Biggest Abortion Case in 29 Years at the Supreme Court

So you do see the fallacy of your rationale…

You just said it wasnt a life because it may not survive naturally. I might not survive naturally until tomorrow, too, so offing me aint “killing” either. Hell, how much do we spend annually to keep people alive who would most certainly be dead if left for nature to take it’s course?

And those risks are very low. You’ve been talking in terms of those zygotes that never implant, to justify that many dont survive anyways so who cares. Once implanted, which is generally less than 4 weeks, there’s a very high survival rate. So yes, when using natural selection to justify the claim that there’s “no difference” if done intentionally/artificially, you’re talking about the first couple weeks when few know they’re pregnant.

2 Likes

I do not. I was mocking your position for mocking mine. If you’re saying that “preventing what might have been” is a problem, then contraception is also a problem for you.

Where did I say that? I think you’re twisting my words.

You’re already a separate life form.

No I haven’t. The risks are still there. Women I know usually don’t announce before 5 months in, because the risks are high. I’m not a doctor so I can’t enumerate all the risks, I just know they exist.

Not even close. Ectopic pregnancy presents at 4-8 weeks, for example.

The risk after 6 weeks is around 10%, and even less once you hit 3 months. So yeah, terminating the pregnancy during this time period is most certainly “making a difference”, unless you are including those zygotes where 2/3 of them never implant.

That’s a whopping 2% of the total. Doesnt justify indiscriminately offing pregnancies at will because of the possible risk it might eventually prove to be necessary.

2 Likes

But we’re not saying “preventing what might have been” is a problem. We’re calling your claim that “preventing what might have been is no big deal” complete bunk. Contraception is actual prevention. Intentional termination after the new life has been created is just as much pregnancy prevention as imploding a building that’s on fire is fire prevention.

What’s you’re limit? Why is that your limit?

I’m taking your belief - that generally speaking, any mother-reasoned abortion is okay - to its logical conclusion. One of the least controversial reasons for an abortion of a wanted baby is disability. And the most common reason for a disability based abortion is down syndrome. It’s also the most survivable and least life threatening common disability for which mothers abort. But if you are going to allow for disability selective abortions, you have to define disability. Where do you draw the line. A racist would believe that a baby that is the “wrong” race could be a disability. A sexist could believe that a baby that is the “wrong” sex could be a disability. If you allow for selective abortions (meaning people that want kids but don’t want one of “those” kids), which you clearly believe should be allowed, you either have to allow them all, or come up with what is a legal reason for selection and what is an illegal reason for selection. Where do you draw the line? Why?

Here you go being anti-science again.

So is a baby inside the womb. Just because it isn’t outside the mother’s body doesn’t keep it from being a separate life form. You can keep denying its humanity by calling it a virus, clump of cells, fetus, etc. all you want, but the vast majority of people are somewhere in between your position and mine. They may be upset with me for wanting to give rights to an unborn baby so early on in its life when they think its mother should have more rights, but they would be disgusted with your view that there isn’t a separate life inside a mother as it grows. Do you realize how the majority of people, especially ones who have kids, are really bothered by your rhetoric?

4 Likes

And that is something that wont be known until after birth. So, that same argument allows for aborting a baby after it has been born. Be it something ridiculous like race-based, or genetic defects that were not discovered until after birth, or even permanent disabilitating damage that occured during birth.

Virtually all the arguments being used to justify abortions apply far beyond the 9 month gestation period (or is it a 4 month period, or 1 day period, or whatever, since those first few months apparently “dont count” as being a baby growing)

That’s where I stand. When I look at the situations objectively (without listening to the rhetoric), I can see validity on both sides. I’m not pro-life as much as I am against the ridiculously entitled arrogance of the pro-abortion rabblerousers.

3 Likes

Maybe the justices need to move to FL. They’re making too much sense down there.

3 Likes

It is already illegal to picket nesr a federal judge’s house to influence the results of a trial but the Biden/Garland department of justice refuses to enforce the law. I do wonder why the new Virginia Republican Attorney General Miyares does not stop pckering near the judges’ houses for those who live in Virginia?

3 Likes

The pro-death crowd will, if they’ve got any sense left, just stand outside the house without saying anything, thus negating any argument of influence. However, a recording from the Rasp PI at the light pole will set them up for perjury.

1 Like

On a personal note:

Even though I was born visible, I identify as invisible. Therefore, I am trans-parent. My preferred pronouns are who?/where?.

3 Likes

I think you are saying that “preventing what might have been” is a problem. A better “building on fire” analogy would be something like this: contraception is keeping the matches in a box; having sex is lighting a match; whether hat match causes a fire is up to the person holding it; neither the match nor the building belong to you and are not going to cause you any harm, so mind your own damn business.

I already mentioned before – my soft limit is around 26 weeks, because with special equipment it may survive, even though the chances and prognosis aren’t all that great. This means I want abortion to be extremely rare beyond that point, but I’d allow for exceptions. My hard limit on abortion is 35 weeks, because everything should be known by then and that’s when the negative effects (for the baby) of premature birth become much lower (than even at 34 weeks), especially if lung development is medically accelerated.

A debilitating health condition, genetic abnormality, i.e. a medical disability. Obviously. Tell you a secret – my wife works with children with special needs, and if we were in such a situation, we probably would not abort unless it was something severe. But I’m not so arrogant as to make this decision for others.

The hot tub is killing all those unborn babies in your sack. You monster.

If my position bothers you, perhaps it is because you see some truth in it and you just don’t like it or can’t accept it for your own reasons. And I don’t believe it’d be a majority, but it doesn’t really matter (statistics say that 50% of people are dumber than the other 50%, by definition). I have a kid, he’s amazing and I’m grateful to have him, but I’m not so arrogant as to tell others what to do with their bodies or their undeveloped clumps.

1 Like

So you think others are arrogant when they draw their line, but you are not arrogant when you draw a different line?

1 Like

Are they? What about the First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly?

The laws against protesting near a judge’s residences make sense. This one does not. It’s actually draconian. The street in front of a private residence is public. Are cops going to tell a couple to disburse just for walking on a public street? Sounds like they can in Florida.

I want the alcoholic to be able to identify as a sober person, so that he can qualify for a liver transplant. I want the chain smoker to be able to identify as a nonsmoker, so they can get better health insurance rates. I want the 40 year old man to be able to identify as a teenager, so he can legally hook up with those hot high school cheerleaders. I want to identify as a 2-week old zygote, so that I can be used as evidence that abortion kills lives. Hell, I want pregnant women to be able to identify as pre-pubescent 6 year olds, then there’d be no need for abortions since people that age are obviously incapable of getting pregnant (sadly, that’s pretty close to already happening, since that’s the age that a lot of pro-abortion crowd tends to act).

When you make the decision to ignore one basic biological facts, you’ve invalidated them all. And virtually every standard that forms the basic building blocks of our society gets tossed to the curb. “You’re being crazy, intolerant, and hateful, officer - who cares what my spedometer said, I identified my speed to be that of the 30mph limit and it’s discriminatory for you to not respect my choice.”

The whole thing is the plot of a really really twisted abstract thinking exercise that has absolutely no roots in reality.

2 Likes

No, we are saying that it’s a problem when [you] selectively use it as a standard in one circumstance while excluding it as a valid rationale in other circumstances.

If that is the basis premise for your beliefs, fine, then apply it consistantly. But you cant/wont.

Why would you expect that? Pre-birth, a lot of conditions require [relatively] expensive testing to identify. Hell, a lot of defects you’d deem to be justification for abortion dont present until years after birth.

Where have I drawn a line? I’ve objected to the notion that there is no other valid perspective. I’ve objected to the asinine claims that this is merely a white man’s attack on women. I’ve objected to the hypocrisy, tunnel vision, and double standards being applied.

I dont understand. How can you agree that the law make sense, while in the same breath argue how it’s draconian and a violation of one’s rights?

1 Like

I think that at present, everything that can be known, is known by 35 weeks. In the future we may know more and we may know sooner (or perhaps later), but I’m working with the present. I’m not forcing anyone to do any tests, so costs are irrelevant to what I was saying. I’m saying that if the parents did the test and the results are bad (and I already clarified what “bad” means), the parents should have the right to terminate.

The laws are not the same. The federal law against protesting near a judge’s residence makes sense, because it intimidates a judge. The Florida law that blanket bans protests near any private residence is draconian.

“Preventing,” when you use it, is a problem because you classify the termination of a pregnancy - a separate human life - as prevention. It’s not prevention. For an abortion, there is generally knowledge and intent. Knowledge of a pregnancy and intent to end the human life that was created as part of the pregnancy. The thing most abortions are trying to “prevent” is a harder life for the mother. That would be fine if another person didn’t have to lose their life in order to “prevent” that from occurring.

When I use the word, “preventing,” I’m talking about contraception or abstinence. Neither knowledge or intent exist for contraception usage or abstinence. There is no knowledge new human life was created because the contraception (or decision to not have sex) was used/made beforehand. And clearly there is no intent to end a life.

And here is the other terrible argument your side uses. “You’re not involved, so mind your business.” It’s akin to, “don’t like abortions, don’t get one.” But that argument doesn’t work for my underlying premise. “Don’t like slavery, don’t own slaves,” and, “Don’t like owning fully-automatic weapons without registering them with the government, don’t own one yourself.” We as a society have decided that when it comes to questions of morality and safety, what people do that affects others, even minimally, is the business of the rest of us in society. Think hard and I’m sure you’ll come up with plenty of things you don’t do that I might want to do, but you are perfectly fine with (and probably even support) the fact that the law prohibits me from doing them.

So you are okay with outlawing abortion at 35 weeks and okay with restricting it at 26 weeks to… only abortions for medial reasons like severe developmental abnormalities or the life of the mother that are discovered between 26-35 weeks? All mothers that only care about their own quality of life (the vast majority of abortions) should have made their decision by 26 weeks, before the baby inside them really starts to develop into a viable human being? What’s up with those extreme Europeans that think 15 weeks is plenty of time? Are they just misogynists giving too much protection to clumps of cells, or do they recognize the humanity of the unborn baby at a stage closer to when it starts looking like one, and are therefore, more willing to compromise?

I’ve already pointed out how untruthful your position is when it comes to biological development. Anything you’re said that is true, doesn’t bother me. I am mostly bothered by your virus/clump of cells rhetoric

Correct. But my reasons aren’t as uncommon as you think they are.

It will matter in lots of states where the majority agrees with me if this decision comes down in a form similar to what Alito has drafter.

I have a dog, he’s amazing and I feed him everyday and don’t let him engage in deadly dog fights, but I’m not so arrogant as to tell others whether they have to feed their non-human pets or keep them from deadly non-human combat.
Just kidding, you and I and society are absolutely that arrogant. That’s part of being in a society. If I convince enough people in my state that aborting babies is morally reprehensible, I can absolutely impart my will against them - just as we are already doing for nearly everything else.

3 Likes

I agree with you generally, obviously, I just don’t agree that a clump of cells is an “other” or “a person” that should instantly have the right to be protected by society.

Then I sure hope you know what happens at your local kennel if a pet isn’t reunited or adopted within a few weeks. That may be a better outlet for your “pro-life” agenda. At least nobody will argue that those animals are a life.

1 Like

So only the wealthy are entitlted to manufacture genetic superiority? Poor people should be stuck with disabled babies because they cant afford the necessary tests pre-birth to know which fetuses to kill?

So many contradictions and double standards in trying to concoct an argument to support your predetermined conclusion…

Protesting at any person’s private residence is done to intimidate that person into doing whatever it is you want them to do. Either it’s acceptible behavior or it isnt. It is not draconian to provide everyone a buffer of privacy at their place of residence.

2 Likes

Same with “reproductive rights”. Abortions have nothing to do with women’s reproductive rights; the desire for an abortion is proof that those reproductive rights have not been denied. The abortion is merely granting the woman a do-over for past actions she ends up regretting.

1 Like