Roe VS Wade officially goes back before the Supreme Court - Page 10 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15201165
Pants-of-dog wrote:No. This is incorrect. I care just as much as if the child were born. This is why I think the unborn should have the same rights as the born.

But you seem to want to disregard the rights of the pregnant person.

Why should pregnant people not have the same rights as the rest of us?

Why should unborn babies not have the same rights as the rest of us: right to life? Right to not have medically assisted death forced upon it without its consent?

Please name one other instance where we take positive actions to kill a healthy human via medical assistance without their consent? I'll be waiting...
#15201166
wat0n wrote:How about a 24 weeks fetus. Is that a person? How about going full Rothbardian and being OK with neglecting a born baby? He would say parents have no obligation to care for a newborn, and had a right to refuse to feed the baby even if it would die as a result. That doesn't sound like "self-sustaining life" to me. Is that newborn a person? You will find those who will claim it's not.

What's the cutoff here?


A fetus becomes a person when it slides out the vaginal canal because the vagina has a magical wand that confers personhood on the baby when it comes out.
#15201167
Unthinking Majority wrote:A fetus becomes a person when it slides out the vaginal canal because the vagina has a magical wand that confers personhood on the baby when it comes out.


Now let's turn the other way around: Why is a fetus a person and stem cells are not? Or both are?

How about cum and ova. Are they persons too?
#15201168
wat0n wrote:So why not incentivize people to accept limits on their bodily autonomy to save other persons like the ones you mentioned or... Well, if the fetus is indeed a person, carrying a pregnancy to term?

Personally, as I said, I don't think it's an easy call. Of course if the fetus isn't a person then you can do whatever you want with it, such as aborting it and then having a BBQ with whatever remains after. Or turning that into dog food. Or experimenting with it, without asking for anyone's consent.

But if it is... Hmmmm

We don't even have to dwell into the philosophy of what makes a person.
You want to incentivize? Go ahead. But banning abortion is as much of an "incentive" as the mafia selling you "insurance for your knees". There is also the issue of vulnerable populations.

Why would you assume I don't care about human beings? Go fuck yourself then, you don't know anything about me. You have no idea what i've done in my life to help other people.

I misworded it. I meant to say
"I am sorry but I don't buy for a second that your objections about abortion are because you care about human life."

Go find me a doctor that would separate siamese twins if one of them depended on the other to live and thus would die if separated.

You mean like this?
https://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/08/worl ... ors%20said.

Not to mention... who really owns the body in siamese twins? Thats a rare aberration and it should be dealt on an individualized manner, rather than with a blanket approach. You cannot do the same for something such as an abortion where there are half a million every year. You cannot have half a million cases in court to decide the right thing.... not to mention it is time-sensitive.
#15201169
Unthinking Majority wrote:Why should unborn babies not have the same rights as the rest of us: right to life? Right to not have medically assisted death forced upon it without its consent?

Even if you give them the exact same rights that you have. You don't have the right to get my kidneys to filter your blood. Why does the "unborn baby" have the right to use the mother's kidneys to filter the fetus's blood if she does not want to?
#15201170
XogGyux wrote:We don't even have to dwell into the philosophy of what makes a person.
You want to incentivize? Go ahead. But banning abortion is as much of an "incentive" as the mafia selling you "insurance for your knees". There is also the issue of vulnerable populations.


Problem is, when you deal with persons you can't end their lives as easily. Of course, if there was a way to abort a fetus without killing it then we'd be talking about something else, but that's not the case right now.
#15201171
wat0n wrote:Problem is, when you deal with persons you can't end their lives as easily. Of course, if there was a way to abort a fetus without killing it then we'd be talking about something else, but that's not the case right now.

I am not saying it is pretty, but it does not matter if it is pretty or not. Life has painful things, all the time. You know, there are twice as many kidney as there are people. Over 1 million people die every year of this. There are 7billion extra kidneys in the world. If we count lung lobes, livers, bone marrow, we could save millions of people every year... Actual people, people that we wouldn't even have to debate whether or not they are people or have personhood. Yet, this idea would be rightfully dismissed by everyone in this thread. But a young woman can be considered an incubator?
Sorry, don't buy it.
Last edited by XogGyux on 06 Dec 2021 23:55, edited 1 time in total.
#15201173
wat0n wrote:
How about a 24 weeks fetus. Is that a person? How about going full Rothbardian and being OK with neglecting a born baby? He would say parents have no obligation to care for a newborn, and had a right to refuse to feed the baby even if it would die as a result. That doesn't sound like "self-sustaining life" to me. Is that newborn a person? You will find those who will claim it's not.

What's the cutoff here?



*Personally* I say 'Let the adults decide, particularly the woman herself.'

Once it's *born*, then, and, worst-case scenario, the biological parent(s) are unable to care for it, then the government / public would have an interest in providing social services through the end of adolescence, and possibly beyond.

My standing politics on this is 'Exoskeletons for infants' -- really -- so that autonomy can be realized as early in life as possible -- this would be for providing full mobility and socialization options and individual self-determination as early as possible. No nuclear family required, with full social guarantees for humane food and housing, etc., for all, right from the start.
#15201174
XogGyux wrote:I am not saying it is pretty, but it does not matter if it is pretty or not. Life has painful things, all the time. You know, there are twice as many kidney diseases. Over 1 million people die every year of this. There are 7billion extra kidneys in the world. If we count lung lobes, livers, bone marrow, we could save millions of people every year... Actual people, people that we wouldn't even have to debate whether or not they are people or have personhood. Yet, this idea would be rightfully dismissed by everyone in this thread. But a young woman can be considered an incubator?
Sorry, don't buy it.


You could say the same about any medical condition or the lockdowns. "Yes, people die all the time. So what?"

Now, if you think there is some proportionality calculation involved - maybe. But then how far do we have to go, as individuals, to save another person's life?

For instance, I don't think you are obliged to save another person if doing so can get you killed.

ckaihatsu wrote:*Personally* I say 'Let the adults decide, particularly the woman herself.'

Once it's *born*, then, and, worst-case scenario, the biological parent(s) are unable to care for it, then the government / public would have an interest in providing social services through the end of adolescence, and possibly beyond.

My standing politics on this is 'Exoskeletons for infants' -- really -- so that autonomy can be realized as early in life as possible -- this would be for providing full mobility and socialization options and individual self-determination as early as possible. No nuclear family required, with full social guarantees for humane food and housing, etc., for all, right from the start.


But we're not there yet and normally we don't allow individuals to decide who's a person and who's not. I think we can agree that can lead to some very undesirable results.
#15201175
wat0n wrote:
But we're not there yet and normally we don't allow individuals to decide who's a person and who's not. I think we can agree that can lead to some very undesirable results.



Yeah, well, that's why we're here -- there has to be some kind of standard (governmental / societal) *policy*, for *this* reason:


XogGyux wrote:
abortion where there are half a million every year. You cannot have half a million cases in court to decide the right thing.... not to mention it is time-sensitive.



viewtopic.php?p=15201168#p15201168
#15201178
wat0n wrote:
For instance, I don't think you are obliged to save another person if doing so can get you killed.

Interesting. What are your views on the military? They are professionals trained to do exactly that, put themselves into harm's way to protect the rest of us, sometimes not even our lives but just our "way of life" and standard of living rather than our actual lives.

Pregnancy and delivery could get you killed also btw. There is something called maternity mortality.
#15201186
XogGyux wrote:Interesting. What are your views on the military? They are professionals trained to do exactly that, put themselves into harm's way to protect the rest of us, sometimes not even our lives but just our "way of life" and standard of living rather than our actual lives.


Right, and that's why they get to many benefits don't they?

XogGyux wrote:Pregnancy and delivery could get you killed also btw. There is something called maternity mortality.


Indeed, and that's why I mentioned abortion when delivery can place the mother into an intolerable risk is fine. It's basically self-defense. It's also why I am okay with aborting inviable fetuses, as again the mother would be taking a risk for giving birth to a baby that will die within a few minutes or hours.
#15201189
Yada, Yada, Yada, Yada,....

Look folks. Let us all be perfectly honest here. Nobody on either side is really trying to save or kill babies.

Full disclosure. I HATE abortion. I am pro-choice with certain limitations.

This is nothing but a political issue. It is being stoked by the Republican Party because it gets votes. That is all.

The only way to establish a time when a fetus becomes a child is to set an arbitrary time on it. Alabama says 11 weeks and some plates say 24 weeks. I say 25 weeks, three days, 6 hours and 21 minutes. We do know how old preemies can be when successfully birthed. But I like my time better because I made it up just like everyone else is.

I do not doubt the sincerity of people who for religious or other reasons are rabidly anti-abortion. I do not denigrate their right to vote their beliefs. (Now pay the fuck attention to what I am about to say not to what you want me to have said.) This issue points out a fatal flaw in the US form of government. I believe a fatal flaw.:

For our government to work we have to believe in the supremacy of the people. That is not the problem. We have constructed a system that relies on the state to express that supremacy. With me so far? Then. We decided that to regulate trade and support human rights positions that are not universally held, we would empower the US government to supersede the laws of the states through what amounts to sleight of hand. Withholding federal funds, the commerce clause, executive order, etc. THAT, in effect, made it necessary for us to have a Supreme Leader, just like Iran does. Our Supreme Leader, is the Supreme court.

The Federal Government has no constitutional authority to ban abortion and couldn't if it tried. (It can't even pass a fucking budget.) So some folks came up with the notion that women have some right to a few months of their body that they never had before. Why? Because the overwhelming number of Americans wanted abortion illegal. They would have added, "of course". (Mind you that we take many years and even life itself away from men through the draft laws so 9 months does not shock me much at all.)

Well the aforementioned group tried to sell it to the individual states and succeeded in a few. In the others they were met with "oh hell no". So they got laws passed allowing abortion in the pro-abortion states and failed in the other. In the failed states they tried a political canard. And what was this canard? They asserted that a woman had a right to control her body that is denied to men and always has been. (The draft.) But that is not what carried the day. It was, in the end, privacy that gave us Roe v. Wade.

Look folks. This thread is about Roe V. Wade. Nothing else. So what the the supreme court actually say?

The Court divided the pregnancy period into three trimesters. During the first trimester 0-13 weeks), the decision to terminate the pregnancy was solely at the discretion of the woman. After the first trimester, the state could “regulate procedure.” During the second trimester, the state could regulate (but not outlaw) abortions in the interests of the mother’s health. After the second trimester, the fetus became viable, and the state could regulate or outlaw abortions in the interest of the potential life except when necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.


So. Read that again. And again. A word that is used often is "state". For 13 weeks it is up to the mom. For the rest of the pregnancy the SCOTUS left to the states the prerogative to "regulate" the procedure IN THE INTEREST OF THE HEALTH OF THE MOTHER. It left to the states the right to decide what constitutes the "health of the mother". Being inconvenienced can reasonably be argued to not constitute a health issue in abortion anymore than it does in the call for jury duty.

So that is what the anti-abortion folks are trying to do with the draconian laws. Though we could easily say that they are trying to overturn Roe the fact is that what they are really attempting to do is enforce it. They are simply asserting a right that the court already gave them. The right to regulate the procedure and the responsibility to define what "In the interests of the health of the mother" means.

Will the SCOTUS overturn Roe V. Wade and leave a legal gap? God I most sincerely hope so. I really do. I don't think they will. I think they will just gut it by letting these state laws stand.

Either side of the argument wins if Roe is struck down root and branch. The anti abortion folks because they can bad in in their states. The pro-choice people win because the people want abortion to be readily available. They may vote new pro-choice candidates into office.

But understand as you expend a shit ton of effort kvetching over when a cake becomes a cake, it has already been decided by the SCOTUS 48 years ago.

This issue is so simple. We just do not have a form of government that is systematically capable of dealing with big issues. And it never will be again until the Republicans take control of all three houses of government.
#15201190
Drlee wrote:
So that is what the anti-abortion folks are trying to do with the draconian laws. Though we could easily say that they are trying to overturn Roe the fact is that what they are really attempting to do is enforce it.



Also, this-just-in: Black is white, and night is day. (Nice try, though.)


Drlee wrote:
They are simply asserting a right that the court already gave them. The right to regulate the procedure and the responsibility to define what "In the interests of the health of the mother" means.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States%27_rights


Drlee wrote:
This issue is so simple. We just do not have a form of government that is systematically capable of dealing with big issues.



Yes. Yes, *sir*. I am with you here....


Drlee wrote:
And it never will be again until the Republicans take control of all three houses of government.



...And then, *whoa* -- what the fuck was *that* -- ?

Republican apocalypse -- ? Really -- ?


= (
#15201219
Unthinking Majority wrote:Why should unborn babies not have the same rights as the rest of us: right to life? Right to not have medically assisted death forced upon it without its consent?


Unborn babies do have the same rights as the rest of us: right to life, as long as it does not trump someone else’s body autonomy. Right to not have medically assisted death forced upon it without its consent, along as we do not violate the body autonomy of others.

Please name one other instance where we take positive actions to kill a healthy human via medical assistance without their consent? I'll be waiting...


At any time when a human being violates the body autonomy of another in order to preserve their own life.

Now, why do you think pregnant people deserve less rights?
#15201221
Yes. I frightens me also.

But the Republicans will never be held to account as long as they are running the country as a minority party. And that is exactly what they are doing now.

The Democrats have not forwarded a single issue that, in the end, was not dictated by Republicans.

The Democrats are far to wimpy to bust the filibuster and the Republicans have infiltrated two of their own senators, Manchin and Sinema, so that they, in effect, can checkmate anything the Democrats want to do.

The only way the people will every see what is going on is if the Republicans are required to take long term responsibility for it. But that will actually never happen either.

Democracy in the US is over. Expired. Finished. Maybe some day. Who knows. Next 20 years? Republican minority run oligarchy.

@Pants-of-dog

Unborn babies do have the same rights as the rest of us: right to life, as long as it does not trump someone else’s body autonomy.


In this you disagree with the Supreme Court of the United States which said that they did in the last trimester and sometimes before.
#15201225
Drlee wrote:
Yes. I frightens me also.



(Rolling eyes.) Trite attempt at being bad-ass. Maybe try something else.


Drlee wrote:
But the Republicans will never be held to account as long as they are running the country as a minority party. And that is exactly what they are doing now.



We just gotta give 'em a *chance*, right -- ? (yeesh)


Drlee wrote:
The Democrats have not forwarded a single issue that, in the end, was not dictated by Republicans.

The Democrats are far to wimpy to bust the filibuster and the Republicans have infiltrated two of their own senators, Manchin and Sinema, so that they, in effect, can checkmate anything the Democrats want to do.


Drlee wrote:
The only way the people will every see what is going on is if the Republicans are required to take long term responsibility for it. But that will actually never happen either.



Then -- excuse me -- why the *fuck* should they be elected -- !

I for one am glad right now that I'm not seeing Trump in the news hardly anymore, after all of that 'coup' shit -- why would you even *entertain* the thought of more Republicans, after *that* fiasco -- ?
#15201231
Pants-of-dog wrote:Unborn babies do have the same rights as the rest of us: right to life, as long as it does not trump someone else’s body autonomy. Right to not have medically assisted death forced upon it without its consent, along as we do not violate the body autonomy of others.

If a woman has right to body autonomy, and a fetus has a right to life, we have a situation where we have conflicting rights and only one party can have their rights upheld and the other party will have their rights violated for the sake of the other's rights. So whose rights supersede the other, and why?

[quote]At any time when a human being violates the body autonomy of another in order to preserve their own life.[/quote
So you believe in the case of Siamese twins where twin #1 is dependent on twin #2's organs to live that it's ok for twin #2 to sever his body via medical procedure from the other twin thus killing twin #1?

Why do doctors virtually never agree to do this in these cases because they don't want to kill the dependent twin, but yet perform abortions?
  • 1
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 19
Prediction of JFK assassination?

The assassination was predicted by the 1951 movie […]

https://twitter.com/samstreetwrites/status/1483929[…]

Election 2024 Thread

Well there is no doubt @Doug64 that Republicans[…]

Ten Lies that Humanity is addicted to

The "lies" he tells is that Europeans […]