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

a reply to: TheRedneck

Link

Beatrix now will need dialysis for the rest of her life.
Ya, it is in another country and they have slightly stricter abortion laws. But, I have pointed out in this thread, and I have posted links on other thread numerous times to support my claims that hospitals that have policies that take a strong prolife stance as well as some of the laws now in place have needlessly placed the women's health at risk just to protect the life a non-viable fetus that had no chance of survival... regardless of how many links I hunt down and post... the response I get is what i describe in my previous post... it's not worth it to me.

a reply to: dawnstar


Directly copied from the rvw decision.

Not briefs filed by either side, the actual scotus decision.


"B. The pregnant woman cannot be isolated in her privacy. She carries an embryo and, later, a fetus, if one accepts the medical definitions of the developing young in the human uterus. See Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary 478-479, 547 (24th ed.1965). The situation therefore is inherently different from marital intimacy, or bedroom possession of obscene material, or marriage, or procreation, or education, with which Eisenstadt and Griswold, Stanley, Loving, Skinner, and Pierce and Meyer were respectively concerned. As we have intimated above, it is reasonable and appropriate for a State to decide that, at some point in time another interest, that of health of the mother or that of potential human life, becomes significantly involved. The woman's privacy is no longer sole and any right of privacy she possesses must be measured accordingly."


This is the EXACT text used to later write ALL rvw based regulations.

It says EXACTLY what we have been saying it does, and is the exact (vague) test that all abortion related regulations must pass in order to be considered constitutional.

I can do a word for word play by play if you have any trouble understanding supreme-speak with above.

I AM happy you finally attempted a little honest research on yor own though.

a reply to: Ghostsdogood
Do you admit that roe defined viabilty the same way I did, or do you need to do further research?

Do you admit the scotus found the terms "save the life of the mother" or "preserve her life" as being too vague?

Do you admit that they hold the consideration of the dangers to the women's health are also important?

Do you admit that what they are saying needs to be protected if the potential of life?

Do you admit that roe says that states in the third month, when a fetus becomes viable MAY choose to protect the interest of the fetus' POTENTIAL of life, not that they shall or must?

Do you admit that when roe mentions the womens health, they also mention the health and welfare of her born children as if they should be considered also.

Will you admit that you either need either to do some more research or that you were just being a tad bit dishonest in your claims?
I have been on ATS for a long time and the abortion issue has been a topic that has always drawn my interest. I have done a great amount of research and provided a ton of links to what I have claimed in the past, which Redneck could attest to if he was to be honest. And, well I will give him credit. I think he does try to be as much as I do and sincerely wishes to have a decent discussion.

I am now limited by my health now. I can't even see my computer screen well enough to read it so I am limited to what I can do. Copying and pasting large chunks of text is a problem I haven't figured out how to overcome on a cellphone or my tablet..
Reading the roe decision took over an hour and irratating as all heck because I kept losing focus.
So, i do the best i can, with what i got...
And, like i said, I got basically the same response when I was doing all that so don't think it matters in the end anyways...

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Ghostsdogood
Do you admit that roe defined viabilty the same way I did, or do you need to do further research?

Do you admit the scotus found the terms "save the life of the mother" or "preserve her life" as being too vague?

Do you admit that they hold the consideration of the dangers to the women's health are also important?

Do you admit that what they are saying needs to be protected if the potential of life?

Do you admit that roe says that states in the third month, when a fetus becomes viable MAY choose to protect the interest of the fetus' POTENTIAL of life, not that they shall or must?

Do you admit that when roe mentions the womens health, they also mention the health and welfare of her born children as if they should be considered also.

Will you admit that you either need either to do some more research or that you were just being a tad bit dishonest in your claims?
I have been on ATS for a long time and the abortion issue has been a topic that has always drawn my interest. I have done a great amount of research and provided a ton of links to what I have claimed in the past, which Redneck could attest to if he was to be honest. And, well I will give him credit. I think he does try to be as much as I do and sincerely wishes to have a decent discussion.

I am now limited by my health now. I can't even see my computer screen well enough to read it so I am limited to what I can do. Copying and pasting large chunks of text is a problem I haven't figured out how to overcome on a cellphone or my tablet..
Reading the roe decision took over an hour and irratating as all heck because I kept losing focus.
So, i do the best i can, with what i got...
And, like i said, I got basically the same response when I was doing all that so don't think it matters in the end anyways...

No on most of that nonsense.

You are reading the opinions of of the Democrat side in the briefs.

They are NOT the rvw decision.

The decision itself is relatively short & simple, though highly convoluted.

The text I provided is NOT some random detail in the decision either, it is section 'B', as in only the 2nd section after 'A'.

Word. For. Word.

It describes exactly the opposite of most of your claims.

This section is considered the basis for the rest of the rvw decision, and is the exact test that all abortion laws must meet.

Word. For. Word.

I suggest you actually read it now.

a reply to: dawnstar

Look. I just read close to the whole decision of roe. That was with me feeling like crap with my vision constantly losing focus.

I read it as well, out of respect to you. My vision tends to lose focus when I'm tired as well. Do you really think you are the only person here with health issues? My heart literally doesn't work right! That appeal to sympathy can only go so far. There is little sympathy when complaining about one's foot hurting to a man with no legs.

First.. roe defined what they meant by viability and they meant exactly what I said.

No, they reiterated what others had defined viability as. Here's the exact excerpt:

As we have noted, the common law found greater significance in quickening. Physician and their scientific colleagues have regarded that event with less interest and have tended to focus either upon conception, upon live birth, or upon the interim point at which the fetus becomes "viable," that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid.

I did not see where the Court agreed nor disagreed with that definition. If I missed it, please do me the same honor I do you and put that part in your post.

That is also what this entire case now is about: has that point of viability, as defined by some physicians (not the Court necessarily) changed with the advance of medical technology?

I also did some checking, since the decision specifically referred to the "artificial womb." Scientists in the Netherlands are now 8 years away from developing an artificial womb (the article was two years ago and specified 10 years away at that time). So, it appears that in 8 years, that point of "potential viability" could be around the time a woman realizes she is pregnant. At that point, will you change your position as to what the court meant by "viability"?

Perhaps your honesty will win out and you will stick with your position. However, no offense intended, I do doubt it at the present time. You have shown no indication of holding hard and fast to a position that I have seen, save the pro-abortion stance.

Second, they said that "saving the life of the mother" was too vague and inadequate. The mother's health had to be preserved as well.

True, and I actually agree with that. My issue is that some people will extend the word "health" to ridiculous levels. To me, when an abortion endangers the health of the mother, I assume that to mean a risk of grave and permanent injury. Others could, and I believe would, try to use that one word to justify simple discomfort. Thus my question of, do health risks include stretch marks? I have no doubt someone at some time has claimed that.

I do wish you could point me to something, anything, where dialysis occurred because of a pregnancy. I honestly have never heard of that happening! It would even appear to be am impossible correlation, although "impossible" is rarely a good word to use when speaking biologically.

Third they said the states had an interest in protecting the fetus in the third trimester, which is the point where viability becomes an issue. They used the word may, not will, or must, they may choose to.

Only partially true, and misleading. The Court stated that states had a legitimate interest in protecting potential (unborn) life past the point of viability. Again, they did not specify that they agreed or disagreed with the definition presented; it has been assumed that they agreed with that definition, but that is an assumption. The court then stated their opinion that this point of viability was achieved at 24 weeks. This entire case is to determine if their stated opinion that viability was achieved at 24 weeks is still valid in the face of medical advancements.

As mentioned above, in 2029 (assuming success), that assumed definition of viability could be as early as 3 or 4 weeks. Ain't medical science grand?

It is true that the Court did not force anything upon any state; they could not Constitutionally do so. No Federal Court may take away from a state what the Constitution grants it, and that includes the right to establish laws relating to medical practices. All the Court can do, and all they did do, was specify what laws a state cannot make without violating the Constitutional rights of its citizens.




Look, you can get all butt-hurt all you want. There have been things said to me over this same issue many times that literally tore my heart in two... I have had to literally lock myself in a room until I could calm myself, sometimes for days. You do not know what I have gone through in my life; do not assume you do. Yet, those extremely hurtful statements to me were celebrated, laughed about, and rubbed in my face as hard as they could be when they were made to me. For you now to cry foul because someone said something much less insulting to you? That's just plain childish.

You have continually insinuated some pretty awful things about others in this thread. If you can't stand the heat, you might want to lay off playing with gasoline and matches.

TheRedneck

a reply to: dawnstar


I also suggest reading this portion of the actual rvw decision.

Again, not briefs or opinions in the case, the actual rvw decision.

With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in the health of the mother, the "compelling" point, in the light of present medical knowledge, is at approximately the end of the first trimester. This is so because of the now-established medical fact, referred to above at 149, that, until the end of the first trimester mortality in abortion may be less than mortality in normal childbirth. It follows that, from and after this point, a State may regulate the abortion procedure to the extent that the regulation reasonably relates to the preservation and protection of maternal health. Examples of permissible state regulation in this area are requirements as to the qualifications of the person who is to perform the abortion; as to the licensure of that person; as to the facility in which the procedure is to be performed, that is, whether it must be a hospital or may be a clinic or some other place of less-than-hospital status; as to the licensing of the facility; and the like.
This means, on the other hand, that, for the period of pregnancy prior to this "compelling" point, the attending physician, in consultation with his patient, is free to determine, without regulation by the State, that, in his medical judgment, the patient's pregnancy should be terminated. If that decision is reached, the judgment may be effectuated by an abortion free of interference by the State.
With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the "compelling" point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion [p164] during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.

a reply to: dawnstar

Well, first of all, thank you for the link. Beatriz' case is obviously a miscarriage of justice. I would never support such a decision. She is simply not medically capable of childbirth.

However, you did, intentionally or not, make it appear that dialysis was a side effect of a pregnancy complication. it wasn't. From your link:

Beatriz has been diagnosed with lupus disease, which has weakened her kidneys. The maternity hospital has warned that the risks of haemorrhaging, kidney failure and maternal death will increase as the pregnancy progresses.

Dialysis was a result of lupus, not of pregnancy. It is true that pregnancy in her situation could worsen her condition, bur her situation is not the result of her pregnancy. Unfortunately, if she is as bad as described, she probably will not have a very long lifespan in any case. That doesn't negate the fact that she should be allowed to abort, though, as her pregnancy will not result in a live birth and could shorten her lifespan and needlessly increase her suffering.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Ghostsdogood

Another link, since I guess the first... this one gives both the opinion of the court and the dissenting opinion...

LINK

They are going through the points made by both parties and discussing them, giving their conclusion about that particular point.
But it is all part of their opinion.. that is what I read.

a reply to: dawnstar

I can't even see my computer screen well enough to read it so I am limited to what I can do.

Just a side note to hopefully address that:

Technology can be a wonderful thing. A lot of my posting is from my laptop, but my eyes now get very tired very quickly and I lose focus. That's why sometimes my responses are so delayed; often I will have written the response, but it tires me to the point I literally have to set the machine aside and take a nap before I can proof the post and hit reply.

That would make some of the work I do nigh impossible. But I found a solution, and perhaps it would hep you as well.

My office computer, where I work, uses a 46" HDTV screen instead of a classic computer monitor. I literally sit something like two feet from it. Everything is HUGE and easy to see. Most computers now use HDMI ports (rectangular like a USB, but a little longer) to output video; it is likely your computer has HDMI output. All new TVs now have HDMI inputs and will function as a computer monitor. They are also cheap... I got mine for under $200, and they are even cheaper now. In contrast, I use a second 19" monitor for video chats and internal monitoring; there is less information so I don't have to tire my eyes out as much with those tasks, and my space is limited. When I had to replace it, it took a few weeks to find one that small, and it cost almost as much as the 46" screen.

You might want to consider asking a friend to help you set up a larger monitor to help your eyes. It helped me, a lot. Even if your computer doesn't have HDMI output now, a very cheap ($20?) video card could fix that as well.

Another suggestion: breaks. Every few minutes I close my eyes and just let them rest for a few minutes. Yeah, I can't post as much as fast as before, but it beats tired, achy eyes.

Just a suggestion. Hope it helps.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Ghostsdogood

Another link, since I guess the first... this one gives both the opinion of the court and the dissenting opinion...

LINK

They are going through the points made by both parties and discussing them, giving their conclusion about that particular point.
But it is all part of their opinion.. that is what I read.

The EXACT same text from your latest link:

(With only insignificant punctuation differences)

With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in the health of the mother, the "compelling" point, in the light of present medical knowledge, is at approximately the end of the first trimester. This is so because of the now-established medical fact, that until the end of the first trimester mortality in abortion may be less than mortality in normal childbirth. It follows that, from and after this point, a State may regulate the abortion procedure to the extent that the regulation reasonably relates to the preservation and protection of maternal health. Examples of permissible state regulation in this area are requirements as to the qualifications of the person who is to perform the abortion; as to the licensure of that person; as to the facility in which the procedure is to be performed, that is, whether it must be a hospital or may be a clinic or some other place of less-than-hospital status; as to the licensing of the facility; and the like.

This means, on the other hand, that, for the period of pregnancy prior to this "compelling" point, the attending physician, in consultation with his patient, is free to determine, without regulation by the State, that, in his medical judgment, the patient's pregnancy should be terminated. If that decision is reached, the judgment may be effectuated by an abortion free of interference by the State.

With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the "compelling" point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.

Measured against these standards, Art. 1196 of the Texas Penal Code, in restricting legal abortions to those "procured or attempted by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother," sweeps too broadly. The statute makes no distinction between abortions performed early in pregnancy and those performed later, and it limits to a single reason, "saving" the mother's life, the legal justification for the procedure. The statute, therefore, cannot survive the constitutional attack made upon it here. . . .

To summarize and to repeat:

1. A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a life-saving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother

Wanna try for a 3rd link?

It isn't going to change what the decision actually says.



ETA: The dissent is not part of the decision, it is the opinion of the losing side. The majority side is the decision itself.

a reply to: TheRedneck
Sepsis is the direct result of letting the miscarriage that cannot be prevented go too long because they are more concerned with the life of a fetus that now has no possibility of living and growing much longer than the welfare of the mother. Pregnancy complications often are related with the mothers pre-existing conditions. It is also worth noting that Beatrice's pregnancy was not viable, so again, they sacrificed the women's liver, or at least shortened the time that she had with one that was functioning, because they valued the life of a fetus that was not gonna live long after born.
I ain't asking for sympathy, I am explaining why my posts doesn't have the same quality as they used to.
Your response should tell you why I don't expect any sympathy from anyone on ATS. They seem to be incapable of it.
It's not worth it to me.
Meaning... I am finishing up my part of the discussion and going on my way...

a reply to: Ghostsdogood

No on most of that nonsense.

Gotta call you out on this one.

Dawnstar asked seven questions of you. On the first one, I tend to agree with you: the Court did recite what the traditional definition of viability was according to some physicians, but they did not say whether or not the Court agreed with this definition. I already addressed that in my reply to dawnstar.

The last question was a dig... not gonna address that one, as it is not worthy of my time.

But the 5 questions in between, my answer would have been yes, perhaps with qualifiers:

• The terms used addressing the saving of the mother's life were stated as being too broad, specifically, although the reasoning given for this was that they did not address when in the pregnancy this was appropriate.
  
  
• The consideration of risks to the mothers health were indeed mentioned, in multiple places. i believe this to be qualified as serious and permanent risks as opposed to minor temporary issues based on previous considerations in the decision, but the short answer is indeed "yes."
  
  
• The decision does indeed refer, on multiple occasions, to the "potential for life." I would say this is legaleeze which chooses to define "life" as "post-birth" (based on earlier examples which stated Constitutional references and religious beliefs of such), but the implication is that the unborn child does, at some point, have the potential to become an obvious citizen, and therefore retains some of the thereby implied right to life while in utero.
  
  
• Roe v Wade certainly does state what a state may not legislate, not what a state must legislate. Anything more would be unconstitutional itself, as no court can remove from a state those rights which are granted by the Constitution. This one is unequivocal.
  
  
• Roe v Wade does indeed mention the welfare of additional post-natal children, and the plight of an unwed mother:

  
  Recently, Parliament enacted a new abortion law. This is the Abortion Act of 1967, 15 & 16 Eliz. 2, c. 87. The Act permits a licensed physician to perform an abortion where two other licensed physicians agree (a)

  that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman, or of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated,

  or (b)

  that there is a substantial risk that, if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as [p138] to be seriously handicapped.

  This is from near the end of section VI(4).
  
  Now, this is not stated as a part of the actual decision, but it is mentioned as a consideration, based on English Parliamentary law.

Bottom line is that a simple "no" answer to those questions (even qualifying the answer as to "most" of them... 2 out of 7 does not qualify as "most") is at best inaccurate.

TheRedneck

a reply to: dawnstar

Sepsis is the direct result of letting the miscarriage that cannot be prevented go too long because they are more concerned with the life of a fetus that now has no possibility of living and growing much longer than the welfare of the mother.

I do not dispute that. Sepsis can also be fatal, which means no reference to "health" would be needed in that case.

Sepsis can also be caused by less-than-sterile conditions, yet several earlier laws that simply required abortions to be performed in accredited hospital or similarly approved environments were shot down because they "denied people the ability to have an abortion." I always considered that as the final proof that the concern of many abortion advocates was not for the welfare of the mother, but to ensure the death of the child.

Can you agree that abortions are a medical procedure which always carry some risk and therefore should be performed in medically-acceptable environments?

Pregnancy complications often are related with the mothers pre-existing conditions.

I do not disagree with that. Again, that falls under risk to the mother.

However, I also believe that if such a pregnancy exists, where known pre-existing complications exist, it should be terminated as soon as medically practical, not put on hold until the child is further developed with more neural activity. Can you agree with that?

It is also worth noting that Beatrice's pregnancy was not viable, so again, they sacrificed the women's liver, or at least shortened the time that she had with one that was functioning, because they valued the life of a fetus that was not gonna live long after born.

Completely agreed in Beatrize's case.

I'm not sure if your are driving toward a point, or just clarifying here. I see no disagreement on this case.

And I posted a reply to your predicament above.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: puzzled2

The exception does not invalidate the rule.

Also, there has never been a man capable of lactating enough to feed a baby, just squeeze out a little that probably is far from the same nutritional profile of a womans mothers milk.

a reply to: TheRedneck


I agree with much of what you just said.

I ignored her questions completely and went straight to the opinion text.

I should have answered them directly.


The text you quoted is not a part of the rvw decision, it is part of the arguments from one side of the case.

Here is the actual portion of the actual rvw decision that covers much of what you just discussed.

With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the "compelling" point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion [p164] during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.

Same text I've posted a few times already.

12.10.2021

In Texas, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled a little person cannot be murdered, just as Texans want.

www.cnbc.com...


In California, Governor Newsom declares his state to be a "sanctuary" for anyone who wants an abortion, even if that form of murder is made illegal (not legal) nationwide.

apnews.com...

originally posted by: carewemust
12.10.2021

In Texas, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled a little person cannot be murdered, just as Texans want.

www.cnbc.com...


In California, Governor Newsom declares his state to be a "sanctuary" for anyone who wants an abortion, even if that form of murder is made illegal (not legal) nationwide.

apnews.com...

Wowser!

I NEVER expected scotus to even consider the tx case.

They not only agreed to allow the case to continue (slamming the door on joe's separate suit), scotus voted 8-1 to allow the tx law to go into effect until their final decision next year.

8-1 on ANYTHING these days is damn near unheard of, for allowing the extremely restrictive tx law to go into effect is way, way beyond shocking.

Soto is the ONLY supreme that voted to prevent the tx law from going into effect, and we already knew she would as a result of her shameful behavior from the bench.

This looks like an absolute catastrophe for democrats.

I never expected anything like that on the tx case, and said so here.

And 100% guarantee that even the republican lawyers didn't expect this kind of ruling today.

Thank you for bringing us the news!

a reply to: Ghostsdogood

The text you quoted is not a part of the rvw decision, it is part of the arguments from one side of the case.

It may not be part of the determination, but it is a part of the opinion. As such, it would be negligent to not acknowledge that fact at least.



Re: Texas law S.B.8:

I'm shocked as well. I just read the text of S.B.8, and it is clearly unconstitutional on several counts.

As I understand it (and please correct me if I am wrong; I am still reading), the challenge to S.B.8 is in the Texas District Court at this time. The Supreme Court seems to have refused to intervene at this time. I would guess that is because it appears the Texas courts will rule the law unconstitutional and save the Supreme Court the trouble.

I think they dismissed Biden's lawsuit as well for essentially the same reason.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck


That would be like saying jussie's testimony was a part of the verdict.

The portion you quoted is part of the argument presented by one side in the case.


NOT a part of the scotus ruling.


But I have no problem with including it in this discussion, as long as it is accurately described as an argument from one of the attorneys, and not a part of the rvw ruling.

a reply to: Ghostsdogood

That would be like saying jussie's testimony was a part of the verdict.

Not exactly. The reference was part of the decision process of the Justices, not direct testimony. All opinions present the facts of the case, as well as the opinion of the majority opinion Justices as to why they are or are not applicable. That may not be a part of the actual ruling, but it is a part of the record and such references can, have, and are considered when the case is referenced in subsequent cases. It is precedent in that sense.

If we were talking direct testimony, your simile would be appropriate.

TheRedneck