Sotomayor argues that "viability" was settled by Roe vs Wade. Roberts demurs.
He interjected that fetal viability wasn’t one of the issues argued by the parties in Roe v. Wade, even though the Court set out a trimester analysis in its opinion.
This has always been Roe's Achilles heel and the advancements in science have made it even more so decades later,
Is Roberts is looking to uphold Roe while protecting the viable fetus?
Regardless, we shall have a very controversial and divided opinion next summer.
Replies to: Sotomayor argues that "viability" was settled by Roe vs Wade. Roberts demurs.
Jump back in anytime, Curly...what's your solution?
(no message)
can’t someone be tried for double murder if he or she kills a pregnant woman?
(no message)
Speaking of 'controversial and divided'...since Roe v Wade was decided as a remedy to all the chaos
that preceded it...how do you see a dilution. or even overturning, of it making things better?...what in your view is the proper 'solution', and what do you predict the results to be from that solution?
Note: It is my stated goal to help reduce the number of abortions as much as possible...without chaos...I'll be happy to explain why if anyone is interested...
Is the Babe on board with this?
(no message)
I am not a religious person, though I do believe in the concept of a soul.
I don't have answers, but questions.
If a soul exists, when does it enter the body?
How can a human with a soul, decide to end a life of another soul without negative consequences?
How can a person with a soul go to work everyday with the expressed purpose to terminate lives with or without souls?
It's ghoulish at best, IMO.
All valid questions...and without any answers...yet, the notion of preserving as many as possible is
a task that can be justified...which brings us to the world we live in...and in this case, the issue of Roe v Wade. Not sure how much you're interested in exploring the options....
btw, I share your aversion to the procedure...that's the easy part...what's hard, and what causes all the chaos is understanding why beautiful little baby girls grow up, get pregnant and believe that abortion is their only option...very few on this board are willing to go down that road...they just stop in a safe place and keep exclaiming how wrong it is...that doesn't get to the underlying causes...and there are MANY...
Understanding WHY 80% of the American public...in spite of lifetimes of moralizing...refuse to outlaw abortion in all cases speaks volumes as to how important it is to deal with the underlying causes...
More black babies in New York are aborted than born.
Black women are five times more likely to have an abortion.
If this were government policy, it would be called genocide.
Why do you think that is?...Again, understand that I'm campaigning for FEWER abortions, not more.
(no message)
That community is using abortion as birth control.
It is a tragedy. And you encourage it.
You can't possibly believe that...the women are making that choice...no one is doing it for them.
Until you start trying to understand the reasons why you'll be just another stone in the road of progress.
What actions constitute your "campaign" to limit abortions?
(no message)
Trying to communicate with folks like you...do you honestly believe that racist trope you posted?
(no message)
You promote genocide, but I’m the racist? Sure, sure.
(no message)
According to PEW Research, only 13% of Americans want abortion outlawed in all cases...the other 87%
support the option of abortion under some circumstances...WHY is that?...Hint: It's NOT genocide...start thinking of what those reasons are and we'll start making better progress toward reducing the number of abortions.
Seriously...start thinking.
Another untrue statistic, shocking.
(no message)
Actually, the number is slightly more than 80% (see link)...have you got anything that counters the
PEW Research Report findings?...if so, please share...btw, this topic has been polled as much as any other...for just about as long as polls have been in existence...you can stomp your feet all you want, but less than 1/5th of Americans want abortion to be banned in all cases...that brings no joy to anyone's heart, and certainly not mine...and what that tells us all is that there are some very deep reasons why that's so...we need to deal with them if we're going to make progress...isn't that what you want?
Link: https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/
In all cases. My God you are a dipshit.
(no message)
At least you can read...comprehension is still a problem...here is the excerpt from the report that
supports what I said...
"Though abortion is a divisive issue, more than half of U.S. adults take a non-absolutist position, saying that in most – but not all – cases, abortion should be legal (34%) or illegal (26%). Fewer take the position that in all cases abortion should be either legal (25%) or illegal (13%)."
Why do you keep embarrassing yourself in front of all the other viewers?...Are you hoping they are all like you and can't think for themselves?
Let each state set its own rules.
(no message)
No Good...that's why Roe v Wade came to be.
(no message)
Fine, outlaw it everywhere then.
(no message)
Let's get serious...that's never going to happen...for decades, the majority of Americans have
consistently stated their position...less than 20% of them want abortion banned in all cases (see the PEW Report I posted, which put the number at 13%)...this isn't just one poll...the same message has been given time after time. People are quite aware of what abortion is all about, yet over 80% say it should be made available in at least some cases...WHY IS THIS!?...that's what we need to talk about...understand...and DO SOMETHING ABOUT!...until the supposed "Pro-Life" crew gets this, all we'll get is chaos.
I'll be reposting the attached link more than once, but for your benefit, read it now...it isn't the only perspective, but it's a good and valuable one...feel free to share your thoughts.
Link: https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2021/09/08/texas-sb-8-heartbeat-abortion-women-241365
Surely Sotomayor will defer to SCIENCE with respect to "viability"...
(no message)
The Court does not like to make decisions based on science... because it evolves!
This is why they dread any cases involving the myriad sexual "orientations."
Speaking of Science and "sexual orientations"...what's your take on this Scientific American article
Human beings develop psychologically after birth and it can be thrown off track.
Even our foremost scientists are deliberately in denial about this because it has personal and disturbing ramifications for everyone. It’s so comforting to ascribe dysfunctional behavior by others to genetics and assume that we have no such latent tendencies. Scientific American is just a magazine not a bible.
Read the article, Curly….those genes that are mentioned are real
And serious study is being conducted on them…don’t be willfully uninformed.
You may not like your theory challenged, but that’s the way science is conducted.
It's a mis-characterization of what those genes do.
(no message)
Please explain how you reached that conclusion...and if you care to expend the effort, reference the
article I linked and why you think it's in error. btw, feel free to offer your own evidence that counters what the article asserts...or, just say "That's my belief and I'm sticking to it...so there!"
I looked it up. She's mischaracterizing the role of SRY.
Similar to how's she's criticizing chrome teaching to kids, she's doing the same thing.
I hear your assertion, and it might be true (re: SRY), but I'd sure like to see your evidence...
should be easy for you to provide.
Google it.
How did you arrive at your conclusion he's telling the truth other than that's your belief and you're sticking to it?
He's clearly not an honest broker on the subject given his orientation. Again look him up. He's a profoundly damaged man.
I read the article and did some Googling about the various genes mentioned (before i posted) and to
my admittedly un-schooled eye the article looked legit...I also just Googled the attached link which seems to jive with the author's narrative when it comes to the "SRY" gene.
Once again, I'm not seeing anything from you that's substantive...sorry SRD but all I'm hearing is you belief...what is it based on? If you haven't already, put on your 'Big Boy' pants and read the article.
Link: https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/gene/sry/
Dude! Read what you just linked!
The answer lies therein. Do you see anything there that squares with sun's description of the function of SRY? He totally contorted the definition of the function into something it doesn't do.
I hear an opinion but not an explanation...how is the author mistaken?
(no message)
Do a quick google search for Simon(e) Sun the author of this "article ".
You wanna talk psychological development and dysfunctional behavior. It's a nothing opinion piece....
Aside from her being a doctoral candidate in neuroscience at NYU, what else should I know about her?
More to the point, what is it about what she wrote that you have a problem with?
Do you mean him?
(no message)
She/they!
(no message)
And she has the balls to claim she's arguing against phony science.
(no message)
It's a societal issue which IMO will eventually resolve itself.
My kids, 12 and 14, understand trans and don't care about it at all other than "we're all people" and such. It's a complete non-issue for the next gen.
My only quarrel with it is when if fucks with my comedy.