US Supreme Court Leak (1 Viewer)

[AccessBlaster]

 

[AngelSpeaks]

So is it my body, my choice and the fetus can survive? Medical breakthroughs are making it possible for them to survive. In the early 1960s, Jackie Kennedy gave birth to Patrick who was seven weeks early. He didn't survive even though the President's wife would have the best possible medical care. In late 1988, my daughter was born seven weeks early. Twelve days in the hospital and then we take her home. I've run into women who went into labor at 26 weeks and the baby survived. Many survive before that. Women who miscarry at five months are giving the child a name and burying it.

Where do we place a limit? There are liberals that pushed it way too far, one idiot thinks a 28 day old baby could be aborted.

That's why some conservatives are pushing back hard. The liberals have gone too far.

 

[NauticalGent]

Where do we place a limit?

Now that is the question isn't it? Both sides cannot answer that question because if they do, a tidal wave of follow-on conclusions ensue which would force both sides to re-think the line they drew.

Thanks for your input Cathy. Although I do not subscribe that men get no say-so on this topic, the woman definitely has more skin in the game.

I will say this on the subject....nah, its all been said already!

 

[AccessBlaster]

Liberal science tells us men can get pregnant we do have an equal say.

It's science!

 

[NauticalGent]

Liberal science tells us men can get pregnant we do have an equal say.

It's science!

I'm nominating you to be a guinea pig...

 

[Pat Hartman]

find it ironic that those screaming "My freedom!" over a mandate to wear a piece of cloth over their mouth have no problem mandating a ra** victim to give birth.

The majority of Americans are OK with abortion with "limits" according to surveys. ra** being one of them so don't put words in people's mouths. There are far more people at the abortion any time for any reason extreme than at the opposite extreme of no abortion for any reason. And the people who want to be able to murder the fetus as it travels down the birth canal during labor are probably not Republicans.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Row V Wade was the middle ground. It was only because people on both sides kept trying to pass laws to get around that decision that we find ourselves in the current situation. Row V Wade was a bad decision that was made worse by further decisions and now we will have no standard and that is very bad for the Pro-life people and they don't even know it yet. But the useful idiots of the left don't know it either which is why they are harassing the conservative Justices.

 

[AccessBlaster]

I'm nominating you to be a guinea pig...

No problem I'll take one for the team.

 

[Isaac]

In the vein of George Carlin's skit (which is overall incorrect IMHO and uses BROAD strokes), I do find it amusing that those who want to cling onto the States' Rights concept and the strict adherence to the Constitution in the case of abortion, turn a blind eye to the illegal conflicts the US has been involved with over the past decade.

Those who are lamenting over the possibility of RvW being overturned should really be excited about this. Their vote at a State level will carry a LOT more weight and it will be easier to influence their state's congress then the Federal.

I have my own ideas about abortion and they do not completely align with everyone I know. My mother in law says there is no situation to justify it while my niece defends it whole-heartedly. No matter where you fall on the spectrum, it is far easier to find a lawmaker locally who aligns as closely with your beliefs and influence them to vote your way - and if they don't, again, getting rid of them is easier than their federal counterparts.

Exactly. It's very controversial and I can kind of see people's arguments on both sides. Obviously if you believe that an unborn baby is not a person in any sense, then it's an easy no-brainer. Of course, that argument gets a little weak when you try to tell that to the woman who's excited to have her baby and has already given it a name, decorated a nursing nursery, and moved grandparents across the country with love in their hearts. They sure think that it's a baby!! So then if you're with me so far, it leads to the next point. So what do we do, put ourselves in a situation where the mother has the exclusive right to decide if it is or isn't a baby? That also seems a bit odd. I mean obviously whatever the truth is, it is. There's no my truth or your truth there's just whatever it actually IS.

The most democratic thing they could possibly do is overturn Roe v Wade and send it back to the STATES. People can live in a conservative state or they can live in a liberal state or they can live in one that's kind of in between.

That seems like the most democratic and flexible coalition of United States that we could want. And probably, or maybe more accurately I should say it's about all we can hope for at this point, with opinions passionately almost to the point of militants running opposite and conflicting directions. I for one would probably be willing to attest that I will forever be satisfied with that solution if that's what everyone could permanently agree on. Unfortunately we have to kind of keep having the fight which may make us seem radical but it's really just because we know that the other people wanted to go in the opposite direction to Infinity, until the baby's halfway out of the birth canal and you're stabbing it.
So I think to some extent this issue suffers from the fact that each side worries that the other side wants to go to such extremes that they themselves continue fighting which then also makes them appear perhaps more extreme than they actually are. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I love hearing Bill Maher's honesty the other day on his show. I have so much respect for a Democrat who's willing to look at some of these issues in an honest light. He brought up a bunch of points that conservatives have often tried to raise. "I didn't know until now that much of the pro-life movement was actually female", he said. "I didn't know that. I also didn't know that most people in the United States actually support restrictions on abortions after 15 weeks. And I also didn't know that most modern European countries have restrictions that are more restrictive than the law that is actually being challenged!"
He said he didn't know any of those things until he listened to the conservative arguments and did some homework. I thought for a guy like that, I would assume then that many people don't know those things either.

Knowledge.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

So what do we do, put ourselves in a situation where the mother has the exclusive right to decide if it is or isn't a baby?

If we allow the woman to follow the tenets of her chosen religion, then yes. In that case it is a side-effect of her religious choice.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Disagree. Our constitution (10th amendment) specially states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Right, wrong or whatever, if you want the Feds ruling on this or any other issue, do it the right way.

No, you DON'T disagree. You quoted the 10th amendment and I agree - but check my emphasis.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people - in this case, the "women" people.

 

[moke123]

The majority of Americans are OK with abortion with "limits" according to surveys. ra** being one of them so don't put words in people's mouths.

but ...

Neither the Florida measure nor the Arizona law includes exceptions for women who become pregnant as the result of ra** or incest.

In Kentucky, Republican lawmakers this month overrode a veto from Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear on a bill that would ban abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy.

That legislation also doesn’t include an exception for ra** or incest, and Beshear objected.

The law, signed in mid-April by Republican Gov. Kevin Stitt, doesn’t include exceptions for ra** or incest.

 

[Isaac]

If we allow the woman to follow the tenets of her chosen religion, then yes. In that case it is a side-effect of her religious choice.

Problem comes is how do you apply that to anything else? What if I belong to a religion that says I can murder my dad? Is it okay?

Fortunately for mankind, religious principles have generally coincided by and large in vast majority with what society tends to believe is proper, coincidentally

 

[Isaac]

No, you DON'T disagree. You quoted the 10th amendment and I agree - but check my emphasis.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people - in this case, the "women" people.

I'm pretty sure when they say the people they're referring to the Democratic process. Not that every single human being is a "law unto themselves" with no laws passed by the legislators they elected or the judges that were appointed by the legislators they elected.

Interesting argument you have there, and one I've never heard before. But I'm pretty sure they mean democratically approved constitutional powers, not just anything any human being wants to do

 

[Isaac]

but ...

I'm confused as to why, if it's wrong to kill a baby, why would r@pe or incest have anything to do with anything?

I understand how it increases the natural compassion that you have for the person that's placed in that circumstance. That's something else.

Why would it have anything to do and in fact even be remotely related to the question of whether abortion is right or wrong?

And this is why I think the conservative stance on this issue is compelling, because it's been consistent. Liberals throw around every argument that they can think of some actually contradicting the other ones just hoping that one sticks and totally inconsistent with each other. Well try this. Okay now try this. It ends up looking like the complaint by the plaintiff in a torts case.
To conservatives on the other hand the argument remains the same it doesn't have to be changed around or try different versions of itself.
This is why you will find that 99% of conservatives settle on the following concept. Only an exception for the life of the mother.
Why? Well because it's the same as any other saving a life situation. If two people are falling off a cliff and one is your child and one is your wife you have every right to decide which one to let go of if you absolutely must let go of one in order to save the other. Everybody pretty much agrees that that's the case in the cliff analogy, and thus, the exact same thing is true in abortion.
Same as everyday life in that sense.

It's really all quite intuitive and complimentary in its components.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Problem comes is how do you apply that to anything else? What if I belong to a religion that says I can murder my dad? Is it okay?

We allow some religions to deny medical intervention in sick babies. Is THAT OK? But here is the weakness of your question. You have asked "is it OK?" But there is a second question: "Is it OK for me to intervene in someone else's decision if I think their decision is wrong?" There are court decisions on record where, for the religions that would deny health care, they have that right.

BTW, just about any religion will allow you to kill your dad in self-defense.

In the context of the "ra**/incest" exceptions:

Why would it have anything to do and in fact even be remotely related to the question of whether abortion is right or wrong?

Because your position is an absolute ban on abortion when the world almost NEVER has anything but shades of grey. Holding an absolutist position is sure way to be HIGHLY disappointed. Just about everything is morally relative. Even in the Bible, there was the moral relativity of the fate of the Amalekites. Thou shalt not kill - except make sure no adult male Amalekites survive. You might say, "Well that was by God's command so it has to be OK" - except that God didn't step away from direct killing in other times, such as the plagues of Egypt or the Great Flood, both of which killed directly by God's hand. But this time He decided to pull the strings and let others do His dirty work. Yeah, really consistent there.

That is simply to demonstrate that there is even moral relativity in the Bible. Taking a moral absolute position is just not going to work.

 

[NauticalGent]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people - in this case, the "women" people.

Either way, the Feds have NO buisness weighing in on this and if the States pass a law, then the "to the people" portion becomes null and void. Whether it should even be an issue at all for any level of government is the sticking point. If we both lived in the same state and I felt strongly enough about it, I would do my best to rally enough people to vote in someone who sees it my way. You would do the same and let the system work.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Whether it should even be an issue at all for any level of government is the sticking point.

Agreed.

 

[moke123]

Justice Samuel Alito Leaked Hobby Lobby Decision On Contraception In 2014: Report

News of the alleged leak eight years ago comes as the high court still claims to be investigating who leaked its anti-abortion decision earlier this year.

www.huffpost.com

 

[Pat Hartman]

I don't know what the punishment is for leaking but whatever it is, it should be applied to Alito if in fact it is proven that he was the leaker. You cannot "convict" him on hearsay evidence. It has to be evidence given under oath by the receiving parties or email evidence or something else that is indisputable.