Will the activist Roberts' court undo another precedent?

I'm struck by how many times you level accusations at Dems for doing exactly what Repubs do. It literally makes me laugh.

 

What are you talking about "with democrats and their need for oppressing others"" ????? WHAT TF !!!??

That's what Republican Anti-Choicers are all about !! Oppressing women by trying to take away their rights and force them to be nothing more than broodstock !!!

 

I never said that is 100% on the woman, nice spin though. Its both parties responsibility to practice safe sex. Are liberals so holier than though that they are above using condoms?

 

That's a less than charitable way at looking at the motivations. Let's look at that for a minute..

Restricting abortion somehow turns women into "broodstock" in an attempt to oppress women. Maybe, just maybe, we view women and sex as something sacred that isn't just for personal pleasure. Maybe we don't view women as here for simple, trivial sexual pleasure and don't view them as sexual objects, a set of genitals, or a "good time". Maybe we think people should do the best they can do to wait until marriage. Maybe we think getting to know someone before hopping into bed with them and siring illegitimate children is wise. Maybe we think that reduces poverty, and promotes functioning families.

Maybe, just maybe, it's about the little life inside the woman that also matters here, too.

In fact, I'd argue that pro-abortionists could just as easily be misunderstood to be saying that a woman should be able to hop into bed with whomever they want whenever they want and are viewed as little more than a sex object.

 

Accusations? You mean like the current president reading the cue cards that ignore science during his pressers? Like when he chose to defend warrantless searches to violate the constitution or when he agrees that over population must be stopped when he embraces folks like Soros or Gates in public? The level of immoral, abusive, tyrannical things that you defend democrats for is remarkable. When democrats turn the blind eye to the current throngs of human trafficking happening today, or the child detention camps on our borders, do you really have a leg to stand on?

 

If you mean stare decisis... are you saying that it's not? What is the standard, then? It's not the topic of this thread but... do tell.... what is the standard in your world?

And they are infamous when they are contrary to human rights. Which has to do with your strawman, but nothing to do with this thread.

But they are also overturned when they are not contrary to human rights but there is a partisan Supreme Court. And, as I said, the decision that comes out of this one will allow us to find out once and for all if this is the case now. If it is, then it will be clear that adding more justices is required.

 

Yes, it is taking away a basic right, the right to bodily autonomy.

Maybe you do and maybe you don't but what men think has nothing to do with a woman's right to her own body.

And viewing women as "sacred" What? !!!

Did it ever occur to you that what women think of themselves is FAR more important than what men think of them....bet you didn't.

Yes, and it's the pregnant one who decides how much it matters.

There are no "pro-abortionists" , there are people who believe women have rights, too, and have the right to CHOICE, they are called Pro-Choice.

YES, women have the right to jump into bed with whomever whenever they want …


WHY does that bother you??? Why do you feel a need to control that.....???....very telling...

If women are viewed as sex objects that's the fault of the viewer....

 

So you admit that being sensible, science based and guided by moral principles is outside YOUR vocabulary.

It has been obvious to any sensible, moral principled individual who is guided by science for a long time. But now you admit it.

 

No one is obligated to use birth control.

And PREGNANCY is 100 % on the woman....NO one else.

 

It’s not just the Supreme Court’s recent jerk towards the right that makes its grant Monday of a major abortion case such a big deal. It’s how the justices went about deciding that they were going to wade into the issue.

The court waited several months to decide what to do with the lawsuit, a legal challenge to Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban. And when the justices finally said they would review an appeals court decision striking down the law, the court teed it up in an extremely open-ended way.

“It’s a very big deal. And one of the reasons is the range of possibilities is wide,” said Walter Weber, senior counsel at the conservative American Center for Law & Justice, which is supporting Mississippi as a “friend of the court” in the case.

Because of a multitude of factors, the case — known as Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization — presents the biggest threat yet to the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that established a woman’s right to an abortion. For one, the Supreme Court hasn’t taken up a case around this type of abortion ban — one based solely on the gestational point of the pregnancy— since it decided Roe. Secondly, the court has signaled its explicit interest in assessing one of the key tenets that flowed out of Roe: that women have a right to an abortion up to the point that the fetus is viable. Finally, it comes as the court’s center of gravity has shifted drastically to the right.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/supreme-court-abortion-mississippi-case-roe-v-wade

 

Please see post 50 and get back to me.

 

Ah... playground rules... in this case you seem to be both the rubber and glue... LOL

 

The Ninth Amendment.

 

As a woman, I believe (prior to my marriage) it is my right to hop into any bed with whomever I want and whenever I want. Just as it is a man's right to do the same. If others chose to view me as little more than a sex object, that was their business - not mine. Also, because I had the means to do so, I had access to reproductive healthcare and birth control.

Unfortunately, there is not a male equivalent to a woman's right to choose. But I'm certain if there was, many would be singing a different tune. Loud calls for the right to free speech and gun ownership, but no right for women to choose what happens to their bodies and lives.

I have no idea why this Mississippi case is going to be heard by SCOTUS, but know that it will be followed very carefully. And if any Justices rule according to their personal or religious beliefs, there will be hell to pay.

 

That's clearly immoral.

That's a strawman. It's a human fetus, but not a human person until the 22nd week (or thereabouts). Just like an egg from a women's ovary is a human egg or a spermatozoid is a human spermatozoid, or an embryo is a human embryo, or... a hair in your head is a human hair, but... none a human person.

I'm not debating what is legal now. There are no laws (that I know of) other than court decisions. I'm talking about what laws should be if we were based on objective moral principles and science.

There is no set objective standard yet. But science determines when a human being is no longer a person. That's when brain waves (the type measured by an EEG) have stopped. Why would the same not apply to the beginning of life?

Viability depends, on the state of medical science. But also on the fetus' ethnic origin, sex, and on the parent's ability to pay for better medical treatment, ... There is something disturbing about determining rights or protections (whatever you want to call them) based on sex, ethnicity and economic status.

Myself, I think that whether a baby is inside or outside a mother's womb is only a matter of "location". What matters is if the baby has started developing neural synapsis to the point where they can feel pain and may start having some perception of its surroundings. From what we know at this point, that doesn't happen before week 22. Most likely around the 23-24 weeks you mention. But most studies date back to the 1960s due to ethical concerns. So I would play it safe and set it at 20 weeks, just in case...

 

Both sex and guns are mostly a form of entertainment for most people that engage in it. And having a cavalier attitude toward sex can be as dangerous and life influencing. STD deaths still occur, and actually don't trail gun deaths per 100,000 people that far.

But your post is a great example of wanting to eliminate any personal responsibility of simply doing whatever feels good at the moment. If the same logic were applied to education, we'd make high-school dropouts CEOs of major corporations.

 

That's quite a stretch, since the Constitution also helps guarantee the right to life.

 

Let's make this simple, one canNOT be a legal "person" until birth.

Science has never said one isn't a legal person if brain waves stop.

Let's say a fetus becomes a "person" at viability....the woman could still have it killed if she doesn't want to sustain another's life using her own body.

NO one can force another to use their body to sustain their life.

Women are harmed by pregnancy...they should have the same right as everyone else to stop nonconsensual harm at any time...

No, it depends on when a fetus is usually viable.

That's why viability is generally 23-24 weeks...

OK, then let's remove the ZEF, set it on a shelf and see if it develops without the woman.

It is not a matter of "location"...read a book on what "pregnancy" means.

Most abortions are done at 12-18 weeks so you are safe.

 

Please read and contemplate the meaning of the Ninth.

If life begins at conception, why do we keep track of birthdays? What is the meaning of birth? Is it synonymous with conception?

I think the founders considered the right to life to be fundamental, and I think they did not consider conception to be the same as life.

 

We track birthdays because that's when parents get to see and hold their kid for the first time. Often times, a pregnancy cannot be traced back to the initial date of conception.

 

Through it all, Chief Justice Roberts, who during his confirmation hearings promised judicial restraint above all else, has presided over a court that has been far too willing to undermine or discard longstanding precedent. Among the biggest examples of this are District of Columbia v. Heller, which upended the long-accepted meaning of the Second Amendment; Citizens United, which overturned decades of rulings and laws to allow unlimited campaign spending by corporations and unions; and Shelby County v. Holder, which gutted the core of the Voting Rights Act.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/05/opinion/sunday/the-activist-roberts-court-10-years-in.html

Imagine that. A conservative nominee who lied during his confirmation.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opini...eatedly-under-oath-any-law-student-ncna916031

 

I agree with characterizing John Roberts as a complete boob. He approved Obamacare. He is also in charge of the FISA Court, which allowed itself to be snookered into allowing the Obama DOJ to spy on the Trump campaign illegally.

 

Being sexually promiscuous doesn't automatically mean irresponsibility. You can draw that correlation if you wish - as is your right - but it doesn't make it right.

But it is an interesting point that you want to hold women personally responsible for doing whatever feels good at the moment with forcing them to carry a baby that might result. That almost sounds like a punishment for promiscuity - which, of course, has nothing to do with the rights of that baby.

 

Please, tell me something I don't know already.

We track birthdays because many are lost before they are even born. We are about to see a huge increase in such miscarriages, but I digress.

Once born, the right to life is fundamental.

Once born, a female is entitled to do as she pleases with her own body.

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be used to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people.

In other words, a complete and exhaustive listing of the rights of humans is impossible.

 

Not sure I understand what the relevance of that is to anything I said. They can be a legal person by changing the law. I'm not saying that's a good idea. There are also possible intermediate solutions.

Science doesn't draft laws. Legislators draft laws. And they can choose to use or not use science when they draft laws (most often they choose not to). But not the other way around.

A fetus can't force anything on anybody. I don't mean to sound disingenuous, but your statements are too vague.

Are you stating that as a universal premise? If you are, how are all women harmed by pregnancy?

If the life of the mother is in danger, she should have a right to terminate pregnancy at ANY time.