Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Muda69

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

Recommended Posts

19 hours ago, Bobref said:

It’s just as arbitrary as any other stage of fetal development, IMO.

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".......

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
52 minutes ago, 77Jimmie said:

Muda.   If NASA would find something with that same old lump of cells on Mars, would they consider that there is life on Mars?

Life, probably.  But not human life, which is what we are discussing.  After all a mosquito has a beating heart.....................

 

41 minutes ago, TrojanDad said:

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

Human emotion.  Not knowledge or logic.  So should our system of laws be based on human emotion?

 

 

Edited by Muda69

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Muda69 said:

Life, probably.  But not human life, which is what we are discussing.  After all a mosquito has a beating heart.....................

 

A human egg and a human sperm do not create a mosquito.  That we can agree on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, 77Jimmie said:

A human egg and a human sperm do not create a mosquito.  That we can agree on.

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

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

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

 

When  they create a heartbeat.  Yes.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, 77Jimmie said:

When  they create a heartbeat.  Yes.

 

So the answer to my question is really "no".  Thank you.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

So the answer to my question is really "no".  Thank you.

 

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

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

 

 

Human emotion.  Not knowledge or logic.  So should our system of laws be based on human emotion?

 

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
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

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
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..... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/24/2019 at 2:16 PM, Bobref said:

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

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.

Share this post


Link to post
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?

 

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, foxbat said:

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.

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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?

 

Share this post


Link to post
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?

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...