Roe v Wade Overturned

HeavyG

Certainly a fair point re Schoen, tho, who else but "Friends of Hillary" would be the most likely to start the whisper campaign?

He's not the only one writing these pieces, and I didn't vet any of the other authors as to their ties to Hillary cuz at this point in the game it's irrelevant.

JohnInCarolina

HeavyG said:

Certainly a fair point re Schoen, tho, who else but "Friends of Hillary" would be the most likely to start the whisper campaign?

He's not the only one writing these pieces, and I didn't vet any of the other authors as to their ties to Hillary cuz at this point in the game it's irrelevant.

Well, Chris Cillizza is the author of the CNN piece, and he is a weapons-grade asshat.

nolaegghead

JohnInCarolina

Ozzie_Isaac

lousubcap said:

@Legume said it- absolutely no need for a "do-over." MSM  is putting air time to the "Joe shouldn't run in 2024" so that piece of the deal is already moving forward.  Both parties can come up with better candidates than Hillary or Cheeto, at least I hope so for the sake of all of us.  FWIW-

If it is Trump vs. Hillary in 2024, we should all just pack it in.  There has to be at least 2 better candidates out of 330M people.  I know at least 10 on this forum I would vote for sooner, and 3 are in the UK and 2 in Canada.

Botch

   

Ozzie_Isaac

SamIAm2

Ozzie_Isaac said:

They also don't hang around to support the children they forced on their victims.

FarmingPhD

JohnInCarolina said:

FarmingPhD said:

John - Christ was a defender of women, children, and life. He provided forgiveness, but he did not remove the consequences of sin in this life.  There are likely some valued lessons we can all learn from reading his teachings frequently.

Is the life of a special needs person worth less than a normal person? When is a life worth protecting?  Do you want abortions up until birth? Where do you draw a line?  The unborn child has no voice and is ignored.

Roe was overturned because it should have never been passed and Alito’s opinion is well rounded supporting this.  There is a reason it references the constitution multiple times and the dissents do not.  This is doing what the judicial branch is supposed to do by ruling on text and intent, not the whim of the public opinion or emotion.  Roe was legislation from the bench and even Ginsberg admitted this.  The rights for now have been returned to the states.

Trying to find the darn study, statistic somewhere, mothers of all people are the largest group of pro-lifers.  This also shifts by age group, the older you are, the more pro-life.  Might be some wisdom for folks in those numbers.


 @Legume we should support mothers and hold fathers accountable, one “mistake” should not lead to more poor choices.  Careful- this is a whatboutism , Gun control is a whole other subject, I’m a 2a supporter, but there needs to be some smart reforms and consequences for things that may help.  The troubling part is our countries long standing freedoms and access to fire arms and we developed real issues into the 21st century. What changed that led to this is what we should focus on (root cause not symptoms).

I thought you had exited

No argument on Christ.  My problem with a lot of the religious right is that while they all clearly believe in JC, they don't appear to believe much of anything he said.

You indicated that the "unborn child" has no voice and is ignored.  Well... when is it a "child" exactly?  I would hope that we would both agree that a clump of cells does not constitute a child.  I also think it's really unfortunate to indicate that the child is being ignored.  It's certainly not being ignored by the mother in the vast majority of cases, wouldn't you agree?  At question is who is meant to be the voice of the child.  Is it the mother, or is it the state?  

These are tough questions, I don't think anyone thinks otherwise.  People in this country have very different views as to the morality of terminating a pregnancy, even in its early stages.  And on some level I think we can also understand that the state has some role in advocating for the unborn.  So what should we do when our goals and our values conflict with one another?  Well, here Roe and Casey struck a balance.  They held that the state could ban abortions after fetal viability, as long as there were exceptions for the mother's life or health.  But until the viability line was crossed, it held that the state could not impose on the woman's right to choose, in light of all the circumstances and complexities of her own life.  These include, for example, her and her family's ability to care for the child after it was born.  Or if the pregnancy resulted from a rape, or incest.  I see that you did not even address those situations in your response to me.

You indicated that the dissent does not reference the constitution.  This is false, and it actually makes me wonder if you even read it?  Because the fact of the matter is that it references the constitution at length.  What you might be referring to is the notion that this is an unenumerated right, that it wasn't explicitly written into the constitution.  This is in fact the main argument of the majority, that the right to an abortion isn't "deeply rooted in history".  But this is kind of crazy.  There are all sorts of things the founding fathers didn't consider, largely because they couldn't possibly have given the times.  Does all of that have to be left to the states?  How do you feel about the rights to contraception, or interracial marriage, or same-sex marriage?  Do you think all of those should also be left to the states, as Judge Thomas seems to suggest (except interracial marriage of course - curious that he overlooked that one!).

People on the right like to tell themselves that all this court did was interpret the constitution as is their job.  Well previous courts that passed Roe and then upheld Casey were also interpreting the constitution.  I would suggest to you that the constitution really hasn't changed, but what did change was the composition of the court, and that's clearly why this was overturned.  Full stop.  

Finally you reference the study of mothers being the biggest supporters of pro-life policies.  I find that a bit odd given that in the previous breath you indicated the role of the SC isn't to rule on the basis of popular opinion.    

Last visit here as I want to be clear on my beliefs as you likely can infer from previous comments.  Life starts at conception. How do you define when life is worthy of protection? The 14 week number is really just an arbitrary guess by the court.  I watched my wife experience the pain of a miscarriage at 12 weeks, I was a helpless fool by her side and can tell you that was not the loss of a clump of cells she was grieving.  

 Yes you mention rape and incest, I did not intentionally avoid as I missed it in my response, these are horrible and wicked acts on the side of the perpetrator.  Does taking an innocent life make this situation better? Most of you will say yes, I can’t, and this is not condoning anything, but I cannot look at a child and say their life is not worth protecting.  Also see you skipped my question about children of special needs?

 My dad, an extremely pacifist person, made a comment probably 5 years ago now that caught me off guard, roughly remembering his words, “public hangings for the wickedest of crimes might go along way in preventing similar crimes.” Doesn’t fix the issue at the present, but makes the consequences very real.  Also, major difference between protecting an innocent life versus the consequences of crimes.

You completely miss the point on the survey, should provoke thought among the readers, never made a statement about it guiding SC rulings.

The complaints keep coming back to this is religions fault, you can remove religion from this argument and still end up in the same situation, one side values life from conception, the other thinks it is only valuable when convenient.  Also very nice that we get to have this discussion since our mothers chose life.

Im done here as I know my opinion is in the minority with this group, but sometimes the echo chamber needs to be reminded there are other opinions out there.

littlerascal56

Agree 100% @FarmingPhD with you.  And you don’t have to apologize to anyone on your opinion.  So many people on here take pride in putting others down, an devaluing their opinion.  Don’t let anyone vilify you, as your opinion matters just as much as the haters and trolls on this site.  It’s just a shame that this place has become so hateful when someone posts an opinion that is opposite of the 6 members that rule the forum.

JohnInCarolina

FarmingPhD said:

JohnInCarolina said:

FarmingPhD said:

John - Christ was a defender of women, children, and life. He provided forgiveness, but he did not remove the consequences of sin in this life.  There are likely some valued lessons we can all learn from reading his teachings frequently.

Is the life of a special needs person worth less than a normal person? When is a life worth protecting?  Do you want abortions up until birth? Where do you draw a line?  The unborn child has no voice and is ignored.

Roe was overturned because it should have never been passed and Alito’s opinion is well rounded supporting this.  There is a reason it references the constitution multiple times and the dissents do not.  This is doing what the judicial branch is supposed to do by ruling on text and intent, not the whim of the public opinion or emotion.  Roe was legislation from the bench and even Ginsberg admitted this.  The rights for now have been returned to the states.

Trying to find the darn study, statistic somewhere, mothers of all people are the largest group of pro-lifers.  This also shifts by age group, the older you are, the more pro-life.  Might be some wisdom for folks in those numbers.


 @Legume we should support mothers and hold fathers accountable, one “mistake” should not lead to more poor choices.  Careful- this is a whatboutism , Gun control is a whole other subject, I’m a 2a supporter, but there needs to be some smart reforms and consequences for things that may help.  The troubling part is our countries long standing freedoms and access to fire arms and we developed real issues into the 21st century. What changed that led to this is what we should focus on (root cause not symptoms).

I thought you had exited

No argument on Christ.  My problem with a lot of the religious right is that while they all clearly believe in JC, they don't appear to believe much of anything he said.

You indicated that the "unborn child" has no voice and is ignored.  Well... when is it a "child" exactly?  I would hope that we would both agree that a clump of cells does not constitute a child.  I also think it's really unfortunate to indicate that the child is being ignored.  It's certainly not being ignored by the mother in the vast majority of cases, wouldn't you agree?  At question is who is meant to be the voice of the child.  Is it the mother, or is it the state?  

These are tough questions, I don't think anyone thinks otherwise.  People in this country have very different views as to the morality of terminating a pregnancy, even in its early stages.  And on some level I think we can also understand that the state has some role in advocating for the unborn.  So what should we do when our goals and our values conflict with one another?  Well, here Roe and Casey struck a balance.  They held that the state could ban abortions after fetal viability, as long as there were exceptions for the mother's life or health.  But until the viability line was crossed, it held that the state could not impose on the woman's right to choose, in light of all the circumstances and complexities of her own life.  These include, for example, her and her family's ability to care for the child after it was born.  Or if the pregnancy resulted from a rape, or incest.  I see that you did not even address those situations in your response to me.

You indicated that the dissent does not reference the constitution.  This is false, and it actually makes me wonder if you even read it?  Because the fact of the matter is that it references the constitution at length.  What you might be referring to is the notion that this is an unenumerated right, that it wasn't explicitly written into the constitution.  This is in fact the main argument of the majority, that the right to an abortion isn't "deeply rooted in history".  But this is kind of crazy.  There are all sorts of things the founding fathers didn't consider, largely because they couldn't possibly have given the times.  Does all of that have to be left to the states?  How do you feel about the rights to contraception, or interracial marriage, or same-sex marriage?  Do you think all of those should also be left to the states, as Judge Thomas seems to suggest (except interracial marriage of course - curious that he overlooked that one!).

People on the right like to tell themselves that all this court did was interpret the constitution as is their job.  Well previous courts that passed Roe and then upheld Casey were also interpreting the constitution.  I would suggest to you that the constitution really hasn't changed, but what did change was the composition of the court, and that's clearly why this was overturned.  Full stop.  

Finally you reference the study of mothers being the biggest supporters of pro-life policies.  I find that a bit odd given that in the previous breath you indicated the role of the SC isn't to rule on the basis of popular opinion.    

Last visit here as I want to be clear on my beliefs as you likely can infer from previous comments.  Life starts at conception. How do you define when life is worthy of protection? The 14 week number is really just an arbitrary guess by the court.  I watched my wife experience the pain of a miscarriage at 12 weeks, I was a helpless fool by her side and can tell you that was not the loss of a clump of cells she was grieving.  

 Yes you mention rape and incest, I did not intentionally avoid as I missed it in my response, these are horrible and wicked acts on the side of the perpetrator.  Does taking an innocent life make this situation better? Most of you will say yes, I can’t, and this is not condoning anything, but I cannot look at a child and say their life is not worth protecting.  Also see you skipped my question about children of special needs?

 My dad, an extremely pacifist person, made a comment probably 5 years ago now that caught me off guard, roughly remembering his words, “public hangings for the wickedest of crimes might go along way in preventing similar crimes.” Doesn’t fix the issue at the present, but makes the consequences very real.  Also, major difference between protecting an innocent life versus the consequences of crimes.

You completely miss the point on the survey, should provoke thought among the readers, never made a statement about it guiding SC rulings.

The complaints keep coming back to this is religions fault, you can remove religion from this argument and still end up in the same situation, one side values life from conception, the other thinks it is only valuable when convenient.  Also very nice that we get to have this discussion since our mothers chose life.

Im done here as I know my opinion is in the minority with this group, but sometimes the echo chamber needs to be reminded there are other opinions out there.

I think we’re all aware of the variety of opinions.  What is routinely curious is the propensity to engage and simultaneously declare an interest in disengaging.  It’s like “here is my opinion but I don’t want to get into an honest back and forth so I’m done”.

I’ll have more later in response to your comment but I’ve always found this particular approach to debate fairly curious.  Incidentally, it won’t serve you very well on your path to a doctorate.  Good ideas and arguments bear scrutiny.  Weak ones… do not.

HeavyG

"...one side values life from conception, the other thinks it is only valuable when convenient."

I was preparing to respond to such an erroneous (some would even say insulting or perhaps even... vitriolic) statement but realized it would be a waste of everyone's time.

FarmingPhD

JohnInCarolina said:

FarmingPhD said:

JohnInCarolina said:

FarmingPhD said:

John - Christ was a defender of women, children, and life. He provided forgiveness, but he did not remove the consequences of sin in this life.  There are likely some valued lessons we can all learn from reading his teachings frequently.

Is the life of a special needs person worth less than a normal person? When is a life worth protecting?  Do you want abortions up until birth? Where do you draw a line?  The unborn child has no voice and is ignored.

Roe was overturned because it should have never been passed and Alito’s opinion is well rounded supporting this.  There is a reason it references the constitution multiple times and the dissents do not.  This is doing what the judicial branch is supposed to do by ruling on text and intent, not the whim of the public opinion or emotion.  Roe was legislation from the bench and even Ginsberg admitted this.  The rights for now have been returned to the states.

Trying to find the darn study, statistic somewhere, mothers of all people are the largest group of pro-lifers.  This also shifts by age group, the older you are, the more pro-life.  Might be some wisdom for folks in those numbers.


 @Legume we should support mothers and hold fathers accountable, one “mistake” should not lead to more poor choices.  Careful- this is a whatboutism , Gun control is a whole other subject, I’m a 2a supporter, but there needs to be some smart reforms and consequences for things that may help.  The troubling part is our countries long standing freedoms and access to fire arms and we developed real issues into the 21st century. What changed that led to this is what we should focus on (root cause not symptoms).

I thought you had exited

No argument on Christ.  My problem with a lot of the religious right is that while they all clearly believe in JC, they don't appear to believe much of anything he said.

You indicated that the "unborn child" has no voice and is ignored.  Well... when is it a "child" exactly?  I would hope that we would both agree that a clump of cells does not constitute a child.  I also think it's really unfortunate to indicate that the child is being ignored.  It's certainly not being ignored by the mother in the vast majority of cases, wouldn't you agree?  At question is who is meant to be the voice of the child.  Is it the mother, or is it the state?  

These are tough questions, I don't think anyone thinks otherwise.  People in this country have very different views as to the morality of terminating a pregnancy, even in its early stages.  And on some level I think we can also understand that the state has some role in advocating for the unborn.  So what should we do when our goals and our values conflict with one another?  Well, here Roe and Casey struck a balance.  They held that the state could ban abortions after fetal viability, as long as there were exceptions for the mother's life or health.  But until the viability line was crossed, it held that the state could not impose on the woman's right to choose, in light of all the circumstances and complexities of her own life.  These include, for example, her and her family's ability to care for the child after it was born.  Or if the pregnancy resulted from a rape, or incest.  I see that you did not even address those situations in your response to me.

You indicated that the dissent does not reference the constitution.  This is false, and it actually makes me wonder if you even read it?  Because the fact of the matter is that it references the constitution at length.  What you might be referring to is the notion that this is an unenumerated right, that it wasn't explicitly written into the constitution.  This is in fact the main argument of the majority, that the right to an abortion isn't "deeply rooted in history".  But this is kind of crazy.  There are all sorts of things the founding fathers didn't consider, largely because they couldn't possibly have given the times.  Does all of that have to be left to the states?  How do you feel about the rights to contraception, or interracial marriage, or same-sex marriage?  Do you think all of those should also be left to the states, as Judge Thomas seems to suggest (except interracial marriage of course - curious that he overlooked that one!).

People on the right like to tell themselves that all this court did was interpret the constitution as is their job.  Well previous courts that passed Roe and then upheld Casey were also interpreting the constitution.  I would suggest to you that the constitution really hasn't changed, but what did change was the composition of the court, and that's clearly why this was overturned.  Full stop.  

Finally you reference the study of mothers being the biggest supporters of pro-life policies.  I find that a bit odd given that in the previous breath you indicated the role of the SC isn't to rule on the basis of popular opinion.    

Last visit here as I want to be clear on my beliefs as you likely can infer from previous comments.  Life starts at conception. How do you define when life is worthy of protection? The 14 week number is really just an arbitrary guess by the court.  I watched my wife experience the pain of a miscarriage at 12 weeks, I was a helpless fool by her side and can tell you that was not the loss of a clump of cells she was grieving.  

 Yes you mention rape and incest, I did not intentionally avoid as I missed it in my response, these are horrible and wicked acts on the side of the perpetrator.  Does taking an innocent life make this situation better? Most of you will say yes, I can’t, and this is not condoning anything, but I cannot look at a child and say their life is not worth protecting.  Also see you skipped my question about children of special needs?

 My dad, an extremely pacifist person, made a comment probably 5 years ago now that caught me off guard, roughly remembering his words, “public hangings for the wickedest of crimes might go along way in preventing similar crimes.” Doesn’t fix the issue at the present, but makes the consequences very real.  Also, major difference between protecting an innocent life versus the consequences of crimes.

You completely miss the point on the survey, should provoke thought among the readers, never made a statement about it guiding SC rulings.

The complaints keep coming back to this is religions fault, you can remove religion from this argument and still end up in the same situation, one side values life from conception, the other thinks it is only valuable when convenient.  Also very nice that we get to have this discussion since our mothers chose life.

Im done here as I know my opinion is in the minority with this group, but sometimes the echo chamber needs to be reminded there are other opinions out there.

I think we’re all aware of the variety of opinions.  What is routinely curious is the propensity to engage and simultaneously declare an interest in disengaging.  It’s like “here is my opinion but I don’t want to get into an honest back and forth so I’m done”.

I’ll have more later in response to your comment but I’ve always found this particular approach to debate fairly curious.  Incidentally, it won’t serve you very well on your path to a doctorate.  Good ideas and arguments bear scrutiny.  Weak ones… do not.

Awake at 3am…… John, probably better put, I’m not going to convince people on the internet to change their mind and probably better to engage on this forum for the normal reason I come here.  You call it discussion, but you attack arguments in different ways when you don’t agree with them even when presented with facts, same thing we all do to some degree.  This thread was not created as a discussion place, it was created to vent based on your world view, dissenting opinions are generally not welcome and that’s pretty clear.  Also takes forever to type out responses on an iPad and should spend my time doing better things, not that you aren’t worth my time, just better ways to spend it and goes for a lot of the distractions most of us have in our daily lives.

FarmingPhD

HeavyG said:

"...one side values life from conception, the other thinks it is only valuable when convenient."

I was preparing to respond to such an erroneous (some would even say insulting or perhaps even... vitriolic) statement but realized it would be a waste of everyone's time.

The same goes for the ridiculous statements regarding birth control is next or grouping pro life folks with fascism or other hateful groups regarding women and the handmaidens tales or that we want to control women’s bodies. These are ridiculous statements, regarding my view points, yet they are acceptable to make?   The miracle of life is amazing, treating it with respect and dignity should be our goal, dismembered and vacuumed from the womb is not achieving this.  I should have been more tactful about how I stated it, but hopefully this brings a little perspective. 

paqman

America needs separation of church and state, the foundation on which the country exists in the first place.  The way I see it, you are allowed to let your religion dictate the way YOU live but you are not allowed to let it control the entire country.

paqman

paqman

JohnInCarolina

FarmingPhD said:

JohnInCarolina said:

FarmingPhD said:

JohnInCarolina said:

FarmingPhD said:

John - Christ was a defender of women, children, and life. He provided forgiveness, but he did not remove the consequences of sin in this life.  There are likely some valued lessons we can all learn from reading his teachings frequently.

Is the life of a special needs person worth less than a normal person? When is a life worth protecting?  Do you want abortions up until birth? Where do you draw a line?  The unborn child has no voice and is ignored.

Roe was overturned because it should have never been passed and Alito’s opinion is well rounded supporting this.  There is a reason it references the constitution multiple times and the dissents do not.  This is doing what the judicial branch is supposed to do by ruling on text and intent, not the whim of the public opinion or emotion.  Roe was legislation from the bench and even Ginsberg admitted this.  The rights for now have been returned to the states.

Trying to find the darn study, statistic somewhere, mothers of all people are the largest group of pro-lifers.  This also shifts by age group, the older you are, the more pro-life.  Might be some wisdom for folks in those numbers.


 @Legume we should support mothers and hold fathers accountable, one “mistake” should not lead to more poor choices.  Careful- this is a whatboutism , Gun control is a whole other subject, I’m a 2a supporter, but there needs to be some smart reforms and consequences for things that may help.  The troubling part is our countries long standing freedoms and access to fire arms and we developed real issues into the 21st century. What changed that led to this is what we should focus on (root cause not symptoms).

I thought you had exited

No argument on Christ.  My problem with a lot of the religious right is that while they all clearly believe in JC, they don't appear to believe much of anything he said.

You indicated that the "unborn child" has no voice and is ignored.  Well... when is it a "child" exactly?  I would hope that we would both agree that a clump of cells does not constitute a child.  I also think it's really unfortunate to indicate that the child is being ignored.  It's certainly not being ignored by the mother in the vast majority of cases, wouldn't you agree?  At question is who is meant to be the voice of the child.  Is it the mother, or is it the state?  

These are tough questions, I don't think anyone thinks otherwise.  People in this country have very different views as to the morality of terminating a pregnancy, even in its early stages.  And on some level I think we can also understand that the state has some role in advocating for the unborn.  So what should we do when our goals and our values conflict with one another?  Well, here Roe and Casey struck a balance.  They held that the state could ban abortions after fetal viability, as long as there were exceptions for the mother's life or health.  But until the viability line was crossed, it held that the state could not impose on the woman's right to choose, in light of all the circumstances and complexities of her own life.  These include, for example, her and her family's ability to care for the child after it was born.  Or if the pregnancy resulted from a rape, or incest.  I see that you did not even address those situations in your response to me.

You indicated that the dissent does not reference the constitution.  This is false, and it actually makes me wonder if you even read it?  Because the fact of the matter is that it references the constitution at length.  What you might be referring to is the notion that this is an unenumerated right, that it wasn't explicitly written into the constitution.  This is in fact the main argument of the majority, that the right to an abortion isn't "deeply rooted in history".  But this is kind of crazy.  There are all sorts of things the founding fathers didn't consider, largely because they couldn't possibly have given the times.  Does all of that have to be left to the states?  How do you feel about the rights to contraception, or interracial marriage, or same-sex marriage?  Do you think all of those should also be left to the states, as Judge Thomas seems to suggest (except interracial marriage of course - curious that he overlooked that one!).

People on the right like to tell themselves that all this court did was interpret the constitution as is their job.  Well previous courts that passed Roe and then upheld Casey were also interpreting the constitution.  I would suggest to you that the constitution really hasn't changed, but what did change was the composition of the court, and that's clearly why this was overturned.  Full stop.  

Finally you reference the study of mothers being the biggest supporters of pro-life policies.  I find that a bit odd given that in the previous breath you indicated the role of the SC isn't to rule on the basis of popular opinion.    

Last visit here as I want to be clear on my beliefs as you likely can infer from previous comments.  Life starts at conception. How do you define when life is worthy of protection? The 14 week number is really just an arbitrary guess by the court.  I watched my wife experience the pain of a miscarriage at 12 weeks, I was a helpless fool by her side and can tell you that was not the loss of a clump of cells she was grieving.  

 Yes you mention rape and incest, I did not intentionally avoid as I missed it in my response, these are horrible and wicked acts on the side of the perpetrator.  Does taking an innocent life make this situation better? Most of you will say yes, I can’t, and this is not condoning anything, but I cannot look at a child and say their life is not worth protecting.  Also see you skipped my question about children of special needs?

 My dad, an extremely pacifist person, made a comment probably 5 years ago now that caught me off guard, roughly remembering his words, “public hangings for the wickedest of crimes might go along way in preventing similar crimes.” Doesn’t fix the issue at the present, but makes the consequences very real.  Also, major difference between protecting an innocent life versus the consequences of crimes.

You completely miss the point on the survey, should provoke thought among the readers, never made a statement about it guiding SC rulings.

The complaints keep coming back to this is religions fault, you can remove religion from this argument and still end up in the same situation, one side values life from conception, the other thinks it is only valuable when convenient.  Also very nice that we get to have this discussion since our mothers chose life.

Im done here as I know my opinion is in the minority with this group, but sometimes the echo chamber needs to be reminded there are other opinions out there.

I think we’re all aware of the variety of opinions.  What is routinely curious is the propensity to engage and simultaneously declare an interest in disengaging.  It’s like “here is my opinion but I don’t want to get into an honest back and forth so I’m done”.

I’ll have more later in response to your comment but I’ve always found this particular approach to debate fairly curious.  Incidentally, it won’t serve you very well on your path to a doctorate.  Good ideas and arguments bear scrutiny.  Weak ones… do not.

Awake at 3am…… John, probably better put, I’m not going to convince people on the internet to change their mind and probably better to engage on this forum for the normal reason I come here.  You call it discussion, but you attack arguments in different ways when you don’t agree with them even when presented with facts, same thing we all do to some degree.  This thread was not created as a discussion place, it was created to vent based on your world view, dissenting opinions are generally not welcome and that’s pretty clear.  Also takes forever to type out responses on an iPad and should spend my time doing better things, not that you aren’t worth my time, just better ways to spend it and goes for a lot of the distractions most of us have in our daily lives.

Again I will have more later, but I’m pretty sure I’ve responded to your posts in this thread in a polite and respectful manner.  I will continue to try and do that.

Ybabpmuts

@FarmingPhD

What kind of doctors are you farming then? Everybody wants to quote the handmaiden tails when it's convenient for them, but with all the puffy outfits it's hard to tell if they even have a tail at all. Since you farm doctors, maybe you can grow some that, in the future, will look up the dress of all handmaidens and see if they even have a tail at all. I'm starting to think most of the actors are just really good at making us all think that they have a tail, and the method actors have stopped wiping their bums in an effort to actually start growing a tail. It's up to you, to farm the future doctors that can tell us which tails are all for show, and which tails are full of sh!t.

Where'd you get the doctor seeds, that seems wrong somehow.

SB

JohnInCarolina

FarmingPhD said:

Last visit here as I want to be clear on my beliefs as you likely can infer from previous comments.  Life starts at conception. How do you define when life is worthy of protection? The 14 week number is really just an arbitrary guess by the court.  I watched my wife experience the pain of a miscarriage at 12 weeks, I was a helpless fool by her side and can tell you that was not the loss of a clump of cells she was grieving.  

 Yes you mention rape and incest, I did not intentionally avoid as I missed it in my response, these are horrible and wicked acts on the side of the perpetrator.  Does taking an innocent life make this situation better? Most of you will say yes, I can’t, and this is not condoning anything, but I cannot look at a child and say their life is not worth protecting.  Also see you skipped my question about children of special needs?

 My dad, an extremely pacifist person, made a comment probably 5 years ago now that caught me off guard, roughly remembering his words, “public hangings for the wickedest of crimes might go along way in preventing similar crimes.” Doesn’t fix the issue at the present, but makes the consequences very real.  Also, major difference between protecting an innocent life versus the consequences of crimes.

You completely miss the point on the survey, should provoke thought among the readers, never made a statement about it guiding SC rulings.

The complaints keep coming back to this is religions fault, you can remove religion from this argument and still end up in the same situation, one side values life from conception, the other thinks it is only valuable when convenient.  Also very nice that we get to have this discussion since our mothers chose life.

Im done here as I know my opinion is in the minority with this group, but sometimes the echo chamber needs to be reminded there are other opinions out there.

Thank you for clarifying your beliefs.

I certainly can respect the point of view that life begins at conception, but as best we can tell it's not actually a "moment".  It's closer to anywhere from 24 hrs to a couple of days, as best we can tell.  That aspect has always been a bit problematic for people who oppose even the morning after pill, for example.

When is life worthy of protection?  Certainly after birth, in my opinion.  That should address your special needs question as well.  I actually viewed that as a rhetorical question, as I don't think anyone would suggest a special needs child is somehow less worthy of protection than any other.  

I don't think the 12 week was an "arbitrary guess".  It corresponds to the first trimester.  As far as I understand the latest from pediatricians, that is well before the time when a fetus can survive outside the womb.  I think the actual viability is closer to 24 weeks, and even that is only in state-of-the-art NICUs.

I am sorry to hear of your wife's miscarriage.  I can only imagine what that was like for you both.  My wife and I were both very fortunate in how easy the pregnancy of our children turned out to be.  

I gather from your response regarding rape and incest that you would actually insist that the mothers be forced by the state to carry those to term.  I don't know if that's a fair characterization of your views but if it is I think it's really unfortunate.  You characterized it as "taking an innocent life" but I just disagree that this is what's actually happening here.  And I think it simply overlooks the life of the mother.  

Finally you had made the comment that the assertion that "birth control is next" is a ridiculous statement.  But this is precisely what is implied by Justice Thomas' concurring opinion, calling for Griswold to be reconsidered.  You did see that, right?  Is your view that Thomas is also being ridiculous there, or should we perhaps take what is written by a justice in a SCOTUS decision seriously?

JohnInCarolina

http://twitter.com/NoahShachtman/status/1544715519407931392?s=20&t=jZzf1_OGmS5yhV9Iu9f5Cg

nolaegghead

Schenck walked away from his life on the Hill after receiving a late-career doctorate on the teachings of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the German pastor who questioned the collaborative relationship between Adolf Hitler and 1930s German evangelicals. He drew parallels between the Republican Party and American evangelicalism, concerned that he’d weaponized worship to fuel a hate-filled agenda. No longer an anti-abortion activist, Schenck views his past efforts with regret. “Prayer is a positive exercise, until it’s politicized — and too many prayers that I and my colleagues offered in the presence of the justices were political prayers,” he explains. He also believes the work “contributed to the internal moral and ethical corruption of the justices at the court,” he says.

HeavyG

JohnInCarolina said:

http://twitter.com/NoahShachtman/status/1544715519407931392?s=20&t=jZzf1_OGmS5yhV9Iu9f5Cg

I'm as shocked as Captain Louis Renault was when he found out gambling was going on in Rick's Café Américain.

JohnInCarolina

nolaegghead said:

Schenck walked away from his life on the Hill after receiving a late-career doctorate on the teachings of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the German pastor who questioned the collaborative relationship between Adolf Hitler and 1930s German evangelicals. He drew parallels between the Republican Party and American evangelicalism, concerned that he’d weaponized worship to fuel a hate-filled agenda. No longer an anti-abortion activist, Schenck views his past efforts with regret. “Prayer is a positive exercise, until it’s politicized — and too many prayers that I and my colleagues offered in the presence of the justices were political prayers,” he explains. He also believes the work “contributed to the internal moral and ethical corruption of the justices at the court,” he says.

JFC

Ozzie_Isaac

This is an incredibly difficult subject and one that is personal for many people.  Here is my addition to.the discourse: 

Ozzie_Isaac

This makes me smile.  What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

dbCooper

Ozzie_Isaac said:

This makes me smile.  What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

@Ozzie_Isaac
In the spirit of... "Up all night, I could not sleep

The whiskey that I drank was cheap
With shakin' hands I went and I lit up my last cigarette"

What of:

Driving at 15.25 years?

Voting at 17.25?

Alcohol at 20.25?

Social Security at 61.25?

They all sound reasonable where I'm at right now.

Ozzie_Isaac

dbCooper said:

Ozzie_Isaac said:

This makes me smile.  What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

@Ozzie_Isaac
In the spirit of... "Up all night, I could not sleep

The whiskey that I drank was cheap
With shakin' hands I went and I lit up my last cigarette"

What of:

Driving at 15.25 years?

Voting at 17.25?

Alcohol at 20.25?

Social Security at 61.25?

They all sound reasonable where I'm at right now.

If that is a person, then absolutely.  These are just some of the problems with redefining person hood.  I read 1/3 of fertilized eggs self abort within the first few weeks.  Many times without women knowing.  If those are considered people, then their death should be counted.  Infant mortality rates in states defining a person at conception are going to go through the roof.

dbCooper

Ozzie_Isaac said:

dbCooper said:

Ozzie_Isaac said:

This makes me smile.  What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

@Ozzie_Isaac
In the spirit of... "Up all night, I could not sleep

The whiskey that I drank was cheap
With shakin' hands I went and I lit up my last cigarette"

What of:

Driving at 15.25 years?

Voting at 17.25?

Alcohol at 20.25?

Social Security at 61.25?

They all sound reasonable where I'm at right now.

If that is a person, then absolutely.  These are just some of the problems with redefining person hood.  I read 1/3 of fertilized eggs self abort within the first few weeks.  Many times without women knowing.  If those are considered people, then their death should be counted.  Infant mortality rates in states defining a person at conception are going to go through the roof.

The present infant mortality rate in the USA, compared to other first world countries, can be seen as shameful.  Skewing that number further down could be a positive once reasonable voices return to being the loudest, might bring some focus into addressing the issue. 

dmchicago