RBG’s dead and Mitch is gonna do it

Agema

Ph'nglui mglw'nafn Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
2,275
1,637
118
I personally think that a person becomes a person at the point where they can survive outside of the womb. Prior to that they are only a potential person. Once a fetus can viably be removed from its mother without killing it then it should have all the rights of a person. Before that might it might as well be a blob of lunch meat.
I would suggest personhood is effectively having mental capacity. There's the same logic behind switching life support off: if a human being is braindead, there's no person to sustain, just a bag of living meat. The brain has to develop to a certain point to be able to support thought, feelings, receive sensations, etc. and for fetuses that's the third trimester.

That's not necessarily the legal logic, though.
 

lil devils x

🐐More Lego Goats Please!🐐
Legacy
May 1, 2020
3,330
1,033
118
Country
🐐USA🐐
Gender
♀
Again I ask: would it be unconstitutional to require married women to inform their husbands that they are getting an abortion?
Of course it would be unconstitutional to require married women to inform their husbands of ANYTHING done to their own body, just like husbands are not required to inform their wives of anything done to their body. A man isn't even legally required to inform his wife when he has a vasectomy either. Sure telling your spouse about any surgery or procedures is good for a healthy marriage, but there is no legal mandate to do so nor should there ever be unless you have a contagious disease and they are in a position to where they can be infected. The man isn't going to be infected by a woman having an abortion. It's her body, not his. Her body doesn't " belong to him" simply because they are married. If he thinks her body belongs to him, then he really shouldn't be married in the first place as that mindset is blatant abuse/control issues that he should seek help to resolve before being in any relationship. Her body = her body. His body= his body. That is all there is to it. If she wants to have her breasts removed, she can do that too without him being informed as well. Legally, she doesn't even have to have him listed as her next of kin in the hospital, and can deny allowing him to visit her there, but he can as well. It works both ways.

If he had another life growing inside his body, that would still be his decision as to whom he wishes to discuss it with unless that is somehow contagious, not hers. The same circumstance applies regardless of sex. So when technology reaches the point we can make men pregnant the same will apply to men.

I have no idea why you would think this is even negotiable. That is pretty creepy for you to think that this would be a thing at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Worgen

MrCalavera

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 30, 2020
320
252
68
Country
Poland
An apt comparison, seeing as how lunch meat was once a part of a living creature, that was slaughtered for human convenience...
Clearly, the pro-birth and veganism platforms should be combined.
 

Revnak

We must imagine Sisyphus horny
Legacy
May 25, 2020
2,088
1,920
118
Country
USA
I would suggest personhood is effectively having mental capacity. There's the same logic behind switching life support off: if a human being is braindead, there's no person to sustain, just a bag of living meat. The brain has to develop to a certain point to be able to support thought, feelings, receive sensations, etc. and for fetuses that's the third trimester.

That's not necessarily the legal logic, though.
Well viability outside of the womb happens much earlier so idk. Probably better to go with that. Honestly, legal definitions of life need to catch up with more medical realities. Personally I think viability is probably the best line to draw, but that will always be a changing thing. I imagine in the future embryos will be able to be extracted extremely early and our current practice may be viewed as somewhat barbaric, though that doesn’t change my stance given present conditions.
 

lil devils x

🐐More Lego Goats Please!🐐
Legacy
May 1, 2020
3,330
1,033
118
Country
🐐USA🐐
Gender
♀
Well viability outside of the womb happens much earlier so idk. Probably better to go with that. Honestly, legal definitions of life need to catch up with more medical realities. Personally I think viability is probably the best line to draw, but that will always be a changing thing. I imagine in the future embryos will be able to be extracted extremely early and our current practice may be viewed as somewhat barbaric, though that doesn’t change my stance given present conditions.
This also depends on the health of the mother. The woman should be able to decide what happens to her own body regardless of any other factor. IF she kills herself because she couldn't just end her pregnancy, you lose her and the baby regardless. That is sadly what happens when you try to force these things upon people against their will as to what they can do with their own bodies. When I was violently raped as a kid, I mistakenly thought I was pregnant due to missing my period for 3 months from the stress of the rape itself and because of the stress of that, I would say "attempted suicide" but I was actually successful and died for a few minutes, no one ever told me how long, as I was a kid and I never even asked. At the time, I didn't even care. I essentially killed myself and was brought back with injections with tubes up my nose and still tasting charcoal for days after I finally woke up. The good news was though I found out I wasn't pregnant. If I had been and was forced to have kept it at that time, I can guarantee you, there wouldn't have been any waking me up the second time. At the time, I didn't care that I had died, I only cared that I wasn't pregnant.

Trying to force women/ girls into this will definitely increase the number of suicides as a direct result when girls feel they have no other option, they make desperate decisions to take control of their own bodies of by any means necessary themselves. The limits on when a person can do it do not sit well with me either when you think about women in captivity. If the woman/girl was prevented from being able to end her pregnancy earlier due to the perpetrator/rapist/kidnapper keeping her there against her will, she should be able to have one after she escapes regardless. Just the thought of having to give birth to your abusers kid is too much for many women/girls to handle at all. It is bad enough that what was done to you never goes away, but that would ensure that some women/girls will never be able to recover of move on to ever be able to rebuild their lives. They will have that hanging over them forever. Sure, some people will be able to make it through something like that, but not all will. This will cause continuing extreme emotional trauma to the victims rather than allow them to start healing. Some will never heal if forced to go through that on top of what they already had to go through in the first place.

By putting these laws into place, you are essentially giving those women/ girls a death sentence and saying their lives are not as important as the unborn.
 
Last edited:

Seanchaidh

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
822
743
98
Country
United States of America
If you're completely inside someone's body and getting you out requires medical things to happen to that person, you have no rights that supersede theirs regardless of how living or not you might be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lil devils x

Agema

Ph'nglui mglw'nafn Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
2,275
1,637
118
Again I ask: would it be unconstitutional to require married women to inform their husbands that they are getting an abortion?
Clearly the USA existed for a long time with women unable to own property in their own name, under the Constitution. If women could effectively be chattel of their husbands constitutionally, they can surely be forced to reveal any and all of their private medical issues to their husbands constitutionally.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gorfias

Revnak

We must imagine Sisyphus horny
Legacy
May 25, 2020
2,088
1,920
118
Country
USA
This also depends on the health of the mother. The woman should be able to decide what happens to her own body regardless of any other factor. IF she kills herself because she couldn't just end her pregnancy, you lose her and the baby regardless. That is sadly what happens when you try to force these things upon people against their will as to what they can do with their own bodies. When I was violently raped as a kid, I mistakenly thought I was pregnant due to missing my period for 3 months from the stress of the rape itself and because of the stress of that, I would say "attempted suicide" but I was actually successful and died for a few minutes, no one ever told me how long, as I was a kid and I never even asked. At the time, I didn't even care. I essentially killed myself and was brought back with injections with tubes up my nose and still tasting charcoal for days after I finally woke up. The good news was though I found out I wasn't pregnant. If I had been and was forced to have kept it at that time, I can guarantee you, there wouldn't have been any waking me up the second time. At the time, I didn't care that I had died, I only cared that I wasn't pregnant.

Trying to force women/ girls into this will definitely increase the number of suicides as a direct result when girls feel they have no other option, they make desperate decisions to take control of their own bodies of by any means necessary themselves.
Ok, that late of an abortion is functionally a c-section in terms of invasiveness. I think it should be legal to do early deliveries on request after viability, but I’m not a fan of any abortion after viability due to the importance of having any consistent definition of human life in reflection of medical reality. In any case, you’re still talking about an incredibly sparse number of cases as it is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrCalavera

lil devils x

🐐More Lego Goats Please!🐐
Legacy
May 1, 2020
3,330
1,033
118
Country
🐐USA🐐
Gender
♀
Ok, that late of an abortion is functionally a c-section in terms of invasiveness. I think it should be legal to do early deliveries on request after viability, but I’m not a fan of any abortion after viability due to the importance of having any consistent definition of human life in reflection of medical reality. In any case, you’re still talking about an incredibly sparse number of cases as it is.
Regretfully, I live in Texas, where we seem to have a highest maternal mortality rate for women in the developed world due to lack of safety net here, and part of that increase is due to complications due to C sections:

"Texas' maternal mortality rates are 35.8 per 100,000 live births as of 2014, according to a study in Obstetrics and Gynecology. By comparison, the maternal mortality in Japan was 5 per 100,000 live births, according to UNICEF's 2015 data. In Poland, it was just 3."

"The rise in cesarean sections and related complications, plus delaying prenatal care until late in pregnancy, were also found to be factors, said Dr. Lisa Hollier, chair of the task force and president-elect of the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. "



Where I happen to live, the rise in number of people receiving C sections and complications there of without a proper safety net to be able to provide that follow up care means the women are having severe complications and dying at a higher rate.

Like I said, you will be trading the lives of women either way. IF you don't lose them through complications, you may still lose them yet if/when they are told their rapist's child is still out there. Here is what you have to understand goes along with this:

*Every year, on and near that child's birthday, the birthmother will relive her trauma of her abuse and rape and the pain of giving up their own child that they were forced to have against their will. Many women/girls cannot handle it and will just give up trying to. When you feel this type of "event pain" It feels just as bad as it did the first time it happened to you.

*IF/when you ever decide to have a family, you then are forced to have to tell your new boyfriend/spouse/ future children about the previous sibling and relive the rape/abuse in the process and then have to have everyone ese know about it as well, so there is no " moving on and forgetting about it forever". The existence of another child means they will never move on and forget. Some can cope with this, some will never cope with this.

* Rapists can sue for parental rights, and can gain custody. It shouldn't be able to happen, but it does. You can be forced to have to deal with your rapist, and the rapist can force their way into the child's life.

Like I said before, you will still be willing to trade the mothers rights to that of the unborn , as by forcing the child to be born, you are making sure that it will never fully go away for the mother. Even if she doesn't commit suicide immediately that very well is often the reason she does at a later time.


 

lil devils x

🐐More Lego Goats Please!🐐
Legacy
May 1, 2020
3,330
1,033
118
Country
🐐USA🐐
Gender
♀
Ok, that late of an abortion is functionally a c-section in terms of invasiveness. I think it should be legal to do early deliveries on request after viability, but I’m not a fan of any abortion after viability due to the importance of having any consistent definition of human life in reflection of medical reality. In any case, you’re still talking about an incredibly sparse number of cases as it is.
Usually, in those few cases, the women/girls seeking abortions are more desperate than any other group. That is why I disagree with a ban or a forced birth, because you are also increasing the likelihood that women/girls seeking them will not " be okay" if forced to live that way reliving their trauma every single year for the rest of their lives . If it isn't a desperate situation, a physician will be able to talk them out of it or will refuse to perform one. But if you have a traumatized victim raped and held captive by a family member or something else entirely too traumatic for them to endure reliving for the rest of their lives, the decision really should be left between the patient and their physician, not the court.

With DNA tests these days, they cannot even guarantee the child will not find the rapist or the birth mother, even if the mother somehow manages to try and rebuild her life. What if the kid finds the rapist and doesn't know what happened and tries to bond with them or something after all that? The entire situation may be more than many can even be able to handle.
 
Last edited:

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
1,151
196
68
Country
USA
I mean, I'd say yes, given there's a vast expense and a decent risk of death in doing so. Add to the fact that it might not be your kid, the person who got injured might be missing half their skull to begin with, the person might be already literally dead, etc, etc, etc. (Seriously, Christian supremacists want to ban abortion even for things like ectopic pregnancy, a thing which will only grievously harm the person having one and will never result in a viable offspring. That's what we're looking at here)
So, having lost the argument by analogy, you're now going straight to the most extreme possible stance. Like, abortion is relevant to this thread because a Catholic woman might be appointed to the Supreme Court. The US Conference of Catholic Bishops has said explicitly that removing the threat to a woman's life in the case of an ectopic pregnancy is morally acceptable. So no, that's not what we're looking at here.
The law is a blunt instrument. I'm already granting the Christian Supremacists their argument that a fetus is a person and not just a fertilized egg. It's hilarious to me how the party of small government wants to force people to undertake massive personal expenses, permanent physical changes, and no small risk of injury and death to birth something that the party of small government doesn't want to help take care of.
You seem to think you're fighting against a religious argument. You aren't. Abortion was allowed under mostly the same framework as we currently use (allowable prior to about 20 weeks just because that's when the fetus can move) in Christian societies for millennia. Because just like people who are purposefully ignorant now, they didn't know medically how to define the start of life. They were trying to guess when the soul got added. The "It's not a person til it can survive on its own" or "it's not a person until it can think or feel pain"... those are the religious arguments. The 20th century movement to ban abortion entirely didn't come from the priests, it came from the doctors. The dawn of modern medicine is what made people finally go "yeah, there's no material difference before and after kicking, if we're gonna be against late abortions, we're also gonna have to be against the early ones too, cause it's really the same thing."
 

lil devils x

🐐More Lego Goats Please!🐐
Legacy
May 1, 2020
3,330
1,033
118
Country
🐐USA🐐
Gender
♀
So, having lost the argument by analogy, you're now going straight to the most extreme possible stance. Like, abortion is relevant to this thread because a Catholic woman might be appointed to the Supreme Court. The US Conference of Catholic Bishops has said explicitly that removing the threat to a woman's life in the case of an ectopic pregnancy is morally acceptable. So no, that's not what we're looking at here.

You seem to think you're fighting against a religious argument. You aren't. Abortion was allowed under mostly the same framework as we currently use (allowable prior to about 20 weeks just because that's when the fetus can move) in Christian societies for millennia. Because just like people who are purposefully ignorant now, they didn't know medically how to define the start of life. They were trying to guess when the soul got added. The "It's not a person til it can survive on its own" or "it's not a person until it can think or feel pain"... those are the religious arguments. The 20th century movement to ban abortion entirely didn't come from the priests, it came from the doctors. The dawn of modern medicine is what made people finally go "yeah, there's no material difference before and after kicking, if we're gonna be against late abortions, we're also gonna have to be against the early ones too, cause it's really the same thing."
It isn't because a Catholic woman is appointed to the court, it is because she stated abortions are "always immoral" . I am fighting a religious argument. A woman/girl decides what happens to her body, that is a decision between her and her physician and the courts should keep their noses to themselves. They can decide what is right for their body, and a woman/girl can decide what is right for hers. Ms. Pelosi is catholic as well, and she doesn't agree with Ms. Barrett. Being Catholic isn't an excuse for her dictating to another woman what she is able to do to her own body. Deciding her religious values for herself is fine, just don't allow those to determine what is fine for everyone else. She crosses that line by her statement above. If she had stated, "It is up to that person, their religious beliefs, and their physician to decide for themselves as that is not my place to decide for her." then she would not be bringing her personal religious beliefs into the law. Failing to separate your religious views from the law is a failure of separation of church and state.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TheMysteriousGX

Revnak

We must imagine Sisyphus horny
Legacy
May 25, 2020
2,088
1,920
118
Country
USA
Regretfully, I live in Texas, where we seem to have a highest maternal mortality rate for women in the developed world due to lack of safety net here, and part of that increase is due to complications due to C sections:

"Texas' maternal mortality rates are 35.8 per 100,000 live births as of 2014, according to a study in Obstetrics and Gynecology. By comparison, the maternal mortality in Japan was 5 per 100,000 live births, according to UNICEF's 2015 data. In Poland, it was just 3."

"The rise in cesarean sections and related complications, plus delaying prenatal care until late in pregnancy, were also found to be factors, said Dr. Lisa Hollier, chair of the task force and president-elect of the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. "



Where I happen to live, the rise in number of people receiving C sections and complications there of without a proper safety net to be able to provide that follow up care means the women are having severe complications and dying at a higher rate.

Like I said, you will be trading the lives of women either way. IF you don't lose them through complications, you may still lose them yet if/when they are told their rapist's child is still out there. Here is what you have to understand goes along with this:

*Every year, on and near that child's birthday, the birthmother will relive her trauma of her abuse and rape and the pain of giving up their own child that they were forced to have against their will. Many women/girls cannot handle it and will just give up trying to. When you feel this type of "event pain" It feels just as bad as it did the first time it happened to you.

*IF/when you ever decide to have a family, you then are forced to have to tell your new boyfriend/spouse/ future children about the previous sibling and relive the rape/abuse in the process and then have to have everyone ese know about it as well, so there is no " moving on and forgetting about it forever". The existence of another child means they will never move on and forget. Some can cope with this, some will never cope with this.

* Rapists can sue for parental rights, and can gain custody. It shouldn't be able to happen, but it does. You can be forced to have to deal with your rapist, and the rapist can force their way into the child's life.

Like I said before, you will still be willing to trade the mothers rights to that of the unborn , as by forcing the child to be born, you are making sure that it will never fully go away for the mother. Even if she doesn't commit suicide immediately that very well is often the reason she does at a later time.


That’s the same as saying by having 9/11 remembrances we’re traumatizing every woman who was raped on that day of the year, a good chunk of the female population and clearly more than died on 9/11. That’s a stupid argument that denies so much of reality. Most rape victims aren’t suicidal. Most suicidal people aren’t so on a recurring basis if their suicidal tendencies are solely trauma based. Most women who get abortions attempt to do so long before viability. You’re talking about a dozen people dead (maybe) to a few hundred deliveries of viable fetuses, and I wouldn’t be surprised if you’re solely talking about people who do not and will not exist. Further, at some point you are weighing human lives against human lives, and I kinda think logically viability is a pretty clear point? The specific occasion of birth lacks any material uniqueness, particularly given that as part of many methods of late term abortion, you’ll have to still birth the fetus or surgically remove it in a manner similar to a c-section.

As for your sources, most have nothing to do with what I’m talking about, as I’m not proposing women be forced to carry to term or a ban on the majority, I’m arguing for early induction/delivery of viable fetuses, which is essentially what abortions at that phase of development are anyway, and a total lack of restrictions prior. Then there’s the weird source on adoption grief, which... you realize that the existing grief that your proposed rape pregnancies would involve probably involves some other factors that overwhelm that one. It’s basically an article on how adoption is traumatizing, which I don’t think supports anyone’s argument unless you favor a blanket ban on adoption for some reason.
 

Revnak

We must imagine Sisyphus horny
Legacy
May 25, 2020
2,088
1,920
118
Country
USA
Usually, in those few cases, the women/girls seeking abortions are more desperate than any other group. That is why I disagree with a ban or a forced birth, because you are also increasing the likelihood that women/girls seeking them will not " be okay" if forced to live that way reliving their trauma every single year for the rest of their lives . If it isn't a desperate situation, a physician will be able to talk them out of it or will refuse to perform one. But if you have a traumatized victim raped and held captive by a family member or something else entirely too traumatic for them to endure reliving for the rest of their lives, the decision really should be left between the patient and their physician, not the court.

With DNA tests these days, they cannot even guarantee the child will not find the rapist or the birth mother, even if the mother somehow manages to try and rebuild her life. What if the kid finds the rapist and doesn't know what happened and tries to bond with them or something after all that? The entire situation may be more than many can even be able to handle.
Millions of what if’s that feel kinda meaningless. This is identical to the “what if that fetus cured cancer” nonsense. You’ve nothing to prove this is a realistic concern, and there are options for resolving these problems that aren’t late term abortions. As for exceptional circumstances, this reads like a “would you torture a guy who placed a nuke under NYC?” argument. Exceptional circumstances are exceptional. Torture’s still bad and should be illegal but in the end, yeah, a rule saying it’s malpractice to carry late term abortions probably is gonna have some edge cases where any sensible person will say “fuck that guy, put the pliers to his testicles.” This is ultimately why I’m trying to argue in terms of preference or sensibleness over laws, particularly given that I don’t much believe in laws as an element of any social end state.
 

lil devils x

🐐More Lego Goats Please!🐐
Legacy
May 1, 2020
3,330
1,033
118
Country
🐐USA🐐
Gender
♀
That’s the same as saying by having 9/11 remembrances we’re traumatizing every woman who was raped on that day of the year, a good chunk of the female population and clearly more than died on 9/11. That’s a stupid argument that denies so much of reality. Most rape victims aren’t suicidal. Most suicidal people aren’t so on a recurring basis if their suicidal tendencies are solely trauma based. Most women who get abortions attempt to do so long before viability. You’re talking about a dozen people dead (maybe) to a few hundred deliveries of viable fetuses, and I wouldn’t be surprised if you’re solely talking about people who do not and will not exist. Further, at some point you are weighing human lives against human lives, and I kinda think logically viability is a pretty clear point? The specific occasion of birth lacks any material uniqueness, particularly given that as part of many methods of late term abortion, you’ll have to still birth the fetus or surgically remove it in a manner similar to a c-section.

As for your sources, most have nothing to do with what I’m talking about, as I’m not proposing women be forced to carry to term or a ban on the majority, I’m arguing for early induction/delivery of viable fetuses, which is essentially what abortions at that phase of development are anyway, and a total lack of restrictions prior. Then there’s the weird source on adoption grief, which... you realize that the existing grief that your proposed rape pregnancies would involve probably involves some other factors that overwhelm that one. It’s basically an article on how adoption is traumatizing, which I don’t think supports anyone’s argument unless you favor a blanket ban on adoption for some reason.
No it really isn't. The reason I am even bringing up the adoption grief/ lifetime trauma in this is that was literally the reason why my brother's friend's wife killed herself with my Dad's stolen gun. She was raped by her uncle, forced to have the baby, she killed herself on the 10yr birthdate of the child. My Dad's gun was stolen while he was dying and the most of my family was with him when he died. Somehow his wife got it, we think a family member or possibly a friend of my brothers stole it and either sold it to her or she took it and killed herself while her husband was at work. My mom had reported it stolen two days after my father died because she noticed the lock box was gone but we didn't find out what had happened to it until the following year when that happened.

Forcing someone into adoptions IS why that is relevant. By forcing them to have the child, you are doing that if they do not want or are incapable of caring for the child.
This really happens as a result, so in the end, you still have to be willing to trade one life for another and accept that is what you are willing to do. These things will happen as a result either way. Considering doctors will ONLY do these at all regardless if they feel it is a direct threat to the mother's life, and they are so few to begin with, I would think leaving it up to them and their doctors to decide because the courts will ALWAYS overstep their bounds and do stupid things like charge mothers for miscarriages and still born and rapes and such if you leave it up to them and not the patients and physicians to decide. Since when has the courts ever gotten something this serious and as personal as a person's right to their own body right?


We see how well this works elsewhere.. and if you don't think our religious courts packed with religious zealots won't do it, look what they have already done above. 20 year sentence for a miscarriage? Luckily that was appealed, in Trump's courts packed with 200+ judges now, it likely will not be now.
 
Last edited:

lil devils x

🐐More Lego Goats Please!🐐
Legacy
May 1, 2020
3,330
1,033
118
Country
🐐USA🐐
Gender
♀
Millions of what if’s that feel kinda meaningless. This is identical to the “what if that fetus cured cancer” nonsense. You’ve nothing to prove this is a realistic concern, and there are options for resolving these problems that aren’t late term abortions. As for exceptional circumstances, this reads like a “would you torture a guy who placed a nuke under NYC?” argument. Exceptional circumstances are exceptional. Torture’s still bad and should be illegal but in the end, yeah, a rule saying it’s malpractice to carry late term abortions probably is gonna have some edge cases where any sensible person will say “fuck that guy, put the pliers to his testicles.” This is ultimately why I’m trying to argue in terms of preference or sensibleness over laws, particularly given that I don’t much believe in laws as an element of any social end state.
If it isn't a realistic concern, why involve the courts? They are already trying to put women in prison for 20 years for miscarriage's, and you think I shouldn't be concerned about the courts. Exception circumstance is exceptional, that is why it should be left up to the patient and her physician, and let the courts deal with actual crimes here. Even without them being illegal, you still have very few physicians even willing to carry them out, and will ONLY do so in " exceptional cases" so that is what is actually considered here in the first place. Like we can trust Trump religious zealot packed courts to treat women fairly. Who's going to overturn the 20 yr sentence then?

We have plenty of medical guidelines in place that are not "enforced by the courts" there is no reason why this one should be. The courts do not tell people when they can and cannot have heart surgery or a vasectomy or any other procedure, so why should they do so here? The last thing we need is police busting down doors to arrest women for miscarriages and we in no way can trust the courts not to use the police to force their own religious beliefs upon other people .
 
Last edited:

Elijin

Elite Member
Legacy
May 10, 2020
118
198
48
For those trying to use these ridiculous analogies here:

There are no laws that require you to donate blood, bone marrow or organs. None. Not even a parent to a child. All donations are always done with consent only. They can't even use the organs of the recently deceased without explicit permission in writing or from the next of kin.

That's just not how the medical world works, so using it to support your abortion arguments just makes you come across as ignorant.
 

lil devils x

🐐More Lego Goats Please!🐐
Legacy
May 1, 2020
3,330
1,033
118
Country
🐐USA🐐
Gender
♀
For those trying to use these ridiculous analogies here:

There are no laws that require you to donate blood, bone marrow or organs. None. Not even a parent to a child. All donations are always done with consent only. They can't even use the organs of the recently deceased without explicit permission in writing or from the next of kin.

That's just not how the medical world works, so using it to support your abortion arguments just makes you come across as ignorant.
Isn't it funny how they leave whether or not someone has a quadruple bypass up to the patient and physician, and not the courts to decide like most medical procedures? Like just letting patients and their physicians to figure out what is best for that patient is somehow unheard of and we should instead just let the individual Judge impose their own religious interpretation of the law upon whoever they wish at will and use the police to enforce it like they do with any other law.. Let's just have more police go busting down more doors to arrest women for having miscarriages and put them in jail for 20 years for depression, drug addiction, and for getting themselves shot by someone else as was done in the above links instead, when that is what would happen to men too with these same problems because that seems so much more reasonable? How many men are convicted of murder/manslaughter due to someone ELSE shooting them?
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
1,151
196
68
Country
USA
It isn't because a Catholic woman is appointed to the court, it is because she stated abortions are "always immoral" . Failing to separate your religious views from the law is a failure of separation of church and state.
A) The quote in your link is, I kid you not, "abortion... is always immoral." What do you suppose is in that ellipsis? Actual quote: "abortion, which (properly defined) is always immoral". What does that mean? What is properly defined? Best I can tell, it's not mentioned within the piece, but as an educated Catholic myself, I'll take a stab at it for you. When talking about abortion in precise terms, Catholic scholars define that they are talking about abortions that are deliberate, not miscarriages, and that occur for the direct purpose of ending the unborn life. A necessary medical procedure for the mother than has the effect of terminating the pregnancy is not subject to blanket condemnation.

B) Even if she had blanket condemned all abortions, that quote is from an article discussing how to deal with questions of moral significance as a judge, where the general conclusion is that a judge can reasonably rule on cases on a legal basis without being culpable for the result, and can recuse themselves if there really is no way to avoid the moral question. The piece is actually about ruling on capital punishment, and her specific stance is that Catholic judges ought to recuse themselves from sentencing in capital cases, but can do things like judge the validity of an appeal in a capital case without being responsible for the sentence. She has factually turned down an appeal in a case of capital punishment on legal grounds (the white supremacist that murdered a family was executed), clear evidence of her not (in her words) "cheating" the law to apply her moral beliefs to legal questions, as you suggest she would. You're quoting her from a piece where she is actively instructing judges to not defy the law to suit their morals, and to recuse themselves if there's absolutely no avoiding it.

Here is the piece they are quoting her from, first two paragraphs below.
Here is an interesting cultural collision. The death penalty is back in fashion in our legal system. Congress has created more than sixty new capital crimes. The Attorney General has used the new laws to prosecute Timothy McVeigh and Theodore Kaczynski. The federal courts have lost some of their authority to review state executions. The Catholic Church, with no sense of timing (or a fine sense of urgency), has picked this moment to launch a campaign against capital punishment. This puts Catholic judges in a bind. They are obliged by oath, professional commitment, and the demands of citizenship to enforce the death penalty. They are also obliged to adhere to their church's teaching on moral matters.
The legal system has a solution for this dilemma-it allows (indeed it requires) the recusal of judges whose convictions keep them from doing their job. This is a good solution. But it is harder than you think to determine when a judge must recuse himself and when he may stay on the job. Catholic judges will not want to shirk their judicial obligations. They will want to sit whenever they can without acting immorally. So they need to know what the church teaches, and its effect on them. On the other hand litigants and the general public are entitled to impartial justice, and that may be something that a judge who is heedful of ecclesiastical pronouncements cannot dispense. We need to know whether judges are sometimes legally disqualified from hearing cases that their consciences would let them decide.
 

lil devils x

🐐More Lego Goats Please!🐐
Legacy
May 1, 2020
3,330
1,033
118
Country
🐐USA🐐
Gender
♀
A necessary medical procedure can be done for the patients mental health as well as drug addiction, alcoholism, depression ect. Not having control over your own body has serious psychological implications. So all conservative judges have to recuse themselves from abortion cases since they seem to not be able to not enforce their own religious beliefs upon others through their rulings? She will rule in favor of a woman's right to control over her own body then and she can decide this for herself as well, or will she try to impose her own religious beliefs onto others through the law? It is a religious belief to believe that unborn rights supersede the woman's life.

I do not believe Ms. Barrett will be capable of ruling on abortion without her enforcing her religion upon others, thus she would be violating the separation of church and state.