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

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 204
  • Views: 3K
A two-day old blastocyte on the moon is life in the same way that bacteria on the moon would be life.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
Decent idea, although folks aren't considering the downsides, but it will never pass. Its election year theater.

Give us real platforms to vote on.
Click to expand...
Back to the thread topic.

What "downsides" do you think "folks" don't consider? Am I included in "folks"? What about the law professors and scholars and Supreme Court advocates who have addressed these issues. Did we not think about the downsides?

The possibility that the GOP might re-expand the court if they win the presidency and Congress is not a downside. It's just the status quo. Meanwhile, since the Supreme Court is actively trying to help the GOP win elections, cutting that out would be quite helpful.
 
ENCHeel said:
You refuse to accept inferences based on Gods teaching because you are angry at Christians
Click to expand...

Church Benny GIF


 
ENCHeel said:
I believe it’s a person.
Click to expand...
Then knock yourself out not having abortions. You can speak to people and convince them not to have abortions.

What you "believe" is not important. I mean, what if I believe that, based on your posts, you are a waste of resources and that the world would be better with you gone? Does that give me the right to kill you? Does that give Congress the right to have you killed in the name of the greater good? The point of having rights is that this stuff can't happen. It doesn't matter if I believe that creationists are sub-human. It doesn't even matter if I could somehow prove that. Your rights don't depend on my beliefs. And vice versa.
 
superrific said:
Then knock yourself out not having abortions. You can speak to people and convince them not to have abortions.

What you "believe" is not important. I mean, what if I believe that, based on your posts, you are a waste of resources and that the world would be better with you gone? Does that give me the right to kill you? Does that give Congress the right to have you killed in the name of the greater good? The point of having rights is that this stuff can't happen. It doesn't matter if I believe that creationists are sub-human. It doesn't even matter if I could somehow prove that. Your rights don't depend on my beliefs. And vice versa.
Click to expand...
no because that would be murder just like killing an unborn child
 
ENCHeel said:
Well this is a political board isn’t it? Anyway, the fetus or whatever name you choose, in the vast majority of cases will be a child if it isn’t terminated. Think of it that way if you need to.
Click to expand...
I don’t think the “it will be a child” argument is very persuasive.

An egg will be a child if a sperm is allowed to fertilize it. Should we try to fertilize as many eggs as possible because not doing so is killing a half a baby?

We could also split a group of developing embryonic stem cells and create two babies from one. Do we have a moral obligation to do that?

One thing that they can do in IVF is take one of those clusters of embryonic cells and take one cell to do genetic testing on it. But once you’ve removed that one cell, have you created another baby which is subsequently killed to test it?

In my eyes, potential to become a child is a poor criteria and different people can have many different philosophical/religious opinions on that. Should society bow down to the most encompassing definition?
 
ChapelHillSooner said:
I don’t think the “it will be a child” argument is very persuasive.

An egg will be a child if a sperm is allowed to fertilize it. Should we try to fertilize as many eggs as possible because not doing so is killing a half a baby?

We could also split a group of developing embryonic stem cells and create two babies from one. Do we have a moral obligation to do that?

One thing that they can do in IVF is take one of those clusters of embryonic cells and take one cell to do genetic testing on it. But once you’ve removed that one cell, have you created another baby which is subsequently killed to test it?

In my eyes, potential to become a child is a poor criteria and different people can have many different philosophical/religious opinions on that. Should society bow down to the most encompassing definition?
Click to expand...
A baby is actively forming from conception.
 
ENCHeel said:
If it’s life in one place, which you admitted just now, it’s life in another place. You can’t decide when and where it isn’t life.
Click to expand...
You are playing word games. Yes, it is life. So is bacteria. Some would argue it is not yet a human life.
ENCHeel said:
It’s only broken because it did something you didn’t like. Should’ve won the 2016 election.
Click to expand...
It is broken because the norms that were followed for a couple of hundred years were abandoned. McConnell has taken it to the extreme when it comes to abandoning those norms.

To illustrate the point, a Democratically controlled senate confirmed Clarence Thomas in 1991. Democrats have confirmed many Republican nominees in the past, many overwhelmingly.

Considering how far we have gone to destroy the historical norms, I don’t think expanding the court is out of the question.

Simply put, the current way judges are chosen and confirmed is completely broken. In the near future we could have full presidential terms go by with an open SCOTUS seat simply because the precedent has been set that a senate of one party will not confirm a nomination made by the other party.
 
ChapelHillSooner said:
You are playing word games. Yes, it is life. So is bacteria. Some would argue it is not yet a human life.

It is broken because the norms that were followed for a couple of hundred years were abandoned. McConnell has taken it to the extreme when it comes to abandoning those norms.

To illustrate the point, a Democratically controlled senate confirmed Clarence Thomas in 1991. Democrats have confirmed many Republican nominees in the past, many overwhelmingly.

Considering how far we have gone to destroy the historical norms, I don’t think expanding the court is out of the question.

Simply put, the current way judges are chosen and confirmed is completely broken. In the near future we could have full presidential terms go by with an open SCOTUS seat simply because the precedent has been set that a senate of one party will not confirm a nomination made by the other party.
Click to expand...
That’s different than what they are saying. They’re saying SCOTUS itself is broken.
 
WaynetheDrain said:
No it’s not theater. It won’t happen this year, but it’s important to start the conversation NOW. Because it needs to happen. Getting the debate started at least gets it normalized at some point so it can happen in the future.

SCOTUS is broken, and it needs to be fixed. Period.
Click to expand...
Scotus made some decisions you and I disagree with, but people still listen to the decisions and people still want to appeal their cases before the court. Its working pretty much as designed.

But Biden's proposal is theater because its not happening. Joe can start the conversation to drive change but he is really raising the issue to get people to vote for the Democratic ticket. Its basically a campaign promise that will never happen.
 
Last edited:
18 years. That is equivalent to three senate terms starting with all new justices. Current justices can stay grandfathered in until retirement or death.
 
Biden’s recommendations are spot on, for the most part. However 18 may be too much. I’m thinking 12. The only other thing missing is increasing the court up to 13 members.
 
ENCHeel said:
If it’s life in one place, which you admitted just now, it’s life in another place. You can’t decide when and where it isn’t life.
Click to expand...
CallMeTyler said:
The question isn’t whether it is life. The question is viability.

Nobody would suggest that cells aren’t a display of life. This gotcha is so bad I’m not sure how serious to take it.

You’re getting far more engagement than you have any right to.
Click to expand...
Take it as so unserious that you stop replying or engaging with ENC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top