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

billy rubin

Quote from: Asmodean on May 10, 2022, 09:46:54 AMHmm... This is interesting.

I'm looking at it from my position of being OK with abortion on the basis that I do not hold a human life to be too sacred to end by an external force and decision. This applies to assisted suicide, regular suicide and death penalty as well, so I get to ride on my tiny, non-hypocritical white horse being all happy-like.




^^^this is important, because the sanctity of life argument ignores how many antiabortion people support execution and warfare and lethal force by people.

its a basic inconsistency in america, like the people who say , well, the word abortion isnt mentioned in the us constitution . . .

but ignore the fact that it isnt mentioned in christian scripture either.


more people have been to berlin than i have

Asmodean

Yeah, a lot of people over here have mutually-inconsistent views as well. Now, world view is subjective, so I don't necessarily see my relative consistency in principle here as particularly virtuous or the hypocrisy some people ignore in theirs as much of a problem, thus my aforementioned white horse being a admittedly tiny creature.

When it comes to law, however, if someone says that something is grounded in the constitution and someone else says it's not - now, that's testable, verifiable and precisely where objectivity in evaluating the claims actually has value. (As in, the question has a correct answer, regardless of perspective)

For instance, though it is the opposite to my own world view, I recognise the argument from morality/religion/tradition that abortion is wrong as valid. However, I fail to see how that being the case is grounded in the US constitution. Common law... Mmmhaybe. The constitution? Nah. I'm neither American nor a lawyer, and our local debate is slightly different since we have a right to self-determined abortion until week 18, but an guy does read on occasion, so... Treat this opinion as "normally informed," I suppose.

Of course, on the other side, the right to privacy is not precisely a constitutional right either. Or, practically speaking, bodily autonomy. (By that, I mean that the government does get involved if you try to, for instance, get a hold of some sleeping pills or pain killers. Your body - your choice, though? No? Or is it, in fact, only the case for the subset of population consisting of pregnant women in the subset of circumstances when they want to terminate the pregnancy?)

That's the kind of thing you would expect from subjective laws applied objectively. People making/voting for them will vote from their own preference - and at times, they will end up supporting the death penalty but opposing assisted suicide, or supporting restricted access to certain medications and procedures while fully supporting abortion rights. That's politics and that's... Fine, really.

What's not fine as I see it, is the way swaying the balance is addressed. In stead of convincing you that a certain law is right or wrong for you, people tend to try and brute force whatever they consider good for them. Oh, they may claim or even aspire to "higher ideals," but at the end of the day, you disagree, so they do not speak for you. And so you get stuff like, in this case, people leaking information and protesting on or outside judges' property and trying to sway a process that should really be a political one - in a country like the US, possibly on state level. Possibly federal... But like... I would not want the bloody EU messing with the rights and privileges of an individual here. I know that's shifting the scope somewhat, but it does illustrate where I'm coming from. If Poland wants to ban abortion but Denmark wants to keep it, far be it for the EU to tell them how to live, and although the US federal government is sort-of a different beast, does not the same apply to, say, Louisiana vs. Oregon?

So yeah, I'm back to advocating for a scenario where the decision gets overturned and actual laws that serve their local communities as well as they can are put in place in stead. And yes, that means compromising both extremes - if some communities do decide that they want absolute abortion rights right up until the cord is cut... I disagree, but so be it. If others decide that never is not rare enough... Again, I disagree, but so be it. I absolutely refuse to be pushed to an extreme or hold a view not my own, but when in proverbial Rome, I will do in Italian.
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

the thing is, in america there are rights that supercede yhe power and inclination of tbe state. specifically listed are "life, liberty, and tbe pursuit of happiness." but others are implied, as in our 4th amendment where a right to be "secure in our persons" is listed, and tbe 14th, which forbids the government from infringing on the"priveleges and immunities" of citizens.

do citizrns have the right to be left in peace to pursue their private lives without goverment iinterference, especially with respect to the security of their persons?  thats where the privacy thing comes from.

i think its reasonable to think that they do. if roe is overturned, there will no longer be a national common standard in law, and some places will have legal abortions, some wont, and some will have whacko laws like in louisiana, where a wpman can be executed for having an abortio , if HB813 passes


more people have been to berlin than i have

Anne D.

Quote from: Asmodean on May 12, 2022, 07:32:55 AM
QuoteIn a world where you're king, who do you envision sitting on this panel that evaluates each woman's reasons for ending her pregnancy?
The service provider. This is, however, a bit of a layer cake that would require tiers of oversight.


Ahahahahaha. LOL. Yes, the required "tiers of oversight." Hence my asking, who do you envision sitting on this panel of inquisitors, er, "overseers"?


Quote from: Asmodean on May 12, 2022, 07:32:55 AM
QuoteArbitrarily imposing consequences for "poor choices."
...Is not something I'm doing. That's what we have Cancel Culture for. What I am doing, is not helping clean up somebody else's mess if they have put themselves in it by choice, unless (and this relates to the above, what with all the reason stuff) they have explored and/or attempted alternate solutions.

I'm not asking you to help me clean up my mess, though. I'm asking you to stay out of my business and let me decide whether I'll allow a parasite to come to term in my body.

Quote from: Asmodean on May 12, 2022, 07:32:55 AMEDIT: It may have been prudent of me to expand on the whole reason for termination thing, and as I tend to, I get the feeling that I've created the need for a long-form discussion while trying to avoid one. Well, here goes.

In that utopia of dog-eat-dog Capitalism we may refer to as Kingdom of Asmodea, His Majesty does not care one iota about a woman's life story with regards to abortion. Nor do the courts or the health care providers or like... Random passer-bys.

When I talk about the need for sufficient reason, I do not speak of that particular woman's moral/ethical/economical justification for terminating a pregnancy... The reverse, if anything. Why is carrying pregnancy to term not a reasonable course of action? I think it's a valid question. If it's a reasoned decision, it should also be an easily answerable one.

And if the decision is not reasoned, then it would be up to the service provider to do their best to aid with that. Should the decision stand afterwards - fine. Due diligence was done, and all is well. Thus, "sufficient reason" here does not need to speak to abortion being a good choice - just to other options having been weighed and deemed unreasonable, or tried but failed (For instance, failure of contraception would be a shiny golden bastion of sufficient reason, while failure to use contraception would not - not quite that black and white - does not address the "if you pay for it yourself" side of it, for starters, but for illustrative purposes)

Anyhoo, I hope that illustrates my case a little better.

It doesn't help actually. I understood your use of "reason" just fine the first time. You've contradicted yourself above. You say that "failure of contraception would be a shiny golden bastion of sufficient reason" but above that you said that you were looking for reasons that "carrying a pregnancy to term would not be a reasonable course of action" as opposed to a woman's ethical, economic, etc. "justification" for ending the pregnancy. Contraception failure is not a reason that "carrying a pregnancy to term would not be a reasonable course of action." It's an ethical justification. Whether a person used or didn't use contraception has no bearing on whether she can carry the pregnancy to term. That's solely a matter of health.

"And if the decision is not reasoned, then it would be up to the service provider to do their best to aid with that. Should the decision stand afterwards - fine."[/quote]

No thanks, still no desire to live in this world you've constructed. I'll take a hard pass on being interrogated about my decision to control what happens in my body. And on having to prove to my service provider (and the bureaucratic "tiers" of "layer cake") that my decision is reasoned.

Quote from: Asmodean on May 12, 2022, 07:32:55 AM
QuoteWe need more punishment of "poor choices."
We don't? Then I suggest we start by legalizing a whole slew of crimes. Murder for hire, for instance. I mean, it's little more than a poor career choice when you think about it.

A little [EDIT] here, too, because that came off a bit snarky with little substance. We do not necessarily need more punishment for poor choices, but that does not mean that we should have none. That depends on the poor choice in question. (see the above snarkiness for an example) There is another side to it though. That same "we" may not always need to help with the consequences of someone's conscious decision. Personally, I'd say that is especially true in cases of "repeat offenders" who can be reasonably expected to have known better. For instance, I'm OK with using my tax coin to get someone through drug rehab - once. You fall off the wagon, and that's on you - unless you can show to a different and preferably unforeseen set of circumstances that happened to lead to the same conclusion.

So you concede that you view forcing a pregnant woman to carry her pregnancy to term and go through childbirth as a consequence/punishment? Yuck. Even the religious folks try not to say that part out loud. Gives lie to the fact that you give a shit about the "potential human life" in this equation. And if you don't, why do you care about outlawing abortions?

And the comparison to having to pay taxes that go to drug treatment is inapt. Women are asking the government to back the fuck off, not step in and pay up.


Quote from: Asmodean on May 12, 2022, 07:32:55 AM
QuoteThey've made their bed and can lie in it. Just like those women who get themselves knocked up and then want the easy out of an abortion.
That is indeed a possibility. :smilenod:

See above re: punishment. You seem to delight in it. Gross. This isn't a game. It's women's control over their bodies and lives.

Quote from: Asmodean on May 12, 2022, 07:32:55 AM
QuoteWouldn't want to live in this world you've constructed in your musings. For we women people, debating abortion rights isn't just a fun philosophical parlor game. The implications hit home much harder. They affect our bodies, our health, our careers, and our earning power for the rest of our lives, much more so than fathers'.
Indeed..? What is it you object to about my world though? And on what grounds? I do get self-determination, but like... It's not an absolute, nor do I see any practical reasons for it to be.

That would be a "see above." Glad you're having fun with your musings. The stakes are pretty real for some of us.

Asmodean

#34
Quote from: billy rubin on May 12, 2022, 11:47:37 PMif roe is overturned, there will no longer be a national common standard in law, and some places will have legal abortions, some wont, and some will have whacko laws like in louisiana, where a wpman can be executed for having an abortio , if HB813 passes
That is a concern. However, do you see any implications for the broader question (The right to privacy and bodily autonomy, let us call it) that go beyond abortion? Does the nation in your opinion need a common standard in that regard? Should it be that specific?

Quote from: Anne D. on May 13, 2022, 02:44:00 AMAhahahahaha. LOL. Yes, the required "tiers of oversight." Hence my asking, who do you envision sitting on this panel of inquisitors, er, "overseers"?
OK, let us have this discussion. My initial proposal is that when a woman applies to have pregnancy terminated, if she meets whatever physical criteria are there, she has a meeting with the service provider, who evaluates it based on whether or not that woman made a reasoned decision to terminate, and whether the need arises from factors outside her control.

If the condition A is not met, then the next tier of oversight might for example be a specialist in mental whatnots (psychologist/psychiatrist) or it may be a social worker.

The purpose is to make certain before proceeding that all other options for dealing with the situation (By continuing pregnancy to term) are unreasonable. <- That last word there is where the debate lies in my book. What would and would not constitute sufficient reason not to go ahead with the pregnancy? Can those issues be addressed without terminating it?

The inquisition would in this case consist of people whose job it is to deal with precisely that. Ultimately, I suspect a medical department head (If indeed it needs to go that far) or a judge for appeals.

QuoteI'm not asking you to help me clean up my mess, though. I'm asking you to stay out of my business and let me decide whether I'll allow a parasite to come to term in my body.
...And I am unwilling to grant you a blank check to do that.

To put it in somewhat exaggerated terms, you can treat your foot fungus by amputating the leg. I oppose that decision unless it is the only reasonable one available.

QuoteIt doesn't help actually. I understood your use of "reason" just fine the first time.
Oh! Ok. Just thought there was potential of using the same words, but talking about different things there.

QuoteYou've contradicted yourself above. You say that "failure of contraception would be a shiny golden bastion of sufficient reason" but above that you said that you were looking for reasons that "carrying a pregnancy to term would not be a reasonable course of action" as opposed to a woman's ethical, economic, etc. "justification" for ending the pregnancy. Contraception failure is not a reason that "carrying a pregnancy to term would not be a reasonable course of action." It's an ethical justification. Whether a person used or didn't use contraception has no bearing on whether she can carry the pregnancy to term. That's solely a matter of health.
An analysis, then.

Why is it not reasonable to bring the pregnancy to term? Because the parents actively attempted to prevent the pregnancy from occurring in the first place, and it did through "failure of technology," let's call it.

Why is it not reasonable to bring the pregnancy to term? Because the parents did not use contraception, thus allowing the pregnancy to occur through "failure of judgement."

There is more to it, as failure in judgement in that regard is not necessarily a show stopper, but a failure of technology as I described it... Yeah. I'd give you a pretty blank check to do with that pregnancy as you will at that point.

A quick little [EDIT] in case the difference between the above statements is unclear, in the first, the answer to the question follows logically. You tried to prevent something from happening. It happened. You are now seeking help to deal with that. In case of the second statement, you allowed something to happen and are now seeking the same help. As I said, by no means a show stopper - just not sufficient reason to proceed on its own, but then if it happened knowingly (Rather, what the legal system would call either reckless or negligent) then it may become a reason not to proceed.

QuoteNo thanks, still no desire to live in this world you've constructed. I'll take a hard pass on being interrogated about my decision to control what happens in my body. And on having to prove to my service provider (and the bureaucratic "tiers" of "layer cake") that my decision is reasoned.
Oh, there is no doubt that we disagree on the issue. I wouldn't mind hearing your side of it though, beyond "keep your fingers out of my honey." I understand that argument and consider it generally valid.

What implication does your world view have for other standing affairs, where the society/government/whatever does indeed interfere with a person's health/body/privacy/autonomy? Or is abortion special somehow? If so, how?

QuoteSo you concede that you view forcing a pregnant woman to carry her pregnancy to term and go through childbirth as a consequence/punishment?
Not at all. That is, however, hos she might see it.

QuoteYuck. Even the religious folks try not to say that part out loud. Gives lie to the fact that you give a shit about the "potential human life" in this equation. And if you don't, why do you care about outlawing abortions?
I care neither about the human life (in general) nor do I care to outlaw abortion. I'm in the third camp; I don't like the practice, I especially despise paying for it except in certain circumstances, but I don't want it prohibited. It should be available, but restrictive.

QuoteAnd the comparison to having to pay taxes that go to drug treatment is inapt. Women are asking the government to back the fuck off, not step in and pay up.
As I said, we have a little different argument over here. Still, the point stands. Why are you not asking the government to back off on behalf of all those women who need narcotic pain killers or sleeping pills? Or all those women who want to jump off a very tall building onto some very hard pavement? Or all those women who want to have a fake blood test company in peace? (Yes, a weak Theranos stab)

This is a bit of a rhetorical statement, as it's quite possible that you indeed do. Or what is so damned special about abortion?

QuoteSee above re: punishment. You seem to delight in it. Gross. This isn't a game. It's women's control over their bodies and lives.
Mmh... Not a sadist, no. I don't delight in people reaping what they sow, nor do I often force them to - but I let them.

QuoteThat would be a "see above." Glad you're having fun with your musings. The stakes are pretty real for some of us.
I'm capable of fathering a child. The stakes are real for me, too.

On a completely unrelated note, it's good to stretch them debate muscles on occasion. I do realise that my specific brand of insensitivity can be frustrating to deal with, especially on as "sore" a topic as abortion, so thank you, Anne D, for giving it a go.
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

#35
Quote from: billy rubin on 12 May 2022, 18:47:37
if roe is overturned, there will no longer be a national common standard in law, and some places will have legal abortions, some wont, and some will have whacko laws like in louisiana, where a wpman can be executed for having an abortio , if HB813 passes
That is a concern. However, do you see any implications for the broader question (The right to privacy and bodily autonomy, let us call it) that go beyond abortion? Does the nation in your opinion need a common standard in that regard? Should it be that specific?

....

absolutely. the idea of being secure in your persons from unjustified investigations by the government includes lits of privacy issues, in my opinion.

the right to do dangerous things, that do not directly impact other people, for instance. like my brand new US$650 motorcycle helmet. i have always worn a helmet and have always disagreed with a legal requirement to wear one. its a privacy issue for me-- not a secret, but part of my right to be left alo e by my government. i include otber self destructive habits (as society deems tbem) such as driving in a car rather than taking the train, wearong little clothing at the beach, drinking alcohol, living near a river floodplain, take dangerous drugs, and so on.

likewaise, i think wearing religious clothing is nobodys business but the private citizen who chooses to do so. as a plain quaker, i wore clothing indistinguishable from american amish for many years. it was my right in america, but would not be my right in france, where religious clothing is being banned. i dont think a government hss any business dictating my dress.

or my name. also in france(and other countries too) i cannot choose a name for my child that does not appear on an approved government list. of what business of government is my childs name?

thdre are lots of similar examples of infringing on what i consider a badic right to a private life, one free from unnecessary government interference. i believe abortion is just one example. i dont like abortion, but i see the right to bodily autonomy as the more fundamental right. given tbat, i deny the right of local jurisdictions to infringe on that right by either majority vote or representative fiat. i see the right to be let alone as something that should be recognized by the general government and should be protected from infringement from local jurisdictions.

however.

i live in a society, and there choose to give up some of my individual rights for the greater intetest of the group. i agree with dling so, but my default position seems different from yours. correct me im wrong, but uou seem to consider rights to default to society, whereas i vpnsider rights to default to the individual. in other words, society does not grant rights to indoviduals, rathet, individuals grant rights to society. so i do not see the gpvernment as having the right to regulate certain conditions that apply to me alone, such as destructive habits, where i spend my money, where and how i live and who i associate with  but i grant society certain rights that affect my dealings with socity-- the right to regulate food and drug quality if i sell them, the right to enforce laws regarding contracts or public safety, the right to conduct international affairs in my name.

but the default is that the government hss no rights unless tbey are granted by the people, and tbe peoples right to interfere with other people is strictly limited.


more people have been to berlin than i have

Anne D.

Quote from: Asmodean on May 13, 2022, 07:56:35 AM
Quote from: Anne D. on May 13, 2022, 02:44:00 AMAhahahahaha. LOL. Yes, the required "tiers of oversight." Hence my asking, who do you envision sitting on this panel of inquisitors, er, "overseers"?
OK, let us have this discussion. My initial proposal is that when a woman applies to have pregnancy terminated, if she meets whatever physical criteria are there, she has a meeting with the service provider, who evaluates it based on whether or not that woman made a reasoned decision to terminate, and whether the need arises from factors outside her control.

If the condition A is not met, then the next tier of oversight might for example be a specialist in mental whatnots (psychologist/psychiatrist) or it may be a social worker.

The purpose is to make certain before proceeding that all other options for dealing with the situation (By continuing pregnancy to term) are unreasonable. <- That last word there is where the debate lies in my book. What would and would not constitute sufficient reason not to go ahead with the pregnancy? Can those issues be addressed without terminating it?

The inquisition would in this case consist of people whose job it is to deal with precisely that. Ultimately, I suspect a medical department head (If indeed it needs to go that far) or a judge for appeals.

QuoteIt doesn't help actually. I understood your use of "reason" just fine the first time.
Oh! Ok. Just thought there was potential of using the same words, but talking about different things there.

QuoteYou've contradicted yourself above. You say that "failure of contraception would be a shiny golden bastion of sufficient reason" but above that you said that you were looking for reasons that "carrying a pregnancy to term would not be a reasonable course of action" as opposed to a woman's ethical, economic, etc. "justification" for ending the pregnancy. Contraception failure is not a reason that "carrying a pregnancy to term would not be a reasonable course of action." It's an ethical justification. Whether a person used or didn't use contraception has no bearing on whether she can carry the pregnancy to term. That's solely a matter of health.
An analysis, then.

Why is it not reasonable to bring the pregnancy to term? Because the parents actively attempted to prevent the pregnancy from occurring in the first place, and it did through "failure of technology," let's call it.

Why is it not reasonable to bring the pregnancy to term? Because the parents did not use contraception, thus allowing the pregnancy to occur through "failure of judgement."

There is more to it, as failure in judgement in that regard is not necessarily a show stopper, but a failure of technology as I described it... Yeah. I'd give you a pretty blank check to do with that pregnancy as you will at that point.

A quick little [EDIT] in case the difference between the above statements is unclear, in the first, the answer to the question follows logically. You tried to prevent something from happening. It happened. You are now seeking help to deal with that. In case of the second statement, you allowed something to happen and are now seeking the same help. As I said, by no means a show stopper - just not sufficient reason to proceed on its own, but then if it happened knowingly (Rather, what the legal system would call either reckless or negligent) then it may become a reason not to proceed.

QuoteNo thanks, still no desire to live in this world you've constructed. I'll take a hard pass on being interrogated about my decision to control what happens in my body. And on having to prove to my service provider (and the bureaucratic "tiers" of "layer cake") that my decision is reasoned.
Oh, there is no doubt that we disagree on the issue. I wouldn't mind hearing your side of it though, beyond "keep your fingers out of my honey." I understand that argument and consider it generally valid.

Yes, we just disagree. WRT the "Oh! Ok. Just thought there was potential of using the same words, but talking about different things there." That's funny; I was just pointing out that you used multiple paragraphs to first insist that you weren't talking about needing an ethical justification from the woman, only to eventually circle back to "clarifying" that yes, actually, you were talking about needing an ethical justification. Failure of contraception = valid ethical justification. Failure to use contraception = not a valid ethical justification.

WRT "Or is abortion special somehow?"

Is it? Do you envision the same level of oversight and intrusion for other private reproductive decisions? In your perfect world, does a man seeking a vasectomy need to go through your "layer cake" of private and public bureaucracy (possibly ending with arguing his case before a judge, as you note) in order to get a vasectomy? What about a person of either sex seeking birth control? Why?


Quote from: Asmodean on May 13, 2022, 07:56:35 AMI care neither about the human life (in general) nor do I care to outlaw abortion. I'm in the third camp; I don't like the practice, I especially despise paying for it except in certain circumstances, but I don't want it prohibited. It should be available, but restrictive.

What is it that you don't like about the practice? I'm genuinely curious as you've noted that you don't object for the same reasons most cite.

WRT your comments about objecting to having your taxes used to pay for abortion. In the US, the government doesn't (and can't) pay for abortion. And we don't have national health care. Tax dollars are not implicated. In your scheme, though, tax dollars would definitely be implicated. Some state agency would definitely be involved. And there would be no end of appeals to judges for determinations on abortion denials. (Side note, but those evidentiary hearings would be something else. Would I have to submit contraception receipts to prove my contraception failed?) Expensive bureaucratic nightmare.

Quote from: Asmodean on May 13, 2022, 07:56:35 AMI'm capable of fathering a child. The stakes are real for me, too.

Capable of fathering a child yes, but not capable of dying during child birth. The U.S. has one of the highest maternal mortality rates in the industrialized world.

Quote from: Asmodean on May 13, 2022, 07:56:35 AMOn a completely unrelated note, it's good to stretch them debate muscles on occasion. I do realise that my specific brand of insensitivity can be frustrating to deal with, especially on as "sore" a topic as abortion, so thank you, Anne D, for giving it a go.

Oh no, thank you, Asmodean.

Asmodean

Quote from: billy rubin on May 13, 2022, 04:30:11 PMabsolutely. the idea of being secure in your persons from unjustified investigations by the government includes lits of privacy issues, in my opinion.
I agree, as long as they are unjustified. However, my society as well as yours outlaws suicide. The justification is to force treatment on people who make a conscious choice, to one degree or another, to end their life, in order to overturn that decision.

I would apply the same logic as I would above to this. Would you remove restrictions? If so, to what degree? Would it matter if the person was manic at the time, or as clear-headed as they have ever been?

I would say it's a property right issue, legalistically speaking, but then I suppose all privacy issues are.

Quoteor my name. also in france(and other countries too) i cannot choose a name for my child that does not appear on an approved government list. of what business of government is my childs name?
Hey, one of Elon Musk's kids' name is X Æ A-Xii. I do not disagree in principle - this right here just needed mentioning right this instant.

Quotethdre are lots of similar examples of infringing on what i consider a badic right to a private life, one free from unnecessary government interference. i believe abortion is just one example. i dont like abortion, but i see the right to bodily autonomy as the more fundamental right. given tbat, i deny the right of local jurisdictions to infringe on that right by either majority vote or representative fiat. i see the right to be let alone as something that should be recognized by the general government and should be protected from infringement from local jurisdictions.
I understand the reasoning - though from a property rights perspective. What you do your property (therein, your body) is fundamentally your business, as long as it does not encroach on someone else's, as to deprive them of theirs would require "due process." This does relate to abortion as a fetus does have property rights, which... Yeah, doesn't necessarily universally matter, but should be addressed.

Quoteuou seem to consider rights to default to society, whereas i vpnsider rights to default to the individual.
Mmh... That's a difficult question, actually. Obviously, I do not believe in divine authority, so from whence do my rights stem? I think they stem from me claiming them and my society respecting my claim. So no, I'd say they default to the individual, as you would, but also, they are granted - or not - by society.

Quotebut the default is that the government hss no rights unless tbey are granted by the people, and tbe peoples right to interfere with other people is strictly limited.
Indeed... I think we are describing broadly the same thing, though from different perspectives. I wouldn't say the government as an organisation has specific rights beyond, in a representative system, the right to represent the individual. They are there to guarantee your rights - the ones you successfully claim, and to prevent you from exercising those rights the society is unwilling to grant you.
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

lets focus on the rights question, as youhave brought up. the right to terminate pregnancy is just one of many, and the wuestion can be approached crom this different direction.

you say that rights default to the individual,but are granted by society.

but what is a right? is it just hanging thrre in space, waiting to be invoked? where does it come from? where are rights absent?

if i live alone on a desert island, doi have rights? if i am also pregnant there, do my rights change? why?


more people have been to berlin than i have

Asmodean

Quote from: Anne D. on May 14, 2022, 01:53:31 AMYes, we just disagree. WRT the "Oh! Ok. Just thought there was potential of using the same words, but talking about different things there." That's funny; I was just pointing out that you used multiple paragraphs to first insist that you weren't talking about needing an ethical justification from the woman, only to eventually circle back to "clarifying" that yes, actually, you were talking about needing an ethical justification. Failure of contraception = valid ethical justification. Failure to use contraception = not a valid ethical justification.
Oh! Nono, I... Think I see the potential misunderstanding.

I don't need an ethical justification from the mother in support of terminating a pregnancy. The question is not, "explain how abortion is right," but "is it an informed decision and have other options been explored in this particular case?" It falls to the service provider to determine, as would any legal fallback. So the examples above were more how I would see them approach the issue. If a woman comes in, say, six weeks pregnant and wants to terminate the pregnancy, they go "why?" She goes "Condom broke." They pretty-much go snip-snip. If, however, the parents were not actively trying to prevent a pregnancy, then it gets a little less straight-forward.

That's oversimplifying it a little as there is usually a father to a pregnancy and the foetus does carry his genetic material and has the right to his house and bank account, should he brain himself on a guard rail, and his rights in all of this should also be taken in consideration.

QuoteIs it? Do you envision the same level of oversight and intrusion for other private reproductive decisions?
Reproductive specifically? Why?

QuoteIn your perfect world, does a man seeking a vasectomy need to go through your "layer cake" of private and public bureaucracy (possibly ending with arguing his case before a judge, as you note) in order to get a vasectomy? What about a person of either sex seeking birth control? Why?
Yes, from the perspective of a service provider. Any irreversible decision should be approached that way by those implementing it.

It being a "one-man game" stuff like hysterectomies, vasectomies and a few other potential ectomies does make it a lot simpler though.

Birth control is fine, as long as it's reversible. If not - it may well also be fine, if you know what you're doing and potential involved-third-party interests are sufficiently addressed.

QuoteWhat is it that you don't like about the practice? I'm genuinely curious as you've noted that you don't object for the same reasons most cite.
It's a deeply subjective thing, but hey - wear your biases on your sleeve, right?

I don't like it because when I was twelve years old, my mother had an abortion. My then-stepfather was on board with it - I was not. So a decision, ultimately hers alone, though supported, deprived me and my grandparents of a relationship - for good or ill - with a sibling/grandchild who never got a chance to be born, due to no particularly dire circumstances. That haunts me, even if it does not her. Haunts my gran, too.

You know, it's common in certain circles to refer to foetuses as parasites. They are - and I have referred to them thusly myself, when as a kid and young(-er) adult, I was, if anything, for more abortion - as population control, for the heck of it, you name it. But that particular parasite was my living, growing unborn sibling. It was certainly alive... And it was killed.

Over time, having stood on my own for years, and understanding "adult" life situations, I have come to realise that I was wrong in my original stance on the issue. Not for some greater good, the society or the imaginary man in the sky - not for women because they are just as different as men and so are their opinions, but I was wrong for me. And so I changed my mind accordingly. Not a 180, but a 90 degree turn. That is why I argue from a different perspective than "the masses," because I argue from my own. That is why I would have no problem with a law resulting from a democratic process, making abortion a right, and that is what largely informs my distaste for how Roe vs. Wade is applied and my distaste for, in my society, having to pay for someone else's mistakes in this regard.


QuoteWRT your comments about objecting to having your taxes used to pay for abortion. In the US, the government doesn't (and can't) pay for abortion. And we don't have national health care. Tax dollars are not implicated. In your scheme, though, tax dollars would definitely be implicated.
I have no problem with taxes - I'm not a taxation-is-theft An-Cap. I do, however, like some ways of spending my money - more money, if required - more than others.

QuoteSome state agency would definitely be involved. And there would be no end of appeals to judges for determinations on abortion denials. (Side note, but those evidentiary hearings would be something else. Would I have to submit contraception receipts to prove my contraception failed?) Expensive bureaucratic nightmare.
It is indeed quite possible - probable, even -  that my "masterplan" is deeply impractical. I am willing to compromise though, in any process that gives me a voice like everybody else.

QuoteCapable of fathering a child yes, but not capable of dying during child birth. The U.S. has one of the highest maternal mortality rates in the industrialized world.
That is an issue, and it should certainly be addressed. You'll find no disagreement from me here.
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.

Asmodean

Quote from: billy rubin on May 14, 2022, 10:07:24 AMbut what is a right?
Your ability to claim dominion/sovereignty over the subject of said right.

Quoteis it just hanging thrre in space, waiting to be invoked?
In a sense, yes, though not being a tangible thing but rather an act, it hangs there the way the magic teapot does. Metaphorically.

Quotewhere does it come from?
Me and you agreeing/compromising. I agree not to take your stuff if you agree not to take mine. Between us, we now have very basic property rights. Then, he comes along and it's a game of three, only he will not accept our agreement and so we must compromise or deny him.

Quotewhere are rights absent?
Where there is no you, me or him.

Quoteif i live alone on a desert island, doi have rights? if i am also pregnant there, do my rights change? why?
You have practically unlimited rights there. Do they change if you get pregnant? Not initially, if you auto-impregnate. Possibly, if there is another parent (See my answer to where rights come from). Foetuses, young children and people with certain disabilities cannot claim their rights and can only be granted them by others.
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.

Anne D.

Quote from: Asmodean on May 14, 2022, 10:49:27 AM
Quote from: Anne D. on May 14, 2022, 01:53:31 AMYes, we just disagree. WRT the "Oh! Ok. Just thought there was potential of using the same words, but talking about different things there." That's funny; I was just pointing out that you used multiple paragraphs to first insist that you weren't talking about needing an ethical justification from the woman, only to eventually circle back to "clarifying" that yes, actually, you were talking about needing an ethical justification. Failure of contraception = valid ethical justification. Failure to use contraception = not a valid ethical justification.
Oh! Nono, I... Think I see the potential misunderstanding.

I don't need an ethical justification from the mother in support of terminating a pregnancy. The question is not, "explain how abortion is right," but "is it an informed decision and have other options been explored in this particular case?" It falls to the service provider to determine, as would any legal fallback. So the examples above were more how I would see them approach the issue. If a woman comes in, say, six weeks pregnant and wants to terminate the pregnancy, they go "why?" She goes "Condom broke." They pretty-much go snip-snip. If, however, the parents were not actively trying to prevent a pregnancy, then it gets a little less straight-forward.

What you keep describing is an ethical justification for an action (abortion) you would otherwise consider "wrong."

Quote from: Asmodean on May 14, 2022, 10:49:27 AM
QuoteIs it? Do you envision the same level of oversight and intrusion for other private reproductive decisions?
Reproductive specifically? Why?

Because Roe v. Wade is the thread topic, and that decision addresses reproductive rights specifically.

Quote from: Asmodean on May 14, 2022, 10:49:27 AM
QuoteIn your perfect world, does a man seeking a vasectomy need to go through your "layer cake" of private and public bureaucracy (possibly ending with arguing his case before a judge, as you note) in order to get a vasectomy? What about a person of either sex seeking birth control? Why?
Yes, from the perspective of a service provider. Any irreversible decision should be approached that way by those implementing it.

It being a "one-man game" stuff like hysterectomies, vasectomies and a few other potential ectomies does make it a lot simpler though.

Birth control is fine, as long as it's reversible. If not - it may well also be fine, if you know what you're doing and potential involved-third-party interests are sufficiently addressed.

Yeesh, addressing all the "third-party interests." So many hands in the pot. Now it's not just the government on behalf of "the people" who need a say on my abortion or tubal ligation, it's "potentially involved third parties." Would we need a poll of all family members and potential romantic partners?

Quote from: Asmodean on May 14, 2022, 10:49:27 AM
QuoteWhat is it that you don't like about the practice? I'm genuinely curious as you've noted that you don't object for the same reasons most cite.
It's a deeply subjective thing, but hey - wear your biases on your sleeve, right?

I don't like it because when I was twelve years old, my mother had an abortion. My then-stepfather was on board with it - I was not. So a decision, ultimately hers alone, though supported, deprived me and my grandparents of a relationship - for good or ill - with a sibling/grandchild who never got a chance to be born, due to no particularly dire circumstances. That haunts me, even if it does not her. Haunts my gran, too.

You know, it's common in certain circles to refer to foetuses as parasites. They are - and I have referred to them thusly myself, when as a kid and young(-er) adult, I was, if anything, for more abortion - as population control, for the heck of it, you name it. But that particular parasite was my living, growing unborn sibling. It was certainly alive... And it was killed.

Over time, having stood on my own for years, and understanding "adult" life situations, I have come to realise that I was wrong in my original stance on the issue. Not for some greater good, the society or the imaginary man in the sky - not for women because they are just as different as men and so are their opinions, but I was wrong for me. And so I changed my mind accordingly. Not a 180, but a 90 degree turn. That is why I argue from a different perspective than "the masses," because I argue from my own. That is why I would have no problem with a law resulting from a democratic process, making abortion a right, and that is what largely informs my distaste for how Roe vs. Wade is applied and my distaste for, in my society, having to pay for someone else's mistakes in this regard.

Thank you for sharing such a personal story.

Quote from: Asmodean on May 14, 2022, 10:49:27 AMIt is indeed quite possible - probable, even -  that my "masterplan" is deeply impractical.
Yes.

Quote from: Asmodean on May 14, 2022, 10:49:27 AM
QuoteCapable of fathering a child yes, but not capable of dying during child birth. The U.S. has one of the highest maternal mortality rates in the industrialized world.
That is an issue, and it should certainly be addressed. You'll find no disagreement from me here.
Yes, it is an issue. In the real world of the here and now, the world of practicalities, the end of Roe means more maternal deaths during childbirth, by women who were forced by the State to carry a pregnancy to term. Just one of the horrible practical implications of this decision.

Asmodean

Quote from: Anne D. on May 15, 2022, 01:41:01 AMWhat you keep describing is an ethical justification for an action (abortion) you would otherwise consider "wrong."
No, what I am, is keep failing to describe the issue.

Ok. I'm a service provider, doing my due dilligence. Assume the purely physical concerns such as the health of the mother and the age of the foetus have already been addressed.

-Them rubbies broke. [End of conversation]
-Otherwise, do the parents wish to terminate? (Where applicable, can they pay for it?)
-No - [a different end of conversation]
-Otherwise, have they considered options that do not require the pregnancy terminated?
-No - [present options]
-Otherwise/after the above, is their decision reasonable? (Is it a case of, as I put it, treating foot fungus with amputation, which I as a service provider would be obligated not to do? Is the correct tool being requested for the correct job?)

There is a ethical question or three involved here, but it's not whether abortion is an ethical choice.

QuoteBecause Roe v. Wade is the thread topic, and that decision addresses reproductive rights specifically.
Then do let us drop terms like the right to privacy or self-determination, but if you don't have them unless you are specifically a pregnant woman who wants to terminate the pregnancy, it would invalidate Roe vs. Wade because it's largely built on those... "Peripheral" rights, let's call them, thus making the whole conversation kind-of moot, no?

This is a bit of a square-peg-round-hole issue, unless there is something special about abortion, but not the other instances where the society can, will and even must interfere with an individual's private affairs.

QuoteYeesh, addressing all the "third-party interests." So many hands in the pot. Now it's not just the government on behalf of "the people" who need a say on my abortion or tubal ligation, it's "potentially involved third parties." Would we need a poll of all family members and potential romantic partners?
Ideally, those who would be reasonably expected to be involved in the life of the child, yes. After all, is not the government there to represent them, too?

It's fine if their stake in the matter is regarded as lesser than the mother's, but then, combined with other factors (Say, that the mother did nothing to prevent the pregnancy in the first place, for instance) theirs may out-weigh hers.

QuoteThank you for sharing such a personal story.
I think it's important that when one argues from personal experience, one has to be transparent about it. Still, my opinion stems from a lot of thinking and interacting and more thinking on top of the many skeletons in my closet. So to say, it's not just because I dislike the practice that I want it restrictive. My view has, over time, evolved from a completely different thing - far less reasoned, with far fewer considerations taken, but still valid, and... It is a sum of its parts, and understanding said parts may well be critical to someone agreeing or disagreeing with me to one degree or another. Either is fine - this is the way my vote falls. Just mine.

This is also why my vote would fall with the "pro-lifers" on many a decision to liberalise abortion. It's not that I agree with them - they'd just be closer to me at that point than those wanting to move further in the other direction. Conversely, my vote would fall with "Pro [mother's and only her] choice up until the moment of birth" crowd on any issue of a ban - for precisely the same reasons.

QuoteYes, it is an issue. In the real world of the here and now, the world of practicalities, the end of Roe means more maternal deaths during childbirth, by women who were forced by the State to carry a pregnancy to term. Just one of the horrible practical implications of this decision.
I do not deny that overturning Roe vs. Wade could have grim implications for a lot of people. I also think it would be the correct decision to make, legally speaking. (Though not a lawyer - just listened to a few and found some arguments more based in fact than others)

Still, is there anything stopping a democratic process in legislating this issue? People want what they want, lobbyists lobby for opposing interest groups and at the end, a political decisions are made, at least loosely tied to the oughts-and-ought-nots of the majority in the community in which it is to apply. And when that majority shifts, so can the political winds shift and laws be amended, set aside or overturned through the same process, which does not involve a decree from a committee.
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

Quote from: Asmodean on May 14, 2022, 11:18:55 AMFoetuses, young children and people with certain disabilities cannot claim their rights and can only be granted them by others.

so you do not consider any rights to be inherent, but have existence only when they are granted, or presumeably, can be exercised by force.

i connect rights directly with the concept of right and wrong, as a functional definition. i would say a right is something that it would be wrong to deny. because i dont believe in right or wrong, this boils down to rights being whatever you can take for yourself that remains consistent with whatever ethical system you are using.



more people have been to berlin than i have

Asmodean

#44
Quoteso you do not consider any rights to be inherent, but have existence only when they are granted, or presumeably, can be exercised by force.
That is a fair characterisation, as long as by "force," we do not necessarily and automatically mean "physical violence." Coercion, persuasion and wheeling-and-dealing would also be examples of that.

EDIT: In fact, substitute "by force" with "through diplomacy," of which force is an instance, and I think we're there. Rights, where multiple at least somewhat equal parties are involved, are little more than "fancy privileges," really. (In the entitlement-sense of the word, rather than legal; I/we want to do thusly, therefore I/we can) Nothing more, in fact, but for those interactions within a society - and without - that shaped them, and that the members of said society near-universally agree to uphold.

Quotei connect rights directly with the concept of right and wrong, as a functional definition. i would say a right is something that it would be wrong to deny. because i dont believe in right or wrong, this boils down to rights being whatever you can take for yourself that remains consistent with whatever ethical system you are using.
A different path to broadly the same hill, that. I do connect rights with right and wrong. However, I also connect those terms with the people using them and whatever agreements they have made. They may have meaning to a person. They do have meaning and function to a group. They do not have meaning in and of themselves. Therefore, if everyone on Earth (Or really, in your area of practical impact) dies, except you, then your rights are whatever you want them to be past that point. They are meaningless, as there is no-one but you to contest them, but you can legitimately claim them to "be there."

They may then be grounded in what you consider right or wrong. Now, supposing another person wanders over to your kingdom of one. If that person is so able, they may contest or support some of those rights you claim, based on their notion of right and wrong. Given enough such interactions, you'll get some socially-enforceable rights, some common rights and wrongs, to which enough in your now kingdom of many agree enough to practically uphold in spite of the opposition. (Note that this is an instance-type-of-situation. "Opposition" in this case means only "someone who wants something different in that specific thing." You may, in fact, rely on them to uphold some of your other rights.)

So is a right something that would be wrong to deny? Yes, to the person claiming/asserting that right. But then, it may be wrong to uphold to someone else.
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.