Said it before, under the state laws permissible under Alito's draft opinion which will almost certainly end up as the actual majority opinion of the court incidents like those described below will very likely occur demonstrating that the pro-life position really isn't. Woman dies after abortion request 'refused' at Galway hospital Two Polish women died after being refused timely abortions. Many Poles are outraged — and protesting. A real irony is that in almost every case in which the mother dies after being denied a medically necessary abortion the fetus whom such anti-abortion laws are supposedly intended to protect doesn't survive either. Have to ask if @gatorplank believes that the maternal deaths are worth the price of the absolute abortion bans that he apparently supports. Sad, that it will probably take maternal deaths to result in the repeal of draconian laws.
My standard of right and wrong is based on the Bible. That is the standard by which an ethical proposition is measured. The Bible does not define failure to donate organs as murder, but it clearly says shedding the blood of the innocent is strictly forbidden.
And not a single one of the extremists will care. They're right because they're right and that's thar. If she died then it must surely be God's will. Wonder if anyone thought that God gave us gifts, knowledge, etc, and that perhaps God's plan is to help us grow & thrive, not let people die or suffer by refusing care. Their plan is a world of a successful few with subservient women of a certain class, and a breeding/working class. That's not God's view. That's theirs.
Yeah, why wouldn't the bible have mentioned organ transplant, which wasn't invented for another almost two millenia? You know what else it doesn't explicitly mention: outlawing abortion by pill. So that should be legal?
Considering it called for a woman to be given an abortive drink to "prove her purity", yep. Do I think going that far? Pill only if prescribed by the patient's doctor who can monitor her and make sure there's no excess bleeding, etc. And I mean the big abortion pill not Plan B.
Hey, just curious for the lawyers on here. Does Alito's opinion of "rights deeply rooted in the constitution" open the door to eliminate gun ownership? Nowhere in the 2nd Amendment is there a specific reference to the right to own a gun, it simply calls out "bear arms". In reading through what Alito wrote, he specifically states that the Constitution does not list an abortion as a right anywhere in the document. By that same logic, it does not list a gun anywhere that I am aware of either does it?
Opinion | Marilyn Monroe v. Samuel Alito "The founding fathers would be less surprised that there’s a popular musical about Alexander Hamilton than they would be that, in an age of space travel, the internet, Netflix and in vitro fertilization, the majority of the court is relying on a literal interpretation of a document conceived in the agrarian 1780s. They would be devastated that the court is just another hack institution with partisan leaks. Alito helped open the door to dark money and helped gut the Voting Rights Act; but he wants to ban abortion largely because, he says, the Constitution doesn’t expressly allow it. That’s so fatuous. The Constitution doesn’t mention an awful lot of things that the court involves itself with. But while it expressly prohibits state-sanctioned religion, this court seems ready to let some rebel public school football coach convene a prayer session after games. These rogue justices are always ready to twist the Constitution to their purposes. They are strict constructionists all right, strictly interested in constructing a society that comports with their rigid, religiously driven worldview. It is outrageous that five unelected, unaccountable and relatively unknown political operatives masquerading as impartial jurists can so profoundly alter our lives."
No. Putting aside any debate over the Second Amendment's meaning, this Republican Supreme Court isn't using application of consistent legal principles and doctrines to lead it to its outcomes. It's deciding on what outcome it wants and then working backwards to find the doctrines that justify how to get there (or simply lying about the doctrines if it must).
And where does it say that (specifically, that refusing to feed a fetus is murder) in the Bible? Or is it that you just interpreted passages to lead you to that point and chose not to make the same pathway on forced organ donation?
The story of Lazurus and the Rich Man. The rich man let Lazurus starve to death, and the rich man awoke in hell after his death. What the pill does is far more evil than what the rich man did. The rich man failed to feed a starving man. The baby has a source of nutrition and nourishment given to it by God. The person who administers the pill is more like a man who stood by Lazurus to guard him and make sure he was unable to get any food or nourishment. If you purposefully brought about a circumstance where a person had no access to the nutrition required for life, then you'd be a murderer because you brought about the death of that person with malice aforethought. I saw a video on the True Crime channel where a woman locked her child in a closet for weeks until the child died of starvation. That is what taking the pill does to an unborn baby.
What is tragic is not only do conservatives try to control women's bodies and health decisions with this partisan hack, rigged Supreme Court majority, but they also try to limit sex education whenever possible. How about we leave abortion alone until we provide: 1) Sex education to all school children 2) Freely available prophylactics and how to use them. 3) Actually provide legal assistance, medical access, and mental health services to the millions of kids in our foster care system who are preyed upon by these same perverted religious right conservatives who use biblical scripture to justify their perversion (including the Catholic Church abuse victims). Abortion should be a last resort, not a first resort.
Wow, that is quite a leap. So it doesn't actually say that a woman failing to feed a fetus is committing murder? BTW, if you are making that large of a leap, what is the difference between the rich man and somebody who fails to provide a kidney, which makes somebody die as well? I mean, the possible donor is standing by and letting somebody die. It seems like you have to be willing to make a gigantic leap from a completely unrelated event to this but fail to do the same in other contexts.
Except embryos aren't persons. Hence why the scripture sanctioned abortion for wives accused of adultery.
That would make sense if this were motivated by wanting to save the babies as opposed to being motivated by being terrified of female sexuality & power.
No. Not after Heller. And gun ownership was part of the history at the time tor constitution was drafted and ratified.
Numbers 5 does not speak of abortion for a few reasons. Women don't normally miscarry when they drink dusty water, so the human actions of the ritual are not the cause of what is happening in Numbers 5. Numbers 5 speaks of a religious ritual that was carried out to determine if a woman was an adulterer. The effects that took place in that ritual were spiritually caused. What is happening there is supernatural. If a woman privately went into her own tent and repeated the ritual alone the results would not be the same because dusty water alone does not cause a miscarriage.
