Abortion-Keep Legal, Yes or No?

Spiritual_Chaos

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Kat said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Wouldn't everyone prefer that no one gets an abortion?

I don't think anyone thinks like this literally:

(gif removed because it's dumb)

I'd vote for that being the dumbest movie line ever. :::shaking head at the stupidity:::

You like the one in the script/book more that they had to replace?

You read the script to Fight Club?  

I don't remember if I have...

But I am well versed in the films of David Fincher. Like anyone with some self respect.

Great point.  You have no self respect if you don't read screen plays by David Fincher.  Let me introduce you to a new word so you can misuse it.. non-sequitur.  

When has David Fincher ever written a screenplay?

I give about 1% of shits compared to you on American cinema culture. Your conclusion still did not follow.  

Well then, why even start a discussion? "Screenwriter David Fincher"...

I'm pretty sure I didn't.  I simply asked if you read the script.  That led to your profound declaration about self respect.  

You met me at a very strange time in my life.


*The Pixies Where Is My Mind plays*

Halifax2TheMax

Some very valid points and out right shudders. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/31/opinion/sunday/world-leaders-penises.html

Bentleyspop

Wrong wrong wrong....

https://twitter.com/BuzzFeedNews/status/1170019231515258880?s=19

HughFreakingDillon

Bentleyspop said:

Wrong wrong wrong....

https://twitter.com/BuzzFeedNews/status/1170019231515258880?s=19

digusting

catefrances

benjs said:

catefrances said:

there are only a few trigger issues with me.. abortion is one of them.  i acknowledge that i havent read any of the posts since ilast posted. i also acknowledge that this is because i cant really have a discussion about it because i simply cannot see the con side of pro choice. nor as a woman can i accept it. sure go ahead and tell me why you dont support  pro choice and the autonomy of women's bodies, however i will tune out because  in my mind you will always be wrong because unless its your body you dont have a say imo.  am i being close minded? i dont think so cause what it comes down to it, for me  a woman's body is nobody's body but hers... and i can not support the involuntary incubation that some people feel woman should go through simply because they had sex and that sex resulted in a pregnancy.  woman are not gestational slaves. we can not force a woman through legislative control to carry a pregnancy to term just as we can not impose upon any other human  an action that impinges upon the autonomy of their own body. and that is my final word on the subject.  

I can understand and appreciate your position, but I don't agree with it. 

A human life has constitutional rights. If a human life is living within another human life, both of those lives have constitutional rights, so fundamentally, there's ambiguity in the constitution that carries risk of neglectful treatment, and we a society should cast a legal decision should be made on whether 'do no harm' principles can be waived for a human life living within another human life (just as we pursue removing ambiguities in constitutional law on a regular basis). Since something of this nature is likely to be stuck in courts or the hands of politicians for a long time, the best way I can think of to advocate for women's rights to abortion in the meantime, is to legally define the start of a human life in terms of weeks of pregnancy, and to follow in Illinois' footsteps, and state that a fetus, embryo, or unfertilized egg should have no rights, hard stop. As for the portion of an abortion where there is a legally-defined human within a woman's body, this can still be legislated in a way that states that abortion is a human right and supersedes the constitutional rights of a child.

which part dont you agree with? is it the part where women have autonomy over their own bodies just as men do?  

catefrances

Bentleyspop

   

https://twitter.com/PearlJam/status/1179426626238631938?s=19

Ledbetterman10

Bentleyspop said:

Wrong wrong wrong....

https://twitter.com/BuzzFeedNews/status/1170019231515258880?s=19

This might be one of the craziest articles I've ever read. So this girl was raped, didn't know she was impregnated by the rapist, gave birth to a still-born baby, and was sent to jail for it? And the rapist was never prosecuted yet the DA wants to appeal HER acquittal? I've never read anything like this. Unbelievable. 

Bentleyspop

Good..

Federal judge blocks Alabama's near-total abortion ban https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/29/politics/alabama-abortion-ban-blocked/index.html

Kat

https://twitter.com/ACLU/status/1189196539132076038

HughFreakingDillon

love the ACLU

PJ_Soul

Kat said:

https://twitter.com/ACLU/status/1189196539132076038

That's exactly what the Republican politicians want though. Things are going exactly to plan for them. They think that this all going to court will culminated in a right-loaded SCOTUS reversing Roe vs Wade. They have been waiting for this exact opportunity for decades .... And they could be right. They could also be wrong, but I certainly wouldn't count on it.

HughFreakingDillon

SCOTUS has a mandate to not overturn previous decisions. it's extremely rare, from what I've read. 

mrussel1

PJ_Soul said:

Kat said:

https://twitter.com/ACLU/status/1189196539132076038

That's exactly what the Republican politicians want though. Things are going exactly to plan for them. They think that this all going to court will culminated in a right-loaded SCOTUS reversing Roe vs Wade. They have been waiting for this exact opportunity for decades .... And they could be right. They could also be wrong, but I certainly wouldn't count on it.

You're right.  They made the decision years ago to play the long game, focused on incremental win, changes in court, etc.  It's all leading up to one or more of these cases ending up in their lap.  I have no idea how it will play out.  They should honor precedent, generally speaking.  But the Dred Scott decision along with Plessy v Ferguson, are examples of unjust precedents being overturned.  The right wing absolutely sees Roe v Wade as the same type of decision ripe for overturning.  

OnWis97

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Kat said:

https://twitter.com/ACLU/status/1189196539132076038

That's exactly what the Republican politicians want though. Things are going exactly to plan for them. They think that this all going to court will culminated in a right-loaded SCOTUS reversing Roe vs Wade. They have been waiting for this exact opportunity for decades .... And they could be right. They could also be wrong, but I certainly wouldn't count on it.

You're right.  They made the decision years ago to play the long game, focused on incremental win, changes in court, etc.  It's all leading up to one or more of these cases ending up in their lap.  I have no idea how it will play out.  They should honor precedent, generally speaking.  But the Dred Scott decision along with Plessy v Ferguson, are examples of unjust precedents being overturned.  The right wing absolutely sees Roe v Wade as the same type of decision ripe for overturning.  

If they read this, they'll misread they highlighted as "president."

PJ_Soul

HughFreakingDillon said:

SCOTUS has a mandate to not overturn previous decisions. it's extremely rare, from what I've read. 

Yes, but that is still the pro-lifers' plan, since there is literally nothing else they can try. And if the totally broken SCOTUS is stacked enough, it very well could work. Another reason that SCOTUS judge selection process needs to be changed ASAP.

HughFreakingDillon

I don't know. even the conservative judges appointed so far, as scummy as they might seem personally/philosophically, they seem to honour the law and precedent first and foremost. 

PJ_Soul

HughFreakingDillon said:

I don't know. even the conservative judges appointed so far, as scummy as they might seem personally/philosophically, they seem to honour the law and precedent first and foremost. 

We shall see! I'm not feeling as confident as you are about this. My trust in the SCOTUS is completely erroded because of how insanely partisan the selection process is, and because of how split the SCOTUS judges are on a regular basis. IMO, when they are split as often as they are, it is an indication that at least some of them really are not doing their jobs properly, as impartial judges who are interpreting the Constitution in a non-partisan manner. I don't expect them to agree all the times of course, but how much their decisions are split is just scary, since they are all consulting the same Constitution and aren't supposed to be applying their personal political and religious beliefs to it. At least that how I've always understood their responsibility.

HughFreakingDillon

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

I don't know. even the conservative judges appointed so far, as scummy as they might seem personally/philosophically, they seem to honour the law and precedent first and foremost. 

We shall see! I'm not feeling as confident as you are about this. My trust in the SCOTUS is completely erroded because of how insanely partisan the selection process is, and because of how split the SCOTUS judges are on a regular basis. IMO, when they are split as often as they are, it is an indication that at least some of them really are not doing their jobs properly, as impartial judges who are interpreting the Constitution in a non-partisan manner. I don't expect them to agree all the times of course, but how much their decisions are split is just scary, since they are all consulting the same Constitution and aren't supposed to be applying their personal political and religious beliefs to it. At least that how I've always understood their responsibility.

it will always be flawed when it's administered by humans. get a bunch of vulcans on SCOTUS, and we wouldn't have these problems. 

PJ_Soul

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

I don't know. even the conservative judges appointed so far, as scummy as they might seem personally/philosophically, they seem to honour the law and precedent first and foremost. 

We shall see! I'm not feeling as confident as you are about this. My trust in the SCOTUS is completely erroded because of how insanely partisan the selection process is, and because of how split the SCOTUS judges are on a regular basis. IMO, when they are split as often as they are, it is an indication that at least some of them really are not doing their jobs properly, as impartial judges who are interpreting the Constitution in a non-partisan manner. I don't expect them to agree all the times of course, but how much their decisions are split is just scary, since they are all consulting the same Constitution and aren't supposed to be applying their personal political and religious beliefs to it. At least that how I've always understood their responsibility.

it will always be flawed when it's administered by humans. get a bunch of vulcans on SCOTUS, and we wouldn't have these problems. 

Sure, the system will never be infallible, but what's going on now is way beyond an acceptable level of flawed, and that is because the selection for SCOTUS judges is an insane, partisan, and most recently pretty much corrupt process. American can do a hell of  lot better than it's doing - right now, SCOTUS is broken IMHO, and until they fix that selection process, it's only going to get worse. There is very big gap between what's going on now and loading the SCOTUS with Vulcans, lol. Humans are in fact capable of being impartial judges, and the expectations for SCOTUS judges should be a lot higher than they appear to be now.