International Skeptics Forum

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

Skeptic Ginger 8th July 2022 10:41 AM

TX opinion on Roe in Feb 2022
Quote:

The poll found that 47% of respondents want the court to overturn the 1973 decision and allow states to decide abortion policy; 50% do not want it overturned, and 3% said they don’t know. Of those who want it overturned, 43% of respondents favor a ban after six weeks while 27% favor 15 weeks or after, and 30% said they were unsure.

Pollster Mark Owens, who teaches political science at UT-Tyler, said Texans mostly know about the Texas law named the “heartbeat bill” by Republicans. And it’s clear that among those who want it overturned, “that is their preference,” he said. ...

The polling indicates that significant numbers of Texans favor restrictions. But even among those who agree Roe should be overturned, there are divisions over details.
You need to be careful reading the article because sometimes they are talking about everyone and sometimes they are talking about the sub-section that would agree with overturning Roe.

The majority: 50% vs 47% did not want to see Roe overturned.


In addition a lot of people misunderstand the so called "heartbeat" at six weeks is not an actual heart beating. It is a sound the sensitive equipment picks up of heart cells beating. There is no heart in a 6-week old fetus. I wish the news would be more clear about this deception.

wareyin 8th July 2022 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 13851305)
TX opinion on Roe in Feb 2022You need to be careful reading the article because sometimes they are talking about everyone and sometimes they are talking about the sub-section that would agree with overturning Roe.

The majority: 50% vs 47% did not want to see Roe overturned.

And that poll shows that Zig's 8 year old survey is not the best indicator of current beliefs, representing a 5% jump in Texans in favor of abortion being legal, and a 3% drop in the number of people wanting abortion to be illegal.

JoeMorgue 8th July 2022 10:48 AM

Also if you read the fine print 100% of Republicans are in favor of abortion for their mistresses and the underage children they rape and knock up.

wareyin 8th July 2022 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 13851308)
Also if you read the fine print 100% of Republicans are in favor of abortion for their mistresses and the underage children they rape and knock up.

It does seem that Republicans want abortion to be legal for men to have their mistresses et al do, but not legal for women to do on their own.

Suddenly 8th July 2022 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 13851304)
At this point I can't image the court NOT arguing that all the mob boss did would tell the shop owner what a nice little shop he had and what a shame it would be if anything were to happen to it...

"I'm not wrong and evil because I've mad an arbitrary set of formality that I'm following" is way to common these days.

Nobody, literally ******* nobody here, is acting under any pretense that the candidates where unaware of what they were being asked. This whole "Well I gave them a mathematicians answer that wasn't technically wrong" spiel can go cut bait.

They were fully aware the same that when a cop pulls over someone they think might be a drug dealer but claim the reason for the stop was they didn't signal far enough in advance for a lane change. Heck, RGB voted for letting that sort of thing go on. Oblivious formalism isn't bipartisan.

We built this system. The same blind formalism that the Senate used to try to ask that question without asking it was used by the judges not answering it when they answered it.

It's just not a substantive issue. If we are using this as an example of how this know-nothing approach to reality has rotted the courts and political discourse in general, fine. That this example is somehow outside the lines of what happens on a regular basis notsomuch.

JoeMorgue 8th July 2022 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wareyin (Post 13851320)
It does seem that Republicans want abortion to be legal for men to have their mistresses et al do, but not legal for women to do on their own.

You laugh but "Abortion is legal with your male guardian's permission" being where this...

A) Winds up
B) Where the Republican are TRYING to get it to wind up

... would shock me exactly zero percent.

Suddenly 8th July 2022 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 13851308)
Also if you read the fine print 100% of Republicans are in favor of abortion for their mistresses and the underage children they rape and knock up.

I'd assume that some number of them see those pregnancies as gifts of their bodily essence to be protected and supported with full force of law.

If their own kid gets knocked up, well... that might be closer to 100% especially if they are the ones that did it.

JoeMorgue 8th July 2022 11:18 AM

But again this is old news. The whole "The only good abortion is my abortion" and "Oh you see I'm different, I just made a mistake, I'm not some irresponsible slut like those other women" is well established.

Suddenly 8th July 2022 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 13851327)
But again this is old news. The whole "The only good abortion is my abortion" and "Oh you see I'm different, I just made a mistake, I'm not some irresponsible slut like those other women" is well established.

Yup.

It all comes back to conservative ideology being about preserving a state where there is an in group the law serves but does not bind and the out group it binds but does not serve.

Anything that fits into that dynamic should never surprise anyone. Hypocrisy is a feature.

ZiprHead 8th July 2022 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 13851297)
Yes, Bill Clinton said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman..." and then claimed he defined sexual relations as including an emotional involvement.

Not quite right. It was the Independent Counsels office that defined the sex. Per wikipedia:

Quote:

During the deposition, Clinton was asked "Have you ever had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, as that term is defined in Deposition Exhibit 1?" The judge ordered that Clinton be given an opportunity to review the agreed definition. Afterwards, based on the definition created by the Independent Counsel's Office, Clinton answered, "I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky." Clinton later said, "I thought the definition included any activity by [me], where [i] was the actor and came in contact with those parts of the bodies" which had been explicitly listed (and "with an intent to gratify or arouse the sexual desire of any person"). In other words, Clinton denied that he had ever contacted Lewinsky's "genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks", and effectively claimed that the agreed-upon definition of "sexual relations" included giving oral sex but excluded receiving oral sex.[38]

Stacyhs 8th July 2022 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZiprHead (Post 13851043)
Here is a video of Debbie Reynolds describing her fetus dying in the 7th month of her pregnancy and not being able to have it removed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iF9pI_Szuk

That was heartbreaking. It happened to her not once, but twice. I cannot imagine the emotional pain of knowing you are carrying a dead baby around for another month and a half. She was 7 1/2 months pregnant when the babies died in utero. She almost died herself because they wouldn't remove it earlier and it was literally filling her body with toxins.

This also happened to Barbara Eden of I Dream of Jeannie fame. She was almost 8 months pregnant when her baby died in 1971. She also was made to carry it for another 6 weeks.

shemp 8th July 2022 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13851565)
That was heartbreaking. It happened to her not once, but twice. I cannot imagine the emotional pain of knowing you are carrying a dead baby around for another month and a half. She was 7 1/2 months pregnant when the babies died in utero. She almost died herself because they wouldn't remove it earlier and it was literally filling her body with toxins.

This also happened to Barbara Eden of I Dream of Jeannie fame. She was almost 8 months pregnant when her baby died in 1971. She also was made to carry it for another 6 weeks.

These ******** who would make a woman do that should be run through a wood chipper feet first and slowly.

Stacyhs 8th July 2022 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shemp (Post 13851598)
These ******** who would make a woman do that should be run through a wood chipper feet first and slowly.

When women's choices...or not... are being largely controlled by men, it's not surprising.

Bob001 8th July 2022 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13851565)
That was heartbreaking. It happened to her not once, but twice. I cannot imagine the emotional pain of knowing you are carrying a dead baby around for another month and a half. She was 7 1/2 months pregnant when the babies died in utero. She almost died herself because they wouldn't remove it earlier and it was literally filling her body with toxins.

This also happened to Barbara Eden of I Dream of Jeannie fame. She was almost 8 months pregnant when her baby died in 1971. She also was made to carry it for another 6 weeks.


After seven months or so, is "abortion" really the right word? When does it become induced labor or emergency caesarian?

Stacyhs 8th July 2022 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob001 (Post 13851696)
After seven months or so, is "abortion" really the right word? When does it become induced labor or emergency caesarian?

I think it's called a stillbirth at that point, not an abortion. Labor can be induced or happen on its own.

psionl0 9th July 2022 02:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 13851292)
Don't you get it, they all knew damn well they would overturn Roe the first chance they got.

The reason they were not asked directly (if they weren't) is because the Senators know that answer: "I cannot address anything specific" or something to that effect. So the Senators were asking the only questions they knew they could get an answer to.

The members lied because they knew full well their answers were purposefully deceptive. You can bitch all you want that technically blah blah blah :words: It doesn't change the fact THEY LIED.

Sure. They concealed their true intent.

But I don't agree that the Senators couldn't ask that question directly. Had the judges been evasive about a direct question then that would have been a sign that they were prepared to overturn Roe vs Wade. But because the Senators went softly soflty with the questions, the Judges got away wit concealing their intentions. So they share the blame with the judges.

You can redefine a lie to mean concealment if you wish but that doesn't make it so.

psionl0 9th July 2022 02:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmicaug (Post 13851255)
This will be a sh*tshow:

If it doesn't get fixed legislatively at the national level, trying to just address it with executive orders is just going to very quickly end up climbing up the judicial ladder until it hits the SCOTUS which will swat it down.

I suspect that even national legislation would be swatted down by the SCOTUS.

Having ended Roe vs Wade, it seems unlikely that they would let congress interfere with that decision.

catsmate 9th July 2022 06:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 13849558)
True story. Before that, I believe, they also held to the quickening time-frame.

True, though the time-scale changed from age to age.

catsmate 9th July 2022 06:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 13849578)
Do you know what triggered the position?

Well, it's complicated. And mainly down to the foibles of various popes.

In Ye Olden Days the generally accepted belief was that a fetus/embryo acquired a soul at "quickening". This happened at (based on Aristotle who appears to have just Made It Up) 40 days (male) or 90 days (female). This, BTW, is pretty much still the general belief within Islam, at 120 days.
Other, pre-xian, cultures and religions tended towards ensoulment at birth (the 'first breath' standard) or occasionally at conception.

Aristotelianism was incorporated into xianity by the Church Fathers (e.g. Aquinas, Augustine, Jerome and Tertullian) and if you look at the history of the discussion on quickening and ensoulment it's a mess of arguments between these believers and those to wanted to incorporate the rival Pythagorian doctrine of ensoulment at conception.

About a thousand years now passes and we reach Aquinas who reignited the debate, paralleling the reintegration of Aristotelian learning into Europe, by being pretty definitive that ensoulment was well after birth. Hence abortion was, as in he Hebrew tradition, a misdemeanor.

Matters continued along these lines for a couple more centuries until Sixtus V who, in 1588, issued the Bull Effraenatam, which subjected those that carried out abortions at any stage of gestation with automatic excommunication and the punishment by civil authorities applied to murderers.

This lasted three years until his successor Gregory XIV limited that mandatory excommunication to abortion of a "formed" fetus. This may demonstrate Jesuit influence as the doctrine of ensoulment after birth was pretty common among them.

Another century passes and Innocent XI condemns the Jesuit teachings but doesn't actually promulgate the doctrine of ensoulment at conception.

Finally we reach the nineteenth century and the medical organisations (such as the nascent AMA) who engaged in a power-grab over midwives, whom they really didn't like and blamed for carrying out terminations. Suddenly civil society started getting in on the act and the first severe restrictions on abortions started being enacted. That's when (in 1869) Pius IX staged an abrupt about-turn in four centuries of church doctrine, and Canon Law, with Apostolicae Sedis, and re-enacted the penalty of excommunication for abortions at any stage of pregnancy,
This was very much down to the man himself, who'd undergone an equally abrupt change in views following certain matters in 1848, like being chased out of Rome by the republican revolutionaries and only returning with the French Army.
He spent the rest of his life descending into knee-jerk conservatism, condemning liberalism, modernism, moral relativism, secularisation, separation of church and state and other such dangerous ideas.
Abortion was really only a tiny part of this process.

Hope this helps.

cosmicaug 9th July 2022 07:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 13851752)
I suspect that even national legislation would be swatted down by the SCOTUS.

Having ended Roe vs Wade, it seems unlikely that they would let congress interfere with that decision.

Probably depending on the legislation. I doubt that they'd rule against a nation wide ban.

Delphic Oracle 9th July 2022 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey (Post 13851155)
Lies are a subset of deception. I would have thought this was obvious to people who spoke a language or, you know, experienced existence as a human, but apparently not!

I was x years old when I discovered that lies of omission are often much worse than outright falsity.

Among the many reasons, it is the side diversion of them getting to object and quibble over whether they "really" lied and drag the discussion away from the point, accuse the other person of making attacks against their character, etc.

Bob001 9th July 2022 09:08 AM

In response to complaints by Kavanaugh that demonstrators confronted him at dinner, a columnist observes that there's no Constitutional right to eat dinner either.
Quote:

Oh, this is embarrassing! The right to congregate and eat dinner is actually not to be found anywhere in the Constitution. I have been studying the Constitution very carefully, including the emanations of the penumbras, and I can see why people might think there was some inherent right to dinner. Eating seems so fundamental: Whether or not you want to have steak inside yourself seems like something you ought to be able to determine on your own behalf. Eating and chewing, alone or in the company of others, feels as though it ought to be up to the person most affected, and protected from abridgment of any kind, even by the states.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...rotest-satire/

bruto 9th July 2022 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmicaug (Post 13851878)
Probably depending on the legislation. I doubt that they'd rule against a nation wide ban.

I think (not to say it matters to what they do) that they would have no more reason to rule against a nation wide permission. Their judgment is, technically, that the Constitution does not address the issue at all.

Ha ha. Yeah, I know. It will when they want it to.

Stacyhs 9th July 2022 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob001 (Post 13851920)
In response to complaints by Kavanaugh that demonstrators confronted him at dinner, a columnist observes that there's no Constitutional right to eat dinner either.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...rotest-satire/

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

TellyKNeasuss 9th July 2022 06:35 PM

A pregnant woman in Texas is contesting a traffic ticket for driving alone in an HOV lane by claiming that according to SCOTUS there were 2 "persons" in the car. If the courts want to be consistent, I would think that they would have to rule in her favor.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...n-hov-bottone/

cosmicaug 9th July 2022 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TellyKNeasuss (Post 13852180)
A pregnant woman in Texas is contesting a traffic ticket for driving alone in an HOV lane by claiming that according to SCOTUS there were 2 "persons" in the car. If the courts want to be consistent, I would think that they would have to rule in her favor.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...n-hov-bottone/

I wouldn't.

Skeptic Ginger 9th July 2022 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 13851749)
Sure. They concealed their true intent.

But I don't agree that the Senators couldn't ask that question directly...

Then you haven't seen any of these hearings where they were asked directly. They never answer. They fall back on the excuse they can't discuss how they might rule on cases before them.

But I've told you that 3 times now and you just ignore that inconvenient fact.

Supreme Court Nominee Barrett Declines to Answer Questions on Key Court Cases
Quote:

U.S. Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett on Tuesday declined to answer a range of questions from senators on how she might rule on legal disputes she would face if confirmed to fill a crucial vacancy on the country’s highest court.
Here's the like hell part:
Quote:

Barrett, however, said she would not let her personal and religious views determine how she would decide cases.

“I have no agenda,” Barrett said as the Senate Judiciary Committee opened two days of questioning on her lifetime appointment by President Donald Trump to the nine-member court. “I’ll follow the law.”

Skeptic Ginger 9th July 2022 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by catsmate (Post 13851860)
Well, it's complicated. And mainly down to the foibles of various popes.
[snip]
Hope this helps.

Sadly yes it does.

psionl0 9th July 2022 10:44 PM

Legal Eagle has posted another YouTube on Roe vs Wade ("What Next?").

Basically, with such inconsistent reasons being given, every unenumerated right from the last century is up for grabs:
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE

The Great Zaganza 9th July 2022 10:53 PM

If you can criminalize residents of your State for what they do in another State where that act is not a Crime, Las Vegas would lose its reason for being.

Brainster 9th July 2022 11:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza (Post 13852262)
If you can criminalize residents of your State for what they do in another State where that act is not a Crime, Las Vegas would lose its reason for being.

This 100%. I have some sympathy for the right-to-life crowd although abortion is not really a big issue for me. That said, yes, travel to another state for whatever reason must be allowed.

Leumas 10th July 2022 01:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza (Post 13852262)
If you can criminalize residents of your State for what they do in another State where that act is not a Crime, Las Vegas would lose its reason for being.

Don't give them ideas!!

The Great Zaganza 10th July 2022 02:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leumas (Post 13852320)
Don't give them ideas!!

It's mostly men who want to gamble, so that will always be legal, no matter who much they have to twist their logic.

bruto 10th July 2022 06:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brainster (Post 13852267)
This 100%. I have some sympathy for the right-to-life crowd although abortion is not really a big issue for me. That said, yes, travel to another state for whatever reason must be allowed.

So one would think, and so we assume will remain the case, but one cannot entirely predict what craziness will actually happen any more.

Since privacy has been removed from the table, there is, presumably, no right for a woman to conceal her condition except the fifth amendment, which might not not help if other means are used to detect it. And though there are laws concerning interstate commerce and the like, there is actually no Constitutional statement that explicitly allows unrestricted interstate travel. It would be outrageous and ridiculous, but not, it seems, unconstitutional, to control movement across a border. Anti-discrimination laws might make it difficult to apply only to women of fertile age, but probably not impossible. One could, after all, screen everyone, even if the goal is only to catch pregnant women, as we are now screened at airports.

We can, I suppose, presume that travel and return is the issue here, but remember that, as far as I can determine, the Constitution fairly explicitly supports the fugitive slave laws, which apply, not to travel and return, but migration. Slavery itself was abolished, and the laws repealed, but I do not think there ever was a Constitutional challenge to the basic principle that a person deemed criminal in one state could be extradited from another in which they are not.

It's pretty far fetched to suggest that a person from one state could be extradited and prosecuted for moving to another in order to escape repressive laws, but these days, with this court, I think we should never be too complacent about how far the long dong of the law might reach.

This is all ridiculous of course. Ha ha, it will never happen here. It never does. Ha ha.

Bob001 10th July 2022 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza (Post 13852262)
If you can criminalize residents of your State for what they do in another State where that act is not a Crime, Las Vegas would lose its reason for being.

That why Las Vegas was established as a gambling mecca in the '50s, when gambling was generally illegal, but it hasn't been true for a long time. There are casinos in almost every state.
https://www.casinousa.com/map

Olmstead 10th July 2022 08:40 AM

That just means that abortion is a crime for those who are too poor to get it done in another state. I'd call it discriminatory.

The Great Zaganza 10th July 2022 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob001 (Post 13852479)
That why Las Vegas was established as a gambling mecca in the '50s, when gambling was generally illegal, but it hasn't been true for a long time. There are casinos in almost every state.
https://www.casinousa.com/map

I was being discreet and did not mention the number of Nevada counties that have legalized prostitution.

Ziggurat 10th July 2022 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob001 (Post 13852479)
That why Las Vegas was established as a gambling mecca in the '50s, when gambling was generally illegal, but it hasn't been true for a long time. There are casinos in almost every state.
https://www.casinousa.com/map

It is still true. Gambling is still prohibited in almost every state. Casinos outside of Nevada are almost always on Indian reservations, where state laws prohibiting gambling don't apply. But as with out-of-state residents visiting Nevada, state laws cannot reach where they do not have sovereignty.

The Great Zaganza 10th July 2022 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13852506)
It is still true. Gambling is still prohibited in almost every state. Casinos outside of Nevada are almost always on Indian reservations, where state laws prohibiting gambling don't apply. But as with out-of-state residents visiting Nevada, state laws cannot reach where they do not have sovereignty.

which brings up an interesting question: suppose States criminalize citizens getting an abortion outside their State - if that happens on a Reservation, would such a law work?

Note: Some Indian Tribes have made it clear that they don't intend to host abortion clinics, probably because they already suffer a lot of hate and violence.

TragicMonkey 10th July 2022 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza (Post 13852512)
which brings up an interesting question: suppose States criminalize citizens getting an abortion outside their State - if that happens on a Reservation, would such a law work?

Note: Some Indian Tribes have made it clear that they don't intend to host abortion clinics, probably because they already suffer a lot of hate and violence.

Wasn't there a recent SC ruling that pushed back on the notion that reservations weren't constricted by state law? I dimly recall reading something in the last couple of months.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:52 PM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-24, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.