Happy Atheist Forum

General => Current Events => Topic started by: Buddy on May 03, 2022, 02:38:15 PM

Title: Roe vs Wade under fire, again
Post by: Buddy on May 03, 2022, 02:38:15 PM
BBC article  (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61302740)

Ugh, this makes me sick. I'm tired of crusty republicans deciding what women can do with their bodies. A clump of cells should never be considered more important than the woman it's leeching off of.
Title: Re: Roe vs Wade under fire, again
Post by: Dark Lightning on May 03, 2022, 03:46:28 PM
Here's hoping that all the women who vote, vote Democrat in the upcoming mid-terms. Several states have standing laws defending abortion. I guess they'll be getting more "tourists". OK by me.
Title: Re: Roe vs Wade under fire, again
Post by: Buddy on May 03, 2022, 04:20:08 PM
The problem is that there are going to be a lot of women that can't afford to travel across state lines, plus there have been talks about certain states passing laws that would criminalize getting an abortion bill even if it's in another state.
Title: Re: Roe vs Wade under fire, again
Post by: Recusant on May 04, 2022, 02:17:35 AM
The US is heading down an ugly path. A minority clinging to power by thwarting democracy, imposing their ideology regardless of the will of the majority and regardless of the harm it does.
Title: Re: Roe vs Wade under fire, again
Post by: Bluenose on May 04, 2022, 02:55:54 AM
I am so angry about this, and I am not even a woman nor do I live in the USA.  This issue was hard fought for both in the USA and here in Australia in the 1970s.  The difference is that here the laws were changed rather than relying on some esoteric reading of the constitution by the SCOTUS that is now apparently about to be overturned.  Get out there peoples and vote, vote for those who will write laws to reflect the will of the majority.  In other words, not the GOP.

I agree with one pundit I was reading just before that this may well be the thing that eventually comes back to bite the evangelical extremist right-wingers on their collective backsides, as it may just be the thing that prompts the non-voting middle in the USA to actually, finally overthrow the ruling theocracy.
Title: Re: Roe vs Wade under fire, again
Post by: Tank on May 04, 2022, 11:33:26 AM
I've been watching this play out on the news and Facebook. It really will be a watershed moment in American politics if it is over turned.

I am wondering who and why the report was leaked. My suspicions are a pro-choice would do it to apply pressure on the final vote and a pro-life could have done it to gauge reaction and possibly soften the ruling if the reaction was extreme, which it appears to be.
Title: Re: Roe vs Wade under fire, again
Post by: No one on May 04, 2022, 12:27:35 PM
Let's get real here!

Do women really know their own bodies better than crochety old men?

Definitely not.

While we're at it, let's take away their right to vote too.

Maybe treat them like livestock, or better yet, like trading cards.
Title: Re: Roe vs Wade under fire, again
Post by: billy rubin on May 04, 2022, 02:51:39 PM
i think it was leaked to influence tbe elections. yesterday eas the first primary for the 2022 elections. my wife is running for a seat in congress, but she will not win.

well shell win the primary but nit the general

no, she lost!

only 24 percent. nhe winner took 30 something. no run offs
Title: Re: Roe vs Wade under fire, again
Post by: Tom62 on May 04, 2022, 08:12:50 PM
I'm told that Roe vs. Wade is a juridical decision instead of a law. That means that there is no right to abortion in the Constitution (which is something that needs to be changed). This makes Roe vs Wade rather controversial because it is only a procedural protection instead of a right. Hence the number of religious attacks. I believe that the US should finally have a real federal abortion law in place. Leaving that to the individual states is a bad idea.
Title: Re: Roe vs Wade under fire, again
Post by: billy rubin on May 04, 2022, 10:12:38 PM
youre maybe correct. theres no specific right in our constitution.

however, the 4th amensment (the first 10 amendments were included in the first official document) says this:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

^^^the idea that people are to be left "secure in their persons" directly implies that they have a right to privacy concerning their bodies--not just the contents of their pockets, imo-- which is another way of saying that they have a right to determine for themselves what they shall do with their persons.

now, forbidding an abortion is not specifically a search or seizure, but in my opinion the originalist view about being left alone to tend to your private business applies here.

Title: Re: Roe vs Wade under fire, again
Post by: Icarus on May 05, 2022, 09:08:11 PM
Is there a specific instruction somewhere in the King James bible that forbids abortion?  Religious people claim that abortion, at any stage, is against God's will. Catholics are especially uptight about this.  They even view contraceptives as a tool of the devil.

I can only fantasize that many of the Republican women are secretly in favor of Roe. If Roe is overturned and states like Mississippi and others make abortion completely forbidden, there can be unexpected repercussions.  One possibility is that some of the GOP women, as a safety measure, deny their husbands any access to their lady parts. :fingerwag:  That might change a lot of guys minds. The men will be forced to get vasectomies.  ;D
Title: Re: Roe vs Wade under fire, again
Post by: Dark Lightning on May 05, 2022, 10:16:43 PM
There is no admonition for abortion in the bible. There is however, mention of ways to rid one of an embryo, and removal of same is recommended if there is threat to the mother's life due to the pregnancy, or if the pregnancy contributes to the health of the mother negatively.
Title: Re: Roe vs Wade under fire, again
Post by: billy rubin on May 05, 2022, 10:38:34 PM
exodis 21:22 is sometimrs cited

22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
Title: Re: Roe vs Wade under fire, again
Post by: Dark Lightning on May 05, 2022, 11:08:31 PM
I would contend that if the woman loses an embryo willingly, that would obviate that bit o' bible. What does "strive" mean in this context? I know people who say that when they mean that they are trying to get laid, i.e., laying down a line of patter.
Title: Re: Roe vs Wade under fire, again
Post by: billy rubin on May 06, 2022, 01:17:44 AM
what?
Title: Re: Roe vs Wade under fire, again
Post by: Dark Lightning on May 06, 2022, 01:50:46 AM
What, what?
Title: Re: Roe vs Wade under fire, again
Post by: billy rubin on May 06, 2022, 01:01:39 PM
i dont understand your post.

"strive" in hebrew has a specific meaning:

Pronounce: naw-tsaw'

Strong: H5327

Orig: a primitive root; properly, to go forth, i.e. (by implication) to be expelled, and (consequently) desolate; causatively, to lay waste; also (specifically), to quarrel:--be laid waste, runinous, strive (together).

Use: TWOT-1399,1400,1401 Verb

am i missong your intent? i am not very perceptive with language.
Title: Re: Roe vs Wade under fire, again
Post by: Dark Lightning on May 06, 2022, 01:27:47 PM
Abortion as practiced today doesn't fit that definition. I asked what striving meant in the context of your quote in the biblical context.
Title: Re: Roe vs Wade under fire, again
Post by: billy rubin on May 06, 2022, 05:59:14 PM
the verse doesnt have anythi g to do with abortion. its an example of how a foetus was given specific value in israelite culture, in this case one that had a price tag.


later on the antenicene church was generally against both abortion and infanticide, both of which were pretty common in roman and pan hellenic society

"striving" meant that two men were fighting, and a pregnant woman was injured and miscarried.
Title: Re: Roe vs Wade under fire, again
Post by: Anne D. on May 08, 2022, 02:59:48 AM
Quote from: Bluenose on May 04, 2022, 02:55:54 AMI am so angry about this, and I am not even a woman nor do I live in the USA.  This issue was hard fought for both in the USA and here in Australia in the 1970s.  The difference is that here the laws were changed rather than relying on some esoteric reading of the constitution by the SCOTUS that is now apparently about to be overturned.  Get out there peoples and vote, vote for those who will write laws to reflect the will of the majority.  In other words, not the GOP.

I agree with one pundit I was reading just before that this may well be the thing that eventually comes back to bite the evangelical extremist right-wingers on their collective backsides, as it may just be the thing that prompts the non-voting middle in the USA to actually, finally overthrow the ruling theocracy.

Yes, I've heard it described as the dog (right wing) finally catching the car it always chases after.

Old-school Republicans reliably milked the antiabortion vote for years--never really caring about the issue and never intending to follow through once they were in office. Then anti-abortion true believers (along with plenty of just-plain-crazy right wing nutjobs) started to outnumber them. The Old-school Repubs just kept courting the anti-abortion folks and religious extremists and going along with their new batshit colleagues; they just couldn't give up the votes. And then they were inexplicably shocked when Trump won. And now we're living with his Supreme Court appointees and the end of Roe, which I really didn't think we'd ever see.

There are supposedly a lot of antiabortion single-issue voters, so it will be interesting to see what those folks do now that Roe is going. Hopefully it will mean that those voters either just aren't as engaged or maybe start voting based on other issues. And to what you said, BN, hopefully it will mean some people who'd been entirely checked out start voting and forcing focus on broader issues.

I also am wondering if it might go the other way, though. We're in for years of fighting in each state about whether to keep abortion legal, which means it almost has to stay a driving issue.

I think the Supreme Court just really fucked up with Roe. As grateful for its benefits as I am, the states were already headed in the direction of legalization anyway, and the issue wasn't even on the radar of most Republicans. At the time, many Protestant denominations didn't care about the issue, and Republicans were as likely as Democrats to be fine with abortion. The SC's deciding Roe when it did helped galvanize the formation of a strong religious right movement, which has created no end of problems. Had the Court decided to wait just a few years before taking the issue up, it likely wouldn't have wrought the mess it did.
Title: Re: Roe vs Wade under fire, again
Post by: No one on May 08, 2022, 04:17:14 AM
I sure hope the gas prices come with these 1950's views.
Title: Re: Roe vs Wade under fire, again
Post by: Biggus Dickus on May 09, 2022, 05:03:30 PM
I hear Republicans want to change Mother's Day now to "Domestic Infant Supplier Day:.


The following was actually posted on Facebook in 2018 by a Pastor from Saint Junia United Methodist Church in Birmingham, Alabama named Dave Barnhart.

Republican Christians are not very happy with him.

Quote"The unborn" are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don't resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don't ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don't need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don't bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. It's almost as if, by being born, they have died to you. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus but actually dislike people who breathe.

Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn.
Title: Re: Roe vs Wade under fire, again
Post by: Dark Lightning on May 09, 2022, 05:56:00 PM
Man, ain't that the truth! We've tossed that football around here at home, but he said it far more eloquently.
Title: Re: Roe vs Wade under fire, again
Post by: Tom62 on May 09, 2022, 08:07:00 PM
Quote from: Papasito Bruno on May 09, 2022, 05:03:30 PMI hear Republicans want to change Mother's Day now to "Domestic Infant Supplier Day:

What I find even more amazing is that only a couple of days ago, liberals could not define what a woman is, that mothers are birthing persons and that men could get pregnant.
Title: Re: Roe vs Wade under fire, again
Post by: billy rubin on May 10, 2022, 01:37:15 AM
messy, isnt it
Title: Re: Roe vs Wade under fire, again
Post by: Anne D. on May 10, 2022, 03:08:13 AM
I love that quote, P. Bruno. Beautifully said.
Title: Re: Roe vs Wade under fire, again
Post by: Asmodean on May 10, 2022, 09:46:54 AM
Hmm... 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.

That is to say, to a first-degree approximation. On a sweeping policy level, I'm content with that. From there, them canned worms only get wrigglier.

For instance, in cases where it does take two to tango (Pregnancy as a result of consensual intercourse) should the second party have a say in its termination? Personally, I'd say yes. However, when parties differ, the party that wants to bring the pregnancy to term would have to take sole custody of the child. (I'm not using non-gendered terms out of some new-found wokeness by the way - this is just a double-edged sword. The mother and the father may want opposing outcomes - it matters little to me which party wants which)

Another thing to consider is whether the party wanting to terminate a pregnancy has sufficient reasons to. This is a long and rather intricate discussion, so I'll forego it for now. Personally, I'd vote for no reason given - no surgery.

That's not mentioning personal responsibility, which too can be a double-edged blade in that it may well be that terminating a pregnancy is the responsible thing to do in a given situation, but then it may also be a case of avoiding responsibility for one's poor choices. That's... Difficult to arbitrate, I'd think, but still a consideration I'd make.

So all in all, should abortion be outlawed? No. Should it be a universal right? Also no. Should it be restricted to cases of abuse, serious health risks and the like? Hmm... I'd vote against doing that, but not if doing so meant I'd be voting for expanding the scope of the practice. (Another long conversation, maybe for later)

That being my general philosophical and political position, and understanding the worst-case implications of overturning Roe v. Wade, I still find myself struggling to find good legal grounds to keep it. I guess in a perfect world, I'd be for overturning it, but against any subsequent blanket bans.

That aside, it's sad, is it not, that it has long-since become the case of scoring points with one's respective political allies? At the end of the day, who among the decision-makers on either side actually cares about the mothers, fathers and children their decisions do and will affect? A precious none, I suspect. I can't even remember in my lifetime when we could have a civilised debate about the issue, weigh implications, listen to the opposing views, accept those legitimate as such even though we disagree... Ah... The innocent times that probably never existed... I miss those.
Title: Re: Roe vs Wade under fire, again
Post by: Anne D. on May 11, 2022, 02:42:28 AM
Quote from: Asmodean on May 10, 2022, 09:46:54 AMFor instance, in cases where it does take two to tango (Pregnancy as a result of consensual intercourse) should the second party have a say in its termination? Personally, I'd say yes. However, when parties differ, the party that wants to bring the pregnancy to term would have to take sole custody of the child.


Hmmm, if it's the man vetoing the woman's choice to abort, can we go ahead and require him to carry and birth the cells/zygote/embryo/fetus?

Quote from: Asmodean on May 10, 2022, 09:46:54 AMAnother thing to consider is whether the party wanting to terminate a pregnancy has sufficient reasons to. This is a long and rather intricate discussion, so I'll forego it for now. Personally, I'd vote for no reason given - no surgery.

In a world where you're king, who do you envision sitting on this panel that evaluates each woman's reasons for ending her pregnancy?

Quote from: Asmodean on May 10, 2022, 09:46:54 AMThat's not mentioning personal responsibility, which too can be a double-edged blade in that it may well be that terminating a pregnancy is the responsible thing to do in a given situation, but then it may also be a case of avoiding responsibility for one's poor choices. That's... Difficult to arbitrate, I'd think, but still a consideration I'd make.

Arbitrarily imposing consequences for "poor choices." Always an important "consideration." We need more punishment of "poor choices." In fact, we should cease providing health care to smokers and overindulgers too. They'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.

Quote from: Asmodean on May 10, 2022, 09:46:54 AMSo all in all, should abortion be outlawed? No. Should it be a universal right? Also no. Should it be restricted to cases of abuse, serious health risks and the like? Hmm... I'd vote against doing that, but not if doing so meant I'd be voting for expanding the scope of the practice. (Another long conversation, maybe for later)

That being my general philosophical and political position, and understanding the worst-case implications of overturning Roe v. Wade, I still find myself struggling to find good legal grounds to keep it. I guess in a perfect world, I'd be for overturning it, but against any subsequent blanket bans.

That aside, it's sad, is it not, that it has long-since become the case of scoring points with one's respective political allies? At the end of the day, who among the decision-makers on either side actually cares about the mothers, fathers and children their decisions do and will affect? A precious none, I suspect. I can't even remember in my lifetime when we could have a civilised debate about the issue, weigh implications, listen to the opposing views, accept those legitimate as such even though we disagree... Ah... The innocent times that probably never existed... I miss those.

Wouldn'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'.
Title: Re: Roe vs Wade under fire, again
Post by: Bluenose on May 12, 2022, 01:04:15 AM
The main point for me is bodily integrity, but a close second is the fact that pregnancy is probably the most dangerous thing a woman can do health wise in a modern developed western nation.  The idea of forcing a woman to udergo that risk against her will is repugnant to me.  Never mind that the whole anti abortion push totally ignores the well-being of any such child that actually does get born.  Are these idiots proposing to support the children that they seem so much in favour of *before* they are born?  No.  This simply exposes their total hypocrisy.
Title: Re: Roe vs Wade under fire, again
Post by: Asmodean on May 12, 2022, 07:32:55 AM
Quote from: Anne D. on May 11, 2022, 02:42:28 AMHmmm, if it's the man vetoing the woman's choice to abort, can we go ahead and require him to carry and birth the cells/zygote/embryo/fetus?
We cannot. We can, however, put certain financial responsibility on him. For instance, reasonable medical expenses/lost wages arising from pregnancy, liability in case of injury or death... In the world where I am tyrant, a lot is on the table.

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.

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.

EDIT: 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.

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.

QuoteIn fact, we should cease providing health care to smokers and overindulgers too.
...And there are cases in which "we," by which I mean the tax paying public, should. There are others, in which "we" as in the healthcare system should, too. For instance, transplanting a set og shiny new lungs into a active smoker..? Nah.

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:

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.
Title: Re: Roe vs Wade under fire, again
Post by: billy rubin on May 12, 2022, 01:13:26 PM
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.
Title: Re: Roe vs Wade under fire, again
Post by: Asmodean on May 12, 2022, 02:49:22 PM
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.
Title: Re: Roe vs Wade under fire, again
Post by: billy rubin on May 12, 2022, 11:47:37 PM
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
Title: Re: Roe vs Wade under fire, again
Post by: Anne D. on May 13, 2022, 02:44:00 AM
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.
Title: Re: Roe vs Wade under fire, again
Post by: Asmodean on May 13, 2022, 07:56:35 AM
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.
Title: Re: Roe vs Wade under fire, again
Post by: billy rubin on May 13, 2022, 04:30:11 PM
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.
Title: Re: Roe vs Wade under fire, again
Post by: Anne D. on May 14, 2022, 01:53:31 AM
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.
Title: Re: Roe vs Wade under fire, again
Post by: Asmodean on May 14, 2022, 09:53:33 AM
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.
Title: Re: Roe vs Wade under fire, again
Post by: billy rubin on May 14, 2022, 10:07:24 AM
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?
Title: Re: Roe vs Wade under fire, again
Post by: 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.

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.
Title: Re: Roe vs Wade under fire, again
Post by: Asmodean on May 14, 2022, 11:18:55 AM
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.
Title: Re: Roe vs Wade under fire, again
Post by: Anne D. on May 15, 2022, 01:41:01 AM
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.
Title: Re: Roe vs Wade under fire, again
Post by: Asmodean on May 16, 2022, 08:35:23 AM
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.
Title: Re: Roe vs Wade under fire, again
Post by: billy rubin on May 16, 2022, 12:27:56 PM
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.

Title: Re: Roe vs Wade under fire, again
Post by: Asmodean on May 16, 2022, 01:48:35 PM
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.
Title: Re: Roe vs Wade under fire, again
Post by: No one on May 16, 2022, 04:05:26 PM
If abortion is so wrong, why don't these absolute fucktards have any issue with that flood?

How many innocent little lives were lost in they colossal hissy fit?!

Fuck you!
Title: Re: Roe vs Wade under fire, again
Post by: Anne D. on May 17, 2022, 02:49:19 AM
Quote from: Asmodean on May 16, 2022, 08:35:23 AM
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]

No, there's no failure to "explain." All your paragraphs and paragraphs of explanation boil down to is whether the decider in your situation thinks that the woman's answer justifies what the decider would otherwise consider a wrongful act (abortion). "Them rubbies broke" = I tried to prevent it = justification for what is otherwise deemed wrongful.

Quote from: Asmodean on May 16, 2022, 08:35:23 AMIt'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.

Wow, a fetus's rights outweighing the mother's. I hope you're just spitballing again there, with more "deeply impractical" and deeply problematic musings.



Quote from: Asmodean on May 16, 2022, 08:35:23 AMThen 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.
. . .
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.

I don't believe I used the term "right to privacy" or "right to self-determination," although I do think those concepts are implicated in what I see as a right to abortion. I don't think Roe's legal reasoning is particularly sound and agree with Justice Ginsburg's view that the right to abortion would better be based on the 14th Amendments equal protection clause and gender equality grounds. Roe doesn't need to be overturned. It can be upheld with firmer underpinnings.

Re: "is there anything stopping a democratic process in legislating this issue?" Yes, fundamental rights, within which I would include a woman's control over whether to bear children, are not up for debate and put to a vote. Under the U.S. Constitution, our fellow citizens don't get to decide whether other citizens are entitled to fundamental rights. Roe had previously settled that abortion was a right. Now, after 50 years, that apple cart is about to be overturned.
Title: Re: Roe vs Wade under fire, again
Post by: billy rubin on May 17, 2022, 09:10:03 PM
Quote from: Asmodean on May 16, 2022, 08:35:23 AMStill, 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.

the wishes of tbe majority in america are not how major elections and ensuing  legislation are decided. because we have a senate and an electoral college that is not based on majority vote, minority pressure groups who game tbe system can retain power.

the last two republican presidents were put in office despite losing tbe popular vote- bush and trump. of tbe 9 justces in tbe supreme court, five were nominated by the same bush and trump.

so there is a disconnect between the leader of our executive branch and chief law interpreting body in the US and the majority will of the people.

the fact that the supreme court will overturn roe in spite of the majority will of the people reflects that.

in addition, conservatives in america are working hard to locally disenfranchise voters who might disagree with them, by making it harder for them to vote or by removing them from tbe voting rolls on the pretext of election integrity.

surprise! the people most often disenfranchised also happen to be those most.impacted by abortion restrictions.

the msinstream republicans no longer even maintain the appearance of respect for the democratic institutions. look at tbe high level republicans disdaining to  cooperate with an investigation into a republican insurrection and the corruption behind it.

in america we have a time in which representative democracy is under attack, and our milqutoast liberals are too busy wringing tbeir hands to start twisting elbows.

its going to get much worse before it gets better, and it may not ever get better.

Title: Re: Roe vs Wade under fire, again
Post by: Asmodean on May 18, 2022, 10:45:34 AM
Quote from: Anne D. on May 17, 2022, 02:49:19 AM"Them rubbies broke" = I tried to prevent it = justification for what is otherwise deemed wrongful.
Yes. Yes! Was it, or was it not a wrongful pregnancy? That is indeed what this example revolves around.

...Bloody finally. That took me its sweet time to formulate, and in the end, it wasn't even me who done did it. :clapping:

QuoteWow, a fetus's rights outweighing the mother's. I hope you're just spitballing again there, with more "deeply impractical" and deeply problematic musings.
No, I can see situations where the foetuses right to live out-weighs its mother's right to kill it because others' rights also weigh in its favour.

It's a bit like your right to clean air does not necessarily out-weigh my right to smoke, but then when combined with someone else's right to a certain standard of working environment, and suddenly, I don't get to smoke in bars any more.

QuoteI don't believe I used the term "right to privacy" or "right to self-determination,"
Roe did, You wanted to address this issue in terms of Roe Vs. Wade, but it did refer to the right to privacy, which... If you actually have it, then maybe it wasn't a bad decision. However, my contention is that the government can, will and must meddle in certain personal affairs, so... You don't have it? Or do you have it, except by due process? In which case, where is the due process in self-determined abortion?

QuoteI don't think Roe's legal reasoning is particularly sound and agree with Justice Ginsburg's view that the right to abortion would better be based on the 14th Amendments equal protection clause and gender equality grounds. Roe doesn't need to be overturned. It can be upheld with firmer underpinnings.
I would see any bad decision overturned as a matter of principle, but then, some rights may be worth codifying in law regardless of the quality of a court's decision in granting them. It may just be me with a non-US perspective, but I'd balk at any law-by-decree-of-court. They are there settle disagreements in understanding of the existing laws. They should, in my opinion, not be able to set policy, unless in legally identical circumstances. And when they have read the law one way or the other because of said disagreement, I think that decision should go back to the representatives to then do better representing.

QuoteYes, fundamental rights, within which I would include a woman's control over whether to bear children, are not up for debate and put to a vote.
Your fundamental rights come from the Bill of rights. An amendment basically means "Oh, waitaminute! We has a [EDIT]"

How is it not up for debate or vote?

QuoteUnder the U.S. Constitution, our fellow citizens don't get to decide whether other citizens are entitled to fundamental rights.
Death penalty. Eminent domain. Imprisonment. Psych hold. Your fellow citizens can do pretty much any of that to you, with the Bill of Rights in hand.

QuoteRoe had previously settled that abortion was a right. Now, after 50 years, that apple cart is about to be overturned.
Stare decisis is not a binding principle in litigation.
Title: Re: Roe vs Wade under fire, again
Post by: Asmodean on May 18, 2022, 10:54:42 AM
Quote from: billy rubin on May 17, 2022, 09:10:03 PMthe wishes of tbe majority in america are not how major elections and ensuing  legislation are decided. because we have a senate and an electoral college that is not based on majority vote, minority pressure groups who game tbe system can retain power.
"America" is a big place. I'm not saying this should be done at a sweeping, federal level. Basically, you may not need a EU law - you may be well enough having a Denmark law and a France law and a Poland law and so on.

Quotethe last two republican presidents were put in office despite losing tbe popular vote- bush and trump. of tbe 9 justces in tbe supreme court, five were nominated by the same bush and trump.
A reason to go as local as you can if ever I heard one.

Quotein america we have a time in which representative democracy is under attack, and our milqutoast liberals are too busy wringing tbeir hands to start twisting elbows.
I think it's a bit of a federation problem. In a union of "sovereigns," sometimes they just want mutually incompatible things and when they do, they use what legal, financial or other power they have or can reasonably project to get what they want. For themselves, primarily, but then again, in such unions, it's often forcing everybody to tow your line - or towing someone else's.
Title: Re: Roe vs Wade under fire, again
Post by: Asmodean on May 18, 2022, 03:11:01 PM
Watching me some LawTube and this guy here seems to be talking for the most part in line with my understanding on what I've read on the subject;


I'm not purely arguing law here, foreign law to my own sweet self besides, but as far as the legal arguments go, I think his argument is more well-informed/well-argued than mine.
Title: Re: Roe vs Wade under fire, again
Post by: Anne D. on May 19, 2022, 01:58:24 AM
Quote from: Asmodean on May 18, 2022, 10:45:34 AM
QuoteYes, fundamental rights, within which I would include a woman's control over whether to bear children, are not up for debate and put to a vote.
Your fundamental rights come from the Bill of rights. An amendment basically means "Oh, waitaminute! We has a [EDIT]"

How is it not up for debate or vote?

QuoteUnder the U.S. Constitution, our fellow citizens don't get to decide whether other citizens are entitled to fundamental rights.
Death penalty. Eminent domain. Imprisonment. Psych hold. Your fellow citizens can do pretty much any of that to you, with the Bill of Rights in hand.

QuoteRoe had previously settled that abortion was a right. Now, after 50 years, that apple cart is about to be overturned.
Stare decisis is not a binding principle in litigation.

The U.S. Supreme Court interprets the Constitution. Rights the Court identifies as fundamental rights are subject to what's known as strict scrutiny, the very highest level of scrutiny. What that means is that legislatures (state or federal) may try to tinker with those rights through legislation, but the law will be subject to strict scrutiny by the Court (there must be a compelling state interest, and the law must be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest). In practice, if strict scrutiny applies, the law is most likely going to be found to not meet it and thus be void.

That is what I meant by "fundamental rights are not up for debate and put to a vote." The Court has already said, "This right is too important to be legislated away." I.e., it's fundamental. Legislatures might be able to tinker around the edges of the right, but they can't outright legislate it away.

Roe had previously settled that abortion was a fundamental right. Casey somewhat watered that down but left abortion as essentially a "quasi-fundamental" right, subject to the undue burden test rather than strict scrutiny.

But now Alito and company are about to turn things on their head by yanking away what the Court established was a fundamental right half a century ago. The whole point of this thread and the reason this is a big deal is because what had been established as a fundamental right not up for being legislated away is about to no longer be.

(And re: "Stare decisis is not a binding principle in litigation." I have no idea what you mean by that unless you mistyped "litigation" but meant "legislation." If that's the case, see above.)
Title: Re: Roe vs Wade under fire, again
Post by: Asmodean on May 19, 2022, 07:19:11 AM
Quote from: Asmodean on May 18, 2022, 10:45:34 AMThe U.S. Supreme Court interprets the Constitution. Rights the Court identifies as fundamental rights are subject to what's known as strict scrutiny, the very highest level of scrutiny. What that means is that legislatures (state or federal) may try to tinker with those rights through legislation, but the law will be subject to strict scrutiny by the Court (there must be a compelling state interest, and the law must be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest). In practice, if strict scrutiny applies, the law is most likely going to be found to not meet it and thus be void.

That is what I meant by "fundamental rights are not up for debate and put to a vote." The Court has already said, "This right is too important to be legislated away." I.e., it's fundamental. Legislatures might be able to tinker around the edges of the right, but they can't outright legislate it away.
Thing is though, the constitution itself is subject to change. If indeed that is the wish of your society, a constitutional amendment granting termination of pregnancy as a right would be subject to whatever majority it takes in the US to change - not to a committee deciding to have another look at some old decisions.

Quote(And re: "Stare decisis is not a binding principle in litigation." I have no idea what you mean by that unless you mistyped "litigation" but meant "legislation." If that's the case, see above.)
Yes, legislation. However, in this particular case, it's about the same difference. Something having been decided previously is not binding. The courts can overturn decisions, pretty much at their discretion, with very little in ways of checks and balances. On the other hand, where I'm at, it would take a 2/3 majority vote in our version of the Senate to change the constitution. If indeed there is a 2/3 majority for something, then it's reasonable to assume that there is strong support for that decision in the society as a whole.
Title: Re: Roe vs Wade under fire, again
Post by: Anne D. on May 19, 2022, 12:53:54 PM
Quote from: Asmodean on May 19, 2022, 07:19:11 AMThing is though, the constitution itself is subject to change

Of course. In practice, it's very difficult and rare, especially in later decades. (See the fight for the ERA.)

You seemed to have no knowledge of the role the U.S. judicial branch plays. I was explaining that to you.
Title: Re: Roe vs Wade under fire, again
Post by: Asmodean on May 19, 2022, 01:13:18 PM
Quote from: Anne D. on May 19, 2022, 12:53:54 PM
Quote from: Asmodean on May 19, 2022, 07:19:11 AMThing is though, the constitution itself is subject to change

Of course. In practice, it's very difficult and rare, especially in later decades. (See the fight for the ERA.)

You seemed to have no knowledge of the role the U.S. judicial branch plays. I was explaining that to you.
Indeed, and I did not contest any part of your explanation - just the overarching theme of where a law comes from. There is a reason for dividing the government into three branches - that way, none can (or, supposed to be able to) mess with the nation too badly.

If indeed there is a need for a new right, the judicial branch is the wrong place to get it from as the only way they can, is by creatively reading existing law.
Title: Re: Roe vs Wade under fire, again
Post by: Recusant on May 20, 2022, 06:49:43 AM
In 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 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-9). In this understanding, government does not and can not bestow "new rights." It protects and regulates rights, which are inherent to the people.

A right to privacy is implicitly acknowledged in the Bill of Rights, including the 1st Amendment, the 3rd Amendment, the 4th Amendment and the 5th Amendment. In addition, the due process clause of the 14th Amendment was cited by the US Supreme Court as protecting a right to freedom from undue interference (aka a right to privacy) long before (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meyer_v._Nebraska#Majority_opinion) Roe v. Wade.
Title: Re: Roe vs Wade under fire, again
Post by: Asmodean on May 20, 2022, 07:18:44 AM
Quote from: Recusant on May 20, 2022, 06:49:43 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 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-9). In this understanding, government does not and can not bestow "new rights." It protects and regulates rights, which are inherent to the people.

A right to privacy is implicitly acknowledged in the Bill of Rights, including the 1st Amendment, the 3rd Amendment, the 4th Amendment and the 5th Amendment. In addition, the due process clause of the 14th Amendment was cited by the US Supreme Court as protecting a right to freedom from undue interference (aka a right to privacy) long before (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meyer_v._Nebraska#Majority_opinion) Roe v. Wade.
I see what you are saying, and yet I also see what seems to be reasonable legal arguments that go the other way.

That said, if the right to privacy is protection from "undue" interference, then wherein lies "undue?"
Title: Re: Roe vs Wade under fire, again
Post by: Recusant on May 23, 2022, 08:41:46 AM
Sorry, wrote a reply, but failed to post it, and shut down the computer. Will try to reconstruct it.
Title: Re: Roe vs Wade under fire, again
Post by: Recusant on May 27, 2022, 08:03:38 AM
Not as comprehensive as the lost post, but that's probably a good thing.  ;)

Quote from: Asmodean on May 20, 2022, 07:18:44 AM
Quote from: Recusant on May 20, 2022, 06:49:43 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 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-9). In this understanding, government does not and can not bestow "new rights." It protects and regulates rights, which are inherent to the people.

A right to privacy is implicitly acknowledged in the Bill of Rights, including the 1st Amendment, the 3rd Amendment, the 4th Amendment and the 5th Amendment. In addition, the due process clause of the 14th Amendment was cited by the US Supreme Court as protecting a right to freedom from undue interference (aka a right to privacy) long before (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meyer_v._Nebraska#Majority_opinion) Roe v. Wade.
I see what you are saying, and yet I also see what seems to be reasonable legal arguments that go the other way.

That said, if the right to privacy is protection from "undue" interference, then wherein lies "undue?"

It's been a couple of years since I read Amar's book on the US Constitution (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/843764.America_s_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.

Given that, and given that a right to privacy is an integral underlying aspect of several amendments in the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution, it's reasonable to put a right to privacy among the fundamental rights (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fundamental_right). Anne D. covered the concept upthread. In US infringement of a fundemantal right by the government must pass "strict scrutiny":   It must be shown that there is a "compelling governmental interest (https://projectgroup9.weebly.com/strict-scrutiny.html)" which justifies an infringement of any of these rights.

I consider a governmental ban on abortion to be an undue infringement of a woman's right to control her own life. The Supreme Court has affirmed that to be the case repeatedly, while the draft opinion overturning this 50 year old precedent is questionable for a number of reasons. It isn't difficult to find critical analyses online; I'll link to one (https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/roe-v-wade-overturned-supreme-court-abortion-draft-alitos-legal-analys-rcna27205) which covers several of the dubious aspects of the ruling.
 
What 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?
Title: Re: Roe vs Wade under fire, again
Post by: billy rubin on May 27, 2022, 10:57:50 AM
alito said it in the draft, explicitly.

abortion deprives the adpption industry of a supply of babies to market.
Title: Re: Roe vs Wade under fire, again
Post by: No one on May 28, 2022, 03:36:28 AM
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.
Title: Re: Roe vs Wade under fire, again
Post by: Asmodean on May 30, 2022, 08:07:37 AM
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 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-9). 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 (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/843764.America_s_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)
Title: Re: Roe vs Wade under fire, again
Post by: billy rubin on May 30, 2022, 04:32:46 PM
Quote from: No one on May 28, 2022, 03:36:28 AMI 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.

https://www.google.com/search?q=woman+arrested+gun+in+vagina&oq=woman+arrested+gun+in+vagina&aqs=chrome..69i57.10557j0j7&client=ms-android-verizon&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#sbfbu=1&pi=woman%20arrested%20gun%20in%20vagina
Title: Re: Roe vs Wade under fire, again
Post by: Dark Lightning on May 30, 2022, 04:52:50 PM
I've had a "blue steel" hard-on in the past, but this tops that! Talk about stretched out of shape...
Title: Re: Roe vs Wade under fire, again
Post by: viocjit on May 30, 2022, 06:49:10 PM
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
Title: Re: Roe vs Wade under fire, again
Post by: Recusant on June 05, 2022, 06:31:14 AM
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 (https://www.cga.ct.gov/2002/rpt/2002-R-0077.htm) since 1997, for instance. As of now, eight other states and the District of Columbia (https://deathwithdignity.org/states/) have passed similar legislation. And of course it is legal in at least a couple of countries in Europe (https://www.cga.ct.gov/2002/rpt/2002-R-0077.htm) 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?
Title: Re: Roe vs Wade under fire, again
Post by: Asmodean on June 07, 2022, 02:07:06 PM
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 (https://www.cga.ct.gov/2002/rpt/2002-R-0077.htm) since 1997, for instance. As of now, eight other states and the District of Columbia (https://deathwithdignity.org/states/) have passed similar legislation. And of course it is legal in at least a couple of countries in Europe (https://www.cga.ct.gov/2002/rpt/2002-R-0077.htm) 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'.

Title: Re: Roe vs Wade under fire, again
Post by: No one on June 07, 2022, 03:44:10 PM
I do not have any lines in the play that is someone else's life.
Title: Re: Roe vs Wade under fire, again
Post by: Asmodean on June 08, 2022, 07:54:04 AM
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?
Title: Re: Roe vs Wade under fire, again
Post by: No one on June 08, 2022, 12:20:23 PM
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.