• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Roe Countdown

When will Roe v Wade be overturned

  • Before 31 December 2020

    Votes: 20 18.3%

  • Before 31 December 2022

    Votes: 27 24.8%

  • Before 31 December 2024

    Votes: 9 8.3%

  • SCOTUS will not pick a case up

    Votes: 16 14.7%

  • SCOTUS will pick it up and decline to overturn

    Votes: 37 33.9%
  • Total voters
    109
Status
Not open for further replies.
Meadmaker said:
That works.
Click to expand...

Have you contacted the hospital in Texas to tell the doctors and lawyers there that they were wrong about not being able to abort a fetus with a heartbeat when it would never be viable yet? They need your deep legal reasoning to correct them.
 
We're back to the illusion that the totalitarians will just stop once we explain to them they are wrong well enough.
 
Meadmaker said:
I'm confident my vote will be counted next time, and the people who win those elections will be declared the winners.
Click to expand...

I'm not at all worried about my vote. Of course, I'm not the demographic that is being targeted with various laws discouraging people from voting by establishing obstacles that are trivial for me but onerous to people lacking my privileges. I know the people that handle the local election process and have no real worries about it.

On top of that it's a small state so my senate vote carries more weight than most.


However, it's not at all about me. I'm not looking at having to get a special ID and having to vote in a community underserved by polling places and early voting. Or targeted by various voter purge laws.
 
cosmicaug said:
Twitter thread:

https://twitter.com/themaxburns/status/1523311655500664833



It goes on....
Click to expand...

This is another one of these "I wonder what was really said..." quotes.


I haven't looked it up, so here is what I think I will find:

The AZ senate candidate who called for a condom ban:

Option 1) he is one of those fringe weirdo candidates that is technically a US Senate candidate, but not to be taken seriously.

Option 2) He didn't say it.

Marsha Blackburn and contraceptives for married couples only:

It is Marsha Blackburn, so stupidity of that magnitude is possible, but I think that's too stupid even for Blackburn. I think more likely she was discussing an issue about the limitations of Supreme Court power, and saying the court overstepped its authority with Griswold v. Connecticut.

As an aside, I think Griswold was a good decision.

Mitch McConnell and a nationwide anti-abortion ban:

Yes. He said that.
 
Last edited:
ponderingturtle said:
Have you contacted the hospital in Texas to tell the doctors and lawyers there that they were wrong about not being able to abort a fetus with a heartbeat when it would never be viable yet? They need your deep legal reasoning to correct them.
Click to expand...

That sort of thing is a good example of how legal formalism hurts people. Having a law criminalizing abortion except when the mother's life is in danger sounds at least humane but in practice involves a doctor weighing their ethical responsibility to the patient against the unknowable opinion of a prosecutor.

Given how disruptive an arrest would be, they are going to follow policies that are going to go further than they need to because even if the doctor knows there is a danger they know that if a prosecutor thinks otherwise they will end up in a perp walk.


People who aren't connected to the process see nothing but the legal fiction that abortion is available when the mother is in danger and don't see the problem.

It's the same with a rape or incest provision. The question is how exactly one shows a pregnancy is the result of this and what are the stakes if there is a dispute.

But hey, it's on paper that these exceptions apply so no need to worry....
 
Meadmaker said:
I'm confident my vote will be counted next time, and the people who win those elections will be declared the winners.
Click to expand...

Of course you are. You're on the side that's cheating. They aren't going to throw your vote out when you are vote for them.
 
Last edited:
The ‘biblical view’ that’s younger than the Happy Meal


Written 10 years ago but still just as true now.

In 1979, McDonald’s introduced the Happy Meal.

Sometime after that, it was decided that the Bible teaches that human life begins at conception.

Ask any American evangelical, today, what the Bible says about abortion and they will insist that this is what it says. (Many don’t actually believe this, but they know it is the only answer that won’t get them in trouble.) They’ll be a little fuzzy on where, exactly, the Bible says this, but they’ll insist that it does.

That’s new. If you had asked American evangelicals that same question the year I was born you would not have gotten the same answer.

That year, Christianity Today — edited by Harold Lindsell, champion of “inerrancy” and author of The Battle for the Bible — published a special issue devoted to the topics of contraception and abortion. That issue included many articles that today would get their authors, editors — probably even their readers — fired from almost any evangelical institution. For example, one article by a professor from Dallas Theological Seminary criticized the Roman Catholic position on abortion as unbiblical. Jonathan Dudley quotes from the article in his book Broken Words: The Abuse of Science and Faith in American Politics. Keep in mind that this is from a conservative evangelical seminary professor, writing in Billy Graham’s magazine for editor Harold Lindsell:

God does not regard the fetus as a soul, no matter how far gestation has progressed. The Law plainly exacts: “If a man kills any human life he will be put to death” (Lev. 24:17). But according to Exodus 21:22-24, the destruction of the fetus is not a capital offense. … Clearly, then, in contrast to the mother, the fetus is not reckoned as a soul.
Click to expand...

Christianity Today would not publish that article in 2012. They might not even let you write that in comments on their website. If you applied for a job in 2012 with Christianity Today or Dallas Theological Seminary and they found out that you had written something like that, ever, you would not be hired.

At some point between 1968 and 2012, the Bible began to say something different. That’s interesting.

Even more interesting is how thoroughly the record has been rewritten. We have always been at war with Eastasia.
Click to expand...
 
Suddenly said:
That sort of thing is a good example of how legal formalism hurts people. Having a law criminalizing abortion except when the mother's life is in danger sounds at least humane but in practice involves a doctor weighing their ethical responsibility to the patient against the unknowable opinion of a prosecutor.
Click to expand...
I tried to communicate that but you have done it better.
 
Meadmaker said:
This is another one of these "I wonder what was really said..." quotes.
Click to expand...

And, as expected, the statements from the Twitter thread were BS.

Except McConnell's. He really said that. It turns out that the GOP really is anti-abortion.

The Senate candidate who "wanted to ban condoms" and Marsha Blackburn were both talking about Griswold v. Connecticut. They weren't saying what the Twitter thread claimed.



I just wish people would use their skeptic sense sometimes. If it sounds ridiculous, it probably didn't happen. Marsha Blackburn is crazy, but not that crazy.
 
Last edited:
This isn't a court room and you aren't the GOP's Lawyer.

"Well the technically didn't say it in so many words LOL I WIN!" isn't impressing anyone.
 
Suddenly said:
That sort of thing is a good example of how legal formalism hurts people. Having a law criminalizing abortion except when the mother's life is in danger sounds at least humane but in practice involves a doctor weighing their ethical responsibility to the patient against the unknowable opinion of a prosecutor.
Click to expand...

The Texas law is even worse. The enforcement authority doesn't go through a prosecutor. It's a civil infraction and literally anyone can bring a lawsuit. That's what went wrong in the case that was reported by NPR that was cited twice in this thread. The law is pretty clear. That woman could have had an abortion under Texas law, but the doctors were afraid to do it because it would be so easy to be sued. At least with a prosecutor if they are egregious in overstepping their bounds, they can be hit with ethics complaints.

And that's why the Texas law will be overturned. It has been to the Supreme Court once, who threw it back down because of procedural errors. If it makes it back, they'll throw it out.

The Alabama law, quoted earlier, solves that problem. It basically outlines a procedure to go through which, if the doctor follows it, it puts the doctor above prosecution. I won't say that it's completely risk free, but it makes things pretty safe for doctors. The concerns you expressed would be very rare, if not non-existent.
 
Meadmaker said:
The Senate candidate who "wanted to ban condoms" and Marsha Blackburn were both talking about Griswold v. Connecticut. They weren't saying what the Twitter thread claimed.



I just wish people would use their skeptic sense sometimes. If it sounds ridiculous, it probably didn't happen. Marsha Blackburn is crazy, but not that crazy.
Click to expand...

So you are saying it's broader than condoms & that that doesn't sound ridiculous to you?
 
cosmicaug said:
So you are saying it's broader than condoms & that that doesn't sound ridiculous to you?
Click to expand...

No.

They were both talking about the separation of powers and the limitations on the Supreme Court. Neither one of them were calling for a ban on anything. The Twitter thread was simply false.
 
Meadmaker said:
No.

They were both talking about the separation of powers and the limitations on the Supreme Court. Neither one of them were calling for a ban on anything. The Twitter thread was simply false.
Click to expand...

"My client didn't threaten the shop for shakedown money! He just walked in with his goons and had a civil discussion with the shop owner about what a nice play he had and what a shame it would be if something where to happen to it!"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom