16 May 22
@AverageJoe1 says -
Why does no one here ever mention the 'morning after' pill?
--------------------
Early on, I did, and said that was the way to go.
16 May 22
@Zahlanzi says-
You could be if they would make the law say you get punished no matter where the moose is, that the act of moose hunting itself is what's important to them, not the location of the moose. And if Maine releases evidence that you hunted to the former state, you go to jail. Because America is awesome and state rights.
-----------------------
Totally wrong.
The state of Massachusetts does not have jurisdiction in the state of Maine.
@Earl-of-Trumps
Well, it seems that right-wingers in some states are moving now to at least restrict access. I seem to recall (though I might be wrong) that Alito once said he considers such medication to be an “abortifacient."
https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2022/03/16/as-abortion-pills-take-off-some-states-move-to-curb-them
16 May 22
@no1marauder said"It shall be a felony if a pregnant woman does not eat a green salad every day from the beginning of the 9th month of pregnancy, as the Legislature finds it would reckless endanger her unborn child if she does not."
"It shall be a felony if a pregnant woman does not eat a green salad every day from her child's conception as the Legislature finds it would reckless endanger her unborn child if she does not".
Explain why this law would not be upheld under your "obligation to a non-viable fetus" standard.
Explain why this law would not be upheld under your implicit concession that the mother has a responsibility to protect a 9th month fetus standard.
17 May 22
@sh76 saidI didn't say she did, did I?
"It shall be a felony if a pregnant woman does not eat a green salad every day from the beginning of the 9th month of pregnancy, as the Legislature finds it would reckless endanger her unborn child if she does not."
Explain why this law would not be upheld under your implicit concession that the mother has a responsibility to protect a 9th month fetus standard.
But thanks for the typical dodge.
17 May 22
@sh76 saidA 28-week old fetus has been born as a baby!!!…, and lived healthily.
Making abortion about women's rights is sophistry.
Most of us agree that people have a right to privacy.
All of us agree that people have a right to life.
I imagine all of us agree that the right to life of one person outweighs the right to privacy of another.
So, the only question is when the fetus' right to life kicks in.
I hope we can all agree that it happens ...[text shortened]... realize that it's not about the woman's rights. It's about the fetus' right to life or lack thereof.
So to answer EVERYONE here, it is a baby at 28 weeks. Jesus. Libs. Try thinking on your own???
17 May 22
@sleepyguy saidIt's an answer. You just can't understand it.
That is a non-answer.
You have failed at the same point you always do.
Oh well.
17 May 22
@averagejoe1 saidYeah your making any sense at all now either provide a link citing the scenario you mentioned in your post or stop being a typical lying right wing propagandist.
Rape? You sound like a liberal. This particular point, mine which you respond to, has one issue, and it does not involve rape. Kev, to respond to the one issue, a 'case' need not even ever have existed.
So, that out of the way, I ask again, what is your take on a grown man, gov of a state, saying that he is agreeable in snuffing the individual in the womb of a ...[text shortened]... ult of rape, incest, or two people in love, what do you think about this...snuffing the individual.?
17 May 22
@kevcvs57 saidHere 'tis. Thought that of the many links available, I would send one from a religious source !! Just to get you and Shav seething !!
Yeah your making any sense at all now either provide a link citing the scenario you mentioned in your post or stop being a typical lying right wing propagandist.
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/250895/colorado-governor-signs-bill-codifying-access-to-abortion-contraception
17 May 22
@no1marauder saidYes, you did.
I didn't say she did, did I?
But thanks for the typical dodge.
You said on the last page:
"While I would concede some obligation to a viable fetus"
How does that not imply "responsibility to protect a 9th month fetus"?
Anyway, your question can be also asked regarding already born children.
What if State X wants to make it a felony not to feed salad to your 9 year old?
Of course, there are two possible answers:
1. You have a right to privacy, which includes setting your and your children's diet. And if the government wants to intrude on that, they need a good justification. And there is insufficient justification to encroach on privacy to that level; so the law is unconstitutional.
2. The law would be constitutional, but just a really bad law, and we'd leave it to the political process to sort out that sort of thing.
I'd lean towards statement 1. But the extreme case of a stupid rule passed by the government can also be applied to cases where there certainly IS a duty of care.
17 May 22
@no1marauder saidSomehow I missed this post yesterday.
Viability isn't a "magic line"; it is a philosophically necessary one in a Natural Rights framework. Nature is what decided a non-viable fetus cannot exist physically independently of the pregnant woman and thus has no Natural Rights. Clearly, the artificial creation of any such "rights" would render the woman's right to bodily sovereignty/autonomy nugatory as the example ...[text shortened]... g SCOTUS judges, but the Constitution did not create and it certainly does not limit Natural Rights.
The problem with your argument is that you ARBITRARILY withdraw natural rights from the fetus so that you can rush to protect the natural rights of the mother. SO WHAT if Nature "decided" a non-viable fetus needs the mother to survive? Did not Nature also decide the baby needs her help after it is born? Human babies are hardly more viable outside the womb than in in the early going. Human beings are obligated BY NATURE to nurture and protect them, especially their parents. Your wish to erase that obligation at some magic point before birth is completely arbitrary.
- Joined
- 27 Sep 06
- Moves
- 251103
@sleepyguy said'Somehow,' you missed something?.....WOW.
Somehow I missed this post yesterday.
The problem with your argument is that you ARBITRARILY withdraw natural rights from the fetus so that you can rush to protect the natural rights of the mother. SO WHAT if Nature "decided" a non-viable fetus needs the mother to survive? Did not Nature also decide the baby needs her help after it is born? Human babies are hardly more v ...[text shortened]... arents. Your wish to erase that obligation at some magic point before birth is completely arbitrary.
17 May 22
@earl-of-trumps saidOh yeah, because that's the line they won't cross. When they said they wouldn't care for any federal ruling against these laws and they will impeach judges that won't enforce them, we can totally believe they will respect the borders of another state.
@Zahlanzi says-
You could be if they would make the law say you get punished no matter where the moose is, that the act of moose hunting itself is what's important to them, not the location of the moose. And if Maine releases evidence that you hunted to the former state, you go to jail. Because America is awesome and state rights.
-----------------------
Totally wrong.
The state of Massachusetts does not have jurisdiction in the state of Maine.