Roe VS Wade officially goes back before the Supreme Court - Page 16 - 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.
#15201560
So POD refuses to support a single one of his positions with evidence. And when he gets caught he goes into double speak.

To recap.

How notion of body autonomy does not exist in US law.

Not in international law.

Not in Canadian law.

He seems to think that the fact that wealthy parents can afford for one parent to stay home and educate the kids means that the vaccination mandate does not compel those who are less economically fortunate. How very upper-crust of him. That is OK. The poor have never had the right to their person in all of history.

And we see here what is wrong with the so-called left. They simply can't support their positions but are more than ready to simply make things up when the facts go against them. And who else does this? Trumpians? Conservative Republicans? Yup. Proving, at the end of the day, that liberals have no claim to be holders of the truth. Not when they behave like POD is behaving.

Got any facts POD?

I thought not.

Can we get back to a discussion of US law which is what this thread is about?
#15201563
Drlee wrote:So POD refuses to support a single one of his positions with evidence. And when he gets caught he goes into double speak.

To recap.

How notion of body autonomy does not exist in US law.


Again, vaccines are not compulsory.

Also
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodily_ ... ted_States

Not in international law.

Not in Canadian law.


Again:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Morgentaler

And:
https://stepstojustice.ca/glossary/security-person/

He seems to think that the fact that wealthy parents can afford for one parent to stay home and educate the kids means that the vaccination mandate does not compel those who are less economically fortunate. How very upper-crust of him. That is OK. The poor have never had the right to their person in all of history.


Strawman.

I am pointing out that a reasonable limit on access to public education is not a violation of the right of body autonomy.

And we see here what is wrong with the so-called left. They simply can't support their positions but are more than ready to simply make things up when the facts go against them. And who else does this? Trumpians? Conservative Republicans? Yup. Proving, at the end of the day, that liberals have no claim to be holders of the truth. Not when they behave like POD is behaving.

Got any facts POD?

I thought not.

Can we get back to a discussion of US law which is what this thread is about?


And back to the personal comments.

If you are going to talk like this to me, at least be polite enough to quote me directly or send me a notification. Thanks.
#15201565
Let me quote from POD's citation so others can save themselves the trouble:

Conversely, the Supreme Court has also protected the right of governmental entities to infringe upon bodily integrity. Examples include laws prohibiting the use of drugs, laws prohibiting euthanasia, laws requiring the use of seatbelts and helmets, strip searches of prisoners, and forced blood tests.[12]


Therefore there is no such thing under US law as body autonomy. Thank you.

Wouldn't it be a big win for the left and POD if the SCOTUS were to assert some notion absolute body autonomy? In addition to the 850,000 we have already lost and the almost certain million yet to come we could add those killed in auto accidents, by drunk drivers (who would no longer have to submit to testing) allowing people to have grandma put down and the rest of it. That would be a major victory for the left.

But wait. If there is something asserted as bodily autonomy, then a baby that has past viability would have a body and be protected. Wait. Wait. Wait. Oh yea. The SCOTUS already did that in Roe V. Wade.

So is that what you mean POD? Because of body autonomy a baby, who is able to live autonomously from the mother, is protected from someone injecting it with drugs that kill it? I get it. You are arguing a pro-life position. You are arguing FOR continuing the ban on abortions after viability. I guess I missed that until now. Welcome to the right brother.

Funny how these things come around eventually, isn't it.

How is that @colliric?
#15201569
Drlee wrote:Let me quote from POD's citation so others can save themselves the trouble:



Therefore there is no such thing under US law as body autonomy. Thank you.


No.

It just mean that it is applied inconsistently, which is what I already pointed out.

Wouldn't it be a big win for the left and POD if the SCOTUS were to assert some notion absolute body autonomy? In addition to the 850,000 we have already lost and the almost certain million yet to come we could add those killed in auto accidents, by drunk drivers (who would no longer have to submit to testing) allowing people to have grandma put down and the rest of it. That would be a major victory for the left.


I already live somewhere where pregnant people can get abortions at any stage during the pregnancy for free.

This is because the SCC decided that the right to body autonomy of a pregnant person is not trumped by the right to life of another. Like in every other case where these two specific rights are balanced against each other.

Now you seem to be confused. You incorrectly think I am arguing for “some notion absolute body autonomy” as you put it. This is not the case. Instead, I am arguing that in the particular case of pregnancy (and the balance of right to life versus right to body autonomy), the rights of the pregnant person should be on par with (for example) dead people.

But it would be a big win for women and human rights advocates in your neck of the woods.

But wait. If there is something asserted as bodily autonomy, then a baby that has past viability would have a body and be protected. Wait. Wait. Wait. Oh yea. The SCOTUS already did that in Roe V. Wade.

So is that what you mean POD? Because of body autonomy a baby, who is able to live autonomously from the mother, is protected from someone injecting it with drugs that kill it? I get it. You are arguing a pro-life position. You are arguing FOR continuing the ban on abortions after viability.


No. A fetus that is past the pint of viability can be extracted from the pregnant person and kept alive through artificial means while looking for an adoptive parent.

We have the technology!

There is no need to take away the right of body autonomy for anyone who is carrying a viable fetus. They should all be able to have the unborn child removed whenever the pregnant person wishes. And the child will be kept alive.
#15201618
No. A fetus that is past the pint of viability can be extracted from the pregnant person and kept alive through artificial means while looking for an adoptive parent.

We have the technology!

There is no need to take away the right of body autonomy for anyone who is carrying a viable fetus. They should all be able to have the unborn child removed whenever the pregnant person wishes. And the child will be kept alive.


:lol:

I have not seen so many waffles since I was in Belgium.

So you ARE saying that it is a baby/person with rights not merely a fetus once it reaches viability. OK. Glad we got there.

So these state laws prohibiting abortion once viability is reached agree with your position. You do not object to them. Good. We agree. So your position is that once a baby/person/citizen reaches viability, and its mother contrives to have it killed, the state can step in, extract it from her and keep it as a ward of the state.

Now that procedure is dangerous to this baby/person/citizen as preemies suffer danger and sometimes lifelong medical problems. You would not want a mother to be allowed to harm their child, would you? So the only place we differ is that I would require said mother to carry the child to term, or nearly to term in the interest of the child. Yes it inconveniences the mother for a few months but it ensures a much better survival rate for the other citizen and often a healthier life. Not to mention saving the government, whole lot of money.

And while we are on the subject. You were fine with only allowing parents/children from well off families to exert their body autonomy and not have to be vaccinated (since this was the example you used) so am I not being completely reasonable to hold the mother and father of the preemie responsible for the bills the state will incur because of the early termination of the pregnancy? That runs half a million dollars or more in some cases. Or maybe, instead, we simply allow them to get off the hook for this and the costs associated with housing the child from birth until adoption if she agrees to carry the child to term. (The father could get off entirely if he agrees to take custody of and raise his child, in the case where he is known and capable of doing it.)

I fail to see why you would intrude on my rights as a taxpayer along with my fellow taxpayers, to be stuck with the bill when, in many cases, we have perfectly capable people who can pay for their own, shall we say, misadventure.
#15201622
Drlee wrote::lol:

I have not seen so many waffles since I was in Belgium.

So you ARE saying that it is a baby/person with rights not merely a fetus once it reaches viability. OK. Glad we got there.


Yes, I wrote that many times.

For the fourth or fifth time in this thread, my argument assumes that a fertilised ovum has the same rights as a born person.

So these state laws prohibiting abortion once viability is reached agree with your position.


No. I literally just explained that my position is the exact opposite.

You do not object to them. Good. We agree. So your position is that once a baby/person/citizen reaches viability, and its mother contrives to have it killed, the state can step in, extract it from her and keep it as a ward of the state.


You just contradicted yourself. On the one hand, you are arguing that abortions should be banned, and on the other, you are arguing that the state can abort an unborn child.

Now that procedure is dangerous to this baby/person/citizen as preemies suffer danger and sometimes lifelong medical problems. You would not want a mother to be allowed to harm their child, would you? So the only place we differ is that I would require said mother to carry the child to term, or nearly to term in the interest of the child. Yes it inconveniences the mother for a few months but it ensures a much better survival rate for the other citizen and often a healthier life. Not to mention saving the government, whole lot of money.

And while we are on the subject. You were fine with only allowing parents/children from well off families to exert their body autonomy and not have to be vaccinated (since this was the example you used) so am I not being completely reasonable to hold the mother and father of the preemie responsible for the bills the state will incur because of the early termination of the pregnancy? That runs half a million dollars or more in some cases. Or maybe, instead, we simply allow them to get off the hook for this and the costs associated with housing the child from birth until adoption if she agrees to carry the child to term. (The father could get off entirely if he agrees to take custody of and raise his child, in the case where he is known and capable of doing it.)

I fail to see why you would intrude on my rights as a taxpayer along with my fellow taxpayers, to be stuck with the bill when, in many cases, we have perfectly capable people who can pay for their own, shall we say, misadventure.


I think you need to reread my posts and get a clearer understanding of my position before you attempt to criticise it. I am no longer going to reply to strawmen.
#15201689
You just contradicted yourself. On the one hand, you are arguing that abortions should be banned, and on the other, you are arguing that the state can abort an unborn child.


Nonsense. I made no such claim. You are just making stuff up now.

First of all, I never claimed that "abortions should be banned". I said, late term abortions should be banned. If necessary to save the child from a mother intent on killing it, the state may induce birth. That is NOT aborting a child.

So you have surrendered. I do understand. I have walked away from threads before when I concluded my positions were indefensible.

For the future, do a google search on "straw man fallacy".
#15201694
@Drlee Even where it is unregulated, like in Canada, abortions past 24 weeks are due to medical reasons only. The fears about babies being aborted when they can be birthed, are as unfounded as the claims made by people who said gay marriage would result in people marrying horses.

Doctors simply won't do the procedures if there's a viable fetus. I am fine with that, since it's the decision of a medical professional and the woman.
#15201700
Drlee wrote:Nonsense. I made no such claim. You are just making stuff up now.

First of all, I never claimed that "abortions should be banned". I said, late term abortions should be banned.


Yes….

If necessary to save the child from a mother intent on killing it, the state may induce birth. That is NOT aborting a child.


It depends on how you define abortion. I define it as the removal of a fetus. So, removing a live fetus and placing it in an incubator is an abortion to me. You use English differently.

The important thing is that a pregnant person should be able to walk into a hospital at any stage of the pregnancy and have the fetus removed.

You can call it an induced birth or an abortion or whatever.

More importantly, why do you think western societies have this double standard about pregnant people when it comes to the balance between right to life and body autonomy rights? Sexism?

Also, to use the notification system, just type “@“. A little menu will pop up. Click on my name. Do not do anything else.
#15201728
@Pants-of-dog
It depends on how you define abortion. I define it as the removal of a fetus. So, removing a live fetus and placing it in an incubator is an abortion to me. You use English differently.


lonely trying to sell that one.

The important thing is that a pregnant person should be able to walk into a hospital at any stage of the pregnancy and have the fetus removed.


I disagree. So do the majority of people. So does the SCOTUS and the laws in every state.

You can call it an induced birth or an abortion or whatever.


:roll:

More importantly, why do you think western societies have this double standard about pregnant people when it comes to the balance between right to life and body autonomy rights? Sexism?


Ah. No. The death of a human being. Did you miss that part? Sexism has nothing to do with it.

And oh by the way. For the zillionth time. There is no such thing as "body autonomy" under US law.
#15201752
I'm just perfectly fine with murdering children and preventing them from being born into the American hellscape where there is no reliable healthcare and the general acceptance that the state will only imprison you and never help you. Am I a monster for not wanting to birth a child into America?
#15201777
Drlee wrote:@Pants-of-dog

lonely trying to sell that one.

I disagree. So do the majority of people. So does the SCOTUS and the laws in every state.

:roll:

Ah. No. The death of a human being. Did you miss that part? Sexism has nothing to do with it.

And oh by the way. For the zillionth time. There is no such thing as "body autonomy" under US law.


There is no argument or rebuttal here. Most of this is just you presenting your opinion, your incorrect beliefs, and some belittling language.

And yes, it is almost certainly sexism that makes westerners choose to deprive pregnant people of rights, since the right to body autonomy trumps the right to life in every other case. So, human life cannot be the reason for the double standard.
#15201819
SpecialOlympian wrote:
I'm just perfectly fine with murdering children and preventing them from being born into the American hellscape where there is no reliable healthcare and the general acceptance that the state will only imprison you and never help you. Am I a monster for not wanting to birth a child into America?



Plus you're a guy, so, yeah, I think you're excused. (grin)
  • 1
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
Pragmatism

Traditional philosophy carries a lot of baggage. […]

The judge has lifted the restraining order.

Biden Just Lit the Spark

To be fair a lot of the attraction of Biden as a c[…]

I've been considering buying and re-watching the S[…]