[Politico] Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows

Don't read and comprehend much, I see. This is clearly a story of a Priest performing an abortion ... in the temple tabernacle no less.

 

Thank you for seeing that.

 

Yes, it's directing the priest to engage in a procedure that will cause the woman's "womb to miscarry" if she's "impure". The difference is that it is justifying abortion as a way to restore honor to the woman's husband, as opposed to justifying abortion on the grounds that the woman has a right to make decisions about her own body.

 

Here is what Trump's SCOTUS picks said about Roe V. Wade before they became justices

Amy Coney Barrett: "How would you define super precedent? … Roe doesn't fall in that category, and scholars across the spectrum say that doesn't mean that Roe should be overruled…"

Brett Kavanaugh: "It is an important precedent of the Supreme Court. By "it" I mean Roe V. Wade and Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, been reaffirmed many times. Casey is precedent on precedent, which itself is an important factor."

Neil Gorsuch: "The Supreme Court of the United States has held from Roe V. Wade that a fetus is not a person for purposes of the 14th amendment … That's the law of the land. I accept the law of the land. Yes!"

 

11 Then the Lord said to Moses,

12 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If a man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him

13 so that another man has sexual relations with her, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act),

14 and if feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure—or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure—

15 then he is to take his wife to the priest. He must also take an offering of a tenth of an ephah of barley flour on her behalf. He must not pour olive oil on it or put incense on it, because it is a grain offering for jealousy, a reminder-offering to draw attention to wrongdoing.

 

This is a fair take. They shouldn’t have leaked it. But the court also should not have 2 of the 9 justices either. Gorsech was Obama and Barret was Biden.

 

Agent94 may not know what those terms mean in working detail, but a scholar has to either pursue or at least accept such an affiliation.

At the same time, I don't claim that particular affiliation dismisses the person's views or arguments. Just useful context to digest.

The huge elephant in the room aside, I am sad that yet another institution of our government will no longer be able to work in any sort of productive, constructive harmony. I can't see how it won't be a lot like Congress now. Given that at least one party no longer accepts results of executive branch transfers of power, we will basically have no branches of government functioning in the consistent way a healthy democracy would need. And to that I say, oh well.

 

That passage does do that.

It's about aborting a baby no matter why.

It's advocating terminating a pregnancy no matter how.

So do you agree that aborting is ok in some circumstances?

 

Doesn't lying to Congress have some sort of consequences?

 

Not if history is any precedent.

 

That's the bottom line. It's easy for me to say as a male who has no daughters, but all this ruling (assuming it's enacted) will mean is a set of unhappy women will be even less happy and will pursue more dangerous alternatives.

It might mean they have less sex with men, too, and a large set of men would deserve that outcome, TBH. Maybe these will become best-sellers.

 

Everyone loses.

 

This insane woman wants to allow abortions as the mother is dilating! We are dealing with SICK people.

 

And you want to ban abortions for fetuses without brains or other fatal chromosomal abnormalities.

Or an even darker take: why do you think we screen for congenital diseases like trisomies in the first place?

It’s a shame you never got married or had a kid.

 

Well, disagree slightly. Some small number of foetuses will get carried to term who might not have otherwise. Some conservatives will feel better about their government and sleep more easily at night. A set of men who made this the fight of their life will definitely feel like they win. And the producers of Handmaid's Tale will win when they get greenlit + $$$ for a follow-up series. Sorry to be so blithe. Just preparing myself for the white hot fury of Mrs. B-Bob when she gets home from work today. Hoo boy. Talk about a fired up voter and volunteer.

But, all this aside, the government will still sanction in vitro methods that grow and kill foetuses by the dozen and that you never hear a peep about, because, I guess, the goal is pregnancy (in cases where nature did not intend it). I've always found that a strange omission by anti-abortion people. Like... you don't want a pregnant woman to make a choice, but you're okay with an institutionalized procedure where you know most of the new entities that you consider "lives" will be terminated. Okay, boomer.

(And I mean no offense to in vitro folks -- it helps a lot of families, and I really don't have a problem with it myself. I just don't see how those aren't mass abortions.)

 

Sick indeed.

 

Not sure what you are saying, but I haven't stated my views on abortion at all yet. It's crazy how you guys jump to conclusions.

My view is quite differentiated, and I actually haven't fully read the "leaked" thing yet (if it is even true?). I know Roe vs. Wade and I know what the law in Germany is, for instance.

It's really a super complex and emotional topic and I can understand the different viewpoints on this (except of course the crazies who kill doctors in abortion clinics or some super crazy stuff like that).

It's super difficult for me to even have a really strong opinion one way or another because weighing the interest of the mother in deciding about her own body vs. the interest of the unborn child and the ethical/philosophical/legal question on "when does life actually begin" (and, to a lesser extent, the interest of the father of the unborn child) is really complex and difficult. Then there are the edge cases of rape, of it being discovered that the child would be born with a very severe disability that would cause endless suffering to the child, and so on and so on.

I have always struggled with this one.

You know, this might come as a surprise to you, but it is possible to say there are topics where I just don't know for sure what is right or what is wrong. This is one of them for me personally. And I certainly don't parrot any party's line on them.

What I do know is that life in general should be protected - but where does life actually begin? And I know that for many women, this is an incredibly difficult and traumatizing decision. There are also the cases where there would be a known massive health risk to the woman herself if she ended up giving birth.

All of this is really not something that I personally would want to have to decide.

I did have a girlfriend who was pregnant from me and had an abortion, unbeknownst to me. She never even told me about the pregnancy until after the abortion. It was very difficult for me emotionally at the time. She seemed much less affected. She even talked about a friend of hers for whom having an abortion was "just like going to the dentist" and she seemed to act a bit about it like that herself.

I don't know. I feel it is a topic that is too personal and complex for partisan bullcrap.

 

In case you haven't noticed, I am not the person who made that tweet. Whoever that person is, it doesn't seem like a lead the authorities should not at least investigate. If it turns out to be untrue, the person who got accused can certainly seek legal recourse against the tweeter. Whether that would be successful, I don't know. I guess the Tweeter's defense would be that he was just stating facts. He didn't actually say that it was definitely that person who leaked it.