Dante
"The Libido for the Ugly"
forget about innocent lives. I think you need to get a life before you can speak about them
Could we ban abortion on the state level?
- Thread starter ihopehefails
- Start date
forget about innocent lives. I think you need to get a life before you can speak about them
DiamondDave
Army Vet
so you do want the government involved in people's lives.
YOu don't want them to tell you what to do, but it is okay if the government tells someone else what to do with their body.
As stated SO many times.. .if it's only your body, do as you choose.. get nipple piercings, plastic surgery, get a finger removed, or whatever else you wish to do... but the fact is, the developing human with its own unique DNA signature is not just part of the woman's body, but a unique developing life that just happens to be reliant on the mother for survival (not really any different than any other life dependent on others that has the right to have it's right to life protected)
Aye but just like if it's your house you should have the right to remove whatever you want from your body, if whatever it is can't live outside it then oh well.
Not when it involves the right to life of another human being... now if the person in your house is an imminent danger to your life, you have the path of self defense.. same with a growing child that is threatening the life of the mother while inside the womb... but that is not what we are talking about here... we're not talking about an old Exercycle or broken lamp
DiamondDave
Army Vet
Protection of innocent life is not limited to a religious context... nice try
Dante
"The Libido for the Ugly"
But interfering with a person's private medical care is.
SmarterThanHick
Senior Member
- Sep 14, 2009
- 2,084
- 241
- 48
wow this is just off in so many ways. Stop comparing this to murder, murder laws, or how law enforcement investigates murder. Second: while medical records are kept, that does not mean you or anyone else has access to them. There's this thing called medical privacy in this country, which is regulated by HIPAA. Third: the "medical laws" you refer to are based on the principles of medical ethics: autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice. There really aren't too many laws outside that. Fourth: there is a reason no doctor performs late term abortions. You don't know nor understand that reason, so you're in no position to try discriminate the "why" and "when" of it.
Dante
"The Libido for the Ugly"
Father Time
I'll be Still Alive
- Nov 29, 2008
- 5,130
- 450
- 83
I'd argue the human being in question has no inherent right to live inside the mother.
Dante
"The Libido for the Ugly"
and to say there should be laws that dictate that exact thing---an inherent right inside the womb that supercedes a woman's privacy rights---would be fascist.
DiamondDave
Army Vet
What next, no infant has the right to nurse or feed via the mother because it infringes on her freedom??
DiamondDave
Army Vet
1) Taking of an premeditated innocent life when it is not endangering you... yep... I'll stick with comparing it to murder
2) Medical procedure logs (not just records) are indeed reviewed within the hospitals and other medical organizations
3) Not all laws in the medical field are 'just' tied to ethics... I would suggest to ask a doctor as to the laws that prevent them from doing certain things
4) Doctors were even pretty recently performing late term abortions
5) I do understand quite well... even though I am not in the medical field, I am one of the few in my family who is not specifically in NNICU or OB/GYN
6) I am also lucky to have a daughter who was at a very early gestational stage when delivered early... a stage where survival % is low and until pretty recently a timeframe where women were still receiving abortions.. and I know the fight she had in her, what she felt, and how much indeed that is a life growing within
Dante
"The Libido for the Ugly"
as a matter of fact an infant does NOT have the right to be breast fed. where the fuck do you live?
Father Time
I'll be Still Alive
- Nov 29, 2008
- 5,130
- 450
- 83
Yeah women all ready have the right to not breastfeed their infants, they can even put them up for adoption.
SmarterThanHick
Senior Member
- Sep 14, 2009
- 2,084
- 241
- 48
wow.... that's pretty darn moronic....
they don't have the "right to nurse". making up rules that don't exist and claiming they have been violated does not make you correct.
In direct response to the corresponding numbers above....
1) It's not a "premeditated life". I know the big words can confuse people sometimes, but lrn2English if you're going to try to use them. You still don't understand life.
2) Medical records are indeed reviewed by members of the health team providing care, and no one else. Accessing such records otherwise is known as a HIPAA violation. It's illegal, and gets people fired or thrown in prison. Yet again, you seem to have no clue what you're talking about, but continue convincing yourself your opinion has some value.
3) False. All medical laws are tied to those four principles of medical ethics. If you'd like to prove me wrong, simply point out a single case that suggests otherwise. My guess is, those words and concepts are too big for you to understand in the first place.
4) Proof? Citation? Anything?
5) You have demonstrated throughout several posts you have no clue what you're talking about, let alone know the cutoff date or understand the reason for it. If you did know, you would have simply stated it.
6) Oh? What gestational age? I couldn't help but notice how you completely left that part out.
Nothing like another undereducated ignorant hick insisting they know something about medicine.
FA_Q2
Gold Member
I imagine that the OP is somewhat possible within limits but on the whole unnecessary. These are not questions for the states as this is a rights issue and needs to be addressed nationally. About 6 months ago there was another thread I started that approached the abortion question and, after 80-90 pages there seemed to be a concession here with most posters that abortion should remain legal with certain time restraints. I personally believe that abortion should go no longer than the first trimester and you are stuck with it at that point giving the potential mother more than enough time to abort before the child develops higher brain functions and begins to truly take the form of human life. It seems that even Roe vs Wade agrees on this point but has a larger time frame for open abortion. I believe that most of the nation, despite the overly vocal proponents on BOTH sides, feels the same way and that is why you see little to no movement on abortion laws. It bears mentioning that Roe vs. Wade did NOT bar the creation of anti-abortion laws and did not establish that the right to privacy or control of your body outweighed the right for the developing infant to have a chance to live. It did place those concerns in a timeline form that allowed the potential mothers rights more credence in the beginning and the infants rights would grow to exceed those by the third trimester.
FindLaw | Cases and Codes
The line on abortion can and probably should be moved back as technology progresses and infants become viable at earlier stages. That was even addressed in the ruling as well and there may be a time when, at the point of conception, a fetus can be removed and 'adopted' thereby eliminating the need and legal stance for abortion but until we are there it is a necessary evil.
FindLaw | Cases and Codes
In essence, the supreme court did direct states to make abortion laws as they see fit within a certain guideline. I feel that current abortion laws are not sufficient in protecting the unborn but that does not mean that abortion should be completely illegal.
The line on abortion can and probably should be moved back as technology progresses and infants become viable at earlier stages. That was even addressed in the ruling as well and there may be a time when, at the point of conception, a fetus can be removed and 'adopted' thereby eliminating the need and legal stance for abortion but until we are there it is a necessary evil.
FA_Q2
Gold Member
Absolutely incorrect. That stance comes from recognizing that human life and experience happens BEFORE birth at some point and that ending a life at that point can be considered killing. It has nothing to do with religion. As an atheist I am confident in the assertion I came to has nothing to do with religion.
Also, law does not create fact. Granted 'murder' is a bad use of terminology as it is a legal term but the point remains when killing is used in its place. Law simply creates the structure that our society operates in. That nether makes it correct or good and that is why laws are continually changed.
Madeline
Rookie
- Banned
- #56
ihopehefails, the short answer is no, reproductive rights cannot be substantially denied American women by any state. We'll lose reproductive rights for American chicks about as soon as this happens:
Here's the long answer, ihopehefails:
Each state of the union must conform its laws/their application to the strictures of the US Constitution, as interpreted by the US Supreme Court. That is one reason everyone is glued to the "who will Obama nominate for Stephen's vacant seat" show. Just one more fuckwhit like O'Connor on the Supremes, the women-haters believe, and they stand a chance of getting a new Supreme Court decision modifying or overturning Roe v Wade.
The interesting thing is Roe is bad law. Not because it found "penumbras of privacy" in the Constitution -- that part is undeniably correct. And in the years since Roe, the Supremes have perceived these very same "penumbras of privacy" in 1,001 decisions on everything from soup to nuts. The Right to Privacy has essentially migrated into the Constituton's language and embedded itself there firmly.
No modern-era Supreme Court decision now could hold "whoopsie, we looked at this again and found that there is no constitutionally-guaranteed right to privacy" because the "stare decisis" rule (follow case law from before) would make any such language from the Supremes totally radical. They'd essentially have to turn our common law system of Laws and Justice on its head to render a decision on any subject with language such as that. Not to mention that such a Supreme Court decision would effectively overturn EVERY older decision based on Roe's "penumbras of privacy".
Nonetheless, Roe is bad law. It's reasoning is based on antiquated POVs about pregnancy and the "trimester" view of abortion rights/fetal viability. The progress in science and medicine since 1973 renders Roe all but moot, and no bioethicist today would analyse or decide any abortion question as that 1973 Court did. Roe is also vulnerable to alteration because it relied on a benighted "balancing test" between the rights of women to control their bodies vs. the never-before-heard-of "rights of the states to protect their interest in the life of viable fetuses", a type of "states' right" most constitutional law scholars vehemently deny ever existed or can be supported legally/historically. The language about a states' interest in fetal life has always troubled reproductive rights' activists. It is sometimes seen as leaving the door open to arguing that viability is the bright line and that women's rights in their bodies end when viability could potentially arise....and that's an ever-moving target. Oddly, much as we have all relied on and benefited from Roe, it may be one of the crappiest Supreme Court decisions ever written.
So if Obama could be forced to appoint Another Stupid Person as a Supreme, we could potentially see one helluva change all privacy rights -- including reproductive rights -- in this country. I happen to believe Stephens' clung to his seat on the bench for as long as he did because he awaited election of a president who would not nominate another fuckwhit to replace him.
The "peek behind the curtain" at the Supremes over the course of this nation's history makes fascinating reading. Ever see "The Pelican Brief"? That Grishsom is an entertaining writer, but he ain't far off the mark, either.
You do write some provactive Ops ihopehefails. You must be one helluva deep thinker.
Last edited:
SmarterThanHick
Senior Member
- Sep 14, 2009
- 2,084
- 241
- 48
What are these technology advances you both talk about? What has changed so much since 1973 for premature babies past perhaps new ways to make them breath? Cuz as I see it, their lungs are still underdeveloped, they don't look human, they suffer the same horrible diseases, and the large majority still see early deaths anyway. So what is this magical technology that both of you think is going to save all the premies?
Qball
Corner Pocket
I don't like Roe because it creates a judicial barrier to what is a policy matter. I'm not against judicial precedence generally, but I think the social and political landscape would look very different if the people we elect the power to legislate the issue and be held accountable. To be honest, I see one of the precedences tied to abortion being overturned in the next 5-10 years, be it Roe, Planned Parenthood, or Casey.
JakeStarkey
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,527
- 2,165
- Banned
- #59
No, murder is a factual, legal term, not one that is conveyed by opinion. And I did not giave an unequivocal religious base for the opinion, only that "most" of it seems religious base.
In other words, your opinion or mine or anybody cannot declare an act murder. Only the law can do that and enforce it.
Words are specific.
Dante
"The Libido for the Ugly"
will they ever answer this?
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
Biden Admin Ignored Covid ‘Vaccine’ Risks While Pushing Mandates, Secret Docs Show- Started by excalibur
- Replies: 0
-
