Roe V. Wade to be Overturned - Page 36 - 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

#15228768
wat0n wrote:So? In this case whoever is a person would have rights, so of course it's important to have a good definition we can agree on for completely practical reasons.

The key to this argument does not lie on personhood. A person should not be able to override the body autonomy of another. I cannot force you to give me your kidney, your blood or to be connected to me so your heart pumps me even if I would die without it. You cannot force a jehova woman to accept a blood transfusion, you cannot force a woman to eat a specific diet or to take sufficient minerals and vitamins to protect the baby. You cannot force a woman not to go skydiving while pregnant. Having a better more flashy definition of what a person is or is not is not going to bring us closer to an answer.

At what point in this video does the fetus become a child/person?

You misunderstand.
I am not offering you an alternative timeline. I am simply stating that it is biologically implausible for a fetus prior to birth to have anything that resembles consciousness or psychological individuality. For all intense and purposes, the fetus is a disconnected computer without any information in it.
The newborn might not even have anything that we can properly call consciousness until several months after birth. So most likely, nowhere in your video, is the answer. At minute 2:41 of the video, the umbilical cord is cut and the whole baby is outside. At this point in time, any sort of conflict about 2 entities sharing 1 body ceases to exist and we no longer care about the 2 entities having different interests as each entity's interest can be analyzed independently of each other. It has nothing to do with personhood, at all.
And... Check Min 1:46. Holy cow, that "hole" does not remotely resemble a vagina. WTF is wrong with people, why did the animator feel they needed to hide what a vagina looks like?
Was it truly not a person before?

Irrelevant, but no. And probably won't be a "person" for a few months either. The government will assign a birth certificate and consider it a person from legal standpoint, but this happens at birth and not in the woumb.
What's the magical thing about being outside and the umbilical cord being cut that turns it into one, given that it doesn't have the past a comatose may have?

The cutting of the umbilical cord decouples the 2 entities that used to share the mother's body. At this point in time, the interests of the baby can cattered to independently of the mother. In fact, the mother can cease to exist, die, leave the country, give the baby to adoption and this baby can still have his/her needs met. This is when the baby is no longer dependent and/or affected by anything that happens to the mother, the mother could stick her tongue to a 40000000 volt cable and asuming the baby is not physically touching the mother, the baby will be fine. It is not magic, it is just a description of what it is going.

And yes, personhood definitely has to do something with this.

Disagree

I think those cases can be seen from a risk/benefit point of view, does the woman's risk compensate the few minutes, says at most, the baby will live?

It does not matter. It shouldn't be you, me, or the supreme court making that assessment. Risk/benefit analysis is based on patient wishes/values and his or her doctor's medical opinion.
If I am prescribing you a blood thinner for atrial fibrillation, I would tell you... well your chadvasc score is 2, this translate to approximately 2% risk of stroke per year. We can use a medication called apixaban to reduce this risk, but this medication will increase your risk of bleeding. You can tell me 1.- I don't mind the risk of bleeding, I am a pianist and if I get a stroke and cannot play the piano ever again I would feel as if my life is over, give me the med doctor. Alternativelly you could tell me 2.- I'd take my chances with the stroke doc, I work as a stunman, I am constantly injuring myself, if I take that med it might very well be a death centence. Risk/benefit is a PATIENT-CENTERED analysis.

Or you could also claim that, since the fetus has little prospect of living in this case, it's not a person anyway.

That is how you define personhood? your chances of dying? I cease to be a person if I am diagnosed with a deadly disease with a 90% mortality rate?

Not under the definitions of "person" I pulled from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Well, that is not true is it?
Your quote offers several proposals to what a person can be. And a stillbirth qualifies for:
"or to belong to a kind whose members typically have them when healthy and mature (Wiggins 1980: ch. 6)."

No, but giving the baby formula won't kill it either. It's a matter of proportionality, if breastfeeding was essential for infants to live and there were no alternatives, I'm pretty sure our ethical system and laws would mandate it.

Don't be so dismissive. When we say breast milk is superior or that, there are increased risks for newborn from a drug addict mother, or a preterm from smoker... all of this translate to newborns that have increased risk of health problems and/or deaths, there are dead babies as a consequence of what their mothers ate, drank or did not take (vitamins), etc. You might miss it while swimming on a sea of healthy babies, but given the massive amounts of birth in this country, thousands of babies die due to these problems. Why be so dismissive about the deaths of actual babies when at the same time you are going above and beyond to defend these so called "rights of the unborn"? Care so much about the fetus inside the womb, but once it is poped out, don't care as much right?

But you do have the right to be supported by your parents, indeed, neglecting you can lead them to jail.

Having responsabilities is not remotely the same as having your body autonomy undermined/violated.
Furthermore, you can put the creature for adoption. You can hire a nanny to take care of him/her. You can have your husband or wife or mother take care of him/her.

Even in that case, why would pregnant women have the right to refuse things like vaccination while you or I wouldn't?

You don't have the right to refuse vaccines?

Why would it be okay for her to drink herself to oblivion yet illegal for all 18-year olds do the same?

Why are you asking me that question?

If anything, there's a far better case for banning the pregnant woman from drinking than an 18-year old adult. Same for smoking or doing legal drugs.

No, there is not.

No, I'm not suggesting that. But if fetuses are persons, then your decisions don't just impact yourself.

Even if fetuses are not people. The mother's decision WILL impact the fetus. That is independently of wether you consider this fetus a person or not. Again, personhood is irrelevant. If the pregnant woman decides to abort the fetus, it will impact the fetus (BY DEFINITION) regardless of wether this fetus is considered a person or not. Not being a person, does not magically protect the fetus when aborted.

The law already forces parents to fulfill certain ethical obligations towards their children, such as supporting them. Why would this be all that different? If anything, for plenty it may be far easier or even preferable to donate blood or bone marrow than to pay child support.

I am sure most woman would be happy to pay you child support if you pop a 8lb baby out of your vagina :lol: after carrying a 9m pregnancy. :lol:

That coercion is a form of enforcement. Limiting your right to attend education may not be as harsh as fining you or even putting you in jail, but it's still a form of enforcement.

When there was a discussion about making COVID vaccination compulsory, the question doesn't just mean putting on paper "everyone shall be vaccinated for COVID". It also includes deciding on how to enforce the obligation, if for example the law decided to ban abortion but did not define how will the ban be enforced (which includes the consequences of having or performing abortions) then abortion is effectively legal and that statement is dead letter.

I am not here to discuss the minutia of how you can get around the vaccination or how this can impact your life. The fact of the matter is, vaccines are not truly compulsory in this country, nor have I ever argued in favor of a compulsory vaccination campaign. We recognize body autonomy as a society and as a matter of law.

Well, in that case she could die if she isn't treated, could her? I'd say the proportionality aspect is being fulfilled here - sure, the fetus may suffer or even die, but it's done to save her life or from grievous harm ("loss of limb").

Morphine does not save lives. Relieving your pain is not going to save your life. You can endure the appendicitis pain until surgery to protect the baby, cannot you?

I know, it's irrational and disproportionate if you think about it.

No it is not irrational. It is sad. It is something that should be avoided. It is somehting we should educate the public, mothers-to-be and pregnant women. We should encourage them, we should support them when trying to quit those substances, we should offer assistance to quit them.

Can be analyzed on a case-by-case basis.

And this is what the states trying to ban abortion is trying to do correct? :knife: :eh:

And yet those are recommended for treating pregnant JWs, and it seems their death rates from anemia are low all in all.

To the extent that they might be "recommended" it is because of the inability to provide the real treatment. This "recommendation" is not based on a biological plausibility of a superior outcome of this "alternative regimen" as compared to the standard of care. Let me put it this way, if you had a patient that required a transfusion, and you don't offer the transfusion and instead offer this "bloodless medicine" approach, if/when patient suffers a bad outcome (damages) you are liable for malpractice.

So your solution then is to just arbitrarily decide only one of them has any rights? Would you do that for conflicts between two adults?

Yes and yes.

They can define "life" however they want, but under Roe v Wade fetuses are not persons anyway. They cannot do much more than that as things stand now.

Personhood is irrelevant.
#15228794
XogGyux wrote:The key to this argument does not lie on personhood. A person should not be able to override the body autonomy of another. I cannot force you to give me your kidney, your blood or to be connected to me so your heart pumps me even if I would die without it. You cannot force a jehova woman to accept a blood transfusion, you cannot force a woman to eat a specific diet or to take sufficient minerals and vitamins to protect the baby. You cannot force a woman not to go skydiving while pregnant. Having a better more flashy definition of what a person is or is not is not going to bring us closer to an answer.


Maybe, maybe, the fact is, they often do. And plenty of us can find good reasons for limiting bodily autonomy, such as those dealing with COVID vaccination. No, cops won't show up at the homes of the unvaccinated to jab them, but their rights would suddenly be limited until they did or until the pandemic receded. It seems the limitations were enough to encourage plenty of just get vaccinated even if they didn't like it.

Likewise, you can't take whatever substances you want, you can't sell your own tissue or organs, in some countries (like France and Germany) you can't even go on a hunger strike if that could kill you and the government can literally force feed you.

XogGyux wrote:You misunderstand.
I am not offering you an alternative timeline. I am simply stating that it is biologically implausible for a fetus prior to birth to have anything that resembles consciousness or psychological individuality. For all intense and purposes, the fetus is a disconnected computer without any information in it.
The newborn might not even have anything that we can properly call consciousness until several months after birth. So most likely, nowhere in your video, is the answer. At minute 2:41 of the video, the umbilical cord is cut and the whole baby is outside. At this point in time, any sort of conflict about 2 entities sharing 1 body ceases to exist and we no longer care about the 2 entities having different interests as each entity's interest can be analyzed independently of each other. It has nothing to do with personhood, at all.
And... Check Min 1:46. Holy cow, that "hole" does not remotely resemble a vagina. WTF is wrong with people, why did the animator feel they needed to hide what a vagina looks like?


Did the baby have consciousness at 2:42? Did the fetus have consciousness at 2:40?

XogGyux wrote:Irrelevant, but no. And probably won't be a "person" for a few months either. The government will assign a birth certificate and consider it a person from legal standpoint, but this happens at birth and not in the woumb.


Indeed, yet that could be changed. It's up to voters, really.

XogGyux wrote:The cutting of the umbilical cord decouples the 2 entities that used to share the mother's body. At this point in time, the interests of the baby can cattered to independently of the mother. In fact, the mother can cease to exist, die, leave the country, give the baby to adoption and this baby can still have his/her needs met. This is when the baby is no longer dependent and/or affected by anything that happens to the mother, the mother could stick her tongue to a 40000000 volt cable and asuming the baby is not physically touching the mother, the baby will be fine. It is not magic, it is just a description of what it is going.


So? What does this have to do with the possible personhood of the fetus?

Do you become less of a person if you need a blood transfusion or bone marrow transplant?

XogGyux wrote:It does not matter. It shouldn't be you, me, or the supreme court making that assessment. Risk/benefit analysis is based on patient wishes/values and his or her doctor's medical opinion.
If I am prescribing you a blood thinner for atrial fibrillation, I would tell you... well your chadvasc score is 2, this translate to approximately 2% risk of stroke per year. We can use a medication called apixaban to reduce this risk, but this medication will increase your risk of bleeding. You can tell me 1.- I don't mind the risk of bleeding, I am a pianist and if I get a stroke and cannot play the piano ever again I would feel as if my life is over, give me the med doctor. Alternativelly you could tell me 2.- I'd take my chances with the stroke doc, I work as a stunman, I am constantly injuring myself, if I take that med it might very well be a death centence. Risk/benefit is a PATIENT-CENTERED analysis.


What happens if this decision would directly impact the health of another patient, who does have a good chance to live depending on the decision?

And what happens now if this third patient will die either way?

XogGyux wrote:That is how you define personhood? your chances of dying? I cease to be a person if I am diagnosed with a deadly disease with a 90% mortality rate?


Are you dying in a few minutes? Because if you are, believe me, being considered a person is the least of your concerns.

Anyway, I find the former reason to be a much better one. But I thought it would be interesting to ponder if a deformed fetus with little chance of living for long could indeed be considered a person.

XogGyux wrote:Well, that is not true is it?
Your quote offers several proposals to what a person can be. And a stillbirth qualifies for:
"or to belong to a kind whose members typically have them when healthy and mature (Wiggins 1980: ch. 6)."


Do fetuses with such deadly deformities typically reach maturity or are ever healthy? I'm thinking about those suffering from trisomy 13, for instance, who normally die in a few days (according to Medline Plus only 5-10% live 1+ years after birth). I'd still give them a chance, like with "normal" 20+ weeks old fetuses, but I can see why would someone not consider those fetuses to be persons. And unlike the 20+ weeks old fetus, where termination of pregnancy in the form of an induced birth can give it a chance to live as opposed to the guaranteed death that comes with abortion, even carrying the pregnancy to term naturally is unlikely to end well so there's that too. It's up to the reader to decide if they are persons, even I don't know if they are just like with all fetuses, but I can see the case against their personhood while in the womb.

I think it's reasonable for a woman to have an abortion if she found out the fetus has trisomy 13, regardless of the personhood question, based on risk-benefit alone.

XogGyux wrote:Don't be so dismissive. When we say breast milk is superior or that, there are increased risks for newborn from a drug addict mother, or a preterm from smoker... all of this translate to newborns that have increased risk of health problems and/or deaths, there are dead babies as a consequence of what their mothers ate, drank or did not take (vitamins), etc. You might miss it while swimming on a sea of healthy babies, but given the massive amounts of birth in this country, thousands of babies die due to these problems. Why be so dismissive about the deaths of actual babies when at the same time you are going above and beyond to defend these so called "rights of the unborn"? Care so much about the fetus inside the womb, but once it is poped out, don't care as much right?


I'm not being dismissive. I'm simply comparing a relatively low chance of having issues due to using formula instead of breastfeeding to the certain death as a result of an abortion, assuming the fetus is a person of course. You clearly don't, so I see where you're coming from, but I can also see where those who are militantly opposed to abortion are coming from.

Of course mothers should encouraged to breastfeed, just as they should be encouraged to do many other things. But again, proportionality is key here, if you grant personhood to the fetus what's at stake for it in abortion is far more than what is at stake regarding breastfeeding.

XogGyux wrote:Having responsabilities is not remotely the same as having your body autonomy undermined/violated.
Furthermore, you can put the creature for adoption. You can hire a nanny to take care of him/her. You can have your husband or wife or mother take care of him/her.


And you don't think people who are against abortion would be okay with all of those alternatives if they existed as a way to terminate a pregnancy? I'm just curious here.

XogGyux wrote:You don't have the right to refuse vaccines?


If you want to work for the federal government, its contractors, attend any institution of higher education in several states (including the one I live in), enter all sorts of buildings and so on, no you don't.

XogGyux wrote:Why are you asking me that question?


We should all have the same rights, shouldn't we?

XogGyux wrote:No, there is not.


Yes, there is. Even if you don't want to assume fetuses are persons, if it will be born and become a person who will need all sorts of extra government support then there's definitely a case for it, at the very least from a financial point of view - devoting resources for this means devoting less resources to care for other patients, so it doesn't just affect the government either but actual individuals. Why else do you think drinking is banned for adults between 18-20? Or why do you think some drugs are banned for everyone? Do you think we'd give a shit about any of these if it only impacted users?

That doesn't necessarily mean, if you don't think the fetus is a person, that we should just go on and ban 21+ years old pregnant women from drinking or smoking. But I can definitely see why it wouldn't be a crazy proposition to suggest that. The question in this case would be if it's proportional to enforce those limitations just for the sake of saving a future child trouble and money for the taxpayer/releasing funding for other patients who may need it. If you don't, then I don't honestly see why wouldn't allow all adults drink, smoke, or do whatever drugs they want.

Speaking of smoking, just as I came back to my apartment, I realized there's a city ordinance banning smoking in elevators (or so the sign at my building's elevator reads). Is this an unacceptable intrusion on the bodily autonomy of smokers or it's okay as a way to protect those of us who don't smoke?

XogGyux wrote:Even if fetuses are not people. The mother's decision WILL impact the fetus. That is independently of wether you consider this fetus a person or not. Again, personhood is irrelevant. If the pregnant woman decides to abort the fetus, it will impact the fetus (BY DEFINITION) regardless of wether this fetus is considered a person or not. Not being a person, does not magically protect the fetus when aborted.


No, but not being a person means we agree they don't have a right to be protected against abortion. And hence we don't need to consider the welfare of the fetus here, unless the woman wants us to.

XogGyux wrote:I am sure most woman would be happy to pay you child support if you pop a 8lb baby out of your vagina :lol: after carrying a 9m pregnancy. :lol:


Maybe, it'd depend on the woman. I'm guessing many wouldn't, at all. Especially after enough time has passed after the baby has been delivered.

XogGyux wrote:I am not here to discuss the minutia of how you can get around the vaccination or how this can impact your life. The fact of the matter is, vaccines are not truly compulsory in this country, nor have I ever argued in favor of a compulsory vaccination campaign. We recognize body autonomy as a society and as a matter of law.


No, the last bolded part isn't true for vaccination. There is already SCOTUS precedent stating explicitly personal liberty can be limited to enforce vaccination, and those who refuse can be fined.

XogGyux wrote:Morphine does not save lives. Relieving your pain is not going to save your life. You can endure the appendicitis pain until surgery to protect the baby, cannot you?


Are there alternatives that wouldn't harm the fetus? If not, I find it hard to give you a response here. I'm willing to say that, yes, the painkiller could be acceptable. But I don't know.

XogGyux wrote:No it is not irrational. It is sad. It is something that should be avoided. It is somehting we should educate the public, mothers-to-be and pregnant women. We should encourage them, we should support them when trying to quit those substances, we should offer assistance to quit them.


Why not educate 18-20 year olds to just not drink too much? Why be harsh in one case and not the other? We're dealing with adults who supposedly can exercise their judgment. I see a far weaker case for barring adults below a certain age from drinking than doing so for pregnant women, even if I may end up agreeing you that the latter should still be allowed to drink and just be encouraged not to (I'm not sure if it should be legal or not. Clearly if I don't have a set position about abortion I can't have a set position about this matter. Yet I can still see the inconsistency here, and it's not just sad if a pregnant woman does that but unethical too - even if I'd stop short of using coercion to stop her).

XogGyux wrote:And this is what the states trying to ban abortion is trying to do correct? :knife: :eh:


Probably not.

By the way, since I said it needs to be analyzed on a case by case basis: How likely is that the deficiency in folic acid actually grievously harms the fetus?

XogGyux wrote:To the extent that they might be "recommended" it is because of the inability to provide the real treatment. This "recommendation" is not based on a biological plausibility of a superior outcome of this "alternative regimen" as compared to the standard of care. Let me put it this way, if you had a patient that required a transfusion, and you don't offer the transfusion and instead offer this "bloodless medicine" approach, if/when patient suffers a bad outcome (damages) you are liable for malpractice.


No disagreement here... Just like a doctor can be liable for doing a late term abortion just because the patient wants one, without a medical reason, in most states...

XogGyux wrote:Yes and yes.


Would you accept if this arbitrary decision were to limit your rights?

XogGyux wrote:Personhood is irrelevant.


It is, legally. The SCOTUS itself said so in Roe v Wade.

That's why an overturning of Roe v Wade determining fetuses are now persons would be a big deal. And it would have consequences going far beyond abortion. For instance, if a fetus is legally a person, then I won't be surprised to find pregnant women claiming the unborn as a dependent for taxation purposes at some point (I'm serious).
#15228817
Smoking bans are not an infringement of your bodily autonomy, which basically means your physical body cannot be interfered with against your will.

Also, Bodily autonomy, or integrity, doesn’t mean you can do whatever you like to or with your body if doing so interferes with the rights of other people.

Smoking bans are to protect other people from the effects of secondary smoke.

Probably a better argument would be to use cavity searches as an example, but even that doesn’t work because there are strict laws in place to ensure your right to bodily integrity is not abused when they’re carried out.

Moreover, cavity searches are limited to the areas of a person’s body that doesn’t need to be accessed by causing physical harm to the person. Under certain circumstances, it’s legal to search a person’s anus or vagina for contraband , but not to search a person’s stomach for it.
#15228822
wat0n wrote:Maybe, maybe, the fact is, they often do. And plenty of us can find good reasons for limiting bodily autonomy, such as those dealing with COVID vaccination. No, cops won't show up at the homes of the unvaccinated to jab them, but their rights would suddenly be limited until they did or until the pandemic receded. It seems the limitations were enough to encourage plenty of just get vaccinated even if they didn't like it.

Not maybe. You are offering an example that does not strengthen your argument, it weakens it. COVID vaccines are not obligatory, I know this because I spent the last year and a half treating people that were not vaccinated and I didn't have to call the cops to arrest them at the time of discharge :lol: .

Did the baby have consciousness at 2:42?

It does not matter, the woman could have given birth to a Piano for all intent and purpose. At 2:42 in this video, they are no longer connected and the interests of both entities can and should be analyzed independently of each other.

Did the fetus have consciousness at 2:40?

Not likely. Consciousness might take months to develop.

Indeed, yet that could be changed. It's up to voters, really.

Well, voters and/or popular demand can influence/decide what is legal or not but not what is ethical or not. You could have overwhelming support for sharia law in a country, and this support might make it so that in this country, these laws are the laws of the land, legal. But it does not make them ethical.

So? What does this have to do with the possible personhood of the fetus?

Nothing at all, personhood is irrelevant.

Do you become less of a person if you need a blood transfusion or bone marrow transplant?

No. Why is this question even relevant?

What happens if this decision would directly impact the health of another patient, who does have a good chance to live depending on the decision?

Ellaborate.

Are you dying in a few minutes? Because if you are, believe me, being considered a person is the least of your concerns.

I am merely pointing out the flaws and inconsistencies if your arguments. For someone trying to argue that an unborn fetus is a person you seem rather unmoved at the prospect of removing personhood status prematurely for someone in their deathbed. How soon before death do you reckon we should remove personhood from someone? Say a week? a month? 10 hours? If you know you dying within the next 1h, does that mean you are no longer a person and you cannot make any last-minute adjustment to you living will... because legally you are no longer a person?


Do fetuses with such deadly deformities typically reach maturity or are ever healthy? I'm thinking about those suffering from trisomy 13, for instance, who normally die in a few days (according to Medline Plus only 5-10% live 1+ years after birth). I'd still give them a chance, like with "normal" 20+ weeks old fetuses, but I can see why would someone not consider those fetuses to be persons. And unlike the 20+ weeks old fetus, where termination of pregnancy in the form of an induced birth can give it a chance to live as opposed to the guaranteed death that comes with abortion, even carrying the pregnancy to term naturally is unlikely to end well so there's that too. It's up to the reader to decide if they are persons, even I don't know if they are just like with all fetuses, but I can see the case against their personhood while in the womb.

I think it's reasonable for a woman to have an abortion if she found out the fetus has trisomy 13, regardless of the personhood question, based on risk-benefit alone.

Biology and medicine are complex, the interactions are complex and incalculable. We deal with expectations, with ranges, with, likelihood events rather than we with concrete anticipated absolutes. There have been babies born with no brain that have survived expectations. You might have found the prospect of a woman given birth to a piano absurd but when it comes to "personhood" a baby with anancephaly is not much different than a Yamaha upright.

I'm not being dismissive. I'm simply comparing a relatively low chance of having issues due to using formula instead of breastfeeding to the certain death as a result of an abortion, assuming the fetus is a person of course. You clearly don't, so I see where you're coming from, but I can also see where those who are militantly opposed to abortion are coming from.

Relatively low chances of harm but for something that happens very often (for instance substance abuse) is still a large amount of harm. My individual percentage of dying in a car accident is minuscule. The aggregate number of people that die to car accidents in the US is ~40,000/year.

Of course mothers should encouraged to breastfeed, just as they should be encouraged to do many other things. But again, proportionality is key here, if you grant personhood to the fetus what's at stake for it in abortion is far more than what is at stake regarding breastfeeding.

And who do you propose should sit down and make an exhaustive list of what should be encouraged vs banned and at what limits. "Proportionality is key" is very nebulous indeed.

And you don't think people who are against abortion would be okay with all of those alternatives if they existed as a way to terminate a pregnancy? I'm just curious here.

I don't know and I don't care.

Yes, there is. Even if you don't want to assume fetuses are persons, if it will be born and become a person who will need all sorts of extra government support then there's definitely a case for it, at the very least from a financial point of view - devoting resources for this means devoting less resources to care for other patients, so it doesn't just affect the government either but actual individuals. Why else do you think drinking is banned for adults between 18-20? Or why do you think some drugs are banned for everyone? Do you think we'd give a shit about any of these if it only impacted users?

That doesn't necessarily mean, if you don't think the fetus is a person, that we should just go on and ban 21+ years old pregnant women from drinking or smoking. But I can definitely see why it wouldn't be a crazy proposition to suggest that. The question in this case would be if it's proportional to enforce those limitations just for the sake of saving a future child trouble and money for the taxpayer/releasing funding for other patients who may need it. If you don't, then I don't honestly see why wouldn't allow all adults drink, smoke, or do whatever drugs they want.

This is your response for me saying "no there is not" in regards to "If anything, there's a far better case for banning the pregnant woman from drinking than an 18-year old adult. Same for smoking or doing legal drugs."
Your reply does not seem to make a case for banning those substances on pregnancy so I will ignore it.

Speaking of smoking, just as I came back to my apartment, I realized there's a city ordinance banning smoking in elevators (or so the sign at my building's elevator reads). Is this an unacceptable intrusion on the bodily autonomy of smokers or it's okay as a way to protect those of us who don't smoke?

That is private property. I can ban people from wearing red shirts inside my apartment, deal with it. You can go outside and smoke to your heart's content.

No, but not being a person means we agree they don't have a right to be protected against abortion.

Maybe for you. To me it does not matter if they are a person or not.

Are there alternatives that wouldn't harm the fetus? If not, I find it hard to give you a response here. I'm willing to say that, yes, the painkiller could be acceptable.

But why are you willing to harm this unborn person with opioids?

Why not educate 18-20 year olds to just not drink too much? Why be harsh in one case and not the other? We're dealing with adults who supposedly can exercise their judgment.

You are using this as if you think that I agree that 18-20 should be banned from drinking :lol:

By the way, since I said it needs to be analyzed on a case by case basis: How likely is that the deficiency in folic acid actually grievously harms the fetus?

Is this some sort of implication that if the risk is low enough it does not count?

Would you accept if this arbitrary decision were to limit your rights?

You need to set up the context.
#15228824
A legal argument has to meet certain standards.

The Alito draft fails to meet those standards. His argument only makes sense if you think abortion is wrong. Which gives the game away, there is no judicial neutrality, and it reveals the real motive which is religion.

Both of which are utterly impermissible in a court of law.
#15228849
Probably a better argument would be to use cavity searches as an example, but even that doesn’t work because there are strict laws in place to ensure your right to bodily integrity is not abused when they’re carried out.


It is not "body integrity" that is the determining factor in this case. It is privacy.
Moreover, cavity searches are limited to the areas of a person’s body that doesn’t need to be accessed by causing physical harm to the person. Under certain circumstances, it’s legal to search a person’s anus or vagina for contraband , but not to search a person’s stomach for it
.

Actually there is no part of a person's body that cannot be searched with a warrant. Including inside of the abdomen. But all of this line of reasoning is irrelevant to the ruling by the SCOTUS.

late wrote:A legal argument has to meet certain standards.

The Alito draft fails to meet those standards. His argument only makes sense if you think abortion is wrong. Which gives the game away, there is no judicial neutrality, and it reveals the real motive which is religion.

Both of which are utterly impermissible in a court of law.


While I will grant that a great many people who oppose abortion do it on the grounds of their religious beliefs, not all do. As I already pointed out in an earlier post atheists, agnostics and people without a particular religious belief often oppose abortion.

As for the validity of Alito's argument....He and his colleagues are the final determiners of what is "permissible in a court of law". If five of them say the moon is officially full for the whole month of December, no matter that their personal reasons for voting this are religiously inspired, legally the moon is full. It does not matter the science. The decision stands unless:

CONGRESS CAN OVERRIDE A SUPREME COURT DECISION AND DO IT BY ONE VOTE IN THE HOUSE AND A VICE PRESIDENTIAL TIEBREAKER IN THE SENATE. They could do it in budget reconciliation as an addition to the spending bill. The very first bill Barack Obama
signed overturned an absurd SCOTUS decision by amending an existing law and backdating the effect.

Congress, for example, could cut off all federal funding for health care in any state that banned abortion during the first trimester. The SCOTUS has already ruled that congress can do this but it could change its mind again. Then congress could overturn that decision by a single vote again. Those votes are not in the Senate right now. And after the mid terms will not be for a long time.

BUT TO ALL ON THIS THREAD AGAIN, FUCKING AGAIN.

The solution to this issue, and the only solution to this issue does NOT lie in some weird new legal concept of person hood. As Dr. X and I have said, " Personhood is irrelevant". It does not matter what month the fetus is in. Fetal heartbeat has nothing to do with it. A woman's right to privacy has nothing to do with the solution. ALL THAT MATTERS is that elected officials vote to de-fang or sidestep this decision. From the very beginning I have said that this problem will be solved (if it is indeed a "problem" and it is indeed ever "solved") in the state legislatures. That is where the ultimate solution lies. This decision did NOTHING to the abortion laws in California or Oregon. All it did was empower states to make their own decisions. The central government could, (but won't) by legislation make the decision to ban abortion very expensive and uncomfortable for the states but, at the end of the day, the decision lies with the states now. Women will not gain a new right nor lose one as they do not have any such right now. What they seek relief from are draconian laws enacted in the states. Nothing more. And relief is what victory looks like right now.
#15228861
Drlee wrote:
ALL THAT MATTERS is that elected officials vote to de-fang or sidestep this decision. From the very beginning I have said that this problem will be solved (if it is indeed a "problem" and it is indeed ever "solved") in the state legislatures. That is where the ultimate solution lies. This decision did NOTHING to the abortion laws in California or Oregon. All it did was empower states to make their own decisions. The central government could, (but won't) by legislation make the decision to ban abortion very expensive and uncomfortable for the states but, at the end of the day, the decision lies with the states now. Women will not gain a new right nor lose one as they do not have any such right now. What they seek relief from are draconian laws enacted in the states. Nothing more. And relief is what victory looks like right now.



Congress could pass a law to end this, a compromise of some sort. As unlikely as that seems, in June when the decision gets released, a lot of Republicans are going to be sweating over this.

But this deserves protection as an unenumerated right. Granted, unless some members of the Court get the impeachment they deserve, that won't happen for a long time. But it's also inevitable unless we go authoritarian (White Power).

What I would like to see is a large decision, building a framework for unenumerated rights that will come as close as possible to having a permanent structure delineating the nature, extent, and limits of unenumerated rights.
#15228872
XogGyux wrote:Not maybe. You are offering an example that does not strengthen your argument, it weakens it. COVID vaccines are not obligatory, I know this because I spent the last year and a half treating people that were not vaccinated and I didn't have to call the cops to arrest them at the time of discharge :lol: .


That doesn't make them optional.

XogGyux wrote:It does not matter, the woman could have given birth to a Piano for all intent and purpose. At 2:42 in this video, they are no longer connected and the interests of both entities can and should be analyzed independently of each other.


For abortion perhaps. Can the mother throw it off a cliff if it doesn't want it anymore?

XogGyux wrote:Not likely. Consciousness might take months to develop.


So I can throw a newborn off a cliff and that would not be murder?

XogGyux wrote:Well, voters and/or popular demand can influence/decide what is legal or not but not what is ethical or not. You could have overwhelming support for sharia law in a country, and this support might make it so that in this country, these laws are the laws of the land, legal. But it does not make them ethical.


Indeed, and what's "ethical" or not is not something two different persons need to agree about every time. There are also plenty of cases where it's unclear what the ethics involved is.

XogGyux wrote:No. Why is this question even relevant?


You are the one hinting depending on someone else's tissues makes you less of a person.

XogGyux wrote:Ellaborate.


Well, you are assuming your treatment will only impact a single patient. What happens if treating one patient can put another at risk?

(I legitimately don't know).

XogGyux wrote:I am merely pointing out the flaws and inconsistencies if your arguments. For someone trying to argue that an unborn fetus is a person you seem rather unmoved at the prospect of removing personhood status prematurely for someone in their deathbed. How soon before death do you reckon we should remove personhood from someone? Say a week? a month? 10 hours? If you know you dying within the next 1h, does that mean you are no longer a person and you cannot make any last-minute adjustment to you living will... because legally you are no longer a person?


I don't get it. Do you think this matters or not?

I'm merely providing you with another cogent argument for being OK with abortion if a fetus suffers from a deformity that's incompatible with life. I'd think you would be okay with it? :?:

XogGyux wrote:Biology and medicine are complex, the interactions are complex and incalculable. We deal with expectations, with ranges, with, likelihood events rather than we with concrete anticipated absolutes. There have been babies born with no brain that have survived expectations. You might have found the prospect of a woman given birth to a piano absurd but when it comes to "personhood" a baby with anancephaly is not much different than a Yamaha upright.


Would you say you can be a person if you lack a brain? Under your previous consciousness standard, the answer is "clearly not", or am I misunderstanding your position?

Anyway, I agree with you the topic is complex. So are, by extension, bioethics, personhood and epistemology. So I don't see why you are so quick to dismiss the personhood question regarding fetuses.

XogGyux wrote:Relatively low chances of harm but for something that happens very often (for instance substance abuse) is still a large amount of harm. My individual percentage of dying in a car accident is minuscule. The aggregate number of people that die to car accidents in the US is ~40,000/year.


Correct, but we still make those probabilistic assessments. I mean, we haven't really banned cars just because 40k people a year die in car accidents.

XogGyux wrote:And who do you propose should sit down and make an exhaustive list of what should be encouraged vs banned and at what limits. "Proportionality is key" is very nebulous indeed.


I agree, it is nebulous. But I think we can come up with broad guidelines. For instance, I'd say it matters if there are alternative courses of action that can achieve most of or all the desired ends (e.g. feeding a baby or terminating a pregnancy), I'd say it also matters what the consequences of each option are (e.g. a more sickly baby or killing/grievously harming a being).

XogGyux wrote:I don't know and I don't care.


I think many would accept that type of alternative.

XogGyux wrote:This is your response for me saying "no there is not" in regards to "If anything, there's a far better case for banning the pregnant woman from drinking than an 18-year old adult. Same for smoking or doing legal drugs."
Your reply does not seem to make a case for banning those substances on pregnancy so I will ignore it.


I said the case is better. It's clear, down the line, a disabled baby will be born and will represent a public burden without ever being responsible for its situation, on top of the effects it has on the woman herself. This is to be compared with a consenting adult whose decisions only directly impact himself or herself, and the public burden arising from them will only limit to treating him or her.

XogGyux wrote:That is private property. I can ban people from wearing red shirts inside my apartment, deal with it. You can go outside and smoke to your heart's content.


No, this is being decided by a city ordinance, not my landlord who has an obligation to enforce it somehow.

XogGyux wrote:But why are you willing to harm this unborn person with opioids?


So there aren't any alternatives? I can imagine the experience could have other consequences down the line. But I don't know, I'm not the doc here.

XogGyux wrote:You are using this as if you think that I agree that 18-20 should be banned from drinking :lol:


I don't think you do, but you can't deny it's inconsistent.

XogGyux wrote:Is this some sort of implication that if the risk is low enough it does not count?


I'm willing to consider that option, yes. Just like if the risk to the mother's life/health is high enough it can justify an abortion even if one accepts fetuses are people.

As you said, medicine is complex and often deals with probabilities, not certainties.

XogGyux wrote:You need to set up the context.


So it is context dependent after all?

@Pants-of-dog would you please elaborate? I actually did not know who he is, but I don't know what it has to do with the topic. It seems the SCOTUS is going to cite him to overturn Roe v Wade, but I haven't read the draft.

PS: Now reading further, I'm assuming you are hinting towards Hale's support for marital rape. Am I correct? Do you think the overturning of Roe v Wade could lead to legalizing marital rape? Would explain why? Merely citing Hale wouldn't be enough.
#15228875
@wat0n
@Drlee

Sit Matthew Hale was an English lawyer from back in Cromwell’s day.

Like some of our PoFo posters, he believed that marital rape should not be a crime. He also burned two women for witchcraft.

And this is the man that Alito thinks should be looked at for policy on reproductive rights.

Instead of industrialised countries with significantly lower maternal mortality rates.
#15228880
@Pants-of-dog that sounds like guilt by association. Hale also believed children could be subjected to capital punishment, that the Salem witch trials were justified, in the existence of natural rights and that the law itself was a contract between all members of the community.

So what part of Hale's writings is the SCOTUS citing?
#15228890
@wat0n

I am merely clarifying the historical tradition that both Hale and Alito are a part of: a tradition where women are treated as criminals for doing things like controlling their own bodies.

And this same tradition is being supported today by conservatives in the USA.
#15228919
wat0n wrote:That doesn't make them optional.

No? I don't know what sort of game of words you want to play but I am not playing it. We have discussed dozens of examples in which 1 person is not able to override the bodily autonomy of another person. Unless you can bring up a solid reason why this should be, I'll consider the matter settled.

For abortion perhaps. Can the mother throw it off a cliff if it doesn't want it anymore?

The piano? Yes, unless for some weird reason the government decides to give it a birth certificate. In which case I'd recommend talking to a lawyer before murdering the piano. Also, make sure the clift is inside your property so that you don't get accused of loitering and that there is nobody at the bottom that you might squish with the piano. It would be cartoonish to die this way.

So I can throw a newborn off a cliff and that would not be murder?

The newborn gets a birth certificate when it is born. At this point in time this is a new individual of the human race.

You are the one hinting depending on someone else's tissues makes you less of a person.

Not at all. You are the one obcessed with personhood. I have said repeatedly that I don't care, and I don't think it is relevant. Depending on someone else's tissue does not "make you less of a person", it makes you DEPENDENT, meaning that if the person that you are dependent on, does not agree their body should be used to keep you alive, you are shit out of luck.

Well, you are assuming your treatment will only impact a single patient. What happens if treating one patient can put another at risk?

(I legitimately don't know).

Well, this is not the kind of thing that can be taught/learned over the course of a couple posts on a forum talking about political issues. The reality is, we offer the options to the patient. The vast majority of times we have relatively good alternatives that have a small chance of harming the fetus and/or the mother willignly choose to put the interest of the fetus above her own. Everything seems so much simpler when you are just analyzing 1 thing at a time, life is messy. You might think a woman choosing her health or even the life, of the fetus might be cruel and/or selfish but if then you realize that she has 3 other toddlers/children that are dependent on her.... what you thought you "knew" can quickly do a 180 flip on you.

I don't get it. Do you think this matters or not?

Of course, I think consistency matters.

I'm merely providing you with another cogent argument for being OK with abortion if a fetus suffers from a deformity that's incompatible with life. I'd think you would be okay with it? :?:

What I want or would be OK with is irrelevant. What matters is what each and every individual pregnant woman wants to do.


Would you say you can be a person if you lack a brain?

If you are born without a brain? Yes I don't think this entity would qualify as a person.

Under your previous consciousness standard, the answer is "clearly not", or am I misunderstanding your position?

Above.

So I don't see why you are so quick to dismiss the personhood question regarding fetuses.

Personhood is irrelevant in this scenario anyway. I am just saying, that if there would be a meaningful thought that is expressed by the term "person" that is not already expressed by the term "human being", that difference should be about consciousness and individuality.

I agree, it is nebulous. But I think we can come up with broad guidelines. For instance, I'd say it matters if there are alternative courses of action that can achieve most of or all the desired ends (e.g. feeding a baby or terminating a pregnancy), I'd say it also matters what the consequences of each option are (e.g. a more sickly baby or killing/grievously harming a being).

Broad guidelines exist from the medical societies, OBGYN, Pediatrics, etc. More likely what you are suggesting would translate into dozens of highly confusing and ambiguous laws, possibly with horrendous penalties that will also likely vary from state to state. Just what we need, to burden the mother facing a tough decision and her physician (who went to medical school, NOT LAW SCHOOL) with a whole bunch of laws written by 70 year old dudes that have nothing better to do than to attempt to enforce their will onto women uterus.

I said the case is better. It's clear, down the line, a disabled baby will be born and will represent a public burden without ever being responsible for its situation, on top of the effects it has on the woman herself. This is to be compared with a consenting adult whose decisions only directly impact himself or herself, and the public burden arising from them will only limit to treating him or her.

:lol:

No, this is being decided by a city ordinance, not my landlord who has an obligation to enforce it somehow.

Irrelevant. You can smoke at your hearts content, just not in that property, which presumably you don't own.
Not being able to masturbate on the street, go inside a restricted governmental building and/or sleep inside the city town hall, or smoke in a plane's restroom does not equate a violation of your body autonomy.

So there aren't any alternatives? I can imagine the experience could have other consequences down the line. But I don't know, I'm not the doc here.

That is not the point. You can answer... who care if the woman gets a bit of morphine while awaiting for surgery, she will get anesthesia during surgery, usually that also includes some opiods as well (such as fentanyl). But that was not the point of the exercise. The point is to realize that when you are focusing on this fetus, you are ignoring the mother. There is a book by Dr. Rana Awdish called "Shock: My Journey from Death to Recovery and the Redemptive Power of Hope.". It is not about abortion. However, at the beginning of the book she describes her experience as a pregnant woman going into the hospital for a medical emergency and having the whole system focused on the fetus, rather than her, it is eye-opening. Again, this book has nothing to do with abortion and I don't even know if she shared her personal views (I don't know, or don't remember her personal views). It is surreal to come to the hospital sick, trying to get medical help, and doctors focused on the fetus instead of you. Anyhow... I think the insight is helpful, but independently, it is a great book, very well written, I enjoyed it much and cried, so if you like reading, it is a good book you can read and as a bonus it can give you some insight on this.

I don't think you do, but you can't deny it's inconsistent.

Actually no. Me, not selling you something (or even getting in trouble if I do), does not violate your body autonomy at all.
Some states allow parents to give alcoholic beverages to their underage children but I am not familiar with all laws.

I'm willing to consider that option, yes. Just like if the risk to the mother's life/health is high enough it can justify an abortion even if one accepts fetuses are people.

What is "high" for you. Do you have a list or you will just ask the judge to come up with one? Or are you just going to take the Doctor's word for it?

So it is context dependent after all?

What I mean is that I completely lost track if what you were talking about so I need the context of the question so I can answer it.
#15228921
I am merely clarifying the historical tradition that both Hale and Alito are a part of: a tradition where women are treated as criminals for doing things like controlling their own bodies.

And this same tradition is being supported today by conservatives in the USA.


Just no. You are back 400 years looking for a bugaboo.

As the saying goes: "This is now, that was then. What endures of Hale's life's work is not continued burning of witches or his position on marital rape. Both of these lost in time. In fact, most all of what Hale believes is lost in time and irrelevant today. Like I said; you re just engaging in more of your hyperbole and demonizing.

I am sure you would disagree with Alito on these three statements:

I have been shaped by the experiences of the people who are closest to me, by the things I've learned from [my wife] Martha, by my hopes and my concerns for my children, Philip and Laura, by the experiences of members of my family, who are getting older, by my sister's experiences as a trial lawyer in a profession that has traditionally been dominated by men.
Samuel Alito


and

Under the president's spying program, there are no checks and balances. There is no outside review of the legality of this brazen infringement on the civil rights and liberties of the American people. Undeterred by the public outcry, the president [George Bush] vows to continue spying on American citizens.
Samuel Alito


The First Amendment, I think, is the jewel of our Constitution.
Samuel Alito


I happen to agree with him. Sorry you don't. But then you are thinking back 400 years. Few people then would have agreed with any of the above.
#15228925
XogGyux wrote:No? I don't know what sort of game of words you want to play but I am not playing it. We have discussed dozens of examples in which 1 person is not able to override the bodily autonomy of another person. Unless you can bring up a solid reason why this should be, I'll consider the matter settled.


OK.

If someone was carrying an explosive, chemical and/or biological weapon in his stomach, and threatened to detonate it killing 1 or more persons in the process, I'd have no trouble if a SWAT team cut his belly wide open and deactivated it, and I would not care if they did it while he was alive.

How about you? Would you respect this suicide bomber's bodily autonomy?

XogGyux wrote:The piano? Yes, unless for some weird reason the government decides to give it a birth certificate. In which case I'd recommend talking to a lawyer before murdering the piano. Also, make sure the clift is inside your property so that you don't get accused of loitering and that there is nobody at the bottom that you might squish with the piano. It would be cartoonish to die this way.


No, I mean a human newborn.

XogGyux wrote:The newborn gets a birth certificate when it is born. At this point in time this is a new individual of the human race.


So it is arbitrary after all. By the way, I'd not say lacking a birth certificate means you can be killed at will.

XogGyux wrote:Not at all. You are the one obcessed with personhood. I have said repeatedly that I don't care, and I don't think it is relevant. Depending on someone else's tissue does not "make you less of a person", it makes you DEPENDENT, meaning that if the person that you are dependent on, does not agree their body should be used to keep you alive, you are shit out of luck.


In the scenario I provided at the beginning of this post, if I was chained to this suicide bomber, would I also be out of luck?

XogGyux wrote:Well, this is not the kind of thing that can be taught/learned over the course of a couple posts on a forum talking about political issues. The reality is, we offer the options to the patient. The vast majority of times we have relatively good alternatives that have a small chance of harming the fetus and/or the mother willignly choose to put the interest of the fetus above her own. Everything seems so much simpler when you are just analyzing 1 thing at a time, life is messy. You might think a woman choosing her health or even the life, of the fetus might be cruel and/or selfish but if then you realize that she has 3 other toddlers/children that are dependent on her.... what you thought you "knew" can quickly do a 180 flip on you.


I agree, these are tough choices regardless. That's why I didn't go to med school.

In fact, that's my point of why I'm so "obsessed" about personhood. If fetuses are not persons I can see why we could just have a more laid back attitude than if they are.

XogGyux wrote:What I want or would be OK with is irrelevant. What matters is what each and every individual pregnant woman wants to do.


In that case, I agree. I'm not sure about abortion in general however.

XogGyux wrote:If you are born without a brain? Yes I don't think this entity would qualify as a person.


So why would you provide that as an example? That's just a stillbirth.

XogGyux wrote:Personhood is irrelevant in this scenario anyway. I am just saying, that if there would be a meaningful thought that is expressed by the term "person" that is not already expressed by the term "human being", that difference should be about consciousness and individuality.


Now here I beg to disagree, a newborn is clearly a human being (biology is clear) but under a strict definition of "person" based on currently possessing "consciousness" or individuality it's not that clear if it's a person or when does it become one.

XogGyux wrote:Broad guidelines exist from the medical societies, OBGYN, Pediatrics, etc. More likely what you are suggesting would translate into dozens of highly confusing and ambiguous laws, possibly with horrendous penalties that will also likely vary from state to state. Just what we need, to burden the mother facing a tough decision and her physician (who went to medical school, NOT LAW SCHOOL) with a whole bunch of laws written by 70 year old dudes that have nothing better to do than to attempt to enforce their will onto women uterus.


There could be national standards, but then again this type of problem already exists for other medical procedures. Using substituted judgment for tissue "donation" is one of them, for example, and those tend to end up in court either way.

XogGyux wrote::lol:


Am I wrong here?

XogGyux wrote:Irrelevant. You can smoke at your hearts content, just not in that property, which presumably you don't own.
Not being able to masturbate on the street, go inside a restricted governmental building and/or sleep inside the city town hall, or smoke in a plane's restroom does not equate a violation of your body autonomy.


Just not in that elevator, you mean. It seems to me that ordinance applies to all elevators, including those that are meant for the public.

You can also extend it to jurisdictions that ban smoking inside restaurants, regardless of whatever the owner thinks. Or smoking bans in all closed spaces, including those that are not privately owned.

Those are all justified, of course, but they definitely limit bodily autonomy.

XogGyux wrote:That is not the point. You can answer... who care if the woman gets a bit of morphine while awaiting for surgery, she will get anesthesia during surgery, usually that also includes some opiods as well (such as fentanyl). But that was not the point of the exercise. The point is to realize that when you are focusing on this fetus, you are ignoring the mother. There is a book by Dr. Rana Awdish called "Shock: My Journey from Death to Recovery and the Redemptive Power of Hope.". It is not about abortion. However, at the beginning of the book she describes her experience as a pregnant woman going into the hospital for a medical emergency and having the whole system focused on the fetus, rather than her, it is eye-opening. Again, this book has nothing to do with abortion and I don't even know if she shared her personal views (I don't know, or don't remember her personal views). It is surreal to come to the hospital sick, trying to get medical help, and doctors focused on the fetus instead of you. Anyhow... I think the insight is helpful, but independently, it is a great book, very well written, I enjoyed it much and cried, so if you like reading, it is a good book you can read and as a bonus it can give you some insight on this.


I might read it. I think it's complicated, of course, if we just all believed fetuses are not people then things would be far easier. The example you mention here can also apply to any case where treating a patient may harm another one, like needing to do triage during a pandemic...

XogGyux wrote:Actually no. Me, not selling you something (or even getting in trouble if I do), does not violate your body autonomy at all.
Some states allow parents to give alcoholic beverages to their underage children but I am not familiar with all laws.


It's not limited to selling, as far as I know:

https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/givin ... inor-52049

XogGyux wrote:What is "high" for you. Do you have a list or you will just ask the judge to come up with one? Or are you just going to take the Doctor's word for it?


I'm okay with a doctor determining that in good faith. They already do that in other instances, for example, when they disregard the parent's spiritual concerns regarding medical decisions affecting their children, am I correct? They determine, in good faith, that the child needs X treatment even though it goes against the spiritual beliefs of his parents or legal guardians.

XogGyux wrote:What I mean is that I completely lost track if what you were talking about so I need the context of the question so I can answer it.


It's a general question. You can consider the scenario at the beginning of this post for an example, where you are in fact somehow chained to this suicide bomber (I don't know, maybe he's a radical anti-abortion guy who showed up at your workplace).

@Pants-of-dog that's a shitty reasoning, in any event, I just read the draft and Hale is cited with regards to the quickening distinction, which the draft denies was meaningful (I don't buy much of the argument they make here, based on reading other texts I've posted earlier in the thread. The draft omits at least one case I can recall where a woman was accused of performing an abortion of a quick fetus, and she got off just by saying "no, I didn't feel anything" which would imply the distinction did matter after all).

A lot of the draft is centered on attacking the reasoning of Roe v Wade, some points are good but I find others questionable. There's even a clear strawman fallacy regarding the stance taken in Roe v Wade in the draft, and it definitely does not deal with all the ideas it posits.

As for Hale's "tradition", he lived in the 17th century. It seems he was a man of his time, and not much else, really. Let's just say we should be thankful we don't live in the 17th century, because you are right some of his positions are aberrant under 21st century Western ethics. The draft however does not say anything supporting marital rape, even remotely, and it also makes a clear and explicit distinction between abortion and all the other cases some critics are concerned about.

They also did not have the guts to take a position on fetal personhood (even Roe v Wade did). They are not advocating for the constitutionality of a federal ban on abortion either.

Here's the opinion, written by Alito. By the way, this would all assume enough of the other justices would join it. I'm skeptical.
#15228927
Pants-of-dog wrote:@wat0n

Your rudeness is not an argument.

Feel free to show me where I am wrong.


Saying your reasoning is shitty is not rude.

You should actually show where you are right. Guilt by association is a logical fallacy,

https://owl.excelsior.edu/argument-and- ... ssociation

Why don't you read Alito's opinion and say where do you think he's wrong? Or explain where does he support marital rape.

I read it and could find some flaws, even logical flaws (a clear strawman, some cherry-picking), which I mentioned above.
#15228928
@wat0n

If you are so angry that you cannot stop swearing, then maybe you need to take a break.

Please read Alito’s opinion and you will see he quotes Hale and other witch burners.

Can you explain why any judge from the modern world would look back at these men for law and not look at contemporary laws or even people like Wollstonecraft?
#15228929
Pants-of-dog wrote:@wat0n

If you are so angry that you cannot stop swearing, then maybe you need to take a break.

Please read Alito’s opinion and you will see he quotes Hale and other witch burners.

Can you explain why any judge from the modern world would look back at these men for law and not look at contemporary laws or even people like Wollstonecraft?


Quoting Hale makes sense in an argument regarding 17th century common law.

Let me know when you can come up with an actual argument and not logical fallacies.
#15228930
@Pants-of-dog Can you explain why any judge from the modern world would look back at these men for law and not look at contemporary laws or even people like Wollstonecraft?


No doubt you have evidence to support your claim. A skilled debater like yourself would never make such a claim without evidence. I would love to see it.
  • 1
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37
  • 38
  • 70
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

And since NATO now includes the countries that ki[…]

Andrew Jackson was brutally racist, LBJ wanted to[…]

Krugman on Putin

Christianity was a major unifying factor between […]

Bridgerton & Black Achilles

Are we supposed to directly respond to the OP or […]