. I would have emphasized the Ninth Amendment more, but he 14th works as well. Either way, while it’s not a slam dunk, I’m on board with calling that right ‘fundamental’ and applying heightened scrutiny to any government infringement of it.

To be clear I understand this and I agree with it.

It's just IMO "'medical decisions are totally individual rights protected by every citizen's right of personal liberty under the 9th & 14th A's" while correct was too broad a statement of acknowledgement of individual rights which the USSC was not willing to grant, hence it retreated to the shoehorning you describe.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/14/2018 at 8:45 PM, adonis said:

You missed my point.

I'll ask again ... question - if that unborn isn't live .... how could drinking, smoking, or anything affect it ? hard to affect something not alive isn't it ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/14/2018 at 8:46 PM, tonydead said:

Many scientists estimate the world can only sustain about 10 billion people. 

that might be ... does it justify killing unborn or babies or maybe go into a full Logan's Run mode ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:
On 7/14/2018 at 8:45 PM, adonis said:

You missed my point.

I'll ask again ... question - if that unborn isn't live .... how could drinking, smoking, or anything affect it ? hard to affect something not alive isn't it ?

And you'll ignore my point again.  I was going with your premise.  I was accepting your premise that life starts at conception.  

Accepting that, as you seem to do, respond to my other points.

Quote

How many funerals for a 1 week old fertilized egg that didn't make it have you ever attended?

Also, if a fertilized egg is an unborn child deserving all the rights of a born child, why are we not holding women whose bodies miscarry criminally liable for involuntarily ending the life of an unborn baby?  It was an accident? C'mon.  The definition of life starts at fertilization after all, so these mothers who miscarry are at best guilty of involuntary manslaughter, and at worst...murder...if they have been irresponsible with their bodies doing things like drinking, smoking, running too fast, being overweight, you name the risk.  Negligent.

It's just so absurd to take this life beginning at fertilization thing seriously.  No one means it.  No one.  If they did, the world would be a pretty super ####ty place for women.  These folks only pay lip service to this "definition" and apply it where it suits them.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

that might be ... does it justify killing unborn or babies or maybe go into a full Logan's Run mode ?

Keep abortion legal, like it is.  Consider penalties for those that have more that two children instead of incentives.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/14/2018 at 8:56 PM, Maurile Tremblay said:

Probably not, but that's changing the subject pretty sharply. I said that the person who's supposed to put the time and resources into developing the fetus seems like a reasonable candidate to determine whether to abort it or to carry it to term.

Once it's been born (or comes close enough to being born that aborting it isn't any easier than birthing it), the time and resources have already been expended. They're a sunk cost. At that point, nobody fits the description I gave.

ok but abort it ..... what does that mean ?

it means killing it - lets just call it what it is and we have seen states since Roe pass laws and redefine laws over and over to stop later term killing of unborns because it is literally, barbaric

 

but backtrack a second - we both agree right after birth, a baby has a life worth protecting, right ?

we also agree that close enough before birth is also a living human baby and we should protect that life, right ?

so draw your line on when that unborn life goes from being a valuable life to protect and the moment before that it isn't

my line is when a pregnancy starts ........... a pregnancy has to have a living unborn baby in almost ever pregnancy. Abortions kill kill that living unborn baby, that's the entire concept of abortion, kill the unborn, end the pregnancy right ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/14/2018 at 8:56 PM, badmojo1006 said:

Yeah, don't bother. He is so locked in his position that he can't even the other side

I was the other side until I was 27 years old .... very pro abortion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/14/2018 at 8:57 PM, msudaisy26 said:

You should just stop. I am a woman and have had a child. I am pro choice, and at the same time I would like to think that I would never have had an abortion. I also never had to deal with being raped and getting pregnant because of it. I have no idea the kind of mental toll it could take on a person having to look at a child they loved so much and see the resemblance of a person that did one of the worst things in the world to them. I also have been lucky enough to have a pregnancy without complications. I am not going to pretend to know the feeling a women would have if the doctor told her if he she didn't end the pregnancy she would most likely die. I am not going to pretend to know what I would do in the spot and really don't like thinking about it.

With all that said I am not going to judge or take an issue with someone that can't give their own life for an unborn, or doesn't think they are strong enough to raise a child that looks like their attacker, or doesn't think they are strong enough to have the child and give it up for adoption and have to know their child is in the world and they will never know their mother and I as their mother will never know them.

You shouldn't pretend like you know either/

what % of abortions are for mothers who are raped or incest? And remember, adding the death of an unborn plus the trauma for the procedure and after isn't roses for the woman either :(    women's health justifying abortion is ever rarer. I think its around 1-2% total for rape/incest/mothers health ..... meaning 98% of killing unborn babies and ending pregnancies via abortion is for convenience.

I'm a father of 2 children, we had a miscarriage and I say we because don't undermine that men and fathers and husbands have no role in a pregnancy, we're very much invested in

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

I’d be more on board with a judge taking the position that medical treatments are private (and therefore constitutionally protected) if the judge struck down anti-drug laws on that basis to the extent that such laws prevent doctors from prescribing marijuana or ecstasy to their patients.

its not a medical treatment

its killing an unborn living human - that's the entire core part of an abortion, the purpose is to kill the unborn

do you know sometimes, killing the unborn fails ? google it .... not nice, not pretty, in fact its horrible

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, adonis said:

And you'll ignore my point again

lol adonis

I'll answer for you - because you know and I know and everyone knows, if it aint alive, it cannot be affected by the things you listed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, tonydead said:

Keep abortion legal, like it is.  Consider penalties for those that have more that two children instead of incentives.  

or

ban abortions, stop killing unborn and try to get people to stop getting knocked up when they don't want to be pregnant (and I mean both the men and women equally responsible for the pregnancy)

 

odd no one here wants to talk about the origins of abortion and Sangers policies decades ago .... I wonder if ya'll know the history of legalized abortion in the US and what it was pushed for ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

lol adonis

I'll answer for you - because you know and I know and everyone knows, if it aint alive, it cannot be affected by the things you listed.

 

Isn't your argument that it's alive?  Perhaps I am missing something, but I was under the impression that you were saying it was alive at conception?  Apologies if I misunderstood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

or

ban abortions, stop killing unborn and try to get people to stop getting knocked up when they don't want to be pregnant (and I mean both the men and women equally responsible for the pregnancy)

 

odd no one here wants to talk about the origins of abortion and Sangers policies decades ago .... I wonder if ya'll know the history of legalized abortion in the US and what it was pushed for ?

I like "unborn" almost as much as I like "fetus".  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.