Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
timschochet

Abortion thread:

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

It is.  And I get that you disagree, but that doesn't make my perspective a "talking point."

You may believe the talking point, sure, but it is one of those that makes the rounds fairly readily.  There has to be some reasonable point at which the child has rights, and I hope it gets set way, way earlier than when they're left on the birthing table struggling to live pending a "consultation" like our erstwhile Virginia governor proposed.

Share this post


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

You may believe the talking point, sure, but it is one of those that makes the rounds fairly readily.  There has to be some reasonable point at which the child has rights, and I hope it gets set way, way earlier than when they're left on the birthing table struggling to live pending a "consultation" like our erstwhile Virginia governor proposed.

There is.  When it's a child.  And if you can't accept that the other side has a valid viewpoint instead of just a talking point, you shouldn't be surprised when people ignore you instead of discussing with you.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

There is.  When it's a child.  And if you can't accept that the other side has a valid viewpoint instead of just a talking point, you shouldn't be surprised when people ignore you instead of discussing with you.

There's not much of a discussion.  You seem to be dictating the definition of a child and what is women's rights.  

Share this post


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

You may believe the talking point, sure, but it is one of those that makes the rounds fairly readily.  There has to be some reasonable point at which the child has rights, and I hope it gets set way, way earlier than when they're left on the birthing table struggling to live pending a "consultation" like our erstwhile Virginia governor proposed.

Speaking of a debunked talking point.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Me, I would prefer a world where folks worried less about trying to force others to not do stuff, and in which they spent more time affirmatively doing what good they themselves could do.

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 2
  • Love 1

Share this post


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

There's not much of a discussion.  You seem to be dictating the definition of a child and what is women's rights.  

Am I?  What definition of "child" did I dictate?  For that matter what definition of women's rights did I dictate?  In my opinion logic dictates that a right that can be granted or removed coincidentally only from a woman is a women's right.  But I didn't force that on him.  I said that I understand he disagrees with my perspective but that the disagreement doesn't mean I'm using a talking point.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

***update***

In Alabama, the penalty for getting an abortion after you are raped is more severe than the penalty for raping someone.

 

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A country that doesn’t ratify the ERA and allows this Alabama law to stand is a disgrace.  I hope it is not us. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
51 minutes ago, urbanhack said:

***update***

In Alabama, the penalty for getting an abortion after you are raped is more severe than the penalty for raping someone.

Makes sense. Carlin had a bit about that like 20 years ago. Creating people>taking care of people, once we've made sure you are created, you are on your own.

Come on South, stop living down to expectations!

Edited by travdogg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So an embryo being used for IVF that is at the same stage as a pregnant woman doesn’t have the same rules applied? 

Totally not about controlling women.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/12/2019 at 7:06 PM, NCCommish said:

It should have never been left to Roe v Wade. Congress should've stepped up and done their job. Made a law. Set in place a framework. The Democrats had the votes more than once they just didn't have the guts.

It's easier to repeal a law than to overrule a SC decision.  Anything the Democrats could have done when they had the votes could have been repealed last year or any other time the Republicans had the votes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bucky86 said:

So an embryo being used for IVF that is at the same stage as a pregnant woman doesn’t have the same rules applied? 

Totally not about controlling women.

Wait...is this true?

Share this post


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

It's easier to repeal a law than to overrule a SC decision.  Anything the Democrats could have done when they had the votes could have been repealed last year or any other time the Republicans had the votes.

They would have to fully nuke the filibuster in the Senate to repeal it.

Share this post


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

They would have to fully nuke the filibuster in the Senate to repeal it.

No more than the Democrats would have had to fully nuke it to pass it originally.

Share this post


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

Wait...is this true?

Apparently.  There was debate about it in the Alabama legislature and the answer was because it's not in a woman. So it's pretty clear what this is about.

Share this post


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

Wait...is this true?

Of course it is.  These laws aren’t about protecting embryos or zygotes or fetuses. They’re about telling women what they’re allowed to do. 

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, apalmer said:

No more than the Democrats would have had to fully nuke it to pass it originally.

The Dems has 60 or more senators for several years after Roe passed. And they changed the filibuster rule in 1975 to make it 60 votes. They had the votes for 4 more years. And remember back then some Republicans were prochoice. 

Edited by NCCommish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am behind here, but is it correct Alabam does not even have an exception for rape or incest? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

I am behind here, but is it correct Alabam does not even have an exception for rape or incest? 

I think so. There was one but it was removed last week. That’s what caused the delay in the vote: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Beat possible result: after a lower court inevitably overturns this law, the SC refuses to hear it. 

Share this post


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

Apparently.  There was debate about it in the Alabama legislature and the answer was because it's not in a woman. So it's pretty clear what this is about.

 

58 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

Of course it is.  These laws aren’t about protecting embryos or zygotes or fetuses. They’re about telling women what they’re allowed to do. 

FFS.....ok.  So I am left wondering....if this thing is overturned at any point....how does the SC even agree to hear the case?  Wouldn't they flat out laugh these idiots out of the courtroom?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, The Commish said:

 

FFS.....ok.  So I am left wondering....if this thing is overturned at any point....how does the SC even agree to hear the case?  Wouldn't they flat out laugh these idiots out of the courtroom?

A few years ago they would have.  Now? Not sure. 

Share this post


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

A few years ago they would have.  Now? Not sure. 

When they are deciding what to hear is it simply them voting among themselves?  What is that process?  5-4 vote and it's heard?

Share this post


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

When they are deciding what to hear is it simply them voting among themselves?  What is that process?  5-4 vote and it's heard?

If any 4 judges want to hear the case then they take it up. Its called the Rule of 4.

Share this post


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

Apparently.  There was debate about it in the Alabama legislature and the answer was because it's not in a woman. So it's pretty clear what this is about.

Yup. Here's a quote from the bill's sponsor, Clyde Chambliss:

Quote

Chambliss, responding to the IVF argument from Smitherman, cites a part of the bill that says it applies to a pregnant woman. "The egg in the lab doesn’t apply. It’s not in a woman. She’s not pregnant."

Pretty much gives away the game there.

Although let's be honest- if anyone hadn't already figured out the game, they ain't gonna figure it out now.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

If any 4 judges want to hear the case then they take it up. Its called the Rule of 4.

So Thomas, Alito, ...I’m not sure about the other 3. 

Share this post


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

So Thomas, Alito, ...I’m not sure about the other 3. 

If I were on the supreme court, I would prefer a much more moderate piece of legislation as a means of overturning Roe.  The part about imprisoning women and doctors is needlessly inflammatory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What year is this?

  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

If I were on the supreme court, I would prefer a much more moderate piece of legislation as a means of overturning Roe.  The part about imprisoning women and doctors is needlessly inflammatory.

They feel emboldened and are going for it.

Edited by NCCommish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/12/2019 at 12:12 PM, timschochet said:

I know she means well, for me she’s on the right side, and I know she made a significant difference in the #metoo fight. 

But now Alyssa Milano is making a fool of herself: 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1004666

My wife has been doing this for years but I am not sure she is really protesting anything (other than me)

Edited by Godsbrother
  • Like 3
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


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

Around the world, abortion rates are virtually the same regardless of legality:  https://www.guttmacher.org/news-release/2018/new-report-highlights-worldwide-variations-abortion-incidence-and-safety

It is vanishingly unlikely that abortion rates are independent of legality.  The study you're citing doesn't control for confounding factors, like the fact that countries that restrict abortion also tend to restrict access to contraceptives.  That's a pretty big deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

If I were on the supreme court, I would prefer a much more moderate piece of legislation as a means of overturning Roe.  The part about imprisoning women and doctors is needlessly inflammatory.

Seems like overreach like this should likely be their downfall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ilov80s said:

I am behind here, but is it correct Alabam does not even have an exception for rape or incest? 

 

I don't understand rape and incest exceptions. Seems inconsistent. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, whoknew said:

 

I don't understand rape and incest exceptions. Seems inconsistent. 

Well since the Supreme court said it was legal it was hard to say you could refuse victims of a crime. So it's the little fig leaf to cover everything else. 

Share this post


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

Well since the Supreme court said it was legal it was hard to say you could refuse victims of a crime. So it's the little fig leaf to cover everything else. 

Yea - I guess I do get it then. Its just a way for the GOP to seem kind to crime victims while denying rights to women. 

But its still inconsistent. If a fetus is a baby at conception, then why should that baby be killed just because its dad is a rapist? The baby is innocent.

Share this post


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

The Dems has 60 or more senators for several years after Roe passed. And they changed the filibuster rule in 1975 to make it 60 votes. They had the votes for 4 more years. And remember back then some Republicans were prochoice. 

In the 70's the split wasn't as clearly along party lines.  A lot of Democrats (including the President) leaned pro-life. 

Share this post


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

 

I don't understand rape and incest exceptions. Seems inconsistent. 

I think it is about taking the feelings and life of the mother into account over that of a fetus which we don't even really agree on whether it is a person or not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For these laws to be upheld by the S.Ct., Roberts would have to agree to overturn Roe, right? I'm not sure that is going to happen. I reckon a 5-4 decision with Roberts on the upholding Roe side is most likely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ilov80s said:

I think it is about taking the feelings and life of the mother into account over that of a fetus which we don't even really agree on whether it is a person or not. 

 

But the pro-lifers - the ones who are passing these laws - they do agree. Its a human life at conception. They've no doubt. So why would they include these exceptions?

Anyway - that's probably just a derailment of this thread. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Per CNN, one of the Republican lawmakers was asked about rape, and said that if a girl is raped she needs to tell her parents, and they can seek justice. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is why Trump was elected.  To get conservatives on the Supreme Court.   I expect that either Roe vs Wade gets over-turned or they will elect Trump for another 4 years to add more conservatives to the court. 

 

Quote

Per CNN, one of the Republican lawmakers was asked about rape, and said that if a girl is raped she needs to tell her parents, and they can seek justice. 

Yeah I don't have a problem with that philosophy.  I have a been a strong supporter of more Lorena Bobbit's frankly.  of course like Lorena the guy will be treated more sympathetically when kind of person or act occurs.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, whoknew said:

 

But the pro-lifers - the ones who are passing these laws - they do agree. Its a human life at conception. They've no doubt. So why would they include these exceptions?

Anyway - that's probably just a derailment of this thread. 

Fair. I would say shooting some to death is murder but we have exceptions there as well. We make exceptions for situations. Anyway, I will also walk away. 

Share this post


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

***update***

In Alabama, the penalty for getting an abortion after you are raped is more severe than the penalty for raping someone.

I guess I'll add that apparently though abortion is defined as a crime the man does not face any penalty for participating in it. So if the man asks or demands an abortion, no penalty. If the man pays for or helps facilitate the event, no penalty. That's not an actual crime from what I can tell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can foresee a day where Alabama will be 90% male, the women having all or mostly fled the state for greener pastures as it were.

  • Like 2
  • Love 1

Share this post


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

For these laws to be upheld by the S.Ct., Roberts would have to agree to overturn Roe, right? I'm not sure that is going to happen. I reckon a 5-4 decision with Roberts on the upholding Roe side is most likely.

I agree and maybe even 6-3 or 7-2. From the sound of it this is way over the line and too obvious a political ploy. I don't see the district or appeals courts upholding it either. Really this isn't even something the USSC should hear if that happens but I suspect they will hear it regardless. Still, even writing such an opinion would be almost impossible. Kavanaugh and Thomas are well equipped and prone to though. I don't know about Alito.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are going to criminally punish a women for getting an abortion then it is perfectly fair to apply the same criminal penalty to the man involved in it.  I mean what the narrative that all these women are having abortions and the men are screaming PLEASE NO DON'T?    Maybe in a small percentage but yeah highly unlikely.    

 

 

Share this post


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

In the 70's the split wasn't as clearly along party lines.  A lot of Democrats (including the President) leaned pro-life. 

But even many prolifers were willing to go along with legality. And they were often willing to talk common sense ways to reduce abortions. It wasn't like it is now. And heck even now you have anti-abortion groups working on those kinds of things. But in the 80s the GOP found it to be a good wedge issue and positions got hardened.  

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.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.