SCOTUS deciding EVOLUTION

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by Write4U, May 3, 2022.

  1. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,777
    I guess SCOTUS is willing to allow a rapist's DNA or a parental recessivie gene (DNA) into the human gene pool .

    Legitimate parents have no longer the right to select what offspring shall carry their genetic inheritance.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,322
    Before jumping to conclusions or your own opinions, it might be wise to wait for the publication of the ruling along with the reasoning and opinions of the justices.

    It seems that the headline rarely tells the complete story.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,777
    It says that the states should decide the matter and that means at this point 13 states have already abortion restrictions on the shelves. If SCOTUS turns over their own ruling (which is NOT law) the States are free to decide the matter for millions of women unless Congress makes a LAW protecting a woman's right to decide if she wants her body to continue to develop an unwanted life. And the Republicans will invoke the filibuster to block any law granting a woman the right to her own body.
    Christian Sharia Law is coming folks! Bye-bye, Establishment Clause. Hello Theocracy!

    My observation stands. If abortion is outlawed it will result in unwanted DNA entering the gene pool.
    Mother Nature will not like this. The results may be calamitous. Bounty for spying on your neighbor just like the NAZIs did on the Jews? Has this country gone completely insane?

    Even though I am an Atheist, since Trump came to power, this country is going to Hell.
    He is the Demon spirit. Where he has walked things begin to self-destruct.
     
    Last edited: May 3, 2022
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,146
    What conclusions would they be? That 5 far right Christian justices who have whined about women's right to choose on numerous occasions are looking to overturn Roe?

    I mean, sure, we can try to argue that the headline rarely tells the complete story, except we read the majority ruling draft, and also read how Alito has indicated same sex marriage, interracial marriage, access to birth control are also at risk because they disagree with those precedents..

    Nor could we possibly infer that they want to end access to abortion (despite repeatedly telling us so), when Alito refers to Sir Matthew Hale in his draft:

    “Two treatises by Sir Matthew Hale,” Alito wrote in his argument to end legal abortion across America, “described abortion of a quick child who died in the womb as a ‘great crime’ and a ‘great misprision.’ See M. Hale, Pleas of the Crown.”

    How interesting that Alito would cite Pleas of the Crown! That’s the text, published in 1736, 60 years after Hale’s death, that defended and laid the foundation for the marital rape exemption across the world.

    But please, tell us how we are jumping to conclusions some more because nothing they have said in the past and have said now, could possibly be what they actually mean.
     
  8. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,777
    Overturning Roe v. Wade Could Have Devastating Health and Financial Impacts, Landmark Study Showed
    more.......
    https://www.scientificamerican.com/...-and-financial-impacts-landmark-study-showed/

    So what happens to a woman's right to pursue happiness when she is forced to suffer through 9 months of unwanted pregnancy and another 18 years of rearing an unwanted child, who may be the product of violent rape or be genetically damaged from a familial recessive gene?

    Seems to me that this is forcing a woman to suffer almost 20 years of her life in an "unhappy state".

    Who has the authority to order such constitutional insult on a woman?
    Instead of ordering such burden, is SCOTUS not tasked to protect a person from such obligation?
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2022
  9. Motor Daddy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,425
    The point is that they are religious, and they are FORCING people in America to live according to their religious beliefs. It doesn't end at abortion.

    RELIGIOUS FREEDOM MY ASS!

    SCOTUS - "You WILL live by OUR religious rules."
     
  10. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,146
    They don't consider women to be equal or to have equal rights.
     
  11. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,777
    I guess women are not persons. They are broodmares.
     
  12. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,777
    In Muslim countries, it's called Sharia Law.
     
  13. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,322
  14. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,777
    Alito: “The inescapable conclusion is that a right to abortion is not deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and traditions,” Alito writes.

    IOW he is referring to the bible because apparently, 50 years of precedent (Roe) is not old enough.

    As I said Christian Sharia Law, except for the fact that the bible does not specifically say that life is sacred.
    Witness the unnecessary holy wars, because God was rumored to have blessed the murder of infidels, on both sides no less.

    Life is sacred is a man-made moral tenet and definitely falls under the consideration of SCOTUS.

    The question is if a fetus is a person and is therefore entitled to constitutional protections.

    So it comes down to what constitutes "personhood" instead of "manhood".
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2022
  15. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,790
    While I agree that the RvW decision is disastrous for the women of the United States, saying it will "decide evolution" isn't really valid. I mean, before we were able to perform abortions, evolution continued unabated.
     
    Bells and sideshowbob like this.
  16. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,322
    Roe is a bit of a sticky wicket
    in that it was 'legislation from the bench'
    It ain't the job of the scotus to legislate
    We have a legislature for that

    The scotus of the time was just kicking the can down the road
    and leaving it up to a future generation of the court to clean up their mess
    and so we have it
    the ball will most likely be back in the legislature's court soon

    by all means
    contact your legislative representatives and let them know what you want.
     
  17. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,777
    Yes, "evolution via natural selection", where nature decides who shall live to procreate and unsound offspring does not enjoy the protection of a "higher court".
     
  18. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,790
    Well, not quite. We regularly save premature babies who would have otherwise died, and support people with Down Syndrome, cystic fibrosis, diabetes, spina bifida, Tay-Sachs etc to the age where they can reproduce. So we do not heed natural selection these days..
     
  19. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,777
    True, but that is by choice of the parents who wanted the baby in the first place and have the means to support its care.

    Seems to me that impregnating an unwilling female automatically produces fruit from a poisoned tree (a legal term)

    But I am more interested in the properties, other than a "probability", that establish "personhood". After all, an unborn child has no legal status as a person with rights other than what the mother's body grants it even if the child is conceived out of love.

    Suppose the blood types between mother and fetus are incompatible and the fetus aborts spontaneously. Is the mother liable for "involuntary manslaughter" or "parental neglect"?

    Suppose the husband does not want a baby fathered by a rapist and makes his wife have an abortion, who becomes the party complicit in the murder? The father, mother, both???
     
  20. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,790
    Right. And that means there is now artificial selection towards unfitness.
    Nope. They are the same people, with the same rights, as anyone else.
     
  21. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,777
    Yes, indeed and I believe that is what makes humans one of the least disease-resistant species on earth. But we do have the ability to manufacture artificial vaccinations and immunizations. Unfortunately, that helps the evolution of bacteria with drug resistance.
    An illegally fertilized egg has rights? Does a growing cancer have legal rights?
    An illegal pregnancy results in a legal person?

    They keep fertilized eggs in a refrigerator for years. Can you keep a baby in a refrigerator while you go the see a good movie? Hospitals routinely dispose of fertilized eggs. Are they committing murder? And who decides all this?
    5 out of 9 people in black robes, who have lied their way into the position they hold?

    At what time does a fetus become a "person"? That is the legal question.

    And at no time does the woman host (victim) have a say in the matter?
    Seems to me that if a woman has the right to kill a rapist in self-defense, she has the right to kill his offspring in self-defense.
     
    Last edited: May 5, 2022
  22. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,790
    Nope. An egg is not a person.
    Yes. Once they are born they have as many rights as anyone else.
     
  23. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,777
    Right.
    But by definition an abortion never happens after birth when a fetus acquires personhood .

    So where is the justification for prohibiting abortion? And if individual states each have different definitions of personhood before birth, should SCOTUS not have an overriding obligation to enforce the concept that "personhood" is acquired only after birth and that until the baby is born, a woman's right of personhood trump the rights of a "potential" personhood of an unborn fetus.
     
    Last edited: May 5, 2022

Share This Page