Roe V. Wade to be Overturned - Page 72 - 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

#15237399
Do you support the current removal of rights because of a hypothetical abortion that has not occurred despite decades of opportunities?


I see that @Pants-of-dog is still trolling or simply stuck on ignorance. The recent court decision did not remove a single "right". Women in the US still have the ability to seek an abortion exactly as they did before this bill. The only change is that a previous limited right to privacy has changed.

Women in most states still can obtain an abortion exactly as before. In some states not. In the states that now prohibit abortions under certain circumstances, women still control the law making entity that can grant them an absolute right to an abortion. That they are ineffective in asserting those rights is on them. I have repeatedly outlined the methods they might use to ensure to establish a new right to an abortion. A right that already exists in many states.

So that POD will not wallow in ignorance any longer let me review:

Kansas: The Kansas Constitution protects abortion as a fundamental right, exceeding protections under the U.S. Constitution.


In Montana, the state supreme court has recognized that the Montana Constitution’s right of privacy includes a right of “procreative autonomy.”


Alaska’s Constitution recognizes the right to abortion as fundamental, including for minors and people who receive Medicaid.


In Minnesota, the state Supreme Court has recognized that multiple provisions in the Minnesota Constitution protect abortion as a privacy right more broadly and strongly than the U.S. Constitution. The Court applied this right to hold that the state’s medical assistance program must fund abortion to make it accessible for people living on low incomes.


California: The right to abortion is protected by updated state laws.


Colorado

The right to abortion is protected by updated state laws.

Connecticut

The right to abortion is protected by updated state laws.

Delaware

The right to abortion is protected by updated state laws.


I could go on but I have made my point. In my own state there is a move to put the right to abortion in the Arizona Constitution. Other states the same. In Kansas there is an effort to put anti-abortion language in their constitution.

We are a working Republic. A confederation of independent states. Our founders imagined something much more like the EU than we like to imagine these days. This is our way. Take away states rights and the result would be an even more bloated tyranny of the masses.

But now POD will call us a "third world country" demonstrating once again his hatred for the US. And, I might add, condemning Finland, Iceland, Japan and the UK to the same label. And he will be wrong. Just as in Canada, under federal law abortion is perfectly legal in the US. Now if he values honesty he might assert that some states give women more rights than others. But that is about it.
#15237401
Drlee wrote:I could go on but I have made my point. In my own state there is a move to put the right to abortion in the Arizona Constitution. Other states the same. In Kansas there is an effort to put anti-abortion language in their constitution.

We are a working Republic. A confederation of independent states. Our founders imagined something much more like the EU than we like to imagine these days. This is our way. Take away states rights and the result would be an even more bloated tyranny of the masses.

But now POD will call us a "third world country" demonstrating once again his hatred for the US. And, I might add, condemning Finland, Iceland, Japan and the UK to the same label. And he will be wrong. Just as in Canada, under federal law abortion is perfectly legal in the US. Now if he values honesty he might assert that some states give women more rights than others. But that is about it.


The Grand Divisions are three geographic regions in the U.S. state of Tennessee, each constituting roughly one-third of the state's land area, that are geographically, culturally, legally, and economically distinct. The Grand Divisions are legally recognized in the state constitution and state law and are represented on the Flag of Tennessee by the flag's three prominent stars.[1]

The Grand Divisions, East, Middle, and West Tennessee, are sometimes referred to as "three states of Tennessee" or "the three Tennessees".

The Constitution of the State of Alabama is the basic governing document of the U.S. state of Alabama. It was adopted in 1901 and is Alabama's sixth consecutive constitution.

At 388,882 words,[2] the document is 12 times longer than the average state constitution, 51 times longer than the U.S. Constitution, and is the longest[3] and most amended[4] constitution still operative anywhere in the world.

#15237407
Drlee wrote:I see that @Pants-of-dog is still trolling or simply stuck on ignorance. The recent court decision did not remove a single "right". Women in the US still have the ability to seek an abortion exactly as they did before this bill. The only change is that a previous limited right to privacy has changed.


I addressed and refuted this already.

You will probably sidestep this by claiming abortion is not a right. Which is still an agreement that pregnant people in about half the USA lost the ability to get an abortion without serious travelling.

Women in most states still can obtain an abortion exactly as before. In some states not. In the states that now prohibit abortions under certain circumstances, women still control the law making entity that can grant them an absolute right to an abortion. That they are ineffective in asserting those rights is on them. I have repeatedly outlined the methods they might use to ensure to establish a new right to an abortion. A right that already exists in many states.

So that POD will not wallow in ignorance any longer let me review:

I could go on but I have made my point. In my own state there is a move to put the right to abortion in the Arizona Constitution. Other states the same. In Kansas there is an effort to put anti-abortion language in their constitution.

We are a working Republic. A confederation of independent states. Our founders imagined something much more like the EU than we like to imagine these days. This is our way. Take away states rights and the result would be an even more bloated tyranny of the masses.

But now POD will call us a "third world country" demonstrating once again his hatred for the US. And, I might add, condemning Finland, Iceland, Japan and the UK to the same label. And he will be wrong. Just as in Canada, under federal law abortion is perfectly legal in the US. Now if he values honesty he might assert that some states give women more rights than others. But that is about it.


You keep repeating all of this, and then we ignore it because you just keep explaining things that we already know and/or are just plain wrong.

I predict that you will repeat all of this in a few pages and call us all ignorant again.
#15237408
Pants-of-dog wrote:Do you support the current removal of rights because of a hypothetical abortion that has not occurred despite decades of opportunities?


Since you claim one can prove negatives, prove this.

Thanks.

snapdragon wrote:It seems pointless to me to start discussing something that’s never happened, too.

Like outlawing the hunting of baby unicorns in case they’re ever found


What makes you believe it doesn't happen? Are you saying that all those late term abortions were done for medical reasons?

And why would you care? You don't see anything wrong with that.
#15237409
wat0n wrote:Since you claim one can prove negatives, prove this.

Thanks.


No.

Your refusal to clarify your argument suggest that you are not debating in good faith.

Please answer the question and then I will repeat my support for this claim.

What makes you believe it doesn't happen? Are you saying that all those late term abortions were done for medical reasons?


If this happened, people like you and @Drlee would be mentioning it every three pages on this thread.

The fact that you do not suggests that you know perfectly well it does not happen.

And why would you care? You don't see anything wrong with that.


You should focus more on the argument and less on the person making it.
#15237411
Pants-of-dog wrote:No.

Your refusal to clarify your argument suggest that you are not debating in good faith.

Please answer the question and then I will repeat my support for this claim.


No.

You even opened a whole thread to claim one can prove a negative:

viewtopic.php?f=23&t=180631

Go ahead and do it.

Pants-of-dog wrote:If this happened, people like you and @Drlee would be mentioning it every three pages on this thread.

The fact that you do not suggests that you know perfectly well it does not happen.


As far as I'm aware, the CDC does not compile data on abortion by reason (e.g. medical vs non-medical). So nobody knows how many abortions are performed by medical reasons in the 48 states that are surveilled by the CDC.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/ss/ss7009a1.htm

Pants-of-dog wrote:You should focus more on the argument and less on the person making it.


No need to white knight. Or you think a woman cannot make her case without your help? ;)
#15237413
wat0n wrote:No.

You even opened a whole thread to claim one can prove a negative:

http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/view ... 3&t=180631

Go ahead and do it.

As far as I'm aware, the CDC does not compile data on abortion by reason (e.g. medical vs non-medical). So nobody knows how many abortions are performed by medical reasons in the 48 states that are surveilled by the CDC.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/ss/ss7009a1.htm

No need to white knight. Or you think a woman cannot make her case without your help? ;)


Since neither you nor any other supporter of this removal of rights can provide a concrete example of an elective late term abortion, despite the fact that they have been legal and taxpayer funded in Canada since 1988, it is logical to assume that you can not find such an example.

Since that is the case, you are left with only a hypothetical situation to justify the removal of rights we are witnessing in the USA.
#15237421
@Pants-of-dog No provider in Canada offers abortions after the 24th week as far as I'm aware. Not the same situation, really.

This seems like a shitty argument to allow aborting a 32 week old fetus without medical justification as a way to end a pregnancy, when a perfectly viable alternative exists.
#15237427
wat0n wrote:@Pants-of-dog No provider in Canada offers abortions after the 24th week as far as I'm aware. Not the same situation, really.


Then the article I just read about a women in Montreal who got an abortion at 35 weeks must have been a hallucination.

It was like the third or fourth link when I Googled “Canada late term abortion”.

This seems like a shitty argument to allow aborting a 32 week old fetus without medical justification as a way to end a pregnancy, when a perfectly viable alternative exists.


Since no one made this argument, I will simply ignore this part.

Why do you think a healthy pregnant person would abort a 35 week old fetus that is also healthy and there is no medical reason to have an abortion? Please explain your thinking.
#15237431
Pants-of-dog wrote:Since no one made this argument, I will simply ignore this part.

Why do you think a healthy pregnant person would abort a 35 week old fetus that is also healthy and there is no medical reason to have an abortion? Please explain your thinking.


I already gave you an example: She may not want to be responsible for the fetus.

Why does she need a reason, by the way?
#15237435
wat0n wrote:I already gave you an example: She may not want to be responsible for the fetus.

Why does she need a reason, by the way?


So, a woman carries a baby for 35 weeks, enduring all the discomfort and lack of opportunities that this entails, being responsible for this fetus by eschewing smoking and drinking, taking care of herself, getting prenatal care.

And then randomly decides that she does not want to be responsible?

This seems unrealistic.

My next question is whether or not this hypothetical situation justifies making abortion illegal as is now the case in many states. Is it? and if so, why?
#15237437
Pants-of-dog wrote:So, a woman carries a baby for 35 weeks, enduring all the discomfort and lack of opportunities that this entails, being responsible for this fetus by eschewing smoking and drinking, taking care of herself, getting prenatal care.

And then randomly decides that she does not want to be responsible?

This seems unrealistic.


Immature, not unrealistic. Plenty of people change their minds abruptly, specially if they are immature.

You can also see this type of behavior in e.g. very early divorces.

Pants-of-dog wrote:My next question is whether or not this hypothetical situation justifies making abortion illegal as is now the case in many states. Is it? and if so, why?


Who said it justifies totally banning abortion? It'd justify banning abortion of viable fetuses that can be delivered via induced labor or a C-section for no medical reasons.

Even you agreed that kind of behavior is unethical, even "psychopathic" earlier ITT. What's the case for allowing it?
#15237439
wat0n wrote:Immature, not unrealistic. Plenty of people change their minds abruptly, specially if they are immature.

You can also see this type of behavior in e.g. very early divorces.


No.

People do not choose to suffer the burden of radical biological changes on many levels and then suddenly decide not to simply based on immaturity.

If they were immature, they would not choose to continue the pregnancy until the 35th week to begin with.

Unless you are arguing they suddenly become immature people at the 35th week of pregnancy.

Who said it justifies totally banning abortion? It'd justify banning abortion of viable fetuses that can be delivered via induced labor or a C-section for no medical reasons.

Even you agreed that kind of behavior is unethical, even "psychopathic" earlier ITT. What's the case for allowing it?


Then this does not apply to the current topic of RvW being overturned.

This overturning of this case has resulted in some near total bans on abortion.

Since your idea does not justify this sort of removal of rights, your hypothetical situation seems like one of these debates people simply have for fun.
#15237441
Pants-of-dog wrote:No.

People do not choose to suffer the burden of radical biological changes on many levels and then suddenly decide not to simply based on immaturity.

If they were immature, they would not choose to continue the pregnancy until the 35th week to begin with.

Unless you are arguing they suddenly become immature people at the 35th week of pregnancy.


Are you sure? I think a mature woman can perfectly decide she wants an abortion the moment she learns of her pregnancy.

An immature woman is more unpredictable. She may have an abortion immediately, as you said. But she also may think "oh, it would be so nice to have a child" and then change her mind several months later as she becomes aware of what that means, and try to get an abortion. Or she may actually have the child, and put it up for adoption, abandon or even murder it a few months later if it turns out she didn't want to be a mother after all (and yes, this most definitely happens, throwing newborns into dumpsters is hardly unheard of).

Pants-of-dog wrote:Then this does not apply to the current topic of RvW being overturned.

This overturning of this case has resulted in some near total bans on abortion.

Since your idea does not justify this sort of removal of rights, your hypothetical situation seems like one of these debates people simply have for fun.


I'm simply showing cases where even radical pro-choicers would agree on limiting choice and bodily autonomy (choosing your medical treatment clearly falls in the scope of bodily autonomy). No, this limit is not sexist.
#15237444
wat0n wrote:Are you sure? I think a mature woman can perfectly decide she wants an abortion the moment she learns of her pregnancy.

An immature woman is more unpredictable. She may have an abortion immediately, as you said. But she also may think "oh, it would be so nice to have a child" and then change her mind several months later as she becomes aware of what that means, and try to get an abortion. Or she may actually have the child, and put it up for adoption, abandon or even murder it a few months later if it turns out she didn't want to be a mother after all (and yes, this most definitely happens, throwing newborns into dumpsters is hardly unheard of).


Yes, I am sure that an immature person would not wait until the 35th week of pregnancy before suddenly deciding not to take on the burden.

This is because it takes a certain level of maturity to take on the burdens of carrying a fetus for 35 weeks. These are not easy burdens. An immature person would have quit long before. Your argument is so unrealistic as to be illogical.

I'm simply showing cases where even radical pro-choicers would agree on limiting choice and bodily autonomy (choosing your medical treatment clearly falls in the scope of bodily autonomy). No, this limit is not sexist.


Your misconceptions about radical pro-choicers is a distraction from the very real removal of rights unfolding in the USA.
#15237446
Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, I am sure that an immature person would not wait until the 35th week of pregnancy before suddenly deciding not to take on the burden.

This is because it takes a certain level of maturity to take on the burdens of carrying a fetus for 35 weeks. These are not easy burdens. An immature person would have quit long before. Your argument is so unrealistic as to be illogical.


So you think that dumping a newborn into a trashcan is a sign of maturity? :knife:

Pants-of-dog wrote:Your misconceptions about radical pro-choicers is a distraction from the very real removal of rights unfolding in the USA.


The only thing the SCOTUS did was to leave it up to the states and Congress (yes, Congress can legislate here). So it actually does make sense to see if there are both rights and limits to abortion that are close to being universally accepted by American voters.

Among the former, I think the vast majority would say there's a right to abortion to protect the woman's health, even defined in broad terms (which would include abortion of fetuses with deformities incompatible with life, preventing serious psychological and bodily harm, and abortion in the case of rape), at any stage of pregnancy. This is true regardless of whether the fetus is a person or not.

Among the latter, it seems most would agree with the principle that if the pregnancy can be terminated without killing the fetus and without putting the pregnant woman in undue risk, then abortion would only be acceptable in the case described in the paragraph above. This would imply most people agree fetuses are persons at this stage, or at least something very close to it... Like a domestic cat.
#15237448
wat0n wrote:So you think that dumping a newborn into a trashcan is a sign of maturity? :knife:


Is this an argument?

If so, clarify it.

The only thing the SCOTUS did was to leave it up to the states and Congress (yes, Congress can legislate here). So it actually does make sense to see if there are both rights and limits to abortion that are close to being universally accepted by American voters.


When you explain the mechanism by which rights were removed, you are implicitly agreeing with my claim that rights were removed.

Among the former, I think the vast majority would say there's a right to abortion to protect the woman's health, even defined in broad terms (which would include abortion of fetuses with deformities incompatible with life, preventing serious psychological and bodily harm, and abortion in the case of rape), at any stage of pregnancy. This is true regardless of whether the fetus is a person or not.

Among the latter, it seems most would agree with the principle that if the pregnancy can be terminated without killing the fetus and without putting the pregnant woman in undue risk, then abortion would only be acceptable in the case described in the paragraph above. This would imply most people agree fetuses are persons at this stage, or at least something very close to it... Like a domestic cat.


Is this an argument? If so, please clarify it.

Also, the idea that minority rights should be subject to a majority vote is illiberal. How do you reconcile this with the idea of individual rights?
#15237454
Pants-of-dog wrote:Is this an argument?

If so, clarify it.


You are arguing that it takes maturity to commit to a 35 weeks long pregnancy. I'm pointing out the example of women who went through that and eventually ended dumping the newborn into a trashcan, which is not mature at all. The mature decision would be to face responsibility and either raise the baby or put it up for adoption.

Pants-of-dog wrote:When you explain the mechanism by which rights were removed, you are implicitly agreeing with my claim that rights were removed.


The ruling indeed removed some rights, yet it granted others - it effectively granted states and voters the right to legislate on the matter.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Is this an argument? If so, please clarify it.

Also, the idea that minority rights should be subject to a majority vote is illiberal. How do you reconcile this with the idea of individual rights?


Abortion is complicated for liberals because it's unclear if fetuses are persons with a right to life or not, or at what stage of gestation do they become such so it's unclear if fetuses have any rights or not. Liberals take a wide range of positions here. Roe decided fetuses are not persons, have no right to life and even forbid voters from granting such right in the future except after viability for... Reasons.

Because of this, some liberals will agree with you and say the ruling is illiberal.

Others will say it did not go enough in defending the rights of individuals and should have banned on-demand abortion.

And others will say the ruling did the right thing by leaving up to the political process to answer this question, because it's unclear.
#15237457
wat0n wrote:You are arguing that it takes maturity to commit to a 35 weeks long pregnancy. I'm pointing out the example of women who went through that and eventually ended dumping the newborn into a trashcan, which is not mature at all. The mature decision would be to face responsibility and either raise the baby or put it up for adoption.


I see.

You think that the reason why people dump babies into trashcans would be the same reasons why a person would get an abortion at 35 weeks.

What are the actual causes for dumping babies like this? And please provide verifiable explanations that have known scientific backing. I am not interested in you simply assuming the reason is “immaturity”.

The ruling indeed removed some rights, yet it granted others - it effectively granted states and voters the right to legislate on the matter.


So it removed bodily autonomy and personal integrity rights, which are individual rights, and granted the majority the right to take away rights from pregnant people.

Abortion is complicated for liberals because it's unclear if fetuses are persons with a right to life or not, or at what stage of gestation do they become such so it's unclear if fetuses have any rights or not. Liberals take a wide range of positions here. Roe decided fetuses are not persons, have no right to life and even forbid voters from granting such right in the future except after viability for... Reasons.

Because of this, some liberals will agree with you and say the ruling is illiberal.

Others will say it did not go enough in defending the rights of individuals and should have banned on-demand abortion.

And others will say the ruling did the right thing by leaving up to the political process to answer this question, because it's unclear.


Your ideas about what other liberals might think is irrelevant.

How do you reconcile this removal of individual rights with the basic tenet of liberal democracy that we call “individual rights”?
#15237464
Pants-of-dog wrote:I see.

You think that the reason why people dump babies into trashcans would be the same reasons why a person would get an abortion at 35 weeks.

What are the actual causes for dumping babies like this? And please provide verifiable explanations that have known scientific backing. I am not interested in you simply assuming the reason is “immaturity”.


Seems like an attempt to derail the discussion.

If a woman can dump her newborn into the trash, then another one can request a medically unnecessary abortion at the 32nd week or later.

Pants-of-dog wrote:So it removed bodily autonomy and personal integrity rights, which are individual rights, and granted the majority the right to take away rights from pregnant people.


Neither has ever been a right clearly recognized by the Constitution.

Again, Jacobson v MA (the state can force you to vaccinate), Buck v Bell (the state can forcibly sterilize you under certain conditions).

But I'll grant you something, hopefully the SCOTUS will overturn Buck v Bell ASAP, stare decisis be damned. I think we can agree Jacobson is OK.

If you want to actually push back against this ruling, then I'd do so based on some of its questionable claims such as the status of pre-quickening abortion in US history. I think common law does indeed establish a right to an abortion before quickening (16 weeks), even if based on unscientific Aristotelian arguments.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Your ideas about what other liberals might think is irrelevant.

How do you reconcile this removal of individual rights with the basic tenet of liberal democracy that we call “individual rights”?


I think I answered this question quite clearly.
  • 1
  • 70
  • 71
  • 72
  • 73
  • 74
  • 93
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

So the Russians have captured the village of Vesel[…]

Mar-a-lago raided by the FBI

https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-st[…]

Will Moldova rejoin Romania?

Dmitry Medvedev, deputy head of Russia’s Security […]

I also want to add that people have always been no[…]