News:

Nitpicky? Hell yes.

Main Menu

Roe vs Wade under fire, again

Started by Buddy, May 03, 2022, 02:38:15 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

No one

I solved the problem.
All the ladies have to do is store guns in their bajingos and the government will leave them alone.

You're welcome.

Asmodean

#61
Quote from: Recusant on May 27, 2022, 08:03:38 AMIn the theory of government behind the US Constitution, all power and rights are held by the people. The people elect representatives to administer those powers and rights. Thus the 9th Amendment. In this understanding, government does not and can not bestow "new rights." It protects and regulates rights, which are inherent to the people.
The government can uphold a right - or not. Or actively prevent you from exercising it (Such as your right to possess and deploy nuclear weapons, for instance) It doesn't matter if the right is new or otherwise.  It does matter if it infringes upon the rights of others.

QuoteIt's been a couple of years since I read Amar's book on the US Constitution so I got it off the shelf and looked to see what it says about the right to privacy. Amar specifically includes the right to privacy in a discussion of the 14th Amendment, which gives the federal government the duty to protect rights from infringement by the states. He describes the US Supreme Court as having recognised that the right to privacy is one of the most important unenumerated rights which must be protected from infringement.
And yet you don't have the right to end your own life, except by refusing treatment for a condition you did not cause yourself. Apparently that right stops at its ultimate expression. (Actually, long before that)

QuoteWhat do you view as reasonable legal arguments in support of the infringement of a woman's right to control her own life, specifically her capacity for reproduction? What compelling governmental interest is being advanced which clearly outweighs a woman's right to bodily autonomy?
What I personally find compelling, is protecting third party rights, potentially including those of the unborn.

A quick [EDIT] to the above, to avoid misinterpretation. I'm talking about third party rights where they are in conflict with first party rights, and not to the exclusion of such rights where possible. One line of argument might go something like this; a human foetus is alive. It is a member of the species h. sapiens sapiens. As such, it has the right not to be deprived of life without due process. (Or does it? Well, it has certain property rights, so why/why not the rights needed to exercise them?) That right then has to be weighed against the mother's right to kill it (Or, amputate it, if you prefer those semantics. Though if you do, notice that I said "kill," not "murder." Those are the semantics I prefer) How is that different from a pro-life argument, some may and do ask? Due process. I'm all for ending a life - or not letting it "start"- as long as certain criteria have been met.[End EDIT]

That said, you may be indirectly misrepresenting my argument - I'm not advocating for a ban on abortion, nor for opening for state action against the mother. Civil action - yes, absolutely. Criminalizing the mother - no, with possible exceptions.

I am, however, advocating for government meddling with service providers, forcing them into certain courses of action under certain circumstances. It could amount to the same (As it does with my example of suicide - it's not the state that puts your suicidal ass on a psych hold, technically, but it kind-of is) but it is a different argument. It's the case of regulating elective surgery. (Assuming that the abortion is not being performed for pressing medical reasons)
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on July 25, 2013, 08:18:52 PM
In Asmo's grey lump,
wrath and dark clouds gather force.
Luxembourg trembles.

billy rubin



more people have been to berlin than i have

Dark Lightning

I've had a "blue steel" hard-on in the past, but this tops that! Talk about stretched out of shape...

viocjit

PART 1/3

I'm a French citizen living in France but I follow what happens about "Roe V. Wade" because I understood a fundamental thing.

This fundamental thing is the next : If this case is reversed. The impact of this event isn't only about USA because it can inspire anti-abortion lobbies in others countries.



PART 2/3

If this case is reversed. What will happens next ? Why not the end of "Miller test" who will permit to each states , territories , district of Columbia , tribal governments to ban porn if they
want.

Life is already difficult for people working in porn industry.
If one day porn became illegal in nearly everywhere or everywhere in United States of America it will create a black market.
Those advocating for those working in this industry can tell you better than me the consequences.

Life is already difficult for people working in porn industry for many reasons and unhappily I can't be exhaustive because there are so many reasons.

1.Stigmatization in social life and professional life.
a.If you are a well known cisgender porn actor in straight movies. Find a common job after porn will not be easy and this is worse for cisgender men who made gay or bi. It's worse for cisgender women compared to cisgendered men. The worse of the worse is for transgenders who are more discriminated.
b.Sexual harassment

2.De facto limits about freedom of speech.
a.Do you know some financials services limit yourself in the porn you can do ? For example with some of them you can't show blood during periods and if you do so you won't be able to access to services.
b.Some banks refuse to give you a loan if you work in porn and less money means less artistic liberty.
It does have consequences in your personal life and not only in your professional life.
You have a legal work but banks refuse because of theirs internal rules written or not.

3.Western societies pretend you're free to live like you want if you're not a threat for another person.
If you do porn you are de facto under obligation to use a nickname in your professional life to protect yourself and we know the real names of very few porn actors/actresses compared to others celebrities.

What is Miller test ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test



PART 3/3

If "Roe V. Wade" reach its end. Maybe one day it will be the end of "Lawrence V. Texas".
This landmark from year 2003 make that nowadays homosexual activities are legal everywhere in USA.

Wikipedia entry about this : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas

Recusant

Quote from: Asmodean on May 30, 2022, 08:07:37 AMThe government can uphold a right - or not. Or actively prevent you from exercising it (Such as your right to possess and deploy nuclear weapons, for instance) It doesn't matter if the right is new or otherwise.  It does matter if it infringes upon the rights of others.

Agreed, though the reasoning of the draft decision strongly relies on the idea that the US Constitution does not explicitly acknowledge a woman's right to bodily autonomy, asserting that the relatively recent acknowledgement of this right renders it invalid.

Quote from: Asmodean on May 30, 2022, 08:07:37 AMAnd yet you don't have the right to end your own life, except by refusing treatment for a condition you did not cause yourself. Apparently that right stops at its ultimate expression. (Actually, long before that)

In a number of jurisdictions you do indeed have the right to choose to end your own life (regulated more in some jurisdictions than others). There has been legal physician-assisted suicide in Oregon since 1997, for instance. As of now, eight other states and the District of Columbia have passed similar legislation. And of course it is legal in at least a couple of countries in Europe as well.


Quote from: Asmodean on May 30, 2022, 08:07:37 AMWhat I personally find compelling, is protecting third party rights, potentially including those of the unborn.

A quick [EDIT] to the above, to avoid misinterpretation. I'm talking about third party rights where they are in conflict with first party rights, and not to the exclusion of such rights where possible. One line of argument might go something like this; a human foetus is alive. It is a member of the species h. sapiens sapiens. As such, it has the right not to be deprived of life without due process. (Or does it? Well, it has certain property rights, so why/why not the rights needed to exercise them?) That right then has to be weighed against the mother's right to kill it (Or, amputate it, if you prefer those semantics. Though if you do, notice that I said "kill," not "murder." Those are the semantics I prefer) How is that different from a pro-life argument, some may and do ask? Due process. I'm all for ending a life - or not letting it "start"- as long as certain criteria have been met.[End EDIT]

That said, you may be indirectly misrepresenting my argument - I'm not advocating for a ban on abortion, nor for opening for state action against the mother. Civil action - yes, absolutely. Criminalizing the mother - no, with possible exceptions.

I am, however, advocating for government meddling with service providers, forcing them into certain courses of action under certain circumstances. It could amount to the same (As it does with my example of suicide - it's not the state that puts your suicidal ass on a psych hold, technically, but it kind-of is) but it is a different argument. It's the case of regulating elective surgery. (Assuming that the abortion is not being performed for pressing medical reasons)

Your example of suicide is flawed, as I noted above, but I don't think that actually detracts from your argument.

Blastocysts and early term embryos do not have personal rights in my opinion. You may have a differing opinion. Where do you draw the line regarding what qualifies as a "member of the species h. sapiens sapiens."?

Regardless of the fact that not all of the genetic material comes from the woman, the cells involved are formed by her body. I would think that a libertarian view would support her right to self-determination regarding her body's functions. Who do you think has a right to initiate civil action against a woman for choosing abortion, and on what grounds?
"Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration — courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and above all, love of the truth."
— H. L. Mencken


Asmodean

Quote from: Recusant on June 05, 2022, 06:31:14 AMAgreed, though the reasoning of the draft decision strongly relies on the idea that the US Constitution does not explicitly acknowledge a woman's right to bodily autonomy, asserting that the relatively recent acknowledgement of this right renders it invalid.

...And I may share your objection while still supporting the decision overall. A large part of my argument here was intended to show that there is a third spectrum of points of view, and a diverse and numerous one at that. There are situations where I would seriously consider leaving Roe v. Wade alone, in spite of being reasonably certain that it was a bad decision. I would still advocate for replacing it with law, which would be subject to change with changing societal needs, but absent that, yes, I'd take it over a federal ban.

QuoteIn a number of jurisdictions you do indeed have the right to choose to end your own life (regulated more in some jurisdictions than others).
I would be more than happy to apply this exact line of thinking to the abortion question. Let people decide if they want it on as local a level as is practical.

QuoteThere has been legal physician-assisted suicide in Oregon since 1997, for instance. As of now, eight other states and the District of Columbia have passed similar legislation. And of course it is legal in at least a couple of countries in Europe as well.
And yet we are speaking of something specific here, are we not?
Quote from: the provided citationOregon's Death with Dignity Act allows terminally ill...


...4. diagnosed with a terminal illness (incurable and irreversible) that will lead to death within six months.

What if I'm just sick and tired of life, but otherwise healthy? What if I Simply. Had. Enough? Too bad for me, I guess, legally speaking.

QuoteYour example of suicide is flawed, as I noted above, but I don't think that actually detracts from your argument.
...But it is not. Well, it is, but not in the way I see it as meaningful. From what I understand of the current Roe v. Wade situation, it's actually an excellent example;

It opens for interference with an individual's right to self-determination/body autonomy/ownership of self.
What legislation there is is very limiting in when a service provider may or may not provide the service.
The limitations depend on the person asking for the service having sufficient state of mind and reason to.

It is, to a degree, decided locally - as you have demonstrated. Let's get abortion there, is my position.

So for what I use them for, I think my examples are adequate. Why should if be any different when I walk in to a doctor's office and want a pregnancy terminated than when I walk in and want my arm chopped off, or my life ended?Morally and legally speaking, why should it be easier to take a human life - whatever its stage of development - than to get rid of a toe, because you no longer want it?

QuoteBlastocysts and early term embryos do not have personal rights in my opinion. You may have a differing opinion. Where do you draw the line regarding what qualifies as a "member of the species h. sapiens sapiens."?
It's a complex question that may require more long-form discussion than my shoulder is perfectly happy with at this time, but a short and somewhat cheap-and-cheerful answer; distinct DNA with reasonable expectation of the life form carrying it developing into what is commonly known as a baby. I also think human rights should apply as distinct from personhood. (A braindead human is hardly a person, but should still have them, for instance. You [here, the physician in charge] don't necessarily get to pull the plug on a whim)

[EDIT]Pre-emptive clarification; above, I'm talking about the rights as a human, as opposed to a cat or a fly, not necessarily the legalistic definition of capital H Human Rights.

QuoteRegardless of the fact that not all of the genetic material comes from the woman, the cells involved are formed by her body. I would think that a libertarian view would support her right to self-determination regarding her body's functions. Who do you think has a right to initiate civil action against a woman for choosing abortion, and on what grounds?
Let's start with the obvious; the father, who may have wanted that child on the grounds that, while the child was yet to be born, it was alive and would have been likely to have been born in a regular fashion. That child was killed by the act of abortion. Legally speaking, I'd look into everything from self-defence to property rights.

I'm not certain what is or is not libertarian these days - I've long since given up political labels as mostly-useless, but I can say that I support your right to self-determination, as long as it does not affect someone else. If it does, I may still support it, but then only if your interests "weigh heavier" than those other affected parties'.

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on July 25, 2013, 08:18:52 PM
In Asmo's grey lump,
wrath and dark clouds gather force.
Luxembourg trembles.

No one

I do not have any lines in the play that is someone else's life.

Asmodean

Quote from: No one on June 07, 2022, 03:44:10 PMI do not have any lines in the play that is someone else's life.
Assuming you are not a survivalist and/or have like... Friends and family, how do you avoid it?
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on July 25, 2013, 08:18:52 PM
In Asmo's grey lump,
wrath and dark clouds gather force.
Luxembourg trembles.

No one

I don't interject my views into anyone else's business.

If someone asks, I'll give advice, but I will never demand they follow it.