Roe V. Wade to be Overturned - Page 28 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

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

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15227290
wat0n wrote:No. It's not my fault if you don't understand what sufficiency is in logic.

It all depends on the remaining stock of blood available for transfusion, doesn't it? It's also possible that the child may need several blood transfusions, as it could happen after a serious accident. The kid may have enough compatible blood in stock for the first few transfusions and then would die.

Furthermore, expedited screening could be an option under some emergency.

So you agree that your entire argument can be dismissed?

I don't think there's been a case where that was tested. Instead, JWs were ignored and the hospital used available stock, which was sufficient for treating the children.

I'm referring to religious objections to blood donations.

I provided you with a situation where there's a conflict between two rights and you claimed one would trump the other, without providing evidence to that effect. The lack of case law does not make your case, at all - that is an argument from ignorance.

And then there's the case when one is responsible for grievously harming another person and if bodily autonomy would save the injurer from homicide charges should the injured person die. It seems extremely unlikely, because the law is explicit that should the injured die the person responsible for the injuries would be guilty of some form of homicide. If you were right, then bodily autonomy would be a valid defense for homicide under some circumstances, yet supporting this obviously requires case law. I'll be happy for you to provide case law where bodily autonomy has been used as a defense for a homicide charge under these circumstances, sounds extremely unlikely this would fly be it before a judge or a jury.

At best for your claims, it's unclear what would happen in any of these situations yet that also logically means that a fetus' personhood is important when it comes to assessing abortion because we do not need to look for this sort of case law if fetuses are not persons, yet a can of worms suddenly opens if fetuses are in fact persons - do parents have parental obligations towards fetuses? If a pregnant woman decides to have an abortion and gets it, is she responsible for grievously harming and then killing the fetus at least by negligence?

Hence deciding whether fetuses are persons or not is important to the discussion, and it is also important if an overturning of Roe v Wade will also overturn the precedent set in that ruling that fetuses are not persons under the Constitution. It is precisely because the SCOTUS held that fetuses are not persons under the Constitution that the Court found a reason to forbid states from banning abortion outright. And yes, this is mentioned in the ruling too:


This is an argument from ignorance and can be dismissed.
#15227292
Pants-of-dog wrote:This is an argument from ignorance and can be dismissed.


No, you can't. Not only you are arguing from ignorance (I'm still waiting for the case law that sustains your claims about the absolute nature of the right to bodily autonomy, despite the statute and case law I've presented on a broad range of topics) but, more importantly, you claimed the personhood of the fetus doesn't matter for analyzing abortion. Even Roe v Wade says that the fact that fetuses are not persons under the Constitution is essential and provided you with a quote straight from the ruling.

So why do you defend a court ruling you have never bothered to read?
#15227301
wat0n wrote:No, you can't. Not only you are arguing from ignorance (I'm still waiting for the case law that sustains your claims about the absolute nature of the right to bodily autonomy, despite the statute and case law I've presented on a broad range of topics) but, more importantly, you claimed the personhood of the fetus doesn't matter for analyzing abortion. Even Roe v Wade says that the fact that fetuses are not persons under the Constitution is essential and provided you with a quote straight from the ruling.

So why do you defend a court ruling you have never bothered to read?


Again, your argument that parents are obligated to donate blood and tissue to born children is an argument from ignorance.

It is now dismissed.
#15227302
Pants-of-dog wrote:Again, your argument that parents are obligated to donate blood and tissue to born children is an argument from ignorance.

It is now dismissed.


By the same token, the argument that parents cannot be compelled to donate blood and tissue to born children is an argument from ignorance.

But something you cannot argue against is that the SCOTUS itself acknowledged that the fetus's personhood is important for assessing the constitutionality of abortion:

Roe v Wade wrote:A. The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a 'person' within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument.51 On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument52 that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.


Will you admit so or, as usual, you'll use strawmen and red herrings to avoid dealing with the issue?
#15227304
wat0n wrote:By the same token, the argument that parents cannot be compelled to donate blood and tissue to born children is an argument from ignorance.


I never made this claim. I asked you to support yours and provided evidence why I think it is wrong.

My actions and claims do not change the fact that your claim is an argument from ignorance.

Thus, your argument is now dismissed.
#15227305
Pants-of-dog wrote:I never made this claim. I asked you to support yours and provided evidence why I think it is wrong.

My actions and claims do not change the fact that your claim is an argument from ignorance.

Thus, your argument is now dismissed.


You are the one who claimed the fetus' personhood doesn't matter with regards to abortion because you believe bodily autonomy is an absolute right. Then, once you were proven wrong by pointing out the examples of vaccination, conscription and force feeding of hunger strikers, you claimed fetuses would have more rights than children because parents would obviously keep their bodily autonomy with regards to the latter and not the former. I pointed out bodily autonomy can be limited by a duty to protect, and provided examples where there could be tenable limitations to bodily autonomy since we know bodily autonomy is not absolute. Now you are asking for case law, even though the only case you provided was one where there was no duty to protect to consider and hence a red herring. Then you dug in and have been whining about making arguments from ignorance, even though you have yet to provide case law showing parental bodily autonomy trumps parental duties over their children - an argument from ignorance if anything.

And now, given the lack of case law in this matter, I've just chosen to post an excerpt from Roe v Wade itself, a decision you consider needs to be defended, showing even the SCOTUS acknowledged in that case that the fetus' personhood is indeed important to assess the balance of rights involved in abortion, and even states explicitly banning abortion would of course be constitutional as part of the state interest in protecting life.

Why do you stand by the Roe v Wade decision if you haven't even read it? Does Roe v Wade represent good enough case law to you? :)
#15227308
@wat0n I provided you with a situation where there's a conflict between two rights and you claimed one would trump the other, without providing evidence to that effect. The lack of case law does not make your case, at all - that is an argument from ignorance.


This is all very edifying and if it had fuck all to do with abortion it would be even more interesting.

Is it impossible for you guys to understand that the SCOTUS has SPECIFICALLY said, that there IS NO RIGHT TO AN ABORTION UNDER OUR CONSTITUTION. And it went further. It said that THERE IS NO RIGHT FOR ITSELF TO INTERVENE IN STATE LAW IN THIS REGARD. So other than the rights expressly stated in the Constitution, the woman has whatever rights the state legislature grants. And no more.

So we have people who assert that there is some vague thing called "body autonomy" which transcends all other laws, and which, under US law does not exist.

To this I say "if you want this right you must obtain it from each state. Otherwise you do not have it at all".

To do this you must take your grievance to the state legislatures through your elected officials.

But why not at the federal level?

Because we saw this week that it won't work. There are not the votes for it.

But a constitutional amendment....

In a country that has already decided by law that women do not have equal rights with men? And in a country where the majority of state legislatures are controlled by people who believe:

Colossians 3:18
Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.


Ephesians 5:22-24
Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.


The preambles of the constitution of the first five states alphabetically.

The preambles of the state constitutions of the first five states alphabetically:

Preamble of Alabama States Constitution

We the people of the State of Alabama, invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution.

Preamble of Alaska States Constitution

We the people of Alaska, grateful to God and to those who founded our nation and pioneered this great land, in order to secure and transmit to succeeding generations our heritage of political, civil, and religious liberty within the Union of States, do ordain and establish this constitution for the State of Alaska.

Preamble of Arizona States Constitution

We the people of the State of Arizona, grateful to Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution.

Preamble of Arkansas States Constitution

We, the People of the State of Arkansas, grateful to Almighty God for the privilege of choosing our own form of government; for our civil and religious liberty; and desiring to perpetuate its blessings, and secure the same to our selves and posterity; do ordain and establish this Constitution.

Preamble of California States Constitution

We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this Constitution.


I aim this post at the Canadians and others who are reading this post and labor under the misconception that the US is somehow a secular nation. We absolutely are not. Though Christians (liberal, moderate and conservative) are the majority everywhere, the important thing to remember is that conservative Christians are the majority in a majority of the congressional districts in a majority of the states. Is this wrong? Who cares? Is it legal? Sadly yes.
#15227310
Drlee wrote:This is all very edifying and if it had fuck all to do with abortion it would be even more interesting.

Is it impossible for you guys to understand that the SCOTUS has SPECIFICALLY said, that there IS NO RIGHT TO AN ABORTION UNDER OUR CONSTITUTION. And it went further. It said that THERE IS NO RIGHT FOR ITSELF TO INTERVENE IN STATE LAW IN THIS REGARD. So other than the rights expressly stated in the Constitution, the woman has whatever rights the state legislature grants. And no more.


I beg to differ here. We have not seen the final ruling yet, so at least for now, no, states cannot ban abortion as they wish.

We don't know if this leak will have a chilling effect on the SCOTUS. Yes, it could happen - why not?
#15227311
wat0n wrote:You are the one who claimed the fetus' personhood doesn't matter with regards to abortion because you believe bodily autonomy is an absolute right.

and provided examples where there could be tenable limitations to bodily autonomy since we know bodily autonomy is not absolute.


No, this is a strawman, and I explicitly explained that no right is absolute when I explained to you that the right to life is not enough to trump bodily autonomy in many cases.

This is a misunderstanding on your part and it does not change the fact that your claim (i.e. that parents are forced to donate blood and tissue to born children) is an argument from ignorance and is dismissed.

Then, once you were proven wrong by pointing out the examples of vaccination, conscription and force feeding of hunger strikers,


Actually, I made a whole argument as to why US law is not suitable for abortion because it is basically a developing country with a constitution that enshrined slavery.

So not only did I never claim that bodily autonomy rights are absolute, I also claimed that the USA has no constitutional right to bodily autonomy.

This is a misunderstanding on your part and it does not change the fact that your claim (i.e. that parents are forced to donate blood and tissue to born children) is an argument from ignorance and is dismissed.

you claimed fetuses would have more rights than children because parents would obviously keep their bodily autonomy with regards to the latter and not the former.


If your argument is incorrect, i.e. your argument from ignorance, then it is a logical certainty.

Unborn children have the right to force their parents to donate blood and tissue. Born children do not.

I pointed out bodily autonomy can be limited by a duty to protect,


…but you have no idea if this extends to giving their own blood and tissue.

And because you do not know if this is the case, your argument is a fallacy called argument from ignorance.

Now you are asking for case law, even though the only case you provided was one where there was no duty to protect to consider and hence a red herring.


And you have provided no case law at all. Because you have provided no case law, you do not know if your claim is true. This is why it is called an argument from ignorance.

Then you dug in and have been whining about making arguments from ignorance, even though you have yet to provide case law showing parental bodily autonomy trumps parental duties over their children - an argument from ignorance if anything.


This is a whataboutism.

You are conceding that you made an argument from ignorance and are attempting to justify this fallacy by claiming I did the same.

And now, given the lack of case law in this matter, I've just chosen to post an excerpt from Roe v Wade itself, a decision you consider needs to be defended, showing even the SCOTUS acknowledged in that case that the fetus' personhood is indeed important to assess the balance of rights involved in abortion, and even states explicitly banning abortion would of course be constitutional as part of the state interest in protecting life.

Why do you stand by the Roe v Wade decision if you haven't even read it? Does Roe v Wade represent good enough case law to you? :)


Personhood is irrelevant to my argument.

Defending an argument from ignorance is illogical.
#15227312
Pants-of-dog wrote:No, this is a strawman, and I explicitly explained that no right is absolute when I explained to you that the right to life is not enough to trump bodily autonomy in many cases.

This is a misunderstanding on your part and it does not change the fact that your claim (i.e. that parents are forced to donate blood and tissue to born children) is an argument from ignorance and is dismissed.


And yet you have yet to acknowledge that bodily autonomy is not absolute either, not counting your acknowledgement when it comes to COVID (there you readily accept limiting bodily autonomy because you were advocating for harsh measures against the unvaccinated, since it suits your interests. You don't care if a 7 years old kid gets measles but you do care if you get COVID due to the unvaccinated). So no, my point remains.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Actually, I made a whole argument as to why US law is not suitable for abortion because it is basically a developing country with a constitution that enshrined slavery.


Oh yes, you also claimed development should be measured by how accessible abortion is, and it turns out the USA has laxer laws than most of Europe. Another stupid claim, so stupid I'd forgotten about it, and irrelevant.

It is also irrelevant what the Constitution said or didn't say 200 years ago, what matters is what is constitutionally enshrined now in 2022. Another red herring, because you have no argument to sustain here.

Pants-of-dog wrote:So not only did I never claim that bodily autonomy rights are absolute, I also claimed that the USA has no constitutional right to bodily autonomy.


Oh so you did not claim bodily autonomy is absolute? So when can someone be denied bodily autonomy?

You refused to accept it for all the examples where bodily autonomy is limited, including vaccination, except for COVID vaccination because that one would keep you safe. It seems you are so spoiled that you want to bend human rights to suit your interests.

Pants-of-dog wrote:This is a misunderstanding on your part and it does not change the fact that your claim (i.e. that parents are forced to donate blood and tissue to born children) is an argument from ignorance and is dismissed.


Pants-of-dog wrote:If your argument is incorrect, i.e. your argument from ignorance, then it is a logical certainty.


Pants-of-dog wrote:Unborn children have the right to force their parents to donate blood and tissue. Born children do not.


Pants-of-dog wrote:…but you have no idea if this extends to giving their own blood and tissue.

And because you do not know if this is the case, your argument is a fallacy called argument from ignorance.


Pants-of-dog wrote:And you have provided no case law at all. Because you have provided no case law, you do not know if your claim is true. This is why it is called an argument from ignorance.


And you also don't know parental duties towards their born children cannot force their parents to donate them blood and tissue. I'm waiting for the case law, will you provide it?

As you have yourself claimed before, a fallacious claim is not necessarily false so even if I made an argument from ignorance (I didn't, you're just doing a straw man here. Remember, my claim is that deciding whether a fetus is a person or not is essential to the abortion debate).

Pants-of-dog wrote:This is a whataboutism.

You are conceding that you made an argument from ignorance and are attempting to justify this fallacy by claiming I did the same.


Will you sustain your claims already? I'm waiting for the case law that would do so. I already provided you with ample evidence of the existence of the conflict.

I bet you will now whine about how your fallacies need to be taken as gospel now. Just like you are fine with limiting bodily autonomy and force everyone get vaccinated just so you won't get COVID.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Personhood is irrelevant to my argument.

Defending an argument from ignorance is illogical.


The violinist argument is irrelevant. The situation in abortion is different given there is no duty for a stranger to protect the violinist while parents do indeed need to protect their children - and if you accept the fetus is a person, then of course that duty extends to fetuses as well. Whatever Canadian courts believe is also irrelevant and in any event you are the one who has to cite them here, not me.

What's not irrelevant though is that the SCOTUS itself disagrees with you about the importance of personhood for assessing the constitutionality of abortion, coming straight from Roe v Wade of all places - the trial this whole thread is about.

So why do you defend Roe v Wade when you have never read it?
#15227314
Unthinking Majority wrote:Either


Then it is simply an unfortunate side effect of an abortion that the unborn person dies.

Though it should be noted that most medical studies indicate the fetus is not capable of feeling pain at that time.

---------

@wat0n

Your argument from ignorance is dismissed.

Since that is the case, unborn kids will have more rights than born ones.

Do you also support this class system of childhood?
#15227316
@Pants-of-dog I'm still waiting for you to prove your claim that born children would have less rights than the unborn if abortion was illegal.

Again, from Roe v Wade:

Roe v Wade wrote:In areas other than criminal abortion, the law has been reluctant to endorse any theory that life, as we recognize it, begins before life birth or to accord legal rights to the unborn except in narrowly defined situations and except when the rights are contingent upon life birth. For example, the traditional rule of tort law denied recovery for prenatal injuries even though the child was born alive.63 That rule has been changed in almost every jurisdiction. In most States, recovery is said to be permitted only if the fetus was viable, or at least quick, when the injuries were sustained, though few courts have squarely so held.64 In a recent development, generally opposed by the commentators, some States permit the parents of a stillborn child to maintain an action for wrongful death because of prenatal injuries.65 Such an action, however, would appear to be one to vindicate the parents' interest and is thus consistent with the view that the fetus, at most, represents only the potentiality of life. Similarly, unborn children have been recognized as acquiring rights or interests by way of inheritance or other devolution of property, and have been represented by guardians ad litem.66 Perfection of the interests involved, again, has generally been contingent upon live birth. In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense.


So on top of recognizing personhood is indeed relevant to the topic of abortion, the SCOTUS also refused to recognize other rights to fetuses and that they would only get to exercise them upon birth. And note this was the status quo with on-demand abortion being illegal in several states.

Again, why you do support a ruling you have obviously never read?
#15227319
Pants-of-dog wrote:Then it is simply an unfortunate side effect of an abortion that the unborn person dies.

An abortion is the assault and killing of the fetus. The killing and dying and assault is the effect, not the side effect.

Though it should be noted that most medical studies indicate the fetus is not capable of feeling pain at that time.

Nobody is allowed to stab a paraplegic in the legs and bleed them out even if they can't feel it.
#15227325
I beg to differ here. We have not seen the final ruling yet, so at least for now, no, states cannot ban abortion as they wish.


You are stalling.

We don't know if this leak will have a chilling effect on the SCOTUS. Yes, it could happen - why not?


Because the majority justices actually believe in their decision. They are not chilled. They are proud of their decision.
#15227353
wat0n wrote:@Pants-of-dog I'm still waiting for you to prove your claim that born children would have less rights than the unborn if abortion was illegal.


Then you have not read my posts carefully.

Since the claim that parents have an obligation to provide blood and tissue to born children is an argument from ignorance, it can be dismissed.

This means that only unborn kids have the right to demand blood and tissue from parents if abortion is banned.

Ergo, unborn kids have more rights.

————————-

Unthinking Majority wrote:An abortion is the assault and killing of the fetus. The killing and dying and assault is the effect, not the side effect.


Semantics.

Now ask me about what happens to the unborn person after viability.

Nobody is allowed to stab a paraplegic in the legs and bleed them out even if they can't feel it.


If a paraplegic is using my body without my consent and it is the only way to stop said paraplegic, then yes, I am allowed to stab this person in the leg and have them bleed out,
#15227357
@Drlee honestly, let's wait and see.

I would very much prefer to see how they rule. But at least for now, Roe v Wade is still the prevailing case law of the land.


No it is not. Roe V. Wade in unenforceable.
#15227364
Pants-of-dog wrote:Then you have not read my posts carefully.

Since the claim that parents have an obligation to provide blood and tissue to born children is an argument from ignorance, it can be dismissed.

This means that only unborn kids have the right to demand blood and tissue from parents if abortion is banned.

Ergo, unborn kids have more rights.


No. Since you claim to think so logically, then you can't say we can just dismiss the balancing of the legal right to individual liberty - which would include bodily autonomy and privacy - and the duties to protect your children and to rescue strangers you are responsible for putting at risk (both of which can conceivably apply as far as pregnancy is concerned). At best, you can say this needs to be tested in court but then you cannot confidently say the unborn would have more rights than the born. The rest of your counterclaims on this matter were red herrings, and your argument here is itself arises from ignorance - which, under your own logic, means it can be simply dismissed. But you won't, because you are not debating in good faith, yet there's no reason to let your nonsense stand.

The SCOTUS was quite clear in Roe v Wade that any other rights to the unborn are only contingent on being born, even in jurisdictions that had banned abortion. I even provided you with the proper citation, and it's stated explicitly. So, if anything, even if the unborn were to be legally recognized as persons they would not have any economic or social rights until they were born. They would also lack other fundamental human and civil rights that fetuses cannot exercise anyway (e.g. free speech). The unborn of course lacks individual liberty, including privacy and bodily autonomy as well, although children also do to a large extent - a child cannot sue his parents if they force him to get a haircut or take a shower, after all.

@Drlee what do you mean? Has a state gotten away with banning on-demand abortion before viability? I've seen many trying to do so, but thus far the SCOTUS has stopped all those attempts.
#15227369
@wat0n

Arguments from ignorance can be dismissed for two reasons:

1, Your argument is based on a logical fallacy.
2. You have no evidence.

Consequently, your assertion can be safely dismissed, and the logical consequence is that unborn kids will have more rights than born kids where abortion is banned.
  • 1
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 39
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

I think that most of you don't really understand w[…]

There is a huge disagreement over those deaths.[…]

Put men in prison based only on the word of a wom[…]

The exact opposite Islam is The Jerry Springer Sho[…]