Roe V. Wade to be Overturned - Page 33 - 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

#15228137
Drlee wrote: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.


I apologise if you feel insulted.

To avoid making it personal, let ne ask you a couple of questions that are more general and therefore not quite as focused on the topic:

1. Should government respect the bodily autonomy or personal integrity of its citizens?

2. Does it make sense to say that respect of bodily autonomy is one of the marks of a developed country?

--------------

@wat0n

Not at all.

These are all factors that have a direct impact on abortion, all are directly involved in reproductive rights and/or realistic ability to exercise said rights, and are things I have mentioned before in this thread concerning this specific argument.
#15228141
@Pants-of-dog and yet those states let women have an abortion even if they somehow took 6+ months to figure their future situation out.

In reality though ~93% of abortions take place before week 13.
#15228154
wat0n wrote:@Pants-of-dog and yet those states let women have an abortion even if they somehow took 6+ months to figure their future situation out.

In reality though ~93% of abortions take place before week 13.


And do they provide the programs I previously asked about?

Do they have state constitutions? Do the state constitutions recognize bodily autonomy?
#15228156
@Pants-of-dog
1. Should government respect the bodily autonomy or personal integrity of its citizens?


It depends. I would say that if we are talking a viable baby in utero that the baby's body integrity cries out for the states protection because it is powerless to defend itself. It either dies or lives. The mother, on the other hand, has a variety of choices including adoption or raising her child.

So the short answer is, for most Americans, no.
2. Does it make sense to say that respect of bodily autonomy is one of the marks of a developed country?


Not really because the term is virtually useless in the first place. Laws about blood draws incident to arrest, the death penalty, genetic privacy and the draft all play into that.

If my opinion matters, I am ardent in my support of strict privacy laws. I do not, for example, believe that a website should be allowed to collect data on anyone without the express consent of the person accessing the website and identify each item of data for permission every time. I now that this would seriously demonetize the internet. I believe that collectors of biological data should have to get permission every time with every data point.
#15228268
Drlee wrote:@Pants-of-dog

It depends. I would say that if we are talking a viable baby in utero that the baby's body integrity cries out for the states protection because it is powerless to defend itself. It either dies or lives. The mother, on the other hand, has a variety of choices including adoption or raising her child.

So the short answer is, for most Americans, no.


Not really because the term is virtually useless in the first place. Laws about blood draws incident to arrest, the death penalty, genetic privacy and the draft all play into that.

If my opinion matters, I am ardent in my support of strict privacy laws. I do not, for example, believe that a website should be allowed to collect data on anyone without the express consent of the person accessing the website and identify each item of data for permission every time. I now that this would seriously demonetize the internet. I believe that collectors of biological data should have to get permission every time with every data point.


This lack of recognition of personal integrity and bodily autonomy is one of the things that led to or helped support slavery, torture, and other crimes.

And the idea that fetuses should have this right but pregnant people should not is obviously a double standard.
#15228270
Pants-of-dog wrote:And do they provide the programs I previously asked about?

Do they have state constitutions? Do the state constitutions recognize bodily autonomy?


Again, don't change the goalposts. You want abortions with as little restrictions as possible, a place like Alaska should be exactly as good as any.

As for the state constitutions, they usually use the same language used in the US Constitution or in courts (by recognizing a right to privacy). Some of them also mention rights are the same for both sexes. A couple don't really say anything one way or another about bodily autonomy. Washington DC isn't a state so it doesn't have its own Constitution.
#15228277
This lack of recognition of personal integrity and bodily autonomy is one of the things that led to or helped support slavery, torture, and other crimes.


Perhaps. But we are talking about the law. I do not see how some expressed right to something as vague as body integrity would change that much at all. We have, of course, already passed laws outlawing slavery so, as I have been saying from the start of this thread, the answer lies in the law. Not in philosophy.

And the idea that fetuses should have this right but pregnant people should not is obviously a double standard.


I know that is what you wished I had said but it is not.

What I said is that women (the term "pregnant people" demeans women) should have the right to abort their child up to a point. And that point is viability. After that point the law should protect the baby in most cases. Actually right now what we have is a double standard. A child at 38 weeks of pregnancy, though quite capable of living a long and normal life, could be aborted under your rules.

What I believe is that when a child is capable of living a normal life, and the mother's survival is not at risk, it ought to be allowed to do that. Even if it means some inconvenience to the mother and potentially the father.
#15228282
wat0n wrote:Again, don't change the goalposts.


I did not.

You want abortions with as little restrictions as possible, a place like Alaska should be exactly as good as any.


Only if you ignore the other factors I mentioned several times in this thread.

As for the state constitutions, they usually use the same language used in the US Constitution or in courts (by recognizing a right to privacy). Some of them also mention rights are the same for both sexes. A couple don't really say anything one way or another about bodily autonomy. Washington DC isn't a state so it doesn't have its own Constitution.


Quote a state constitution that explicitly recognizes personal integrity or bodily autonomy.

-----------

Perhaps. But we are talking about the law. I do not see how some expressed right to something as vague as body integrity would change that much at all. We have, of course, already passed laws outlawing slavery so, as I have been saying from the start of this thread, the answer lies in the law. Not in philosophy.


It is not vague. Read the wiki article.

I note that you are not disagreeing with my claims.

I know that is what you wished I had said but it is not.

What I said is that women (the term "pregnant people" demeans women) should have the right to abort their child up to a point. And that point is viability. After that point the law should protect the baby in most cases. Actually right now what we have is a double standard. A child at 38 weeks of pregnancy, though quite capable of living a long and normal life, could be aborted under your rules.


After the point of viability, the child can live outside the womb and so there is no reason to not remove the child.

In a developed country, this child would be able to do so because the hospital bills would be paid with taxes. In undeveloped countries, the child would die because of a lack of ability to pay.

What I believe is that when a child is capable of living a normal life, and the mother's survival is not at risk, it ought to be allowed to do that. Even if it means some inconvenience to the mother and potentially the father.


Personal beliefs are not relevant.
#15228284
@Pants-of-dog yes, you changed the goalposts very early on once you realized how silly it sounded initially. The fact that you now consider Canada to be more developed than the states I mentioned proves so.

As for the state Constitutions, as I said, most use the language of the US one or mention privacy.
#15228291
wat0n wrote:@Pants-of-dog yes, you changed the goalposts very early on once you realized how silly it sounded initially. The fact that you now consider Canada to be more developed than the states I mentioned proves so.


No.

This is based on a misunderstanding of yours. Anyone who has read my posts from the beginning of this thread knows that I mentioned things like parental leave and other supports for young parents as examples of why the USA is a developing country in the context of abortion.

As for the state Constitutions, as I said, most use the language of the US one or mention privacy.


Quote one.
#15228296
Pants-of-dog wrote:No.

This is based on a misunderstanding of yours. Anyone who has read my posts from the beginning of this thread knows that I mentioned things like parental leave and other supports for young parents as examples of why the USA is a developing country in the context of abortion.


:lol:

If you say so, I don't understand why is it so hard to admit it's silly to make abortion such an important thing that it helps determine a country's development.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Quote one.


Okay:

Alaska Constitution, Article II 19 wrote:The right of the people to privacy is recognized and shall not be infringed. The legislature shall implement this section. [Amended 1972]


Want another? This one does imply bodily autonomy, although I did not claim the states in my list guarantee it (some don't mention anything in their Constitutions):

Vermont Constitution, Chapter I wrote:Article 10. [Rights of persons accused of crime; personal liberty; waiver of jury trial]
That in all prosecutions for criminal offenses, a person hath a right to be heard by oneself and by counsel; to demand the cause and nature of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses; to call for evidence in the person's favor, and a speedy public trial by an impartial jury of the country; without the unanimous consent of which jury, the person cannot be found guilty; nor can a person be compelled to give evidence against oneself; nor can any person be justly deprived of liberty, except by the laws of the land, or the judgment of the person's peers; provided, nevertheless, in criminal prosecutions for offenses not punishable by death, the accused, with the consent of the prosecuting officer entered of record, may in open court or by a writing signed by the accused and filed with the court, waive the right to a jury trial and submit the issue of the accused's guilt to the determination and judgment of the court without a jury.

Article 11. [Search and seizure regulated]
That the people have a right to hold themselves, their houses, papers, and possessions, free from search or seizure; and therefore warrants, without oath or affirmation first made, affording sufficient foundation for them, and whereby by any officer or messenger may be commanded or required to search suspected places, or to seize any person or persons, his, her or their property, not particularly described, are contrary to that right, and ought not to be granted.


Neither of these mentions anything about protecting the unborn or recognizing fetuses are persons. If you start from that idea, it's not crazy abortion can be interpreted to be legal and that the State Legislature cannot ban it without changing the Constitution itself.

And the SCOTUS in Roe v Wade also considers fetuses are not persons under the 14th Amendment and therefore not protected under the US Constitution.
#15228324
wat0n wrote::lol:

If you say so, I don't understand why is it so hard to admit it's silly to make abortion such an important thing that it helps determine a country's development.


I think it makes sense to look at the social and legal context and history to understand why the USA is still having this debate.

Okay:

Want another? This one does imply bodily autonomy, although I did not claim the states in my list guarantee it (some don't mention anything in their Constitutions):

Neither of these mentions anything about protecting the unborn or recognizing fetuses are persons. If you start from that idea, it's not crazy abortion can be interpreted to be legal and that the State Legislature cannot ban it without changing the Constitution itself.

And the SCOTUS in Roe v Wade also considers fetuses are not persons under the 14th Amendment and therefore not protected under the US Constitution.


Note that neither mentioned personal integrity or bodily autonomy.
#15228327
The law is intended to balance competing rights and interests.

Clearly, you have a right to your body. But take Covid as an example, society has a right to protect itself. So there is a valid claim there on your 'autonomy'. Australia is like us demographically. Yet we had 900,000 more deaths because we didn't balance the rights of everyone against the rights of kooks...

So an argument that limits autonomy can be reasonable.

But the problem with abortion is that if you want to ban abortion you don't have a reasonable argument. If you look closely at Alito, his motive is religiously based, and that is completely impermissible in American law.

To make matters worse, his attempt to hide his real motive winds up laying the groundwork for ripping up huge chunks of unenumerated rights.

The whole affair puts the impartiality of the Court, and the law, on life support. It will be more than half dead.

This is a disaster, and the radicals on the court want to keep sowing chaos after they take law back to the 1800s. And when I say 1800s, I mean antebellum 1800s...
#15228348
wat0n wrote:@Pants-of-dog how would you interpret something like "That the people have a right to hold themselves, their houses, papers, and possessions, free from search or seizure"?


Are you arguing that this phrase implies bodily autonomy?
#15228357
wat0n wrote:Yes, when taken together with the right to personal liberty. At least that's how American courts seem to interpret "bodily autonomy".


How does that add up?
#15228365
@Drlee I agree with some of what you said but disagree on other points:
Drlee wrote:
What I said is that women (the term "pregnant people" demeans women) should have the right to abort their child up to a point.

I don't think "pregant people" is a deameaning term.
1.- women are people, people is not a demeaning/offensive term. I am a male and I am also a person (people if part of a group). I don't consider this to demeaning.
2.- There are transgender men that have been pregnant and given birth. Even if you insist they be called women because of their birth gender and/or genetic sex... wouldnt that be MORE offensive to those people than simply calling them people if you are deliberately calling them by the wrong gender?
That is just a minor issue. Now back to the meat.

... should have the right to abort their child up to a point.

Agree.

And that point is viability. After that point the law should protect the baby in most cases.

I think this would be a mistake.
For one, viability is not a date. Viability in the 1960's, 1990's and today is very different with the advanse of neonatal intensive care, etc. It is perfectly reasonable to expect that in the 2nd half of this century we might have babies that were fertilized and grown completely out of a human body and/or that embryos /tiny fetus could be removed and grown outside a body. This could very well create a 2 tiered system in which a rich person can have a removal into an incubator and circumbent any sort of penalty or legal action for abortion but a poor/marginalized must take pregnancy to term because an abortion at any stage is illegal because any pregnancy is a viable one with the right care. Now... you could define viability as "viability without medical care" but at that point you would be including quite a bunch of "late abortions".
Even if you define it by today's standards, let's say you define it at 20 weeks. What happens when in 2 years there is an article of a 18week premie that survived and when in 10 years 1% of them are surviving and when in 20 years 10%? We gonna be changing laws every 10 years? I think that is a recipe for disaster.
Alternatively, you could simply legislate it as "viability" rather than specifying fetal age... but that is just kicking the ball back into the courts... the very thing you are saying you dont agree with.
I think this has to be resolved from mother side. We can agree to come with an arbitrary fetal age under which all abortions are fair game (e.g. 20w) and that above that arbitrary number, abortions should be due to risk of pregnancy to completion is very high and much greater than risk of late abortion, major fetal abnormalities that would impact life expectancy, or significant disability, etc.

What I believe is that when a child is capable of living a normal life, and the mother's survival is not at risk, it ought to be allowed to do that.

Aside from the fact that a delivery is not "merely an inconvenience".
These sort of abortions that you are describing are exedingly rare. It is the sort of thing that fanatics like to imagine evil doctors strangling the screaming baby right after "abortion/delivery". When they do occur, very often it is due to a serious complication that would be deadly for the fetus... for instance this case:
https://www.denverpost.com/2019/10/13/l ... omen-2020/
Here are the numbers for abortions based on gestational age.
Image
Roughly ~1% of them occur after 20 weeks. At this point in time, 20 weeks is as good as it get for "viability" and abortions after this fetal age are rare. This translates to about 7k "late term" (>20weeks) per years. This is a very small number. I reckon if you cannot trust doctors and medical professionals, mothers that the great majority of these (rare) abortions are justified.... then we have a bigger problem.
#15228367
@XogGyux in all fairness, though, it would be good to see how the data looks like when we limit the analysis to states that allow abortion at any stage of the pregnancy.

By the CDC data, too, the SCOTUS could allow state bans of abortion after the first trimester - basically, the old quickening standard - and things would remain basically the same. If Roe v Wade is overturned, this seems to be the most likely way it will be done - more likely than ruling fetuses are persons, for example, since the SCOTUS usually tries to avoid changing the status quo too much.

@Pants-of-dog why doesn't the implication follow? Bodily autonomy is an example of personal liberty, isn't it?
  • 1
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 66
An unrefined conundrum

If you're concerned about *gas* prices.... An[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

First documented use of either BONUS or SMArt […]

:| ———————— Here is a Republican explaining wh[…]

"Nobel laureate" tells you his real p[…]