Roe VS Wade officially goes back before the Supreme Court - Page 11 - 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.
#15201233
Unthinking Majority wrote: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?


The pregnant person’s right to body autonomy trumps the unborn child’s right to life.

This is because we have decided that body autonomy trumps the right to life in every other situation where we are forced to balance these two rights.


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?


Because conjoined twins do not have one person using the body of another. Instead, they share certain body parts. The two situations are not comparable.
#15201236
Pants-of-dog wrote:The pregnant person’s right to body autonomy trumps the unborn child’s right to life.

This is because we have decided that body autonomy trumps the right to life in every other situation where we are forced to balance these two rights.

Wrong. In the case of siamese twins where one twin is dependent on the other's organs to live, doctors don't separate them if they're both healthy and the separation would cause the dependent twin to die just because the other twin would want body autonomy. This case of siamese twins is the only situation that's comparable to pregnancy because one person is attached and dependent on another's organs and detaching them would kill the dependent.

Because conjoined twins do not have one person using the body of another. Instead, they share certain body parts. The two situations are not comparable.

They are totally comparable, they're the only case that's comparable.
#15201239
Abortion does not need regulation. Pregnant women(single mothers) need support of the society and culture, particularly in financial matters. If you make it so an abortion is not a good choice, then you'll have less women choosing it as an option. Until time as pregnant women are given this support, you're going to have lots of abortions.

Abortions happens. You can agree to it, or not. It's a personal choice.

I think that abortion needs to be between a doctor and the pregnant woman. No one else need be involved. Abortions happen even when you make them illegal. The only difference is that when they are illegal they are done in dangerous ways that put the woman in danger, both mentally and physically.

You also then get more kids in foster care or up for adoption, which makes even more problems. You get unwanted children who are not cared for, and for which society isn't about to hoof the bill for, either.

Canada does not regulate abortions and yet most of them occur before 23 weeks and 6 days, with the rare cases of them happening afterwards, due to medical issues. No doctor is going to give an abortion when the fetus is viable, even with no regulation.

The arguments about ethics and morality end up making it seem like it's all religion based. Congratulations USA, you're one step closer to the theocracy that you mock ME countries for having.
#15201241
Drlee wrote: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.


Indeed, that's also another way to see it. I can't think of any non-arbitrary way to set up a cutoff here, although I've heard some that come closer to being an objective standard than others.

And I think the rest of your post may indeed be spot on. Maybe it is just simpler to leave it up to voters, perhaps by doing referendums, to decide when should that cutoff be. And in the US, that means leaving the policy up to the states. Maybe voters in one place decide the cutoff is 0 days (that is, right at conception). And maybe in others the standard is that personhood begins after leaving the womb. Or maybe even after a certain time after delivery has passed. Or maybe it's not age based, but is about having a functioning brain, so someone whose brain has stopped functioning is legally dead, and at most is afforded the protections of corpses regardless of whether he's inside the womb or not. Maybe.
#15201242
The pregnant person’s right to body autonomy trumps the unborn child’s right to life.

This is because we have decided that body autonomy trumps the right to life in every other situation where we are forced to balance these two rights.


Spoken like someone who has never been drafted.

:roll:

The SCOTUS has been wrong on many occasions and often ignores things like civil rights.


The SCOTUS is the final arbiter of what civil rights are. They giveth and they taketh away.

There are no civil rights in the US that have not been vetted by the SCOTUS.
#15201243
wat0n wrote:
Indeed, that's also another way to see it. I can't think of any non-arbitrary way to set up a cutoff here, although I've heard some that come closer to being an objective standard than others.

And I think the rest of your post may indeed be spot on. Maybe it is just simpler to leave it up to voters, perhaps by doing referendums, to decide when should that cutoff be. And in the US, that means leaving the policy up to the states. Maybe voters in one place decide the cutoff is 0 days (that is, right at conception). And maybe in others the standard is that personhood begins after leaving the womb. Or maybe even after a certain time after delivery has passed. Or maybe it's not age based, but is about having a functioning brain, so someone whose brain has stopped functioning is legally dead, and at most is afforded the protections of corpses regardless of whether he's inside the womb or not. Maybe.



Between this and the immigration thing I think we're seeing a full-blown nationalist *identity crisis* -- who gets to be birthed into citizenship, and who gets to come over -- (!)
#15201244
ckaihatsu wrote:Between this and the immigration thing I think we're seeing a full-blown nationalist *identity crisis* -- who gets to be birthed into citizenship, and who gets to come over -- (!)


Don't see how this has anything to do with nationalism, but then again you follow a fantasy communism that only you truly understand... So what gives?

Not that Marxist-leninists believe in a right to life, so I don't know why would you care. This isn't a discussion you should care at all.
#15201246
[EDIT] ['Agricultural']

wat0n wrote:
Don't see how this has anything to do with nationalism, but then again you follow a fantasy communism that only you truly understand... So what gives?



Nominal apologies -- I was kinda riffing-off of what you were saying, rather than addressing your content directly.

The 'fantasy communism' isn't that at all -- it's a *post-scarcity* political economy, meaning what society could do once it's materially surpassed its need for capitalism. Capitalism thrives on *scarcity*, but yields *overproduction* (in market terms) while halting actual *material production* because the price bottoms-out as scarcity conditions wane and the market for the commodity gets saturated.

So, back to the Agricultural Revolution -- what should be done with society's *surplus*? Who decides, etc.

Capitalism prefers *scarcity* conditions since it economically values *scarce* items at *higher* valuations, while a potential common provisioning to everyone -- a doable *technical* feat -- does not happen because there are no profits to be made in just giving stuff away, no matter how much people actually *need* that material production for their lives and well-being.


wat0n wrote:
Not that Marxist-leninists believe in a right to life, so I don't know why would you care. This isn't a discussion you should care at all.



Yeah, *still* not a Marxist-Leninist / Stalinist, though I suppose there's some overlap at times depending on the issue. What, for example, about *this* particular life:


December 4th: Anniversary of the FBI-Chicago Police Assassination of Fred Hampton

Image

American Crime Case #74: The FBI-Chicago Police Assassination of Fred Hampton

https://revcom.us/en/a/463/american-cri ... on-en.html


---


Yeah, far-left-wingers like myself would all say that it's up to the woman, so there's the politics / policy for ya.


Also:


Anatomy of a Platform

Spoiler: show
Image
Last edited by ckaihatsu on 07 Dec 2021 08:38, edited 1 time in total.
#15201248
Drlee wrote:just like everyone else

We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer [...] With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the "compelling" point is at viability.

— Roe v. Wade/Opinion of the Court


"viability"

Completed weeks of gestation at birth/Chance of survival

21 and less: 0%

22: 0-10%

23: 10-35%

24: 40-70%

25: 50-80%

26: 80-90%

27: >90%

30: >95%

34: >98%
#15201254
Drlee wrote: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.


Indeed, it is certainly political. We have a user on here who I remember a few years back actually saying he hated women championing abortion rights. :lol:

The solution for this is not to take the rights of abortion away but look at the reason why people have them to begin with. And that is laymen for saying if the Republican memo was all about life, they would set the conditions for that life to be viable and sustainable after its birth so there were actual choices the mother could enact away from abortion.

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.


This case will hinge on what 'viable' means. Which I guess is why Texas didn't outright ban abortions but was short enough to in essence make them illegal. But on viability, we could just say women have the right to eject a fetus from their body and the doctors have a responsibility to save that life once it has been aborted. If it is viable, it will survive. If not, it won't.

But in regards to time the US could just do what the rest of the Western world is doing. My opinion on abortion is similar to yours btw. But a fetus is a child on birth (so not a time limit) and its survival in the womb without threat of abortion should reflect the circumstances and a realistic thought process of the mother. The UK that is around 12 weeks. That seems fine to me.
#15201274
Unthinking Majority wrote:Wrong. In the case of siamese twins where one twin is dependent on the other's organs to live, doctors don't separate them if they're both healthy and the separation would cause the dependent twin to die just because the other twin would want body autonomy. This case of siamese twins is the only situation that's comparable to pregnancy because one person is attached and dependent on another's organs and detaching them would kill the dependent.


They are totally comparable, they're the only case that's comparable.


No.

In the case of conjoined twins, both people were born with that body and have always used it.

In the case of pregnancy, the body of the pregnant person was clearly the body of only the pregnant person prior to the pregnancy.

Also, no one refers to conjoined twins as being from Thailand anymore.
#15201276
@Drlee

If you wish me to reply to your posts where you quote me, please use the notification system so that I can know that you have replied to one of my posts. Thanks.

Drlee wrote:Spoken like someone who has never been drafted.

:roll:


Actually, men in my country are still drafted. The USA, on the other hand, has not drafted anyone since 1973.

The SCOTUS is the final arbiter of what civil rights are. They giveth and they taketh away.

There are no civil rights in the US that have not been vetted by the SCOTUS.


The SCOTUS has been wrong in the past and will probably be wrong this time again. And like I said, this is because the SCOTUS consistently denies people civil rights.
#15201278
@Unthinking Majority I don't know you, you might be the most selfless, altruistic person on the planet for all I know. Its entirely plausible that you have lived a more committed and responsible life and made greater sacrifices for others than I have done. However the question for me is whether its reasonable for society as a whole, to demand that women must allow their bodies to be used for a pregnancy. And in my view it most definitely isn't reasonable.

Society just doesn't show anywhere near the level of concern for the life of its citizens, let alone for human beings that are not citizens to justify imposing these massive responsibilities on women. I suspect I live a much lower level of consumption of resources, life style than most people in Britain. Maybe you're some sort of rare super altruist, but the overwhelming majority of us whether of the left right or centre spend huge amounts on things that are not necessities. we all, or least virtually all of us choose our life style or the lifestyle of our families, over the preservation of life of those who not family / friends / partners etc. Demanding that a woman keep a foetus in her body when she doesn't want to, is a massive thing to demand, it goes beyond what was even demanded of many slaves.
#15201281
Actually, men in my country are still drafted. The USA, on the other hand, has not drafted anyone since 1973.


Which has nothing to do with this discussion but I am sure you are very proud of this.


The SCOTUS has been wrong in the past and will probably be wrong this time again. And like I said, this is because the SCOTUS consistently denies people civil rights.


Thank you for the political statement of your frustration with the court. Sometimes I share it. I am glad you do not disagree with me when I said:

The SCOTUS is the final arbiter of what civil rights are. They giveth and they taketh away.

There are no civil rights in the US that have not been vetted by the SCOTUS.


And I will follow up with this:

It appears that the Democratic party, which is nominally in power now, will take no steps to correct errors by the court. As a matter of fact, they won't even ditch one simple, fairly recent, administrative procedure in the Senate to protect the right of the people to vote.
#15201287
Drlee wrote:Which has nothing to do with this discussion but I am sure you are very proud of this.


You brought it up.

Thank you for the political statement of your frustration with the court. Sometimes I share it. I am glad you do not disagree with me when I said:


Perfect. Moving on...

And I will follow up with this:

It appears that the Democratic party, which is nominally in power now, will take no steps to correct errors by the court. As a matter of fact, they won't even ditch one simple, fairly recent, administrative procedure in the Senate to protect the right of the people to vote.


No disagreement.

Back to my point:

In most western societies, we have decided that body autonomy trumps the right to life in every other situation where we are forced to balance these two rights.

The only exception seems to be pregnancy.

I can think of a few reasons for this double standard, but I would like to verify my speculations before commenting further.
#15201288
Pants-of-dog wrote:In most western societies, we have decided that body autonomy trumps the right to life in every other situation where we are forced to balance these two rights.

The only exception seems to be pregnancy.


Except that this isn't true, judging by how COVID vaccination seems to be trumping any abstract right to bodily autonomy for the anti vaxxers.
#15201300
Pants-of-dog wrote:As far as I know, no western society has made vaccination compulsory.


No, but you can't deny that (instead) their rights are severely restricted in countries like Austria and Germany, until they vaccinate. I recall you were OK with this, so why wouldn't one be OK with restricting bodily autonomy when it comes to pregnancy?

I can't really think of any other logical reason except thinking that the fetus isn't really a person, which as I said is entirely possible - just wish both sides of the debate would just accept that the ultimate issue at stake is the fetus' alleged personhood. If we all agreed fetuses are not people and have no human rights, then we'd have no issues with abortion at all beyond (maybe) its financial cost, and even then it's not like those are super expensive either.
  • 1
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 19

Elon Musk is certainly a very smart man and unlike[…]

January 25, Monday Union forces evacuate Corin[…]

@JohnRawls Looks like France/Germany are going[…]

This just isn't true. I notice this post alread[…]