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

a reply to: DBCowboy

When is it allowable for one individual to infringe upon the rights of another individual?

When not infringing violates their own rights.

Rights come into conflict sometimes. That's why we have the court system: to ensure a peaceful solution when rights clash.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Are you kidding?? The last time I tried that they twisted my words and used them to make things worse...

a reply to: TheRedneck
And, just how does that work when you have at the most 9 months but maybe much less if it is a matter of complications posing a threat to the mother though.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Ghostsdogood

But, wouldn't opening up abortion laws to strictly states rights just increase the incoherent mish mash of laws we have? Wouldn't make what redneck see m.j s to be complaining about even worse? I mean the first thing I plan on doing when roe goes down is bugging my lawmakers to preserve the abortion rights of this states residents by slapping strict regulations on abortions for out of state residents. Allowing only those that are medically necessary. And while they are at it they can restrict adoptions of babies from out of state to only those who have family connections.
States like texas and mississippi have made their bed and now they can sleep in it... the more well to do along with the poor..

Good question, but based on a false premise.

'States Rights' as described in this discussion are already protected in rvw, constrained by both a convoluted set of rvw viability assumptions and a democrat party that simply ignores federal law in some states.

Scotus is currently tasked with deciding whether MS and a few other states violated those rvw viability assumptions, or whether scientific advancements since rvw now require altering those rvw viability assumptions.

States rights are protected now, and unless dishonest political hack dressed up as a justice soto causes something really unexpected to happen, states rights will still be protected after scotus decides on this case.

The rvw viability assumptions may, or may not be altered by scotus, but that is what all the fuss is about.

a reply to: Ghostsdogood
So, how can anyone claim that 7 weeks is viable without changing the meaning of the word viable?
Or 15 weeks even.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Ghostsdogood
So, how can anyone claim that 7 weeks is viable without changing the meaning of the word viable?
Or 15 weeks even.

I don't know how anyone could defend 7 weeks with a straight face, and doubt any of the justices will even consider that one.

The argument for 16 weeks is that is only slightly before their brainwave (and other) advancements indicate viability, and that this buffer is necessary because a person's life (the baby) is potentially on the line.

I make no claim as to whether this is a good argument for MS or not, but this is what scotus is tasked with considering.

a reply to: Ghostsdogood

And yet, they are letting that 7 week ban still be enforced..

should the mother be prosecuted for ordering a hit on her baby if she has ab abortion?

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: DBCowboy

When you are armed with a gun and they are armed with plastic bag and chasing you through a parking lot?

Most intellectually dishonest post in this entire thread.

A thread about soto and the scotus abortion case.

So that's really saying something.


Are you a complete troll/shill or completely brainwashed. Not aware of another explanation for such an ignorant and dishonest post.

a reply to: Ghostsdogood

It doesn't indicate viability... look up the medical meaning of the word.. there are two meanings.
One is the stage where a fetus can be expected to have a chance to survive the other refers to non-viable pregnancies and mean that there is severe deformities in the fetus that make survival out of the womb impossible.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Ghostsdogood

And yet, they are letting that 7 week ban still be enforced..

Scotus hasn't issued a decision yet.

System isn't perfect, but works as the founders intended if people get out of the way and let it.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Ghostsdogood
So, how can anyone claim that 7 weeks is viable without changing the meaning of the word viable?
Or 15 weeks even.

The problem is with the word viable. That point is going to change as science improves. Right now the youngest surviving premature baby that survived - that I could find - was 21 weeks and 1 day.

This is why establishing a viability point is not a good way to go about this. How many babies were aborted at 21 weeks and 1 day or later when there is proof that a 21 week and 1 day baby could survive? Does that then mean all of those children were 100% murdered? If we assume the point of viability as the point where rights begin then the answer is clearly yes.

The discussion should focus on when life begins and what constitutes life. That would be a clearer starting point. Texas asserts that when the fetal heartbeat is detected then that is the point where a baby gains its protections. That would be around 5 to 6 weeks.

The MS law is not attempting to ban abortions it is just trying to lower the threshold from 22 weeks to 15 weeks. If scotus agrees to allow that kind of adjustment it would open the door to many other restrictions, but those are not in question right now.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Ghostsdogood

It doesn't indicate viability... look up the medical meaning of the word.. there are two meanings.
One is the stage where a fetus can be expected to have a chance to survive the other refers to non-viable pregnancies and mean that there is severe deformities in the fetus that make survival out of the womb impossible.

The court is tasked with these, and many other arguments like these.

They already have viability assumptions as a result of rvw, and now must decide if MS violated those assumptions, or if recent advancements indicate that the rvw viability assumptions are now known to be incorrect.

Most court watchers seem to just assume the TX law violated rvw, and that the scotus decision will reflect that.

I share that opinion.

I make no claim as to the relative strength of any of these arguments, other than that at least some of these arguments look extremely weak, and I personally don't think recent advancements are sufficient to change the existing rvw viability assumptions, as scotus has rightly set a very high bar for that.

a reply to: Ghostsdogood

Didn't like that one..
Hete are a few other options for ya...
When your loony uncle is afraid of ghosts and his nieces and nephews are outside screwing with him till the sound of the shotgun rings out?
When trick or treaters come knocking on your door?
When a stranger suffering from a medical emergency comes onto your porch probably looking for help?
When some govt official claim a country has wmds?

Believe it or not, all of them are real instances where people felt the need to take action to protect themselves from a perceived threat.... including the looney uncle although I don't thing he managed to hit any of the kids... and since it was my mom and her siblings harassing the poor guy, I think I would know.

The answer is to protect ones life, the life of those you care about, your possessions, your way of life from a perceived threat. !
Unless of course you are a pregnant women, then well, it might suck to be you...

a reply to: Ghostsdogood

The argument for 16 weeks is that is only slightly before their brainwave (and other) advancements indicate viability, and that this buffer is necessary because a person's life (the baby) is potentially on the line.

Viability isn't really based on brain waves. It's mostly based on lung development. If the lungs aren't mature enough to accept oxygen, even with air tubes and in an incubator, the fetus is not viable. Born people need to be able to breath on their own, at some point.

Lung development is divided into the following five stages:

1. The embryonic stage (weeks 4 to 6 of gestation), when early upper airways appear.

2. The glandular stage (weeks 7 to 16), when the lower conducting airways form.

3. The canalicular phase (weeks 17 to 28), when the acini develop.

4. The terminal sac period (weeks 28 to 36), when the first respiratory units for gas exchange (terminal air sacs and surrounding capillaries) make their appearance.

5. The alveolar phase, when alveoli develop.

The latter stage begins at about 36 weeks [&apos]; gestation and continues until at least 18 months of age

However, in the past decade many babies have survived after 24 to 25 weeks [&apos]; gestation, usually with enormous effort and cost; these extremely premature infants often survive with severe CLD

www.sciencedirect.com...

Doctors often consider fetal viability the point at which a baby can be resuscitated at delivery and can survive without significant morbidity. Many times this age of viability is about 24 weeks gestation.

www.verywellfamily.com...

originally posted by: Ghostsdogood

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Ghostsdogood
So, how can anyone claim that 7 weeks is viable without changing the meaning of the word viable?
Or 15 weeks even.

I don't know how anyone could defend 7 weeks with a straight face, and doubt any of the justices will even consider that one.

The argument for 16 weeks is that is only slightly before their brainwave (and other) advancements indicate viability, and that this buffer is necessary because a person's life (the baby) is potentially on the line.

I make no claim as to whether this is a good argument for MS or not, but this is what scotus is tasked with considering.

If the 15 week adjustment is allowed then the 7 week adjustment will be allowed. Any infringement on the current standard opens the door for all infringement via the states.

The early week threshold is from the texas law which has determined that life begins when the heartbeat is present. Fetal heartbeat is found between 5 and 6 weeks generally.

The problem is that we debate things like "viability" which sounds like a good point to discuss, but the real issue is when life begins not when its viable on it's own.

I fully support the fetal heartbeat as being the point that protections kick in. I have yet to hear of a woman who has developed a fetal heartbeat without a fetus being present. Until such point occurs then I can only assume that the fetal heartbeat is only present due to the presence of a fetus. A fetus is a baby in early stages of life as a baby is in the early stages of childhood and a child is in the early stages of adulthood. All of that makes sense to me.

Do you disagree? If so, do you have some examples of a fetal heartbeat being found in a womans womb without a fetus being present?

a reply to: dawnstar

So you follow up a very direct rittenhouse falsehood with a list of random tragedies, some not even real, that aren't even remotely related to the subject at hand.

Come on man,

you know exactly what you were doing with that rittenhouse falsehood, and so does everyone else.


Did it work out as you had hoped?

Maybe try being intellectually honest next time.

a reply to: Sookiechacha


I am not claiming that the brainwave, or any other argument, is a valid argument.

Well beyond my qualifications.

But these are the arguments being considered in this case.

a reply to: Imperator2

The thing is though...
If one considers viability, the point where a fetus can have at least a chance of survival then if after that point, if complications were to pop up in at least some cases premature delivery might be the better option than abortion or forcing the women to continue with the pregnancy...but, I don't think either side is really considering that option too much. It is wait till mom is at death's door and rush her into the er!!

a reply to: Ghostsdogood
No, they are all real...
Just pointing out just how different self defense is seen when it comes to pregnancy...