Politico: Roe to be overturned per draft opinion
- Thread starter UncleMark
- Start date
That's only half the chromosomes of a embryo/person, so no.
Would females having their period be classified as half of an abortion? What about the millions of sperm that don't finish first? If two people choose to not have sex, is that preventing a life from existing? What about birth control? Is a miscarriage nature's abortion?
And yet they’re living organisms, if you will. So it seems we’re closing in on a definitive point of departure.
I googled and got a different answer. Not my choice to make. I guess women may end up with no choice at all.
No, I answered in the other thread that the fetus should be given analgesia, which was the same recommendation as the study you cited.
Depends upon the circumstances. Some babies that are born with severe medical issues have surgery upon surgery after birth. I’d need to see more information on how they know exactly when a fetus is able to feel pain.
I read and comprehended what you said just fine, thanks. Such a pleasant person.
I've never talked to a fetus before, have you? I'm sure it happens at some point, and I'm sure scientists have their theories. If I had to guess, probably at some point during the 2nd trimester. I think everybody understands how the human creation process works.
I see you have chosen to not answer my question: that is your right. I wouldn't force you to do anything or make any requirements of your genitals.
I don’t want to assume you understand anything if you can’t understand how we might know when a person can feel pain in the womb. Have to talked to a baby or a dog, etc., etc. about when they experience pain? Guess if they can’t tell you it must not be there.😧. The answer to your question is no, but has no relevance in this discussion.
Alright while I was gone, someone opened up the zoo. I want to know who let out the baboons and
If it's mass murder. farting in an elevator should be a felony.
Nope, I’m saying that about the question you posed relative to Spartan’s. Your question isn’t what the right to privacy is about. I’ve never seen anyone suggesting that we should be inserting anything in a woman that she doesn’t want there, have you?
It sounds like we agree that a person has the right to privacy. I can rephrase: since a person has the right to privacy, does this include a person's right to do what they will with their sex organs and keep what they do with their sex organs their own private business?
You are talking about what should be done with somebody else's sex organs. When somebody cannot consent or has no control over what is done with their sex organs, what would you call that?
You continue to misstate the argument. It's not about the use of a person's sex organs. The life of an unborn baby is what opponents of abortion (whether it's late-term or early abortion) are concerned about. That doesn't mean they have any concern at all with people having sex.
The discussion of sexual privacy is just as foreign and nonsensical to you as your discussion of "unborn babies" is to them. Again, the two sides aren't even engaged in the same debate on this topic. There is no possibility of compromise or common ground. One side will win; the other side will lose.
Compromise should be possible. Early term is OK with the overwhelming majority of Americans and late-term abortion isn't OK with the overwhelming majority of Americans. That's the compromise.
If you're a cold-hearted SOB that doesn't give a crap about a viable unborn baby, I suppose.
That was the Roe regime, for the most part (with some differences between states on what exactly was allowed when). That compromise was not okay with one side.
I'm sure that part of it was that is was a "law" imposed on the states by the USSC. Courts aren't in the compromise business. People generally don't like laws imposed by the courts. It was also a problem that many of the more "liberal" states decided to make abortions after (21 or 24 weeks - whatever the court pulled out of it's butt in Roe) easier and easier to obtain. No restrictions before something around 16 weeks, give or take, and serious restrictions after that would be a real compromise and OK with the overwhelming majority of Americans.
I think you're being naive. The problem wasn't that the courts imposed their will on the states. The problem was that any abortions at all were allowed.
Prediction: Anti-abortion activists will shortly be finding a vehicle to argue that fetuses deserve 14th Amendment protections under the Constitution, and ask the courts to impose their will on all the states, effectively banning abortion nationwide by judicial fiat. Suddenly, they won't have any problem with law imposed by unelected judges.
I don't doubt that some activists would try to do that, but I also don't doubt that they'd be out of step with American sentiment. Either way, allowing or banning abortions, a court ruling for either would only continue the fight. The only solution is for Congress to step up to the plate and pass something that probably 70 to 80 percent of Americans agree with.
I already explained this. It's not up to the courts to look at polls and deem a "law" based on them. The USSC needs to determine if laws are constitutional or not. It not was designed for the USSC to deem something is a law.
Also, 70 to 80 percent of Americans don't agree with what resulted across the country from Roe.
Last edited:
I think most Americans really don't care about abortion. At least not enough to get involved in any way. So they try to settle on something that sounds least offensive, which is the compromise you are talking about.
But it's doomed to failure, because the compromise makes no sense. If the anti-abortion activists are right, then abortion needs to be banned. If the abortion rights activists are right, then abortion decisions need to be left to the woman. Saying that abortion is okay up to a point, and not okay after that, has no logical underpinning. As evidence, we have the impending toppling of Roe, which fundamentally assumed that such a point must exist, and that this point was the point around which to balance the various interests and find that elusive compromise.
What's the most common opinion people you know have about abortion? I've never done a survey, but I can answer easily: "I don't agree with it, but it's ultimately up to the woman." Almost everyone I know would agree with a statement like that. But the statement makes no sense. Rephrase that a bit, and it says, "I don't agree with murder, but it's ultimately up to the murderer."
Anyway, what I'm really saying is the "common sense" approach to abortion lacks any actual sense, and that's why it's doomed. Someone will win. I suspect it will be the anti-abortion activists who eventually come out on top.
It's an interesting question to debate.
For example there's an anesthesia used that basically blocks your memory of the pain instead of the pain itself. It's called twilight anesthesia and I only know about it because my dentist told me as I was getting ready to have my wisdom teeth taken out as a teenager.
I was like wait, what??
In reality it worked, it was like that moment was cut out.
My point is to ask, how strong are the memories of pain?
I supposedly had a difficult birth. Was supposedly breach, supposedly had ambillical complications, then had a reaction post birth with some complications. Dad said it was a very, scary week.
Oh my parents also cut my foreskin off during that time.
I obviously don't remember any of it. My first memory has always been a kings island trip that I thought I was 5 but mom said I was 2.
I still remember it by the way.
Substantive Due Process is a legitimate legal principle, and it has been used sparingly: get over it. It solved the issue as well as possible.
Roe was a compromise, and viability is towards the end of the 2nd trimester: close enough.
Last edited:
There is a middle line, viability. One can find abortion before viability acceptable and not after.
