Abortion Argument Within (f/k/a Biden to propose SCOTUS reform)

[GoHeelsweeeehoooo]

If Harris wins and if the Democrats win control of the House and Senate I think they should add 4 new seats to the supreme court

 

[lawtig02]

Eye It’s only defined by that characteristic on the radical left. Biden just 2 years ago said he’d never call for term limits on the court.

Pubs have been loudly celebrating all the precedents SCOTUS has overturned the last few terms. That’s the literal definition of creating new law by judicial fiat. Don’t play coy about it now.

 

[ENCHeel]

Pubs have been loudly celebrating all the precedents SCOTUS has overturned the last few terms. That’s the literal definition of creating new law by judicial fiat. Don’t play coy about it now.

Precedent is overturned all the time. Especially if the precedent is off-base and created on a whim in the first place. Courts create law, literally, on a daily basis. Just because you disagree with it doesn’t mean it’s bad and some sort of judicial abuse.

 

[CallMeTyler]

Precedent is overturned all the time. Especially if the precedent is off-base and created on a whim in the first place. Courts create law, literally, on a daily basis. Just because you disagree with it doesn’t mean it’s bad and some sort of judicial abuse.

Expound on this idea of SCOTUS overturned precedent based on off-base and whim, please.

 

[ENCHeel]

Expound on this idea of SCOTUS overturned precedent based on off-base and whim, please.

Are you asking if the precedent they overturned was based on an off-based whim? Or are you asking if their decision to overturn precedent was an off-based whim?

 

[CallMeTyler]

Are you asking if the precedent they overturned was based on an off-based whim? Or are you asking if their decision to overturn precedent was an off-based whim?

The decisions they overturned were off-base and made on whim, your words yes?

What about Roe v Wade was off-base? Somehow the 1973 SCOTUS erred in their decision to grant women autonomy over their bodies. I'm asking you to explain that position.

If we're talking about whimsical positions, the 6-3 majority used this flimsy explanation to support the ruling: Women do not have a substantive right to abortion because it was not "deeply rooted in this Nation's history or tradition", nor considered a right when the Due Process Clause was ratified in 1868.

You know what else was deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition? Slavery. We eliminated slavery because we recognize the fundamental rights to individual freedom. Slavery removes personal autonomy. Abortion logically follows.

Religion is the only true reason for opposing abortion. There is no fundamental justification, either logically or biologically, to restrict it.

 

[ENCHeel]

The decisions they overturned were off-base and made on whim, your words yes?

What about Roe v Wade was off-base? Somehow the 1973 SCOTUS erred in their decision to grant women autonomy over their bodies. I'm asking you to explain that position.

Yes. It was an error of judicial activism. There was no widespread issue on this matter. If you are going to allege the current court is participating in judicial activism, at least admit that’s how Roe came about in the first place.
The case was partially overturned in 1992. Did anyone have the same feelings back then as they do now?
“Granting women autonomy over their bodies” is fine. I want that as well. The distinction is, though, the child has its own body and has no power to protect itself. We will never agree on that, though. I also doubt you’ve read either opinion or understand the intricacies of each.

 

[CallMeTyler]

Yes. It was an error of judicial activism. There was no widespread issue on this matter. If you are going to allege the current court is participating in judicial activism, at least admit that’s how Roe came about in the first place.
The case was partially overturned in 1992. Did anyone have the same feelings back then as they do now?
“Granting women autonomy over their bodies” is fine. I want that as well. The distinction is, though, the child has its own body and has no power to protect itself. We will never agree on that, though. I also doubt you’ve read either opinion or understand the intricacies of each.

Changes were made in 1992 because the science justified those changes. Fetal viability outside the womb dictated an adjustment to the original ruling, as it should.

But an embryo isn't viable inside of 22 weeks. It cannot survive on it's own - the literal description for fetal viability.

You don't care about autonomy because you've agreed to remove those federal protections, give it back to the states, and let the states continue to restrict or outright outlaw them.

Please expound more on your legal expertise. We all love to learn here and you seem to have expansive understanding of this topic.

 

[ENCHeel]

Changes were made in 1992 because the science justified those changes. Fetal viability outside the womb dictated an adjustment to the original ruling, as it should.

But an embryo isn't viable inside of 22 weeks. It cannot survive on it's own - the literal description for fetal viability.

You don't care about autonomy because you've agreed to remove those federal protections, give it back to the states, and let the states continue to restrict or outright outlaw them.

Please expound more on your legal expertise. We all love to learn here and you seem to have expansive understanding of this topic.

I do want autonomy over your body. To me, that includes an unborn child’s body being protected from a mother who doesn’t want it for whatever reason. Whatever mental gymnastics you need to do to say a child is or isn’t viable, go ahead. The point can never be refuted that in the vast majority of cases, if a child’s life isn’t terminated beforehand, it will come out a living, breathing human being. The point of the mother’s womb is to protect a child before it can be viable. To use viability as a point to advocate for ending that child’s life is horrific and anti-human rights. I’m sure slavery advocates said “well who will take care of them? Who will give them jobs?” Etc etc. Abortion is modern day slavery and even worse. I’m sure I’ll get banned, but who cares.

 

[CallMeTyler]

I do want autonomy over your body. To me, that includes an unborn child’s body being protected from a mother who doesn’t want it for whatever reason. Whatever mental gymnastics you need to do to say a child is or isn’t viable, go ahead. The point can never be refuted that in the vast majority of cases, if a child’s life isn’t terminated beforehand, it will come out a living, breathing human being. The point of the mother’s womb is to protect a child before it can be viable. To use viability as a point to advocate for ending that child’s life is horrific and anti-human rights. I’m sure slavery advocates said “well who will take care of them? Who will give them jobs?” Etc etc. Abortion is modern day slavery and even worse. I’m sure I’ll get banned, but who cares.

A fetus cannot, biologically, survive outside the womb until week 23. It doesn't have bodily autonomy because it's reliant on the mother to survive.

YOU, and your fellow anti-abortion advocates, want to grant a fetus "special rights", which supersede the mother (you know, the one that's actually living and breathing in this world, on their own without someone else to survive).

Again, you don't actually care about bodily autonomy, that's why you think a unviable fetus gets precedent protections over the living, breathing person.

It's a nonsense position from irrational people who believe in creationism. You're stupid people.

You think this: has more rights than this:

 

[ENCHeel]

A fetus cannot, biologically, survive outside the womb until week 23. It doesn't have bodily autonomy because it's reliant on the mother to survive.

YOU, and your fellow anti-abortion advocates, want to grant a fetus "special rights", which supersede the mother (you know, the one that's actually living and breathing in this world, on their own without someone else to survive).

Again, you don't actually care about bodily autonomy, that's why you think a unviable fetus gets precedent protections over the living, breathing person.

It's a nonsense position from irrational people who believe in creationism. You're stupid people.

You think this: has more rights than this:

Here we go - I’m stupid because I believe in creationism and the rights of unborn children. Let me ask you this, what will that fetus become if it isn’t murdered by the woman who is supposed to be protecting it? By the way, the photo you provided is a fetus that most likely has a heart beat. I have a 1 year old child and we heard his heartbeat at 8 weeks. Only a sick and twisted individual would hear that and say “ya know what? I don’t want or need that in my life right now”. So, I’ll gladly be stupid in your eyes.
Just to be clear, you advocate for ending the life of a fetus for convenience of the mother and couch that as “human rights”?

 

[CallMeTyler]

Here we go - I’m stupid because I believe in creationism and the rights of unborn children. Let me ask you this, what will that fetus become if it isn’t murdered by the woman who is supposed to be protecting it?

This is really simple.

If I need to connect my body to yours to survive; I need your blood, your oxygen, and your food in order to survive, and you decide you no longer want YOUR body to support me but the state steps in and demands I get to use your body against your will, is that granting YOU bodily autonomy?

And how do you murder something that isn't viable? Do you just call it murder because it sounds scary?

 

[ENCHeel]

This is really simple.

If I need to connect my body to yours to survive; I need your blood, your oxygen, and your food in order to survive, and you decide you no longer want YOUR body to support me but the state steps in and demands I get to use your body against your will, is that granting YOU bodily autonomy?

And how do you murder something that isn't viable? Do you just call it murder because it sounds scary?

The difference would be you created me. You’re framing that is if a fetus is like a leech or parasite that is there to feed off you. The fetus is there because of you! Something you did, and now, because it’s not convenient, you want it to die. We are talking past each other at this point. To be clear: you think I’m stupid and I think you’re a disgusting and twisted individual who is anti human rights and satanic.
If a woman who is 15 weeks pregnant and her baby are murdered - you get charged with double murder. Should courts change that also?

 

[lawtig02]

Precedent is overturned all the time. Especially if the precedent is off-base and created on a whim in the first place. Courts create law, literally, on a daily basis. Just because you disagree with it doesn’t mean it’s bad and some sort of judicial abuse.

Me: “‘Actually upholding the law’ is an interesting take for a Supreme Court whose defining characteristic is its eagerness to reverse longstanding precedent and use its virtually unchecked judicial power to act as an unelected lawmaker.”

You: “It’s only defined by that characteristic on the radical left.”

Also you: “Precedent is overturned all the time. . . . Courts create law, literally, on a daily basis.”

I see you’re picking up here with the same good faith posting that got you banned on IC. Congrats. You make this community a better place.

 

[ENCHeel]

Me: “‘Actually upholding the law’ is an interesting take for a Supreme Court whose defining characteristic is its eagerness to reverse longstanding precedent and use its virtually unchecked judicial power to act as an unelected lawmaker.”

You: “It’s only defined by that characteristic on the radical left.”

Also you: “Precedent is overturned all the time. . . . Courts create law, literally, on a daily basis.”

I see you’re picking up here with the same good faith posting that got you banned on IC. Congrats. You make this community a better place.

Do you actually not understand the difference there? Genuinely asking.

 

[farce©]

Here we go - I’m stupid because I believe in creationism and the rights of unborn children. Let me ask you this, what will that fetus become if it isn’t murdered by the woman who is supposed to be protecting it? By the way, the photo you provided is a fetus that most likely has a heart beat. I have a 1 year old child and we heard his heartbeat at 8 weeks. Only a sick and twisted individual would hear that and say “ya know what? I don’t want or need that in my life right now”. So, I’ll gladly be stupid in your eyes.
Just to be clear, you advocate for ending the life of a fetus for convenience of the mother and couch that as “human rights”?

You can believe whatever you want. But you have no right to enforce your beliefs on people who do not share your religion.

 

[CallMeTyler]

The difference would be you created me. You’re framing that is if a fetus is like a leech or parasite that is there to feed off you. The fetus is there because of you! Something you did, and now, because it’s not convenient, you want it to die. We are talking past each other at this point. To be clear: you think I’m stupid and I think you’re a disgusting and twisted individual who is anti human rights and satanic.
If a woman who is 15 weeks pregnant and her baby are murdered - you get charged with double murder. Should courts change that also?

Just answer the question and spare us the emotional baggage you can't seem to set aside.

Is autonomy granted when something uses your body to survive without consent? Just because a woman is impregnated, doesn't mean she chose that outcome. The condom might have broken, the birth control failed, she was raped, or any number of other reasons.

Either way, it's her decision because it's HER BODY. Not yours and not mine, and certainly not the governments. Autonomy.

 

[WillDill1]

If anything, wouldn't the pregnancy as a whole be closer to slavery than abortion? Slavery is at is core, forcing someone to work/provide for you at a great toll to their body against their will. The mother is essentially a slave to the fetus. If anything, abortion before viability is pretty anti-slavery

 

[ENCHeel]

Just answer the question and spare us the emotional baggage you can't seem to set aside.

Is autonomy granted when something uses your body to survive without consent? Just because a woman is impregnated, doesn't mean she chose that outcome. The condom might have broken, the birth control failed, she was raped, or any number of other reasons.

Either way, it's her decision because it's HER BODY. Not yours and not mine, and certainly not the governments. Autonomy.

We have a fundamental disagreement that does not allow for this discussion to be fruitful. You don’t believe a fetus deserves protection and I do. If you want to say that’s stupid, then fine.

 

[CallMeTyler]

We have a fundamental disagreement that does not allow for this discussion to be fruitful. You don’t believe a fetus deserves protection and I do. If you want to say that’s stupid, then fine.

Answer the question: If you force someone to use their body against their will to force a pregnancy, are you granting them bodily autonomy? Yes or no?