Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor says a FETUS is the same as a BRAIN-DEAD Person.

a reply to: mamabeth
So sorry to hear..

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: DBCowboy

And, the rights position is that we can separate the kids from the parents, lose them, and just keep them to adopt, or abuse, god only knows why they wanted those kids so badly.

Some people have kids in order to use them as hostages.

"Give me a free ride, or the kid gets starved!!!!"

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Lol... they are letting women whither in pain for hours or days while miscarrying doomed babies only taking action when the bleeding or sepsis that develops poses an imminent danger to her life... NOW!!

Exception to save the life of the mother will not cover this..

a reply to: Ghostsdogood

The ONLY issue at hand is the point at which a baby has those same rights.

No it isn't. This about the states' interest over a woman's interest.

If it were about fetal rights, pregnant women would get prenatal care. As it is, even after they're born, the government doesn't guarantee any newborn or any child health care, food, clothing or shelter.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Lol... they are letting women whither in pain for hours or days while miscarrying doomed babies only taking action when the bleeding or sepsis that develops poses an imminent danger to her life... NOW!!

Exception to save the life of the mother will not cover this..

If the baby is older than 21 weeks, then those last few hours might matter to it. Just like how the last few hours of your life will one day matter to you.

a reply to: mamabeth

May your Mother rest in God's loving arms and may His peace that surpasses all our human understanding envelope you. xox

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Ghostsdogood
Ok...
There is more poverty in black communities...
Could there be a link between that and the fact that they opt for abortions more often?
If so, maybe trying to address the lack of healthcare, the lack of adequate food, maybe address the problems the poverty presents might be more productive than just eliminating their access to abortion?

Some good questions, sprinkled with incomplete and potentially inaccurate information leading to false assumptions.

Is poverty so much worse in predominantly black areas that it could explain the absolutely incredible difference in abortion rates?

I don't know, but kind of doubt it.

Would like to see the data.

Have you heard of obamacare and much older benefits that pay the entire medical bill for pregnancy, birth, and post birth?

Not sure that was ever a valid argument, but certainly isn't now.



I'm right there with you on anti poverty measures.

For EVERYONE.

Not just some politically correct group or groups.

And am damn angry that democrats won't get out of the way of the only anti poverty measures that have EVER worked.

Barriers to unfair trade, along with a tax and regulatory policy that encourages investment in American manufacturing.

That's it.

It has worked EVERY time it was attempted in the past, everywhere it has ever been attempted in the past, and nothing else has ever produced the same results in the past, anywhere.

Starting to see why my side tends to have very little patience for absurd trillion dollar democrat ideas on this subject?

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Does the fetus require a pacemaker to artificially produce the heartbeat or is it doing it without a machine?

Bad argument man.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

And, they might matter to the women. Also...
Outside of the pain and suffering, those extra few hours or days and the sepsis they caused will extend her hospital stay, more time away from her other little ones, more money flowing out of the family's budget and into the hospitals balance sheet...
Or, well, could cause her her life, sepsis has been known to kill a person ya know...

originally posted by: mamabeth
a reply to: dawnstar


Planned parenthood was started

I just got a call,my mom just passed away.

Oh Mama.

I'm sorry.

originally posted by: mamabeth
a reply to: dawnstar


Planned parenthood was started

I just got a call,my mom just passed away.

I am sorry for your loss mamabeth!

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Ghostsdogood

The ONLY issue at hand is the point at which a baby has those same rights.

No it isn't. This about the states' interest over a woman's interest.

If it were about fetal rights, pregnant women would get prenatal care. As it is, even after they're born, the government doesn't guarantee any newborn or any child health care, food, clothing or shelter.

I suggest you educate yourself on this case before further embarrassing yourself.

Those may be the things some folks 'want' the case to be about, but that doesn't make it true.

Scotus is only looking at the VERY narrow issue of whether certain recent restrictions made in a few states were made as a result of recent scientific advancements, or whether states like MS violated rvw with arbitrary restrictions (15 weeks).

I don't have a strong opinion on this yet, but that is the very narrow scope that scotus agreed to when deciding to hear oral arguments in this case.

originally posted by: Imperator2
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Does the fetus require a pacemaker to artificially produce the heartbeat or is it doing it without a machine?

Bad argument man.

Are you saying that people who need pacemakers aren't people? You probably know one or two of them personally....

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

And, they might matter to the women. Also...
Outside of the pain and suffering, those extra few hours or days and the sepsis they caused will extend her hospital stay, more time away from her other little ones, more money flowing out of the family's budget and into the hospitals balance sheet...
Or, well, could cause her her life, sepsis has been known to kill a person ya know...

What tips the scale, to make one matter more than the other, though?

To me the wishes of any cognitive being weigh equal with the wishes of any other.

I think it's a failure of empathy to judge one cognitive being's desires superior or inferior to another, or say one of them doesn't matter at all.

Either they all matter, or none of them matter.

a reply to: mamabeth


So sorry to hear that Mama.

Hang in there.

⚘

a reply to: Ghostsdogood

They want the viability aspect of row taken out and if they dont just throw out roe and the other one all together they want just the unreasonable burden to be the gauge used...
A women might have to dive into some real personal details trying to explain why her pregnancy is posing an unreasonable burden to her...
Oops... there goes right to privacy...

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Well, sorry you seem to have to pick one over the other....

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Well, sorry you seem to have to pick one over the other....

You're the one describing a situation where doctors have to make a choice between one and the other.

The difference in our perspectives is that you're reflexively choosing one, and only one, of the two cognitive beings' desires to be important.

I'm instead posing the question: how do we decide?

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Ghostsdogood

They want the viability aspect of row taken out and if they dont just throw out roe and the other one all together they want just the unreasonable burden to be the gauge used...
A women might have to dive into some real personal details trying to explain why her pregnancy is posing an unreasonable burden to her...
Oops... there goes right to privacy...

Closer, but still no cigar.

Scotus is attempting to determine, based on recent advancements, whether the rvw assumptions have changed, and whether those changes could explain the recent MS (and a few other states) restrictions (15 weeks), or whether those states arbitrarily violated rvw's viability assumptions (approx 24 weeks, but left up to states to define).

But you did accurately describe some of the democrat's current strawmen, so kudos for that.

originally posted by: marg6043
I am pro choice and i base my believes in life on actually religion, the soul enters the body at birth to become a full human.

And that is my opinion a fetus do not have consciousness until is born.

Ummm…could you provide some references…to go with your beliefs…

You know…from your religious texts…or from medical and or science journals…

Cause…I’ve studied extensively in the areas of religion…medicine…and science…and have never once read anything close to what your claiming…


I might be persuaded that most humans do not have consciousness…ever…



YouSir

a reply to: Ghostsdogood

Scotus is only looking at the VERY narrow issue of whether certain recent restrictions made in a few states were made as a result of recent scientific advancements, or whether states like MS violated rvw with arbitrary restrictions (15 weeks).

No. they're not. Viability is NOT arbitrary. It is what it is. Roe v Wade's "viability" standard is not changed by scientific advancements. If FDA approved medical treatments prove that viability can be achieved at an earlier stage than first thought, then that is the accepted stage of viability. Roe V Wade is still intact. What is arbitrary is 15 weeks, 6 weeks, 21 weeks. Some fetuses will never achieve viability, and some are further along than assumed, based on a woman's memory of the 1st day of her last period.

Plus, the State never presented any kind of new scientific advancements.

So, educate yourself!

The case is about "States' Rights", not fetal rights.

This case is about the state of Mississippi wanting to override the Supreme Court's "viability" standards and insert their own.

If you think abortion is murder, then an abortion at 15 weeks isn't any less murderous than an abortion at 20 weeks or at 6 weeks.

You're a naive fool if you think this is about fetal rights. This is about the states right to control women's reproductive choices. It's about repealing what was deemed to be an inalienable right for 50 years, taking that right from the people it was bestowed upon, and giving that right to the states. This is about dehumanizing women and making them incubator vessels for the state.