Collins: Won’t Support SCOTUS Pick Hostile To Abortion Rights

[Oceander]

Religious zealotry?
I would postulate that the prohibitions on murder are indeed the result of religious zealotry, counselor.  But without them, the streets would run red. Haven't you ever entertained, no matter how dismissively, the thought of killing some rotten SOB who desperately needed it?
(If not, your social circles must have been severely limited, and encounters with the more vile elements of our species nonexistent. )
Without some sort of reprisal, either by the State or family, without the perception of consequence, what would stop you? Not wanting to clean up the mess or ruin the carpet?
But there it is, right there in the midst of the Old Testament's Big 10, and found in other religious writings as well, a prohibition we have also carried over to our secular laws. One which is relevant here, for the helpless and unrepresented, for those who have yet to have a voice but exist nonetheless.

Such limitations, such boundaries on human behaviour are perhaps the reason Shakespeare's admonition (Dick, Henry VI, Part II, Act 4, scene II) hasn't been acted upon.  (DISCLAIMER: no, that is not a threat, nor the implication of one, merely a reference to a line in a 400 year old stage play).

So, one way or the other, you could point a finger at religious zealotry for most any law which makes a modicum of good sense. But otherwise, life would be a free-for-all for the survivors, nasty, brutish, and short.

There are plenty of non-religious reasons for outlawing murder, not the least of which is avoiding feuds such as the Hatfield McCoy feud.  Those reasons apply, if at all, with much weaker force when it comes to abortion.  Other than riots by religious zealots, abortion doesn’t generally engender feuds.

And more to the point, even most religious zealots do not categorically deny the right of one person to kill another person.  Only a few hardcore pacifists would argue that one can never kill in self-defense, for example. 

So for the rest, it’s not even a categorical question, it’s just a question of where the line is drawn, and that is all about balancing competing interests.  On that basis, there nothing illogical or immoral to drawing the line at the point of real viability.

[Suppressed]

Libertyville trumps the prerogative of the states establishing their own laws to deny liberty. 

Do you want the states to ban your right to own a gun?    Oh the horror - that's, that's UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

Well, yes it is.  And so would be your state telling your daughter she no longer has dominion over her own body.

I don't think your argument necessarily follows properly.

Sometimes people gain responsibilities based on their actions.  Should a woman decide to give birth, she has gained a responsibility and can't just dump a child into a dumpster.  Likewise, a man gains responsibility to help support that child.

It's therefore easy to say that, should a woman have sex, she might gain a responsibility for whatever the result is.

[Smokin Joe]

So the woman has absolutely no interest in her own body that would trump any other interest, no matter how remote?  Your religious beliefs trump her control over her own body?

Okay, I'll bite.

We do acknowledge such an interest, but only if the life of the woman hangs in the balance.
 
It hearkens from the days when motherhood was considered a blessing and not a curse, as were children.
 
The idea that the member of the family who bore the offspring should survive a truly nonviable pregnancy at the expense of that particular offspring,  for the sake of producing future progeny (and her own edification and enjoyment) is well enough engrained that abortions ('clinical terminations') were rarely carried out to end ectopic and other completely nonviable pregnancies for the express purpose of saving the life of the mother, as determined to be medically necessary.
Roe didn't make that happen, counselor. In virtually every state, such laws were already in place, and in enough States that such care could be sought if the need arose. Yet even today, mothers have died rather than receive treatment for lethal conditions in order to preserve the life of a child who would not have survived the treatment for the mother.
Big difference between that and getting the kid shredded so it is easier to afford that new Escalade.

[Cyber Liberty]

While I agree the woman's burden is greater, it is for 9 months.  The man's is 18 years.

Men are the responsible party, women are innocent bystanders, so the logic goes.

[musiclady]

It was widely thought among better men than us, that the horrors of the Civil War was the Judgment in Blood by Almighty God for the sin of slavery, and the mockery of God's Name tied to liberty.

If that sentiment is true (and I subscribe to it), then I shudder to think what God will require in Judgment for the sin of aborting more than an entire generation of Americans in the womb so people can have illicit and non-marital sex without consequence.

@INVAR

I agree with every word you've said.

As there has been judgment for slavery, there will be greater judgment for abortion.

[Suppressed]

Well, if you want to go there, you would be blaming her biology for not rejecting the embryo, (which has a component of her DNA). You could blame the little wigglers that imposed upon the egg, too. If it was a question of will, that should have worked, too, right?

The time for willpower ended at the gate, so to speak. --And yes, it takes two to tangle.

Sorry, but that doesn't fly.  If you have an unwanted home invader, it's not the woman's fault for not ejecting him forcibly.  A request to leave should be sufficient.  If he doesn't leave, the squatter is a trespasser, and in fact violating the woman bodily.  As soon as he is norn, he should be put on trial and sentenced.

Patently absurd.

[Smokin Joe]

There are plenty of non-religious reasons for outlawing murder, not the least of which is avoiding feuds such as the Hatfield McCoy feud.  Those reasons apply, if at all, with much weaker force when it comes to abortion.  Other than riots by religious zealots, abortion doesn’t generally engender feuds.

And more to the point, even most religious zealots do not categorically deny the right of one person to kill another person.  Only a few hardcore pacifists would argue that one can never kill in self-defense, for example. 

So for the rest, it’s not even a categorical question, it’s just a question of where the line is drawn, and that is all about balancing competing interests.  On that basis, there nothing illogical or immoral to drawing the line at the point of real viability.

So you would say the entire argument hangs on the definition of viability?

But we best know a culture by how it treats those among it who are truly helpless.

Is an infant "viable"? A toddler? A five year-old? We don't even let kids run the french fry machine at 13, and though capable of reproduction, are they really "viable"?

That's a sliding scale you can put anywhere, a word game. At the point where, with reasonable and normal natural care, the outcome will be an adult human, the offspring should be considered viable. Otherwise, 'birth control' (not conception control) could be retroactive until such time as the child has reached some accepted level of maturity, perhaps the ability to enter into contractual obligations.

That concept, too, opens the other end of the argument--at which age is a person no longer "viable"? So you would kill them off at both ends of the age spectrum using that standard.

Tell me, counselor, do you really want to go there? Do you think this is a good idea?

[TomSea]

My position is crystal clear.   I'm staunchly Pro-Life.  American culture isn't.

Changing Roe v Wade MUST be done by first persuading the woman. 

And, a Republican has a better chance of shaking hands with Jesus before that ever happens.

Standing on your principles, while admirable....and $1.89 will get you a 16 oz coffee at your local 7-11.

Tell that to people, mostly Mormons,  in Utah, that they should have the one size fits all law that is the same in New York, Maryland, Massachusetts and California. That doesn't fly at all.

That's all reversing Roe V Wade is, is giving back legislation to the states. 

[musiclady]

So the woman has absolutely no interest in her own body that would trump any other interest, no matter how remote?  Your religious beliefs trump her control over her own body?

I'll say it louder since you've got your eyes shut and your ears covered.....


IT IS NOT HER BODY.  THE BABY IS A SEPARATE HUMAN BEING.

As long as you keep arguing what you SCIENTIFICALLY know is false, you will lose.

And you are losing badly here.

When I was pregnant with our four children, I did not kick myself from the inside with my own feet.  I did not have two hearts, one of which beat faster than mine.  I was privileged to have an entirely different person inside of me, for which I was responsible to nurture, feed and allow to thrive.

Those four babies are now in their thirties, and strangely enough, they are STILL separate human beings and the SAME human beings that their DNA carried when I felt their tiny feet kick me.

You are wrong.  The left is wrong.  It is a lie that you have chosen to swallow, even though you, as an intelligent human being (who was, not incidentally NEVER your mother's "body") ought to be able to figure out.

Work on it.

[Smokin Joe]

Sorry, but that doesn't fly.  If you have an unwanted home invader, it's not the woman's fault for not ejecting him forcibly.  A request to leave should be sufficient.  If he doesn't leave, the squatter is a trespasser, and in fact violating the woman bodily.  As soon as he is norn, he should be put on trial and sentenced.

Patently absurd.

My point is,  that in the instance of all but non-consensual sex, she invited the 'invader' in, with predictable results.
That a baby develops out of that natural progression of events does not make the baby an invader, but as natural a consequence of inviting that presence as footprints on the carpet. If she doesn't want that consequence, then measures should be taken to prevent it--either way. 

At that point, though, once the baby has been created, the one life everyone is talking about ending for the 'crime' of existing is the one who had NOTHING to say about its existence, a circumstance brought about by two other people.
So the only one here who can be incontrovertibly determined to be 100% innocent is the one who gets capital punishment, something we don't even give axe murderers in most states, while those who imposed the circumstance on the innocent (to be murdered) victim skate.

Talk about stuff that won't fly....

In the meantime, there are plenty of people who would willingly embrace that baby and the responsibilities for its care and nurturing who languish in the wings while the sentence is carried out.

[Hoodat]

I'll say it louder since you've got your eyes shut and your ears covered.....

IT IS NOT HER BODY.  THE BABY IS A SEPARATE HUMAN BEING.

As long as you keep arguing what you SCIENTIFICALLY know is false, you will lose.

And you are losing badly here.

When I was pregnant with our four children, I did not kick myself from the inside with my own feet.  I did not have two hearts, one of which beat faster than mine.  I was privileged to have an entirely different person inside of me, for which I was responsible to nurture, feed and allow to thrive.

Those four babies are now in their thirties, and strangely enough, they are STILL separate human beings and the SAME human beings that their DNA carried when I felt their tiny feet kick me.

You are wrong.  The left is wrong.  It is a lie that you have chosen to swallow, even though you, as an intelligent human being (who was, not incidentally NEVER your mother's "body") ought to be able to figure out.

Work on it.

@musiclady

Do you find it odd that the only ones here championing abortion rights are men?

[Smokin Joe]

I'll say it louder since you've got your eyes shut and your ears covered.....


IT IS NOT HER BODY.  THE BABY IS A SEPARATE HUMAN BEING.

As long as you keep arguing what you SCIENTIFICALLY know is false, you will lose.

And you are losing badly here.

When I was pregnant with our four children, I did not kick myself from the inside with my own feet.  I did not have two hearts, one of which beat faster than mine.  I was privileged to have an entirely different person inside of me, for which I was responsible to nurture, feed and allow to thrive.

Those four babies are now in their thirties, and strangely enough, they are STILL separate human beings and the SAME human beings that their DNA carried when I felt their tiny feet kick me.

You are wrong.  The left is wrong.  It is a lie that you have chosen to swallow, even though you, as an intelligent human being (who was, not incidentally NEVER your mother's "body") ought to be able to figure out.

Work on it.

Well said!

[Hoodat]

Changing Roe v Wade MUST be done by first persuading the woman.

Personally, I prefer doing it by following the Constitution.  Clearly, you are opposed to following the Constitution.

[Hoodat]

Tell that to people, mostly Mormons,  in Utah, that they should have the one size fits all law that is the same in New York, Maryland, Massachusetts and California. That doesn't fly at all.

Sadly, there are a few here who prefer fascism over the Constitutional government our Founding Fathers endowed us with.

[Smokin Joe]

Sadly, there are a few here who prefer fascism over the Constitutional government our Founding Fathers endowed us with.

Unfortunately, people forget the purpose of the Constitution: to establish and define the limited power of a Federal Government, and to secure the Rights and Powers of the State governments and the People. They have been trying to get around it since the ink was still wet. 

[Cyber Liberty]

@musiclady

Do you find it odd that the only ones here championing abortion rights are men?

Doesn't seem odd to me at all.  I mentioned a couple of times the purpose of abortion isn't for the "health of the Mother."

[corbe]

Mike Lee met with Trump about Supreme Court opening

By Brett Samuels  - 07/03/18 01:28 PM EDT  

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) interviewed with President Trump about the looming Supreme Court vacancy, the senator’s communications director confirmed Tuesday.

Conn Carroll tweeted confirmation of a Deseret News story that said Lee met with Trump on Monday about the opening that will be created by Justice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement at the end of the month.

<..snip..>

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/395386-mike-lee-met-with-trump-about-supreme-court-opening

[Emjay]

I'll say it louder since you've got your eyes shut and your ears covered.....


IT IS NOT HER BODY.  THE BABY IS A SEPARATE HUMAN BEING.

As long as you keep arguing what you SCIENTIFICALLY know is false, you will lose.

And you are losing badly here.

When I was pregnant with our four children, I did not kick myself from the inside with my own feet.  I did not have two hearts, one of which beat faster than mine.  I was privileged to have an entirely different person inside of me, for which I was responsible to nurture, feed and allow to thrive.

Those four babies are now in their thirties, and strangely enough, they are STILL separate human beings and the SAME human beings that their DNA carried when I felt their tiny feet kick me.

You are wrong.  The left is wrong.  It is a lie that you have chosen to swallow, even though you, as an intelligent human being (who was, not incidentally NEVER your mother's "body") ought to be able to figure out.

Work on it.

Well said, @musiclady   It infuriates me when people keep using that 'her body, her choice' thing.  And you explained it perfectly.  I named my children before they were born and they were always separate and loved beings to me.

[txradioguy]

My position is crystal clear.   I'm staunchly Pro-Life.  American culture isn't.

Changing Roe v Wade MUST be done by first persuading the woman. 

And, a Republican has a better chance of shaking hands with Jesus before that ever happens.

Standing on your principles, while admirable....and $1.89 will get you a 16 oz coffee at your local 7-11.

You're making the false assumption that the majority of women aren't already persuaded.

And because you assume falsely "American Culture" isn't behind overturning Roe you're more than happy to chuck your "staunchly pro life views" instead of standing up for them.

You've bought completely into the media narrative on this issue which is surprising given your comment's the other day about the media.

It's a good thing at crucial times in our nation's history people who stood on their principles for something they believed in didn't cave as easily as you seem willing to do.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

So for the rest, it’s not even a categorical question, it’s just a question of where the line is drawn, and that is all about balancing competing interests.  On that basis, there nothing illogical or immoral to drawing the line at the point of real viability.

You so cavalierly call the killing of a living being 'balancing competing interests'.

Symptomatic of the disease liberalism has become.

[Smokin Joe]

You're making the false assumption that the majority of women aren't already persuaded.

And because you assume falsely "American Culture" isn't behind overturning Roe you're more than happy to chuck your "staunchly pro life views" instead of standing up for them.

You've bought completely into the media narrative on this issue which is surprising given your comment's the other day about the media.

It's a good thing at crucial times in our nation's history people who stood on their principles for something they believed in didn't cave as easily as you seem willing to do.

It is indeed sad that a few hundred or even thousand people with good camera angles and media repetition can assume the mantle of authority for 150,000,000 plus women, whether or not the rest agree. Unfortunately, something the communists learned when the Bolsheviks declared themselves (by name) to be the "Majority Party", is that those who believe they are seriously outnumbered will capitulate, even though the impression is a media trick.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Is an infant "viable"? A toddler? A five year-old? We don't even let kids run the french fry machine at 13, and though capable of reproduction, are they really "viable"?

That's a sliding scale you can put anywhere, a word game.

Viability is not an obscure concept @Smokin Joe   Viability of a fetus (not a toddler, not a teenager, not the fireman, doctor, grocer or grandparent) is the point at which the fetus can survive outside the womb--and yes, the legal interpretation allows for, encourages, every from of neonatal care currently available to assist the baby.

The earliest a fetus will survive outside the womb is 23 weeks of gestation (5+ months) with 20--35 percent of babies born at this stage of the pregnancy surviving with long term medical assistance. 

The definition of viability is not arbitrary or complicated  --- and neither is it a subject for ridicule and sarcasm.

[txradioguy]

@musiclady

Do you find it odd that the only ones here championing abortion rights are men?

It's also odd to find people championing something that was the idea first championed by an unapologetic racist with designs on using abortion to rid America of blacks.  There's a reason Margaret Sanger opened her first clinic in Harlem.

Hint: It wasn't because she was championing a woman's liberty via abortion.

[Smokin Joe]

You so cavalierly call the killing of a living being 'balancing competing interests'.

Symptomatic of the disease liberalism has become.

Murder most foul, "Sanitized for your protection".

[thackney]

Viability is not an obscure concept @Smokin Joe   Viability of a fetus (not a toddler, not a teenager, not the fireman, doctor, grocer or grandparent) is the point at which the fetus can survive outside the womb--and yes, the legal interpretation allows for, encourages, every from of neonatal care currently available to assist the baby.

The earliest a fetus will survive outside the womb is 23 weeks of gestation (5+ months) with 20--35 percent of babies born at this stage of the pregnancy surviving with long term medical assistance. 

The definition of viability is not arbitrary or complicated  --- and neither is it a subject for ridicule and sarcasm.

So the right for the baby not to be intentionally killed is based upon available technology?  And changes with the advancements in medicine?