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

a reply to: dawnstar

If they decided to deny healthcare to unvaccinated people, would you consider that as unconstitutional?

I would. Wouldn't you?

Or, seeing as you brought it up, is that something you would like to see? Maybe get back at people who don't agree with you? A little revenge, maybe?

Otherwise, why suggest it?

TheRedneck

a reply to: Ghostsdogood

But, you were just willing to deny healthcare to that defenceless 14 yr old rape victim.
Abortion is healthcare, it isn't always about birth control.

a reply to: dawnstar

Where did I say I wanted to deny an abortion to a 14-year-old rape victim?

If you are going to make an accusation like that, I want a link, dammit!

TheRedneck

a reply to: dawnstar


No.

Rape victims have NOT been a part of this discussion, except when determined leftists like yourself attempt to use them as a dishonest distraction when cornered by their own arguments.

NOBODY is even discussing the elimination of that healthcare option here.

The issue is when that unborn baby has the right to that same healthcare and other constitutional rights.

RVW made certain viability assumptions to help determine when that point is.

SCOTUS is now charged with determining whether those assumptions need to be updated based on scientific advancements in the last 50 years.

That's it.

So why the 40+ pages of dishonest democrats like yourself attempting to dishonestly change the subject?

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Sookiechacha

The Supreme Court cannot take away rights. Nor can it grant them.

Abortion is not a right. Its not protected in the constitution, and there is no legislation protecting it as a civil right.

You're right. SCOTUS can only determine if a law violate rights and are therefore unconstitutional. But, abortion is a "right", according to the Roe V Wade ruling.

The Supreme Court's 7-2 decision established a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy as an expression of her fundamental "right of privacy," but balanced it against the developing fetus's progress toward independent viability and the state's interest in public health.

"This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.[

www.historylink.org...

Roe v Wade established that state laws that banned abortion [pre-viability] were unconstitutional.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Yes. I would consider it unconstitutional...
But, there is no mention of healthcare or vaccinations in the constitution, is there? It is based more on can you treat a small group of people differently than everyone else.

The treatment that pregnant women is given cannot be so grossly different than the way other groups are treated that it that is destroys he health... mental and physical, her health, her life.
I think that before you go making sweeping statements about how unjust an abortion is, you need at least consider unjust making the women or girl carry it to term might be... which would have to be done individually, case by case. It is not murder if it is self defense.

a reply to: TheRedneck

I was fine with it until people like you decided to abuse it.

I have no idea what you're talking about. I can't abuse Roe V Wade. It is what it is.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: TheRedneck

Yes. I would consider it unconstitutional...
But, there is no mention of healthcare or vaccinations in the constitution, is there? It is based more on can you treat a small group of people differently than everyone else.

The treatment that pregnant women is given cannot be so grossly different than the way other groups are treated that it that is destroys he health... mental and physical, her health, her life.
I think that before you go making sweeping statements about how unjust an abortion is, you need at least consider unjust making the women or girl carry it to term might be... which would have to be done individually, case by case. It is not murder if it is self defense.

Another 100% dishonest attempt from you.

Care to point out where abortion, or even healthcare in general is mentioned in the constitution.


Have any honest arguements to discuss?

Why not get back to any honest discussion of this scotus case?

Is it because you have no honest arguements to make, don't know how to be honest, or is it that you already know won't cause anyone to believe what you want them to believe?

Do you know what the above is called?

Or which ideology is best known for such tactics?

a reply to: dawnstar

Yes. I would consider it unconstitutional...

Good! I was hoping that wasn't what it sounded like.

But, there is no mention of healthcare or vaccinations in the constitution, is there? It is based more on can you treat a small group of people differently than everyone else.

Actually, there is. 14th Amendment:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The treatment that pregnant women is given cannot be so grossly different than the way other groups are treated that it that is destroys he health... mental and physical, her health, her life.

If you want to go there, where is the equal treatment for pregnant men?

I still want that link to me saying what you accused me of saying.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I have no idea what you're talking about.

I'm sure you don't.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Ghostsdogood

To say you think that murdering a perfectly healthy, viable, and self aware baby...

Nobody, has said any such thing. Certainly not me.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Correct. I assume you have read some of the proceedings, and therefore understand that the viability thresh hold is a moving goal post that is improved upon with medical science.

That is why above I asked if you agreed that at 15 weeks a fetus was not eligible to be aborted. That 15 week standard is the viability standard that is being debated against Roe v Wade, at least from how im reading the comments made by the justices.

Your right to privacy does not mean you can kill someone in your home without someone having a look. There are limits to that, and that limit in this case is the counterbalance of the fetus, and when it has rights bestowed upon. That viability line, which is wholly imaginary, is that line.

If we follow that logic, however, it allows us to kill all manner of people that don't produce.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: TheRedneck

Yes. I would consider it unconstitutional...
But, there is no mention of healthcare or vaccinations in the constitution, is there? It is based more on can you treat a small group of people differently than everyone else.

The treatment that pregnant women is given cannot be so grossly different than the way other groups are treated that it that is destroys he health... mental and physical, her health, her life.
I think that before you go making sweeping statements about how unjust an abortion is, you need at least consider unjust making the women or girl carry it to term might be... which would have to be done individually, case by case. It is not murder if it is self defense.

So, where is the right to abort a fetus derived from? It isn't natural law, as abortions are not something we can choose to do. In some parts of the world, there were herbs that could be used. in other parts, not so much. Other species don't take in herbs or such to abort. In fact, in nature you see the life is pushed pretty hard. So hard, in fact, that a female condor was recently seen to reproduce without a male, a first for that species.

99% of all pregnancies are the result of carless sex. Not rape and all the fringe issues that people use to justify the wholesale killing of fetuses on a scale that would make the most evil in our history smile.

On an unrelated note: there are differences in the sexes. There are also differences in the ethnicities. Im unsure where you got your line of logic from....but carrying a birth to term is the natural state of things. We are all stuck having to be humans together, i know it sucks. But while we are here, we do what humans do. Including procreate.

a reply to: TheRedneck

I think you were the one into science....
You do know,that men don't get pregnant, don't you?
I am sure you do.
So, why does the pregnant not deserve the equal protection of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as everyone else?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Ghostsdogood

To say you think that murdering a perfectly healthy, viable, and self aware baby...

Nobody, has said any such thing. Certainly not me.

That IS the definition of the babies we are discussing.

When have you argued for anything OTHER than that?

a reply to: Ghostsdogood

So you would be ok if they decided to turn unvaccinated people from the er?

Lol.. I am the one who thinks you are all a bunch of wimps...
And, I wouldn't be thinking it ok.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan


Completely honest post, and excellent analysis.

Thank you Texan!

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I assume you have read some of the proceedings, and therefore understand that the viability thresh hold is a moving goal post that is improved upon with medical science.

That's what I've been saying all along. If with medical science, we find repeatedly find that a 15 week fetus can survive outside of the uterus, then that is the viability threshold and Roe V Wade remains intact. But the tech has to be available to poor women too, not used to deny them an abortion.

As it is, we have invitro surgical technologies to repair many otherwise fatal or life incompatible conditions. But they are only available to people of means, who can afford procedures and the follow up procedure and medications that insurance companies won't cover or that they aren't covered for?

Fetal surgery allows us to intervene earlier. Using highly sophisticated surgical procedures, we are now able to treat certain disabling and life-threatening birth defects during fetal development instead of after birth, and to offer new hope to families.

Fetal surgery is a complex and challenging procedure, requiring the most expert, comprehensive care for both mother and unborn baby. Few medical teams have the skill and resources to perform such complex procedures, which can present significant risks for both mother and baby.

www.chop.edu...

Wouldn't it be great if this kind of treatment was available to women who would choose the heart wrenching choice of aborting their otherwise wanted diseased fetuses?

Wouldn't it be great if Mississippi worked on their infant and maternal death rate problems, as well as their child hunger problem, before trying for force women to give birth?

a reply to: dawnstar


Where in the world did I ever say anything like that?

Never did.

Never would.

And whatever twisted logic you used to come to that conclusion is 100% dishonest.


Have anything honest to say on the topic at hand?

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Ummm.. I could say that 75 year old men running around with machines implanted inside them keeping their heart ticking is rather unnatural also... but... they keep taking money from taxpayers for those machines...
Most of human life is now unnatural.
About 90% of abortions occur in the first trimester. And, if you add up the abortions for rape/incest, fetal anomalies, and women's health issues... that adds up to about 10%.
There is another part of roe... the undue burden. Which up till now has been interpreted to be is the laws putting too many obstacles in the way of women that they can't it is too difficult to get access to their right to abortion. Well, if mississippi gets their way...and the idea of having a time limit like viability gets thrown out...
We are gonna need to redefine what undue burden is aren't we?