International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   USA Politics (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Roe v. Wade overturned -- this is some BS (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=359834)

Bob001 6th July 2022 12:36 PM

Among the consequence of no-Roe:
Quote:

Sarah Gutman is an OB-GYN and complex family planning specialist in Philadelphia. Every week, she prescribes misoprostol and mifepristone. Sometimes she gives them to patients to manage a miscarriage or postpartum hemorrhage. Sometimes, they are not for pregnancy care at all: Misoprostol can prepare patients for a hysteroscopy, IUD insertion, or endometrial biopsy.

Though misoprostol and mifepristone are best known as the two components of medication abortion (referred to by many as the “abortion pill”), what they actually do is help soften the cervix and cause contractions, making them vital for a variety of gynecological uses. Yet because they are involved in medication abortions, Gutman is worried about whether doctors like her will be able to continue offering them. While prescribing misoprostol and mifepristone for reasons other than abortion technically remains allowed everywhere, “abortion bans create confusion, fear, and distrust,” she said. There are already signs that providers, patients, and pharmacists might now avoid these medicines out of fear of being prosecuted. Doctors also worry that medical training in abortion-related procedures, namely dilation and curettage, could be restricted or lost in some states. Besides abortion, these procedures can be used to treat heavy bleeding or evaluate the uterus for cancer.

Despite the shroud of stigma that has been attached to abortion—both surgical and medication—the medical methods behind pregnancy terminations are ordinary, critical elements of routine gynecological care. By creating legal gray areas and exacerbating existing stigma, the reversal of Roe v. Wade may now leave many doctors profoundly limited in how they can treat common health conditions that have nothing to do with pregnancy or abortion.
....
https://slate.com/technology/2022/07...e-d-and-c.html

So doctors might not be able to provide standard health care for fear they'll be accused of performing an illegal abortion.

Stacyhs 6th July 2022 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13849562)
Who was talking about Christians?

Says the member with Jesus as his avatar and who complains bitterly ad nauseum about how Christians are being targeted.

Quote:

Why even bring it up? Probably they might say that murdering the unborn is worse than forcing raped children to give birth to one of God's beautiful creations. God has a plan, after all. Who are we to question it?
That's not what YOU said though, is it? No. You said, "Children can be made to carry rape and incest babies to term for all I care," and "I don't care how many suffer now due to this ruling, either." You "don't care" about the suffering of these children or anyone else because "liberals have brought this upon themselves." As long as liberals suffer you're just fine with it. Trouble is, I don't think 10-11-13-14 year olds think much about politics.

Quote:

So, I don't think that is hypocritical at all.
Of course you don't. And water is wet.

And you still haven't answered my question which you conveniently edited out:

"Since Roe v Wade in 1973, exactly what 'ever-increasing demands for relaxed abortion law" have liberals made? "

Skeptic Ginger 6th July 2022 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13849537)
But not an overwhelming majority, and not without some restrictions (for example, the majority doesn't support 9th month abortions).

9th month abortions are a manufactured talking point trying to make pro-choice people look bad. If there is a reason to end a pregnancy in the 9th month then it is called inducing labor or a c-section. It's done if the mother or the fetus are in trouble and generally every attempt to save a viable infant are taken. No one decides to end their pregnancies in the 9th month without a serious health risk of some kind. And no health care providers would kill a near-term fetus or infant.

Third trimester abortions may occur for a number of reasons but if one is talking about the whim of the mother, that isn't done. Pro-choice advocates who talk about "no restrictions" mean in the law. They don't mean health care providers should go around murdering full-term infants. Leaving it up to the provider and the pregnant person is where the decisions should be made.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13849537)
So how do we resolve differences of opinion among the citizenry? Well, one way to do it is to devolve the question from the federal level back to the states. And I think you will find that the degree of support for and opposition to abortion varies from state to state. States where a majority support abortion can keep it legal. States where a majority oppose abortion can restrict it. If the outcome you're after is laws that most closely resemble the desires of the people, then overturning RvW is a step in the right direction. Which makes me think you aren't actually making this argument in good faith, but just trying whatever you think might stick. The problem is, it doesn't.

Such as when 7 unelected judges declare that states cannot prohibit abortion, no matter how unpopular the decision is within that state?

You really can't use this argument to defend Roe v. Wade. It doesn't work.

And that decision by those 7 justices has been the law of the land for half a century. The law protected women's rights from state or federal laws that denied them. Many federal laws, upheld by the SCOTUS defend the rights of individuals against states that would otherwise deny those individual rights like segregation and other forms of discrimination.

Making abortion illegal doesn't decrease abortions. So just what "states' rights" are being protected by denying women the right to bodily autonomy?

So this whole business of returning the decision to the states is a cop-out excuse.

Bob001 6th July 2022 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 13849569)
.....
I wonder where the Catholics got their pro-life stance from. Anyone know?

Offhand, I would suspect it's for the same reason they oppose most birth control: The more Catholics, the better.

Stacyhs 6th July 2022 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 13849601)
9th month abortions are a manufactured talking point trying to make pro-choice people look bad. If there is a reason to end a pregnancy in the 9th month then it is called inducing labor or a c-section. It's done if the mother or the fetus are in trouble and generally every attempt to save a viable infant are taken. No one decides to end their pregnancies in the 9th month without a serious health risk of some kind. And no health care providers would kill a near-term fetus or infant.

Third trimester abortions may occur for a number of reasons but if one is talking about the whim of the mother, that isn't done. Pro-choice advocates who talk about "no restrictions" mean in the law. They don't mean health care providers should go around murdering full-term infants. Leaving it up to the provider and the pregnant person is where the decisions should be made.

And that decision by those 7 justices has been the law of the land for half a century. The law protected women's rights from state or federal laws that denied them. Many federal laws, upheld by the SCOTUS defend the rights of individuals against states that would otherwise deny those individual rights like segregation and other forms of discrimination.

Making abortion illegal doesn't decrease abortions. So just what "states' rights" are being protected by denying women the right to bodily autonomy?

So this whole business of returning the decision to the states is a cop-out excuse.

Brava! The "9th month abortion" scare mongering has been pointed out often before, including by me, yet they continue to throw it around. It's the abortion equivalent to "If they ban assault style weapons, they'll come for all your guns next!" It's dishonest, but what else is new?

Stacyhs 6th July 2022 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob001 (Post 13849602)
Offhand, I would suspect it's for the same reason they oppose most birth control: The more Catholics, the better.

Yep. It's the same with Mormons who forbid birth control and abortion. All the millions of 'spirit children' are waiting to be born and to become good Mormons.

ponderingturtle 6th July 2022 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 13849575)
Are there people fighting for their right to be cruel to animals? or to murder or to neglect children or ...

Well killing and neglecting children is something people fight for, see protections for parents when they refuse to treat medical conditions for religious reasons and easily treatable conditions kill kids.

Skeptic Ginger 6th July 2022 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13849550)
For example:
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion...tion/by/state/

Given that the facts contradict your expectations, will this prompt any introspection about why you got it so completely wrong?

That's from 2014 and follows religious beliefs rather closely. I don't think those religious persons should be dictating laws like making abortion illegal.

The strongest religious views unsurprisingly correlate with being against aid to the poor. :rolleyes:

Skeptic Ginger 6th July 2022 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13849562)
Who was talking about Christians? Why even bring it up? Probably they might say that murdering the unborn is worse than forcing raped children to give birth to one of God's beautiful creations. God has a plan, after all. Who are we to question it?

So, I don't think that is hypocritical at all.

The SCOTUS justices are clearly Christian religious extremists. They make no attempt to hide that.

Skeptic Ginger 6th July 2022 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle (Post 13849626)
Well killing and neglecting children is something people fight for, see protections for parents when they refuse to treat medical conditions for religious reasons and easily treatable conditions kill kids.

So that's the equivalent of more than half the population protesting overturning Roe?

I didn't think I needed to point out there would be tiny handfuls of people who don't like certain laws.

ponderingturtle 6th July 2022 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 13849637)
So that's the equivalent of more than half the population protesting overturning Roe?

I didn't think I needed to point out there would be tiny handfuls of people who don't like certain laws.

Religious exemptions for medical neglect of children are fairly commonplace and popular.

Ziggurat 6th July 2022 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 13849628)
That's from 2014

You think things have changed so much that abortion opposition isn't still the majority in even a single state? That's an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence.

Quote:

and follows religious beliefs rather closely. I don't think those religious persons should be dictating laws like making abortion illegal.
This is basically an argument that religious people shouldn't get a vote, or their vote should count for less. That is deeply, deeply undemocratic, and such a position is far more antithetical to our constitution than any possible views on abortion itself.

Quote:

The strongest religious views unsurprisingly correlate with being against aid to the poor. :rolleyes:
Well, no. Strongly religious people tend to view government welfare negatively. They also tend to give more to private charities which help the poor. I'm not interested in getting into an argument about the merits of government welfare vs. private charity, but your support for one over the other doesn't make anyone anti-poor. But this isn't relevant to my argument in any case, it's off topic and there's nothing more to add that would be in any way productive.

Ziggurat 6th July 2022 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 13849601)
[hilite]9th month abortions are a manufactured talking point trying to make pro-choice people look bad.

And yet, there are abortion advocates who argue for it, without any qualifications. They want abortion on demand, for any reason, up to the due date. They are a small minority, to be sure, but that's kind of my point.

Quote:

Third trimester abortions may occur for a number of reasons but if one is talking about the whim of the mother, that isn't done.
Yes, actually it is done. Rarely, but not never.

Quote:

Making abortion illegal doesn't decrease abortions.
Says who? Based on what evidence?

Abortions shot way up after Roe v. Wade. There's no reason to think they won't go down in response to its repeal.

Quote:

So just what "states' rights" are being protected by denying women the right to bodily autonomy?
I'm not making a states rights argument. I'm pointing out that the argument in favor of RvW based on the notion that its repeal wasn't "democratic" is absurd on its face. If you want to argue in favor of RvW on the basis of rights that government shouldn't be able to violate regardless of the will of voters, go ahead, but that's a fundamentally different argument than the one I was countering. Can you understand that distinction? I know it can be a bit subtle if you're used to treating this issue with a sledge hammer, but give it a try.

Upchurch 6th July 2022 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13849661)
This is basically an argument that religious people shouldn't get a vote, or their vote should count for less. That is deeply, deeply undemocratic, and such a position is far more antithetical to our constitution than any possible views on abortion itself.

None of that is even remotely true. The Constitution was set up so religious positions and practices would not be forced on anyone. In the particular case of abortion, anti-abortion religious people's vote should count less because there are less of them. That is the essence of democracy. Minority rule is what is deeply, deeply undemocratic.

bruto 6th July 2022 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13849056)
I don't care now. Roe is dead. Children can be made to carry rape and incest babies to term for all I care. Complete abortion bans will not cause me to blink an eye. I do not care if all sex education is eliminated from schools, nor if birth control is outlawed.

I now have zero interest in seeing politicians working towards reasonable compromise on this matter. I don't care how many suffer now due to this ruling, either. As far as I am concerned liberals have brought this upon themselves through their loser political actions and ever-increasing demands for relaxed abortion law.

Of course we can see this in different ways but on this to me it looks as if in the battle between right and wrong, if there isn't a nice big floating blob of wrong in the mix, it's unacceptable to you, so **** it all. A flamboyant political flounce.

Warp12 6th July 2022 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13849599)
And you still haven't answered my question which you conveniently edited out:

"Since Roe v Wade in 1973, exactly what 'ever-increasing demands for relaxed abortion law" have liberals made? "


Comical. Yeah, there hasn't been any loosened legislation passed since then, and it wasn't called for by activists. That's great news...see, overturning Roe is no big deal. It won't change a thing.

All this fuss over nothing! :)

Bob001 6th July 2022 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13849661)
......
Well, no. Strongly religious people tend to view government welfare negatively.
.....

I think you're going way out on a limb if you think you can generalize about what the "strongly religious" believe. "Strongly religious" people aren't just rural fundamentalist Christians. I think you might find a substantial percentage of people who identify themselves as "strongly religious" have a wide range of views about social welfare and the obligations of the well-off to the poor. I also think you're making a mistake if you equate right-wing political views with some sort of religious practice.

Stacyhs 6th July 2022 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle (Post 13849639)
Religious exemptions for medical neglect of children are fairly commonplace and popular.

Not true. Several parents have been convicted for failing to get medical care for their children including religiously bases reasons.

Quote:

Typically, state laws give parents much leeway in protecting and caring for their children, including providing consent for or refusing medical care. But this isn't always the case if the decision may endanger a child's life. Although health care decision-making is one of the rights reserved to parents, there are some cases where the state must intervene to protect the child. Many courts will allow a state child protection agency to make medical decisions for a child if:
The medical community is in agreement about the appropriate course of treatment for the child
The expected outcome of that treatment is a relatively normal life with a reasonably good quality of life
The child would die without the treatment
The parent is refusing to grant consent for the treatment
Quote:

Adults have the right to refuse their own medical care for religious or personal reasons. However, this legal right to refuse medical care does not extend to their children if it endangers the child's welfare. Under the law, children are entitled to protection and appropriate medical treatment despite their parents' religious views. Most states require parents to provide a reasonable degree of medical care for their children. Otherwise, they may face legal consequences, regardless of their religious beliefs.
https://www.lawinfo.com/resources/in...ment-to-a.html

We have a church in my state that does not believe in medical care as "God will heal". Several parents have been convicted for failure to provide medical care:

2010:
Quote:

Faith-healing parents guilty in teen son's death - NBC News
2011:
Quote:

Oregon faith-healing couple found guilty in infant's death
2011:
Quote:

Oregon strips faith-healing parents of legal defenses
2018
Quote:

A religious Oregon couple didn’t believe in medical care. After newborn’s death, they’re headed to prison.

Ziggurat 6th July 2022 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob001 (Post 13849705)
I think you're going way out on a limb if you think you can generalize about what the "strongly religious" believe.

I'm not doing any more generalization than SG was.

Stacyhs 6th July 2022 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13849667)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
[hilite]9th month abortions are a manufactured talking point trying to make pro-choice people look bad.
And yet, there are abortion advocates who argue for it, without any qualifications. They want abortion on demand, for any reason, up to the due date. They are a small minority, to be sure, but that's kind of my point.

You are missing the point: no one argues for a healthy baby to be aborted in the 9th month because 1) no doctor would do it, 2) no mother waits until the last month of pregnancy to abort her baby on a whim. A full term baby that had died in the womb or had a non-viable condition such as anencephaly or where the mother's life was at stake would be an induced BIRTH either vaginal or by C-section. Provide ONE case of a woman demanding or getting an abortion in her 9th month that did not meet one of these conditions. Go on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13849667)
Quote:

Third trimester abortions may occur for a number of reasons but if one is talking about the whim of the mother, that isn't done.
Yes, actually it is done. Rarely, but not never.

Provide a case of a third semester abortion provided solely on "the whim of the mother." You say it is done so provide evidence.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13849667)
Quote:

Making abortion illegal doesn't decrease abortions.
Says who? Based on what evidence?

Based on this:
Quote:


Nevertheless, for the past two decades scientists at the World Health Organization and the Guttmacher Institute have been developing tools to estimate abortion rates around the globe. Both institutions support abortion rights for people worldwide. This past February, they published, for the first time, abortion rates for nearly every country. And they've also updated their analysis looking at how abortion rates vary across regions of the world – and whether the legality of the procedure is associated with those rates.

"So let's say you group together the countries where abortion is broadly legal," says Bearak, who led the study. "And then you group together countries where abortion is completely prohibited altogether, even without exception for the health of the woman."

Which group has the higher abortion rate?

Here's what they found. In countries where abortion is broadly legal, there are between 36 and 47 abortions performed annually per 1,000 women, ages 15 to 49. And what about in countries where abortions are prohibited altogether? "In these countries, there are between 31 and 51 abortions annually per 1,000 women, on average," Bearak says.

"People can be surprised by the findings," he says, "because the rates are basically the same across the two groups of countries."


Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13849667)
Abortions shot way up after Roe v. Wade. There's no reason to think they won't go down in response to its repeal.

Has it dawned on you that the number of recorded abortions shot up because the procedure was no longer illegal and clinics/ hospitals could keep records in contrast to the actual number of abortions being performed in back alleys and not recorded?

lionking 6th July 2022 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13849661)
You think things have changed so much that abortion opposition isn't still the majority in even a single state? That's an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence.



This is basically an argument that religious people shouldn't get a vote, or their vote should count for less. That is deeply, deeply undemocratic, and such a position is far more antithetical to our constitution than any possible views on abortion itself.



Well, no. Strongly religious people tend to view government welfare negatively. They also tend to give more to private charities which help the poor. I'm not interested in getting into an argument about the merits of government welfare vs. private charity, but your support for one over the other doesn't make anyone anti-poor. But this isn't relevant to my argument in any case, it's off topic and there's nothing more to add that would be in any way productive.

A 2014 survey can be safely dismissed. Back then Roe vs Wade was in force, and it was easy to say “abortion should be illegal” when that opinion would change nothing.

If a similar survey were held now, where female respondents, their daughters, family and friends could be directly effected by the SC ruling, I believe the change in voting patterns will be significant.

But even if not, i think the national interest should trump that of states in certain areas. Take immigration, for example. Most states would vote for restriction or abolition. The national government should control this, along with defence and foreign affairs. Most posting here would include body autonomy in this list.

Of course, as an Australian I would like that list to be longer.

Stacyhs 6th July 2022 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warp12 (Post 13849695)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
And you still haven't answered my question which you conveniently edited out:

"Since Roe v Wade in 1973, exactly what 'ever-increasing demands for relaxed abortion law" have liberals made? "
Comical. Yeah, there hasn't been any loosened legislation passed since then, and it wasn't called for by activists. That's great news...see, overturning Roe is no big deal. It won't change a thing.

All this fuss over nothing! :)

And you still are not answering my question:
Quote:

"Since Roe v Wade in 1973, exactly what 'ever-increasing demands for relaxed abortion law" have liberals made? "
What " loosened legislation" since R v W has been demanded EXACTLY? Give me examples, Mr. Astaire.

xjx388 6th July 2022 04:06 PM

I am not “Mr. Astaire,” but this answer is pretty easy.

The demand has been to enshrine the right to abortion as Federal law, which would mean the States that currently ban it would be forced to allow it. This demand has existed since before RvW and after RvW, it didn’t go away because the people who were demanding this knew how fragile the SCOTUS ruling was.

Beyond that, the demand has been to allow unrestricted abortion, which would mean States that cut off at 12/15/20 weeks would now be forced to allow them even beyond 24 weeks in some cases.

There has also been demand to make it covered by Medicaid and private insurance. Abortion coverage was a big debate during the ACA negotiations.

Stacyhs 6th July 2022 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 13849781)
I am not “Mr. Astaire,” but this answer is pretty easy.

The demand has been to enshrine the right to abortion as Federal law, which would mean the States that currently ban it would be forced to allow it. This demand has existed since before RvW and after RvW, it didn’t go away because the people who were demanding this knew how fragile the SCOTUS ruling was.

That doesn't answer my question since it's not an example of "ever-increasing demands for relaxed abortion law" which is what Warp claimed led to the recent SC ruling. As you said "This demand has existed since before RvW and after RvW".

I asked specifically for "Since Roe v Wade in 1973, exactly what 'ever-increasing demands for relaxed abortion law" have liberals made? "


Quote:

Beyond that, the demand has been to allow unrestricted abortion, which would mean States that cut off at 12/15/20 weeks would now be forced to allow them even beyond 24 weeks in some cases
.

That also has been a constant demand, not an "ever-increasing demand", either.

Quote:

There has also been demand to make it covered by Medicaid and private insurance. Abortion coverage was a big debate during the ACA negotiations.
That is not an example of a "relaxed abortion law demand". It's a financial issue.

So my question has not been answered. But thanks for at least attempting it.:)

xjx388 6th July 2022 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13849806)
That doesn't answer my question since it's not an example of "ever-increasing demands for relaxed abortion law" which is what Warp claimed led to the recent SC ruling. As you said "This demand has existed since before RvW and after RvW".

I asked specifically for "Since Roe v Wade in 1973, exactly what 'ever-increasing demands for relaxed abortion law" have liberals made? "


.

That also has been a constant demand, not an "ever-increasing demand", either.

I do think “ever-increasing” is a bit of bad writing -overstating the matter for rhetorical effect. But the larger point buried in that is as you say: there is constant demand for easing restrictions on abortion. That hasn’t gone away. And if it ever happens, there will be demand to restrict it further. The circle of public political discourse.

Quote:

That is not an example of a "relaxed abortion law demand". It's a financial issue.
Partially. But it’s also a way to increase access to abortion by scrapping the Hyde act restrictions on using federal funds to pay for abortion.

Stacyhs 6th July 2022 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xjx388 (Post 13849836)
I do think “ever-increasing” is a bit of bad writing -overstating the matter for rhetorical effect.

The poster is rather well-known for hyperbolic rhetoric. Which is why I, and others, call him on it.


Quote:

But the larger point buried in that is as you say: there is constant demand for easing restrictions on abortion. That hasn’t gone away. And if it ever happens, there will be demand to restrict it further. The circle of public political discourse.
But the demand has stayed the same: allowing a woman to make her own decisions over whether to continue her pregnancy without interference from the government.

Quote:

Partially. But it’s also a way to increase access to abortion by scrapping the Hyde act restrictions on using federal funds to pay for abortion.
Increase financial access, not for easing restrictions on abortions themselves.

bruto 6th July 2022 06:38 PM

When a new government restriction is opposed, it seems that some see the opposition to decreased rights as a demand for increased rights, apparently instantly forgetting that the default is not the new law but the absence of it.

tyr_13 6th July 2022 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13849419)
It isn't self refuting. You didn't understand the point. Eating meat isn't against my morality, so I'm not against it. All societies impose some form of morality on people, the only question is what that morality should be.

You are confusing his point being a bad one with me not understanding it.

His example not being one of pure morality negates the proposition that it's a law based on morality.

Being for a minority moral position with practical concerns also being overwhelmingly against that position is not in any way defended by morality being a component of why some people support some other laws that have more than simply morality in support of them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13849532)
First, you assume there are no pragmatic implications of abortion, but there are.

I do no such thing. The pragmatic implications are overwhelmingly against banning abortion. This isn't support for your point.

Quote:

Second, you have created caveats of your own which weren't part of your original claim, and basically constitute special pleading.
No, I again did no such thing. Your failure to account for the deficits in your argument and example are not me 'creating caveats'.



Quote:

shuttit is right, you don't understand my point at all.

And to be explicit, I'm not fine with banning gay sex. But the reason I'm not fine with it isn't because it's based on morals. There are other reasons I'm opposed to it, including that it conflicts with my own morals. And yes, being opposed to a law because it's based on morality that you disagree with is a reasonable reason to oppose such a law. Same goes for abortion. I've got no problem with you opposing abortion restrictions because they conflict with your morality. But again, that's different than being opposed to it because it's based on morals. That isn't the argument you made before.
You're limiting the objection to banning abortion to only 'based on morals', which isn't very accurate, but it's also not supported with your example. Again, there are pragmatic reasons to outlaw animal abuse while banning abortion is based only on (very flawed) morals of a religious nature.

a_unique_person 6th July 2022 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 13844758)
It sounds like you are saying that they were never asked directly. If they were allowed to be evasive then they didn't lie.

Read "The Lie" short story by Kurt Vonnegut.

Segnosaur 7th July 2022 07:43 AM

This isn't worrisome at all...

From: Jezebel
In new hot mic audio obtained by Rolling Stone, Peggy Nienaber, executive director of Liberty Counsel’s D.C. ministry, bragged about praying with Supreme Court Justices at the court. Liberty Counsel authored an amicus brief in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health case, in which the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and ended the federal right to abortion last month....Several experts on judicial conflicts of interest and Supreme Court recusals who spoke to Rolling Stone are in agreement that what Nienabar described presents “a problem” and possible conflict of interest...

Representatives of Liberty Counsel are claiming that it didn't happen as described, but given what we know, it is more likely that it did happen than it didn't....

- Justice Thomas has a history of not recusing himself when he should (when he ruled on a case that his wife was involved with)

- Nienaber has posted several photos with her hanging out with supreme court justices and has called them 'friends'

- The organization has a history of 'targeting' justices

psionl0 7th July 2022 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by a_unique_person (Post 13849994)
Read "The Lie" short story by Kurt Vonnegut.

Better yet, you give us a precis.

Ziggurat 7th July 2022 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lionking (Post 13849738)
A 2014 survey can be safely dismissed. Back then Roe vs Wade was in force, and it was easy to say “abortion should be illegal” when that opinion would change nothing.

This is wishful thinking.

Quote:

But even if not, i think the national interest should trump that of states in certain areas.
Perhaps. But this too is no longer an argument on the basis of what people want. It's also not a constitutionally relevant argument.

Upchurch 7th July 2022 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by a_unique_person (Post 13849994)
Read "The Lie" short story by Kurt Vonnegut.

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 13850347)
Better yet, you give us a precis.

It's only 8 pages.

Upchurch 7th July 2022 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13850370)
Perhaps. But this too is no longer an argument on the basis of what people want. It's also not a constitutionally relevant argument.

Why not? Are you under the impression that constitutionality decisions are not subject to what some groups of people want?

cosmicaug 7th July 2022 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bruto (Post 13849881)
When a new government restriction is opposed, it seems that some see the opposition to decreased rights as a demand for increased rights, apparently instantly forgetting that the default is not the new law but the absence of it.

Hyde amendment would be a good example of this, actually.

psionl0 7th July 2022 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 13850374)
It's only 8 pages.

I actually had time to read it and although it was an enjoyable story, I fail to see what relevance it has to allowing SC candidates to be evasive.

Upchurch 7th July 2022 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 13850415)
I actually had time to read it and although it was an enjoyable story, I fail to see what relevance it has to allowing SC candidates to be evasive.

What do you think the titular lie was, if not Eli's failure to disclose the rejection letter to his parents and his evasiveness around the subject of attending Whitehill School?


ETA: In case it needs to be said, Eli's allowing his parents to believe something that was not true parallels the SC candidates allowing Senators to believe they would not overturn Roe.

wareyin 7th July 2022 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 13850429)
What do you think the titular lie was, if not Eli's failure to disclose the rejection letter to his parents and his evasiveness around the subject of attending Whitehill School?


ETA: In case it needs to be said, Eli's allowing his parents to believe something that was not true parallels the SC candidates allowing Senators to believe they would not overturn Roe.

Although, again, the Democratic Senators who voted against those SC candidates weren't fooled.

psionl0 seems to think that Senators have some ability to force answers out of candidates in whatever form the Senator wants, or that Rep Senators cared that the candidates wanted to overturn Roe v Wade despite the "settled law affirmed over and over" talk.

Upchurch 7th July 2022 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wareyin (Post 13850456)
Although, again, the Democratic Senators who voted against those SC candidates weren't fooled.

I don't really believe Susan Collins, et al, was fooled either. Her crocodile tears are a show for plausible deniability.

I was just explaining the comparison with the short story.

Skeptic Ginger 7th July 2022 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle (Post 13849639)
Religious exemptions for medical neglect of children are fairly commonplace and popular.

They are not. Cite some evidence.

First off you don't get a religious exemption to let your child die of some treatable medical condition. Parents may plead to not be convicted but even then it's not an excuse the law allows.

Each state has different laws, maybe you are thinking of vaccine refusal.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:43 AM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-22, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.