The Amy Coney Barrett Abortion Arms Race Is On

a reply to: Sookiechacha

So, would that mean you're saying Arkansas is hypocritical in that their newborns are dying too much,

and they don't really give a damn?

a reply to: Arizonaguy

"willfully killing another human being", interesting point. So under this point you should also not allow abortion, the Death Penalty, or certain cases of suicide.

If anyone want to have a serious conversion about this, then the differences between what taking of a life should and should not be allowed. It is illegal to take something from someone without their consent. Their life is no different then a car in that regards. Now is the Death Penalty any different than abortion in that regards?

a reply to: Willtell

I think their priorities are misplaced. We should protect the lives and rights people already born above the unborn.

a reply to: Guyfriday

Most states criminalize suicide (which is why/how you have people involuntarily committed when they are deemed to be a threat to themselves), prostitution (despite the idea of "her body, her choice), drugs (again, zero respect for the idea that a persona has choice over their own body), etc... all 3 of these issues are driven by bipartisan ideologies that life is precious even when it is someone attempting to debase the value of their own life, so what's so special about the abortion argument? How in the blue world of hell do we have people making the straight faced argument that a woman has the right to terminate an actual life within her body because she "owns that space" but also support the legal hypocrisy of telling her it is a crime for her to turn her vagina into a source of income?

ETA: I am anti-abortion, for the record. I don't ever see Roe v Wade overturned, but I absolutely believe this should be entirely a state's rights issue in which no state should be compelled by the federal government to bend over backwards to provide, fund, or otherwise facilitate a woman's personal desire to kill the life within herself. In the same vein as the law often prosecutes those who assist with someone committing suicide, prosecute the drug dealer more heavily than the addict, and prosecute the whore's clients more strictly than the whore, I believe the abortion "doctors" are the real demons who need exorcising from our society.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Exactly. Without a redefining of terms the whole idea that abortion is one way or the other is not going to happen. Either the courts make a ruling that better defines the value of a human life, both as an item as well as a person, then these questions of Death Penalty/Abortion/Legal suicide can not be fully answered or readdressed.

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

So you don't think the SCOTUS should intervene?

But it's the state that is passing these laws.

I believe this boils down to a constitutional issue in that Roe v Wade says it's a 14th amendment right of privacy, I think that states CAN'T make it illegal. until Roe is overturned.

You are correct. It is a Constitutional issue if Arkansas passes this law. The Constitution, as interpreted by SCOTUS, vis a vi the law in question—-IS the law of the land. A complete reversal of Roe v Wade is HIGHLY unlikely—though its scope may be reduced.

originally posted by: Guyfriday
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Exactly. Without a redefining of terms the whole idea that abortion is one way or the other is not going to happen. Either the courts make a ruling that better defines the value of a human life, both as an item as well as a person, then these questions of Death Penalty/Abortion/Legal suicide can not be fully answered or readdressed.

Capital punishment is a different animal. In many regards it is equivalent to the concept of soldiers and civilians dying in war. Choices that are made often require consequences, and when the aggrieved parties represent large swaths of society (as in acts of war, violent crimes against the people of the state, etc) then there is a justification for eradication of lives among those deemed responsible or facilitative of those acts of harm. One cannot exactly argue that an infant stands reflective of acts of harm or a crime against the people as a whole. An infant may be an inconvenience or hardship on the woman who should bear it, but nobody ever promised life would be free of the consequences of your own choices, ya?

a reply to: burdman30ott6

, but nobody ever promised life would be free of the consequences of your own choices, ya?

Consequences, as in do nothing and let nature take it's course? Are those the only consequences that you are allowing for? No intervention for the skier with the broken leg? The smoker with cancer? The sugar addict with diabetes?

originally posted by: Arizonaguy
Abortion won't be made illegal
That's a typical strawman of the Left on this issue
At most, it will be left to individual states to decide

I wish they stop kicking that dead horse as all 9 judges have said they wouldn't touch it even if they feel it was a poor decision. It has set almost 50 years of precedence, and those 5 conservative judges actually follow that.

BTW the number of abortions before and after Roe vs Wade really didn't change much, so it is really a discussion on the overstepping powers of the fed government with zero precedence supporting it.

How would everyone feel if the fed Government said capital punishment is federal across all 50 states and here is a list to include tax evasion as a capital crime?

a reply to: Guyfriday

Suicide is at its base form Murdering of one's self.

Eh... I don't think it's black and white.

Did someone kill themselves because they hated themself? Or is someone choosing to exit an illness that is terminal?

One I would say is murder, the other is choosing an earlier death.

I'm not going to sit here and act like that logic is bullet proof. I'm sure many would disagree and for good reason, and at the end of the day I suppose it's an opinion.

Just how I see it.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

I think their priorities are misplaced. We should protect the lives and rights people already born above the unborn.

Personally I don't give a crap anymore, its such a long overused boogieman of women losing their rights, but it isn't so simple as you put it. Many abortions happen due to convivence only, and many women regret it the rest of their lives.

If we go down the path that anything even 1 second from birth is just cells I feel it erodes the value of life we hold dearly over time, and then we can add to the list of others...

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: burdman30ott6

, but nobody ever promised life would be free of the consequences of your own choices, ya?

Consequences, as in do nothing and let nature take it's course? Are those the only consequences that you are allowing for? No intervention for the skier with the broken leg? The smoker with cancer? The sugar addict with diabetes?

Fundamental differences here: You view a fetus as a medical condition, I view it as a life. Also, each of those ailments are life threatening if not treated... very, very few women die from childbirth these days.

a reply to: Willtell
Good! If someone wants to murder an unborn child, let them pay a price heavier than a guilt-ridden conscience.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Many abortions happen due to convivence only, and many women regret it the rest of their lives.

I don't know a single one. Even so, one person's individual rights have nothing to do with another's regret. But thanks for mansplaining why women should be saved from the burden of making a choice they may regret.

If we go down the path that anything even 1 second from birth is just cells I feel it erodes the value of life we hold dearly over time

Another ignorant argument that pretends that viability is not part of the equation.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

You view a fetus as a medical condition

I view pregnancy as a medical condition.

I view it as a life.

I thought we were talking about the consequences of sex, and how women need to bear the consequences of having sex.

There are other ways to deal with consequences than to allow nature to take it's course.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

I don't know a single one. Even so, one person's individual rights have nothing to do with another's regret. But thanks for mansplaining why women should be saved from the burden of making a choice they may regret.

Don't worry I'll mansplain all day, lol these new words...not like it changes anything, we got older words for women that still work...lol

Another ignorant argument that pretends that viability is not part of the equation.

When is too late for you? As the babies head pokes out and they suck the brains out is that still OK? When is it not OK...

Funny how one second its cells and the right of the woman to destroy it and a second later its a human with all rights given... Seems illogical doesn't it? It also seems if it is all the woman's rights then if she has the baby it is also the choice of the man with his rights to accept the baby or not, right?

Seems you all want your cake and eat it too.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Funny thing is, If you cause a woman to miscarry by some overt action you can be charged with murder
but if a woman does it herself it's a medical procedure
How this isn't a 14th amendment issue is beyond me
it takes some serious mental gymnastics to say that it isn't

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

Fundamental differences here: You view a fetus as a medical condition, I view it as a life. Also, each of those ailments are life threatening if not treated... very, very few women die from childbirth these days.

260,000 died to COVID is a medical condition so why not let it thin the herd a little, weed out the weak, lower my health insurance, open up affordable real estate. I could think of 100s of great advantages to that....

originally posted by: Arizonaguy
a reply to: Xtrozero

Funny thing is, If you cause a woman to miscarry by some overt action you can be charged with murder
but if a woman does it herself it's a medical procedure
How this isn't a 14th amendment issue is beyond me
it takes some serious mental gymnastics to say that it isn't

Such as

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

a reply to: Xtrozero

When is too late for you? As the babies head pokes out and they suck the brains out is that still OK? When is it not OK...

Roe V Wade assures a woman's right to an abortion BEFORE viability. Nobody is sucking the brains out of viable infants poking their heads out.

If a fetus is developing without a skull and its brains are floating around in the amniotic sac, it doesn't matter how old that fetus is, it will not survive outside of the womb.