Donald Trump
Comments
-
Was reading an interesting thread the other day about how access to abortion is not just allowed but required under Jewish religious law. There is (so I read) a very clear prioritising of the life of the mother over the unborn child. I'm sure I am oversimplifying but it was interesting nonetheless.First.Aspect said:It is hard to explain difficult and nuanced decisions to simpletons. And I tend towards anyone who believes in all powerful overseeing entities and an afterlife being on the simpleton end of things. Possibly this isnt a universally popular opinion, but it's hard to deny the broad correlation.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Hang on, wait, women are people too?rjsterry said:
Was reading an interesting thread the other day about how access to abortion is not just allowed but required under Jewish religious law. There is (so I read) a very clear prioritising of the life of the mother over the unborn child. I'm sure I am oversimplifying but it was interesting nonetheless.First.Aspect said:It is hard to explain difficult and nuanced decisions to simpletons. And I tend towards anyone who believes in all powerful overseeing entities and an afterlife being on the simpleton end of things. Possibly this isnt a universally popular opinion, but it's hard to deny the broad correlation.
0 -
Is there anywhere that doesn't allow abortion if the mother's life is at risk?rjsterry said:
Was reading an interesting thread the other day about how access to abortion is not just allowed but required under Jewish religious law. There is (so I read) a very clear prioritising of the life of the mother over the unborn child. I'm sure I am oversimplifying but it was interesting nonetheless.First.Aspect said:It is hard to explain difficult and nuanced decisions to simpletons. And I tend towards anyone who believes in all powerful overseeing entities and an afterlife being on the simpleton end of things. Possibly this isnt a universally popular opinion, but it's hard to deny the broad correlation.
0 -
Malta. Andorra. Lichtenstein. I think.TheBigBean said:
Is there anywhere that doesn't allow abortion if the mother's life is at risk?rjsterry said:
Was reading an interesting thread the other day about how access to abortion is not just allowed but required under Jewish religious law. There is (so I read) a very clear prioritising of the life of the mother over the unborn child. I'm sure I am oversimplifying but it was interesting nonetheless.First.Aspect said:It is hard to explain difficult and nuanced decisions to simpletons. And I tend towards anyone who believes in all powerful overseeing entities and an afterlife being on the simpleton end of things. Possibly this isnt a universally popular opinion, but it's hard to deny the broad correlation.
But there seems to be a tendency towards the term "substantial risk" in US state legislation. Strikes me as the sort of term that will be a subject if debate.
How much risk a person may wish to tolerate might not correspond to the level that a state supreme court might require them to take.0 -
I struggle with the logic of killing two people rather than one (taking the position of life begins at conception). It seems that Andorra and Malta are in that category. Wikipedia linked from Malta includes this gemFirst.Aspect said:
Malta. Andorra. Lichtenstein. I think.TheBigBean said:
Is there anywhere that doesn't allow abortion if the mother's life is at risk?rjsterry said:
Was reading an interesting thread the other day about how access to abortion is not just allowed but required under Jewish religious law. There is (so I read) a very clear prioritising of the life of the mother over the unborn child. I'm sure I am oversimplifying but it was interesting nonetheless.First.Aspect said:It is hard to explain difficult and nuanced decisions to simpletons. And I tend towards anyone who believes in all powerful overseeing entities and an afterlife being on the simpleton end of things. Possibly this isnt a universally popular opinion, but it's hard to deny the broad correlation.
But there seems to be a tendency towards the term "substantial risk" in US state legislation. Strikes me as the sort of term that will be a subject if debate.
How much risk a person may wish to tolerate might not correspond to the level that a state supreme court might require them to take.Indirect abortion is the name given by Catholic theologians to a medical procedure which has a therapeutic medical effect and also results in an abortion as a secondary effect. Edwin F. Healy makes a distinction between "direct abortions" that is, abortion which is either an end or a means, and "indirect abortions", where the loss of the fetus is then considered to be a "secondary effect."[1]
For example, if a woman is suffering an ectopic pregnancy (a fetus is developing in her fallopian tube, not the womb), a doctor may remove the fallopian tube as therapeutic treatment to prevent the woman's death. The fetus will not survive long after this, but the intention of the procedure and its action is to preserve the woman’s life. It is not a direct abortion.0 -
...and reading about the Pope threatening Andorra makes Europe seem just as crazy as some US states.0
-
Down the rabbit hole we go.0
-
An interesting take here: if this draft judgement stands, Rubin posits it will contravene the 13th amendment, which outlaws servitude. Oh the problems when you take outdated and incomplete historical documents, and try to interpret them literally for 21st-century law.
0 -
ddraver said:
I don't see a minority of Supreme Court Judges who are gonna give too many fucks about slavery...
But da Constitution...0 -
Seems like nonsense to me. For that construction to be correct, being a parent would be a form of servitude, in a legal sense.briantrumpet said:ddraver said:I don't see a minority of Supreme Court Judges who are gonna give too many fucks about slavery...
But da Constitution...
I know that's how a lot of parents feel, but hey.0 -
Rather dampens the Election mood....
Women and Gays next...
We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
The US has gone batshit crazy.0
-
Heard this on the radio and v v shocked.
The US is now back in the 1950s.The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
0 -
Term limits are the way forward. Either that or expand the court.0
-
They've also relaxed carry laws in NY State.
Its unbelievable..The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
0 -
Wouldn't have worked as both new Rep appointees and said tbey weren't interested in overturning during pre-appt discussions but here we are.imposter2.0 said:Term limits are the way forward. Either that or expand the court.
.The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
0 -
Clarence Thomas has been on the court for 31 years. A 20/25/30 year term limit (delete as appropriate) would have seen him replaced by now - potentially by someone who isn't a rabid fcking lunatic.MattFalle said:
Wouldn't have worked as both new Rep appointees and said tbey weren't interested in overturning during pre-appt discussions but here we are.imposter2.0 said:Term limits are the way forward. Either that or expand the court.
0 -
What do you mean "gone"?! It went when they voted in the orange one.First.Aspect said:The US has gone batshit crazy.
0 -
And expanding the court would enable the restoration of some of the balance destroyed by Trump..0
-
Every President prays for being able to "stack" the court. Trump got lucky and the US got shaftedimposter2.0 said:And expanding the court would enable the restoration of some of the balance destroyed by Trump..
0 -
There's nothing that says the court has to be this size. It hasn't always been.JimD666 said:
Every President prays for being able to "stack" the court. Trump got lucky and the US got shaftedimposter2.0 said:And expanding the court would enable the restoration of some of the balance destroyed by Trump..
0 -
I suspect that Biden hasn't moved on this yet because it would set the scene for subsequent adminiatrations to keep doing it and tilt the balance.imposter2.0 said:And expanding the court would enable the restoration of some of the balance destroyed by Trump..
0 -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_Act_of_1869 would disagree that there nothing that sets the size.kingstongraham said:
There's nothing that says the court has to be this size. It hasn't always been.JimD666 said:
Every President prays for being able to "stack" the court. Trump got lucky and the US got shaftedimposter2.0 said:And expanding the court would enable the restoration of some of the balance destroyed by Trump..
0 -
Interesting move by Disney.
I wonder if this is a prelude for corporate America to show some governance again, and start to pull out of states governed by zealots and red necks.
I certainly hope so yall.0 -
I mean not in the constitution.JimD666 said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_Act_of_1869 would disagree that there nothing that sets the size.kingstongraham said:
There's nothing that says the court has to be this size. It hasn't always been.JimD666 said:
Every President prays for being able to "stack" the court. Trump got lucky and the US got shaftedimposter2.0 said:And expanding the court would enable the restoration of some of the balance destroyed by Trump..
Laws can be made, but they have probably already waited too long to do it before the midterms. Only one side is willing to do everything that can be vaguely justified.0 -
Fair point.kingstongraham said:
I mean not in the constitution.JimD666 said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_Act_of_1869 would disagree that there nothing that sets the size.kingstongraham said:
There's nothing that says the court has to be this size. It hasn't always been.JimD666 said:
Every President prays for being able to "stack" the court. Trump got lucky and the US got shaftedimposter2.0 said:And expanding the court would enable the restoration of some of the balance destroyed by Trump..
Laws can be made, but they have probably already waited too long to do it before the midterms. Only one side is willing to do everything that can be vaguely justified.
Even if they did try (and had the votes) to change the law, guess what happens when it ends up challenged in the courts?
The bit I love most about the initial founding of the US was to try and separate Church and State. The founders knew had batpoo mental the religious extremists could get and did their best to keep it apart. Unfortunately they failed. This ruling is all about the religious right getting their way.0 -
Yes. He was sppointed under Bush. Both new Rep appts are as per MFs post above.imposter2.0 said:
Clarence Thomas has been on the court for 31 years. A 20/25/30 year term limit (delete as appropriate) would have seen him replaced by now - potentially by someone who isn't a rabid fcking lunatic.MattFalle said:
Wouldn't have worked as both new Rep appointees and said tbey weren't interested in overturning during pre-appt discussions but here we are.imposter2.0 said:Term limits are the way forward. Either that or expand the court.
And yes, both him and his wife arebatshit crazy..The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
0 -
Or, in the Reps' eyes, Dems would destroy the SC.imposter2.0 said:And expanding the court would enable the restoration of some of the balance destroyed by Trump..
.The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
0
