Alabama Court Awards Fetus the Right to Sue

[GMDino]

At what week of pregnancy can a fetus in Alabama buy an assault rifle?

— Carleen Ceraldi (@ceraldi_carleen) May 17, 2019

[fredtoast]

(05-16-2019, 07:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote: WTH are Fred and SSF debating gun control laws?

Because EVERY discussion with SSF involves gun control.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-17-2019, 01:28 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Because EVERY discussion with SSF involves gun control.

You started it with a gun ownership analogy in post #163.

[fredtoast]

(05-17-2019, 02:14 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: You started it with a gun ownership analogy in post #163.

Only replying to SSF in post 161

(05-15-2019, 03:52 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I am amused about the outrage over the government taking away "rights" from many of the same people who clamor for my right to own a firearm to be severely restricted because of the actions of criminals.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-17-2019, 02:22 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Only replying to SSF in post 161

My bad.

[*bfine32*]

Seems POTUS has a pretty rational stance:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-abortion-tweets-trump-says-he-is-pro-life-days-after-alabama-passes-restrictive-abortion-ban/

Quote:President Trump urged Republicans to stay "UNITED" on abortion in a series of tweets late Saturday night and wrote that he is "strongly Pro-Life, with the three exceptions - Rape, Incest and protecting the Life of the mother."

[GMDino]

(05-20-2019, 01:18 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Seems POTUS has a pretty rational stance:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-abortion-tweets-trump-says-he-is-pro-life-days-after-alabama-passes-restrictive-abortion-ban/

That day.  In that tweet.



It will change.





Again.





On that note though shouldn't his (current) stance tick off all those evangelical's that think he was sent by gawd to save the US of A?

#alllivesmatter?

But people keep thinking DJT will be some great moral leader on this...and that's funny.

[fredtoast]

(05-20-2019, 01:18 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Seems POTUS has a pretty rational stance:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-abortion-tweets-trump-says-he-is-pro-life-days-after-alabama-passes-restrictive-abortion-ban/

Can't believe all the rubes who think Trump is Pro-Life.

He was strongly pro-choice his entire life until he decided to run for President as a Republican.

Must have been something he read in "Two Timothy".  

[*bfine32*]

(05-20-2019, 01:26 PM)GMDino Wrote: On that note though shouldn't his (current) stance tick off all those evangelical's that think he was sent by gawd to save the US of A?

#alllivesmatter?

But people keep thinking DJT will be some great moral leader on this...and that's funny.

I've never said he's a great moral leader; I just suggested his current stance on abortion is rational. Especially given all the movements aroung the country. You could argue that the current stance is not rational so you went with all that.

(05-20-2019, 01:27 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Can't believe all the rubes who think Trump is Pro-Life.

He was strongly pro-choice his entire life until he decided to run for President as a Republican.

Must have been something he read in "Two Timothy".  

I'm sure it has a lot to do with 2020. If memory serves are former POTUS changed his stance on SSM and was applauded. I wonder if he read the book, to which, you refer. 

[GMDino]

(05-20-2019, 01:50 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I've never said he's a great moral leader; I just suggested his current stance on abortion is rational. Especially given all the movements aroung the country. You could argue that the current stance is not rational so you went with all that.
I'm sure it has a lot to do with 2020. If memory serves are former POTUS changed his stance on SSM and was applauded. I wonder if he read the book, to which, you refer. 

No doubt it's all about the election.

But to compare Obama to Trump on thoughtful changing of stances is a bit disingenuous.

Trump has a history and record of simply lying and making things up.  Period.  If he thought he'd get more votes being for a total ban on abortion he'd suddenly be for that too.  He's a man who doesn't read, doesn't listen, and thinks his way is the only way.

Obama was the opposite.

http://time.com/3816952/obama-gay-lesbian-transgender-lgbt-rights/

He listened and reflected.  Heck, he wrote about it.  He was elected while still not embracing it.  

Although *if* you read the link above you can see he still supported civil-unions and was a supporter of the community.

Trump is no Obama.  Trump isn't a "thinking" "reflecting" man.  He's a gut guy who just talks off the top of his head and thinks he's brilliant.

That doesn't mean Trump couldn't change.  Just that given his lack of real moral clarity makes me doubt he really cares all that much about it.

And to cite his "rational stance" at all is laughable as it will change with the winds of the election.

Actually think DJT is doing anything "rational" is kind of a joke.

[Vas Deferens]

(05-20-2019, 02:10 PM)GMDino Wrote: Actually think DJT is doing anything "rational" is kind of a joke.

To think DJT hasn't been party to an abortion is a joke.

[*bfine32*]

Figured this would be the most appropriate place for this:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/supreme-court-compromise-on-indiana-abortion-law-keeps-issue-off-its-docket/ar-AAC2hyb?ocid=ientp

Quote:The Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to a compromise on a restrictive Indiana abortion law that keeps the issue off its docket for now.

The court said a part of the law dealing with disposal of the “remains” of an abortion could go into effect. But it did not take up a part of the law stricken by lower courts that prohibited abortions because tests revealed an abnormality.

I guess once it's out of the mother we must treat it as human.

They didn't act on the "abnormality" part which includes restricting abortions because of sex and race among other things.

[GMDino]

(05-28-2019, 11:36 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Figured this would be the most appropriate place for this:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/supreme-court-compromise-on-indiana-abortion-law-keeps-issue-off-its-docket/ar-AAC2hyb?ocid=ientp


I guess once it's out of the mother we must treat it as human.

They didn't act on the "abnormality" part which includes restricting abortions because of sex and race among other things.

Politicians will have to try better next time.

Quote:The portion the court allowed to go into effect requires that the “remains” of abortion or miscarriage be buried or cremated, as required of other human remains.

“This court has already acknowledged that a state has a ‘legitimate interest in proper disposal of fetal remains,’” the court wrote in the unsigned opinion, citing a 1983 decision. “The only remaining question, then, is whether Indiana’s law is rationally related to the state’s interest in proper disposal of fetal remains. We conclude that it is, even if it is not prefectly (sic) tailored to that end."

Technically fetal remains...not human remains.

Nonetheless I suppose this was back when the GOP was pushing the false narrative that the remains were being sold illegally?  Even if not it's a good rule to have.

[GMDino]

(05-28-2019, 11:36 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Figured this would be the most appropriate place for this:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/supreme-court-compromise-on-indiana-abortion-law-keeps-issue-off-its-docket/ar-AAC2hyb?ocid=ientp


I guess once it's out of the mother we must treat it as human.

They didn't act on the "abnormality" part which includes restricting abortions because of sex and race among other things.

I see the mute Judge did have an opinion though:

Quote:Justice Clarence Thomas, in a 20-page statement, said the court will eventually have to decide the question of what he called “eugenic abortions.”


“The Court’s decision to allow further percolation should not be interpreted as agreement” with the 7th Circuit, Thomas wrote. He included a long history of the birth-control movement.



“Enshrining a constitutional right to an abortion based solely on the race, sex, or disability of an unborn child, as Planned Parenthood advocates, would constitutionalize the views of the 20th-century eugenics movement.” No other justice joined Thomas.

Nice political statement about PP "advocates" with little to no basis in law.

So glad he's still around to show how personal politics don't affect SCJ decisions.  

[*bfine32*]

(05-28-2019, 01:11 PM)GMDino Wrote: I see the mute Judge did have an opinion though:



Nice political statement about PP "advocates" with little to no basis in law.

So glad he's still around to show how personal politics don't affect SCJ decisions.  

No doubt the 2 of the 9 judges that dissented did so with no influence of personal politics.


Maybe allowing a mother to abort a child because of race just hits Thomas a little harder.  

[GMDino]

(05-28-2019, 01:38 PM)bfine32 Wrote: No doubt the 2 of the 9 judges that dissented did so with no influence of personal politics.


Maybe allowing a mother to abort a child because of race just hits Thomas a little harder.  

How dumb.

And racist.

As if Thomas is the only non-white race on the Court.

But I expect nothing less that someone spinning this into a Eugenics argument for his friend.

[*bfine32*]

(05-28-2019, 01:56 PM)GMDino Wrote: How dumb.

And racist.

As if Thomas is the only non-white race on the Court.

But I expect nothing less that someone spinning this into a Eugenics argument for his friend.

Not really sure what's racist about MY POV, but don't let that stop you.

I suppose if you consider Hispanic to be non-white. But let's not try to compare the two, because there is none. 

I simply provided a reason why he would consider aborting a child because of race akin to Eugenics. He was a direct descendent from  American Slaves and lost his house to fire as a child. He may have a more severe outlook on the matter than you, I, or RBG. 

[GMDino]

(05-28-2019, 02:11 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Not really sure what's racist about MY POV, but don't let that stop you.

Wait I'll see if there's a reason...

(05-28-2019, 02:11 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I suppose if you consider Hispanic to be non-white.

Oh! There it is!

(05-28-2019, 02:11 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But let's not try to compare the two, because there is none. 

Sure thing dude!

(05-28-2019, 02:11 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I simply provided a reason why he would consider aborting a child because of race akin to Eugenics. He was a direct descendent from  American Slaves and lost his house to fire as a child. He may have a more severe outlook on the matter than you, I, or RBG. 

Sure thing dude!

[*bfine32*]

(05-28-2019, 02:44 PM)GMDino Wrote: Wait I'll see if there's a reason...


Oh!  There it is!


Sure thing dude!


Sure thing dude!

Your ability to respond to a post before it's made and then have to grasp at that feeble straw aside. Nothing I said in either post was racist. 


There used to be a joke going around that went like this:

Question: "What do you call someone who disagrees with a Liberal"

Answer: "A racist"

Thank for showing just how profound it was.

[GMDino]

(05-28-2019, 02:58 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Your ability to respond to a post before it's made and then have to grasp at that feeble straw aside. Nothing I said in either post was racist. 


There used to be a joke going around that went like this:

Question: "What do you call someone who disagrees with a Liberal"

Answer: "A racist"

Thank for showing just how profound it was.

You said he decision was based on his race.  I said he's not the only minority on the SC so that is racist(as he is the only BLACK on the court) see?

But you don't consider hispanic a minority.

Sooo...I dunno.  

So the statement was racist.  That doesn't mean you are a racist.  Just that race was used to make a bad argument.

Like if I said Thomas loves hot sauce just because he's black and you argued that hispanics like hot sauce too but I countered that hispanics don't count, blacks like hot sauce.  Then I would be making a race based assessment (racist).