Roe vs Wade can be reversed?

[roguenuke]

It likely won't be overturned.

That being said, it is not impossible that it can be overturned, using what would likely be flimsy reasoning. There are many factors at play on this, not the least of which is human nature and the unpredictability of it. Most, if not all, of the conservative Justices on the SCOTUS have expressed the belief that Roe should at least have never have been ruled the way it did. They think abortion should be a state decision.

There is something that could help to prevent RvW from being overtuned though, and that is a threat of such things being done in the future on other issues that conservatives ruled on as a Majority, and more liberal Justices could use such a decision as a way to overturn those decisions on flimsy grounds.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Legal abortion CANNOT be murder, as murder is an illegal act.

Definition of murder
1 : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought was convicted of murder
2 a : something very difficult or dangerous the traffic was murder carrying the luggage was murder on my back
b : something outrageous or blameworthy getting away with murder
3 : a flock of crows
There's a reason the proper term for a flock of them is a murder of crows, and it's not because we like having them around. —Jeffrey Kluger

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/murder


Note: I am having carpal tunnel surgery today, so most likely won't be posting much for a while, as typing one handed drives me insane. Please don't think I am ignoring any replies. I will "like" a reply (since it's not my mouse hand!) to indicate I have read it and I may respond if my response is short.

Have explained this numerous times.

But to make it simple for your understanding...I will ask you if you intellectually disagree that Jim Crow laws were discrimination? If you believe that once something is made legal then it obviates all other realities then you COULD NOT believe Jim Crow was discriminatory.

So, you believe Jim Crow laws were just...right?

Since you conveniently or incoveniently are unable, maybe one of your colleages like Zyphlin who liked your shallow definitional reliance on something I have already properly dismissed earlier, will take up in your behalf.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

And yet, it has not been decided...so currently it is not legally murder.

And yet, making it illegal will not drastically slow the rate down (initially yes, but then the underground for abortion pills will open up and we are back to where we started)

You dont know that, dont have any way to know that... and assurance of deterrence is NOT the primary reason to make anything illegal. Making laws set up the standard to which society, through the represenative process, determines the standards by which we agree, as both individuals and groups, to abide.

Once laws are made, enforcement should ensue...consequences for breach instituted. Do you disagree? And if so, do I, as an individual, get to pick and choose which laws I decide to disobey?

And if there is no reducton in the incidence of the offending behavior after being passed into law, we should just do away with any such laws?

 

[year2late]

You dont know that, dont have any way to know that... and assurance of deterrence is NOT the primary reason to make anything illegal. Making laws set up the standard to which society, through the represenative process, determines the standards by which we agree, as both individuals and groups, to abide.

Once laws are made, enforcement should ensue...consequences for breach instituted. Do you disagree? And if so, do I, as an individual, get to pick and choose which laws I decide to disobey?

And if there is no reducton in the incidence of the offending behavior after being passed into law, we should just do away with any such laws?

How do you enforce? Monitor menstrual cycles?Register all home pregnancy tests?Have a snitch hotline?Every woman who miscarries should be afraid of conviction.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Dude, it shares her physiology. Without her physiology, the fetus dies. It is part of her body.

Lets go into some more detail... explain how it IS definitionally a part of her body. Would a parasite inside the host female be considered a part of a human body as well? Would this parasite retain any human rights when it is separated from her body, "birthed"?

So explain in detail your assertion more globally, please. Could a mother, as it is a part of her body, refuse to give birth for instance? Take all foreseeable steps to prevent ever giving birth in an effort to retain this part of her body?

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Year2late is spot on.

I would refer to that spot as a stain.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

How do you enforce? Monitor menstrual cycles?Register all home pregnancy tests?Have a snitch hotline?Every woman who miscarries should be afraid of conviction.

Yep.

Dont blame us, blame those who way way way unreasonably overstepped. Murder is...murder. Yano?

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

She had probably about 3-4 weeks before the pregnancy was going to threaten her life. I do not define that as imminent peril. Do you?

As far as the likelihood of causing death? around 99%. We make those assessments based on our experience and our knowledge of the patient, and a ton of other factors.

Which is why it should left up physicians and the patients in that situation to determine what is best. Not some arbitrary number created by a government official in an office and applied to each and every situation.



Yes.. we most assuredly killed one to save the other. And we most assuredly prevented needless suffering on both the baby's and woman's side.

A good deed? We don't look at it that way. Its about doing the best job within the limitations of what we can do.



Kind of ironic.. I understand that I and other medical providers can only do what we can.. and that this isn;t an easy decision for us and for the woman and husband involved? WAY WAY WAY more difficult a decision. Life or death.

So I understand that it needs to be left up to the family.. in consultation with a medical provider.

YOU.. on the other hand? You have the hubris to sit in judgement.. and say "I know whats best for this family, woman and their child". YOU think you can determine.. without having any INKLING of the issues involved.. that this woman. in saving her life is committing MURDER. And you would lock her up and others like her.

And so far.. you haven't explained in detail what "immediate peril is". NOR.. what is peril?... is it 10% chance of death.. 50%? 75%?


So.. stop diverting. Please explain exactly what imminent peril is.. the time frame, and the percentage of likelihood of death and how you would determine whether its murder or not.

Give us the details.

I simply do not trust your relating of the pertinent events. Other doctors here will be able to assess your determination as will I. If she will be dead in three weeks for certain, and 99% is pretty damn certain, should be provable... beyond shadow of doubt if a death sentence is to be imposed in this way, extrajudicially.

I would suggest if there is even the least doubt, if you and the mother so decide and that decision is questionable... it should be investigated and if there is not the proof of the ultimate termination of the mothers life, all included parties' details should be presented to a grand jury, let them decide whether to indict or not.

I never made any such declaration**. I do know there are many biased opinions on your side of the argument, that this IS a weighty decision not just for a mother (what about the father?) and medical practioners to decide. What if all such practioners on staff are pro abortion? Nah, that standard cannot apply. Its not a standard first of all.

Be willing to defend your decision in court. If you feel 99% certain, I am confident a jury will decide justly. Having no oversight to such an unregulated industry is not the proper way in a just society where the voiceless cannot defend themselves.



** Dont EVER put words that are not mine in quotes like that, attributing something I NEVER said to me. This shows a level of untrustworthy conduct that also make me suspect your 99% assertion of ultimate death that you stated earlier.

 

[AGENT J]

So.. stop diverting. Please explain exactly what imminent peril is.. the time frame, and the percentage of likelihood of death and how you would determine whether its murder or not.

You are looking for honesty, integrity and intellectual reasonable rationally and logic in posts/views that have none. You wont find it there. Unfortunately SOME views from both sides are based on nothing but emotions and feelings and or dishonesty... it muddies the waters for others interested in honest fact based discussions with integrity to discusion between facts and opinions.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Well said and good luck with the surgery.

See you back soon!

ty. it went well except for when he hit a nerve - ouch! sorry for bad typing.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Have explained this numerous times.

But to make it simple for your understanding...I will ask you if you intellectually disagree that Jim Crow laws were discrimination? If you believe that once something is made legal then it obviates all other realities then you COULD NOT believe Jim Crow was discriminatory.

So, you believe Jim Crow laws were just...right?

Since you conveniently or incoveniently are unable, maybe one of your colleages like Zyphlin who liked your shallow definitional reliance on something I have already properly dismissed earlier, will take up in your behalf.

do not know what jim crow laws are

can post pic of my bloody - literally - hand for proof

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

do not know what jim crow laws are

can post pic of my bloody - literally - hand for proof

"Jim Crow laws were state and local laws that enforced racial segregation in the Southern United States. Enacted by white Democratic-dominated state legislatures in the late 19th century after the Reconstruction period, these laws continued to be enforced until 1965. They mandated racial segregation in all public facilities in the states of the former Confederate States of America, starting in the 1870s and 1880s, and upheld by the United States Supreme Court's "separate but equal" doctrine for African Americans. Public education had essentially been segregated since its establishment in most of the South after the Civil War. This principle was extended to public facilities and transportation, including segregated cars on interstate trains and, later, buses. Facilities for African Americans were consistently inferior and underfunded compared to those which were then available to white Americans; sometimes they did not exist at all. This body of law institutionalized a number of economic, educational, and social disadvantages. Segregation by law existed mainly in the Southern states, while Northern segregation was generally a matter of fact—patterns of housing segregation enforced by private covenants, bank lending practices, and job discrimination, including discriminatory labor union practices."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws

Since you have a disabled hand, I looked it up for you.

 

[Lursa]

ty. it went well except for when he hit a nerve - ouch! sorry for bad typing.

Good to hear but you are supposed to be resting it!

See you in a few days....

 

[Lursa]

How do you enforce? Monitor menstrual cycles?Register all home pregnancy tests?Have a snitch hotline?Every woman who miscarries should be afraid of conviction.

Meh, too easy. Obviously blacks could always be recognized as equal and exercise their rights as equals. The courts recognizing that was the rational thing to do once biases were overcome.

The unborn can do no such thing...it's not equal, why should it have equal rights with women? The unborn has no rights that can be separated from the mother, physically, legally, ethically, practically....it's a dependency that truly demonstrates that the unborn are not equal to born people. They do not have a single right they can exercise independently. Blacks always could...if the law allowed. If the law recognized rights for the unborn...they still have zero ability to exercise them...not a single one.

Be born and accept your place and equal rights with the rest of the American people. Such 'innocence' of emptiness...that vacuum that cant act or even form intent...is no different than a flower or a couch...it has zero value. True innocence is a conscious virtue.

 

[Scrabaholic]

"Jim Crow laws were state and local laws that enforced racial segregation in the Southern United States. Enacted by white Democratic-dominated state legislatures in the late 19th century after the Reconstruction period, these laws continued to be enforced until 1965. They mandated racial segregation in all public facilities in the states of the former Confederate States of America, starting in the 1870s and 1880s, and upheld by the United States Supreme Court's "separate but equal" doctrine for African Americans. Public education had essentially been segregated since its establishment in most of the South after the Civil War. This principle was extended to public facilities and transportation, including segregated cars on interstate trains and, later, buses. Facilities for African Americans were consistently inferior and underfunded compared to those which were then available to white Americans; sometimes they did not exist at all. This body of law institutionalized a number of economic, educational, and social disadvantages. Segregation by law existed mainly in the Southern states, while Northern segregation was generally a matter of fact—patterns of housing segregation enforced by private covenants, bank lending practices, and job discrimination, including discriminatory labor union practices."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws

Since you have a disabled hand, I looked it up for you.

ty for info. no, i do not agree with that.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Good to hear but you are supposed to be resting it!

See you in a few days....

ty. typing one handed. hurting real bad now that freezing is out. i should have waited for legal pot lol. percocet not doing much. off for night now.

 

[year2late]

Lets go into some more detail... explain how it IS definitionally a part of her body. Would a parasite inside the host female be considered a part of a human body as well? Would this parasite retain any human rights when it is separated from her body, "birthed"?

So explain in detail your assertion more globally, please. Could a mother, as it is a part of her body, refuse to give birth for instance? Take all foreseeable steps to prevent ever giving birth in an effort to retain this part of her body?

It shares her physiology -period. If the mother dies and the fetus is not removed the fetus will die. The fetus needs her functioning physiology to continue to gestate.


This is not a difficult concept.

 

[year2late]

Yep.

Dont blame us, blame those who way way way unreasonably overstepped. Murder is...murder. Yano?

Except when it is not murder. Yano?

Well, get back to me on this one when abortions are outlawed across the land. Up until then it is not murder.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

It shares her physiology -period. If the mother dies and the fetus is not removed the fetus will die. The fetus needs her functioning physiology to continue to gestate.


This is not a difficult concept.

Period?

Sorry, no. Periods, or the menstrual cycle, are part of a woman's body preparing for a possible pregnancy each month. You dont answer ANY of my questions because why? Because you know you have a failed argument. Its not just another part of the woman's body, thats a ludicrous concept when you take the concept to its logical end.

Lets face it, the mother is merely a vessel, a vehicle carrying a brand new passenger. The mother is important in her own life just as this baby is in its own life.

Simply common sense, its the truth and... its undeniable.

 

[minnie616]

Period?

Lets face it, the mother is merely a vessel, a vehicle carrying a brand new passenger. The mother is important in her own life just as this baby is in its own life.

Simply common sense, its the truth and... its undeniable.

The woman is much more than a vessel.

An unborn is inside and attached to the woman’s body if the woman dies before the unborn is viable , the unborn will die also.

Before viability the unborn is dependent on the woman’s body functions to survive.

It is the woman’s bodiliy functions that grows the uuborn.

From:

It is not correct to say of the embryo that it grows: it is grown by the mother. It is not a potential living being; the mother is the potential mother of a living being.

The Embryo Is Not a Potential Living Being - L'Humanité in English

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Except when it is not murder. Yano?

Well, get back to me on this one when abortions are outlawed across the land. Up until then it is not murder.

Jst like discrimination made legal by law is still discrimination, murder made legal is still murder. At least for those with a real conscience.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

The woman is much more than a vessel.

An unborn is inside and attached to the woman’s body if the woman dies before the unborn is viable , the unborn will die also.

Before viability the unborn is dependent on the woman’s body functions to survive.

It is the woman’s bodiliy functions that grows the uuborn.

From:



The Embryo Is Not a Potential Living Being - L'Humanité in English

That is all the woman has to be.

Could be ANY woman capable of becoming pregnant. Surrogacy is a good example. Basically, as to prenatal care, just a food pump and a warm, temperature controlled environment, a space to grow. Or a place to be cornered and dismembered, a dungeon torture chamber, take your pick.

Its the womans choice, eh?

 

[year2late]

Period?

Sorry, no. Periods, or the menstrual cycle, are part of a woman's body preparing for a possible pregnancy each month. You dont answer ANY of my questions because why? Because you know you have a failed argument. Its not just another part of the woman's body, thats a ludicrous concept when you take the concept to its logical end.

Lets face it, the mother is merely a vessel, a vehicle carrying a brand new passenger. The mother is important in her own life just as this baby is in its own life.

Simply common sense, its the truth and... its undeniable.

So a womb is like Tupperware. Not so much. The fetus is relying on the woman's physiology to survive.

 

[minnie616]

So a womb is like Tupperware. Not so much. The fetus is relying on the woman's physiology to survive.

Exactly. He seems to have no idea , nor any respect for how much a woman’s body and her physiology sacrifices to grow an unborn.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

So a womb is like Tupperware. Not so much. The fetus is relying on the woman's physiology to survive.

Yeah, Tupperware with food...so? At least Tupperware does not an intent to kill.