Roe V. Wade to be Overturned - Page 40 - 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

#15229299
Pants-of-dog wrote:All the relevant parts and facts are also the bits that show Alito is wrong.


Indeed, and we can tell by reading the sources and other court rulings. Had Alito chosen to omit this, we wouldn't really know.

Pants-of-dog wrote:This seems like unverifiable speculation.


You mean like the misogyny claim?

Pants-of-dog wrote:It is possible, but since none other has been presented that has any support, I will continue to believe in that which is supported empirically.


Where's the empirical support?

Pants-of-dog wrote:Strawman.


So trans identity should only be recognized and respected when it suits you. Okay.
#15229307
wat0n wrote:Indeed, and we can tell by reading the sources and other court rulings. Had Alito chosen to omit this, we wouldn't really know.


You seem very easygoing about Alito possibly lying and definitely being wrong in an opinion that will take away the rights of citizens.

There is another possible error that Alito made, but I find it more plausible that he intentionally lied. It is on page 61. Did you notice it?
#15229312
Pants-of-dog wrote:You seem very easygoing about Alito possibly lying and definitely being wrong in an opinion that will take away the rights of citizens.


I don't know if "lying" would be the right term. I just find his interpretation to be too forced, and out of context. I guess you could say that, but either way had he just chosen to ignore common law and go straight to speak about post-independence statute we wouldn't have been able to catch this questionable interpretation.

Pants-of-dog wrote:There is another possible error that Alito made, but I find it more plausible that he intentionally lied. It is on page 61. Did you notice it?


No, not really. Would you please elaborate?
#15229317
wat0n wrote:I don't know if "lying" would be the right term. I just find his interpretation to be too forced, and out of context. I guess you could say that, but either way had he just chosen to ignore common law and go straight to speak about post-independence statute we wouldn't have been able to catch this questionable interpretation.


I fail to see now an outright error that could be caught by someone untrained in law is “too forced” or “questionable”.

He either made a serious mistake, or he lied.

No, not really. Would you please elaborate?


Alito claimed that it would be impossible to accurately assess the impact that abortion rights have had on women and other pregnant people.

He lied about this, or he completely forgot that he was given this exact assessment by a group of economists.

The weird thing is that it is a matter of public record that he received this amicus brief. So we already know that he had an accurate assessment of the impact of abortion rights when he wrote that it would be impossible for him to have one.
#15229318
Pants-of-dog wrote:
I fail to see now an outright error that could be caught by someone untrained in law is “too forced” or “questionable”.

He either made a serious mistake, or he lied.



Alito claimed that it would be impossible to accurately assess the impact that abortion rights have had on women and other pregnant people.

He lied about this, or he completely forgot that he was given this exact assessment by a group of economists.

The weird thing is that it is a matter of public record that he received this amicus brief. So we already know that he had an accurate assessment of the impact of abortion rights when he wrote that it would be impossible for him to have one.



Supreme Court judges play without a net.

Most judges lack the judicial temperament to do that. All of the radicals on the court show no sign of having the necessary restraint.

Our government was never intended to be able to defend itself from an army of politicians and judges willing to lie, cheat and steal.
#15229320
wat0n wrote:None of this would override the mother's bodily autonomy, would it?

Why would they? The whole point is to avoid overriding it.

How would a cat be conscious and a newborn human wouldn't? Or you'd say the cat isn't conscious?

The cat is a conscious being.

I am curious @wat0n what do you think should be done in cases of rape/incest/major body deformities of fetus?
#15229321
Pants-of-dog wrote:I fail to see now an outright error that could be caught by someone untrained in law is “too forced” or “questionable”.

He either made a serious mistake, or he lied.


That's the thing. Is this a serious mistake or a lie?

Ultimately, though, the real problem is that it's hard to claim there was a common law ban in all abortions when you have clear primary sources stating the opposite. He may say, as you did, it was an unscientific view, a wrong view that it is possible to correct by legislative action, but this doesn't suddenly negate the fact women could abort before the fetus was quick because the fetus wasn't considered to be alive under the law.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Alito claimed that it would be impossible to accurately assess the impact that abortion rights have had on women and other pregnant people.

He lied about this, or he completely forgot that he was given this exact assessment by a group of economists.

The weird thing is that it is a matter of public record that he received this amicus brief. So we already know that he had an accurate assessment of the impact of abortion rights when he wrote that it would be impossible for him to have one.


Fair, you're right he must consider all the amici.
#15229323
XogGyux wrote:Why would they? The whole point is to avoid overriding it.


But you would advice against the idea, would you? Should the taxpayer fund procedures that are risky without medical justification?

XogGyux wrote:The cat is a conscious being.

I am curious @wat0n what do you think should be done in cases of rape/incest/major body deformities of fetus?


Rape: The victim can have an abortion, if one does indeed happen then the rapist should bear the penalty (if abortion is illegal). Yes, some victims may choose to have abortions to punish the perpetrator, well, too bad - I don't feel sorry for rapists.

If the victim is male (like in statutory rape) the same standard applies. If the rapist delivers the child, the victim is not liable to pay anything for it.

Incest: Similar to rape, I mean I don't think you'd force the woman to have an abortion just because the relation was incestuous.

Major deformities: The woman can have an abortion, based on a risk-benefit analysis given the baby won't live for long.
#15229326
wat0n wrote:Major deformities: The woman can have an abortion, based on a risk-benefit analysis given the baby won't live for long.

Major deformities, not necessarily deadly deformities. Say down syndrome, or a baby with no arms and legs. OK to have an abortion on those cases?
#15229329
XogGyux wrote:Major deformities, not necessarily deadly deformities. Say down syndrome, or a baby with no arms and legs. OK to have an abortion on those cases?


If the fetus is a person, no. But I can understand those who choose to have one.

I'm curious, do you think it's OK to have an abortion based on e.g. fetal sex?
#15229331
wat0n wrote:If the fetus is a person, no. But I can understand those who choose to have one.

I'm curious, do you think it's OK to have an abortion based on e.g. fetal sex?


So you oppose any sort of abortion, including incest, rape, major fetal abnormalities correct?
#15229336
wat0n wrote:I already gave you my opinion regarding abortion if there's rape or incest. If the victim chooses to have one, it's her right and the punishment goes to the rapist.

What kind of nonsense answer is that. If John rapes Mary, Mary aborting is not some sort of punishment to John. Rapists are not raping because they want to procreate.

Anyhow, back to the point.
You spent the better half of a week trying to tell me that abortion should be based on personhood as to respect the rights of the fetus (person-to-be). Do you realize that neither incest, nor rape, nor major (but survivable) defects alter wether a fetus is or will become a person? Do you realize how inconsistent is the viewpoint?
The mother got raped, sad face... why does the unborn have to be punished for that a criminal did to mom? why do the baby have to be killed because a rapist raped mom?
#15229340
XogGyux wrote:What kind of nonsense answer is that. If John rapes Mary, Mary aborting is not some sort of punishment to John. Rapists are not raping because they want to procreate.


Impregnating her against her will, leading to an abortion, is an aggravation. Of course it makes sense for the rapist to be more harshly punished, and in this case he's to face the punishment for effectively forcing the woman (and the fetus, if you assume it to be a person) to undergo an abortion. What are you talking about?

XogGyux wrote:Anyhow, back to the point.
You spent the better half of a week trying to tell me that abortion should be based on personhood as to respect the rights of the fetus (person-to-be). Do you realize that neither incest, nor rape, nor major (but survivable) defects alter wether a fetus is or will become a person? Do you realize how inconsistent is the viewpoint?
The mother got raped, sad face... why does the unborn have to be punished for that a criminal did to mom? why do the baby have to be killed because a rapist raped mom?


Because I was clear I was referring to on-demand abortion. If a pregnancy puts a woman's life in danger an abortion is justified even if the fetus is a person, too.

In the case of rape leading to an unwanted pregnancy and a subsequent abortion, the abortion isn't going unpunished. The punishment falls onto the responsible party, the rapist.
#15229342
wat0n wrote:Impregnating her against her will, leading to an abortion, is an aggravation. Of course it makes sense for the rapist to be more harshly punished, and in this case he's to face the punishment for effectively forcing the woman (and the fetus, if you assume it to be a person) to undergo an abortion. What are you talking about?

Ah?
Rapist raped the woman, Rapist did not force an abortion. This is the most ridiculous and silly excuse I have seen.

In the case of rape leading to an unwanted pregnancy and a subsequent abortion, the abortion isn't going unpunished.

So you are OK killing people as long as there is someone being punished? What?

The punishment falls onto the responsible party, the rapist.

And don't forget the fetus....

Admit it, personhood has nothing to do with this. It never did.
#15229346
XogGyux wrote:Ah?
Rapist raped the woman, Rapist did not force an abortion. This is the most ridiculous and silly excuse I have seen.


And yet the abortion wouldn't have occurred had the rapist not raped the woman. Maybe rapists could try, I don't know, not raping? Just a suggestion.

XogGyux wrote:So you are OK killing people as long as there is someone being punished? What?


No, I think it's quite clear who's the person responsible in this case.

XogGyux wrote:And don't forget the fetus....

Admit it, personhood has nothing to do with this. It never did.


I'm not forgetting the fetus, at all. The punishment for the rapist would naturally be harsher if the fetus is a person :)
#15229347
wat0n wrote:That's the thing. Is this a serious mistake or a lie?

Ultimately, though, the real problem is that it's hard to claim there was a common law ban in all abortions when you have clear primary sources stating the opposite. He may say, as you did, it was an unscientific view, a wrong view that it is possible to correct by legislative action, but this doesn't suddenly negate the fact women could abort before the fetus was quick because the fetus wasn't considered to be alive under the law.

Fair, you're right he must consider all the amici.


Yes, thank you for clarifying once more how Alito is wrong or lying.

Abortion before quickening did not become illegal in the USA until the 1860s, approximately two centuries after Hale was breathing.

So if you wish to look at it from a historical perspective, women in Puritan pilgrim colonies had more reproductive rights and access to abortion than states that have passed fetal heartbeat laws.
#15229348
wat0n wrote:And yet the abortion wouldn't have occurred had the rapist not raped the woman. Maybe rapists could try, I don't know, not raping? Just a suggestion.



No, I think it's quite clear who's the person responsible in this case.



I'm not forgetting the fetus, at all. The punishment for the rapist would naturally be harsher if the fetus is a person :)


This seems like post-hoc rationalization to try to make it fit your moral views.
#15229351
Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, thank you for clarifying once more how Alito is wrong or lying.

Abortion before quickening did not become illegal in the USA until the 1860s, approximately two centuries after Hale was breathing.

So if you wish to look at it from a historical perspective, women in Puritan pilgrim colonies had more reproductive rights and access to abortion than states that have passed fetal heartbeat laws.


I don't know if Alito was lying but I agree he's wrong. I won't dig into his motivations, what does matter though is what we can observe and in this case it's the flaws in his argument. It is at least not too convincing, to say the least.

As for the historical perspective you introduced, all in all nowadays women still have far more access to contraception (of which abortion is just one method) than in the colonial era, due to the development of science more than anything else.

I also think Alito could reasonably claim that, had people in Hale's time known biological life begins a lot sooner than at quickening, maybe abortion would have been banned outright. Speculative, yes, but hardly unreasonable. What he cannot do however is to pretend abortion before quickening was illegal, regardless of the reason, given what the major jurists of his time wrote.

I find it interesting he couldn't find a jurist who would say straight up abortion was illegal before quickening, instead, he needs to infer it in a very specific way from specific cases (possibly cherry-picked) and the inference is hardly the only one a lawyer can arrive to.

@XogGyux you can believe what you wish, I'm simply assuming the fetus is a person there. That is, even in the most restrictive scenario, it'd be still fine to punish a rapist instead of the victim if it has an abortion. This idea also leads to some other interesting paradoxes, after all, if a fetus isn't a person then the extra punishment would arguably just fall into tort law, while if a fetus is a person then we're now clearly dealing with criminal and civil penalties for the aggravation on top of those associated with the rape itself.
#15229357
wat0n wrote:@XogGyux you can believe what you wish, I'm simply assuming the fetus is a person there.

It is not just that. You are not only assuming that the fetus is a person, you are using this as your prime justification why abortion should not be allowed because it would be equivalent to murder. Then you seem to have a rather relaxed view about murdering the fetus when it comes to certain eventualities such as rape, incest, increased risk of pregnancy, fetal abnormalities, something else.

The idea that you would allow the abortion and "blame it on the rapist" is analogous as a store owner, not being happy with the money he got from the insurance company for a broken door after a robbery, setting the whole store on fire and claiming "it is ok, I only burned it because I got robbed and the insurance did not pay me enough, blame it on the robber, just add arseny to HIS charges and punish HIM for that.
How is this different from a victim of a rape (store owner) commiting a crime (abortion), when she was not happy with the pregnancy (not being happy with what the insurance covered) and then having the rapist take the blame for the crime (abortion)?

Your views are so full of inconsistencies and arbitrary post-hoc rationalizations because you want to rationalize the views you ALREADY HOLD. Rather than allowing the arguments present themselves and shape your ideals.
  • 1
  • 38
  • 39
  • 40
  • 41
  • 42
  • 69

The tying of health care provision to a job, sign[…]

Roe V. Wade to be Overturned

Late term abortions can be difficult to access, es[…]

Monkeypox:

AIDS also spread first in this group... https&#[…]

Happy Independence Day!

. A professional military will mop the floor with[…]