And in doing so would be overturning it in all but name and infuriate woman nationwide.
Advertisement
by Thermodolia » Fri Oct 22, 2021 11:35 am
by San Lumen » Fri Oct 22, 2021 11:36 am
Thermodolia wrote:San Lumen wrote:
And in doing so would be overturning it in all but name and infuriate woman nationwide.
Not really. Because they can claim that Roe isn’t overturned that Roe is still protected. That you can abort out of state and whatever.
Sure it wouldn’t be perfect but it would do enough to keep the democrats from scoring a PR victory
by Genivaria » Fri Oct 22, 2021 11:45 am
Vassenor wrote:Temple State wrote:
Until you can have your beautiful Brave New World where humans are made in factories: Deal with it.
Besides, stopping people from self-harm and outlawing certain intoxicating substances is already in this judicial territory and something most states do every day. As citizens are the most precious resource of any given state it would logically follow from such a precedent that they should favor the life of the unborn above the "bodily autonomy" of someone too irresponsible to deal with the consequences of their actions. Especially when they try to avoid those consequences by killing an innocent.
So you can't explain why Fetuses should get rights no-one else does.
Also I see we're doing Pregnancy as Punishment again. Everybody drink.
by The Alma Mater » Fri Oct 22, 2021 12:12 pm
by The New California Republic » Fri Oct 22, 2021 12:20 pm
Temple State wrote:If human rights are something accrued and not automatically a given if someone is genetically human, you don't see the judicial pit you are opening?
What other human rights do you think can be given partially or not at all? What other human beings would you like to dehumanize?
by Esternial » Fri Oct 22, 2021 12:41 pm
Temple State wrote:If human rights are something accrued and not automatically a given if someone is genetically human, you don't see the judicial pit you are opening?
What other human rights do you think can be given partially or not at all? What other human beings would you like to dehumanize?
by Godular » Fri Oct 22, 2021 1:58 pm
Temple State wrote:If human rights are something accrued and not automatically a given if someone is genetically human, you don't see the judicial pit you are opening?
What other human rights do you think can be given partially or not at all? What other human beings would you like to dehumanize?
by Thepeopl » Fri Oct 22, 2021 2:01 pm
Temple State wrote:Vassenor wrote:
Outlawing abortion requires granting the fetus the right to make use of another's body without their consent, a right extended to no other person.
Until you can have your beautiful Brave New World where humans are made in factories: Deal with it.
Besides, stopping people from self-harm and outlawing certain intoxicating substances is already in this judicial territory and something most states do every day. As citizens are the most precious resource of any given state it would logically follow from such a precedent that they should favor the life of the unborn above the "bodily autonomy" of someone too irresponsible to deal with the consequences of their actions. Especially when they try to avoid those consequences by killing an innocent.
by Betoni » Fri Oct 22, 2021 3:06 pm
The New California Republic wrote:Temple State wrote:If human rights are something accrued and not automatically a given if someone is genetically human, you don't see the judicial pit you are opening?
What other human rights do you think can be given partially or not at all? What other human beings would you like to dehumanize?
You are wanting the fetus to have a right that nobody else has, that's the difference here.
by The New California Republic » Fri Oct 22, 2021 3:53 pm
Betoni wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong on this, but the fetus doesn't have any legal bearing, it is not a legal entity.
by Elwher » Fri Oct 22, 2021 4:05 pm
by The New California Republic » Fri Oct 22, 2021 4:09 pm
by The New California Republic » Fri Oct 22, 2021 4:12 pm
Elwher wrote:Second, is the mechanism Texas is using to avoid a SCOTUS review good or even legal?
by Esternial » Fri Oct 22, 2021 4:16 pm
by Isles of Eamhna » Fri Oct 22, 2021 4:26 pm
Betoni wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong on this, but the fetus doesn't have any legal bearing, it is not a legal entity. So the question is not about the fetuse's rights vs the mothers. It's about the mothers rights period.
by Spirit of Hope » Fri Oct 22, 2021 5:01 pm
Elwher wrote:There are at least three separate discussions going on here, not counting the various offshoots that always crop up.
First, is abortion something that should be unregulated, controlled (and if so, when), or banned?
Second, is the mechanism Texas is using to avoid a SCOTUS review good or even legal?
Third, should Roe be the law of the land?
The first hinges too much on morality or personhood to ever be settled by discussion, only laws will do so and they will leave some people unhappy with the result as their deeply held beliefs will be compromised by whatever the law is.
The second is dependant on one's position on the first; for the most part, the anti-abortion folk like it because it works and the pro-abortion folk do not like it because it works.
The third is the only one I have a strong opinion on. I do not think Roe was correctly decided, and my opinion on abortion does not enter into my reasoning. All other medical procedures are set by state legislatures or state boards of health. Abortion is a medical procedure, just like any other even if it is more controversial. It should, therefore, be the duty of the several states to regulate it, not the Federal government. Roe was Federal overreach and the occasionally proposed Federal ban on abortions would be equally invalid.
Imperializt Russia wrote:Support biblical marriage! One SoH and as many wives and sex slaves as he can afford!
by Katganistan » Fri Oct 22, 2021 5:54 pm
Sundiata wrote:
Good news, I'm hoping now that the decision to overturn it is seen through. It's going to be a big victory if it happens because I doubted it would happen before. It's a step in the right direction for the United States, many more to go.
Sundiata wrote:Thepeopl wrote:That's what you claim.
Priests who are celibate and don't physically procreate have fruitful lives.
Sterile made fathers are sinning because voluntary stopping physical procreation.
I'm not talking about sin at the moment, nor was I then. The case of fatherhood isn't binary but more a question of degree. A life with a vasectomy wouldn't be as fruitful as a celibate priest's in the context of purpose. The purpose of our focus being life.
Sundiata wrote:Esternial wrote:What if preserving a particular human life would lead to suffering of it or even others in the future?
What if someone tries to murder me? Am I allowed to kill in self-defense? Would that make my actions somehow moral?
So much of life is suffering but we shouldn't end it preemptively. In the instance of combat, it's better not to intend the killing of an opponent.
by The Kingdom of the Three Isles » Fri Oct 22, 2021 6:10 pm
Thepeopl wrote:Grave_n_idle wrote:
You might want to read the scripture. Vasectomies are not only moral, scripturally - but specifically advocated for as desirable by Jesus, himself.Leviticus 21:16
And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak to Aaron, saying, None of your offspring throughout their generations who has a blemish may approach to offer the bread of his God. For no one who has a blemish shall draw near, a man blind or lame, or one who has a mutilated face or a limb too long, or a man who has an injured foot or an injured hand, or a hunchback or a dwarf or a man with a defect in his sight or an itching disease or scabs or crushed testicles
So if you follow only old testament, disabled ppl aren't submitted to heaven. Aren't allowed to worship.Isaiah 56:3-5
Let not the foreigner who has joined himself to the Lord say, “The Lord will surely separate me from his people”; and let not the eunuch say, “Behold, I am a dry tree.” For thus says the Lord: “To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, who choose the things that please me and hold fast my covenant, I will give in my house and within my walls a monument and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off
Jesus contradicts this in new testament.
Those who say they are based aren’t based. Those who say they are humble ain’t humble. Those who say they are chads ain’t chads.Ordo Theutonicorum wrote: they have a cross-pattee on their flag??
by The Kingdom of the Three Isles » Fri Oct 22, 2021 6:12 pm
Katganistan wrote:Sundiata wrote:I'm not talking about sin at the moment, nor was I then. The case of fatherhood isn't binary but more a question of degree. A life with a vasectomy wouldn't be as fruitful as a celibate priest's in the context of purpose. The purpose of our focus being life.
Really?
I thought the purpose of our lives, according to the Bible, was worshiping God? And that marriage was, in fact, a distraction from this purpose. And that celibacy was, in fact, the preferred state so as to carry on this purpose....
Those who say they are based aren’t based. Those who say they are humble ain’t humble. Those who say they are chads ain’t chads.Ordo Theutonicorum wrote: they have a cross-pattee on their flag??
by Katganistan » Fri Oct 22, 2021 6:12 pm
Vassenor wrote:Temple State wrote:
Until you can have your beautiful Brave New World where humans are made in factories: Deal with it.
Besides, stopping people from self-harm and outlawing certain intoxicating substances is already in this judicial territory and something most states do every day. As citizens are the most precious resource of any given state it would logically follow from such a precedent that they should favor the life of the unborn above the "bodily autonomy" of someone too irresponsible to deal with the consequences of their actions. Especially when they try to avoid those consequences by killing an innocent.
So you can't explain why Fetuses should get rights no-one else does.
Also I see we're doing Pregnancy as Punishment again. Everybody drink.
by The Kingdom of the Three Isles » Fri Oct 22, 2021 6:18 pm
Vassenor wrote:Temple State wrote:
Until you can have your beautiful Brave New World where humans are made in factories: Deal with it.
Besides, stopping people from self-harm and outlawing certain intoxicating substances is already in this judicial territory and something most states do every day. As citizens are the most precious resource of any given state it would logically follow from such a precedent that they should favor the life of the unborn above the "bodily autonomy" of someone too irresponsible to deal with the consequences of their actions. Especially when they try to avoid those consequences by killing an innocent.
So you can't explain why Fetuses should get rights no-one else does.
Also I see we're doing Pregnancy as Punishment again. Everybody drink.
Those who say they are based aren’t based. Those who say they are humble ain’t humble. Those who say they are chads ain’t chads.Ordo Theutonicorum wrote: they have a cross-pattee on their flag??
by The Caleshan Valkyrie » Fri Oct 22, 2021 6:19 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Cerespasia, Cerula, Dogmeat, East Leaf Republic, Emotional Support Crocodile, Entropan, Hidrandia, Republics of the Solar Union, The Republic of Western Sol, Tungstan
Advertisement