She's not obligated to agree with your incredibly narrow and partisan opinions on anything, no. That in no way justifies the gross mischaracterization you presented.
RBG’s dead and Mitch is gonna do it
- Thread starter Revnak
- Start date
USA
My extremely narrow and partisan opinion? LOL! There was nothing narrow or partisan about the pretty well universal understanding that mental health is vital to your physical health. There is NO "gross mischaracterization" going on here unless someone attempts to claim that a patients mental health isn't a completely valid reason for an abortion or that a woman should be prosecuted for having one at all. A woman should have control over her own body. Period. That is why this and other medical procedures are best handled by the patient and their physician, and not some religious zealot judge who thinks abortions are a sin and wants to impose those extremely narrow and partisan religious beliefs onto others using the force of the law. It is fine if she wants to decide what is best for her own body, just not if she wants to impose her beliefs upon others using the law. Separation of church and state are important to remain a secular nation. Freedom of religion also means we should be free from her imposing her religion onto others against their will.
Last edited:
See, you're still doing it. You are holding the partisan line in face of evidence. The mischaraterization isn't your description of healthcare, it's your description of Amy Coney Barrett. You quoted the Church stance on abortion, as reiterated by Barrett, and took that as evidence she can't separate her moral stances from her job. I pointed you to the source material, which is a 49 page discourse from a collegiate law journal discussing specifically how to separate one's moral stances from a position as an impartial judge. It talks at length about when judicial obligation is not violative of Catholic conscience, and when it's necessary to recuse yourself. At no point in there is there any recommendation to undermine the laws as written in pursuit of one's own morals.
Your characterization of Barrett as incapable of upholding separation of church and state is blatantly defamatory lies, directly contradicting her own words on the subject.
I found some legal precedent for this in the form of conjoined twins: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Re_A_(conjoined_twins)
They separated and killed the weaker conjoined twin to save the stronger one against the wishes of the parents and regardless of the wishes of the children, through a court order.
Last edited:
There was no mischaraterization here:
Amy Coney Barrett, who is expected to be Mr. Trump's pick, meets the president's unprecedented anti-abortion rights litmus test. The federal judge has referred to abortion as "always immoral" and offers something a former top candidate, Barbara Lagoa, doesn't: A clear anti-abortion rights judicial record. During her three years on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, she has already ruled on two abortion-related cases, both times favoring restrictions on access to abortion.
What we know about Amy Coney Barrett's judicial abortion record
Four years ago on the campaign trail, then-candidate Donald Trump pledged that if he were elected, only "pro-life" justices would get his nomination for a seat on the Supreme Court.
www.cbsnews.com
An 2018 ruling by a 7th Circuit panel declared unconstitutional an Indiana law requiring the burial of fetal remains after an abortion or miscarriage, and prohibiting clinics from treating the remains as waste. The law, signed by then-Gov. Mike Pence, also barred abortions on the basis on the race, sex or disabilities of the fetus.
High court front-runner Amy Coney Barrett hailed by right
CHICAGO (AP) — A front-runner to fill the Supreme Court seat vacated by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a federal appellate judge who has established herself as a reliable conservative on hot-button legal issues from abortion to gun control.
apnews.com
So what happens when your miscarriage flushes down the toilet, like so many actually do? Do we have to bury our tampons now too? Absurdity of thinking this has nothing to do with religion.
Her stance on abortion is not just her "church stance" on abortion:
Others pointed to Barrett’s membership of the University of Notre Dame’s “Faculty for Life” group — and that she had signed a 2015 letter to Catholic bishops affirming the “value of human life from conception to natural death.”
Her claim that her religion does not influence her rulings is verifiably false. Why would miscarriage or abortion remains need to be paid to be buried of not for religious reasons? Should I start burying my Tampons too? What about when women have blood clots, sometimes those can be quiet large, larger than most miscarriages? It is like they have never actually dealt with a miscarriage before. It is strange though they don't think chicken remains, pig remains or cow remains need to have the same treatment and they are so much larger if religion has nothing to do with it. It is only different if you view them as people from the point of conception, which scientific consensus disagrees, but that is apparent from her own religious beliefs to be why she believes such regardless of what science shows to be true. Viewing life from the point of conception is a religious belief and nothing else.
Last edited:
Huh, that seems different than the story you told me before
Before you said:
- your youngest brother stole your Dad's gun and sold it to his buddy
- the girlfriend of this buddy took it and shot herself
Now you're saying:
- The gun was stolen and you're unsure of did it
- you're unsure of how she acquired the gun
- The girlfriend is now a wife.
Also, none of these details are relevant to the point. You could have just said"I know a woman who killed herself on the 10 year anniversary of her child's birth, so yes, recurring seasonal depression and suicidal tendencies do happen"
But I guess, never pass up the opportunity to spin a yarn, right?
I don't think the act of burial (including cremation) is inherently religious. It's just the safe way to dispose of a dead body, because otherwise, it's a bio-hazard.
If your child died of natural causes, it would be a crime to chop them up, put them in the blender, and flush them down the toilet, wouldn't it?
No fetus can survive outside the womb at conception and "life" as in "human life as an individual" is not. Conception is just a step in the process of becoming an individual. Until the fetus has grown enough to survive on it's own, outside the person's body, it is not an independent life. If it requires being inside another persons body infringing upon their rights to exist without it, it cannot ask for permission to be there and unless the person whose body it is inside grants permission for it to exist there, it doesn't have the right to. You can decide to continue to allow a mole to grow on your face or to remove a tumor that grows inside your body as well because that is why we have bodily autonomy. We get to decide what we allow to grow in or on our body just like everyone else. No other person has a right to grow in or on our bodies without permission.
"But earlier this year, Bell published a paper in the New England Journal of Medicine showing reasonably good outcomes in preemies born at 22 weeks of gestational age. Two key technologies have pushed that date: the use of steroids, which can speed up fetal development, and surfactants that prevent lungs from collapsing after birth. Still, setting an absolute cutoff for fetal viability is impossible. “It depends on how you define it. Is it some babies survive? Half survive? Or most babies survive?” Bell says. At 22 weeks, many of the babies that survive end up with permanent health problems or disabilities. "
Why Science Can't Say When a Baby's Life Begins
If anything, science has only complicated the personhood debate.
I mean could you imagine how terrible this would be if female humans somehow evolved to start having babies without need for male fertilization, they would be popping out babies all over the place unless female were allowed control over their own bodies. It is things like this that give me nightmares:
"In a first for its species and reptilian Agamidae family, a female Asian water dragon at the National Zoo successfully produced offspring without the help of a male. "
Without the help of any male, this female lizard became pregnant alone and successfully gave birth
In a first for its species and reptilian family, a female Asian water dragon at the National Zoo successfully produced offspring without a male.
www.usatoday.com
"In a first for it's species..." What would their religion say about that? LOL
The ONLY reason this is even up for discussion at all is because men can't get pregnant. If it were the men who were pregnant this discussion of bodily autonomy would have ended before even being brought up.
Last edited:
Not really seeing how this is particularly relevant, honestly. Generally speaking, expectant mothers are capable of expressing desires, unlike those conjoined twins. I guess it has some relevance for abortions done when the expectant mother's consent is a question mark due to incapacity.
Not in any meaningful sense that bears on the discussion, no. Unless you also wish to say that atheism is the scientific position due to methodological naturalism, which I'm guessing you don't.
I wonder why "men" haven't settled the issue of child support, if "men" are this sort of world-ruling elite class that come up with laws only for the benefit of other "men".
Why should they need to pay to support a child when they have no say over what the woman does with her body? Wouldn't "men" find this absurd?
Maybe there's more to it than that.
I thought it was relevant because it's a case of two human beings, born and living outside of the womb, but one person was partially inside another. The "weaker" was killed and removed in order to preserve the life of the "stronger". The rights of the "stronger" superseded the rights of the "weaker", literally.
It doesn't contradict your statement: " 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. ", but rather supports it. However, if you were, hypothetically, inside of another person and that person were dying, then your rights may potentially supersede theirs.
Last edited:
Women have to pay child support as well when it applies. Once the child is out of a woman's body, it is involving the child and not her body. When a man gets pregnant, the same will apply. Men do not have to pay child support to support a fetus so that is irrelevant.
I wouldn't put my tampon in the blender either, but I would flush a miscarriage or a tampon down the toilet.
The reason we have to ALSO consider on what constitutes or does not a person is like that stupid Pence Indiana law trying to make people bury miscarriages and abortions when burial at all is a religious practice. I mean some cultures have a sky burial, cremations or some other religious practice. The entire idea that we have to fish a small miscarriage out of the toilet and bury it is absurd when we literally flush blood clots that are larger.. and good grief they do not even require people to bury dead cows, pigs or chicken remains and those are insanely larger. When they try to make laws that will criminalize women for having miscarriages, or what they are legally required to pay to be done with them, as Trump's supreme court Justice has ruled on, we are then forced to draw a line somewhere. They tried to send a woman to prison for 20 years due to having a miscarriage. Are they going to issue warrants and have police bust downs women's doors because they didn't bury their miscarriage now too?
Last edited:
This is not a scientific statement. You're making a subjective, philosophical argument, the sort of question religions attempt to answer. You are imposing your religious opinions on others.
Sufficient to say, no one mourns zygotes that are naturally removed from woman's body. "Miscarriage" is a term applied selectively, that culturally doesn't cover all stages from conception to birth.
The discussion is framed around wether "life" begins, but should be more accurately framed around where a "human" does.
It is not a religious belief that makes it okay to remove something from your body that you can survive without. We have our gal bladders removed all the time and still live. I had part of my fallopian tubes removed as well. They couldn't survive on their own either. If it is on/in your body and you want it removed, it is no one else's business but your own. The courts do not decide if I can have my gal bladder removed, and they should not be the ones who decide this as well. There is no legal reason the court should have any say over what I want removed from my body.
Last edited:
See, here's where the 'conjoined twins' stuff becomes relevant. What is defined as "your body"? Do you get to kill your weaker conjoined twin because it's "your body"? Or are they a (philosophically speaking) separate person with their own rights? What makes it "your body"? Where did that sperm come from? Whose DNA is that?
If it's a "Fantastic Voyage" scenario, do the humans inside of the other human lose their rights and become part of the "bigger person's" body?
EDIT: Made a new topic so that this one isn't deralied
The Abortion debate
Under what circumstances, if any, should abortion be allowed? When does life begin? When does "personhood" begin? Discuss.
forums.escapistmagazine.com
Last edited: