WTF! Us state takes aim at abortions

[Kevrockcity]

why is your judiciary allowed to be politically appointed?

thats just wrong. ours is the counter balance to the state because it ansewerable to a higher authortity

what higher authority? the crown? that's better than being nominated by someone elected by the people and then confirmed by a majority of congress whose members are elected?

how do your justices find their seats on the court?

 

[alonso767]

i dont know if i would say that the bill of rights is fundamentally undemocratic...

most of the rights created by the document are generally built upon sound principles.

 

[The Kippax Kid]

i think the fetus acts an extra fifth.

i sincerly hope this point was meant as some kind of sick joke.


if not i find it offensive, abusive and downright degrading.

 

[alonso767]

but i find it ironic that we preach "spreading democracy" to other nations, when the document in accordance with which our government operates is fundamentally un-democratic.

 

[Kevrockcity]

of course it's fundamentally undemocratic. that was the point. that there are unalienable rights that cannot be violated whether a majority wants to or not.

 

[Kevrockcity]

i sincerly hope this point was meant as some kind of sick joke.


if not i find it offensive, abusive and downright degrading.

if it wasn't a joke? how could i be serious?

 

[alonso767]

fair point.

but most of the rights are not guaranteed in the absolute sense. restrictions have been placed upon them. limitations upon freedom of speech, etc.

 

[The Kippax Kid]

what higher authority? the crown? that's better than being nominated by someone elected by the people and then confirmed by a majority of congress whose members are elected?

how do your justices find their seats on the court?

the crown is above politics

an alien concept maybe, but a worthwhile one.


the queen in effect still holds absolute power over our executive, legislatutre and exectuive.

its novel i know but our democracy has worked for longer than anyone elses

 

[Kevrockcity]

a queen with absolute power over elected branches is not a democracy. it may be what you want, or what you see as preferable, but democracy it is not.

 

[Slabber]

bush is not the leader of the republican party in the same way that blair is the leader of labour. and he is especially has no part to play in what legislation states pass. state legislatures act independently of the president of the united states. congress is somewhat similar to parliament in your analogy. but no one is arguing that congress pass anything in regards to abortion. on the contrary, i say the federal government plays no role in it.

i never said she couldn't. i said the supreme court had no say in whether she could or could not. or any part of the federal government for that matter. that's where it's facist.

You're confusing things. Where control of the Republican Party lies and thus control over the legislature lies is not the point. If to prohibit abortion is a breach of the fundamental rights of women, to outlaw it's prohibition from the top, by whatever mechanism, is not fascist.

So you need to explain why it is permissible that a woman should not be able to terminate a pregnancy of 20 weeks. To say that it is up to the locals is to avoid the argument as to why the locals should have the right to breach the fundamental rights of their neighbours, if the have such rights.

Given that a woman has an enshrined right to terminate a 12 week pregnancy, why should anyone be able to stop a woman terminating a 20 week pregnancy? Is the 12 week rule wrong so that she should never be able to terminate? And if not, why do those 8 weeks make any difference?

 

[Wibble]

The Queen has absolute power right up to the point where she exercises those rights, at which point she would be legislated out of power. A bizarre yet seemingly workable solution.

 

[The Kippax Kid]

The Queen has absolute power right up to the point where she exercises those right at which point she would be legeslated out of power. A bizarre yet seemingly workable solution.

superbly put wibbs

and who would tell her she couldnt have an abortion.?

 

[Wibble]

Someone should have just before Charlie boy at the very least.

 

[Bearded but no genius]

why is your judiciary allowed to be politically appointed?

thats just wrong. ours is the counter balance to the state because it ansewerable to a higher authortity

Who? God? The Queen?

Our judges are answerable to no one except the law.

Supreme Court justices are appointed for life. They can do whatever they bloody well please. They aren't attached to anyone.

The most effective liberal Supreme Court Chief Justice was appointed by Eisenhower.

 

[The Kippax Kid]

Given that a woman has an enshrined right to terminate a 12 week pregnancy, why should anyone be able to stop a woman terminating a 20 week pregnancy? Is the 12 week rule wrong so that she should never be able to terminate? And if not, why do those 8 weeks make any difference?

and for every women it is different.

a week here a week there, is NOT THE FOOKING POINT,

it is her choice.

ffs,it upsets me, as it sounds we are returning to the dark ages where all we do we is provide cannon fodder for the bastards who decide who to go to war.

 

[Bearded but no genius]

I see your answer was the Queen.

I think that's insane, to be honest.

But that's just me.

Abortion is too ingrained in American law to be legislated out of existence. For starters, the US Supreme Court would have to overrule three decades worth of jurisprudence establishing it as a fundamental right.

And even then, it would only give states the right to prohibit it. This does not mean every state would. I figure maybe as many as 20 would, but that leaves 30 states where it is perfectly legal.

It will not ever be entirely outlawed in the US.

FWIW, I think the anti-abortion lobby are largely godsquading whackjobs.

 

[Bearded but no genius]

and for every women it is different.

a week here a week there, is NOT THE FOOKING POINT,

it is her choice.

ffs,it upsets me, as it sounds we are returning to the dark ages where all we do we is provide cannon fodder for the bastards who decide who to go to war.

Do you think the US's viablily sysrem is going back to the Dark Ages?

Under this system, a baby who could survive outside the womb at that age with medical assistance cannot be aborted.

Surely that's a reasonable system. If you wait until week 40, should you be able to do it then? Should it be an absolute right?

I think the viability test properly measures women's freedom of choice and privacy and the state's interest in preserving what at some point does become an actual live person.

 

[Wibble]

Only largely?

 

[Slabber]

I think the viability test properly measures women's freedom of choice and privacy and the state's interest in preserving what at some point does become an actual live person.

But what happens when science gets to the point that viability exists before the mother even has knowledge and therefore choice?

 

[Bearded but no genius]

But what happens when science gets to the point that viability exists before the mother even has knowledge and therefore choice?

That's very unlikely to happen before there is some scientific means to take the fecker out and let her carry on with her life.

 

[The Kippax Kid]

I see your answer was the Queen.

I think that's insane, to be honest.

But that's just me.

Abortion is too ingrained in American law to be legislated out of existence. For starters, the US Supreme Court would have to overrule three decades worth of jurisprudence establishing it as a fundamental right.

And even then, it would only give states the right to prohibit it. This does not mean every state would. I figure maybe as many as 20 would, but that leaves 30 states where it is perfectly legal.

It will not ever be entirely outlawed in the US.

FWIW, I think the anti-abortion lobby are largely godsquading whackjobs.

i dont remember asking you to pit your oar in.

go back to your daleks

 

[Bearded but no genius]

Only largely?

They're fat.

It shoudl read are 'large Godsquading whackjobs'.

Although there is a decent argument to not allow abortions right at the very end. Do we want the doctor to walk in as the woman is starting to go into labour and say 'is this a keeper'?

 

[Bearded but no genius]

i dont remember asking you to pit your oar in.

go back to your daleks

You painted my country and my court system as a backward bunch of maniacal feckmonkeys.

You're stuck with me now.

 

[Wibble]

Under this system, a baby who could survive outside the womb at that age with medical assistance cannot be aborted.

The problem with this definition is (and is increasingly going to be) that we can get a foetus/baby to survive from a very early age now. Despite the almost universal health issues that make me wonder if it is humane to do.

Surely that's a reasonable system. If you wait until week 40, should you be able to do it then? Should it be an absolute right?

There has to be a point where we say the foetus is a person and after that point they gain rights that cannot be taken away by the mother. 12 weeks is however ludicrously early.

I think the viability test properly measures women's freedom of choice and privacy and the state's interest in preserving what at some point does become an actual live person.

See my reservations above. As medicine advances the window of opportunity will shorten and shorten.

Perhaps a more informed decision might also involve data on brain funtion at a particular age.

 

[The Kippax Kid]

I think the viability test properly measures women's freedom of choice and privacy and the state's interest in preserving what at some point does become an actual live person.

what the fook does the state have to do with that choice?


china decides babies...is that your next step

 

[Wibble]

They're fat.

It shoudl read are 'large Godsquading whackjobs'.

Although there is a decent argument to not allow abortions right at the very end. Do we want the doctor to walk in as the woman is starting to go into labour and say 'is this a keeper'?

A few peopl I have met have made me consider extending the period until after birth. Say by about 40 ears after birth.

 

[Bearded but no genius]

See my reservations above. As medicine advances the window of opportunity will shorten and shorten.

Perhaps a more informed decision might also involve data on brain funtion at a particular age.

Once we can do this, it would be a much better means to handle it.

But we shouldn't wait until that day and until then allow abortions right before the baby is due. There has to be a line somewhere, doesn't there?

 

[Bearded but no genius]

A few peopl I have met have made me consider extending the period until after birth. Say by about 40 ears after birth.

Or 40 years even.

 

[Slabber]

That's very unlikely to happen before there is some scientific means to take the fecker out and let her carry on with her life.

Some women don't discover they are pregnant for ages.

 

[FresnoBob]

So South Dakota can't ban abortions during the first three months?

It's the 12-24 week period that's in issue?

Not really. Anti-abortion folks have tried to circumvent Roe v. Wade several ways--"informed consent" (read "having a non-medical person talk the girl out of the abortion"), requiring the father to consent (that was rejected by the courts also), notification of parents of minors (an open question, but the courts so far have said "no").
If I recall correctly (i follow crim law, not generic consitutional) in Roe v. Wade, the court determined that the state of the art (circa 1973) was that abortions were safe for the first 3 months, not that bad for the next 3, and possibly real dangerous for mommy the last 3. Similarly, the foetus was not viable the first trimester, probably not the second, and quite likely was the final trimester. The court found that the state had NO interest in regulating abortion the first trimester, some for the second trimester, and a strong interest for the third (as the viable foetus might, I guess) be seen as potentially a separate person with attached basic rights.
I'm not sure what the South Dakota law entails nor, as a current resident of California do I care but--all the above being the state of the law, the original decision in Roe v. Wade was a 5-4 vote in the Supreme Court. While all lower courts (state and federal) have to apply the law, perhaps the opponents actually think that the two new appointees will vote to overturn a 32-33 year old precedent. I'm not so sure.

 

[Slabber]

There's no logic as to why this should be decided at State level.

 

[Bearded but no genius]

what the fook does the state have to do with that choice?


china decides babies...is that your next step

So you don't believe the state ever has any interest in the life of an unborn foetus?

Not even, say 12 hours before the birth? Or as it's born?

The state has no interest whatsoever in, say, someone clubbing the baby's head off as it is being born but before it pops all of the way out?

What about murder when someone is murdered and their baby is as well? Should that be one murder charge or two?

And you called my country extremists.

 

[Slabber]

Not really. Anti-abortion folks have tried to circumvent Roe v. Wade several ways--"informed consent" (read "having a non-medical person talk the girl out of the abortion"), requiring the father to consent (that was rejected by the courts also), notification of parents of minors (an open question, but the courts so far have said "no").
If I recall correctly (i follow crim law, not generic consitutional) in Roe v. Wade, the court determined that the state of the art (circa 1973) was that abortions were safe for the first 3 months, not that bad for the next 3, and possibly real dangerous for mommy the last 3. Similarly, the foetus was not viable the first trimester, probably not the second, and quite likely was the final trimester. The court found that the state had NO interest in regulating abortion the first trimester, some for the second trimester, and a strong interest for the third (as the viable foetus might, I guess) be seen as potentially a separate person with attached basic rights.
I'm not sure what the South Dakota law entails nor, as a current resident of California do I care but--all the above being the state of the law, the original decision in Roe v. Wade was a 5-4 vote in the Supreme Court. While all lower courts (state and federal) have to apply the law, perhaps the opponents actually think that the two new appointees will vote to overturn a 32-33 year old precedent. I'm not so sure.

So what is the federal minimum period during which abortion is legal, all things being equal?

 

[Slabber]

So you don't believe the state ever has any interest in the life of an unborn foetus?

I think you're confusing the State with the individual States. There's no principled reason why this shouldn't be a federal matter.

 

[The Kippax Kid]

will vote to overturn a 32-33 year old precedent. I'm not so sure.

we have been having babies for thousands of years ffs and somehow we have come up with fookwits like you what the fook do you men know about it?

you make laws saying we cant do this, we cant do that.

FOOK OFF YOU SEXIST BASTARDS

 

[Bearded but no genius]

There's no logic as to why this should be decided at State level.

It isn't, or at least the overall issue of whether it should be legal at all is not.

It is a fundamental right for a woman to abort a non-viable foetus. The state cannot violate that fundamental right. The trimester system of Roe was replaced with viability in Casey in the 1980s.

Certain states have repeatedly passed laws that attempt to do so. This is to appease a certain political base rather than in a belief their law is constitutional.

This is another case of that happening.

 

[FresnoBob]

He can amend federal laws though, and he can amend the constitution (not personally, obviously, but via his party).

In order to amend the constitution, not only must 2/3 +1 member of each house of the legislature agree (and the GOP doesn't have the numbers), but 34 of the 50 states must also agree. Bush cannot amend the constitution via his party.

 

[The Kippax Kid]

SORRY IM GOING TO BED.

im upset at the lack of support (thanks to slabbs x)

 

[Bearded but no genius]

I think you're confusing the State with the individual States. There's no principled reason why this shouldn't be a federal matter.

It is a federal matter.

But constitutionally, it's regulation cannot be the exclusive province of the federal government. It's not one of the powers that the states gave to the federal government.

 

[Slabber]

we have been having babies for thousands of years ffs and somehow we have come up with fookwits like you

Perhaps you should all be more careful who you sleep with.