HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Pantagruel » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next »

Pantagruel

Profile Information

Member since: Thu Dec 1, 2016, 04:57 PM
Number of posts: 2,321

Journal Archives

The concept of CHOICE:

"Reasonable people can disagree about when a zygote becomes a "human life" -- that's a philosophical question. However, regardless of whether or not one believes a fetus is ethically equivalent to an adult, it doesn't obligate a mother to sacrifice her body autonomy for another, innocent or not.

"Body autonomy is a critical component of the right to privacy protected by the Constitution, as decided in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), McFall v. Shimp (1978), and of course Roe v. Wade (1973). Consider a scenario where you are a perfect bone marrow match for a child with severe aplastic anemia; no other person on earth is a close enough match to save the child's life, and the child will certainly die without a bone marrow transplant from you. If you decided that you did not want to donate your marrow to save the child, for whatever reason, the state cannot demand the use of any part of your body for something to which you do not consent. It doesn't matter if the procedure required to complete the donation is trivial, or if the rationale for refusing is flimsy and arbitrary, or if the procedure is the only hope the child has to survive, or if the child is a genius or a saint or anything else -- the decision to donate must be voluntary to be constitutional. This right is even extended to a person's body after they die; if they did not voluntarily commit to donate their organs while alive, their organs cannot be harvested after death, regardless of how useless those organs are to the deceased or how many lives they would save.

"That's the law.

"Use of a woman's uterus to save a life is no different from use of her bone marrow to save a life -- it must be offered voluntarily. By all means, profess your belief that providing one's uterus to save the child is morally just, and refusing is morally wrong. That is a defensible philosophical position, regardless of who agrees and who disagrees. But legally, it must be the woman's choice to carry out the pregnancy. She may choose to carry the baby to term. She may choose not to. Either decision could be made for all the right reasons, all the wrong reasons, or anything in between. But it must be her choice, and protecting the right of body autonomy means the law is on her side.

"Supporting that precedent is what being pro-choice means."

Rise up ladies!!!

Overturning Roe is the GOP slapping you upside the head and telling you THEY (mostly old white men) control your reproductive destiny.

GET MAD and VOTE!!!

Chances of impeaching

Senators like Mike Lee and many other GOP senators for obstruction/sedition?
What are the elements necessary, votes needed?

Russia has clearly invaded

Ukraine and started a war.Western nations have provided U. with weapons. How about we give them missiles so every time R. fires at U. , U. can drop a bomb on a target in Russia. Or maybe we cede them an aircraft carrier to defend themselves? How is it the war must only be fought in Ukraine? Guess I'm a little naive?

What about armed drones to Ukraine ?

Everyone talking about Fighter planes being some kind of provocative violation of some escalation rule. So, maybe drones get the job done without risking pilots lives? Honestly, they could be operated from outside of Ukraine, who would know?

Would it be possible

to insert U.N. Peacekeepers to guard the FOUR Ukrainian nuclear reactor sites?

Audit the Texas vote!

If the GOP can do it, so can us progs!
Point out how the biased voter law changes suppressed the vote.
Make the TX GOP defend their silly regulations.

Memo to TX Gov. Abbott

"Trump's border wall has been breached more than 3,000 times by smugglers, CBP records show." The smuggling gangs have sawed through the newly built segments 3,272 times.
Every honest expert said it wouldn't work, every honest expert got it right.

Racial aspect of Ukraine conflict ?

I'm wondering if and when the "collateral damage" of the probable conflict hits the airwaves showing fair skinned , blue eyed bodies of women and children mangled and chopped as only cruel wars can, will that whiteness factor stir stronger emotions with our population and our UK, German and French allies. Will the response be different than if the carnage was affecting humans who simply don't look as much like our historically white, euro ethnicity? IOW, is racial empathy in pay here?

Ukraine military strategy?

How to best fight the Russians? Throw everything you got against them initially?
Or stockpile assets to wage a post invasion guerrilla war? Would appreciate hearing from our best strategists.
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next »