Roe V. Wade to be Overturned - Page 35 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15228526
wat0n wrote:But the 37 week fetus can just be delivered, and that'd be it.

Do you think that someone in a vegetative state ceases to be a person? How about someone in a coma or who's just unconscious?

But now you are moving the goalpost.
Now it is not that "they are people" but that "they can eventually become people". So do sperm, are you willing to ban masturbation and casual sex as well? Sperm has the potential to become people just like a fetus does.
And I need to keep reminding you, even if in some way you could say.. sure they are a person... you still would have to show why the right of this person or person-to-be should override the rights of another.

Why?

Do you think viability is ambiguous because we haven't worked hard enough and/or long enough to come to the answer? :lol: It is ambiguous for a reason. Your claim "But it's indeed possible to make it more precise." is doubtful. What you could do is define an arbitrary boundary, a number, a number that biology, science and technology will not give a fuck about and will continue to challenge it. Then you would be stuck with arbitrary numbers and with reality, that is not less ambiguous.
Again, viability is a nebulous term for a reason and the reason.


Yet it's based partly on biology.

No, it is not. It is mostly an ethical question rather than a biological one.


You didn't answer my question.
Should I be able to force-give a blood transfusion to a jehova's witness pregnant woman that is refusing the transfusion but that is so severely anemic that there is a very good chance she will have a spontaneous abortion without it but no other issues and we expect a blood transfusion will have a good chance of maintaining the fetus/pregnancy to term and alive?
#15228533
XogGyux wrote:But now you are moving the goalpost.
Now it is not that "they are people" but that "they can eventually become people". So do sperm, are you willing to ban masturbation and casual sex as well? Sperm has the potential to become people just like a fetus does.


Did you read the different definitions of "person" I quoted earlier? You could make the case sperm, following its normal course of development, isn't a person since it will never develop consciousness on its own without fertilizing an egg. But, say, a 37 weeks-old fetus? That's a far tougher one, and falls into some definitions of "person" and not into others.

Why would one prefer one definition of "person" over the other? If a "person" is a human who has consciousness, for instance, then the comatose would not be "persons". I don't think most people would agree with that proposition.

At last, you could make the case a fetus is inherently different from someone in a coma. Not in terms of needing external help to survive (both do), but because someone in a coma has already been part of society, with all this fact entails, while a fetus has not. This of course is indeed a major difference. But I don't know if that is enough to confidently say a fetus isn't a person.

XogGyux wrote:And I need to keep reminding you, even if in some way you could say.. sure they are a person... you still would have to show why the right of this person or person-to-be should override the rights of another.


That happens all the time. What rights would be in conflict here?

XogGyux wrote:Do you think viability is ambiguous because we haven't worked hard enough and/or long enough to come to the answer? :lol: It is ambiguous for a reason. Your claim "But it's indeed possible to make it more precise." is doubtful. What you could do is define an arbitrary boundary, a number, a number that biology, science and technology will not give a fuck about and will continue to challenge it. Then you would be stuck with arbitrary numbers and with reality, that is not less ambiguous.
Again, viability is a nebulous term for a reason and the reason.


...Just as many other topics where we have to regulate based on science. And no one said the operational definition of a "viable fetus" has to be fixed in time, either. Of course it depends on technological development, and could be revised based on it. Just like all laws can, anyway.

XogGyux wrote:No, it is not. It is mostly an ethical question rather than a biological one.


Just like the definition of "person".

But as in that case, there's obviously a biological aspect involved. A newborn is clearly not an adult, for instance.

XogGyux wrote:You didn't answer my question.
Should I be able to force-give a blood transfusion to a jehova's witness pregnant woman that is refusing the transfusion but that is so severely anemic that there is a very good chance she will have a spontaneous abortion without it but no other issues and we expect a blood transfusion will have a good chance of maintaining the fetus/pregnancy to term and alive?


If we assume the fetus is a person, I'd say yes. That's why I said the issue of a fetus' personhood has far-reaching consequences, both ethical and legal, and here preservation of life trumps religious freedom. If an abortion would solve her anemia issue, I'm more hesitant to give you an answer. By the way I don't think JWs are all that into abortion.

If the fetus isn't a person, then no, because only one person's rights would be affected so that's pretty straightforward.
#15228551
Pants-of-dog wrote:Then why is the right to life of pregnant people routinely ignored when abortion is being banned or restricted?


In what sense? There aren't many places where a pregnant woman would be barred from having an abortion if that was necessary to preserve her life or protect her from grievous harm. Certainly not in the US.
#15228555
Here we go again.

More deliberate insults from POD. He can't help it proving that those who consider themselves politically liberal are not much more civil (if at all) than conservatives.

But we are in the weeds about medicine and consciousness. And this argument does not matter at all. It does not move those who are opposed to abortion and never will. And they are politically in charge in the US I hasten to add.

So why do I argue something as difficult as "capable of surviving outside of the womb"? Because of what is politically doable. Remember folks that there is only one state in the US where there are not limits on abortion based on this thing called viability. And that is almost certainly NOT going to change even in outraged response to the SCOTUS ruling in the bright blue states.

@XogGyux I am with you all the way on the science. I do not disagree. I am simply expressing what has an ever so slight chance of preserving even a hint of a woman's permission to choose.

For that is what it has become. The SCOTUS has ruled, in essence, that a woman DOES NOT have any such right.

Now POD will launch into more insults of the people of the US which is sad. And he will again accuse the rest of us of only forwarding an opinion while asserting that his position is not merely his opinion too. It most certainly is. He has not forwarded on objective fact to support his position. Not one. He thinks he has but he hasn't. His arguments, just like the rest of us, at the end of the day, are all simply opinions.

I also hasten to add that this argument is not all religiously based. One in ten atheists, one in ten agnostics and almost four in ten "nothing in particular" say that abortion should be illegal. (Not just regulated; illegal.)

So y'all dive back into you discussion. It must be fun.
#15228576
wat0n wrote:Did you read the different definitions of "person" I quoted earlier? You could make the case sperm, following its normal course of development, isn't a person since it will never develop consciousness on its own without fertilizing an egg. But, say, a 37 weeks-old fetus? That's a far tougher one, and falls into some definitions of "person" and not into others.

Im not interested in any of that. There are legal definitions that treat corporations as people even though nobody seems to care if we dissolve a corporation.
I don't care for definitions that don't have a legitimate practical implication. For all intents and purposes, you are not a person if you have never had a consciousness. The ability to have a consciousness in the future does not make you a person in the present. Maybe my future phone will be a sentient being in the future, but right now, it is a piece of glass, metal and electronics. A fetal body that has been kept in anesthesia since its early development and has never achieved consciousness, is not a person. A person has (or has had) experiences, memories, feelings, personality, a fetus does not have any of that.

Why would one prefer one definition of "person" over the other? If a "person" is a human who has consciousness, for instance, then the comatose would not be "persons". I don't think most people would agree with that proposition.

Or sleep. The difference is, after the period of sleep and/or comatose and/or sedation, you regain a level of consciousness which includes your prior memories, personality, characteristics than prior to going into such state. This is not true for a birth. When you are born, you don't regain any memories of in-utero events or any personality, nothing. Furthermore, prior to birth, there is no evidence that any of that exist or could even exist.
An analogy would be a brand new computer, it does not have any data, just like a newborn, you cannot access data.
Meanwhile, your old computer, you can turn it off, you can disconnect it from the electricity and you will temporarily lose access to the data (as you would when sleeping and/or sedated/and or coma) but once you reconect that computer you have access to all your data.

At last, you could make the case a fetus is inherently different from someone in a coma. Not in terms of needing external help to survive (both do), but because someone in a coma has already been part of society, with all this fact entails, while a fetus has not. This of course is indeed a major difference. But I don't know if that is enough to confidently say a fetus isn't a person.

Precisely.

That happens all the time. What rights would be in conflict here?

Well, you are arguing that a fetus could be considered a person and has right to live. But this comes directly in conflict with the rights of the pregnant woman who does not want to be pregnant and/or does not want to deliver. That is the conflict.

...Just as many other topics where we have to regulate based on science. And no one said the operational definition of a "viable fetus" has to be fixed in time, either. Of course it depends on technological development, and could be revised based on it. Just like all laws can, anyway.

That is a recipe for disaster if you ask me.

If we assume the fetus is a person, I'd say yes.

So you would justify basically destroying the life of a woman, violate her body, her belief system, potentially destroy her family. Basically creating hell on earth for her to save the fetus. In other words, you are putting the rights of this unborn creature far above the rights of the mother.

That's why I said the issue of a fetus' personhood has far-reaching consequences, both ethical and legal, and here preservation of life trumps religious freedom. If an abortion would solve her anemia issue, I'm more hesitant to give you an answer.

No it does not. My personhood does not violate your rights to body autonomy. If I need a kidney and you are a compatible donor, my imminent death without a kidney transplant should not violate your body autonomy to maintaining both of your kidneys intact.
If I am a fetus, and my oxygen delivery is poor because of severe anemia of my mother, but my mother has a strong religious belief that she should not get a blood transfusion, and she declines this blood transfusion because receiving it would basically destroy her way of life, my personhood should not be able to override this woman's decision to force her to receive a blood transfusion.
Imagine all the crap that we could legislate about pregnant women.... If you can force a blood transfusion... cannot you force vitamins? vaccines? specific healthy diets? Banning of smoking or drug use (both illegal but also prescribed), forcing mothers to have exercise. Basically this sort of view would be a foot on the door to basically controlling all aspects of a pregnant women's life.
By the way I don't think JWs are all that into abortion.

That is irrelevant. The woman in the example is just rejecting a blood transfusion, not asking for an abortion. A spontaneous abortion/miscarriage may occur and likely her response would be something along the lines of "if that is what god wants..."

If the fetus isn't a person, then no, because only one person's rights would be affected so that's pretty straightforward.

I think it is irrelevant either way. See above explanation.


@Drlee
But we are in the weeds about medicine and consciousness. And this argument does not matter at all.

I agree.

And that is almost certainly NOT going to change even in outraged response to the SCOTUS ruling in the bright blue states.

Perhaps. The reality is, we don't even know what will happen with the SCOTUS, rumors say that Justice Roberts is trying to persuade some of the other conservative judges. Imagine that, a conservative judge going above and beyond trying to recruit someone else for what it is considered a liberal POW.

For that is what it has become. The SCOTUS has ruled, in essence, that a woman DOES NOT have any such right.

Well I don't think this is accurate. I am not a legal expert but my understanding of the prior ruling was based on privacy law, it was a kind of "don't ask don't tell" in which you didn't have an explicit right nor were doing something considered legal but because you had the right of privacy nobody could "officially know" and it ends up as a "functional" right. Worst-case scenario, this rule is reversed, but as far as I know there is no federal law that says that you don't, so in some states you would and in other states, you wouldn't. I think this is awful.
#15228581
Well I don't think this is accurate. I am not a legal expert but my understanding of the prior ruling was based on privacy law, it was a kind of "don't ask don't tell" in which you didn't have an explicit right nor were doing something considered legal but because you had the right of privacy nobody could "officially know" and it ends up as a "functional" right. Worst-case scenario, this rule is reversed, but as far as I know there is no federal law that says that you don't, so in some states you would and in other states, you wouldn't. I think this is awful.


Here is why I say that they have ruled that women do not have the right to an abortion.

You are correct that Roe was decided on the issue of privacy. But even Roe allowed the states to limit abortion and not just a little. So if abortion was a "right" then it would not be limited. Going further. . In Roe v. Wade, the majority wrote that their ruling does not permit abortions “at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason” a woman chooses. So there is the proof that abortion is not an absolute right.

You are also right about no Federal law saying that a woman does not have a right to an abortion. But what this decision did, and what makes it so dangerous is that it said that the federal courts do not have jurisdiction in this matter because the Constitution of the United States did not grant such a right. So it returns the authority to the states to regulate abortion. This, decides that a woman has no constitutional right to an abortion because if the SCOTUS thought that they did have such a right they would have struck down the state laws.

Alito cited the Due Process Clause and dismissed it because he said that abortion was not express or traditional.
He said that while not all rights had to be specifically articulated they must be "deeply rooted in this nation's history and tradition." "The right to abortion does not fall within this category," he said.

So in dismissing the Due Process Clause he effectively denied any authority the central government has to intervene. And, by the way, he called into question the ability of congress to force states to allow abortion. There are some (myself included) who is gobsmacked by this. I clearly see same sex marriage going the same way almost by definition. All it would take is a test case.

I understand that you find the disparity of law between the states "awful". I am not so sure I agree but not for the reason you might think. I am hoping that this obvious blow to women's rights will motivate women to demand such rights. And if they do it at the state level, they will profoundly blunt the seemingly inexorable move to the right in the majority of states. That is what I hope anyway. It is not what I expect.

What I believe will happen is that the midterms will go to the Republicans and that they will take the senate for sure and the house maybe. By 2024 I expect that abortion will be exactly what it has always been. An extremely divisive issue upon which coalitions are built. And, sadly,not one on which the democrats have managed to score many votes in the past. Women are very unreliable voters and rarely form useful voting blocks. More is the pity.
#15228583
XogGyux wrote:Im not interested in any of that.


You should be, it's an interesting question.

XogGyux wrote:There are legal definitions that treat corporations as people even though nobody seems to care if we dissolve a corporation.


There's a difference between natural and non-natural persons.

XogGyux wrote:I don't care for definitions that don't have a legitimate practical implication. For all intents and purposes, you are not a person if you have never had a consciousness. The ability to have a consciousness in the future does not make you a person in the present. Maybe my future phone will be a sentient being in the future, but right now, it is a piece of glass, metal and electronics. A fetal body that has been kept in anesthesia since its early development and has never achieved consciousness, is not a person. A person has (or has had) experiences, memories, feelings, personality, a fetus does not have any of that.


Neither does a newborn, does it?

XogGyux wrote:Or sleep. The difference is, after the period of sleep and/or comatose and/or sedation, you regain a level of consciousness which includes your prior memories, personality, characteristics than prior to going into such state. This is not true for a birth. When you are born, you don't regain any memories of in-utero events or any personality, nothing. Furthermore, prior to birth, there is no evidence that any of that exist or could even exist.
An analogy would be a brand new computer, it does not have any data, just like a newborn, you cannot access data.
Meanwhile, your old computer, you can turn it off, you can disconnect it from the electricity and you will temporarily lose access to the data (as you would when sleeping and/or sedated/and or coma) but once you reconect that computer you have access to all your data.


Well, I would definitely not be happy if my brand new computer arrived broken.

XogGyux wrote:Precisely.


But then, how would newborns fulfill that standard?

XogGyux wrote:Well, you are arguing that a fetus could be considered a person and has right to live. But this comes directly in conflict with the rights of the pregnant woman who does not want to be pregnant and/or does not want to deliver. That is the conflict.


So it's a conflict between two fundamental rights, am I correct? Even worse, but it's a conflict between a parent and her offspring, or between a person A and a person B where the latter is responsible for the situation person A is in, if fetuses are considered to be persons.

XogGyux wrote:That is a recipe for disaster if you ask me.


Why?

XogGyux wrote:So you would justify basically destroying the life of a woman, violate her body, her belief system, potentially destroy her family. Basically creating hell on earth for her to save the fetus. In other words, you are putting the rights of this unborn creature far above the rights of the mother.


Just like the rights of a child are above the religious freedom of her parents. Or what, you think JWs should be able to deny blood transfusions to their children too? Doesn't this refusal to accept their beliefs destroy the JW's parents lives as well?

XogGyux wrote:No it does not. My personhood does not violate your rights to body autonomy. If I need a kidney and you are a compatible donor, my imminent death without a kidney transplant should not violate your body autonomy to maintaining both of your kidneys intact.


But a blood transfusion is not akin to organ donation. Blood can be recovered, a kidney can't. There's a proportionality involved here, donating an organ implies a loss of limb while donating blood doesn't.

Also, as I showed earlier, there's case law where a parent can "donate" one child's tissue, and even organs, for his sibling.

XogGyux wrote:If I am a fetus, and my oxygen delivery is poor because of severe anemia of my mother, but my mother has a strong religious belief that she should not get a blood transfusion, and she declines this blood transfusion because receiving it would basically destroy her way of life, my personhood should not be able to override this woman's decision to force her to receive a blood transfusion.
Imagine all the crap that we could legislate about pregnant women.... If you can force a blood transfusion... cannot you force vitamins? vaccines? specific healthy diets? Banning of smoking or drug use (both illegal but also prescribed), forcing mothers to have exercise. Basically this sort of view would be a foot on the door to basically controlling all aspects of a pregnant women's life.


Vaccines can definitely be forced against your will, pregnant or not. Not by sending a SWAT team to vaccinate you at gunpoint, but through other means such as getting an education, allowing buildings open to the public to deny you entry, letting your employer fire you, mandating your employer fire you (for government contractors), firing you (if you work for the government), denying you access to some modes of public transportation (such as flights) and fining you.

A doctor could perfectly refuse to prescribe drugs for a pregnant woman if it may hurt the fetus. I don't see this being against the law. Smoking, drinking and other drugs are also already banned for some adults (those between 18 and 20), so I don't see why not in this case either - it's far less arbitrary if anything.

The other stuff would probably not be banned since it does not involve grievously harming, let alone killing, the fetus. If early induced birth is okay even if the fetus may need to be in an incubator, then the other stuff should also be okay given it will be far less debilitating for the child after birth. Just in case you want to make that slippery slope type of argument.

XogGyux wrote:That is irrelevant. The woman in the example is just rejecting a blood transfusion, not asking for an abortion. A spontaneous abortion/miscarriage may occur and likely her response would be something along the lines of "if that is what god wants..."


Maybe, at least, she should be aware of what would the refusal to be treated mean for her and the fetus.

By the way, just so you can relax about it, there are alternative to blood transfusions and furthermore is unlikely to be the main reason for the JW woman's fate:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1154926/

Late-term abortions are a far more frequent occurrence than this scenario. So if it's about ethics, one may definitely want to keep discussing those if we'll discuss this.

Drlee wrote:Here is why I say that they have ruled that women do not have the right to an abortion.

You are correct that Roe was decided on the issue of privacy. But even Roe allowed the states to limit abortion and not just a little. So if abortion was a "right" then it would not be limited. Going further. . In Roe v. Wade, the majority wrote that their ruling does not permit abortions “at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason” a woman chooses. So there is the proof that abortion is not an absolute right.

You are also right about no Federal law saying that a woman does not have a right to an abortion. But what this decision did, and what makes it so dangerous is that it said that the federal courts do not have jurisdiction in this matter because the Constitution of the United States did not grant such a right. So it returns the authority to the states to regulate abortion. This, decides that a woman has no constitutional right to an abortion because if the SCOTUS thought that they did have such a right they would have struck down the state laws.

Alito cited the Due Process Clause and dismissed it because he said that abortion was not express or traditional.
He said that while not all rights had to be specifically articulated they must be "deeply rooted in this nation's history and tradition." "The right to abortion does not fall within this category," he said.

So in dismissing the Due Process Clause he effectively denied any authority the central government has to intervene. And, by the way, he called into question the ability of congress to force states to allow abortion. There are some (myself included) who is gobsmacked by this. I clearly see same sex marriage going the same way almost by definition. All it would take is a test case.

I understand that you find the disparity of law between the states "awful". I am not so sure I agree but not for the reason you might think. I am hoping that this obvious blow to women's rights will motivate women to demand such rights. And if they do it at the state level, they will profoundly blunt the seemingly inexorable move to the right in the majority of states. That is what I hope anyway. It is not what I expect.

What I believe will happen is that the midterms will go to the Republicans and that they will take the senate for sure and the house maybe. By 2024 I expect that abortion will be exactly what it has always been. An extremely divisive issue upon which coalitions are built. And, sadly,not one on which the democrats have managed to score many votes in the past. Women are very unreliable voters and rarely form useful voting blocks. More is the pity.


This change would be far broader than I'd have expected. What happens with:

1. Abortions performed to save the mother's life or from serious harm? Abortions in the case of rape? Abortions if the fetus won't live for long, does the ruling consider a risk-benefit analysis?

2. Abortions performed quickening? Those were legal in English/colonial common law since at least the 16th century and also legal in the US for most of the 19th century, so this would be a basis to say the legality of abortions before fetal movement is in fact "deeply rooted in this nation's history and tradition" regardless of one's views about fetal personhood or abortion itself. This type of cop out would have far broader consequences than abortion, too.
#15228640
There’s no need to make it complicated. To be a person when it comes to human beings, we need to have been born alive.
We then function in the same basic way as all people.

We might need the care of other people or machines to keep us alive, but that is purely voluntary. We have certain obligations to ensure that if we don’t want to care for , or are unable to care for, our dependents, then we find someone else to do it, but that’s as far as it can go.

Anyone who believes banning abortion is about anything other than keeping women in their place is kidding themselves.
#15228666
wat0n wrote:You should be, it's an interesting question.


Not really. You can define anything. Not interested in what you or anyone can define or if you and 10 other people agree on definition X while 10 others on definition Y. I am interested on what something means on a practical sense, on the functional interpretation of the situation. A row of shrubs can be considered a wall, however, if it does not stop wind, insects, animals and people from crossing it, for all intent and purpose, it is not a wall.

There's a difference between natural and non-natural persons.

?

Neither does a newborn, does it?

Probably, but it does not matter, once the newborn is outside the woman, now he/she is no longer on direct conflict with the mother's body autonomy. Told you, personhood has nothing to do with this, at all. Once he is out, it does not matter if he/she is a person, certainly the state, who is now registering him/her with a birth certificate believe he/she is a person. At what point in time it truly becomes a person? I don't really know and I don't know if we can know.

Well, I would definitely not be happy if my brand new computer arrived broken.

If you think that is a bummer, imagine being forced to keep a pregnancy so that it ends up as a stillbirth or dies shortly after due to malformations that are incompatible with life. If you knew your computer was going to arrive broken, you might have wanted to cancel the purchase before it is delivered right? You'd prefer to abort the purchase :lol: .

But then, how would newborns fulfill that standard?

Irrelevant, the moment that the newborn is out of the mother and the umbilical cord is cut, the rights of this new creature no longer comes in direct conflict with body autonomy of the mother. Do we force new mothers to breastfeed? We know breast feeding is better for the newborn, better immune system (and not to mention, you don't have to go try to buy the infamous scarce baby formula). We don't force mothers to breastfeed the baby, if the mother does not want to allow her nipple to be sucked up by the baby and/or chewed up, etc... we don't force her.

So it's a conflict between two fundamental rights, am I correct? Even worse, but it's a conflict between a parent and her offspring, or between a person A and a person B where the latter is responsible for the situation person A is in, if fetuses are considered to be persons.

The conflict only originates when you start giving rights to an unborn fetus that nobody else possess. I don't possess the right to my mother's kidney. Why would I possess the right to live inside her uterus if she does not want to?

Just like the rights of a child are above the religious freedom of her parents.

This was never a question of religion freedom. I don't really care why that woman is refusing the blood. Instead of being a jehova's witness say that she thinks blood transfusion comes with government chips just like vaccines and she is refusing the blood under those grounds. Nothing religious, she just does not want it. This is about her deciding what goes into her body. Whether she believes it is because of religion or because she is just disgusted about having someone' else bodily fluids being injected into her... it is irrelevant.
Or what, you think JWs should be able to deny blood transfusions to their children too?

It does not matter. At this point, the children are outside of the mother and mother's body autonomy is not violated if you give a transfusion to the newborn.
You realize we cannot stop a pregnant woman from smoking? From drinking? from using IV drugs? we cannot force her to take folic acid to avoid neural tube defects? But once that baby is out, if we find out that she is feeding this baby whisky and smoking in front of the baby and maybe giving it a bit of her heroin so that the baby would stop crying or not feeding the baby a nutritious food, all of the sudden that becomes neglect/criminality and the baby could be taken away from her, she could face jail for child endangerment?
Birth is when the rights of the fetus and the mother are deconflicted, severed connection. It is not 20 weeks, or 15 weeks, or first heartbeat detected, or "viability" (whatever that means), but birth, when this occur.

Doesn't this refusal to accept their beliefs destroy the JW's parents lives as well?

Irrelevant. Adults can make their own health care decisions provided they have capacity and are competent. JW have this right just the same way you do or I do. You can refuse having a colonoscopy, this could mean you don't catch that colon polyp that 10 years down the line could be a metastatic cancer that kills you. Are you suggesting we should go ahead and insert a camera in your rectum despite your refusal because failure to do a colonoscopy could result in your death? Medical/ethical/legal is quite clear on your autonomy to make decisions about your body, this is not seriously questioned, not that I am aware of.

But a blood transfusion is not akin to organ donation. Blood can be recovered, a kidney can't. There's a proportionality involved here, donating an organ implies a loss of limb while donating blood doesn't.

An organ is not a limb just FYI. We don't even force parents to donate blood. Your limits seem arbitrary.
Tell me, do you think we should force parents to donate blood/plasma?
What about a bone marrow? It regenerates just as blood does (blood comes from bone marrow).
What about a piece of the liver for a partial liver transplant? The liver regenerates/grows.
What about skin? You got plenty? :lol:
Apparently you draw the line at kidneys :excited: ?

Vaccines can definitely be forced against your will, pregnant or not. Not by sending a SWAT team to vaccinate you at gunpoint, but through other means such as getting an education, allowing buildings open to the public to deny you entry, letting your employer fire you, mandating your employer fire you (for government contractors), firing you (if you work for the government), denying you access to some modes of public transportation (such as flights) and fining you.

This is where terminology matters. You can have persuasion, even certain degree of coercion, but we don't have an enforced mandatory universal vaccination.
You can persuade a woman to have sex with you by offering her a fun night, or perhaps money, or perhaps the implication that she might end up being married to you and obtain a US citizenship. All of those are means of persuasion, but none of those are "forced against her will" which would equate to rape.

A doctor could perfectly refuse to prescribe drugs for a pregnant woman if it may hurt the fetus.

Actually no. The pregnant woman with acute appendicitis comes to the ED, she still gets narcotics for her appendicitis pain, even though we know there is a degree of harmful effects to the fetus. Now, we do disclose this to her, she can say "I can endure the pain, don't give me anything that would put my child at any sort of additional risk" and we will surely do what she ask but we go by HER wishes.
Now, a doctor might refuse to prescribe a specific drug especially, when there are readily available and efficacious alternatives. I might refuse to prescribe doxycycline which is an antibiotic that has teratogenic effects but then again I have a myriad of other antibiotics to choose from.

Smoking, drinking and other drugs are also already banned for some adults (those between 18 and 20), so I don't see why not in this case either - it's far less arbitrary if anything.

Yet they are not banned for women that are pregnant... How about that, the mother is exposing the fetus (age 0) to all of these chemicals, and she is not breaking the law :lol: .


The other stuff would probably not be banned since it does not involve grievously harming, let alone killing, the fetus. If early induced birth is okay even if the fetus may need to be in an incubator, then the other stuff should also be okay given it will be far less debilitating for the child after birth. Just in case you want to make that slippery slope type of argument.

What do you mean "does not involve grievously harming, let alone killing the fetus". Folic acid deficiency can lead to neural tube defects, some might be mild but many can be disabling (quadriplegia due to severe spinal Bifida, anencephaly which would lead to death).

By the way, just so you can relax about it, there are alternative to blood transfusions and furthermore is unlikely to be the main reason for the JW woman's fate:

LOL "relax" about it.
Actually, the alternatives to blood transfusion are vastly inferior to blood transfusion. There is a reason we collect blood for million of people. Alternatives such Iron and EPO takes days to kick in and if your hgb is 4 this is precious time.

Late-term abortions are a far more frequent occurrence than this scenario. So if it's about ethics, one may definitely want to keep discussing those if we'll discuss this.

Frequency is irrelevant. Rape is far less frequent than shoplifting, it does not mean it is a less serious case.
This case only serves to illustrate the implications of treating the woman and fetus as 2 different entities and attempting to enforce the rights of both simultaneously.

1. Abortions performed to save the mother's life or from serious harm? Abortions in the case of rape? Abortions if the fetus won't live for long, does the ruling consider a risk-benefit analysis?

It does not stop at abortions. Some states define or want to define life at fertilization and this has serious implications for fertility treatment, in-vitro.
Doctors are not lawyers. Our practices of medicines are already overwhelmingly complicated by law, malpractice, etc. We are forced to learn far more than many of us would like because otherwise it is not safe to practice medicine. Keep this shit and I wouldn't be surprised of the demand to be a OBGYN in Alabama or Okhlahoma drops significantly. Wouldnt it be ironic if in an attempt to "save lives" these states make certain specialties so unworkable that the ensuing exodus of doctors leads to even more maternal/fetal deaths? Or more infertile couples that are unable to conceive due to no local doctor available to help with fertilization? That is a sad world that we could be heading towards.
#15228671
wat0n wrote:In what sense? There aren't many places where a pregnant woman would be barred from having an abortion if that was necessary to preserve her life or protect her from grievous harm. Certainly not in the US.


In the sense that people who want to ban abortion do not care about or make any provision for the right to life of the pregnant person.
#15228705
I
t does not stop at abortions. Some states define or want to define life at fertilization and this has serious implications for fertility treatment, in-vitro.
Doctors are not lawyers. Our practices of medicines are already overwhelmingly complicated by law, malpractice, etc. We are forced to learn far more than many of us would like because otherwise it is not safe to practice medicine. Keep this shit and I wouldn't be surprised of the demand to be a OBGYN in Alabama or Okhlahoma drops significantly. Wouldnt it be ironic if in an attempt to "save lives" these states make certain specialties so unworkable that the ensuing exodus of doctors leads to even more maternal/fetal deaths? Or more infertile couples that are unable to conceive due to no local doctor available to help with fertilization? That is a sad world that we could be heading towards.


Well, WRT health care we are in the saddest of times anyway. As if that is any consolation. So sad that the precaution of wearing a mask or vaccinating grandma against a disease that very well might kill her is a political issue. The CDC just recommended that (I) get a second booster because it has been 6 months but said, "unless this will make it less likely to choose to get one in the fall". Really. How about "hey dude. You need one now and you are going to need one in September or thereabouts.

I also agree that these laws will lead to all kinds of health issues. That is why I hope they motivate the people to do something. But I don't think they will. Medicine is doomed to become more and more difficult as the popularity of universal health care becomes an even more remote possibility.

@Pants-of-dog

In the sense that people who want to ban abortion do not care about or make any provision for the right to life of the pregnant person.


Do you have some evidence of this? I see no move to kill women who are pregnant. Every state law has a "health of the mother" provision. You simply cannot refrain from engaging in empty rhetorical devices.

@wat0n
1. Abortions performed to save the mother's life or from serious harm? Abortions in the case of rape? Abortions if the fetus won't live for long, does the ruling consider a risk-benefit analysis?


The ruling says nothing about any of those. All the ruling says is that the feds do not have a dog in the fight. Those decisions will be made in the 50 state legislatures. Some will be (compared to today) draconian. Some will be permissive compared to today. Depends entirely on the state.

This is why this ruling is such a poison pill. It is a transcendentally strong states rights bill. These individual "eaches" about which you ask, will not have recourse to the federal courts. The SCOTUS has seen to that in the ruling.

2. Abortions performed quickening? Those were legal in English/colonial common law since at least the 16th century and also legal in the US for most of the 19th century, so this would be a basis to say the legality of abortions before fetal movement is in fact "deeply rooted in this nation's history and tradition" regardless of one's views about fetal personhood or abortion itself. This type of cop out would have far broader consequences than abortion, too.


Nope. Read Alito's opinion. He already decided that the other way. He decided that abortion did not fit this test.

There is FAR more to this decision than first meets the eye. It is probably the most weighty decision made by the court in 100 years. Maybe ever.
#15228708
Drlee wrote:I







Do you have some evidence of this? I see no move to kill women who are pregnant. Every state law has a "health of the mother" provision. You simply cannot refrain from engaging in empty rhetorical devices.



The ruling says nothing about any of those. All the ruling says is that the feds do not have a dog in the fight. Those decisions will be made in the 50 state legislatures. Some will be (compared to today) draconian. Some will be permissive compared to today. Depends entirely on the state.

This is why this ruling is such a poison pill. It is a transcendentally strong states rights bill. These individual "eaches" about which you ask, will not have recourse to the federal courts. The SCOTUS has seen to that in the ruling.


There is FAR more to this decision than first meets the eye. It is probably the most weighty decision made by the court in 100 years. Maybe ever.




Arkansas has a total ban. There is one other state, Tenn, that appears to ban everything, but I'm not positive about that.

Alito's draft rips up a big chunk of law. Radicals can do a lot more damage by challenging other unenumerated rights.

Even worse, Alito's real motive is religious, which is hideously bad news for the reputation of the Court, and the Rule of Law.

It's hard to say at this point, but you could be right. I've seen legal experts say this takes us back to before the Civil War.
#15228711
XogGyux wrote:Not really. You can define anything. Not interested in what you or anyone can define or if you and 10 other people agree on definition X while 10 others on definition Y. I am interested on what something means on a practical sense, on the functional interpretation of the situation. A row of shrubs can be considered a wall, however, if it does not stop wind, insects, animals and people from crossing it, for all intent and purpose, it is not a wall.


So? In this case whoever is a person would have rights, so of course it's important to have a good definition we can agree on for completely practical reasons.

XogGyux wrote:?


My point is that organizations are not treated like ordinary people are. It's a different concept of "personhood", and it's derived from the fact that organizations are managed by natural persons.

XogGyux wrote:Probably, but it does not matter, once the newborn is outside the woman, now he/she is no longer on direct conflict with the mother's body autonomy. Told you, personhood has nothing to do with this, at all. Once he is out, it does not matter if he/she is a person, certainly the state, who is now registering him/her with a birth certificate believe he/she is a person. At what point in time it truly becomes a person? I don't really know and I don't know if we can know.


At what point in this video does the fetus become a child/person?



Was it truly not a person before? What's the magical thing about being outside and the umbilical cord being cut that turns it into one, given that it doesn't have the past a comatose may have?

And yes, personhood definitely has to do something with this. Bodily autonomy is not an absolute right.

XogGyux wrote:If you think that is a bummer, imagine being forced to keep a pregnancy so that it ends up as a stillbirth or dies shortly after due to malformations that are incompatible with life. If you knew your computer was going to arrive broken, you might have wanted to cancel the purchase before it is delivered right? You'd prefer to abort the purchase :lol: .


I think those cases can be seen from a risk/benefit point of view, does the woman's risk compensate the few minutes, says at most, the baby will live?

Or you could also claim that, since the fetus has little prospect of living in this case, it's not a person anyway. Not under the definitions of "person" I pulled from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

XogGyux wrote:Irrelevant, the moment that the newborn is out of the mother and the umbilical cord is cut, the rights of this new creature no longer comes in direct conflict with body autonomy of the mother. Do we force new mothers to breastfeed? We know breast feeding is better for the newborn, better immune system (and not to mention, you don't have to go try to buy the infamous scarce baby formula). We don't force mothers to breastfeed the baby, if the mother does not want to allow her nipple to be sucked up by the baby and/or chewed up, etc... we don't force her.


No, but giving the baby formula won't kill it either. It's a matter of proportionality, if breastfeeding was essential for infants to live and there were no alternatives, I'm pretty sure our ethical system and laws would mandate it.

XogGyux wrote:The conflict only originates when you start giving rights to an unborn fetus that nobody else possess. I don't possess the right to my mother's kidney. Why would I possess the right to live inside her uterus if she does not want to?


But you do have the right to be supported by your parents, indeed, neglecting you can lead them to jail.

XogGyux wrote:This was never a question of religion freedom. I don't really care why that woman is refusing the blood. Instead of being a jehova's witness say that she thinks blood transfusion comes with government chips just like vaccines and she is refusing the blood under those grounds. Nothing religious, she just does not want it. This is about her deciding what goes into her body. Whether she believes it is because of religion or because she is just disgusted about having someone' else bodily fluids being injected into her... it is irrelevant.


Even in that case, why would pregnant women have the right to refuse things like vaccination while you or I wouldn't? Why would it be okay for her to drink herself to oblivion yet illegal for all 18-year olds do the same?

XogGyux wrote:It does not matter. At this point, the children are outside of the mother and mother's body autonomy is not violated if you give a transfusion to the newborn.
You realize we cannot stop a pregnant woman from smoking? From drinking? from using IV drugs? we cannot force her to take folic acid to avoid neural tube defects? But once that baby is out, if we find out that she is feeding this baby whisky and smoking in front of the baby and maybe giving it a bit of her heroin so that the baby would stop crying or not feeding the baby a nutritious food, all of the sudden that becomes neglect/criminality and the baby could be taken away from her, she could face jail for child endangerment?
Birth is when the rights of the fetus and the mother are deconflicted, severed connection. It is not 20 weeks, or 15 weeks, or first heartbeat detected, or "viability" (whatever that means), but birth, when this occur.


If anything, there's a far better case for banning the pregnant woman from drinking than an 18-year old adult. Same for smoking or doing legal drugs.

XogGyux wrote:Irrelevant. Adults can make their own health care decisions provided they have capacity and are competent. JW have this right just the same way you do or I do. You can refuse having a colonoscopy, this could mean you don't catch that colon polyp that 10 years down the line could be a metastatic cancer that kills you. Are you suggesting we should go ahead and insert a camera in your rectum despite your refusal because failure to do a colonoscopy could result in your death? Medical/ethical/legal is quite clear on your autonomy to make decisions about your body, this is not seriously questioned, not that I am aware of.


No, I'm not suggesting that. But if fetuses are persons, then your decisions don't just impact yourself.

XogGyux wrote:An organ is not a limb just FYI.


That's just a mode of speech, taken from the Constitution :roll:

XogGyux wrote:We don't even force parents to donate blood. Your limits seem arbitrary.
Tell me, do you think we should force parents to donate blood/plasma?
What about a bone marrow? It regenerates just as blood does (blood comes from bone marrow).
What about a piece of the liver for a partial liver transplant? The liver regenerates/grows.
What about skin? You got plenty? :lol:
Apparently you draw the line at kidneys :excited: ?


I do think you have an ethical obligation to do so as a parent. I don't know if it's legal to force them, I don't think this has been tested, but the ethical obligation to help your children seems quite straightforward to me.

The law already forces parents to fulfill certain ethical obligations towards their children, such as supporting them. Why would this be all that different? If anything, for plenty it may be far easier or even preferable to donate blood or bone marrow than to pay child support.

XogGyux wrote:This is where terminology matters. You can have persuasion, even certain degree of coercion, but we don't have an enforced mandatory universal vaccination.


That coercion is a form of enforcement. Limiting your right to attend education may not be as harsh as fining you or even putting you in jail, but it's still a form of enforcement.

When there was a discussion about making COVID vaccination compulsory, the question doesn't just mean putting on paper "everyone shall be vaccinated for COVID". It also includes deciding on how to enforce the obligation, if for example the law decided to ban abortion but did not define how will the ban be enforced (which includes the consequences of having or performing abortions) then abortion is effectively legal and that statement is dead letter.

XogGyux wrote:You can persuade a woman to have sex with you by offering her a fun night, or perhaps money, or perhaps the implication that she might end up being married to you and obtain a US citizenship. All of those are means of persuasion, but none of those are "forced against her will" which would equate to rape.


But you can't for example say you'll get her fired from her job and destroy her career for sex. You know, #MeToo and all that.

XogGyux wrote:Actually no. The pregnant woman with acute appendicitis comes to the ED, she still gets narcotics for her appendicitis pain, even though we know there is a degree of harmful effects to the fetus. Now, we do disclose this to her, she can say "I can endure the pain, don't give me anything that would put my child at any sort of additional risk" and we will surely do what she ask but we go by HER wishes.
Now, a doctor might refuse to prescribe a specific drug especially, when there are readily available and efficacious alternatives. I might refuse to prescribe doxycycline which is an antibiotic that has teratogenic effects but then again I have a myriad of other antibiotics to choose from.


Well, in that case she could die if she isn't treated, could her? I'd say the proportionality aspect is being fulfilled here - sure, the fetus may suffer or even die, but it's done to save her life or from grievous harm ("loss of limb").

XogGyux wrote:Yet they are not banned for women that are pregnant... How about that, the mother is exposing the fetus (age 0) to all of these chemicals, and she is not breaking the law :lol: .


I know, it's irrational and disproportionate if you think about it.

XogGyux wrote:What do you mean "does not involve grievously harming, let alone killing the fetus". Folic acid deficiency can lead to neural tube defects, some might be mild but many can be disabling (quadriplegia due to severe spinal Bifida, anencephaly which would lead to death).


Can be analyzed on a case-by-case basis.

XogGyux wrote:LOL "relax" about it.
Actually, the alternatives to blood transfusion are vastly inferior to blood transfusion. There is a reason we collect blood for million of people. Alternatives such Iron and EPO takes days to kick in and if your hgb is 4 this is precious time.


And yet those are recommended for treating pregnant JWs, and it seems their death rates from anemia are low all in all.

XogGyux wrote:Frequency is irrelevant. Rape is far less frequent than shoplifting, it does not mean it is a less serious case.
This case only serves to illustrate the implications of treating the woman and fetus as 2 different entities and attempting to enforce the rights of both simultaneously.


So your solution then is to just arbitrarily decide only one of them has any rights? Would you do that for conflicts between two adults?

XogGyux wrote:It does not stop at abortions. Some states define or want to define life at fertilization and this has serious implications for fertility treatment, in-vitro.


They can define "life" however they want, but under Roe v Wade fetuses are not persons anyway. They cannot do much more than that as things stand now.

XogGyux wrote:Doctors are not lawyers. Our practices of medicines are already overwhelmingly complicated by law, malpractice, etc. We are forced to learn far more than many of us would like because otherwise it is not safe to practice medicine. Keep this shit and I wouldn't be surprised of the demand to be a OBGYN in Alabama or Okhlahoma drops significantly. Wouldnt it be ironic if in an attempt to "save lives" these states make certain specialties so unworkable that the ensuing exodus of doctors leads to even more maternal/fetal deaths? Or more infertile couples that are unable to conceive due to no local doctor available to help with fertilization? That is a sad world that we could be heading towards.


It's hard to know, honestly. It depends on how the SCOTUS approaches this.

If they are going to follow the shtick that rights should be "deeply rooted in this nation's history and tradition" to the letter then I would think the quickening standard would apply once again. That means states would not be able to ban abortion before the 16th week, covering the vast majority of abortions being performed today.

Pants-of-dog wrote:In the sense that people who want to ban abortion do not care about or make any provision for the right to life of the pregnant person.


Are you sure?

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

For the latest survey asking the "risk of life" questions (2018), 48% of respondents said abortion is "morally wrong" yet they broadly agreed with allowing abortion to preserve the woman's life (be it at the first or third trimester).

More generally, only few Americans seem to believe abortion should be illegal in all cases:

Image

@Drlee I would find those two answer to my questions a big deal. I agree with @late this doesn't seem to be based on a principled interpretation of the law, regardless of one's personal views on whether fetuses are persons, and abortion.

Firstly, there is no reason to assume the right to life of a pregnant woman is less protected than that of a fetus, assuming the latter is a person. If another person puts my life at risk, or risks grievously harming me, I have a right to self-defense - even if this someone doesn't intend to, like a gunman having a psychotic break could. This is a right that's most definitely recognized by the law, even if as a form of affirmative defense.

Secondly, for good or evil, the common law quickening standard would objectively amount to a right "deeply rooted in this nation's history and tradition". This is true even if the basis for it (that the fetus is alive only when the pregnant woman realizes it's in her womb, without making any claims about its personhood) is clearly factually wrong. This argument would if anything apply for allowing states to ban abortion after 16 weeks, which is a soft overturning of Roe v Wade of little practical consequence.

If the SCOTUS truly wanted to let states ban abortion before quickening, I would guess it would claim that since state laws have been moving to recognize fetuses as persons then the Federal Government has no business in defining the concept of "person" since the Constitution is mum on this matter (as stated in Roe v Wade), thus letting states do so and then deal with the huge legal consequences that would arise from it.

This ruling however would seemingly conflict with a large body of precedent and will lead to litigation in several other matters. What truly matters about overturning Roe v Wade is why would the SCOTUS do so, that's possibly more important than the outcome of the case itself. If you're right about the stated reasons for overturning Roe v Wade, @Drlee , then I agree this could be one of the most important court rulings of the last century.
#15228725
@wat0n I would find those two answer to my questions a big deal. I agree with @late this doesn't seem to be based on a principled interpretation of the law, regardless of one's personal views on whether fetuses are persons, and abortion.


Although the SCOTUS always speaks of its almost reverence for stare decisis (judicial precedent) every justice has in the back of his mind that this is a tradition and not law. They realize that they can make law. And this time they certainly did.

Henry the Fifth, Shakespeare:

Henry: “O Kate, nice customs curtsy to great kings. Dear Kate, you and I cannot be confined within the weak list of a country’s fashion. We are the makers of manners, Kate, and the liberty that follows our places stops the mouth of all find-faults,…


Firstly, there is no reason to assume the right to life of a pregnant woman is less protected than that of a fetus, assuming the latter is a person.


Let me stop you there. There are two things wrong with your assertion.

1. The use of the term "right to life" when referring to a pregnant woman. Anti abortion people take this term literally. If we use this term we ought to do the same. Nobody is proposing that a woman die for the lack of an abortion. (At least not lawmakers.) They push the line a little but....

2. BUT. (Dropping the term right to life as incorrect.) The pregnant woman is most certainly held as less protected from the vagaries of inconvenience/self determination when, to exercise her wishes, the fetus/baby is destroyed. The states have enacted laws to see to that and the SCOTUS has said that they are permitted to do that. Game. Set. Match.

If another person puts my life at risk, or risks grievously harming me, I have a right to self-defense - even if this someone doesn't intend to, like a gunman having a psychotic break could. This is a right that's most definitely recognized by the law, even if as a form of affirmative defense.


Irrelevant. The laws in the various states allow abortion when the mother's life is in danger. They set the bar for "danger" very high in some states.

Secondly, for good or evil, the common law quickening standard would objectively amount to a right "deeply rooted in this nation's history and tradition". This is true even if the basis for it (that the fetus is alive only when the pregnant woman realizes it's in her womb, without making any claims about its personhood) is clearly factually wrong. This argument would if anything apply for allowing states to ban abortion after 16 weeks, which is a soft overturning of Roe v Wade of little practical consequence.


Again. The court rejected this argument.

Alito cited the Due Process Clause and dismissed it because he said that abortion was not express or traditional.
He said that while not all rights had to be specifically articulated they must be "deeply rooted in this nation's history and tradition." "The right to abortion does not fall within this category," he said.


So no test case required. He already ruled on it. It is highly unlikely that the SCOTUS would reopen this can of worms that it so quickly just closed.

If the SCOTUS truly wanted to let states ban abortion before quickening, I would guess it would claim that since state laws have been moving to recognize fetuses as persons then the Federal Government has no business in defining the concept of "person" since the Constitution is mum on this matter (as stated in Roe v Wade), thus letting states do so and then deal with the huge legal consequences that would arise from it.


They did that.

This ruling however would seemingly conflict with a large body of precedent and will lead to litigation in several other matters. What truly matters about overturning Roe v Wade is why would the SCOTUS do so, that's possibly more important than the outcome of the case itself.


My point exactly.

If you're right about the stated reasons for overturning Roe v Wade, @Drlee , then I agree this could be one of the most important court rulings of the last century.


It is not my opinion. Alito, writing for the majority, said it very clearly. He knew exactly what he was doing and it was filling the far-right shopping bag to the top. It was a sweeping decision.
#15228728
Drlee wrote:Although the SCOTUS always speaks of its almost reverence for stare decisis (judicial precedent) every justice has in the back of his mind that this is a tradition and not law. They realize that they can make law. And this time they certainly did.

Henry the Fifth, Shakespeare:


I agree, but it may end up going the way of Plessy or Dredd Scott as soon as the court composition changes. I wonder if they'll really try to push their luck here.

Drlee wrote:Let me stop you there. There are two things wrong with your assertion.

1. The use of the term "right to life" when referring to a pregnant woman. Anti abortion people take this term literally. If we use this term we ought to do the same. Nobody is proposing that a woman die for the lack of an abortion. (At least not lawmakers.) They push the line a little but....


Indeed, but Roe v Wade also decided that states must allow abortion in that case. I don't know if this ruling would keep this precedent or not.

Drlee wrote:2. BUT. (Dropping the term right to life as incorrect.) The pregnant woman is most certainly held as less protected from the vagaries of inconvenience/self determination when, to exercise her wishes, the fetus/baby is destroyed. The states have enacted laws to see to that and the SCOTUS has said that they are permitted to do that. Game. Set. Match.


Well, honestly, if states think fetuses have a right to life then it stands to reason the mother should too.

Drlee wrote:Irrelevant. The laws in the various states allow abortion when the mother's life is in danger. They set the bar for "danger" very high in some states.


Indeed, but let's take the most radical scenario for overturning Roe v Wade. Would some states change this?

Drlee wrote:Again. The court rejected this argument.

So no test case required. He already ruled on it. It is highly unlikely that the SCOTUS would reopen this can of worms that it so quickly just closed.


Right, my point though is that other rights under colonial common law could easily be denied too. Saying there's no tradition deeply rooting a right doesn't cut it, the ruling should elaborate on why doesn't common law constitute an example of a source of what's "deeply rooted in the nation's history and tradition". Isn't this a cornerstone of this country's legal system after all?

Drlee wrote:They did that.


Is it mentioned explicitly or this freedom for the states to decide is only limited to abortion?

Drlee wrote:It is not my opinion. Alito, writing for the majority, said it very clearly. He knew exactly what he was doing and it was filling the far-right shopping bag to the top. It was a sweeping decision.


I wonder if they'll pull back now that the reaction hasn't been all that great. They can still do it, at least going for the quickening standard. I think the SCOTUS can get away with that too.
  • 1
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37
  • 67

America was always a shithole backwater, a nation[…]

JINO, judge in name only

you like the choo? No sir, find i like it too muc[…]

Roe V. Wade to be Overturned

Let me know another example when a perfectly heal[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Why did Lysychansk fall so fast? https://i[…]