Roe V. Wade to be Overturned - Page 32 - 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

#15227955
Pants-of-dog wrote: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.


So which specific countries would those be, and how do they regulate abortion?

Pants-of-dog wrote:Whataboutism.


No. I want to understand which countries "respect a person’s right to bodily autonomy and personal integrity, as well as provide decent access to medical care, and support for parents", given most countries provide less freedom for women to abort on-demand than the US currently does.

Pants-of-dog wrote: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.


So why would it be wrong for a referendum to determine what will our rights be if you do not believe in the existence of inherent rights?

Pants-of-dog wrote: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.


So if voters decide to grant a new right that inevitably limits other rights, this would be immoral to you?

If voters decide there's a right to universal healthcare funded through social security taxes, would this be immoral to you? After all, the concept limits my right to choose, and also limits my right to use my money as I wish. That's logically true even if I now have the right to use this publicly funded healthcare.
#15227958
wat0n wrote:So which specific countries would those be, and how do they regulate abortion?

No. I want to understand which countries "respect a person’s right to bodily autonomy and personal integrity, as well as provide decent access to medical care, and support for parents", given most countries provide less freedom for women to abort on-demand than the US currently does.

So why would it be wrong for a referendum to determine what will our rights be if you do not believe in the existence of inherent rights?


No one is making claims about right or wrong.

My claim is the following:

Banning or restricting abortion significantly (by law or by reducing access) interferes with a pregnant person’s rights to bodily autonomy or personal integrity.

Holding a referendum on abortion, therefore is equivalent to having the majority decide whether or not pregnant people have rights to bodily autonomy or personal integrity.

Now, you may or may not see something wrong with having the majority decide the rights of a minority.

So if voters decide to grant a new right that inevitably limits other rights, this would be immoral to you?

If voters decide there's a right to universal healthcare funded through social security taxes, would this be immoral to you? After all, the concept limits my right to choose, and also limits my right to use my money as I wish. That's logically true even if I now have the right to use this publicly funded healthcare.


Do you think rights are equally important?

Is my right to buy Budweiser just as important as the right to free speech, for example?

Or, more on topic, do you think your right to pay the least amount of taxes possible is equivalent to depriving people of the right to refuse access to their bodies without their consent?
#15227960
Pants-of-dog wrote:No one is making claims about right or wrong.


Is denying rights wrong?

Pants-of-dog wrote:My claim is the following:

Banning or restricting abortion significantly (by law or by reducing access) interferes with a pregnant person’s rights to bodily autonomy or personal integrity.

Holding a referendum on abortion, therefore is equivalent to having the majority decide whether or not pregnant people have rights to bodily autonomy or personal integrity.

Now, you may or may not see something wrong with having the majority decide the rights of a minority.


And yet banning abortion is usually done, at least in liberal democracies (Stalin banned abortion in 1936 to promote natality so there could be other arguments for banning or limiting access to abortion), to preserve fetal life under the theory that there is a compelling reason to. Most of the time, due to a belief the unborn has a right to life like the Irish Constitution had explicitly granted until 2018.

So from that point of view, it is fair to see that those who want to ban abortion do so because they believe fetuses have a right to life. Believing fetuses are persons is the most common reason for this position, even if you believe the personhood of fetuses is irrelevant plenty of people would disagree. For them, it's a balance of rights issue.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Do you think rights are equally important?

Is my right to buy Budweiser just as important as the right to free speech, for example?

Or, more on topic, do you think your right to pay the least amount of taxes possible is equivalent to depriving people of the right to refuse access to their bodies without their consent?


Personally, no, but others may disagree. Indeed, balancing of rights issues are half of the reason why we write and often amend Constitutions.

And let's not forget that the right to buy a Bud was actually denied in the US at some point. A bad decision, if you ask me, and with unintended effects some of which would be similar to those we could expect if abortion was banned, particularly if it was done federally (not that it's going to happen). So don't think that, questions of fetal personhood aside, I don't realize there are other type of arguments to consider here.
#15227965
wat0n wrote:……

And yet banning abortion is usually done, at least in liberal democracies (Stalin banned abortion in 1936 to promote natality so there could be other arguments for banning or limiting access to abortion), to preserve fetal life under the theory that there is a compelling reason to. Most of the time, due to a belief the unborn has a right to life like the Irish Constitution had explicitly granted until 2018.

So from that point of view, it is fair to see that those who want to ban abortion do so because they believe fetuses have a right to life. Believing fetuses are persons is the most common reason for this position, even if you believe the personhood of fetuses is irrelevant plenty of people would disagree. For them, it's a balance of rights issue.


Yes.

And this is a double standard.

Often, the right to life does not trump personal integrity. The typical exception is, of course, abortion. And this is grounded in several reasons including sexism and wanting to control female sexuality and reproduction.

Personally, no, but others may disagree. Indeed, balancing of rights issues are half of the reason why we write and often amend Constitutions.

And let's not forget that the right to buy a Bud was actually denied in the US at some point. A bad decision, if you ask me, and with unintended effects some of which would be similar to those we could expect if abortion was banned, particularly if it was done federally (not that it's going to happen). So don't think that, questions of fetal personhood aside, I don't realize there are other type of arguments to consider here.


If you do not think all rights are equal, then can you also see how the right to pay less taxes is not equivalent to giving up control over your own body?

Would it be immoral to refuse someone control over their own body just so that people can pay a few cents less on tax?
#15227968
Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes.

And this is a double standard.

Often, the right to life does not trump personal integrity. The typical exception is, of course, abortion. And this is grounded in several reasons including sexism and wanting to control female sexuality and reproduction.


On the other hand, the right to life does trump personal integrity at times. Even the right not to get sick does, and other duties can as well.

It's all a matter of proportion, and context.

Pants-of-dog wrote:If you do not think all rights are equal, then can you also see how the right to pay less taxes is not equivalent to giving up control over your own body?

Would it be immoral to refuse someone control over their own body just so that people can pay a few cents less on tax?


Personally, no, I think not. But that's my personal opinion.

I also don't think taxation has too much to do with either position on abortion, for example. I mean, it has tax/public spending implications in each case, but these are secondary if you ask me. In the case of abortion I think we're dealing with more important rights such as life and personal integrity.
#15227969
wat0n wrote:On the other hand, the right to life does trump personal integrity at times. Even the right not to get sick does, and other duties can as well.

It's all a matter of proportion, and context.


Yes.

We agreed earlier in the thread that the only argument for banning abortion (in terms of balancing rights) is the fact that someone will die.

This means that in the context of abortion, we have the right to life and no other considerations on the banning abortion side, while the access to abortion side has personal integrity, as well as other factors such as reduced back alley abortions, which means both lower health costs, but also more protection for the right to life.

After all, people getting back alley abortions are risking death.

Personally, no, I think not. But that's my personal opinion.

I also don't think taxation has too much to do with either position on abortion, for example. I mean, it has tax/public spending implications in each case, but these are secondary if you ask me. In the case of abortion I think we're dealing with more important rights such as life and personal integrity.


Well, since you brought it up, I also accept your reasons for thinking it is not a good comparison.
#15227970
Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes.

We agreed earlier in the thread that the only argument for banning abortion (in terms of balancing rights) is the fact that someone will die.

This means that in the context of abortion, we have the right to life and no other considerations on the banning abortion side, while the access to abortion side has personal integrity, as well as other factors such as reduced back alley abortions, which means both lower health costs, but also more protection for the right to life.

After all, people getting back alley abortions are risking death.


Those who see abortion as killing another person would probably say that women are risking that. Some may even say that contraception exists, is effective and cheap enough to reduce back alley abortions as much as possible. In the case Roe v Wade were overturned, chances are they could just go to another state to have abortions.

If brought to referenda, I suspect most states would actually keep abortion legal.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Well, since you brought it up, I also accept your reasons for thinking it is not a good comparison.


The problem, though, is what happens when there is no agreement in the public at large regarding this balancing of rights?
#15227977
wat0n wrote:Those who see abortion as killing another person would probably say that women are risking that.


They would then be agreeing with me that the balance is then between the right to life on the one hand, and the right to life and the right personal integrity on the other.

Some may even say that contraception exists, is effective and cheap enough to reduce back alley abortions as much as possible.


People say all sorts of things.

In the case Roe v Wade were overturned, chances are they could just go to another state to have abortions.


This has already been addressed in this thread. Like in Chile, this means that people with money can travel while the poor have to get back alley abortions.

If brought to referenda, I suspect most states would actually keep abortion legal.

The problem, though, is what happens when there is no agreement in the public at large regarding this balancing of rights?


This is why having debate or discussion about many rights is effectively impossible: to protect those who would otherwise lose rights through otherwise legal means.
#15227984
Pants-of-dog wrote:They would then be agreeing with me that the balance is then between the right to life on the one hand, and the right to life and the right personal integrity on the other.


Are you sure? If you attempt to injury or kill someone else, I'd say you're risking facing a deadly response.

At least for those who believe a fetus is a person with a right to life, that's basically what back alley abortions are.

Pants-of-dog wrote:People say all sorts of things.


Indeed, but you cannot say it's basically true - extensive use of contraception is easily the best alternative.

Pants-of-dog wrote:This has already been addressed in this thread. Like in Chile, this means that people with money can travel while the poor have to get back alley abortions.


Travel is more extended and common in the US.

Pants-of-dog wrote:This is why having debate or discussion about many rights is effectively impossible: to protect those who would otherwise lose rights through otherwise legal means.


And yet it's often necessary, particularly if one wants to recognize a new right that may restrict others (which happens almost always).
#15227989
wat0n wrote:Are you sure? If you attempt to injury or kill someone else, I'd say you're risking facing a deadly response.

At least for those who believe a fetus is a person with a right to life, that's basically what back alley abortions are.


That ignores a lot.

Indeed, but you cannot say it's basically true - extensive use of contraception is easily the best alternative.


And yet the same people who oppose access to abortion also oppose access to contraception.

Travel is more extended and common in the US.


And yet the same factors exist due to income inequality, albeit to a lesser degree. This is one of the ways in which the USA is a developing country.

And yet it's often necessary, particularly if one wants to recognize a new right that may restrict others (which happens almost always).


This is not the case with the repeal of RvW and the laws allowing abortion. There is no new right that justifies removing the rights of pregnant people.
#15227993
Pants-of-dog wrote:That ignores a lot.


Indeed, I agree there's a lot more nuance involved for abortion. But many don't see it.

Even in our discussion, we've made it about fetal life v/s female bodily autonomy. But even from a pro-choice perspective, I'd say control over fertility is more important than bodily autonomy.

Pants-of-dog wrote:And yet the same people who oppose access to abortion also oppose access to contraception.


Some do, indeed. But not all.

Pants-of-dog wrote:And yet the same factors exist due to income inequality, albeit to a lesser degree. This is one of the ways in which the USA is a developing country.


FAR lesser degree, and it's travel within the country, not abroad. I mean, if you live in rural Canada you may still need to travel to a city to have an abortion anyway.

Pants-of-dog wrote:This is not the case with the repeal of RvW and the laws allowing abortion. There is no new right that justifies removing the rights of pregnant people.


There is if the repeal decides to change the status quo regarding personhood of fetuses, which would represent a radical change. Although if I had to bet, my guess is that a repeal will just go back to something closer to the common law standard of quickening and allow states to decide.
#15228013
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.


Why?

The US is a constitutional democracy. Body integrity has nothing to do with the laws in the US that range from very restrictive to the very same as Canada. We have made our choice at the polls. You can whine about it all that you want to but....

For that matter, the fact that the majority of Americans favor at least some limited form of abortion on demand is irrelevant also. Unless those people act at the ballot box and with their spending, the laws will remain exactly as they are.

I have been saying about the Russian people and believe this for Americans as well, "people get the government they will allow and deserve to the extent they will work for it".

I have no sympathy for the majority when it is largely their apathy that has led to this mess in the first place.
#15228021
@Pants-of-dog so the US should emulate what Alaska, Colorado, Washington DC, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon and Vermont do?

They have on-demand abortion with no limit. This includes abortion after viability.

Looking at Canada, all Provinces establish a gestational age-based cutoff (up to 24 weeks and 6 days) where on-demand abortion is allowed. Some are actually more restrictive than all US states.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_ ... ional_laws
#15228071
wat0n wrote:@Pants-of-dog so the US should emulate what Alaska, Colorado, Washington DC, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon and Vermont do?

They have on-demand abortion with no limit. This includes abortion after viability.

Looking at Canada, all Provinces establish a gestational age-based cutoff (up to 24 weeks and 6 days) where on-demand abortion is allowed. Some are actually more restrictive than all US states.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_ ... ional_laws


Which of these places have case law and other rights that recognise that a person has control over who gets to use their body?
#15228082
Which of these places have case law and other rights that recognise that a person has control over who gets to use their body?


Well isn't this interesting. You seem to be beginning to understand US law. I will not even capitalize this time. The US has no general right to what you have decided to refer to as body autonomy. Should we? Only if we want to abolish conscription which, I might add, in the light of how pathetic the Russian bear is these days, may not be necessary either.
#15228091
@Drlee

I completely agree that the USA has no bodily autonomy rights, and for further clarification of how this supports my claims, please go back and reread my posts.

You will note that this fact is one of my points of evidence supporting my claim that the USA is a de facto developing country when we look at abortion and other reproductive rights.

You may also note that I suggest a reason for this omission: at the time when the constitution was written, several of its authors wanted to ensure that the rights mentioned would not interfere with the slave trade and slavery.

This, of course, brings us to the logical question: should the USA have such s right?

Also, I like your point about conscription. Tell you what, for every man drafted, you can ban one abortion.
#15228095
Pants-of-dog wrote:Which of these places have case law and other rights that recognise that a person has control over who gets to use their body?


I don't know.

Are those states more developed than any Canadian province?
#15228099
wat0n wrote:I don't know.

Are those states more developed than any Canadian province?


Are they?

What kind of support do they have for those who choose not to abort?

Do they have, for example, paid maternity or parental leave? Supplemental nutrition programs for expecting parents? Subsidised daycare? Economic support for childbirth?
#15228114
You will note that this fact is one of my points of evidence supporting my claim that the USA is a de facto developing country when we look at abortion and other reproductive rights.


Mindless hyperbole. You tried to insult every American and you did insult every American. Canada should not do that. It his its own issues. Like, well, its very existence depends on the goodwill of the USA.
#15228115
Pants-of-dog wrote:Are they?

What kind of support do they have for those who choose not to abort?

Do they have, for example, paid maternity or parental leave? Supplemental nutrition programs for expecting parents? Subsidised daycare? Economic support for childbirth?


You're changing the goalposts now.
  • 1
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • 34
  • 60

@wat0n No. I don't like cold like in Chicago. Co[…]

January 6 Hearings LIVE

Address to the Legislative Body (December 1813)[…]

They will do it again and again until they succee[…]

Dollar General Workers EXPOSE CEO's Lies https://[…]