Jump to content
Head Coach Openings 2024 ×
  • Current Donation Goals

    • Raised $2,716 of $3,600 target

Abortion Ban in Alabama Designed 'To Directly Challenge Roe v. Wade'


Muda69

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, 77Jimmie said:

How the heck do you get that?   I specifically state "yes."   Are you just reading what you want?

 

No, you appear to be reading what you want.

My question was, and I quote:

Quote

So should human eggs and human sperm also be defined as "life"?

 I did not ask "So should human eggs and human sperm also be defined as "life" when they create a heartbeat?   You added that Jimmie, not I.

So I will restate the question:

Should a standalone human egg or a standalone human sperm also be defined as "life"?   

Just now, TrojanDad said:

the emotion is there because they so many feel now there is life inside them.  Life.  Again, I haven't experienced expectant mothers coming home and saying "brain looks developed....its a milestone day!"  They know when there is a heartbeat, there is life inside them.

Stopping a heartbeat of a human, even in early development, isn't a callous proposition for me.  I respect that others may see it differently.  Last time I checked, a human is not a mosquito

Key word:  "feel".

But again, at 5-6 weeks it is not a true heartbeat.  Did you read the article I previously posted?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

No, you appear to be reading what you want.

My question was, and I quote:

 I did not ask "So should human eggs and human sperm also be defined as "life" when they create a heartbeat?   You added that Jimmie, not I.

So I will restate the question:

Should a standalone human egg or a standalone human sperm also be defined as "life"?   

Key word:  "feel".

But again, at 5-6 weeks it is not a true heartbeat.  Did you read the article I previously posted?

 

To answer your question:  "No."  A standalone human egg, and a standalone human sperm should not be defined as human life.  (Even though the sperm moves at a more intellectual pattern than a microbe or an amoeba, which IS considered life.  Finding a microbe on Mars would have the scientific community singing from the rafters that life had been found on another planet.)

But that is really not the question we were discussing.  You stated that a mosquito is life because is has a heartbeat.   And I stated that a mosquito was not created from a human egg and a human sperm.  Thus my answer that a human egg and a human sperm create a human.    I guess I should have explained it better because you are not obviously getting it.

The lump of cells in a woman's uterus was created by the combination of a human egg and a human sperm.  It is not, nor will ever be a mosquito.  Thus, if a lump of cells were found on Mars, NASA, and about every other scientist on the planet, would say there is life on Mars. Even taking into account your 5-6 week not true heartbeat statement.  You can't have it both ways.   It's either life, or it's not.   If it's life on another planet, it's life in a woman's uterus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TrojanDad said:

Then why do the vast majority people get excited when they hear the heartbeat for the first time?

I have not hear too many expectant parents come back from the doc, tell people they heard their baby's heartbeat for the first time....then state it was just purely a stage of development.  Perhaps your experiences are different than mine.

To people I know, hearing that heartbeat for the first time "made it real".......

 

Wait... I thought we were talking science, not sentiment.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, 77Jimmie said:

The lump of cells in a woman's uterus was created by the combination of a human egg and a human sperm.  It is not, nor will ever be a mosquito.  

The lump of cells in a woman's uterus also may or may not become a human being.  My spouse and I know from experience.

 

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/courts/clarence-thomas-abortion-has-potential-to-become-a-tool-of-eugenic-manipulation?fbclid=IwAR2sU-GQaLHHTYSbfPYvniHYNi2pp5OyP-exMLcNN6w_fvYkBjAce30MkUM

Justice Clarence Thomas said Tuesday the Supreme Court will not be able to duck the issue of abortion forever and raised concerns about the potential for abortion to “become a tool of eugenic manipulation.”

Thomas’ warning came in a concurring opinion in which he agreed with a decision by the Supreme Court not to review a provision of an Indiana law that bans abortion on the basis of race, sex, or disability. In an unsigned opinion, the high court upheld another provision of the law that mandates the burial or cremation of fetal remains after an abortion.

The measures at the center of the dispute were signed in 2016 by then-Gov. Mike Pence.

Thomas wrote that “further percolation may assist” the court’s review of the abortion restrictions but argued the Indiana law and others like it “promote a state’s compelling interest in preventing abortion from becoming a tool of modern-day eugenics.”

“Although the court declines to wade into these issues today, we cannot avoid them forever,” Thomas wrote in his 20-page concurring opinion. “Having created the constitutional right to an abortion, this court is dutybound to address its scope.”

The conservative justice focused specifically on Indiana’s prohibition of abortion based on sex, race, or disability and charted the history of the eugenics movement in the United States.

The dispute before the court, he warned, “highlights the fact that abortion is an act rife with the potential for eugenic manipulation.”

“Enshrining a constitutional right to an abortion based solely on the race, sex, or disability of an unborn child, as Planned Parenthood advocates, would constitutionalize the views of the 20th-century eugenics movement,” Thomas wrote.

Thomas highlighted comments from Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger and its former President Alan Guttmacher and cited a “growing body of evidence” that suggests “eugenic goals are already being realized through abortion.”

In Iceland, for example, Thomas wrote the abortion rate for children diagnosed with Down syndrome in utero is nearing 100%. He also noted that the nationwide abortion rate among black women in the U.S. is roughly 3.5 times that for white women.

“Some believe that the United States is already experiencing the eugenic effects of abortion,” Thomas said.

The Indiana case, which was discussed by the justices at more than a dozen of their private conferences, has been closely watched, as it could have provided an early test of abortion rights before the court’s new 5-4 conservative majority.

Several states have passed laws barring abortion after a fetal heartbeat is detected, while others have enacted measures designed to restrict the procedure. Such laws are designed to challenge Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that established a woman’s right to an abortion.

But Thomas warned the court’s past cases reaffirming the right to an abortion, namely the 1992 decision Planned Parenthood v. Casey, “did not decide whether the Constitution requires states to allow eugenic abortions.”

While the court’s opinion in the Indiana case was unsigned, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor said they would have denied review of both provisions of the law at issue.

Thomas and Ginsburg sparred in the footnotes of their respective opinions. Ginsburg’s dissent, Thomas said, “makes little sense,” while Thomas’ criticism “displays more heat than light,” Ginsburg wrote.

Eugenic Manipulation.......He's Right.......

 

Edited by swordfish
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, swordfish said:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/courts/clarence-thomas-abortion-has-potential-to-become-a-tool-of-eugenic-manipulation?fbclid=IwAR2sU-GQaLHHTYSbfPYvniHYNi2pp5OyP-exMLcNN6w_fvYkBjAce30MkUM

Justice Clarence Thomas said Tuesday the Supreme Court will not be able to duck the issue of abortion forever and raised concerns about the potential for abortion to “become a tool of eugenic manipulation.”

Thomas’ warning came in a concurring opinion in which he agreed with a decision by the Supreme Court not to review a provision of an Indiana law that bans abortion on the basis of race, sex, or disability. In an unsigned opinion, the high court upheld another provision of the law that mandates the burial or cremation of fetal remains after an abortion.

The measures at the center of the dispute were signed in 2016 by then-Gov. Mike Pence.

Thomas wrote that “further percolation may assist” the court’s review of the abortion restrictions but argued the Indiana law and others like it “promote a state’s compelling interest in preventing abortion from becoming a tool of modern-day eugenics.”

“Although the court declines to wade into these issues today, we cannot avoid them forever,” Thomas wrote in his 20-page concurring opinion. “Having created the constitutional right to an abortion, this court is dutybound to address its scope.”

The conservative justice focused specifically on Indiana’s prohibition of abortion based on sex, race, or disability and charted the history of the eugenics movement in the United States.

The dispute before the court, he warned, “highlights the fact that abortion is an act rife with the potential for eugenic manipulation.”

“Enshrining a constitutional right to an abortion based solely on the race, sex, or disability of an unborn child, as Planned Parenthood advocates, would constitutionalize the views of the 20th-century eugenics movement,” Thomas wrote.

Thomas highlighted comments from Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger and its former President Alan Guttmacher and cited a “growing body of evidence” that suggests “eugenic goals are already being realized through abortion.”

In Iceland, for example, Thomas wrote the abortion rate for children diagnosed with Down syndrome in utero is nearing 100%. He also noted that the nationwide abortion rate among black women in the U.S. is roughly 3.5 times that for white women.

“Some believe that the United States is already experiencing the eugenic effects of abortion,” Thomas said.

The Indiana case, which was discussed by the justices at more than a dozen of their private conferences, has been closely watched, as it could have provided an early test of abortion rights before the court’s new 5-4 conservative majority.

Several states have passed laws barring abortion after a fetal heartbeat is detected, while others have enacted measures designed to restrict the procedure. Such laws are designed to challenge Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that established a woman’s right to an abortion.

But Thomas warned the court’s past cases reaffirming the right to an abortion, namely the 1992 decision Planned Parenthood v. Casey, “did not decide whether the Constitution requires states to allow eugenic abortions.”

While the court’s opinion in the Indiana case was unsigned, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor said they would have denied review of both provisions of the law at issue.

Thomas and Ginsburg sparred in the footnotes of their respective opinions. Ginsburg’s dissent, Thomas said, “makes little sense,” while Thomas’ criticism “displays more heat than light,” Ginsburg wrote.

Eugenic Manipulation.......He's Right.......

 

And fear mongering by Mr. Thomas when he uses the words "eugenic manipulation".   Abortion rates in the U.S. have been dropping for decades: http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-unitedstates.html

If Mr. Thomas is concerned about eugenics he should focus on the use of tools like CRISPR to gene-edit human embryos, that is where the future lies:  https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/02/01/689623550/new-u-s-experiments-aim-to-create-gene-edited-human-embryos

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

And fear mongering by Mr. Thomas when he uses the words "eugenic manipulation".   Abortion rates in the U.S. have been dropping for decades: http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-unitedstates.html  OK - Good......

If Mr. Thomas is concerned about eugenics he should focus on the use of tools like CRISPR to gene-edit human embryos, that is where the future lies:  https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/02/01/689623550/new-u-s-experiments-aim-to-create-gene-edited-human-embryos  1)  This has NOTHING to do with abortion.  2) Has there been a case before SCOTUS regarding this?

 

Notes in Red.....

The comments of Justice Thomas I don't think are "fear-mongering" but simply addressing a topic that he thinks will eventually become the elephant in the room.  Eugenic Manipulation based solely on sex, race or disability..... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, swordfish said:

Notes in Red.....

The comments of Justice Thomas I don't think are "fear-mongering" but simply addressing a topic that he thinks will eventually become the elephant in the room.  Eugenic Manipulation based solely on sex, race or disability..... 

Is that what abortion is currently being used for today in the U.S., where as I stated previously abortion rates have been dropping for decades?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TrojanDad said:

Bob...that one made me chuckle a little.  Given our chosen occupations, I wasn't expecting your comment.

Again Bob, perhaps our experiences have been different.  With all 3 of our children, I remember hearing their heart beats for the first time, pretty early in my spouse's pregnancies.  I don't remember the doctors (both male and female) ever saying "are you excited to hear the heartbeat of your clump of cells?".  They always referred to the life inside my wife as a baby.  Most docs are pretty decent at science as well.

My responses were again to a meme that made it a women's health issue.  From what I've read, mathematically, women's health issues are very low as a reason why an abortion is performed.  Let me know if you read something differently.

At the same time, do we not almost all grieve and clutch at the dead bodies of relatives, lingering at the grave sites, etc., when if one truly believes in the idea of the afterlife and the eternity of the soul, there is an odd adherence to the empty husk as there is no soul there.  We are emotional beings that, even in the adherent faith that we may have, we do things completely contrary to that faith while claiming to fully believe.  The fact that a doctor calls it a baby, may be as much bedside manner or not rocking the boat or conventional conversation as the funeral director referring to the corpse as "your loved one" when that loved one isn't actually there.

Image result for don't stand by my grave and weep 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Muda69 said:

Is that what abortion is currently being used for today in the U.S., where as I stated previously abortion rates have been dropping for decades?

 

You may see Justice Thomas' comments as fear mongering, SF doesn't.  Agree to disagree.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TrojanDad said:

Your assumption about bedside manner is not correct.  We got to know the physicians quite well.  One we still have a strong relationship.  We know where they stand on this issue.  

Science and faith doesn't always have to be mutually exclusive.

Not sure where you got this idea from in my post.  As for the physicians, you know where YOUR physicians stand on the issue. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, swordfish said:

Notes in Red.....

The comments of Justice Thomas I don't think are "fear-mongering" but simply addressing a topic that he thinks will eventually become the elephant in the room.  Eugenic Manipulation based solely on sex, race or disability..... 

I think most people would consider "eugenics" to refer to government-compelled application of genetic "purity" theories, such as the forced sterilization of people deemed by the State to be "mentally defective." Characterizing an individual person's choice not to give birth to a child with certain genetic characteristics as "eugenics" seems very odd: would Justice Thomas consider a black woman's choice to have her tubes tied so she won't produce any "racially undesireable" black children to be eugenics?

His linkage of abortion rates among black women to the specter of eugenics is weird not just because it implies black women are aborting their babies specifically because the babies are black (and not for all the other reasons listed in the stats previously furnished by TD, such as their financial situation), but also because black Americans still have a higher fertility rate than white Americans. So is the apparent choice of white people in America to have fewer white babies evidence of eugenics?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/23/2019 at 2:47 PM, Bobref said:

I wonder how many people weighing in on this subject have ever read - much less understood - the Court’s opinion in Roe v. Wade. Here’s what the Court said, in a nutshell:

Previous cases have established the existence of a constitutional right of privacy, and the Court ruled that allowing a woman to control her own body,  including the decision whether or not to terminate a pregnancy, falls within this right of privacy. Therefore, until the point where the fetus could not survive outside the womb, i.e., “viability,” the mother’s right of privacy trumps any other decision. However, once viability is established, the state’s interest in safeguarding the well-being of its citizens, including its unborn citizens, starts to become more important, and more restrictions on the mother’s decision-making process are justified.

 

I don’t expect the Court to overturn Roe v. Wade. In fact, I look for them to reaffirm the basic principle. But as always, the devil will be in the details. Technological advances since Roe have pushed the threshold of “viability” back. I expect this conservative court to give states a little more leeway in determining when the state’s interest trumps the mother’s. But that’s all.

So given Roe is a "privacy" issue. We have seen states run in opposite directions on this issue. Do you see a legal issue with states determining an age of viability for the unborn and limiting abortions after that age? As I see it, shouldn't states be free to make their own laws, so long as they do not contradict federal law?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Impartial_Observer said:

So given Roe is a "privacy" issue. We have seen states run in opposite directions on this issue. Do you see a legal issue with states determining an age of viability for the unborn and limiting abortions after that age? As I see it, shouldn't states be free to make their own laws, so long as they do not contradict federal law?

The problem with that reasoning is that the 14th Amendment has “incorporated” certain of the rights contained in the Bill of Rights - the first 10 amendments - into the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. So, a state law that restricts abortion to the extent it violates the 9th Amendment’s guaranty of privacy would also violate the 14th Amendment’s due process clause, which applies to the states.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Impartial_Observer said:

So given Roe is a "privacy" issue. We have seen states run in opposite directions on this issue. Do you see a legal issue with states determining an age of viability for the unborn and limiting abortions after that age? As I see it, shouldn't states be free to make their own laws, so long as they do not contradict federal law?

 

12 minutes ago, Bobref said:

The problem with that reasoning is that the 14th Amendment has “incorporated” certain of the rights contained in the Bill of Rights - the first 10 amendments - into the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. So, a state law that restricts abortion to the extent it violates the 9th Amendment’s guaranty of privacy would also violate the 14th Amendment’s due process clause, which applies to the states.

We’re going to see a lot of this sort of litigation as states pass their versions of “heartbeat” laws. The problem with those laws is that, at bottom, “viability” is not a legal concept. It’s a scientific concept that can’t simply be changed by legislative fiat. If the Alabama legislature passed a law that said “henceforth, for all purposes within the state of Alabama, 2+2=5, would that make it so? Courts recognize this, even if windbag populist politicians pandering to their perceived constituency don’t. Or won’t.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As Missouri's Last Abortion Provider Nears Closing, Neighboring Clinics Prepare: https://www.npr.org/2019/05/31/728566814/as-missouris-last-clinic-nears-deadline-neighboring-abortion-providers-prepare

Quote

With hours to go before the expiration of a state license that allows a Planned Parenthood health center in Missouri to perform abortions, clinics in neighboring states say they're preparing for an influx of additional patients.

"No one one knows what's gonna happen in the next day or two, but we have to be ready for this clinic to be closed, and for patients to have nowhere else to go," said Dr. Erin King, who runs a health center in Illinois across the river from the Planned Parenthood clinic in St. Louis.

King said her facility, the Hope Clinic for Women in Granite City, Ill., has been hiring additional doctors and medical support staff for more than a year in preparation for the possibility that abortion could be restricted in Missouri. Illinois is one of several states considering legislation to expand abortion rights as states including Missouri work in the opposite direction, passing laws banning the procedure in the early stages of pregnancy.

Missouri Gov. Mike Parson last week signed a lawcriminalizing most abortions after eight weeks. That law has yet to take effect, but the dispute between Planned Parenthood and the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services over regulatory enforcement is threatening to shut down abortion services at Missouri's last remaining clinic.

Parson said this week that Missouri health regulators have safety concerns about the clinic. Planned Parenthood officials say they've done all they can to comply, and accuse the state of arbitrarily enforcing regulations for political reasons. The two sides have been unable to reach an agreement, and Planned Parenthood has filed a lawsuit asking for a restraining order to prevent the center from being forced to stop offering the procedure.

Providers like King in neighboring states say they're watching the situation and expecting to take additional patients from Missouri.

....

The free market in action.

 

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Muda69 said:

As Missouri's Last Abortion Provider Nears Closing, Neighboring Clinics Prepare: https://www.npr.org/2019/05/31/728566814/as-missouris-last-clinic-nears-deadline-neighboring-abortion-providers-prepare

The free market in action.

 

How is it the free market if it depends on Government regualation to obtain new business?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, gonzoron said:

How is it the free market if it depends on Government regualation to obtain new business?

 Because there is not existing draconian government abortion regulation in a neighboring state like Illinois, so those women planning on having an abortion still have a choice.

 

 

  • Disdain 1
  • Kill me now 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

 Because there is not existing draconian government abortion regulation in a neighboring state like Illinois, so those women planning on having an abortion still have a choice.

 

 

Wouldn't they similarly have even more choices if Missouri's government wasn't intervening ... in those other states as well as in Missouri?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

 Because there is not existing draconian government abortion regulation in a neighboring state like Illinois, so those women planning on having an abortion still have a choice.

 

 

It's still the same amount of business, just being reassigned from one state to another. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...