DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus SC Rulings continued

I want people to only eat hamburgers. I’m going to outlaw all food first. We’ll work out the rest later.

You are absolutely right, at least about the parasitic relationship. But I disagree about it being a "separate entity" from conception. I'd argue that until a dead or dying fertilized egg is developed enough to cause a miscarriage it cannot be considered a separate entity. Additionally, I'd argue that until the woman gives birth, everything about pregnancy is merely a reproductive biological function. All fertilized eggs don't necessarily become babies, they can be molar pregnancies where no embryo develops or simply die at an early stage of embryonic development and remain part of the host body via embryo resorption. Then you have miscarriages that are natural and common, how do you regulate or enforce laws that are anti-biological functions? And that leads to the dilemma of defining when a fertilized egg develops to the point of being considered a separate life or more technically a human being and not just a reproductive bodily function. Answering that, you would have to decide if actual life begins at birth, conception, or somewhere in between. Can it be considered a separate life if it is not self-aware? Or capable of existing without a host? Or capable of living outside the host? And yes, the parasitic relationship is a strong argument for saying the fertilized egg at some point becomes a separate entity and could or should be protected. But there is no other parasite infecting a human that I know of, that our laws protect. You could also argue that a fertilized egg is a separate entity based on a symbiotic relationship of commensalism, which is a relationship between organisms where one organism benefits from the association while not harming the other. Except in many cases, the pregnancy can and or does harm the mother. I believe that life, individualism, and becoming a truly separate entity start at birth, and you are not truly alive until you draw your first breath. IMHO, self-awareness comes after birth as we discover our bodies and realize our surroundings. Everything that happens during pregnancy before birth is merely a function of the woman's reproductive system and part of her body, again IMHO.

We have people arguing that abortion is infanticide or baby killing. But infanticide is defined as killing an infant in the first year after their birth. You also have neonaticide which is killing the infant within 24 hours after birth. Neither of those arguments holds water by their own definitions. So the correct argument those accusing proponents of abortion of 'baby-killing' should use is feticide or the intentional killing of a fetus, obviously before birth, aka abortion. So if you believe life begins at birth, you also must believe that feticide is nothing more than the willful termination of an unwanted female biological reproductive function. And when the two camps of abortion opponents and proponents reached an ethical compromise based on fetal development, they agreed that late second-trimester and or third-trimester abortions should not be legal with the exception of saving the mother's life or in the rare cases of compassionate termination to end the suffering of a fetus or preemptively ending the unavoidable suffering of the infant where something went horribly wrong during pregnancy.

This was the basis of Roe v Wade and law of the land for 50-plus years. Before the politically extreme actions of the court's recent ruling, which I believe to be a byproduct of religious zealotry in the right's base, this compromise was widely accepted by the American people. Now, the right and its pro-life proponents and religious zealots expect the rest of America to blindly accept this without conflict. How irrational is that?

I feel forcing the mother and child to suffer in any way by removing the female's choice to make decisions about her own body and potentially her child's medical, physical, or mental well-being is both cruel and unreasonable. Few men in a free society would allow a proposal removing this right of choice from themselves to ever become law. Yet, we should be okay with doing this to women, as if they are somehow lesser human beings. Forcing this desire of the few upon the many is the definition of fascism, or more precisely Christo-fascism IMO, and it can not be allowed to stand. We can play semantics, or any other games we play politically, morally, religiously, scientifically, or otherwise; but at the end of the day women are being reduced to a subclass and the majority of Americans do not agree with the courts decision or being forced to allow states to impose their will on the subject.

I'm not actively following this thread - but thank you for this explanation on why I will continue to refer to the life that is terminated as a "cluster of cells" .... not because cluster of cells is an accurate reflection, but it is a reaction to the B.S. of calling it Baby killing or killing a child. You have explained it better than I would have.

This was the legislative effect of Roe. That does not mean Roe was a good decision from the court.

Before the anti-political basis of Roe abortion was considered illegal in most of the country for hundreds of years. The little time Roe was in effect does not make it a good opinion. There are better constitutionally sound opinions there for the using.

Thank you for coming right back to my entire point all along, lol.
That *IS* the issue.

I disagree entirely that a fertilized egg that has begun cell division is merely a "female biological reproductive function". Up to the moment the egg is fertilized, yes, everything about it would meet that definition, but once fertilized, and especially once "planted", the woman *IS* gestating a new Life.

The rest of what you wrote, and what I wrote, and everything else everyone has written, all hinges back to this difference of views.

Now, I'm Pro-Choice (not Pro-abortion); I recognize, accept, and support the need for safely available abortions, but at the same time I see and respect that this is still a human life getting snuffed out.

I don't think that HAS to be the issue... (it could be -- but you are making a moral decision in deciding that is the key issue)

In my personal moral setup, I don't really care if the embryo has the capability to be human.

I care if I'm causing suffering. That is why I care a lot about humans, quite a bit about chimpanzees, and other high mammals, less about fish, and very little about mosquitos.

Our best understanding of biology indicates that fetuses can't feel pain or suffer until about week 28-30. It's guaranteed that at 10-15 weeks, a fetus has no real "consciousness" - there are a bunch of brain cells that are quickly forming - but the synapses are mess and everything is firing randomly.

Meanwhile, the woman involved is sure as conscious as any of us here, and is capable of suffering. That is why her needs should be put first.

Our society deems that anyone under the age of 21 isn't even responsible enough to drink alcohol due to their immaturity. Now suddenly they should be expected to make life altering decisions responsibly? Sure, preach on. You seem to be the self appointed Dawg Talker's arbiter of class and morals anyway. So this post of yours shouldn't surprise anyone.

Our society deems anyone under 21 isn't biologically done maturing and alcohol will retard that. It is less about mental maturity and more about physical maturity.


Do you worry you are losing your position?

What?

You really have a talent for sprinting right past any reasonable argument that can support your position, and finding the dumbest possible argument that can be used to support your position.

"No guys -- really... The drinking age has nothing to do with maturity --- it's just that if 18 year olds drink too much alcohol they will.... become smaller ?!"

My position is my position. In 1984 the National Minimum Drinking Age Act passed, which stated federal highway funds would be withheld from U.S. states that failed to set the minimum legal drinking age back at 21. The reasoning was because of the high death rate on our highways of people drinking below the age of 21. Now people have tried to present your argument many times. But this is why and the reasoning why the drinking age was raised to 21 everywhere. Before that time some states had laws allowing 18 year olds to drink a lower percentage beer. 3.2% by volume. That includes the state of Ohio. The law raising the drinking age had nothing to do with your claim.

You sure pick and choose who to criticize while ignoring more blasphemous statements from others. For example, who brought up the under 21 thing?

It would be nice to see some objectivity in this forum just once in awhile.

What's wrong with noting that 21 year olds can't have a beer, but can be forced to have a baby? Those statements are both (in Ohio) currently true.

What's wrong is that I never once said that or even came close to insinuating it. I have Pit on ignore for a reason. He constantly twists things around to win an argument. Unfortunately, Frank quoted him and I read his crap. Furthermore, I have repeatedly said that I am pro-choice. And a huge reason for that is for cases like those that involve minors and others who struggle to protect themselves. I just don't see why saying that people should hold themselves more accountable is something that out of line. Intelligent people don't have to draw lines in the sand. Stances that say there should be no abortions and others that say that people should not worry about being accountable for their actions because we can just abort are both whacked. Hell, we have one guy on here who said abortions were dignified and heroic.

If that were truly the case then the drinking age would be 25 which is when the brain reaches full development.

The problem is where do you draw the line? All these years and we're still no closer (legally speaking) to determining when life begins.

Plus... are we really going to pretend like we think the clowns we have running things are really going to get it right?

Just a word on the court in general.

We keep hearing about a 6-3 split on the court. I don't think it is anywhere nearly as polar as some think.

Chief Justice Roberts is decidedly a moderate. All signs are that Kavanaugh is as well.

The problem with the lower courts is that any judge who has aspirations of being elevated to the Supreme Court almost has to be hard line one way or the other or the President at the time probably won't nominate them due to pressures put on them.

I think your last sentence shows the flaw in reasoning in the first two sentences.

Roberts is in the middle "on this court".... but everybody who goes to the surpeme court is a hardliner (including Roberts) - since Republicans appointed 6 of the 9 judges, we have a hardline right court.

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law that recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."[1]

Good, we have a legal definition.... someone start drafting an Amendment and let's get all of this put behind us.

In the strictest context. Yet sometimes people soften the stance once appointed. We can find many examples of that. I would also note my use of the word "almost". I used that for a reason, so as to allow some leeway.

You probably don't need an Amendment since it is already law and hasn't been struck down by any of the courts.

Getting it added as an Amendment puts the issue to rest AND creates nearly unchallengeable uniformity across all states.

Nobody said you did. Learn to read. I was making what's known as a "counterpoint". Why it's not realistic to expect young people which are not trusted enough to even drink in our society are going to make sound decisions when it comes to sex.


Yet you can't keep my name out of your mouth. I twisted nothing. I made a point which you obviously have no rebuttal for so rather than actually address it you attack me.... again. People can see through your BS.


I read your crap all the time because I don't put people I disagree with on ignore and then attack them. I'm not that cowardly.


It's not out of line. But at some point we have to discuss at what age you expect people to be accountable, how society feels about people at that age being mature enough to be accountable and how realistic it is to expect them to be accountable. Well of course unless someone wants to act like you who simply attack anyone who brought that part of the discussion up and hide from everything they post yet talk about them all the time.

With your high educational background in English one would think you wouldn't need this but obviously do. For future referance as a helpful hint.....

What are Blasphemous words?

Blasphemous is an adjective that describes profane words and actions, especially when they are connected to something religious. If you draw Jesus Christ wearing lipstick or call Buddha a fat slob, you're displaying blasphemous behavior.

You're welcome.

The law is not near as clear as Ballpeen is pretending it is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_rights

https://time.com/6191886/fetal-personhood-laws-roe-abortion/

Also, if this became a constitutional amendment, just wait until we are putting women in jail for having a drink while pregnant, or smoking a cigarette, or eating soft cheese, or literally a million other things that some study somewhere has found harm a fetus.

While most of the inner workings of the court are kept under wraps it is rumored Roberts does a lot of brokering between majority/minority sides on issues. He also brokers when the majority cannot get 5 justices to join the opinion.

And from the cursory research I have done it appears Gorsuch is willing to side with the more liberal side. It is less often that that a single liberal justice sides with the conservative side, but it does happen. There are also several 9-0 decisions for whatever that tells us.

It’s also possible for the Court to be agnostic from the parties who appointed them. For instance, RvW was 7-2. Of the 7, 5 were Republican appointed I believe, including Brennan, which is crazy in retrospect. Of the 2 dissenting, one was a Democrat appointed justice I believe.

Hopefully, the new lib stacked court will undo all the crazy, including a definition like this. Biden is under incredible pressure to act. We'll see if it's impeachments or raising the number of justices to 13.

Just remember, if they elect a Republican president in 2024, the same tactics you suggest Biden should use will then allow the next president to use those same tactics. Then how will you feel when they raise the amount of the SCOTUS to once again give them the advantage? Same goes for overriding the filibuster. They sound like great ideas to get what you want. But then don't complain later when those same tactics get used against you.

It's not like it squeaked by when the law was passed. The bill was introduced in the House as H.R. 1997 by Rep. Melissa Hart of Pennsylvania. It was ultimately co-sponsored by 136 other members of the House before it passed by a vote of 254 in favor to 163 against on February 26, 2004. After several amendments were rejected, it was passed in the Senate by a vote of 61-38 on March 25, 2004. It was signed into law by President George W. Bush on April 1, 2004.

I will just say that this is one of the outcomes of them changing the senate rules that required 60 votes.

It used to be one side or the other would allow a partisan voice for balance, as long as the court as a whole was more neutral.

Now it is totally partisan base on the most recent selection.

Souter, if I recall was liberal, and put forward by GHWB, much to his chagrin.

This isn't really a crazy law -- because it was intended for a specific purposes --- which was to criminalize assaults on pregnant women that were meant to injury or kill the fetus, which the legislature felt (reasonably) deserves an upgraded level of penalty from a standard "assault" charge due to its specifically malicious intent.

This law was not meant to say anything about abortion in particular, which is a very different situation when the mother herself has decided not to have the child (for any number of possible reasons).

I get all of that but now one party is clinging to anything they can find to hurt people. The law was not intended to affect abortion because of Roe. Roe is now gone and they will use crap like this to remove women's rights permanently. I can't talk about this anymore, it just pisses me off.

Men arguing about female reproductive rights is amusing to me. Like if women were arguing about the legality of vasectomies for men. Amusing right?

Lol that statement is a joke. The GOP has been gerrymandering for decades. The GOP won general elections with minority votes twice and tried to steal another. The GOP stacked the SCOTUS with extreme trump loyalists. So if it is as you say they shouldn’t complain when the dems throw that same crap back to the GOP for once.

To be fair one would hope the justices are agnostic to politics and respect the constitution. I'm not sure that is always possible, but one would hope it more the rule than not.

Kind of hard when your wife is supporting and promoting the Big Lie.

You're either incredibly naive, or you are lying to yourself and everyone else. Sad. That bit in white's trust score has been sub-50% since the late sixties, and early seventies. It just gets lower and lower as time goes on and we accept everything they do.

And I bet you only complain about it when it doesn't go your way.

Well, I've seen there are some questions whether or not this story is actually true.

Legitimate source? (Cause Columbus Dispatch is a pretty legit, albeit right-leaning newspaper).