Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Some states protect women's rights
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 166 of 286 (854426)
06-08-2019 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Sarah Bellum
06-08-2019 3:16 PM


Re: No obligation to let others use your body.
So the dividing line is at birth?
Yes, that's exactly what I've been saying.
-
That is, do you think there should be more restrictions on later-gestation than on early-gestation abortions?
I don't. I can't speak for anyone else, though.

It says something about the qualities of our current president that the best argument anyone has made in his defense is that he didn’t know what he was talking about. -- Paul Krugman

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Sarah Bellum, posted 06-08-2019 3:16 PM Sarah Bellum has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by xongsmith, posted 06-08-2019 5:14 PM Chiroptera has seen this message but not replied
 Message 168 by Faith, posted 06-08-2019 6:59 PM Chiroptera has seen this message but not replied
 Message 185 by Sarah Bellum, posted 06-18-2019 5:57 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 195 of 286 (855374)
06-18-2019 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by Sarah Bellum
06-18-2019 5:57 PM


Re: No obligation to let others use your body.
But doesn't this mean an abortion of a 1-week gestation fetus is no different from the abortion of a 39-week gestation fetus?
You and I have been discussing one issue: whether a person has the right to bodily autonomy. According to that one criterion, a one week old fetus is the same as a 39 week old fetus is the same as the person connected through the life support machine.
There may be other characteristics where these differ, and some people may feel these differences are relevant. You seem to be one of these people.

It says something about the qualities of our current president that the best argument anyone has made in his defense is that he didn’t know what he was talking about. -- Paul Krugman

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Sarah Bellum, posted 06-18-2019 5:57 PM Sarah Bellum has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by Sarah Bellum, posted 06-30-2019 4:15 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 211 of 286 (856270)
06-29-2019 8:52 AM


SCOTUS declines to hear abortion case
From The New York Times:
Supreme Court Will Not Hear Bid to Revive Alabama Abortion Ban
In 2016 Alabama enacted a law that would have prohibited the dilation and extraction method of abortion. Lower courts have struck the law down, and the case was appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court has announced it will not hear the case, allowing the lower courts ruling to stand.
What is interesting is that, if I understand the rules correctly, it would have taken only four members of the Court to hear the case. Could be that the Court is waiting for the best, most definitive case to come up; could be that Roberts and one of the conservative justices feel that Roe v Wade is settled law.

It says something about the qualities of our current president that the best argument anyone has made in his defense is that he didn’t know what he was talking about. -- Paul Krugman

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 220 of 286 (856429)
06-30-2019 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by Sarah Bellum
06-30-2019 4:15 PM


Re: No obligation to let others use your body.
Ok, but you were asking what I thought. I hope your question has been answered.

It says something about the qualities of our current president that the best argument anyone has made in his defense is that he didn’t know what he was talking about. -- Paul Krugman

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Sarah Bellum, posted 06-30-2019 4:15 PM Sarah Bellum has seen this message but not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 225 of 286 (856491)
07-01-2019 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 221 by Faith
06-30-2019 9:31 PM


Re: Law, Bill promoting late term abortions
I noticed that article is five years old. What is the followup? Did the law get changed?
They also don't specify the disability. Was it as treatable as a cleft palate? Or would it have been a far more serious, quality of life issue for the child as well as for those who would have had to raised it?

It says something about the qualities of our current president that the best argument anyone has made in his defense is that he didn’t know what he was talking about. -- Paul Krugman

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Faith, posted 06-30-2019 9:31 PM Faith has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 284 of 286 (860967)
08-14-2019 6:25 PM


How many Republicans are there in that clown car?
From The Guardian:
Republican Steve King: if not for incest and rape 'would there be any population left?'
Member of the House of Representatives Steve King promoting absolutely no exceptions anti-abortion laws:
"What if we went back through all the family trees and just pulled out anyone who was a product of rape or incest?" King told a breakfast meeting in Urbandale, Iowa. "Would there be any population of the world left if we did that? Considering all the wars and all the rapes and pillages that happened throughout all these different nations, I know that I can’t say that I was not a part of a product of that."
Pete Buttigieg's response:
You would think it would be pretty easy to come out against rape and incest. Then again, you’d think it’d be pretty easy to come out against white nationalism. So this is just one more example why there needs to be a sane representative in that district.
Edited by Chiroptera, : Edited first sentence.

It says something about the qualities of our current president that the best argument anyone has made in his defense is that he didn't know what he was talking about. -- Paul Krugman

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 286 of 286 (866908)
11-17-2019 9:19 AM


Planned Parenthood wins video fraud case
From the New York Times:
Planned Parenthood Awarded $2 Million in Lawsuit Over Secret Videos
Just before the 2016 elections, anti-abortion activist David R. Daleiden secretly videotaped discussions with workers at Planned Parenthood and then edited them to make it appear that PP was selling fetus tissue for profit.
Mr. Daleiden, the leader of a group called the Center for Medical Progress, posed as a biotechnology representative to make the recordings. The jury found that he had trespassed on private property and committed fraud, according to court papers. Planned Parenthood said in a statement that the jury had ruled in its favor on each of its claims, including a violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
The anti-choice movement, predictably, is going to appeal claiming that deliberately defaming people with lies is protected speech.
Edited by Chiroptera, : Typo in post title. And in the body. Also decided to make an edit to make the last sentence slightly less inflammatory.

For this generation of far-right nationalists, religion is not a question of ethical conduct; it is purely about identity and peoplehood. -- Jan-Werner Müller

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024