Roe V. Wade to be Overturned - Page 31 - 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

#15227812
Pants-of-dog wrote:Again, you provided a link but did not quote from said link.

Provide the quoted text now.

As for your claim about the percentage of voters who wanted to make abortion illegal in 1880, that claim is dismissed as an argument from ignorance, since it is apparently impossible for you to know that with any certainty.

Finally, you have not supported your claim about abortion contradicting the Hippocratic oath at all.

This is my final request for support for this argument, or it will also be dismissed.


I already addressed all those claims. I even explained how the Hippocratic Oath can be respected in both situations by redefining the concept of "pregnancy", and by extension redefining the concept of "abortion", which were clearly not the same in the early 19th century as it was in the late 19th century. If you want to make some other claim on the matter, you back it up.

And it would be great if you could provide a quote from the Canadian Supreme Court ruling on abortion, just so we can see what it says about a fetus' personhood or if it matters with regards to abortion. I have no idea and don't have the time to read it - it's up to you to share it and see how different jurisdictions deal with this matter. At least in the US, fetuses are not legally persons and this is what allows us to have this debate according to Roe v Wade - if they were, states could perfectly ban on-demand abortion.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Finally, provide a moral argument for referendums about taking away the rights of others. Thanks.


Also, again, I thought you believed natural rights do not exist? Why would it be immoral to vote to decide our rights if you believe people do not have any natural rights?

This is a contradictory position: If you assume rights are not inherent, then of course rights can be both granted and taken away.

If a new right is granted or recognized, it will almost always mean at least restricting other rights (sometimes denying them altogether), which is clearly different from simply taking rights away. So to answer your question: If the cessation of a right is due to the granting or recognition of new one, then it would depend a lot on the specifics and also if there would be a fair compensation for those who are affected by the loss of that right if it entailed a material loss. If the cessation of a right is not due to the granting or recognition of a new right, and those who are losing this right are not being fairly compensated by their material loss, then I don't think it's moral to put this for a referendum or to do this at all.

In the case of a referendum on abortion, be it to ban it or to legalize it, I think it's clear the cessation of the rights involved under each scenario would entail the granting of a new right - given that in the former scenario, fetuses would be seen as persons -, and I also think it's clear there's no obvious material loss as long as, if abortion were banned by referendum, the new regulation would only apply to women who became pregnant before the vote by in dubio pro reo. So I don't see an obvious immorality in this case.
#15227823



Remember, blacks aborting their offspring is good for the economy.

Also, illegal aliens from Central and South America flooding the border is good for the economy.

Remember your company line, democrats.
Last edited by BlutoSays on 16 May 2022 22:10, edited 1 time in total.
#15227833
@wat0n
@Drlee

If you believe that the rights of a minority or other traditionally oppressed group by a vote of the majority or the oppressive group, then you are implying that rights can be taken away because of convenience rather than good reason.

In this case, we see the rights if pregnant people being decided by people who will never get pregnant, with all the sexism that goes along with that.
#15227840
Come on guys. POD is too lazy to read your article and then you can't even find this:

Earliest copy of the Oath of Hippocrates:

I swear by Apollo Healer, by Asclepius, by Hygieia, by Panacea, and by all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will carry out, according to my ability and judgment, this oath and this indenture.

To hold my teacher in this art equal to my own parents; to make him partner in my livelihood; when he is in need of money to share mine with him; to consider his family as my own brothers, and to teach them this art, if they want to learn it, without fee or indenture; to impart precept, oral instruction, and all other instruction to my own sons, the sons of my teacher, and to indentured pupils who have taken the Healer’s oath, but to nobody else.

I will use those dietary regimens which will benefit my patients according to my greatest ability and judgment, and I will do no harm or injustice to them.[6] Neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course. Similarly I will not give to a woman a pessary to cause abortion. But I will keep pure and holy both my life and my art. I will not use the knife, not even, verily, on sufferers from stone, but I will give place to such as are craftsmen therein.

Into whatsoever houses I enter, I will enter to help the sick, and I will abstain from all intentional wrong-doing and harm, especially from abusing the bodies of man or woman, bond or free. And whatsoever I shall see or hear in the course of my profession, as well as outside my profession in my intercourse with men, if it be what should not be published abroad, I will never divulge, holding such things to be holy secrets.

Now if I carry out this oath, and break it not, may I gain for ever reputation among all men for my life and for my art; but if I break it and forswear myself, may the opposite befall me.[5]


Now you see what you to did? You sucked me into something that has nothing to do with the overturning of Roe V. Wade.
#15227844
Pants-of-dog wrote:@wat0n
@Drlee

If you believe that the rights of a minority or other traditionally oppressed group by a vote of the majority or the oppressive group, then you are implying that rights can be taken away because of convenience rather than good reason.

In this case, we see the rights if pregnant people being decided by people who will never get pregnant, with all the sexism that goes along with that.


Hold on, you initially hinted that taking away rights through referendum was immoral. Are you now changing the goalposts, by saying it's okay if the people whose rights are taken away are those whom you regard as being privileged?

@Drlee I didn't think it necessary to quote the Hippocratic Oath, although I did consider it. But in all fairness, just what constitutes an abortion has indeed changed over time, interestingly becoming broader as a result of the increase in medical knowledge.
#15227875
@Pants-of-dog
If you believe that the rights of a minority or other traditionally oppressed group by a vote of the majority or the oppressive group, then you are implying that rights can be taken away because of convenience rather than good reason.

In this case, we see the rights if pregnant people being decided by people who will never get pregnant, with all the sexism that goes along with that.


That is wrong again. Try to keep up. The Supreme Court of the United States just ruled that women have NO RIGHT TO AN ABORTION at the national level. None. Zip. Nada. Get it through your head POD. Now once you have someone explain that to you, you will see that women are not losing any rights. So your position is at the very best wishful thinking.

Now. Having said that. As a matter of fact "rights" can be taken away by the majority. That is how our system works. Even the sacred right to free speech can be taken away by a sufficient majority. AND THIS MAJORITY IS NEVER ASKED TO GIVE A REASON FOR THEIR ACTION. All they have to do is cast a secret ballot.

I see you have used the term "sexism" to describe the motives of every man who votes to support limiting or banning abortion. You and I know that this is not necessarily the case. There could be any number of reasons. You may think the result of these reasons may be sexism but that is merely your opinion and has no basis in fact. Therefor as you frequently say, we can safely ignore your opinion as irrelevant.

@wat0n
I didn't think it necessary to quote the Hippocratic Oath, although I did consider it. But in all fairness, just what constitutes an abortion has indeed changed over time, interestingly becoming broader as a result of the increase in medical knowledge.


I did not quote it because you mentioned it. I quoted it to show POD that he was mistaken to challenge it. The fact is that I doubted you know the passage from the original in the first place.

Your assertion that the definition of what constitutes an abortion has changed over time is laughable. I would love to hear how you decided that a woman who is pregnant wanting to not be pregnant anymore has changed over time. Have at it. (Pro tip. It is OK to say that on further thought what you said was pretty silly and withdraw it.)
#15227879
Drlee wrote:@wat0n

I did not quote it because you mentioned it. I quoted it to show POD that he was mistaken to challenge it. The fact is that I doubted you know the passage from the original in the first place.

Your assertion that the definition of what constitutes an abortion has changed over time is laughable. I would love to hear how you decided that a woman who is pregnant wanting to not be pregnant anymore has changed over time. Have at it. (Pro tip. It is OK to say that on further thought what you said was pretty silly and withdraw it.)


I think it's common knowledge the Hippocratic Oath includes not performing abortions.

As for the definition of "pregnancy", until the early 19th century, it was commonly believed (based on Aristotelian philosophy) that life only began once the fetus began to move inside the womb, so taking abortive herbs or medicine was not really seen as interrupting pregnancy. The AMA if anything pushed against this idea when it began to campaign to ban abortion.
#15227881
Drlee wrote:@Pants-of-dog

That is wrong again. Try to keep up. The Supreme Court of the United States just ruled that women have NO RIGHT TO AN ABORTION at the national level. None. Zip. Nada. Get it through your head POD. Now once you have someone explain that to you, you will see that women are not losing any rights. So your position is at the very best wishful thinking.

Drlee this is just semantics. Right now, they do actually have the right to abortion, a right that the Supreme court decided they did. Perhaps coming agust they will lose that right, again by the supreme court. Perhaps the Supreme court shouldn't have been playing with this fire to begin with 50 years ago and I am sure had they stayed clear from this by now we would have had a national law for this. It is too late to start playing "literalist interpretation of the constitution". That is another way to just say that they will play cherry-picking, politics. Again, the constitution it is tiny and addresses a couple dozen situations only, most of them related to the president/congress, very little for the general public.... These people have been putting their paws on the honey pot for decades and now they are going to pretend to draw the line for just 1 issue? It is political.
#15227882
wat0n wrote:I think it's common knowledge the Hippocratic Oath includes not performing abortions.

As for the definition of "pregnancy", until the early 19th century, it was commonly believed (based on Aristotelian philosophy) that life only began once the fetus began to move inside the womb, so taking abortive herbs or medicine was not really seen as interrupting pregnancy. The AMA if anything pushed against this idea when it began to campaign to ban abortion.


The Hippocratic oath also includes not performing surgery. It also starts by pledging respect/reverence to gods that nobody even believes in anymore.
It is a relic of the past. If you want to practice medicine based on the teachings of people that would exsanguinate you for just about any ailment and didn't have an understanding of infectious diseases, cell theory, genetics, physiology, etc... be my guest.
#15227884
XogGyux wrote:The Hippocratic oath also includes not performing surgery. It also starts by pledging respect/reverence to gods that nobody even believes in anymore.
It is a relic of the past. If you want to practice medicine based on the teachings of people that would exsanguinate you for just about any ailment and didn't have an understanding of infectious diseases, cell theory, genetics, physiology, etc... be my guest.


Yet we're precisely talking about the past. The 19th century to be specific.

PoD wanted to learn about why abortion was banned in the 19th century (beyond the common law ban already in place after quickening). It turns out that the AMA was among the first ones to begin to push for that, in 1857.
#15227885
wat0n wrote:Yet we're precisely talking about the past. The 19th century to be specific.

PoD wanted to learn about why abortion was banned in the 19th century (beyond the common law ban already in place after quickening). It turns out that the AMA was among the first ones to begin to push for that, in 1857.

Ah ok.
#15227886
wat0n wrote:Hold on, you initially hinted that taking away rights through referendum was immoral. Are you now changing the goalposts, by saying it's okay if the people whose rights are taken away are those whom you regard as being privileged?


No.

You misunderstood.

Again.

You are supporting a system where men can take away then rights of women by appealing to a majority vote. This is a clear conflict of interest.

In a developed country with civilized laws, the judiciary branch would simply rule that these abortion bans are a direct violation of the right to bodily autonomy or personal integrity and the issue would be done.

Instead, you guys champion a system that deprives people of rights.

@Drlee

You said:

NO RIGHT TO AN ABORTION


And?

People in the US have no constitutional right to a cellphone. Is that good enough reason to deprive people of an opportunity to get one?
#15227889
Pants-of-dog wrote:No.

You misunderstood.

Again.

You are supporting a system where men can take away then rights of women by appealing to a majority vote. This is a clear conflict of interest.

In a developed country with civilized laws, the judiciary branch would simply rule that these abortion bans are a direct violation of the right to bodily autonomy or personal integrity and the issue would be done.

Instead, you guys champion a system that deprives people of rights.


So Ireland does not have a civilized judiciary, given it changed its Constitution in 1983 by referendum to recognize the right to life of the unborn and ban abortion, and then passed another referendum to once again change its Constitution and cease to recognize a right to life for the unborn in 2018? Does the UK lack a civilized judiciary given women do not have the right to abortions and must get the consent of two doctors to have one? Is the US more civilized than Denmark, given on-demand abortion is legal until viability in the US and only up to the 12th week in Denmark?

Smells like bullshit.

And it's a double discourse to claim women have a basic right to have abortions, even when the law does not recognize it, yet at the same time reject the notion of natural rights. Indeed, it's a logical fallacy to claim two mutually contradictory statements are true at the same time.

It's not my fault if you are not thinking logically
#15227891
XogGyux wrote:Drlee this is just semantics. Right now, they do actually have the right to abortion, a right that the Supreme court decided they did. Perhaps coming agust they will lose that right, again by the supreme court. Perhaps the Supreme court shouldn't have been playing with this fire to begin with 50 years ago and I am sure had they stayed clear from this by now we would have had a national law for this. It is too late to start playing "literalist interpretation of the constitution". That is another way to just say that they will play cherry-picking, politics. Again, the constitution it is tiny and addresses a couple dozen situations only, most of them related to the president/congress, very little for the general public.... These people have been putting their paws on the honey pot for decades and now they are going to pretend to draw the line for just 1 issue? It is political.


I do not disagree with a single word you have posted. I am debating the effect of the upcoming SCOTUS decision.
Today women have a very limited right to seek an abortion. So your last comment says it all. "It is political". This is why I have been making light of arguments about when life begins, parental rights, mythical body integrity and the lot. The problem is political and the solution is political.
#15227921
wat0n wrote:So Ireland does not have a civilized judiciary, given it changed its Constitution in 1983 by referendum to recognize the right to life of the unborn and ban abortion, and then passed another referendum to once again change its Constitution and cease to recognize a right to life for the unborn in 2018? Does the UK lack a civilized judiciary given women do not have the right to abortions and must get the consent of two doctors to have one? Is the US more civilized than Denmark, given on-demand abortion is legal until viability in the US and only up to the 12th week in Denmark?

Smells like bullshit.


Whataboutism.

And it's a double discourse to claim women have a basic right to have abortions, even when the law does not recognize it,


Laws all over the world recognise that pregnant people still have a right to control their own bodies.

yet at the same time reject the notion of natural rights. Indeed, it's a logical fallacy to claim two mutually contradictory statements are true at the same time.

It's not my fault if you are not thinking logically


Strawman.
#15227928
Laws all over the world recognise that pregnant people still have a right to control their own bodies.


This is categorically untrue. There are exactly 4 nations that allow abortion on demand at a national level. Five if we drop the USA from it. (The US still allows abortion on demand (after the new decision too) in one state There are 24 nations where it is illegal under every circumstance.

So. In virtually every nation in the world this right you assert does not exist. Even in the most permissive nations a woman's right to control her own body is limited by the government. Canada is virtually alone (along with the US by the way) in allowing unlimited access to abortion. (If you can find someone to do it.)

So these "laws the recognize" to which you seem to refer most certainly DO NOT recognize that women have the right to their own body. They permit them to exercise control over a pregnancy up to a point. But beyond that point the state takes away that control.
#15227932
Drlee wrote:This is categorically untrue. There are exactly 4 nations that allow abortion on demand at a national level. Five if we drop the USA from it. (The US still allows abortion on demand (after the new decision too) in one state There are 24 nations where it is illegal under every circumstance.

So. In virtually every nation in the world this right you assert does not exist. Even in the most permissive nations a woman's right to control her own body is limited by the government. Canada is virtually alone (along with the US by the way) in allowing unlimited access to abortion. (If you can find someone to do it.)

So these "laws the recognize" to which you seem to refer most certainly DO NOT recognize that women have the right to their own body. They permit them to exercise control over a pregnancy up to a point. But beyond that point the state takes away that control.


This is bad logic.

My claim (that many countries recognise personal integrity and bodily autonomy) is true, and it is true even if a majority of countries do not.

Having said that, the countries that do allow abortion on demand at any stage in the pregnancy are the ones that the USA should be emulating. Following the majority means doing what the other undeveloped countries do.
#15227933
Why doesn't the USA simply look North to Canada? Are we TOO progressive and do we have too many freedoms?
#15227942
Pants-of-dog wrote:Whataboutism.


No. You are the one claiming the US is not developed and even uncivilized, so I want to know which countries are developed and civilized then.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Laws all over the world recognise that pregnant people still have a right to control their own bodies.


And yet the majority of jurisdictions also ban on-demand abortion after the first trimester, implying this ban is not regarded by them as denial pregnant women the right to control their bodies past the first trimester. In fact, the US is currently softer than most in that regard.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Strawman.


No, your lack of logic is pretty clear by now.

Again, you are using natural law concepts to oppose solving the issue by referendum yet you consider the idea of the existence of natural rights preposterous. Claiming two contradictory statements are true at the same time without any qualifications is indeed illogical.

It's up to you to justify why it'd be a violation of rights to solve the abortion issue via referendum if you do not believe rights are inherent. Appealing to acquired rights would not be convincing since an abortion ban would probably be effective only for fetuses conceived after the vote based on other legal principles, which is the situation where this theory would be most likely to apply. Not that the idea of acquired rights isn't itself supported by natural law concepts by the way.

Opposing the use of referenda in this case is something believers in natural law would defend, but then again the abortion debate if anything highlights one of the practical problems with this view (if we can't agree on a precise definition of who is a person, then we cannot agree on who's got those inherent rights - whatever those may be - and we furthermore cannot agree on how would other person's rights and obligations be affected). People who believe fetuses are people and have an inherent right to life as a result would be also fiercely opposed to holding a referendum on the issue. For those of us who don't know however it's a logical course of action to at least not be opposed to the idea.
#15227952
wat0n wrote:No. You are the one claiming the US is not developed and even uncivilized, so I want to know which countries are developed and civilized then.


The ones that respect a person’s right to bodily autonomy and personal integrity, as well as provide decent access to medical care, and support for parents.

And yet the majority of jurisdictions also ban on-demand abortion after the first trimester, implying this ban is not regarded by them as denial pregnant women the right to control their bodies past the first trimester. In fact, the US is currently softer than most in that regard.


Whataboutism.

No, your lack of logic is pretty clear by now.

Again, you are using natural law concepts to oppose solving the issue by referendum yet you consider the idea of the existence of natural rights preposterous. Claiming two contradictory statements are true at the same time without any qualifications is indeed illogical.


No. Your illogical assumption (that I need to believe in natural rights) is the problem.

Once you give up this assumption that you are incorrectly attributing to me, the logical contradictions that you are imagining will cease to exist.

It's up to you to justify why it'd be a violation of rights to solve the abortion issue via referendum if you do not believe rights are inherent.


Regardless of what I believe, it is a fact that you are arguing that the majority can arbitrarily take
away the rights from a minority.

This is why many courts make it illegal to make laws that are against whatever bill of rights that a country has.
  • 1
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • 58

As there are no border controls between states, th[…]

Packing the court sets a precedent for making the[…]

If it's just a clump of cells why is it considere[…]

Harmeet K. Dhillon - BREAKING: Leaked Call With […]