Anyone listening to SCOTUS oral arguments this morning....
- Thread starter Jimmy McGill
- Start date
Do you agree with me that life for the lower class will, on average, be worse from the Roe fallout?
With no other changes. Yes I agree. At least among those who have unplanned children.
But again my calculation is that while improving the lives of the lower class is a worthwhile goal, killing people is not an acceptable solution to the problem.
I mean we could improve the lives half of the lower class by killing the other half of them. But that's not a solution it's a human rights abuse.
The solution to the problem is for our political leaders to step up, increase taxes and provide at least the lower class with universal health care, free or reduced price higher education or vocational training, free or reduced price child care, financially and legally encourage marriage and financially and legally discourage divorce except when absolutely necessary to protect the safety of a person.
I know a couple who have twins. She went in for an unrelieved backache. Came home the same week with two new kids.
Roe isn't going anywhere. And your sky is falling mentality is getting old.
They can always provide free birth control to prevent the necessity of abortions, can’t they?
The people that hate abortion have a huge issue with that as well.
There will be no changes, Hoosier. You are a smart man. You know this will be the case.
This ruling will only drag the poor class under. Suicide rates, incarceration rates, murder rates, drug usage rates, poverty rates will all climb from here on out. Unemployment will go up, malnourishment among children will rise, less access to healthcare will take place, and educational opportunities will diminish.
I just don't see the cause for celebration.
Presumably abortive birth control pills will also be outlawed.
How is this even possible? Didn't the baby move inside of them? Do these women normally go 9 months without a cycle? Never once questioned the weight gain or changes in their bodies?
On his side slightly on this. Do you really think that the R's would provide cost free contraceptives.
Even if we just limit it to adults. Do you think the R's would vote for cost free contraceptives for adults?
Because my experience with the R's is that they wouldn't even put in this ounce of prevention. Some of the extremely conservative religious people would find that upsetting and I know the people who are mad when a dime of their tax money goes to helping someone who doesn't have 1% of what they have will be pissed.
So when does life start? Are you prepared to deal with the monumental and seismic shifts in our society if it is decided that life begins at conception?
It's rare for a woman to go that long without knowing she's pregnant. But some women have periods through their pregnancies, experience few side effects, and gain very little weight.
I mean all the stars have to align right and align in a person who generally can't put 2 and 2 together on the symptoms they do have. But it happens.
So would you grant all the rights of a living person to a five week old embryo?
Nope. They won’t do that, either. Been tried many places...and taken to court. Pro-lifers seem to oppose the act of sex even more than abortion. Anyone and I mean anyone, who honestly believes “abstinence” is the solution to unwanted pregnancy is a fool. I remember what is was like to be a 18 year old with a raging hard-on with a girl with no clothes on....there was no room for abstinence!
I think the law should reflect life beginning at the same point it ends. Brain function. When you have a flicker of brain function it begins. It ends when a person is either brain dead or their body is no longer in a condition to support the continued life of that brain.
Interesting Constitutional issue. I would would suspect that any law that restricts the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction to non-Constitutional issues (i.e., federal tax or maritime cases) would be overturned with a citation to Marbury v. Madison. But then the Supreme Court has no power of enforcement.
6 weeks. But yes for the most part.
I mean it is a little different in that the child can be both innocent and be causing the death of the mother in rare cases.
But I generally would go for don't take a life unless to protect life.
People need to shut up about this. First it won’t cost anything approaching that. Second my taxes could double and I’d save money if healthcare was provided by the government. The fact of the matter is there is really no way healthcare could cost more than it already does.
Why are you hedging your bet? If your basis for overturning Roe is a religious one, life begins at conception and anything that aborts that life should be outlawed.
Doesn't help me sleep at night either way. Just basing it off the evidence I've seen.
No one else was so concerned that I said SCOTUS vs. Roe.
I've never said my basis for overturning Roe is a religious one. My basis for overturning Roe is a conviction to the logic that life should be understood to have started by the same logic we understand life to have ended.
My faith tells me conception. Science tells me 6 weeks gestation.
Tax law.
Citizenship.
Age for the purposes of voting
Birth control
Theres a hundred laws that would be fundamentally shaken
How do you prove brain death in a fetus? Does the father get to sue for a mother to risk her life carrying a non-viable baby to term on the off chance there may be some level of brain activity?
Yet they exert incredible control over the will of the conservative party today.
Do those arguing for the right of this court overturning roe admit the right of the next court to overturn this decision?
Not really. . . birth can still be used for all of those things on the simple basis that it's a quality external marker that all can see.
We can record when most births happen. . . very few births happen with no witnesses other than the mother and the father.
Conception only has the mother and father to witness it and even they wont' know exactly when it occurred in the body and if they are having sex often enough they would not know when the intercourse that led to conception occurred and brain function beginning likely has no witnesses as to when this occurs. Birth is something that can be seen by everyone to establish things like age and citizenship.
I guess everyone else is more accepting of your mistakes.
I do find it interesting that you feel the need to label me as somehow deficient because of it...
Birth control has been available in this country for what...70-80 years? Vending machines in a men's room?
Abstinence forever, but completely unrealistic.
So you’re saying you didn’t do any sort of attempt at birth control? Not even “pull out and pray”??
Note: FTR, we were ALL 18 once. 😉
Medical science can tell if an unborn infant is alive or dead. They can detect the brain waves. . . they can detect the heartbeat. It's not like these things are an uncertainty to a properly trained doctor with the right equipment.
It's just as easy or a doctor to tell that as it is to tell death in a born person.
They could, but they won’t. Zero push by conservatives on this. Heck, you still see a disturbing number push for abstinence as the only contraceptive.
And conservatives continually push to defund this as well.
I question how legally, in all other ways, an individual’s rights begin at birth, but not for abortions, would stand up.
The answer to that is no, of course not. I'm waiting for someone to use the Texas abortion law to hunt down women who accidently drink alcohol during the early stages of her pregnancy looking for lawsuit money. Imagine Jenny at the work party tying one on and then she starts to show a pregnancy five months later. When you work backward and do the math someone will realize she was pregnant while drinking. Time to charge mother with child endangerment. Don't forget to sue her bar tender as a private citizen of Texas for her attempt to abort her child.
Similar threads
