AAPL stock: Click Here |
|
Tips and Deals ---- For Sale & Free Items ---- 'Friendly' Political Ranting |
Will killing Roe v Wade produce many Democratic votes?
Posted by: Dennis S
Date: May 14, 2019 03:29PM
|
Re: Will killing Roe v Wade produce many Democratic votes?
Posted by: Ted King
Date: May 14, 2019 03:36PM
|
Re: Will killing Roe v Wade produce many Democratic votes?
Posted by: Filliam H. Muffman
Date: May 14, 2019 03:54PM
|
Re: Will killing Roe v Wade produce many Democratic votes?
Posted by: Speedy
Date: May 14, 2019 11:40PM
|
Re: Will killing Roe v Wade produce many Democratic votes?
Posted by: cbelt3
Date: May 15, 2019 11:34AM
|
Re: Will killing Roe v Wade produce many Democratic votes?
Posted by: sekker
Date: May 15, 2019 01:26PM
|
Re: Will killing Roe v Wade produce many Democratic votes?
Posted by: Ted King
Date: May 15, 2019 05:07PM
|
Quote
cbelt3
Roe v. Wade is already being murdered by the dystopian state laws being orchestrated all over the country. And the insanity is just getting worse. Death Penalty for a miscarriage ? Hoo boy... Way PAST Atwood....
Re: Will killing Roe v Wade produce many Democratic votes?
Posted by: Dennis S
Date: May 15, 2019 05:20PM
|
Re: Will killing Roe v Wade produce many Democratic votes?
Posted by: mattkime
Date: May 15, 2019 05:27PM
|
Quote
Ted King
Quote
cbelt3
Roe v. Wade is already being murdered by the dystopian state laws being orchestrated all over the country. And the insanity is just getting worse. Death Penalty for a miscarriage ? Hoo boy... Way PAST Atwood....
There is an illogical feel to the reasoning behind this bill. One of the architects of this bill said that the intent was for this to go to the Supreme Court - and the central argument for it is based on the idea of "personhood" happening at conception. This is a key thing the court will be asked to rule on - does personhood begin at conception?
But on what grounds would the Supreme Court rule that personhood begins at conception? It certainly couldn't be grounded in science since the notion of personhood is a legal concept, not a scientific one. Would they try to ground such a ruling by appeal to religion? Which religion? Why would a religious view matter in this legal question? An appeal to religion doesn't seem logically viable from a Constitutional perspective (the perspective the court is supposed to take).
So on what grounds would they make such a ruling? How would they deal with issues like exactly what "conception" is? What about identical twins? What about chimeras? It's a mess. sekker points out that the bill says IVF isn't conception? WTF? That just sounds like a kludge to avoid the messy issue of what to do about keeping all these persons frozen in limbo if fertilization happens in a tube and then the embryos are frozen. It makes a hash of even the notion of a mystical inculcation of "personhood" - got to happen inside a woman; good grief, magical wombs.
And if the court were to decide that personhood begins at conception - and therefore entitlement to basic human rights - how would they be justified in ruling that abortion could be okay in some states but not in others? Shouldn't such a ban apply to all states? It's a mess.
Establishing when the legal status of "personhood" begins and ends is always going to be a gnarly affair, but this Alabama law is particularly ill-conceived (pardon the pun).
Re: Will killing Roe v Wade produce many Democratic votes?
Posted by: rjmacs
Date: May 15, 2019 05:50PM
|
Quote
Ted King
There is an illogical feel to the reasoning behind this bill. One of the architects of this bill said that the intent was for this to go to the Supreme Court - and the central argument for it is based on the idea of "personhood" happening at conception. This is a key thing the court will be asked to rule on - does personhood begin at conception?
But on what grounds would the Supreme Court rule that personhood begins at conception? It certainly couldn't be grounded in science since the notion of personhood is a legal concept, not a scientific one. Would they try to ground such a ruling by appeal to religion? Which religion? Why would a religious view matter in this legal question? An appeal to religion doesn't seem logically viable from a Constitutional perspective (the perspective the court is supposed to take).
So on what grounds would they make such a ruling? How would they deal with issues like exactly what "conception" is? What about identical twins? What about chimeras? It's a mess. sekker points out that the bill says IVF isn't conception? WTF? That just sounds like a kludge to avoid the messy issue of what to do about keeping all these persons frozen in limbo if fertilization happens in a tube and then the embryos are frozen. It makes a hash of even the notion of a mystical inculcation of "personhood" - got to happen inside a woman; good grief, magical wombs.
And if the court were to decide that personhood begins at conception - and therefore entitlement to basic human rights - how would they be justified in ruling that abortion could be okay in some states but not in others? Shouldn't such a ban apply to all states? It's a mess.
Establishing when the legal status of "personhood" begins and ends is always going to be a gnarly affair, but this Alabama law is particularly ill-conceived (pardon the pun).
Re: Will killing Roe v Wade produce many Democratic votes?
Posted by: Ted King
Date: May 15, 2019 10:53PM
|
Quote
rjmacs
The SCotUS has already not decided when personhood begins, and I don't think they are likely to start now.
What the SCotUS will essentially be asked to do is draw the line balancing a woman's right to personal autonomy and privacy against the state's interest in protecting a fetus (or embryo, depending on the state law), and its power to abrogate an individual's right in the pursuit of that interest.
Oh, the fun of living in a nation of quasi-nations.
Re: Will killing Roe v Wade produce many Democratic votes?
Posted by: rjmacs
Date: May 16, 2019 07:07AM
|
Quote
Ted King
There is an illogical feel to the reasoning behind this bill. One of the architects of this bill said that the intent was for this to go to the Supreme Court - and the central argument for it is based on the idea of "personhood" happening at conception. This is a key thing the court will be asked to rule on - does personhood begin at conception?
But on what grounds would the Supreme Court rule that personhood begins at conception? It certainly couldn't be grounded in science since the notion of personhood is a legal concept, not a scientific one. Would they try to ground such a ruling by appeal to religion? Which religion? Why would a religious view matter in this legal question? An appeal to religion doesn't seem logically viable from a Constitutional perspective (the perspective the court is supposed to take).
So on what grounds would they make such a ruling? How would they deal with issues like exactly what "conception" is? What about identical twins? What about chimeras? It's a mess. sekker points out that the bill says IVF isn't conception? WTF? That just sounds like a kludge to avoid the messy issue of what to do about keeping all these persons frozen in limbo if fertilization happens in a tube and then the embryos are frozen. It makes a hash of even the notion of a mystical inculcation of "personhood" - got to happen inside a woman; good grief, magical wombs.
And if the court were to decide that personhood begins at conception - and therefore entitlement to basic human rights - how would they be justified in ruling that abortion could be okay in some states but not in others? Shouldn't such a ban apply to all states? It's a mess.
Establishing when the legal status of "personhood" begins and ends is always going to be a gnarly affair, but this Alabama law is particularly ill-conceived (pardon the pun).
Re: Will killing Roe v Wade produce many Democratic votes?
Posted by: rjmacs
Date: May 16, 2019 07:30AM
|
Quote
Ted King
Quote
rjmacs
The SCotUS has already not decided when personhood begins, and I don't think they are likely to start now.
What the SCotUS will essentially be asked to do is draw the line balancing a woman's right to personal autonomy and privacy against the state's interest in protecting a fetus (or embryo, depending on the state law), and its power to abrogate an individual's right in the pursuit of that interest.
Oh, the fun of living in a nation of quasi-nations.
Yeah, I was looking at what was in the bill and was reflecting on the logical consequences. But I didn't clarify in my head whether I was assuming the Court will choose to hear the case or I was hypothetically assuming that the Court would choose to review this law. I was dazzled by the logical implications of this law.I think I mostly meant it in the hypothetical sense but even that didn't come across. Sorry.
It does seem most likely that the Court will choose to review a law from a state that has more along the lines of "not undue burden" underpinning rather than take on a case where the real visceral issue is actually adjudicated. It's disingenuous at best (I think deceitful, but it's not like a a fair number of decisions aren't deceitful). I think Roberts in particular is inclined to keep sliding down the "not undue burden" slope until the burden of the not undue burden is so great that functionally abortions will be all but stopped (except if you have enough money, of course).
And, as you say, they probably won't get around to it until after the election for some reason or another.
Re: Will killing Roe v Wade produce many Democratic votes?
Posted by: deckeda
Date: May 16, 2019 08:02AM
|
Re: Will killing Roe v Wade produce many Democratic votes?
Posted by: Ted King
Date: May 16, 2019 04:15PM
|