I feel like you are grandstanding here a little bit. I don't need to debate the ethics of abortion with you. All that is of concern here is what the legal challenge to this law will be. This law defines personhood. The radical nature of it excluding all exceptions is specifically designed to remove a "well if you think it's a person then why is it ok to kill it if it's rape" objection that has previously been cited. Conservative legal scholars have been working on this for a long time. Crafting the bill in an extreme version to compel a ruling not on some technicality, but on the core issue. That's what they want. They've decided to move away from the incrementalism of previous attacks on Roe and go right at the guts and try to give the SC an opportunity to uphold a finding of personhood for a fetus. The gay marriage ruling was a huge motivator for the anti-abortion lobby.
Again, you seem to want to move away from your statements ("Roe V Wade is not popular", the presidential polls were wrong"). The polling is based on popular voting. Now if you are criticizing predictions of electoral votes on a state by state basis you would have a better argument, but again, the polls were on popular votes, and the results show the final polls were pretty accurate. And... the Roe V Wade polls I provided were from the last two years. So your new argument that Roe V Wade is no longer popular as a result of the number of abortions doesn't hold water. Especially when you see that the number of abortions have been steadily declining since 1997.
I am making posts in the politics section of a basketball message board. It is not clear to me what sort of "grandstanding" opportunities there are here for me, or for you for that matter, even if we desired to pursue them. LOL. Yeah, I see that this is a carefully orchestrated law designed to provide a careful opportunity designed to overturn Roe. I will not try to defend Alabama's law. It is not the law for this that I would recommend. But the principles in this law, especially from a constitutional perspective, are interesting and it does not appear that the passage of this law is necessarily only about the endorsement of the policies contained in this law. In fact, if Alabama gets their way and Roe is overturned, I would expect them to amend this law afterwards and implement some of the exceptions that Pat Robertson mentioned earlier. OK, so it appears that the Democrat left talking points are taking shape and they will be presented in howls about how ALL abortions are going to be made illegal nationwide, with no exceptions, if Roe is overturned. Probably accompanied by posters and pictures of "The Handmaids Tale" to go along with that. Again, I am not trying to be rude, but I hope you will try to read up a little more on the legal and constitutional aspects of this, especially from a more conservative perspective. There is not really anyone advocating for what you seem to be concerned about here, except of course the leftist howlers who are trying to start up the scaremongering on this subject. Not that there is nothing for the pro-abortionist crowd to object to. If Roe is overturned, easy abortion on demand will not be over in all states, but it will very likely be over in many states. Because it will be up to the states. The US Supreme Court is not going to bring down a ruling that effectively makes this Alabama law the national law of the land. And honestly, I could be wrong, but I believe you know that.
Good to see you are not anti-choice. So you should be supporting Roe v Wade. But... why should "would be grandparents" have any say so in a woman's choice?
LOL... not "grandstanding"... but quick to resort to "Democrat left talking points" and "leftist howlers" and (in a previous post) "Democrat controlled states are effectively debating what amounts to legalizing infanticide". You should stick to offensive political cartoons... there more your forte.
Let's be clear here that I am 1) not a leftist and 2) AM anti-abortion. I agree with David French basically on this law. This law isn't written to become the law of the land, it is written to force the issue. I've read about this a lot. I think you are misunderstanding me to think that I'm attacking this somehow.
If the Supreme Court takes up the core issue and determines that a fetus is a person from the moment of conception, does it really become a States right issue? I know that is the argument (let the States decide), but if a fetus is a person how could you allow any law that allows for taking away life (liberty and pursuit of happiness)? Yes, I know the death penalty is a States issue but this seems different. (And couldn't the Supremes knock out the death penalty nationwide if they determined it was cruel and unusual punishment?)
I do not think you are a lefist or that you are pro-abortion. I have been reading your other remarks. But this angle you are taking on the SCOTUS making a rigidly narrow ruling on personhood that effectively eliminates the possibility of abortion from this country is not coming from the right or conservative legal thought on this subject. It is coming from the left. So while I am not under the illusion that you identify with the left, some of the ideas that you are presenting here today pretty clearly do. And while you are not attacking this law, I am not defending it. I believe that if the SCOTUS takes this up, it will be a case that is largely focused on federalism and moving this issue back to the states, and not on re-crafting the Supreme Court ruling on this subject just to change which side "won". These conservative SCOTUS jurists are not thinking about this issue in this latter way.
They mandate it for men all the time. Two people act irresponsibly. One person gets to decide both of their futures to an extent.
Good points. And that is part of the reason why the conservative SCOTUS justices are unlikely to approach this issue in the manner that you are suggesting.
I mean they have to rule one of two ways IF they take up the Alabama bill. They can either make a ruling on personhood or they can make a ruling that allows states to define personhood (or not.) That's my whole point and I asked you that early on. Do you think they would make a ruling that says states could define life for themselves? That's my question.
Does anybody know what a hydatidiform mole is? Read up on that if you’re in the “life begins at conception crew”. Challenge your views , or cement them after reading up on as much as science can offer on the issue.
Your stance is that it is a human life at the moment of conception...correct? If that's the case, then the mother is parenting from that moment on...at least until birth and adoption. If a pregnant women does drugs or something that harms the fetus, aren't there laws that can punish her? Of course, it's a matter of degrees but you can't say that's a person in there and that the mother isn't parenting to some extent.
Why not just make masturbation illegal too? All those wasted little lives. Also these abortion bans raise important questions about birth control. Is birth control illegal too in these new laws? Because if it is not then what happens when birth control doesn't work correct? Under an abortion ban law, I'm assuming you'll be able to fairly easily win a lawsuit against the birth control company who failed to deliver on their product, and that failure led to thousands of dollars in losses to then be forced BY LAW to take your baby to term. Really the only answer to abortion is to make sex, and or sexual acts that produce seminal fluid ALL illegal. It's the only way to be safe guys.
No, not really. This is why, with all due respect, I wish you would study up on this a little more. There are not only two ways to go. The SCOTUS would not necessarily have to rule on personhood at all. And if they did decide to rule on personhood, they would not need to rule on it in the sort of binary way that you have been presenting it as. They could evade the issue to a significant degree, as they routinely do on other issues. For example, in Masterpiece Cakeshop they ruled narrowly on the bigoted behavior of the Colorado commission and refrained from issuing a detailed and comprehensive ruling on the compelled speech issue. There are many different ways the SCOTUS could handle this. I am surprised that the rigidly narrow and binary way that you have been writing about this has not caused you to think that there may be more to this and that maybe there are a broader range of possibilities that you might want and need to consider about this subject.
I'm not saying it but this law is, yes. Right, but the law didn't force her to be a parent. The law didn't make her pregnant. But yeah, I would imagine anti-abortion people are pretty much unanimous in wanting to make those things (drugs during pregnancy, et al) illegal as well.
I mean the SC can do whatever they want certainly. I didn't offer a binary choice really though. There's several different ways they could issue a ruling and still deal with Alabama asserting personhood. We will just have to disagree on whether they could sidestep the issue all together though. I mean they could, but that would be failing to deal with the crux of the Alabama law. The Alabama law says "In Roe you said that the lack of personhood made this an issue, well here, we are asserting personhood now deal with it." I expect the SC, if they take up this law, to make a ruling on something in this category: 1) Rule that Alabama can't assert personhood (not a state's right) 2) Alabama CAN assert personhood (state right, every state can do this) 3) Rule that it isn't a state right that it's federal right and make no decision on it 4) Rule in favor of personhood (the least likely in my opinion of possible) The legal challenges being mounted are going to challenge the personhood part of the law and that's what the authors of the law have wanted.
This is ridiculous to the point of being laughable. You really need to break out of your bubble and meet some conservatives OR cease to post with emotion driving your words. You sound ignorant.
