Ripples are coming...

[MartinSE]

Young woman is suing Texas because she got s ticket for driving alone in the HOV. She is pregnant and claims she was not alone, her fetus is a person according to Texas law.

Pregnant woman says her fetus should count as a passenger in HOV lanes. She got a ticket (https://www.dallasnews.com/news/watchdog/2022/07/08/pregnant-woman-says-her-fetus-should-count-as-a-passenger-in-hov-lanes-she-got-a-ticket/)

[billethkid]

Another indicator of the day we live in.

One person in the car....give her a ticket and send her packing....instead the "incident" (trying to remain polite) is presented as worthy news hence validating the charade.

Complete/utter BS!

[Kenswing]

…///

[Bill14564]

Another indicator of the day we live in.

One person in the car....give her a ticket and send her packing....instead the "incident" (trying to remain polite) is presented as worthy news hence validating the charade.

Complete/utter BS!

Completely disagree. Texas made the law that says there were two people in the car; they can't have it both ways. Poorly-considered actions often have unintended consequences.

[photo1902]

Another indicator of the day we live in.

One person in the car....give her a ticket and send her packing....instead the "incident" (trying to remain polite) is presented as worthy news hence validating the charade.

Complete/utter BS!

And this is ruining your whole day? Wow.

[billethkid]

And this is ruining your whole day? Wow.

Incorrect!
:ohdear:

[kkingston57]

Young woman is suing Texas because she got s ticket for driving alone in the HOV. She is pregnant and claims she was not alone, her fetus is a person according to Texas law.

Pregnant woman says her fetus should count as a passenger in HOV lanes. She got a ticket (https://www.dallasnews.com/news/watchdog/2022/07/08/pregnant-woman-says-her-fetus-should-count-as-a-passenger-in-hov-lanes-she-got-a-ticket/)

This case is the tip of the iceberg with all of the different laws from state to state. Keeps the lawyers busy and these cases are not going to be cases like personal injury lawyers advertise that they only get paid when the injured person gets paid. HUGE can of worms.

[MartinSE]

This case is the tip of the iceberg with all of the different laws from state to state. Keeps the lawyers busy and these cases are not going to be cases like personal injury lawyers advertise that they only get paid when the injured person gets paid. HUGE can of worms.

This is mostly my point. For 40 or 50 years people have been working for this day, and now that it is here, you might have thought they would have given some thought to the unintentional consequences.

To the person that said there is one person in the car, I completely agree with you. But, you see Texas disagrees with you and me and said in criminal law on the books that there are two.

I predict there is going to be at least a year of chaos to come, with so many unforeseen consequences springing up.

[villageuser]

Completely disagree. Texas made the law that says there were two people in the car; they can't have it both ways. Poorly-considered actions often have unintended consequences.

Actually, she said that she did the same thing when she was driving with her first pregnancy, way before the recent RoeWade decision, and that she is pro-life. It appears that she figured it is 2 people in the car, when one is pregnant, all along.

[tsmall22204]

You are correct. Unintended consequences are the result of laws born from stupidity. O⁹

[George Page]

You might have thought they would have given some thought to the unintentional consequences.

We have. The unintentional consequences of overturning R vs W are minuscule compared to the intended consequences of abortion.
In this case, let’s compare a traffic violation to millions of terminated lives.
It is an easy decision for intelligent people, but apparently not for many who are uneducated or educated beyond their intelligence.

[jimbomaybe]

Young woman is suing Texas because she got s ticket for driving alone in the HOV. She is pregnant and claims she was not alone, her fetus is a person according to Texas law.

Pregnant woman says her fetus should count as a passenger in HOV lanes. She got a ticket (https://www.dallasnews.com/news/watchdog/2022/07/08/pregnant-woman-says-her-fetus-should-count-as-a-passenger-in-hov-lanes-she-got-a-ticket/)

Then she should get ticketed for not having the child in an approved car seat?, assuming Texas has that law

[Oneiric]

Young woman is suing Texas because she got s ticket for driving alone in the HOV. She is pregnant and claims she was not alone, her fetus is a person according to Texas law.

Pregnant woman says her fetus should count as a passenger in HOV lanes. She got a ticket (https://www.dallasnews.com/news/watchdog/2022/07/08/pregnant-woman-says-her-fetus-should-count-as-a-passenger-in-hov-lanes-she-got-a-ticket/)

Although sympathetic, she is wasting her time and money. The judge will dismiss this case.

[kenoc7]

Another indicator of the day we live in.

One person in the car....give her a ticket and send her packing....instead the "incident" (trying to remain polite) is presented as worthy news hence validating the charade.

Complete/utter BS! describes your response.

Given the ridiculous laws in Texas and other states about when life begins, the woman made a perfectly reasonable claim. The law of unintended consequences rules!

[bragones]

I suppose she will have no issue being charged for 2 when booking airline flights while pregnant.

[Worldseries27]

young woman is suing texas because she got s ticket for driving alone in the hov. She is pregnant and claims she was not alone, her fetus is a person according to texas law.

pregnant woman says her fetus should count as a passenger in hov lanes. She got a ticket (https://www.dallasnews.com/news/watchdog/2022/07/08/pregnant-woman-says-her-fetus-should-count-as-a-passenger-in-hov-lanes-she-got-a-ticket/)
texas will simply amend the law to say the second passenger must be in a seperate, buckled up seat.

[Bill14564]

I suppose she will have no issue being charged for 2 when booking airline flights while pregnant.

Airlines charge by the seat. I certainly hope (as would the airline) that she only has the need for one seat during the flight.

[Vermilion Villager]

I suppose she will have no issue being charged for 2 when booking airline flights while pregnant.

Airlines require a ticket based on the occupancy of a seat on the plane.

[kbace6]

This case is the tip of the iceberg with all of the different laws from state to state. Keeps the lawyers busy and these cases are not going to be cases like personal injury lawyers advertise that they only get paid when the injured person gets paid. HUGE can of worms.

I think the question here is not R v. W since it is unlikely that any state's "when life begins" statutes can be applied to vehicular statutes. But I think the real question is, if a pregnant woman is killed in a car accident in the state of Texas, is that considered double vehicular homicide as it is in my state? (very blue state) If the vehicular statutes in Texas do, then I suspect it is in her right legally to use the HOV lane. Not saying it is prudent, only potentially legal.

[retiredguy123]

Airlines charge by the seat. I certainly hope (as would the airline) that she only has the need for one seat during the flight.
Actually, I think most airlines require anyone over 2 years old to have a ticket and a seat, even if they could sit on someone's lap.

[Caymus]

Airlines charge by the seat. I certainly hope (as would the airline) that she only has the need for one seat during the flight.


Almost all airlines do not charge "lap" infants. Why would they charge her?

[ThirdOfFive]

Gotta give her credit for originality, if nothing else.

[Bill14564]

Almost all airlines do not charge "lap" infants. Why would they charge her?

Then you are agreeing with me.

[Djean1981]

Two beating hearts = two people.

However, in this case I think the intent is two passenger seats filled (to reduce the number of cars on the road). So, perhaps they should change the HOV laws to be two passengers over 16 years of age (possible drivers).

[retiredguy123]

Gotta give her credit for originality, if nothing else.
Agree. Reminds me of the law that required bars to close at 2AM, but didn't say that they couldn't reopen at 2:05AM.

[rsimpson]

Young woman is suing Texas because she got s ticket for driving alone in the HOV. She is pregnant and claims she was not alone, her fetus is a person according to Texas law.

Pregnant woman says her fetus should count as a passenger in HOV lanes. She got a ticket (https://www.dallasnews.com/news/watchdog/2022/07/08/pregnant-woman-says-her-fetus-should-count-as-a-passenger-in-hov-lanes-she-got-a-ticket/)

Easy to fix - Eliminate the HOV lanes. Another failed "green New Deal" idea.

[Keefelane66]

The Fetus is in the correct car seat it would not be viable outside the womb.

[Ptmckiou]

Young woman is suing Texas because she got s ticket for driving alone in the HOV. She is pregnant and claims she was not alone, her fetus is a person according to Texas law.

Pregnant woman says her fetus should count as a passenger in HOV lanes. She got a ticket (https://www.dallasnews.com/news/watchdog/2022/07/08/pregnant-woman-says-her-fetus-should-count-as-a-passenger-in-hov-lanes-she-got-a-ticket/)

It’s only just begun. “Miscarriage prosecution” is going to become a big money maker for lawyers. Women will have to prove it was no fault of their own that they actually had a natural miscarriage. Otherwise, they can be charged with manslaughter now, because the Supreme Court has essentially given “people” status to fetuses and people are ALL governed by constitutional rights. This ruling has women’s lives a potential horror show, along with monetary hardships of having to defend themselves and their doctors. Abortion may be viewed by many has horrendous, but many also believe a bigger horrendous act is bringing thousands of children into this world that are not wanted. We have enough unwanted children in the world as it is, and we can’t take care of many of them adequately. Especially minority children. Before abortion was legal in many places, I remember having an orphanage in our town. Are we going to be forced to go back to that? It can be daily mental torture to a child growing up unwanted. I wish that life for no one. Being pro-life does NOT stop at birth.

[Bill14564]

Easy to fix - Eliminate the HOV lanes. Another failed "green New Deal" idea.

Disregarding the fact that HOV lanes are effective and existed long before the "green New Deal" was even conceived.

[Wyseguy]

This case is the tip of the iceberg with all of the different laws from state to state. Keeps the lawyers busy and these cases are not going to be cases like personal injury lawyers advertise that they only get paid when the injured person gets paid. HUGE can of worms.

The States will figure it out.

[Wyseguy]

It’s only just begun. “Miscarriage prosecution” is going to become a big money maker for lawyers. Women will have to prove it was no fault of their own that they actually had a natural miscarriage. Otherwise, they can be charged with manslaughter now, because the Supreme Court has essentially given “people” status to fetuses and people are ALL governed by constitutional rights. This ruling has women’s lives a potential horror show, along with monetary hardships of having to defend themselves and their doctors. Abortion may be viewed by many has horrendous, but many also believe a bigger horrendous act is bringing thousands of children into this world that are not wanted. We have enough unwanted children in the world as it is, and we can’t take care of many of them adequately. Especially minority children. Before abortion was legal in many places, I remember having an orphanage in our town. Are we going to be forced to go back to that? It can be daily mental torture to a child growing up unwanted. I wish that life for no one. Being pro-life does NOT stop at birth.

Respectfully many people need to read the SC decision. It does not give "people" status; it does not even address the topic. Simply stated, it said that there is not a constitutional right to abortion. It was sent to the states to decide.
On a separate note, any argument that says abortion should be legal because the child's life would be difficult is on dangerous ground. Not only are people fighting for abortions in cases where the baby will be born with some deformity, but now the child's financial status growing up is reason to abort? In my opinion the only reasonable difference of opinion among people would be when does life begin. Arguments that use fetal imperfection, or financial abilities of the parent(s) run the risk of becoming racist.

[MartinSE]

texas will simply amend the law to say the second passenger must be in a seperate, buckled up seat.

Yes, they can, and then the next, and the next.

My point was and is the obvious lack of planning, resulting in confusion and legal problems and costs. And all of those problems will predominantly affect poor women.

[MartinSE]

We have. The unintentional consequences of overturning R vs W are minuscule compared to the intended consequences of abortion.
In this case, let’s compare a traffic violation to millions of terminated lives.
It is an easy decision for intelligent people, but apparently not for many who are uneducated or educated beyond their intelligence.

And here we have right away an example of why we can’t discuss ANYTHING in this country any more.

It seems no one can just disagree and say why, people have to throw in insults, and juvenile statement and how anyone that disagrees is stupid.

And, apparently this poster believes everyone will just go to term, so no more abortions. Except that doesn’t happen, all through out history it never happens. The only difference will be more women dying when getting abortions illegally. And of course rich women, or poor women carrying a rich man’s fetus, will still have no problem getting safe abortions.

If only life were as simplistic as so many think it is.

[George Page]

Have you really? Don't kid yourself for a minute. If little debutant Kimberly gets preggo you don't think their rich, ultra conservative, pro-life parents will be sending them to "visit" a relative in another state...or country??? Paaalleeeaaassseeee!:a20:

Yes I have, and I’m not kidding myself the least bit. I fully expect some will pursue alternate means of accommodation where permitted by likeminded people.
No law has been passed by Congress to permit nationwide abortion access. Why do you think that is the case? Multiple times, the Democrats have had the Presidency as well as the majority in both the House and Senate.

[MartinSE]

Respectfully many people need to read the SC decision. It does not give "people" status; it does not even address the topic. Simply stated, it said that there is not a constitutional right to abortion. It was sent to the states to decide.
On a separate note, any argument that says abortion should be legal because the child's life would be difficult is on dangerous ground. Not only are people fighting for abortions in cases where the baby will be born with some deformity, but now the child's financial status growing up is reason to abort? In my opinion the only reasonable difference of opinion among people would be when does life begin. Arguments that use fetal imperfection, or financial abilities of the parent(s) run the risk of becoming racist.

Did you mean Texas? Because this post is about Texas.

[jammaiora]

Another indicator of the day we live in.

One person in the car....give her a ticket and send her packing....instead the "incident" (trying to remain polite) is presented as worthy news hence validating the charade.

Complete/utter BS!
The TRUTH hurts! She is correct! You can't have it both ways. You can't say the fetus is a living being and then not accepting her point. Good for her!

[MartinSE]

Respectfully many people need to read the SC decision. It does not give "people" status; it does not even address the topic. Simply stated, it said that there is not a constitutional right to abortion. It was sent to the states to decide.
On a separate note, any argument that says abortion should be legal because the child's life would be difficult is on dangerous ground. Not only are people fighting for abortions in cases where the baby will be born with some deformity, but now the child's financial status growing up is reason to abort? In my opinion the only reasonable difference of opinion among people would be when does life begin. Arguments that use fetal imperfection, or financial abilities of the parent(s) run the risk of becoming racist.

Two more things, it did not just say there is no right to abortion it says there is no right to anything not explicitly stated in the constitution. For example, interracial marriage, or maybe putting cream in your coffee.

I recall many here arguing that anything not explicitly denied is implicitly allowed. Apparently that applies to abortion, same sex marriage, et Al, abut not to guns.

[Bill14564]

Yes I have, and I’m not kidding myself the least bit. I fully expect some will pursue alternate means of accommodation where permitted by likeminded people.
No law has been passed by Congress to permit nationwide abortion access. Why do you think that is the case? Multiple times, the Democrats have had the Presidency as well as the majority in both the House and Senate.

Because until this year the right to an abortion was established law.

[YeOldeCurmudgeon]

Can we please stop allowing someone else's religion to rule our lives? And that means you, SCOTUS

This is an example of the insanity now rupturing the fabric of our nation.

[Bill14564]

Two more things, it did not just say there is no right to abortion it says there is no right to anything not explicitly stated in the constitution. For example, interracial marriage, or maybe putting cream in your coffee.

I recall many here arguing that anything not explicitly denied is implicitly allowed. Apparently that applies to abortion, same sex marriage, et Al, abut not to guns.

That is as it should be and as it is stated in the ninth amendment. Regrettably, that amendment has been ignored.

You want to make an exception to the first amendment? Then talk to me about danger of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.

You want to make an exception to the second amendment? Then talk to me about the danger of automatic weapons.

You want to make an exception to the ninth amendment and prohibit abortion? No problem, we ignore that one anyway. But the right answer would be to talk to me about when life begins and how forcing a woman to carry a baby doesn't violate the ninth, thirteenth, and fourteenth amendments.

[MartinSE]

Can we please stop allowing someone else's religion to rule our lives? And that means you, SCOTUS

This is an example of the insanity now rupturing the fabric of our nation.

I think you are right. Sadly, many will cheer when a decision is made that feels right without considering the wide ranging consequences.

There is No doubt that a segment of our society want a theocracy, and theocracies never end will.

[conman5652@aol.com]

Well if SCOTUS has change R v W then all babies unborn should count as a tax deduct at conception now.

[Shelby62]

We have. The unintentional consequences of overturning R vs W are minuscule compared to the intended consequences of abortion.
In this case, let’s compare a traffic violation to millions of terminated lives.
It is an easy decision for intelligent people, but apparently not for many who are uneducated or educated beyond their intelligence.

Exactly put and well said.

[Chi-Town]

She should have a Baby On Board sign visible to increase the squirming.

[Veiragirl]

Young woman is suing Texas because she got s ticket for driving alone in the HOV. She is pregnant and claims she was not alone, her fetus is a person according to Texas law.

Pregnant woman says her fetus should count as a passenger in HOV lanes. She got a ticket (https://www.dallasnews.com/news/watchdog/2022/07/08/pregnant-woman-says-her-fetus-should-count-as-a-passenger-in-hov-lanes-she-got-a-ticket/)

Roe vs Wade should NEVER have been overturned. Believe me, if men got pregnant they would fight like hell to keep reproductive decisions private. Our country is going to hell

[Sherry8bal]

This crap is what this country is coming to - pure nonsense and B.S. Every Veteran who died for this country has to be rolling over in their grave that they sacrificed their life for this stupidity and selfishness. It keeps getting worse everyday these idiots keep trying to beat the system instead of just obeying the laws.

[Shelby62]

Respectfully many people need to read the SC decision. It does not give "people" status; it does not even address the topic. Simply stated, it said that there is not a constitutional right to abortion. It was sent to 8the states to decide.
On a separate note, any argument that says abortion should be legal because the child's life would be difficult is on dangerous ground. Not only are people fighting for abortions in cases where the baby will be born with some deformity, but now the child's financial status growing up is reason to abort? In my opinion the only reasonable difference of opinion among people would be when does life begin. Arguments that use fetal imperfection, or financial abilities of the parent(s) run the risk of becoming racist.

Another well said commentary.

First, read the opinion. The Supremes put the decision back to the states. Judicial restraint was lost for many years.

Second, we need to tread lightly here. No person should delineate what constitutes a life worthwhile. Elitism at work.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Another indicator of the day we live in.

One person in the car....give her a ticket and send her packing....instead the "incident" (trying to remain polite) is presented as worthy news hence validating the charade.

Complete/utter BS!

When the LAW says that a fetus is a "person" then by law, the vehicle is occupied by more than one "person" when a pregnant woman is driving.

Can't have it both ways.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Then she should get ticketed for not having the child in an approved car seat?, assuming Texas has that law

Then Texas must provide the opportunity for the woman to - remove her child from her womb and place it in an approved car seat.

Since they have refused to do that, the only other possible intention of the law is to prevent pregnant women from driving.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

texas will simply amend the law to say the second passenger must be in a seperate, buckled up seat.

And that will result in pregnant women being prohibited from being in a moving vehicle at all.

See how messy it gets when you decide that an unborn fetus is legally a "person?"

[Shelby62]

It’s only just begun. “Miscarriage prosecution” is going to become a big money maker for lawyers. Women will have to prove it was no fault of their own that they actually had a natural miscarriage. Otherwise, they can be charged with manslaughter now, because the Supreme Court has essentially given “people” status to fetuses and people are ALL governed by constitutional rights. This ruling has women’s lives a potential horror show, along with monetary hardships of having to defend themselves and their doctors. Abortion may be viewed by many has horrendous, but many also believe a bigger horrendous act is bringing thousands of children into this world that are not wanted. We have enough unwanted children in the world as it is, and we can’t take care of many of them adequately. Especially minority children. Before abortion was legal in many places, I remember having an orphanage in our town. Are we going to be forced to go back to that? It can be daily mental torture to a child growing up unwanted. I wish that life for no one. Being pro-life does NOT stop at birth.

Good thing that thinking wasn't placed upon Tom Monaghan who was placed in an orphanage. He would never have had the chance of founding Domino's Pizza nor would he have had the chance of vowing to die poor while giving away all of his money.

[TheWarriors]

Have any of you ever watched an abortion? Have you seen the fetus move away from the needle that is about to be inserted into the skull to drain the brain matter? One thing we definitely need to do is NOT celebrate abortions, it is always negative. Perhaps if one side didn’t feel they needed the right to terminate a fetus right up to partial birth, none of this would be occurring.
As Ronald Reagan once profoundly said: I notice all of the people arguing for abortions have already been born.

[Jacob85]

Well if it’s a baby the minute the egg is fertilized then it’s a person!

[jimbomaybe]

Then Texas must provide the opportunity for the woman to - remove her child from her womb and place it in an approved car seat.

Since they have refused to do that, the only other possible intention of the law is to prevent pregnant women from driving.

So if I have my uncle's ashes in the glove box I am good to go

[JMintzer]

Did you mean Texas? Because this post is about Texas.

SC = Supreme Court... Not South Carolina...

[JMintzer]

Two more things, it did not just say there is no right to abortion it says there is no right to anything not explicitly stated in the constitution. For example, interracial marriage, or maybe putting cream in your coffee.

I recall many here arguing that anything not explicitly denied is implicitly allowed. Apparently that applies to abortion, same sex marriage, et Al, abut not to guns.

No one made that. argument...

What "many here" were arguing was that the Constitution limits what THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT can do, and that those things not determined by the Feds were to be determined by the states...

[JMintzer]

Because until this year the right to an abortion was established law.

Except it wasn't... No law was ever codified... They had 50 years to do it, but they either failed or refused to do it.

The skeptic in me believes it was not codified on purpose so that the issue could be used as a political weapon...

[JMintzer]

Then Texas must provide the opportunity for the woman to - remove her child from her womb and place it in an approved car seat.

Since they have refused to do that, the only other possible intention of the law is to prevent pregnant women from driving.

:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

[Bill14564]

Except it wasn't... No law was ever codified... They had 50 years to do it, but they either failed or refused to do it.

The skeptic in me believes it was not codified on purpose so that the issue could be used as a political weapon...

Two Supreme Court cases said the right was already recognized in the Constitution. There was no need for a separate law to codify what the Constitution already provided. I would have argued against a separate law as redundant and as an attempt to improve on what was already there.

Remember, several Justice candidates stated their belief that this was settled law as well.

And then it wasn't settled at all.

Trying to wrap my head around how it could be used for a weapon. Not doubting that it's a possibility these days, just can't see how that would work.

[billethkid]

Somehow the thread has become all about the unborn child. Somehow the intent of the law/rule/whatever for traveling in the express lane has been understood and a NON-ISSUE.

Before the current "trend" of special interests needs/wants/hopes/desires/etc........we all understood that to use the express lanes there had to be more than one person in the car. At least those who tried the blow up dolls were worth a laugh........the fetus is a passenger?

Now we are in the mode of picking fly specs out of the pepper to fit a case....to not obey the law we have all understood....is as I said previously......utter BS!

[MartinSE]

This crap is what this country is coming to - pure nonsense and B.S. Every Veteran who died for this country has to be rolling over in their grave that they sacrificed their life for this stupidity and selfishness. It keeps getting worse everyday these idiots keep trying to beat the system instead of just obeying the laws.

I for one a Vet from VN era agree, every time the new SCOTUS rules I feel like I die a little.

Maybe the idiots are those that are cheering this court over turning hundreds of years of decided law. Sadly at least 3 of them lied under oath to congress and NOTHING can be done about it, other than mainly. unpacking the court and that doesn't solve anything, it just kicks it down the road.

[MartinSE]

And that will result in pregnant women being prohibited from being in a moving vehicle at all.

See how messy it gets when you decide that an unborn fetus is legally a "person?"

Let's recall that the decision to declare fetuses and embryos as human was not a scientific decision, it was a religious decision.

[Djean1981]

Respectfully many people need to read the SC decision. It does not give "people" status; it does not even address the topic. Simply stated, it said that there is not a constitutional right to abortion. It was sent to the states to decide.
On a separate note, any argument that says abortion should be legal because the child's life would be difficult is on dangerous ground. Not only are people fighting for abortions in cases where the baby will be born with some deformity, but now the child's financial status growing up is reason to abort? In my opinion the only reasonable difference of opinion among people would be when does life begin. Arguments that use fetal imperfection, or financial abilities of the parent(s) run the risk of becoming racist.
Yes. The decision is just remanded to the states.

Growing up poor is not a disability, or even a disadvantage. It can be argued that growing up rich and spoiled causes harm. I grew up in a house so dilapidated that most walls were gone. We often didn't have water or electric. All five of us are productive adults (not in jail or on government aid). I didn't realize I was poor until 7th grade when I overheard the school teachers divvying up donated uniforms and my name was mentioned. Many great people, including presidents, grew up poor (they weren't aborted).

[JMintzer]

Two Supreme Court cases said the right was already recognized in the Constitution. There was no need for a separate law to codify what the Constitution already provided. I would have argued against a separate law as redundant and as an attempt to improve on what was already there.

Remember, several Justice candidates stated their belief that this was settled law as well.

And then it wasn't settled at all.

Trying to wrap my head around how it could be used for a weapon. Not doubting that it's a possibility these days, just can't see how that would work.

No, they stated it was "settled precedent", which is not the same as "settled law"... There never was a codified law...

Even RBG said it was a bad decision. Not because she disagreed w/a woman's right to choose, but because the SCOTUS screwed the pooch in their decision...

[George Page]

Because until this year the right to an abortion was established law.

WRONG!
Only congress can create laws. Attempts to enact legislation through the courts without the vote of the people is fundamentally inconsistent
with the Republic we live in.

[JMintzer]

I for one a Vet from VN era agree, every time the new SCOTUS rules I feel like I die a little.

Maybe the idiots are those that are cheering this court over turning hundreds of years of decided law. Sadly at least 3 of them lied under oath to congress and NOTHING can be done about it, other than mainly. unpacking the court and that doesn't solve anything, it just kicks it down the road.

What "hundreds of years" of decided law has been overturned?

And "idiots cheering"? Not a good way to make your point...

[JMintzer]

Let's recall that the decision to declare fetuses and embryos as human was not a scientific decision, it was a religious decision.

So, by your reasoning, when a pregnant woman is shot, and the fetus dies, no murder/manslaughter charges can brought against the assailant?

[MartinSE]

Yes. The decision is just remanded to the states.

Growing up poor is not a disability, or even a disadvantage. It can be argued that growing up rich and spoiled causes harm. I grew up in a house so dilapidated that most walls were gone. We often didn't have water or electric. All five of us are productive adults (not in jail or on government aid). I didn't realize I was poor until 7th grade when I overheard the school teachers divvying up donated uniforms and my name was mentioned. Many great people, including presidents, grew up poor (they weren't aborted).

Anecdotal evidence at best. There are troves of evidence that growing up poor is almost insurmountable. Yes, some do overcome it, but the vast majority - MILLIONS - do not.

But, I know of NO ONE that is arguing being poor is a reason to get an abortion. But, a lot of people say it can be a contributing factor.

Just one of many possible examples, a poor single mother of 3 working 2 jobs gets pregnant and finds via testing that the child will only survive with a specific medication taken daily the medication costs $1000/month and if it is not taken they child will live a couple months in pure agony.

But, that is not even important, what is, is the court deciding when life begins.

This is more like a court deciding that people and their doctor should not be able to decide on surgery, because God doesn't believe in blood transfusions. Or any diseased organs have to be given a proper funeral since, they used to be part of a person.

[Bill14564]

WRONG!
Only congress can create laws. Attempts to enact legislation through the courts without the vote of the people is fundamentally inconsistent
with the Republic we live in.

Exactly which law grants freedom of speech and freedom of religion?

The courts did not create law, they affirmed that the right was granted by the Constitution. Then a later court changes its mind.

[Bill14564]

No, they stated it was "settled precedent", which is not the same as "settled law"... There never was a codified law...

Even RBG said it was a bad decision. Not because she disagreed w/a woman's right to choose, but because the SCOTUS screwed the pooch in their decision...

A distinction without a difference. What is settled should need no redundant filing in 50 States to affirm.

[George Page]

There was no need for a separate law to codify what the Constitution already provided.

WRONG
If the Constitution, or a law enacted by Congress, provided the right to abortion, the Supreme Court could not undo it. The Court can, however, overturn its previous decisions which it has done over 300 times.

[JMintzer]

Just one of many possible examples, a poor single mother of 3 working 2 jobs gets pregnant and finds via testing that the child will only survive with a specific medication taken daily the medication costs $1000/month and if it is not taken they child will live a couple months in pure agony.

Anecdotal evidence at best...

[JMintzer]

A distinction without a difference. What is settled should need no redundant filing in 50 States to affirm.

There is a HUGE difference...

[MartinSE]

Exactly which law grants freedom of speech and freedom of religion?

The courts did not create law, they affirmed that the right was granted by the Constitution. Then a later court changes its mind.

And the THREE judges just expeditiously appointed all lied under oath and in private conversations and said it was not an issue, then immediately overturned hundreds of years of precedent. This is exactly a case of do anything to get into power, and then change things based on politics or religion.

[MartinSE]

WRONG
If the Constitution, or a law enacted by Congress, provided the right to abortion, the Supreme Court could not undo it. The Court can, however, overturn its previous decisions which it has done over 300 times.

The question is not that they can, it is that they gave no good legal reason for doing it. Almost everything in the majority opinion was wrong.

[JMintzer]

Exactly which law grants freedom of speech and freedom of religion?

The Constitution (which is the Law of the Land...)

It specifically states that:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The courts did not create law, they affirmed that the right was granted by the Constitution. Then a later court changes its mind.

Yes, laws are to be created by Congress (except when prohibited by the Constitution [see above]), and by the States...

[JMintzer]

And the THREE judges just expeditiously appointed all lied under oath and in private conversations and said it was not an issue, then immediately overturned hundreds of years of precedent. This is exactly a case of do anything to get into power, and then change things based on politics or religion.

Nope... (thin ice, my friend...)

[Bill14564]

WRONG
If the Constitution, or a law enacted by Congress, provided the right to abortion, the Supreme Court could not undo it. The Court can, however, overturn its previous decisions which it has done over 300 times.

Your emphatic assertion aside, many believe the right to control your own body follows from the ninth, thirteenth, and fourteenth amendments. Previous courts agrees. This one did not.

[JMintzer]

The question is not that they can, it is that they gave no good legal reason for doing it. Almost everything in the majority opinion was wrong.

Again, Nope...

They had a good reason. The initial RvW decision was a bad decision (not because of the content of the decision, that's another debate), but because it was wrong of the court to try to establish a law. It is not their job to do that. That power belongs to the legislative branch...

RBG explained that quite clearly...

[George Page]

Exactly which law grants freedom of speech and freedom of religion?

The courts did not create law, they affirmed that the right was granted by the Constitution. Then a later court changes its mind.

REALLY?
The First Amendment to the Constitution specifically provides for freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
Now you tell me, which federal law provides the right to abortion or where it is addressed in the Constitution.

[kkingston57]

Easy to fix - Eliminate the HOV lanes. Another failed "green New Deal" idea.

HOV lanes are now toll lanes.

[George Page]

[/[B]B]Your emphatic assertion aside, many believe the right to control your own body follows from the ninth, thirteenth, and fourteenth amendments. Previous courts agrees. This one did not.

I agree.
But, beliefs, decisions, and opinions are not law. If they were, the Supreme Court could not overturn them.

[George Page]

The question is not that they can, it is that they gave no good legal reason for doing it. Almost everything in the majority opinion was wrong.

In my opinion, the fact that abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution is a damn good reason.

[Bill14564]

REALLY?
The First Amendment to the Constitution specifically provides for freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
Now you tell me, which federal law provides the right to abortion or where it is addressed in the Constitution.

There are many amendments to the Constitution, not just the first.

See the ninth, it is very short: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

In other words, we the people have more rights than just those previously enumerated. We retain ALL rights unless they are limited by law. This is how the Constitution works and it is how all laws should work. We do not live in a country where the people have to petition a benevolent government for their rights, we are supposed to be living in a country where the people enjoy all rights except those restricted by law.

So the question isn't, "Where in the Constitution is the right to an abortion specifically granted?" The question is, "Where in the Constitution or State Law is the right to abortion specifically denied?" Then, of course, the courts get to decide of such a law violates the Constitution.

At one time there were laws prohibiting abortion. The Supreme Court decided they violated the Constitution (particularly the 14th Amendment if I remember correctly). This was considered settled for quite some time until the current Court had a chance to make their mark.

It will be interesting to see whether the States enact laws or an argument is made against forced child bearing under the 9th, 13th, and 14th amendments.

It is interesting that some argue that this belongs in the hands of the States. I have suggested before that the States have performed poorly in the past in regards to civil rights and human rights. The 13th, 14th, 15th, and 19th amendments all feel as though they were written to deal with the way States have handled these types of rights.

[jimbomaybe]

I find it interesting that no middle ground has been discussed , its a human being when the egg is fertilized and has right or not until birth, I hope I have further clouded the issue

[Caymus]

.....just a related side question...

Are HOV lanes still useful in the current days of remote work?

[George Page]

There are many amendments to the Constitution, not just the first.

See the ninth, it is very short: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

In other words, we the people have more rights than just those previously enumerated. We retain ALL rights unless they are limited by law. This is how the Constitution works and it is how all laws should work. We do not live in a country where the people have to petition a benevolent government for their rights, we are supposed to be living in a country where the people enjoy all rights except those restricted by law.

So the question isn't, "Where in the Constitution is the right to an abortion specifically granted?" The question is, "Where in the Constitution or State Law is the right to abortion specifically denied?" Then, of course, the courts get to decide of such a law violates the Constitution.

At one time there were laws prohibiting abortion. The Supreme Court decided they violated the Constitution (particularly the 14th Amendment if I remember correctly). This was considered settled for quite some time until the current Court had a chance to make their mark.

It will be interesting to see whether the States enact laws or an argument is made against forced child bearing under the 9th, 13th, and 14th amendments.

It is interesting that some argue that this belongs in the hands of the States. I have suggested before that the States have performed poorly in the past in regards to civil rights and human rights. The 13th, 14th, 15th, and 19th amendments all feel as though they were written to deal with the way States have handled these types of rights.

You write: “At one time there were laws prohibiting abortion.” In fact, during the colonial period, the legality of abortion varied from colony to colony and reflected the attitude of the European country which controlled the specific colony. The Constitution is intentionally silent on the issue to let the colonies (now States) make their own laws. Attempts to retroactively broaden constitutional language to achieve a political agenda, while ignoring the reality of the intent at the time, is blatantly dishonest.

[Bill14564]

You write: “At one time there were laws prohibiting abortion.” In fact, during the colonial period, the legality of abortion varied from colony to colony and reflected the attitude of the European country which controlled the specific colony. The Constitution is intentionally silent on the issue to let the colonies (now States) make their own laws. Attempts to retroactively broaden constitutional language to achieve a political agenda, while ignoring the reality of the intent at the time, is blatantly dishonest.

See my comments on the 9, 13, 14, 15, and 19 amendments and then talk to me about broadening the constitution or letting states decide.

I’ve explained all I can on this subject - moving on to roundabouts and dog poop.

[George Page]

See my comments on the 9, 13, 14, 15, and 19 amendments and then talk to me about broadening the constitution or letting states decide.

I’ve explained all I can on this subject - moving on to roundabouts and dog poop.

My response in #88 stands, there is no specific language in any of your references regarding changing the accepted status quo which existed for about 200 years.

[DAVES]

Completely disagree. Texas made the law that says there were two people in the car; they can't have it both ways. Poorly-considered actions often have unintended consequences.

Law is full of such conflicts. The whole abortion issue is full of conflicts. First amendment outlaws a state religion. Claiming the fetus has a soul is thus in violation of the first amendment. I think it is the 13th amendment that says you cannot own a human thus a fetus does not belong to the state. That leaves the man and the woman responsible to choose or not choose an abortion. I deliberately avoided the term father and mother, that is far more of a commitment than the horizontal polka.

[Topspinmo]

Young woman is suing Texas because she got s ticket for driving alone in the HOV. She is pregnant and claims she was not alone, her fetus is a person according to Texas law.

Pregnant woman says her fetus should count as a passenger in HOV lanes. She got a ticket (https://www.dallasnews.com/news/watchdog/2022/07/08/pregnant-woman-says-her-fetus-should-count-as-a-passenger-in-hov-lanes-she-got-a-ticket/)


HOV lanes are bs anyway, toll bypasses another way so suck money. Not like there getting enough on gallon of gas. Toll roads are welfare career jobs programs. There should be law after so many years they can’t collect fees.

[MartinSE]

In my opinion, the fact that abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution is a damn good reason.

Okay, so you are fine with no more coffee creamer? I mean it is not mentioned either.

Then you are okay with no AR15s?

Just saying…

[Kenswing]

Another productive day on TOTV. :1rotfl:

[GizmoWhiskers]

This is mostly my point. For 40 or 50 years people have been working for this day, and now that it is here, you might have thought they would have given some thought to the unintentional consequences.

To the person that said there is one person in the car, I completely agree with you. But, you see Texas disagrees with you and me and said in criminal law on the books that there are two.

I predict there is going to be at least a year of chaos to come, with so many unforeseen consequences springing up.

Interesting argument. If you murder a pregnant woman the murder of the unborn fetus/baby brings separate charges and penalties as if it is a separate human life so perhaps the stance is not as far out there as one might think. If death is pronounced at the stop of heart beat then why wouldn't life begin with a heart beat and if there are two hearts beating in a car...

[affald]

We have. The unintentional consequences of overturning R vs W are minuscule compared to the intended consequences of abortion.
In this case, let’s compare a traffic violation to millions of terminated lives.
It is an easy decision for intelligent people, but apparently not for many who are uneducated or educated beyond their intelligence.

I love that term.... educated beyond their intelligence

[George Page]

Okay, so you are fine with no more coffee creamer? I mean it is not mentioned either.

Then you are okay with no AR15s?

Just saying…

I like my coffee black and AR15s are covered under the 2nd Amendment.

Before the Constitution came into being, various abortion laws existed in the Colonies. Obviously, the Founders made the decision to let the laws stand. Or, do you think they simply forgot to address the issue in the Constitution?
The Supreme Court, in its recent decision, returned the authority to the States where it existed for about 200 years before Roe vs Wade.

[JMintzer]

Okay, so you are fine with no more coffee creamer? I mean it is not mentioned either.

Then you are okay with no AR15s?

Just saying…

Grasping at straws are we?

AR-15s are what are known as "arms" and are specifically mentioned...

As to your "coffee creamer" example... Really?

[MartinSE]

I like my coffee black and AR15s are covered under the 2nd Amendment.

Before the Constitution came into being, various abortion laws existed in the Colonies. Obviously, the Founders made the decision to let the laws stand. Or, do you think they simply forgot to address the issue in the Constitution?
The Supreme Court, in its recent decision, returned the authority to the States where it existed for about 200 years before Roe vs Wade.

No, Ar-15s are not mentioned in the Constitution, which was my point, you can't have it both ways. We have a right to privacy - oh, wait, that is not mentioned either.

Abortion law at the time of the signing was that it was none of the governments business until after quickening - in general. However, slave owners were 100% opposed to any abortion laws relating to slaves, since breeding with slaves was a popular recreation that led to more stock.

[George Page]

No, Ar-15s are not mentioned in the Constitution, which was my point, you can't have it both ways. We have a right to privacy - oh, wait, that is not mentioned either.

Abortion law at the time of the signing was that it was none of the governments business until after quickening - in general. However, slave owners were 100% opposed to any abortion laws relating to slaves, since breeding with slaves was a popular recreation that led to more stock.

REALLY!
Unlike abortion, the Constitution, in the 2nd Amendment, specifically protects the right to keep and bear ‘arms’. It’s not referring to body parts.

arms
/ärmz/
1. weapons and ammunition; armaments.

The AR15 is a weapon, more specifically a rifle.

[MartinSE]

REALLY!
Unlike abortion, the Constitution, in the 2nd Amendment, specifically protects the right to keep and bear ‘arms’. It’s not referring to body parts.

arms
/ärmz/
1. weapons and ammunition; armaments.

The AR15 is a weapon, more specifically a rifle.

Okay, then you can have 2 muzzle loaders, since that was the definition of ARMS when the Constitution was written. Or, if you prefer, we can go the other way, since Nukes are not mentioned and certainly fall under the category of "arms" we can all legally own Nukes and not pesky regulations can prevent that.

Or we can go the other way, constitution doesn't say anything about cancer surgery - that is removing a bunch of deformed human cells which if not removed can kill you, same can be said of some embryos.

[Topspinmo]

Roe vs Wade should NEVER have been overturned. Believe me, if men got pregnant they would fight like hell to keep reproductive decisions private. Our country is going to hell

IMO Been going to hell for long time. and guess what, it’s going to get worse IMO. But, lucky for me I won’t see the destruction.

[RVJim]

This case is the tip of the iceberg with all of the different laws from state to state. Keeps the lawyers busy and these cases are not going to be cases like personal injury lawyers advertise that they only get paid when the injured person gets paid. HUGE can of worms.

Daughter is an attorney, SIL is an attorney - they will never want for work. Stupid people and lack of thinking with regard to long term ramifications of decisions will keep them busy until they retire. Keeps the hour meter rolling.

[MartinSE]

Daughter is an attorney, SIL is an attorney - they will never want for work. Stupid people and lack of thinking with regard to long term ramifications of decisions will keep them busy until they retire. Keeps the hour meter rolling.

I am not trying to be argumentative, but I can't tell if you think the SCOTUS was wrong or the woman in the HOV Lane.

[jimbomaybe]

Okay, then you can have 2 muzzle loaders, since that was the definition of ARMS when the Constitution was written. Or, if you prefer, we can go the other way, since Nukes are not mentioned and certainly fall under the category of "arms" we can all legally own Nukes and not pesky regulations can prevent that.

Or we can go the other way, constitution doesn't say anything about cancer surgery - that is removing a bunch of deformed human cells which if not removed can kill you, same can be said of some embryos.

No Right" is absolute , maybe I am wrong but I don't think many people would think private ownership of nuclear weapons should be allowed, likewise should abortion be available right up to birth ??

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Interesting argument. If you murder a pregnant woman the murder of the unborn fetus/baby brings separate charges and penalties as if it is a separate human life so perhaps the stance is not as far out there as one might think. If death is pronounced at the stop of heart beat then why wouldn't life begin with a heart beat and if there are two hearts beating in a car...

This also means that the unborn fetus, as a legal "person" should be considered a dependent for tax purposes. And as a dependent, a woman on welfare should be getting extra child credits while she's still pregnant. And food stamps (since it's per dependent, and not per capacity of digestive system). Health care too - social programs should be extended to the unborn, if the unborn is required to be legally considered a "person."

[MartinSE]

No Right" is absolute , maybe I am wrong but I don't think many people would think private ownership of nuclear weapons should be allowed, likewise should abortion be available right up to birth ??

You made my point. All these posts stating 2nd amendment is absolute, must not have thought through what that means, I was pointing that out with a touch of sarcasm - nukes.

And I am sure there are some people that would agree parents should have the RIGHT to abort a fetus up to 18 years old when they kick them out of the house or abort them if they won't leave.

Even the President of the Southern Baptist Convention was in favor of permitting abortions up to quickening, then SBC started getting money from the GOP and guess what they changed their position, to life begins at conception and no abortions can be tolerated. It is all politics.

[JMintzer]

Okay, then you can have 2 muzzle loaders, since that was the definition of ARMS when the Constitution was written. Or, if you prefer, we can go the other way, since Nukes are not mentioned and certainly fall under the category of "arms" we can all legally own Nukes and not pesky regulations can prevent that.

Or we can go the other way, constitution doesn't say anything about cancer surgery - that is removing a bunch of deformed human cells which if not removed can kill you, same can be said of some embryos.

Wrong, once again...

Citizens had cannons, gun ships, AND automatic/semiautomatic weapons...

But, if you want to play silly word games, the 2A now only applies to town criers, quill and ink and set type printing, No TV, radio or internet...

[JMintzer]

I am not trying to be argumentative...

:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

[JMintzer]

This also means that the unborn fetus, as a legal "person" should be considered a dependent for tax purposes. And as a dependent, a woman on welfare should be getting extra child credits while she's still pregnant. And food stamps (since it's per dependent, and not per capacity of digestive system). Health care too - social programs should be extended to the unborn, if the unborn is required to be legally considered a "person."

You mean like the free pre-natal care that is readily available?

[JMintzer]

You made my point. All these posts stating 2nd amendment is absolute, must not have thought through what that means, I was pointing that out with a touch of sarcasm - nukes.

Where are all of these "absolute" posts?

And I am sure there are some people that would agree parents should have the RIGHT to abort a fetus up to 18 years old when they kick them out of the house or abort them if they won't leave.

Just quit while you're behind...

Even the President of the Southern Baptist Convention was in favor of permitting abortions up to quickening, then SBC started getting money from the GOP and guess what they changed their position, to life begins at conception and no abortions can be tolerated. It is all politics.

I'd post a list of people who have "changed" their position on abortion, but it would result in another "vacation"...

[jimbomaybe]

You made my point. All these posts stating 2nd amendment is absolute, must not have thought through what that means, I was pointing that out with a touch of sarcasm - nukes.

And I am sure there are some people that would agree parents should have the RIGHT to abort a fetus up to 18 years old when they kick them out of the house or abort them if they won't leave.

Even the President of the Southern Baptist Convention was in favor of permitting abortions up to quickening, then SBC started getting money from the GOP and guess what they changed their position, to life begins at conception and no abortions can be tolerated. It is all politics.
I think you have to give due respect to both sides , people have deeply held concerns, ethics, politicians on the other hand never stop doing the political calculus as to what is best for their political future

[MartinSE]

I think you have to give due respect to both sides , people have deeply held concerns, ethics, politicians on the other hand never stop doing the political calculus as to what is best for their political future

I agree with you.

My brother is a retired Southern Baptist minister with a PhD in Theology (Thd). We have “interesting discussions”. But, he knows I respect true Christians.

However, I have no respect for those cafeteria Christian’s that want to convert our government into a theocracy, and don’t fool yourself into thinking that can’t happen. There are a lot of well connected people working diligently to make that happen.

[RVJim]

I am not trying to be argumentative, but I can't tell if you think the SCOTUS was wrong or the woman in the HOV Lane.

I know you are not trying to be argumentative, I think you are genuinely curious what my thoughts are. Honestly, I don’t have an opinion on either nor do I really care. My point is that in these crazy times we live in the attorney always win no matter the outcome.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

I think you have to give due respect to both sides , people have deeply held concerns, ethics, politicians on the other hand never stop doing the political calculus as to what is best for their political future

Well here's the thing:

I respect any woman who chooses not to have an abortion if they get pregnant. They have that right to make that choice to carry their pregnancy.

If you are against abortion, then don't have one. I will respect your choice.

If you are against donating a kidney, then don't donate one. I will respect your choice.

If you are against being host to a medical experiment, where you won't know if it will kill you in 9 months or not, I will respect your choice not to allow your body to be used in such a manner.

Now it's your turn to respect my choice.

If I'm 15 and get date-raped by my 16-year-old boyfriend because he never learned that "no means no" and get pregnant, I will have an abortion. You don't have the right to tell me I can't.

If my sister needs my kidney and both of mine are healthy, I will donate mine. You don't have the right to tell me I can't.

If I want to help medical science improve on vaccines by allowing a pharmaceutical company to use me as a host for their new formula, then I will. And you have no right to tell me I can't.

I respect your choices, you respect mine. Abortion shouldn't be a legal matter at all. It shouldn't be "permitted" and it shouldn't be "prohibited." It is a medical procedure, and a private matter between the patient and physician. No one should be forced to host a growth in their body against their will, male or female.

[MartinSE]

I know you are not trying to be argumentative, I think you are genuinely curious what my thoughts are. Honestly, I don’t have an opinion on either nor do I really care. My point is that in these crazy times we live in the attorney always win no matter the outcome.

Yeah, it does seem that the only real winner in any court case is the lawyer. It seems we need a major reset, but I am afraid that will just result in things getting worse. I wish I had a suggestion for a fix America.

[MartinSE]

Well here's the thing:

I respect any woman who chooses not to have an abortion if they get pregnant. They have that right to make that choice to carry their pregnancy.

If you are against abortion, then don't have one. I will respect your choice.

If you are against donating a kidney, then don't donate one. I will respect your choice.

If you are against being host to a medical experiment, where you won't know if it will kill you in 9 months or not, I will respect your choice not to allow your body to be used in such a manner.

Now it's your turn to respect my choice.

If I'm 15 and get date-raped by my 16-year-old boyfriend because he never learned that "no means no" and get pregnant, I will have an abortion. You don't have the right to tell me I can't.

If my sister needs my kidney and both of mine are healthy, I will donate mine. You don't have the right to tell me I can't.

If I want to help medical science improve on vaccines by allowing a pharmaceutical company to use me as a host for their new formula, then I will. And you have no right to tell me I can't.

I respect your choices, you respect mine. Abortion shouldn't be a legal matter at all. It shouldn't be "permitted" and it shouldn't be "prohibited." It is a medical procedure, and a private matter between the patient and physician. No one should be forced to host a growth in their body against their will, male or female.

Best post so far on this thread.

[jimbomaybe]

You made my point. All these posts stating 2nd amendment is absolute, must not have thought through what that means, I was pointing that out with a touch of sarcasm - nukes.

And I am sure there are some people that would agree parents should have the RIGHT to abort a fetus up to 18 years old when they kick them out of the house or abort them if they won't leave.

Even the President of the Southern Baptist Convention was in favor of permitting abortions up to quickening, then SBC started getting money from the GOP and guess what they changed their position, to life begins at conception and no abortions can be tolerated. It is all politics.

Politician and political parties follow their supporters /constituents are influenced by their interests and has been demonstrated can be bought. The idea that a political party is buying support of a group has the tail waging the dog. Religious groups exist do to their common adherence to a moral code so you think that this group's morality, leadership ,rank and file was bought and paid for? What ever the financial interchange is/was I think that would strain cause and effect

[MartinSE]

Politician and political parties follow their supporters /constituents are influenced by their interests and has been demonstrated can be bought. The idea that a political party is buying support of a group has the tail waging the dog. Religious groups exist do to their common adherence to a moral code so you think that this group's morality, leadership ,rank and file was bought and paid for? What ever the financial interchange is/was I think that would strain cause and effect

First, numerous studies, show that politicians in Congress do not do what is in their constituents best interest. One study from Harvard I believe about 10 (15?) years ago, showed that Congress voted directly against the interest of their constituents around 85% of the time. And of the 15% of the time they did vote in their constituents interest it was because big money didn't care about the issues 90% of that time.

Congress, until about 10 years ago, could not care less what WE want, they voted over and over for their money bag over lords while spewing nonsense about doing what WE want. The GOP climbed in bed with the religious when their researchers showed their base was dwindling and would soon be insignificant. That decision turned into catching a tiger by the tail, and now "they" are pushing a Theocracy agenda onto the GOP and the GOP seems to not know how to tame the Tiger. Listen to some of the "ministers" (you know those that always have their hands out of TV) and how it is time to "take back" their government etc.

[Caymus]

First, numerous studies, show that politicians in Congress do not do what is in their constituents best interest. One study from Harvard I believe about 10 (15?) years ago, showed that Congress voted directly against the interest of their constituents around 85% of the time. And of the 15% of the time they did vote in their constituents interest it was because big money didn't care about the issues 90% of that time.

Congress, until about 10 years ago, could not care less what WE want, they voted over and over for their money bag over lords while spewing nonsense about doing what WE want. The GOP climbed in bed with the religious when their researchers showed their base was dwindling and would soon be insignificant. That decision turned into catching a tiger by the tail, and now "they" are pushing a Theocracy agenda onto the GOP and the GOP seems to not know how to tame the Tiger. Listen to some of the "ministers" (you know those that always have their hands out of TV) and how it is time to "take back" their government etc.

You may find it hard to believe, but not everybody is an atheist.

[JMintzer]

First, numerous studies, show that politicians in Congress do not do what is in their constituents best interest. One study from Harvard I believe about 10 (15?) years ago, showed that Congress voted directly against the interest of their constituents around 85% of the time. And of the 15% of the time they did vote in their constituents interest it was because big money didn't care about the issues 90% of that time.

Congress, until about 10 years ago, could not care less what WE want, they voted over and over for their money bag over lords while spewing nonsense about doing what WE want. The GOP climbed in bed with the religious when their researchers showed their base was dwindling and would soon be insignificant. That decision turned into catching a tiger by the tail, and now "they" are pushing a Theocracy agenda onto the GOP and the GOP seems to not know how to tame the Tiger. Listen to some of the "ministers" (you know those that always have their hands out of TV) and how it is time to "take back" their government etc.

You just can't stop with the political posts...

[JMintzer]

Well here's the thing:

I respect any woman who chooses not to have an abortion if they get pregnant. They have that right to make that choice to carry their pregnancy.

If you are against abortion, then don't have one. I will respect your choice.

If you are against donating a kidney, then don't donate one. I will respect your choice.

If you are against being host to a medical experiment, where you won't know if it will kill you in 9 months or not, I will respect your choice not to allow your body to be used in such a manner.

Now it's your turn to respect my choice.

If I'm 15 and get date-raped by my 16-year-old boyfriend because he never learned that "no means no" and get pregnant, I will have an abortion. You don't have the right to tell me I can't.

If my sister needs my kidney and both of mine are healthy, I will donate mine. You don't have the right to tell me I can't.

If I want to help medical science improve on vaccines by allowing a pharmaceutical company to use me as a host for their new formula, then I will. And you have no right to tell me I can't.

I respect your choices, you respect mine. Abortion shouldn't be a legal matter at all. It shouldn't be "permitted" and it shouldn't be "prohibited." It is a medical procedure, and a private matter between the patient and physician. No one should be forced to host a growth in their body against their will, male or female.

Great post. Now do guns...

[Stu from NYC]

Well here's the thing:

I respect any woman who chooses not to have an abortion if they get pregnant. They have that right to make that choice to carry their pregnancy.

If you are against abortion, then don't have one. I will respect your choice.

If you are against donating a kidney, then don't donate one. I will respect your choice.

If you are against being host to a medical experiment, where you won't know if it will kill you in 9 months or not, I will respect your choice not to allow your body to be used in such a manner.

Now it's your turn to respect my choice.

If I'm 15 and get date-raped by my 16-year-old boyfriend because he never learned that "no means no" and get pregnant, I will have an abortion. You don't have the right to tell me I can't.

If my sister needs my kidney and both of mine are healthy, I will donate mine. You don't have the right to tell me I can't.

If I want to help medical science improve on vaccines by allowing a pharmaceutical company to use me as a host for their new formula, then I will. And you have no right to tell me I can't.

I respect your choices, you respect mine. Abortion shouldn't be a legal matter at all. It shouldn't be "permitted" and it shouldn't be "prohibited." It is a medical procedure, and a private matter between the patient and physician. No one should be forced to host a growth in their body against their will, male or female.

At some point that fetus is a life and should have some rights. If a woman wants an abortion let her have it earlier in our pregnancy.

[MartinSE]

At some point that fetus is a life and should have some rights. If a woman wants an abortion let her have it earlier in our pregnancy.

I think this is a reasonable compromise. Women are going to have abortions, all banning them does is kill women that can't afford to have it done right.

Historically the quickening is when most societies decided the fetus was inhabited by a soul. Being an atheist the "inhabited with a soul" part isn't so interesting to me, but saying it is viable at that point is a "compromise". Being a secular society, it seems many have forgotten that compromise is the only option for peace. Because we will never all agree on anything (or much of anything). The hate and vitriol in our society today with it's my way or the hi way will result in no winners (well, except maybe Putin) and abortion is just one more of those talking points we can no longer talk about.

[jimbomaybe]

I think this is a reasonable compromise. Women are going to have abortions, all banning them does is kill women that can't afford to have it done right.

Historically the quickening is when most societies decided the fetus was inhabited by a soul. Being an atheist the "inhabited with a soul" part isn't so interesting to me, but saying it is viable at that point is a "compromise". Being a secular society, it seems many have forgotten that compromise is the only option for peace. Because we will never all agree on anything (or much of anything). The hate and vitriol in our society today with it's my way or the hi way will result in no winners (well, except maybe Putin) and abortion is just one more of those talking points we can no longer talk about.
There is a need to talk about it, how else can a consensus be reached , will it be "life" begins at conception and will be protected or its not a human child until its born and subject to being terminated, (nice phrase), we know where the "right to lifers" are on this but the proponents do not seem to want that discussion, can you imagine watching something as barbaric as a late term abortion ?

[jimbomaybe]

Well here's the thing:

I respect any woman who chooses not to have an abortion if they get pregnant. They have that right to make that choice to carry their pregnancy.

If you are against abortion, then don't have one. I will respect your choice.

If you are against donating a kidney, then don't donate one. I will respect your choice.

If you are against being host to a medical experiment, where you won't know if it will kill you in 9 months or not, I will respect your choice not to allow your body to be used in such a manner.

Now it's your turn to respect my choice.

If I'm 15 and get date-raped by my 16-year-old boyfriend because he never learned that "no means no" and get pregnant, I will have an abortion. You don't have the right to tell me I can't.

If my sister needs my kidney and both of mine are healthy, I will donate mine. You don't have the right to tell me I can't.

If I want to help medical science improve on vaccines by allowing a pharmaceutical company to use me as a host for their new formula, then I will. And you have no right to tell me I can't.

I respect your choices, you respect mine. Abortion shouldn't be a legal matter at all. It shouldn't be "permitted" and it shouldn't be "prohibited." It is a medical procedure, and a private matter between the patient and physician. No one should be forced to host a growth in their body against their will, male or female.
To be clear about your position , abortion with no constraints ?

[jimbomaybe]

First, numerous studies, show that politicians in Congress do not do what is in their constituents best interest. One study from Harvard I believe about 10 (15?) years ago, showed that Congress voted directly against the interest of their constituents around 85% of the time. And of the 15% of the time they did vote in their constituents interest it was because big money didn't care about the issues 90% of that time.

Congress, until about 10 years ago, could not care less what WE want, they voted over and over for their money bag over lords while spewing nonsense about doing what WE want. The GOP climbed in bed with the religious when their researchers showed their base was dwindling and would soon be insignificant. That decision turned into catching a tiger by the tail, and now "they" are pushing a Theocracy agenda onto the GOP and the GOP seems to not know how to tame the Tiger. Listen to some of the "ministers" (you know those that always have their hands out of TV) and how it is time to "take back" their government etc.

Just what is in the best interest can be debated, bread and circuses for all, and of course its those evil big corporations and money people who are denying us our rightful standard of living, I remember my early pre teen daughter telling me how I was ruining her life with the low allowance and restrictions placed on her. I do not and have not for some time listened to any ministers, at this point I see the threat of a Theocracy as another bogey man

[MartinSE]

There is a need to talk about it, how else can a consensus be reached , will it be "life" begins at conception and will be protected or its not a human child until its born and subject to being terminated, (nice phrase), we know where the "right to lifers" are on this but the proponents do not seem to want that discussion, can you imagine watching something as barbaric as a late term abortion ?

Late term abortions are the exception. About 1% of abortions are late term.

Ectopic abortions on the other hand make up 2% and without abortion are almost guaranteed to result in death of the mother - these too are/will be banned in some states.

By proponents I assume you mean right to abort side. I don't understand your statement, my experience is the opposite. Choice proponents want to give women the choice, but are and have been fine historically with some restrictions on when, why and how. And they often discuss it. On the other hand "pro-life" side has a history of blowing up clinics, killing doctors, and harassing women exercising their legal rights, and standing on corners with large gory examples of what they claim every abortion is about, while showing photos that are photoshopped and at best very late term abortions. When asked to discuss their reaction is no abortions period, and they often consider contraception abortions, so there are discussions of banning contraceptives.

Yes, we need a national discussion.

[MartinSE]

Just what is in the best interest can be debated, bread and circuses for all, and of course its those evil big corporations and money people who are denying us our rightful standard of living, I remember my early pre teen daughter telling me how I was ruining her life with the low allowance and restrictions placed on her. I do not and have not for some time listened to any ministers, at this point I see the threat of a Theocracy as another bogey man

Well, first you say you don't listen to ministers and then you say you think the threat is a bogy man - hmm... maybe you should take an evening and listen to a few thousand ministers on Youtube preaching to their congregation about how the government is run by Satan and we need to put God BACK IN CHARGE of the government.

Listen to preachers preaching how God often uses evil men to do his work - bringing the government back to God. (I can't mention which EVIL man they were backing or I will be banned permanently.)

Is it going to happen? I don't know, but I do know there are people working and PRAYING for it. Even on here, they have been numerous posts over the past couple years promoting religious laws and the government supporting a specific religion ("christianity" - in quotes because I question their naming conventions.)

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

At some point that fetus is a life and should have some rights. If a woman wants an abortion let her have it earlier in our pregnancy.

No woman WANTS an abortion, ffs. How about "at some point, sperm will create life. If a man doesn't want a woman to be pregnant let him get castrated before he starts having sex."

[MartinSE]

To be clear about your position , abortion with no constraints ?

Until recently, despite the SCOTUS claim of historical justifications, Abortions prior to quickening were strictly a matter between the women and her doctor. At the time in our history when the founders failed to mention Abortions, it was believed that the stopping of the ministration was an illness and women were advised to take herbal concoctions to help restore their period.

So, historically, yes, any woman wanting an abortion for any reason prior to quickening was almost universally acceptable.

And, I know the rest of the world doesn't matter - ahem, but, in th past 50 years, 30 countries have reduced restrictions on abortions, the US is the ONLY country in that time frame to increase restrictions.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

To be clear about your position , abortion with no constraints ?

To be clear about YOUR position: you think the government has the right to mandate forced pregnancy on ANY woman, EVER, because the woman is merely a vessel to host a fetus and has no right to make the decision for herself? Woman is not a "person" but the unborn is, and therefore the unborn's right is valid while the woman's right is not?

Again - abortion is a medical procedure. It isn't a nose job (which is done with no constraints, the law doesn't get to tell anyone whether or not they're ALLOWED to have one).

There should be no law for or against it. It is not a legal matter. It is a medical matter, and should be a matter between a patient and their physician. It shouldn't be legal OR illegal.

[MartinSE]

To be clear about YOUR position: you think the government has the right to mandate forced pregnancy on ANY woman, EVER, because the woman is merely a vessel to host a fetus and has no right to make the decision for herself? Woman is not a "person" but the unborn is, and therefore the unborn's right is valid while the woman's right is not?

Again - abortion is a medical procedure. It isn't a nose job (which is done with no constraints, the law doesn't get to tell anyone whether or not they're ALLOWED to have one).

There should be no law for or against it. It is not a legal matter. It is a medical matter, and should be a matter between a patient and their physician. It shouldn't be legal OR illegal.

For most of our history (and most of the worlds history) abortion was either a non-issues and left up to the woman, or at most was "frowned" on after quickening. Some societies did ban abortions after quickening.

Since we live in a multi-cultural secular society, I believe that basing laws on religious beliefs is wrong, since there are MANY religions represented in the US, and the "christians" seem to want their beliefs to override everyone else's. I recall no too long ago a major brouhaha over some city somewhere incorporating sharia laws - so, good for goose, but n to for gander.

So, to summarize, I agree with you, it is a medical procedure that should be between the woman and her doctor. BUT, I think it is reasonable to find some common ground to compromise on.

[jimbomaybe]

To be clear about YOUR position: you think the government has the right to mandate forced pregnancy on ANY woman, EVER, because the woman is merely a vessel to host a fetus and has no right to make the decision for herself? Woman is not a "person" but the unborn is, and therefore the unborn's right is valid while the woman's right is not?

Again - abortion is a medical procedure. It isn't a nose job (which is done with no constraints, the law doesn't get to tell anyone whether or not they're ALLOWED to have one).

There should be no law for or against it. It is not a legal matter. It is a medical matter, and should be a matter between a patient and their physician. It shouldn't be legal OR illegal.

No that is not my position, where did you get that?, (actually I do, but) I have stated my position , not in this thread, I have no problem with first term abortions or where a mother life is endangered , other than that I think at some point the woman should be obligated to carry to term

[jimbomaybe]

No woman WANTS an abortion, ffs. How about "at some point, sperm will create life. If a man doesn't want a woman to be pregnant let him get castrated before he starts having sex."
I guess that would be the only way to stop men from sneaking sperm on unsuspecting eggs

[MartinSE]

I guess that would be the only way to stop men from sneaking sperm on unsuspecting eggs

There are many ways men and women cheat. Stealthing is when a man removes the condom during sex without the woman's permission. Not taking the pill and telling her partner she did is a way women can get pregnant without the man knowing.

I have for a long time advocated the government investing heavily into reversible sterilization for both sexes which would be applied at birth (don't go crazy, we already mutilate men without their permission and do sexual assignment surgery when there is ambiguity in genitalia without the child's permission!).

Then when they become "of age" (18? 21?) they can take a parenting course and if they pass they can opt to have the procedure reversed when they want to have children. That would probably remove about 3/4's of the abortions.

[JMintzer]

Late term abortions are the exception. About 1% of abortions are late term.

Ectopic abortions on the other hand make up 2% and without abortion are almost guaranteed to result in death of the mother - these too are/will be banned in some states.

By proponents I assume you mean right to abort side. I don't understand your statement, my experience is the opposite. Choice proponents want to give women the choice, but are and have been fine historically with some restrictions on when, why and how. And they often discuss it. On the other hand "pro-life" side has a history of blowing up clinics, killing doctors, and harassing women exercising their legal rights, and standing on corners with large gory examples of what they claim every abortion is about, while showing photos that are photoshopped and at best very late term abortions. When asked to discuss their reaction is no abortions period, and they often consider contraception abortions, so there are discussions of banning contraceptives.

Yes, we need a national discussion.

Treatment of ectopic pregnancies are NOT considered abortions...

[JMintzer]

No woman WANTS an abortion, ffs. How about "at some point, sperm will create life. If a man doesn't want a woman to be pregnant let him get castrated before he starts having sex."

Really? Then why are there so many of them bragging about having them?

[JMintzer]

I have for a long time advocated the government investing heavily into reversible sterilization for both sexes which would be applied at birth (don't go crazy, we already mutilate men without their permission and do sexual assignment surgery when there is ambiguity in genitalia without the child's permission!).

Then when they become "of age" (18? 21?) they can take a parenting course and if they pass they can opt to have the procedure reversed when they want to have children. That would probably remove about 3/4's of the abortions.

PLEASE tell me you're just being argumentative and that you don't actually believe in this...

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

I guess that would be the only way to stop men from sneaking sperm on unsuspecting eggs

Imagine - a man who isn't saddled with unexpected paternity lawsuits, financial obligations, or claims of "oh - I guess my pill didn't work" (when it was actually that the woman wanted to get pregnant and stopped taking her contraceptives).

Imagine - a man who doesn't have to worry about whether or not his condom has a hole in it.

Imagine - a 10-year-old girl who doesn't have to end up pregnant after she's raped.

I'm 100% for government-mandated sterilization of boys when they hit puberty, reversible only the day after their wedding night if both husband and wife agree to it. Afterall, while a woman can only be pregnant once every 9 months, a man can impregnate dozens of women (and girls) during that time frame.

I mean, why not? If it's okay for the government to mandate forced pregnancy on women, why shouldn't they mandate forced sterilization on men? Especially considering that male sterilization is usually just a quick 10-minute office visit and a few hours of soreness. Most men can't "handle it," I know. But I'll bet they'll "rise to the occasion" (puns not only intended, but snickered at).

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

There is a need to talk about it, how else can a consensus be reached , will it be "life" begins at conception and will be protected or its not a human child until its born and subject to being terminated, (nice phrase), we know where the "right to lifers" are on this but the proponents do not seem to want that discussion, can you imagine watching something as barbaric as a late term abortion ?

Life is what the pregnant woman experiences, being already born. I don't care what you, or anyone else considers "life" to be. The government has no business in this discussion. Your determination of what constitutes life is between you and your deity, if you have one. "The definition of life" is a stupid, stupid argument to base a law on someone's right to determine what they will host within their own body.


A fungal infection is alive, cancers are living entities, and so is a cockroach. And you'd better believe I'll happily murder all of them if they annoy me, whether you consider them "alive and therefore sacred" or not.

[Bill14564]

Life is what the pregnant woman experiences, being already born. I don't care what you, or anyone else considers "life" to be. The government has no business in this discussion. Your determination of what constitutes life is between you and your deity, if you have one. "The definition of life" is a stupid, stupid argument to base a law on someone's right to determine what they will host within their own body.


A fungal infection is alive, cancers are living entities, and so is a cockroach. And you'd better believe I'll happily murder all of them if they annoy me, whether you consider them "alive and therefore sacred" or not.

RIDICULOUS statement! The definition of life should be taken entirely away from religion and given to science. Government should follow science. The LAST thing we want is someone making a decision about what is life when they have something to gain by deciding it is not; history shows humans are TERRIBLE at making that decision.

[billethkid]

I do believe the increased speed of this merry go round is showing it's effect(s)!!

[MartinSE]

RIDICULOUS statement! The definition of life should be taken entirely away from religion and given to science. Government should follow science. The LAST thing we want is someone making a decision about what is life when they have something to gain by deciding it is not; history shows humans are TERRIBLE at making that decision.

Very true, thank you. The government could commission a group to figure out what is an acceptable definition of life.

However, I will suggest that even if we scientifically define life as at conception, we should not forget that not killing is one of the leakiest morals known. There are countless conditions under which a life can be legally ended against the live beings will.

[jimbomaybe]

Imagine - a man who isn't saddled with unexpected paternity lawsuits, financial obligations, or claims of "oh - I guess my pill didn't work" (when it was actually that the woman wanted to get pregnant and stopped taking her contraceptives).

Imagine - a man who doesn't have to worry about whether or not his condom has a hole in it.

Imagine - a 10-year-old girl who doesn't have to end up pregnant after she's raped.

I'm 100% for government-mandated sterilization of boys when they hit puberty, reversible only the day after their wedding night if both husband and wife agree to it. Afterall, while a woman can only be pregnant once every 9 months, a man can impregnate dozens of women (and girls) during that time frame.

I mean, why not? If it's okay for the government to mandate forced pregnancy on women, why shouldn't they mandate forced sterilization on men? Especially considering that male sterilization is usually just a quick 10-minute office visit and a few hours of soreness. Most men can't "handle it," I know. But I'll bet they'll "rise to the occasion" (puns not only intended, but snickered at).
I confess I find your much of your arguments, well somewhat specious, the alternative to setting limits on abortions ends up with "late term abortions" you would have it that the "privacy of your body" should allow something as barbaric as that for no other reason than your preference, that is the question

[JMintzer]

Imagine - a man who isn't saddled with unexpected paternity lawsuits, financial obligations, or claims of "oh - I guess my pill didn't work" (when it was actually that the woman wanted to get pregnant and stopped taking her contraceptives).

Imagine - a man who doesn't have to worry about whether or not his condom has a hole in it.

Imagine - a 10-year-old girl who doesn't have to end up pregnant after she's raped.

I'm 100% for government-mandated sterilization of boys when they hit puberty, reversible only the day after their wedding night if both husband and wife agree to it. Afterall, while a woman can only be pregnant once every 9 months, a man can impregnate dozens of women (and girls) during that time frame.

I mean, why not? If it's okay for the government to mandate forced pregnancy on women, why shouldn't they mandate forced sterilization on men? Especially considering that male sterilization is usually just a quick 10-minute office visit and a few hours of soreness. Most men can't "handle it," I know. But I'll bet they'll "rise to the occasion" (puns not only intended, but snickered at).

Margaret Sanger would be proud of you...