The Ornery American Forums

General Category => General Comments => Topic started by: Grant on May 02, 2022, 11:10:00 PM

Title: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Grant on May 02, 2022, 11:10:00 PM
Politico publishes a draft of a SCOTUS ruling that would "overturn Roe v. Wade". 

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-abortion-draft-opinion-00029473

Gather your feces
They are coming for your womb
Who wants a baby?

And just when abortions are starting to come back up again! 

States mostly heavily effected include: New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Florida, and Connecticut.  I mean, the women of Mississippi will be effected as well, just not quite as much. 

Anyways, the poop is once more hitting the fan.  Because that is the industry.  Crisis is their brand. 

Two and a half thousand women had abortions in New Jersey in 2017.  Out of about four and a half million women.

I am consistently amazed at what drives other people nuts in America.  But do go on.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Ouija Nightmare on May 03, 2022, 07:45:10 AM
I don’t get your reasoning. How does this most heavily effect New York ? Reproductive care access is codified into law there it’s business as usual.

Folks feeling the most profound impacts will be the residents of the red states run by theocracies.

Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Crunch on May 03, 2022, 08:00:19 AM
Folks feeling the most profound impacts will be the residents of the red states run by theocracies.

Theocracies.  ::)

Maybe you don’t know what that word means?
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Crunch on May 03, 2022, 08:01:49 AM
If this leak is real, whoever leaked it must be identified and prosecuted to the full extent of the law if laws were broken. At the very least, the person should be barred from working in the legal profession.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: msquared on May 03, 2022, 08:14:46 AM
Is there a law against it?  I really would like to know.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: yossarian22c on May 03, 2022, 09:04:37 AM
Is there a law against it?  I really would like to know.

Kind of doubt draft court agreements are classified. If may be something a clerk could get fired over if they are shown to be the leak. But I think that would be the extent. Doubt it would be a serious enough breach of ethics to get the clerk banned from the legal profession.

This was going to be public sooner or later. So the sanctions can't be that severe. More weird would be if somehow this doesn't end up being the majority opinion. I suspect that is the goal of whatever clerk or other aid that leaked this was to let the justices see the public reaction before announcing the final draft. For all we know Roberts leaked it. His was the only name not on one side of the decision. I don't think this is the court legacy he wanted.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Lloyd Perna on May 03, 2022, 09:22:37 AM
Is there a law against it?  I really would like to know.

Sedition, attempt to disrupt an official government proceeding. 
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: NobleHunter on May 03, 2022, 09:31:19 AM
Is there a law against it?  I really would like to know.

Sedition, attempt to disrupt an official government proceeding.

From leaking a document? Ha. Especially if it's one of the justices.

Do we want to make a list of rights "not deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and traditions"? Just so everyone knows what could be next.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: yossarian22c on May 03, 2022, 09:51:21 AM
Is there a law against it?  I really would like to know.

Sedition, attempt to disrupt an official government proceeding.

From leaking a document? Ha. Especially if it's one of the justices.

Do we want to make a list of rights "not deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and traditions"? Just so everyone knows what could be next.

<sarcasm>
I'll assume my right to vote is safe being a white male property owner. Glad I can check all 3 boxes just to make sure its safely rooted in the Nation's history. 15th amendment is probably good enough for everyone else. <end sarcasm>

I imagine that voting rights protections will continue to take hits though. "Religious freedom" rights seem to be on the upswing. Meaning teachers will be able to lead classes in prayer. Well at least until a Muslim tried to do it, then we've gone too far.

The court clearly doesn't give a crap about gerrymandering. They have refused to prevent it at all, the only question is if they will begin preventing state courts from enforcing state constitutional provisions on congressional and state house line.

Gay marriage may be on the chopping block as a legal right.

We could be entering a time where there becomes some real legal distinctions depending on which state you're in. Each state has always had different laws, but we may be seeing some much bigger bifurcation between red and blue states if the Supreme court allows all the red states to legislate to their culture war heart's desire. It will create hardship for millions of Americans but maybe kill the Republican party in the process. They motivate and drive hard core conservatives to the polls with the culture war issues but they get a lot of votes from people who vote for them for lower taxes or other issues knowing the courts won't let them go to far on restricting individual's rights. Going to get a little tougher on them when they have to start passing these laws and then have to reconcile the different sections of their voters.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: TheDrake on May 03, 2022, 09:59:05 AM
The intention of the leaker could be to influence the current court. Or to convince the Democratic leadership to pull the trigger on court composition? Or to influence midterm elections somehow, presumably senate races? Or to influence Manchin to end the filibuster, allowing for a federal law protecting abortion independent of the court. Either way, its ridiculous to suggest that somebody needs to be put in jail for leaking a memorandum. I'm not suggesting it is okay, that person should be fired and it is unclear if they should practice law, given the ethical violation. Let's also note that we don't know that this is a pro-abortion leak. It could be leaked also by a conservative who wants to encourage states to put more trigger laws on the books, or just wanting to share the Good News.

It's interesting to me that the conservative reaction is anger against this being leaked, rather than jubilation that so many unborn lives will be saved.

Why the leak to encourage action now? Because midterms are in peril for the Democrats, and if they are in the minority, legislative solutions of any stripe would be unavailable in 2023. Democrats have been chicken on the legislative front for fear that passing legislation at the state level to reinforce abortion legality would cost them some support - especially Democrats from the conservative end of the spectrum. Not wanting ads plastered all over TV labelling them as baby killers. I use Democrats only as a placeholder, there are some Republicans that don't think abortion should be decided by the state but rather the individual.

Let's note that any legislative solution, however, can be undone. Leading to abortion provider chaos. Republicans are on the move at the national level as well. They wouldn't be able to overcome a Biden Veto, but they are going to make this a big selling point in the Presidential race for 2024.

Quote
Republican senators have met to discuss legislation that would ban abortion nationwide, Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) told the Post, and Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) would reportedly likely introduce the bill.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: ScottF on May 03, 2022, 10:50:40 AM
It's interesting to me that the conservative reaction is anger against this being leaked, rather than jubilation that so many unborn lives will be saved.

How would this save so many unborn lives? Wouldn't this just defer to individual states and still be legal anyway?
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: NobleHunter on May 03, 2022, 11:22:00 AM
It's interesting to me that the conservative reaction is anger against this being leaked, rather than jubilation that so many unborn lives will be saved.

How would this save so many unborn lives? Wouldn't this just defer to individual states and still be legal anyway?

A whole bunch of states will make abortion illegal the moment the decision is issued. There is data that it won't affect abortion rates all that much.

The language in the draft basically allows for arguments to reverse rulings on homosexuality (never mind just gay marriage), interracial marriage, contraceptives, and basically every right not explicitly spelled out in the Bill of Rights. Even then, it's arguable there aren't deeply rooted  historical rights to things like handguns or semi-automatic rifles or private conversations on the telephone.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: TheDrake on May 03, 2022, 01:02:09 PM
NH - But abortions will go down because the women who die during an unsafe abortion won't be able to get pregnant again. The important thing is that we'll be able to punish these women for their sins, along with anyone trying to help them.

Not to worry though, the GOP is also helping to ensure that the flow of unwanted pregnancies is unabated.

Quote
“Anti–birth control sentiment has been building for over a decade,” says Robin Marty, the author of The New Handbook for Post-Roe America. “The groundwork was laid in 2010, when the Tea Party fought Obamacare by saying IUDs, Plan B, and contraception itself were, as they called it, the biggest expansion of abortion in the nation.”

Marty continued, explaining the groundwork Trump laid. “The reason this is no longer undercover is because of the Supreme Court decision in Hobby Lobby.” The Hobby Lobby verdict allowed employers to refuse to pay for birth control coverage for their employees due to religious reasons. The Trump administration, Marty says, “set the groundwork for the idea that doctors or pharmacists can decline to treat people because of religious beliefs. And now we have a Supreme Court that will rubber-stamp both those decisions.” The irony is that thrice-married adulterer Donald J. Trump, the man who used to be pro-choice, created this atmosphere.

Anti birth control movement (https://www.vogue.com/article/anti-birth-control-movement)

The important thing is to punish the sinner who is having sex for fun rather than procreation as the Lord intended. And that is why people are going to refer to this as theocracy.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Lloyd Perna on May 03, 2022, 01:13:16 PM
NH - But abortions will go down because the women who die during an unsafe abortion won't be able to get pregnant again. The important thing is that we'll be able to punish these women for their sins, along with anyone trying to help them.

Not to worry though, the GOP is also helping to ensure that the flow of unwanted pregnancies is unabated.

Quote
“Anti–birth control sentiment has been building for over a decade,” says Robin Marty, the author of The New Handbook for Post-Roe America. “The groundwork was laid in 2010, when the Tea Party fought Obamacare by saying IUDs, Plan B, and contraception itself were, as they called it, the biggest expansion of abortion in the nation.”

Marty continued, explaining the groundwork Trump laid. “The reason this is no longer undercover is because of the Supreme Court decision in Hobby Lobby.” The Hobby Lobby verdict allowed employers to refuse to pay for birth control coverage for their employees due to religious reasons. The Trump administration, Marty says, “set the groundwork for the idea that doctors or pharmacists can decline to treat people because of religious beliefs. And now we have a Supreme Court that will rubber-stamp both those decisions.” The irony is that thrice-married adulterer Donald J. Trump, the man who used to be pro-choice, created this atmosphere.

Anti birth control movement (https://www.vogue.com/article/anti-birth-control-movement)

The important thing is to punish the sinner who is having sex for fun rather than procreation as the Lord intended. And that is why people are going to refer to this as theocracy.

You sound like Alex Jones if he was a lefty.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: rightleft22 on May 03, 2022, 01:28:06 PM
Sex and freedom who gets to define the boundaries?

Quote
The important thing is to punish the sinner who is having sex for fun rather than procreation as the Lord intended. And that is why people are going to refer to this as theocracy
For many of those that remain in the community I grew up abortion is The issue they vote on and would be very happy for any movement towards a theocracy.
They would also argue that this is Freedom, small government but not a theocracy.

"But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth" - "The left hand does not know what the right hand is going". We create what we do not intend to create and work against ourselves. 
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Lloyd Perna on May 03, 2022, 03:21:08 PM
Biden tries to use religion to Justify Roe v. Wade.

Quote from: 'Joe Biden'
“Look, think what Roe says. Roe says what all basic mainstream religions have historically concluded — that the right — that the existence of a human life and being is a question. Is it at the moment of conception? Is it six months? Is it six weeks?”

I guess forgot that the Catholic Church, of which he claims to be a devout member, teaches unquestionably that life begins at the moment of conception.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: TheDrake on May 03, 2022, 03:58:06 PM
NH - But abortions will go down because the women who die during an unsafe abortion won't be able to get pregnant again. The important thing is that we'll be able to punish these women for their sins, along with anyone trying to help them.

Not to worry though, the GOP is also helping to ensure that the flow of unwanted pregnancies is unabated.

Quote
“Anti–birth control sentiment has been building for over a decade,” says Robin Marty, the author of The New Handbook for Post-Roe America. “The groundwork was laid in 2010, when the Tea Party fought Obamacare by saying IUDs, Plan B, and contraception itself were, as they called it, the biggest expansion of abortion in the nation.”

Marty continued, explaining the groundwork Trump laid. “The reason this is no longer undercover is because of the Supreme Court decision in Hobby Lobby.” The Hobby Lobby verdict allowed employers to refuse to pay for birth control coverage for their employees due to religious reasons. The Trump administration, Marty says, “set the groundwork for the idea that doctors or pharmacists can decline to treat people because of religious beliefs. And now we have a Supreme Court that will rubber-stamp both those decisions.” The irony is that thrice-married adulterer Donald J. Trump, the man who used to be pro-choice, created this atmosphere.

Anti birth control movement (https://www.vogue.com/article/anti-birth-control-movement)

The important thing is to punish the sinner who is having sex for fun rather than procreation as the Lord intended. And that is why people are going to refer to this as theocracy.

You sound like Alex Jones if he was a lefty.

Where have I quoted anything that is untrue, let alone an Alex Jones conspiracy? Religious citizens don't want abortions to happen, don't want to pay for birth control. What other conclusion should one come to other than that they want their religion to dominate public policy? Tell me that most of the people crusading against abortions are not in the same breath lamenting "unwed mothers" - often labelled in much more pejorative if not racist terms.

These aren't fringe lunatics, they are US Senators like Mike Lee entitled:

Quote
Love, Marriage, and the Baby Carriage: The Rise in Unwed Childbearing

Quote
Affluence and technological development facilitated the decoupling of sex and marriage, which increased nonmarital sexual activity and elevated unwed pregnancy rates. Penicillin brought an end to the syphilis crisis that regulated sexual activity through much of the first half of the twentieth century. The pill provided a way to dramatically reduce the chance of an unintended pregnancy. And abortion became safer, fueling rising demand for legal abortion services that culminated in the Roe decision. As nonmarital sex became safer and its consequences less severe, more single men and women became sexually active. This trend became self-reinforcing. Normative regulation of sexual activity among single men and women loosened.

They really seem to think that people having sex is a real bad idea.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: ScottF on May 03, 2022, 04:30:53 PM
Might not be in line with the prevailing pro-choice lexicon, but I do appreciate Biden's honesty here.

"The idea that we're going to make a judgment that is going to say that no one can make the judgment to choose to abort a child, based on a decision by the Supreme Court, I think goes way overboard,"
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: cherrypoptart on May 03, 2022, 04:36:36 PM
It seems like the actual Constitution and the law gets lost in the discussion especially by the left.

Does anyone seriously think that anyone who wrote or sponsored any part of the Constitution believed that it made or ever intended it to make abortion a Constitutionally protected right?

Of course not.

It couldn't pass as a Constitutional Amendment back then and it couldn't even pass as one right now.

The Supreme Court back in the day invented a Constitutional right where there never was one. It usurped the will of the people and the democratic foundations of our society.

And yet... the left that constantly claims they support democracy and the will of the people make it clear that they really don't on so many issues of which this is one of the big ones.

Whatever the science is, whatever the biology, or the theology, or anything else, the law and the Constitution are clear enough.

Tenth Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Show me the word abortion or the word privacy in the Constitution, anywhere. It's not there. Control over abortion is clearly not a power delegated to the federal government and clearly not a power prohibited to the States so according to our system of government, the one the left claims to support but really only does so as it's convenient, abortion is an issue that is reserved to the States and the people to decide.

This Supreme Court is just setting right the ridiculously absurd political ruling made by its predecessors.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: yossarian22c on May 03, 2022, 04:39:57 PM
Where in the constitution does the government have the right to regulate abortion? Right reserved for the people. But go on supporting your activist judges who have no respect for precedent.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Fenring on May 03, 2022, 04:44:30 PM
Where in the constitution does the government have the right to regulate abortion? Right reserved for the people. But go on supporting your activist judges who have no respect for precedent.

Well if abortion is murder, then pretty much the same right it has to outlaw murder? That's what the argument is, at bottom. At best it's a debate involving a conflict of rights, at worst it's about avoiding discussing what a fetus is.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Lloyd Perna on May 03, 2022, 04:47:32 PM
Where in the constitution does the government have the right to regulate abortion? Right reserved for the people. But go on supporting your activist judges who have no respect for precedent.

So you believe the Warren court were activist judges who have no respect for precedent when they reversed Plessy v. Ferguson in Brown v. Board of Education?
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: rightleft22 on May 03, 2022, 04:59:40 PM
Quote
Will of the people and the democratic foundations of our society

Is the constitution a static document? If a majority of people express a will what does the constitution say about that?
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Fenring on May 03, 2022, 06:05:37 PM
Quote
Will of the people and the democratic foundations of our society

Is the constitution a static document? If a majority of people express a will what does the constitution say about that?

Constitutions should be very hard to change, or else demagogues and shifting sentiment could essentially collapse the foundations of the country with very little resistance. That is, if the original constitution is good. If it's bad then I guess it's not worth preserving...
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: TheDrake on May 03, 2022, 06:32:45 PM
In my opinion, a constitution must be interpreted to fit new circumstances. Search and seizure is a good example which hasn't been black and white. Is it a "search" to use infrared cameras to find grow houses from the street was one example. When the founders thought of "search" it was pretty simple to identify, government agents physically access your property. Likewise the second amendment had to be considered in the light of invention of new weapons. What are or are not valid weapons to possess? Are your rights different depending on your location? Such things required interpretation. When it comes to rights, yes I believe that there was plenty of support for the court to make slavery illegal without the Fourteenth amendment, and it was a tragedy that they didn't act on it. Some abolitionists argued that the constitution, properly applied, would make slavery unconstitutional despite obvious indications that the authors of that document were not attempting to do so, or they would have said so and the debates were on the record. Fredrick Douglass spoke the most about it. When it comes to protecting individual freedom, the court should indeed expand on the intent of the constitution as it was perceived by those who wrote it, but based on its contents precedents and consistency. The Constitution is not eroded by expanding its protections based on its principals. Otherwise, governments could just lawyer their way around it, and say the constitution doesn't spell out that we can't gather voicemails voluntarily given to government agents. This would just be like a carrier sharing a letter between two individuals, no search protection there. The government constantly tries to erode the constitution, under any president, and the court needs to have the latitude to counter their creativity.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: NobleHunter on May 03, 2022, 08:27:37 PM
It seems like the actual Constitution and the law gets lost in the discussion especially by the left.

Does anyone seriously think that anyone who wrote or sponsored any part of the Constitution believed that it made or ever intended it to make abortion a Constitutionally protected right?

Of course not.

It couldn't pass as a Constitutional Amendment back then and it couldn't even pass as one right now.

The Supreme Court back in the day invented a Constitutional right where there never was one. It usurped the will of the people and the democratic foundations of our society.

And yet... the left that constantly claims they support democracy and the will of the people make it clear that they really don't on so many issues of which this is one of the big ones.

Whatever the science is, whatever the biology, or the theology, or anything else, the law and the Constitution are clear enough.

Tenth Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Show me the word abortion or the word privacy in the Constitution, anywhere. It's not there. Control over abortion is clearly not a power delegated to the federal government and clearly not a power prohibited to the States so according to our system of government, the one the left claims to support but really only does so as it's convenient, abortion is an issue that is reserved to the States and the people to decide.

This Supreme Court is just setting right the ridiculously absurd political ruling made by its predecessors.
If they didn't intend to guarantee a right to an abortion, they should have written the Constitution more carefully. I'm amazed conservative are so willing to expand the power of the Federal government based on activist readings of the Constitution.

Though it's entirely possible they could have added an amendment allowing abortions to the Bill of Rights. It was a controversial issue mostly with Catholics, who I don't believe were over represented in US government of the time. They probably didn't think it was a matter for the Federal government. But the Constitution of today is not the same as the one written back the day. If states can't ban guns, they also can't ban abortions.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: cherrypoptart on May 03, 2022, 09:46:05 PM
"If they didn't intend to guarantee a right to an abortion, they should have written the Constitution more carefully."

It's written carefully enough. Abortion isn't anywhere in it so it's up to the states.

If states can't ban guns, it's because of the 2nd Amendment. That's clearly in the Constitution. It's a perfect example.

There is no amendment along those lines for abortion like: "A well sexed population, being necessary to the enjoyment of a free-use state, the right of the people to enjoy abortions as birth control shall not be infringed."

There has never been a time in our country when abortion had the public support required to give it Constitutional protection as a fundamental right. Not when the Amendments were written. Not when the Supreme Court made a political decision instead of a judicial one to write a new Constitution from the bench, and certainly not now when if enough of the states and politicians wanted abortion to be a Constitutional right, it would be.

People just can't seem to distinguish between what they want to be a right protected by the Constitution and what actually is in the Constitution as a protected right. Just like healthcare. Not a right guaranteed by the Constitution so it's up to the states. It's understandable that people get it mixed up since the Supreme Court itself gets confused about these things all the time, making decisions based on emotions and desires instead of facts, logic, and law.

And just to reiterate, I don't think abortion should be illegal. But that doesn't mean the Constitution says it can't be.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: NobleHunter on May 03, 2022, 11:21:47 PM
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Crunch on May 04, 2022, 08:08:29 AM
Quote
Will of the people and the democratic foundations of our society

Is the constitution a static document? If a majority of people express a will what does the constitution say about that?

Uh, dude, there’s a process for amending the constitution.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Crunch on May 04, 2022, 08:12:21 AM
Is there a law against it?  I really would like to know.

18 U.S. Code § 641 - Public money, property or records:
Quote
Whoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his use or the use of another, or without authority, sells, conveys or disposes of any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, or any property made or being made under contract for the United States or any department or agency thereof; or

Whoever receives, conceals, or retains the same with intent to convert it to his use or gain, knowing it to have been embezzled, stolen, purloined or converted—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both;

Find the leaker, lock him up. The reporter is also in violation of the law, 10 years for him too.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Crunch on May 04, 2022, 08:15:38 AM
Everyone needs to calm down. Nobody is coming for your abortions. We just want common sense abortion laws. Mandatory background check and a mental health evaluation. A $200 tax stamp. A 30 day waiting period. Also, limit abortions - nobody needs more than one.

No big deal, amirite?
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: yossarian22c on May 04, 2022, 08:48:43 AM
Is there a law against it?  I really would like to know.

18 U.S. Code § 641 - Public money, property or records:
Quote
Whoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his use or the use of another, or without authority, sells, conveys or disposes of any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, or any property made or being made under contract for the United States or any department or agency thereof; or

Whoever receives, conceals, or retains the same with intent to convert it to his use or gain, knowing it to have been embezzled, stolen, purloined or converted—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both;

Find the leaker, lock him up. The reporter is also in violation of the law, 10 years for him too.

Wow, going hard after leaks now. Police state much. Would your opinion change if it were a conservative leak who was really excited about the decision and wanted to put public pressure to lock in the votes of the conservatives on the court?
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Ouija Nightmare on May 04, 2022, 09:14:02 AM
Is there a law against it?  I really would like to know.

18 U.S. Code § 641 - Public money, property or records:
Quote
Whoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his use or the use of another, or without authority, sells, conveys or disposes of any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, or any property made or being made under contract for the United States or any department or agency thereof; or

Whoever receives, conceals, or retains the same with intent to convert it to his use or gain, knowing it to have been embezzled, stolen, purloined or converted—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both;

Find the leaker, lock him up. The reporter is also in violation of the law, 10 years for him too.

With those kinds of broad legal interpretations I could shoot you right now and claim self defense.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Fenring on May 04, 2022, 09:47:37 AM
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Obviously this statement should not also be taken to imply that anything not mentioned in the constitution is (or may be) a right. In other words they did their best to enumerate them but left open the door for incomplete knowledge. But the argument being put forward in the preceding context isn't that abortion isn't a right, but that the constitution does not claim it's a right. In other words there are no grounds put forward in the constitution enabling judges to decide whether it should be a right or not.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Ouija Nightmare on May 04, 2022, 09:57:53 AM
Wow, going hard after leaks now. Police state much. Would your opinion change if it were a conservative leak who was really excited about the decision and wanted to put public pressure to lock in the votes of the conservatives on the court?

There are other reasons for a conservative to leak this too. For example to signal to more friendly states to get their motors running to establish the trigger laws to shut things down the moment the decision is issued.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: msquared on May 04, 2022, 10:06:53 AM
I wonder if Crunch would have the same view if it turns out to be one of Trump's judges who did it? Crunch, would you agree that a Justice who violated the law like this should be impeached and removed from the bench?

Of course it could be Bryer.  What would they be able to do to him? If they even prosecuted him by the time the trial happened he would probably be dead.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: NobleHunter on May 04, 2022, 10:30:37 AM
Obviously this statement should not also be taken to imply that anything not mentioned in the constitution is (or may be) a right. In other words they did their best to enumerate them but left open the door for incomplete knowledge. But the argument being put forward in the preceding context isn't that abortion isn't a right, but that the constitution does not claim it's a right. In other words there are no grounds put forward in the constitution enabling judges to decide whether it should be a right or not.

But since the Bill of Rights was never intended to be an exhaustive list (and since it could not be some people argued for leaving it out because small-minded authoritarians would always be tempted to treat it as an exhaustive list), "it's not in the Constitution" contributes nothing.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: rightleft22 on May 04, 2022, 10:39:49 AM
I can imagine reasons why someone on the right, left or even a justice might have leaked the document but its all speculation. Maybe it was just a *censored* disturber wanting to burn everything down. I assume the tribes will assume they know what 'tribe' the person who  leaked it was on. 

I won't be surprised if we never find out who leaked the draft.

I'm leaning towards Crunch here. The person who leaked the draft should be held accountable. At the minimum fired and prosecuted if laws were broken.
I'm not sure why the above position is even a issue to be debated.

The Justices should have been allowed to work through the process. I wonder if the draft was leaked in order to end the process and lock the Justices in.  We will likely never know and maybe that was the intention. Another nail in the coffin of our democratic institutions.   

I see little good coming from the leak.



Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: rightleft22 on May 04, 2022, 10:48:05 AM
Obviously this statement should not also be taken to imply that anything not mentioned in the constitution is (or may be) a right. In other words they did their best to enumerate them but left open the door for incomplete knowledge. But the argument being put forward in the preceding context isn't that abortion isn't a right, but that the constitution does not claim it's a right. In other words there are no grounds put forward in the constitution enabling judges to decide whether it should be a right or not.

But since the Bill of Rights was never intended to be an exhaustive list (and since it could not be some people argued for leaving it out because small-minded authoritarians would always be tempted to treat it as an exhaustive list), "it's not in the Constitution" contributes nothing.

If one has ever been part of a orthodox / fundamentalism debate on the Bible the argument that such sources don't allow for interpretation (even as they are interpreting) you won't be surprised by such arguments. Islam sharia law comes from such beliefs and contradictions.

Here I lean towards TheDrakes argument that many of those in the ProLife movement are consciously or unconsciously working towards a theocracy.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Fenring on May 04, 2022, 11:13:52 AM
Obviously this statement should not also be taken to imply that anything not mentioned in the constitution is (or may be) a right. In other words they did their best to enumerate them but left open the door for incomplete knowledge. But the argument being put forward in the preceding context isn't that abortion isn't a right, but that the constitution does not claim it's a right. In other words there are no grounds put forward in the constitution enabling judges to decide whether it should be a right or not.

But since the Bill of Rights was never intended to be an exhaustive list (and since it could not be some people argued for leaving it out because small-minded authoritarians would always be tempted to treat it as an exhaustive list), "it's not in the Constitution" contributes nothing.

I don't think you understand...the argument put forward by the left is that the constitution does grant the right to an abortion, thereby removing the option from the states to decide. The right-wing argument is that the constitution says nothing of the kind and that it's up to legislators to determine the law of the land; more specifically, at the state level.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: msquared on May 04, 2022, 11:17:48 AM
I thought it was more about privacy than the actual act.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: NobleHunter on May 04, 2022, 11:22:43 AM
That's because the Left believes people have a right to get an abortion and the Right believes people don't have that right. Granted, the Right finds the Ninth Amendment highly inconvenient to their project of establishing a theocratic white ethnostate, which is where the "deeply rooted in history" part comes from, it isn't the debate over abortion in isolation can be reduce to whether or not a more or less specific right to abortion exists.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Fenring on May 04, 2022, 11:31:46 AM
That's because the Left believes people have a right to get an abortion and the Right believes people don't have that right.

But this is asymmetric. If the right is correct, then it is possible to make a law outlawing it, according with 'natural law' (or morality, or whatever), or to make a law enshrining it, which would be a privilege granted by the state, but not an inherent human right. In this instance, outlawing it would not be a human rights violation but merely a lack of being able to do something you would like to. Conversely, if the left is correct, then a law outlawing abortion is an actual human rights violation, and a law permitting it is a recognition of the inherent human right. But where I think you're not reading me correctly is that if the constitution has nothing to say on the matter then whether or not it's a fundamental human right the legislators still have to figure out what to do at the state level. Some states may end up violating rights (if it is a right) in this instance, but the equivalence is that if abortion is murder then rights are being violated by any state permitting abortion.

There is no free lunch on this issue; no recourse to "well the constitution says it's a right so there's no debate." Trying to squash the debate is itself probably a human rights violation. This needs to be figured out at a societal level, not by fiat. *We* (collectively) need to really think hard about it for a long time. It's not going to be decided based on who has more judges in the SCOTUS, or at least it shouldn't be. Any attempt at a legal run-around will just result in kicking the can down the line, because it's going to come up again and again.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Crunch on May 04, 2022, 12:06:32 PM
I wonder if Crunch would have the same view if it turns out to be one of Trump's judges who did it? Crunch, would you agree that a Justice who violated the law like this should be impeached and removed from the bench?

Of course it could be Bryer.  What would they be able to do to him? If they even prosecuted him by the time the trial happened he would probably be dead.

Back to Trump ... whatever.

I don't care who it is. If it was a Justice or a clerk, they should be out. This is ethically as corrupt as it gets and essentially criminal if they want to go after it.  But, I bet if it was Kagan or Sotomayor, you'd disagree.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Crunch on May 04, 2022, 12:07:35 PM
Is there a law against it?  I really would like to know.

18 U.S. Code § 641 - Public money, property or records:
Quote
Whoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his use or the use of another, or without authority, sells, conveys or disposes of any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, or any property made or being made under contract for the United States or any department or agency thereof; or

Whoever receives, conceals, or retains the same with intent to convert it to his use or gain, knowing it to have been embezzled, stolen, purloined or converted—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both;

Find the leaker, lock him up. The reporter is also in violation of the law, 10 years for him too.

With those kinds of broad legal interpretations I could shoot you right now and claim self defense.

JFC, no. You could not. Seriously.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Crunch on May 04, 2022, 12:09:19 PM
Is there a law against it?  I really would like to know.

18 U.S. Code § 641 - Public money, property or records:
Quote
Whoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his use or the use of another, or without authority, sells, conveys or disposes of any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, or any property made or being made under contract for the United States or any department or agency thereof; or

Whoever receives, conceals, or retains the same with intent to convert it to his use or gain, knowing it to have been embezzled, stolen, purloined or converted—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both;

Find the leaker, lock him up. The reporter is also in violation of the law, 10 years for him too.

Wow, going hard after leaks now. Police state much. Would your opinion change if it were a conservative leak who was really excited about the decision and wanted to put public pressure to lock in the votes of the conservatives on the court?

This "but what if it was a conservative" logic is so specious and uninformed it's insane that so many of you are trying to run with it. Those that break the law should face consequences. That you're trying to set it up so that the people you approve of don't have to follow the law is absurd.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: msquared on May 04, 2022, 12:14:39 PM
Crunch you would be wrong again.  I agree with you that who ever did it should be at least fired.  If it is a Justice who did it then they should be impeached.

That is why I think it might be Breyer.  I mean he is done in a few months, so they can't really impeach him.  And at his age any trial will take years to happen
I am saying that of all of the Justices, Breyer has the least to loose and so is at the top of my list of suspects just for that and no other reason.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: yossarian22c on May 04, 2022, 12:30:37 PM
...

This "but what if it was a conservative" logic is so specious and uninformed it's insane that so many of you are trying to run with it. Those that break the law should face consequences. That you're trying to set it up so that the people you approve of don't have to follow the law is absurd.

So you are supportive of all the prosecutions of the January 6th rioters? Do you support prosecuting Flynn for lying to the FBI and violating FARA requirements? Do you support prosecuting Trump for destroying documents and taking classified files to Mara Lago? Just curious where you draw the line at prosecuting every potential violation of the law to the fullest.

IMO this leak is firing worthy. I just don't see how any laws are broken by giving a non classified document to the American media. Its a violation of policy not law. I also don't see this leak as serving the public interest in any meaningful way. It was going to become public within a month or so. Knowing what the first draft says instead of the final and knowing in May instead of June doesn't really change the public response all that much.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: rightleft22 on May 04, 2022, 12:35:11 PM
Crunch you would be wrong again.  I agree with you that who ever did it should be at least fired.  If it is a Justice who did it then they should be impeached.

That is why I think it might be Breyer.  I mean he is done in a few months, so they can't really impeach him.  And at his age any trial will take years to happen
I am saying that of all of the Justices, Breyer has the least to loose and so is at the top of my list of suspects just for that and no other reason.

Perhaps if Breyer was a stupid man who viewed his life work as a justice with contempt. I'm not the brightest bulb and even I can see how such a leak would work against progressive's, harden hearts and undermine the Supreme Court.  Then again Liberals are thier own worst enemy.

In the long long run I suspect a repeal of roe will work against those 'pro choice' as the die has been cast.
Sex has over the years become more and more detached from the notion of relationship, commitment... and within that context procreation.  I don't see that rolling back. If it be at a state level or federal one.

The youth will not allow Sex to be uses as a tool to control them (as the church as used it) Once the baby boomers are gone this attitude to 'Freedom' will prevail, time is on thier side. I don't see anything stopping it except maybe force.  And then everyone loses.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: rightleft22 on May 04, 2022, 12:41:27 PM
Quote
IMO this leak is firing worthy. I just don't see how any laws are broken by giving a non classified document to the American media. Its a violation of policy not law. I also don't see this leak as serving the public interest in any meaningful way. It was going to become public within a month or so. Knowing what the first draft says instead of the final and knowing in May instead of June doesn't really change the public response all that much.

But it does undermine the Supreme Court. And I wonder if that wasn't the intent as I agree that the leak does not serve the right or the left with regards to the debate. We won't know though as the leaker prevented the process from completing as it ought to have. The leak opening the door to all types of speculation and conspiracy. Who ever did leaked it, for whatever reason should be ashamed and I suspect history will not be kind.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Lloyd Perna on May 04, 2022, 12:45:17 PM
Granted, the Right finds the Ninth Amendment highly inconvenient to their project of establishing a theocratic white ethnostate

When you make blanket, untrue, racist accusations like this you invalidate everything else you say and no one can should you seriously.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: cherrypoptart on May 04, 2022, 01:11:47 PM



9th Amendment:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

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

Exactly. Like the right of the people to elect state lawmakers who can pass laws about abortion.

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

https://constitutionus.com/constitution/amendments/the-9th-amendment-to-the-united-states-constitution-explained/

"How Can The 9th Amendment Be Summarized?

The Ninth Amendment of the United States Constitution states that the federal government doesn’t own the rights that are not listed in the Constitution, but instead, they belong to citizens..."

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

The federal government doesn't own rights that are not listed. Federal government. Nobody on the right is saying that the federal government owns abortion rights. That's the whole point. Everyone on the right understands that if they want abortion to be illegal nationwide it requires a Constitutional Amendment. All of that aligns perfectly with both the 9th and 10th Amendments.

Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: NobleHunter on May 04, 2022, 01:19:42 PM
Quote
Trying to squash the debate is itself probably a human rights violation.

You know, I have some perspective down in the cellar if you find you miss it.

When you make blanket, untrue, racist accusations like this you invalidate everything else you say and no one can should you seriously.

It's so cute when the right thinks they can just use the word racist whenever someone says the word "white."
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: yossarian22c on May 04, 2022, 01:39:27 PM
...

And just to reiterate, I don't think abortion should be illegal. But that doesn't mean the Constitution says it can't be.

Better start voting for democrats then. Republicans are going to outlaw it in every state they can.

Seems like democrats better align with more of your views anyway, climate change, coronavirus, abortion rights, the list is growing. Your party is leaving you.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: msquared on May 04, 2022, 01:42:43 PM
What is more they will likely also pass laws that make it illegal to go to another state where abortion is legal to get an abortion.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: NobleHunter on May 04, 2022, 01:55:28 PM
When they get the chance, they'll definitely pass a federal law against it. The current Supreme Court will probably refuse to review any cases about it. Unless they see the chance to undo Loving or Lawrence. 
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Fenring on May 04, 2022, 02:01:00 PM
Quote
Trying to squash the debate is itself probably a human rights violation.

You know, I have some perspective down in the cellar if you find you miss it.

If what you mean to imply is that I've accused you personally of trying to squash the debate, that's not what I mean. Sorry if it sounded that way. What I meant was that a lot of left-wing people are of the opinion it's finished, closed, settled, and not open to discussion anymore; and any insinuation that further debate is needed is met with anger and accusations. That is the squashing I'm referring to, so I suppose this only includes you if that's your attitude. What I am saying is the debate about this has barely begun as far as I'm concerned. Most of the public-facing argumentation on the topic has been at a very immature stage of debate thus far. Privately I've heard cogent arguments on both side, both those don't tend to trickle into the greater consciousness. Abortion is going to be a bigger deal going foward, and I think in part it's because the honest moral debate has been sidestepped by a lot of people.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: NobleHunter on May 04, 2022, 02:09:59 PM
If what you mean to imply is that I've accused you personally of trying to squash the debate, that's not what I mean. Sorry if it sounded that way. What I meant was that a lot of left-wing people are of the opinion it's finished, closed, settled, and not open to discussion anymore; and any insinuation that further debate is needed is met with anger and accusations. That is the squashing I'm referring to, so I suppose this only includes you if that's your attitude. What I am saying is the debate about this has barely begun as far as I'm concerned. Most of the public-facing argumentation on the topic has been at a very immature stage of debate thus far. Privately I've heard cogent arguments on both side, both those don't tend to trickle into the greater consciousness. Abortion is going to be a bigger deal going foward, and I think in part it's because the honest moral debate has been sidestepped by a lot of people.

The debate has been running for decades, though I agree most of the public discussion of it has been facile. Mostly because the Democratic Party isn't particularly interested in ending the debate and Republicans don't want people to think about it. There's also a tendency to focus on edge cases as most people don't have significant disagreements over if abortion should be available or not, merely how much.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Fenring on May 04, 2022, 02:19:52 PM
The debate has been running for decades

Well the battle over has been waged, but I wouldn't call that a debate; more like a power struggle, which is what so many of these political issues devolve into (including climate change, covid, etc). I have heard very little in the way of 'debate' in my lifetime other than where I've found it by personally seeking it out. It's not 'out there' to much of an extent.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: yossarian22c on May 04, 2022, 02:27:43 PM
The debate has been running for decades

Well the battle over has been waged, but I wouldn't call that a debate; more like a power struggle, which is what so many of these political issues devolve into (including climate change, covid, etc). I have heard very little in the way of 'debate' in my lifetime other than where I've found it by personally seeking it out. It's not 'out there' to much of an extent.

Sound bite culture at its worst. Candidates don't "debate" any issue in a significant way. Even 2 hour long presidential debates usually bounce through topics so quick that the answers are usually canned 1-2 minute surface level responses that don't delve into the intricacies of a topic. Nuance doesn't win elections. Zingers and soundbites do.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Fenring on May 04, 2022, 02:35:04 PM
Sound bite culture at its worst. Candidates don't "debate" any issue in a significant way. Even 2 hour long presidential debates usually bounce through topics so quick that the answers are usually canned 1-2 minute surface level responses that don't delve into the intricacies of a topic. Nuance doesn't win elections. Zingers and soundbites do.

I agree. However in this case it's just just the politicians who bypass the debate and devolve into soundbites. Even ordinary people on this particular topic tend to shoot around 1-sentence canned answers that they most likely received through others rather than coming to from independent thought. Things like "protect the unborn", "my body my right", "abortion is murder", and "religion controlling women" are all mindless tropes with little to no content. They are more like badges designating where on the battlefield you are, or maybe like banners you are waving around to prove you're a good soldier. The whole thing is like an old-school MMA bout, messy, no technique, and a lot of screaming.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: NobleHunter on May 04, 2022, 02:37:01 PM
Sound bite culture at its worst. Candidates don't "debate" any issue in a significant way. Even 2 hour long presidential debates usually bounce through topics so quick that the answers are usually canned 1-2 minute surface level responses that don't delve into the intricacies of a topic. Nuance doesn't win elections. Zingers and soundbites do.

Not to mention the need to create division. It's hard to win elections if the voters think the other guy is pretty all right.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Crunch on May 04, 2022, 06:02:42 PM
What is more they will likely also pass laws that make it illegal to go to another state where abortion is legal to get an abortion.

JFC.  ::)
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Crunch on May 04, 2022, 06:10:31 PM
...

This "but what if it was a conservative" logic is so specious and uninformed it's insane that so many of you are trying to run with it. Those that break the law should face consequences. That you're trying to set it up so that the people you approve of don't have to follow the law is absurd.

So you are supportive of all the prosecutions of the January 6th rioters? Do you support prosecuting Flynn for lying to the FBI and violating FARA requirements? Do you support prosecuting Trump for destroying documents and taking classified files to Mara Lago? Just curious where you draw the line at prosecuting every potential violation of the law to the fullest.

IMO this leak is firing worthy. I just don't see how any laws are broken by giving a non classified document to the American media. Its a violation of policy not law. I also don't see this leak as serving the public interest in any meaningful way. It was going to become public within a month or so. Knowing what the first draft says instead of the final and knowing in May instead of June doesn't really change the public response all that much.

First, you see the law quoted. It’s real and it was broken. If you want to argue that it’s ok to break the law because it was gonna happen anyway, good luck with that.

supportive of all the prosecutions of the January 6th rioters? Support their prosecution where appropriate. Holding them as political prisoners and ignoring due process for what is actually gonna end up being misdemeanora for a lot of them, I don’t support that.

 Do you support prosecuting Flynn for lying to the FBI and violating FARA requirements? I support prosecuting everyone that lies to the FBI but not just republicans- you know what I’m talking about.

Do you support prosecuting Trump for destroying documents and taking classified files to Mara Lago? Sure, but only if it goes for democrats too. Let’s ask the Clintons. Good enough for sandy berger, good enough for everyone.

Just curious where you draw the line at prosecuting every potential violation of the law to the fullest. I draw the line where the law starts and ends, without an ideological litmus test.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: yossarian22c on May 04, 2022, 06:13:02 PM
What is more they will likely also pass laws that make it illegal to go to another state where abortion is legal to get an abortion.

JFC.  ::)

Have you been paying attention to the bills being passed? None have outlawed that yet but legislators have proposed them. Or proposed laws that allow their citizens to sue abortion providers in other states who provide abortion services to citizens of their state.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Crunch on May 04, 2022, 06:16:48 PM
Do you seriously think a law can be passed that limits travel from one state to another? Certain goods and services, sure. But people? Come on, let’s stay in reality here. It’s literally impossible to enforce it much less get it past court challenges.

If you get a medical procedure and its botched, you should be able to sue the provider. How is this controversial?
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: yossarian22c on May 04, 2022, 06:35:55 PM
Do you seriously think a law can be passed that limits travel from one state to another? Certain goods and services, sure. But people? Come on, let’s stay in reality here. It’s literally impossible to enforce it much less get it past court challenges.

If you get a medical procedure and its botched, you should be able to sue the provider. How is this controversial?

It wasn’t the patient who could sue. It was a Texas style bounty on providers of other states. Glad you agree such proposals are absurd and unconstitutional.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: msquared on May 04, 2022, 06:46:18 PM
Crunch

I never said they would stand up. But the fact is many Legislatures controlled by Republicans would try and make it illegal to go outside the state for an abortion.  The writing is on the wall and if you do not see it you are blind.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: msquared on May 05, 2022, 07:30:27 AM
So why is Missouri trying to pass such a law?

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/19/travel-abortion-law-missouri-00018539

If it is so obviously against the Constitution, why are they trying this?  And I would bet they will not be the first.  You can be sure Florida and Texas will be right behind.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: msquared on May 05, 2022, 07:48:37 AM
The leak may not be illegal.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/despite-conservative-saber-rattling-lawless-210459839.html

Draft SC opinions may not be confidential (legally).
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: TheDrake on May 05, 2022, 08:17:07 AM
There's an obvious ploy if states start outlawing abortions, that non-profits can start figuring out how to help women who need abortions.

And even some for-profits.

Quote
But abortion travel isn’t financially and logistically an option that’s available to everyone. That’s why several big employers like Citigroup, Yelp, and Uber have pledged pay the travel expenses if their employees can’t access the procedure in their home states.

I can't wait to see conservatives boycott Yelp and Uber over it.

Here's one approach.

Quote
A Texas woman was just arrested in April on murder charges after she allegedly caused “the death of an individual ... by self-induced abortion.” A Texas district attorney ultimately dismissed the charges, but legal scholars say there are aggressive local prosecutors who may try to use trigger laws and other pre-Roe bans to go after a pregnant person or anyone who helps them travel for an abortion.

Prosecutors could argue that as long as some part of the crime took place in the state, then they are allowed to have jurisdiction and developing the guilty intent to travel may be enough, Cohen said.

And this one could put airlines at risk of being sued.

Quote
Using the same model Texas used in an abortion law known as S.B. 8, Missouri state Rep. Mary Elizabeth Coleman (R) introduced a proposal in December to allow private citizens to sue anyone who performs an abortion or helps a pregnant person obtain one, even if the procedure takes place outside Missouri.

Some are taking this seriously enough to pass preventative measures.

Quote
In California, S.B. 1142, which would provide funding for out-of-state residents who may travel there for an abortion, is scheduled for a May 9 hearing in the Senate Appropriations Committee. California lawmakers are also considering a measure to shield those who help a pregnant person travel to the Golden State for an abortion from getting sued.

And there's precedent.

Quote
Missouri has tried to extend its laws to out-of-state conduct before. In 2005, the state passed a law that created a civil cause of action against anyone who helps a minor get an abortion without parental consent or a judge’s permission, even if the abortion takes place in another state that doesn’t require it. The state Supreme Court in 2007, however, narrowed the law so it only applies to abortions in Missouri.

All of which seems perfectly reasonable if seen through the lens that abortion is murder. Nobody would be getting too upset if California allowed you to kill an adult and Missouri tried to do something to stop it. Which brings us back to the non-debate of people convinced about the nature of a fetus.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: msquared on May 05, 2022, 08:27:42 AM
Maybe I should start a new thread.

Should the Justices who committed perjury  under oath in their confirmation hearings be impeached?
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Crunch on May 05, 2022, 08:29:30 AM
Maybe I should start a new thread.

Should the Justices who committed perjury  under oath in their confirmation hearings be impeached?

As long as I get to define it, sure.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Crunch on May 05, 2022, 08:31:58 AM
Do you seriously think a law can be passed that limits travel from one state to another? Certain goods and services, sure. But people? Come on, let’s stay in reality here. It’s literally impossible to enforce it much less get it past court challenges.

If you get a medical procedure and its botched, you should be able to sue the provider. How is this controversial?

It wasn’t the patient who could sue. It was a Texas style bounty on providers of other states. Glad you agree such proposals are absurd and unconstitutional.

Now you’re mixing things. Anyone can sue anyone, it’s the American way. In this case, I question the constitutionality of such a law and would look forward to seeing it challenged in court. I realize that’s an extreme position among you guys but it’s the beet system going.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: msquared on May 05, 2022, 08:34:37 AM
Define what Crunch? Perjury? that is lying under oath. Like saying Roe V Wade is the law of the land and then over turning that law at the first chance.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Crunch on May 05, 2022, 08:35:10 AM
Crunch

I never said they would stand up. But the fact is many Legislatures controlled by Republicans would try and make it illegal to go outside the state for an abortion.  The writing is on the wall and if you do not see it you are blind.

So what? Let them try. It’s a feature of our system and it’s a good one. In the unlikely event a law limiting interstate travel is created, it will be challenged in court and it will almost certainly lose.

Plus, how do you propose to enforce this absurdity you’ve adopted? Checkpoints at every road out of state where women must submit to a pregnancy test befoe being allowed to continue? You must realize how laughable this is.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Crunch on May 05, 2022, 08:35:56 AM
Define what Crunch? Perjury? that is lying under oath. Like saying Roe V Wade is the law of the land and then over turning that law at the first chance.

Lying. I get to define what is or is not a lie. Just like democrats do now.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: msquared on May 05, 2022, 08:37:13 AM
I am not the one proposing the law, so it is not my laughable idea.

I am guessing they are looking for Soviet/Russia style informing.  Neighbors reporting neighbors to an 800 number and turning them in.  Like good christians.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: rightleft22 on May 05, 2022, 10:04:21 AM
Define what Crunch? Perjury? that is lying under oath. Like saying Roe V Wade is the law of the land and then over turning that law at the first chance.

Lying. I get to define what is or is not a lie. Just like democrats do now.

Your arguments are better when you don't make such statements.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Lloyd Perna on May 05, 2022, 10:45:35 AM
Define what Crunch? Perjury? that is lying under oath. Like saying Roe V Wade is the law of the land and then over turning that law at the first chance.

I'm sure you can provide quotes where one of the recently appointed Justices made false statements under oath.  Right?
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Mynnion on May 05, 2022, 10:45:48 AM
If I was going to leak this type of document and I was a left leaning activist I would have waited until September to make sure the media and Left were at a maximum level of outrage to "Get out the Vote."  I am sure that those with access to this document are at least as intelligent as I am and know that US voters have incredibly short memories releasing it now seems more likely to have had a conservative source.  Add to that the fact that releasing this basically provides states to use it as a play book to submit a direct challenge to RVW.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Mynnion on May 05, 2022, 10:54:40 AM
Quote
Should the Justices who committed perjury  under oath in their confirmation hearings be impeached?

I can't believe that I am agreeing with Crunch but at least based on the article below none of the judges came out and lied under oath.  It looks like their answers contain a lot of plausible deniability for apologists such as Susan Collins but no overt lies.

https://www.npr.org/2022/05/03/1096108319/roe-v-wade-alito-conservative-justices-confirmation-hearings
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: msquared on May 05, 2022, 10:56:51 AM
So Roe v Wade as settled law and the Law of the Land is not lying?
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: yossarian22c on May 05, 2022, 10:58:56 AM
So Roe v Wade as settled law and the Law of the Land is not lying?

It was until it wasn’t. They are lawyers with time to prepare their answers carefully. They threaded this needle deceptively but without perjury.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Mynnion on May 05, 2022, 11:37:15 AM
Quote
So Roe v Wade as settled law and the Law of the Land is not lying?

I have not reviewed the transcripts and am strictly going by what NPR posted and while it says Kavanaugh told Collins it was the law of the land he did not make that statement during the hearings.

Those listed stated that it was precedent but left the door open to review.  Kavanaugh stated that it was the Law of the Land but that is just a statement not an intent.  I believe the answers given under oath were specifically designed not to be lies but rather to give an impression of impartiality.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: rightleft22 on May 05, 2022, 11:52:13 AM
Conformation hearings another nail in the coffin of governing institutions.

One might imagine that their was a intentional attempt to undermine our institutions.

I liked Mitch's redirect to the question about taking credit for the possible end of Roe. Lets focus on the leaker. Without that leak I wonder what his answer would have been when the desision came out when it ought to have.  We will never know and I suspect Mitch is good with that.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Fenring on May 05, 2022, 12:52:56 PM
I don't see how a judge can reasonably be expected to claim, in advance, how they will consider or rule on something not yet on the table in front of them. It would almost be impeachable to make promises about how they'll do their job, since IMO that implies they will apply partisan principles going in rather than assessing the facts when they are presented in the future.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Lloyd Perna on May 05, 2022, 12:58:59 PM
What does it matter what they said anyway?  None of the Dems on the committee voted for Kavanaugh, Gorsuch or Barrett.  They were never going to vote for them no matter what they said.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: msquared on May 05, 2022, 01:08:12 PM
Because they knew they were lying about Roe being settled law?

Why didn't the Justices, especially Alito, say they thought Roe was an egregious decision when they were asked about it?  I mean that is what he is saying now.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Lloyd Perna on May 05, 2022, 01:17:56 PM
https://www.npr.org/2022/05/03/1096108319/roe-v-wade-alito-conservative-justices-confirmation-hearings
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: yossarian22c on May 05, 2022, 01:21:42 PM
I don't see how a judge can reasonably be expected to claim, in advance, how they will consider or rule on something not yet on the table in front of them. It would almost be impeachable to make promises about how they'll do their job, since IMO that implies they will apply partisan principles going in rather than assessing the facts when they are presented in the future.

Judges should be able to comment on if a past case was decided properly or unconstitutionally. I agree they shouldn't opine about hypothetical cases. But making a statement on a past decision they have had time to review isn't a crazy question. I understand why its politically unacceptable for them to answer such questions. But it should be within the scope of their legal acumen to critique past decisions they have all the documentation, facts, and legal reasoning on.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: NobleHunter on May 05, 2022, 01:29:23 PM
The weirdest thing is that no one could believe that they were coming to Roe as blank slates so as to judge the merits of the case impartially. The whole "gee golly, I have no pre-formed opinion" when their willingness to overturn Roe was one of, if not the primary, reason they were nominated is one of the more bizarre pieces of political theatre.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: rightleft22 on May 05, 2022, 01:35:18 PM
I don't see how a judge can reasonably be expected to claim, in advance, how they will consider or rule on something not yet on the table in front of them. It would almost be impeachable to make promises about how they'll do their job, since IMO that implies they will apply partisan principles going in rather than assessing the facts when they are presented in the future.

Judges should be able to comment on if a past case was decided properly or unconstitutionally. I agree they shouldn't opine about hypothetical cases. But making a statement on a past decision they have had time to review isn't a crazy question. I understand why its politically unacceptable for them to answer such questions. But it should be within the scope of their legal acumen to critique past decisions they have all the documentation, facts, and legal reasoning on.

If only a conformation hearing was really a conformation hearing such well thought out questions about the law would be the only type of questions asked.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: cherrypoptart on May 05, 2022, 01:38:58 PM
One good thing about the "settled law" issue is that if the Supreme Court does decide to legalize illegalizing abortion, it will be settled law so all of the people talking about settled law, who have been talking about settled law for decades now, will calm down and not fight it anymore or expect it to ever change or ever be able to be changed. 
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Lloyd Perna on May 05, 2022, 01:45:33 PM
Alito:
Quote
Pressed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., on whether the issue of Roe had been settled by the court, Alito again refused to answer directly.

"It would be wrong for me to say to anybody who might be bringing any case before my court, 'If you bring your case before my court, I'm not even going to listen to you. I've made up my mind on this issue. I'm not going to read your brief. I'm not going to listen to your argument. I'm not going to discuss the issue with my colleagues. Go away — I've made up my mind,' " he said.

"That's the antithesis of what the courts are supposed to do, and if that's what settled means, then I think that's not what judges are supposed to do."

Thomas
Quote
During his confirmation hearing in 1991, Thomas refused to state an opinion on abortion or whether Roe had been properly decided. Doing so could compromise his future ability to rule on cases related to Roe, he said. ("I can say on that issue and on those cases I have no agenda. I have an open mind, and I can function strongly as a judge.")

Gorsuch
Quote
"I would tell you that Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the United States Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed," he said. "A good judge will consider it as precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other."

Kavanaugh:
Quote
"It is settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court, entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis," he said. "The Supreme Court has recognized the right to abortion since the 1973 Roe v. Wade case. It has reaffirmed it many times."

Additionally, Kavanaugh said it can be appropriate for the court to revisit prior decisions. "I listen to all arguments," he said. "You have an open mind. You get the briefs and arguments. And some arguments are better than others. Precedent is critically important. It is the foundation of our system. But you listen to all arguments."

Barrett
Quote
Perhaps the most revealing moment for Barrett came as she was being questioned by Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., who asked if Barrett considered Roe to be a "super-precedent."

Barrett answered by defining super-precedent as "cases that are so well settled that no political actors and no people seriously push for their overruling."

"And I'm answering a lot of questions about Roe, which I think indicates that Roe doesn't fall in that category," she said.

"Roe is not a super-precedent because calls for its overruling have never ceased. But that doesn't mean that Roe should be overruled. It just means that it doesn't fall in the small handful of cases like Marbury v. Madison and Brown v. Board that no one questions anymore," she added.

Can we drop this bull*censored* about them lying now?

As stated already by yossarian22c.   At the time that whoever called roe "Settled Law" it was.  At no point did any of them promise not to overturn it.

The Roe ruling was bad from the start. Unsupportable by the actual constitution. It was inevitable that it would be overturned eventually.
Dems have had 50 years to codify the Roe findings into actual law and they failed to do so.

Maybe you should be looking inwards for answers rather than calling honorable public servants liers.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Lloyd Perna on May 05, 2022, 01:48:03 PM
I don't see how a judge can reasonably be expected to claim, in advance, how they will consider or rule on something not yet on the table in front of them. It would almost be impeachable to make promises about how they'll do their job, since IMO that implies they will apply partisan principles going in rather than assessing the facts when they are presented in the future.

Judges should be able to comment on if a past case was decided properly or unconstitutionally. I agree they shouldn't opine about hypothetical cases. But making a statement on a past decision they have had time to review isn't a crazy question. I understand why its politically unacceptable for them to answer such questions. But it should be within the scope of their legal acumen to critique past decisions they have all the documentation, facts, and legal reasoning on.

If only a conformation hearing was really a conformation hearing such well thought out questions about the law would be the only type of questions asked.

In your world the only things that matter about a Judge are their race/sex/sexual preference and whether they are willing to invent things you like in the constitution.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Fenring on May 05, 2022, 01:55:55 PM
Because they knew they were lying about Roe being settled law?

I don't really understand this phrase anyhow, "settled law". The term as you're using implies that a matter is sealed for all time, determined as gospel like as if written on two stone tablets. How can anything be settled law, applying that standard? As far as I'm concerned all matters should be on the table for debate at all times. The idea of something being nailed shut and buried seems intrinsically wrong.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Fenring on May 05, 2022, 01:59:43 PM
But it should be within the scope of their legal acumen to critique past decisions they have all the documentation, facts, and legal reasoning on.

You could ask me right now what I think about some factual topic, but requiring analysis. Let's say it's the behavior of the Federal Reserve during the 2008 crisis. I have read about it, heard testimony, seen the results of some investigations, and I have a private opinion on the matter. Even if I was an expert and had a somewhat more sophisticated opinion it would still be just that. But now if you officially task me with investigating it myself and coming to 'final conclusions' to the best of my ability, that would be something else. Someone can study something all they want in abstraction, but if the task is actually a reality and present-tense decisions need to be made, that colors and changes everything. Of course new study would be needed, which maybe could affect or even reverse your previous position. You should only hope the justices would have that much of an open mind.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: yossarian22c on May 05, 2022, 02:50:29 PM
...

This "but what if it was a conservative" logic is so specious and uninformed it's insane that so many of you are trying to run with it. Those that break the law should face consequences. That you're trying to set it up so that the people you approve of don't have to follow the law is absurd.

So you are supportive of all the prosecutions of the January 6th rioters? Do you support prosecuting Flynn for lying to the FBI and violating FARA requirements? Do you support prosecuting Trump for destroying documents and taking classified files to Mara Lago? Just curious where you draw the line at prosecuting every potential violation of the law to the fullest.

IMO this leak is firing worthy. I just don't see how any laws are broken by giving a non classified document to the American media. Its a violation of policy not law. I also don't see this leak as serving the public interest in any meaningful way. It was going to become public within a month or so. Knowing what the first draft says instead of the final and knowing in May instead of June doesn't really change the public response all that much.

First, you see the law quoted. It’s real and it was broken. If you want to argue that it’s ok to break the law because it was gonna happen anyway, good luck with that.

supportive of all the prosecutions of the January 6th rioters? Support their prosecution where appropriate. Holding them as political prisoners and ignoring due process for what is actually gonna end up being misdemeanora for a lot of them, I don’t support that.

 Do you support prosecuting Flynn for lying to the FBI and violating FARA requirements? I support prosecuting everyone that lies to the FBI but not just republicans- you know what I’m talking about.

Do you support prosecuting Trump for destroying documents and taking classified files to Mara Lago? Sure, but only if it goes for democrats too. Let’s ask the Clintons. Good enough for sandy berger, good enough for everyone.

Just curious where you draw the line at prosecuting every potential violation of the law to the fullest. I draw the line where the law starts and ends, without an ideological litmus test.

Gotcha, if you think a Democrat ever got away with a crime that crime is no longer enforceable on any Republican.

Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: rightleft22 on May 05, 2022, 03:28:00 PM
Quote
In your world the only things that matter about a Judge are their race/sex/sexual preference and whether they are willing to invent things you like in the constitution.
Not sure how my comment on a confirmation hearing not being a confirmation hearing (just political theater) gave you such a insight in to my mind.

I actually agree with your statement that is time to end the bull*censored* about lying now. Its serves only as a distraction.

That said if I identified as someone on the far right I would revel in this distraction as its something that is all about nothing, nothing that anyone will be held accountable that drives those on the far left crazy.

Also time to stop whining when a call doesn't go the way you or ones tribe thinks it should have.  If the rules of the game are messed up fix the rules. The reality it the DNC keep dropping the ball and or taking their eye of it all together.

No one can be surprised by this development or that the justices who might vote to end Roe would do so. No once can be surprised so acting all OMG how can this happen no when its to late is just a waist of energy and very unconstructive.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: yossarian22c on May 05, 2022, 06:03:31 PM
But it should be within the scope of their legal acumen to critique past decisions they have all the documentation, facts, and legal reasoning on.

You could ask me right now what I think about some factual topic, but requiring analysis. Let's say it's the behavior of the Federal Reserve during the 2008 crisis. I have read about it, heard testimony, seen the results of some investigations, and I have a private opinion on the matter. Even if I was an expert and had a somewhat more sophisticated opinion it would still be just that. But now if you officially task me with investigating it myself and coming to 'final conclusions' to the best of my ability, that would be something else. Someone can study something all they want in abstraction, but if the task is actually a reality and present-tense decisions need to be made, that colors and changes everything. Of course new study would be needed, which maybe could affect or even reverse your previous position. You should only hope the justices would have that much of an open mind.

If you were before the Senate for a confirmation hearing for Fed chair and couldn't/wouldn't provide intelligent analysis about significant periods in Fed history then you are probably unqualified. If they had a solid legal reasoning that they felt Roe is poorly decided/reasoned they could put those arguments forward then. Judges should view every case on its own merits but to say a supreme court justice can't/shouldn't express a legal analysis of previous significant rulings is disingenuous.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Ouija Nightmare on May 05, 2022, 06:06:49 PM
It’s looking more and more like that court deicions is going to play havoc with law.

Smoke around a pregnant women? Off with their heads! Probably cars will either be banned from cities or pregnant women will be banned from exposure to traffic 🤔 hard to say which way that’s going.

Damn near everything affects fetal viability this is going to be a real rough ride. ( maybe not in the next ten minutes… but give it a few years..  there’s going to be more difference in law between Virginia and North Carolina than there is between England and Bulgaria. Laws will be getting generated as fast as legislators can legislate.

Commit a traffic offense? All the female occupants of the car will get pregnancy checks to see the scope of your crimes.

I’m going to grab some popcorn. Lawyers are about to get a taste of what it’s like to work in the tech sector.

Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Wayward Son on May 05, 2022, 07:30:30 PM
You said it, Ouija.

Abortion is going to be Class One Felony Murder in one state, and a protected medical procedure in the state next door.  How long before the Supreme Court is going to have to adjudicate on the difference?

And how long before another Supreme Court is going to overturn the previous one.  :D
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: yossarian22c on May 06, 2022, 10:07:57 AM
You said it, Ouija.

Abortion is going to be Class One Felony Murder in one state, and a protected medical procedure in the state next door.  How long before the Supreme Court is going to have to adjudicate on the difference?

And how long before another Supreme Court is going to overturn the previous one.  :D

And how many women are local prosecutors in Texas or Alabama going to arrest and charge with murder for traveling to California for an abortion? Sure the prosecution probably won't hold up, but it would you want to risk your freedom on that jury trial? Not to mention the cost of a lawyer and harm of pre-trial detention.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: yossarian22c on May 06, 2022, 10:29:25 AM
...

And how long before another Supreme Court is going to overturn the previous one.  :D

Based on life expectancy, probably a couple decades.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: TheDrake on May 06, 2022, 10:37:21 AM
...

And how long before another Supreme Court is going to overturn the previous one.  :D

Based on life expectancy, probably a couple decades.

Assuming it stays at 9 justices. Otherwise adding them changes the maths. Also it could become fewer if an opposition Senate means never confirming a nomination.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Wayward Son on May 06, 2022, 11:05:26 AM
Here's an article from Politico that summarizes the wildly varying penalties to come for abortion providers and others, (https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/06/potential-abortion-bans-and-penalties-by-state-00030572) from up to life in prison (or possibly death in the future) to perfectly legal.  ::)

How will the States coordinate these penalties?  Will an abortion provider who flees to a Blue state be extradited back to a Red one?  If an anti-abortionist attacks an abortion provider, will he be able to claim defense of the unborn fetus as justification?  Would a jury in a Red State buy that defense?  What if it happened in a Blue state, but a judge allowed the trial in a Red state?  What if the Red state refuses to extradite the attacker back to a Blue state for trial?

And just wait for the divorce proceedings where one spouse testifies the other got or made her get an abortion.  It'll make Johnny Depp and Amber Heard's suit look boring. ;D  Or how about a high-ranking Republican politician's mistress accusing him of helping her get an abortion?  Scandal becomes prison time. ;)

"Let the States decide" sounds so simple, doesn't it?
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: yossarian22c on May 06, 2022, 02:27:20 PM
How long before some personhood amendments that define life starting when sperm meets egg inadvertently outlaw the pill and all other birth control methods that prevent implantation instead of feralization? We're going to create a whole new generation of bootleggers, but instead of alcohol they are going to be smuggling birth control pills and sneaking out of state to get an IUD. Would a man having sex with his wife who got an out of state IUD be guilty of accessory to murder? How about a couple traveling through the state from Colorado, could they be arrested for bringing birth control pills. Having sex in the wrong state, potentially fertilizing and egg and preventing implantation? If life begins at sperm meets egg, that is the country we will live in. For a few years anyway. We'll see how long it takes for Republicans to realize almost no one wants to live the handmaidens tale. Wonder what the extradition battles are going to be like, women fleeing from Texas to California, requesting asylum. Guess it will be interesting if you are a lawyer. Sucks for the average citizen.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Crunch on May 06, 2022, 03:05:58 PM
Reading this, I have to ask ... do you guys know how babies are made? I'm serious. Do you?

Women don't get pregnant, ever, unless they have sexual intercourse (or artificial insemination). They literally cannot get pregnant any other way, it's not an airborne virus or something you can get from a toilet seat. I truly think some of you don't really understand that. You pretend like a woman just wakes up one and magically she's pregnant with no idea how it happened. It's absurd.

Also, there's a HUGE variety of birth control methods now. Condoms, the pill, implants, IUDs, etc. Plan B is available OTC if you have a concern. None of these are expensive. They are all insanely easy to get. And, of course, you can always not engage in sexual intercourse - 100% guaranteed to not get pregnant.

Given the clear understanding of how pregnancy happens and the vast array of methods to prevent it, it's nothing more than a failure of personal responsibility to have an unplanned/unwanted pregnancy. And that's what it really comes down to - you guys don't want to be held responsible and face any consequences for your actions. You want it so badly, that you're willing to rip the arms and legs off a baby or use a pair of scissors to sever its spine. That's sickening, really horror show stuff, and you should be ashamed of yourselves because you're very bad people. The worst.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: yossarian22c on May 06, 2022, 03:17:39 PM
...

Also, there's a HUGE variety of birth control methods now. Condoms, the pill, implants, IUDs, etc. Plan B is available OTC if you have a concern. None of these are expensive. They are all insanely easy to get. And, of course, you can always not engage in sexual intercourse - 100% guaranteed to not get pregnant.
...

And if a condom breaks or birth control pills don't work? Just live with being an unexpected parent? And if most of those birth control methods are outlawed by the same people defining life beginning when sperm meets egg? Just enjoy your celebrant lifestyle or your 12 kids?
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: rightleft22 on May 06, 2022, 03:19:28 PM
Quote
Given the clear understanding of how pregnancy happens and the vast array of methods to prevent it
I also think more focus should be focus on preventing the issue in the first place. That said taking up such a position I would want full free access for all girls and woman to contraceptives and education on the matter. And if such measures still fail everyone involved held accountable not just the woman.

I have little doubt that if men were the ones giving birth that their would be no thought as to whether abortion was moral or not and that it wouldn't even require a law.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: msquared on May 06, 2022, 03:30:26 PM
Of course rape and incest never happen. And we also see the conservative Legislature trying to make BC illegal.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: msquared on May 06, 2022, 03:36:53 PM
Let see

https://www.yahoo.com/news/tenn-governor-signs-bill-regulating-172946140.html

TN  is trying to regulate medical abortions. 

Crunch, you seem to be unaware of all of the actions being taken to get rid of all abortions for any reason what so ever. Even ones for pregnancies that will kill the mother.  These Republicans want to get rid of every abortion everywhere.  Not just some some of the time.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: NobleHunter on May 06, 2022, 05:46:13 PM
Not to mention contraceptives are definitely on the list of "invented rights."
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: yossarian22c on May 07, 2022, 03:17:05 PM
Quote
Given the clear understanding of how pregnancy happens and the vast array of methods to prevent it
I also think more focus should be focus on preventing the issue in the first place.
...

As our old friend Pete pointed out frequently Obama deserves credit more than any other politician since Roe for bringing down the number of abortions. Making contraceptives a basic part of all health insurance and expanding coverage has brought the number of abortions in America to its lowest level since Roe became law. Giving people access to health care works.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: msquared on May 07, 2022, 03:38:40 PM
We can't let those irresponsible people have birth control.  Don't you know that birth control keeps a baby from being conceived and so is murder? And if we let them have birth control they may have sex. Even sex outside of marriage and we all know that is a sin so we can't let that happen.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: TheDrake on May 07, 2022, 06:24:33 PM
A large number of pregnancies result despite one or more properly used birth control methods. Other women believe they are beyond the age of viable conception - and in fact for them carrying to term is deadly. I think it is probably unrealistic to expect the entire population to practice celibacy except if they are prepared to raise a child, since it will be their own fault. Many of the women who have abortions have already had kids, and have responsibly raised them. In some cases the irresponsible act would be to carry the child to term - like when the child's deformities would mean a short agonizing life in terrible pain.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: cherrypoptart on May 08, 2022, 06:21:12 PM
Biden and the Democrats who voted for him are for the rights of women, you say?

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/asia/taliban-order-afghan-women-cover-fully-public-2670246

"The Taliban on Saturday (May 7) imposed some of the harshest restrictions on Afghanistan's women since they seized power, ordering them to cover fully in public, ideally with the traditional burqa."

That's Biden's world. That was his decision and that is his Presidency. You don't see much about it in the news though because it doesn't fit the liberal agenda. In fact, it not only doesn't fit, it's a total embarrassment. Looking at Afghanistan before and after Biden, the idea that Democrats are willing to fight for women's rights is a bad joke.

You can say what you want about American conservatives and abortion but at least they would have let the Afghan women walk around without the burqa. Most conservatives apparently prefer they didn't even wear a Covid mask. It's ironic seeing the American liberal women fretting about the imposition of the world of The Handmaid's Tale in America while the guy they proudly voted for and still enthusiastically support ushered in that and worse for women in Afghanistan.

Weighed on the worldwide scale of women's rights, the good that conservatives did, especially Donald J. Trump, is far greater than the loss of women's rights Biden and his voters imposed.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Fenring on May 08, 2022, 07:07:33 PM
That's Biden's world. That was his decision and that is his Presidency. You don't see much about it in the news though because it doesn't fit the liberal agenda. In fact, it not only doesn't fit, it's a total embarrassment. Looking at Afghanistan before and after Biden, the idea that Democrats are willing to fight for women's rights is a bad joke.

It's true, I think Biden should have not only stayed there but also conquered Saudi Arabia, North Korea, and everyone else who don't meet America's standard for treatment of women. Probably best to occupy Russia for a century or two as well, if I'm guessing.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Ouija Nightmare on May 08, 2022, 07:53:36 PM
Biden and the Democrats who voted for him are for the rights of women, you say?

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/asia/taliban-order-afghan-women-cover-fully-public-2670246

"The Taliban on Saturday (May 7) imposed some of the harshest restrictions on Afghanistan's women since they seized power, ordering them to cover fully in public, ideally with the traditional burqa."

That's Biden's world. That was his decision and that is his Presidency. You don't see much about it in the news though because it doesn't fit the liberal agenda. In fact, it not only doesn't fit, it's a total embarrassment. Looking at Afghanistan before and after Biden, the idea that Democrats are willing to fight for women's rights is a bad joke.

You can say what you want about American conservatives and abortion but at least they would have let the Afghan women walk around without the burqa. Most conservatives apparently prefer they didn't even wear a Covid mask. It's ironic seeing the American liberal women fretting about the imposition of the world of The Handmaid's Tale in America while the guy they proudly voted for and still enthusiastically support ushered in that and worse for women in Afghanistan.

Weighed on the worldwide scale of women's rights, the good that conservatives did, especially Donald J. Trump, is far greater than the loss of women's rights Biden and his voters imposed.

Incidentally which branch of the armed forces are you currently serving with?
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Wayward Son on May 08, 2022, 09:44:59 PM
Quote
You can say what you want about American conservatives and abortion but at least they would have let the Afghan women walk around without the burqa. Most conservatives apparently prefer they didn't even wear a Covid mask. It's ironic seeing the American liberal women fretting about the imposition of the world of The Handmaid's Tale in America while the guy they proudly voted for and still enthusiastically support ushered in that and worse for women in Afghanistan.

Weighed on the worldwide scale of women's rights, the good that conservatives did, especially Donald J. Trump, is far greater than the loss of women's rights Biden and his voters imposed.

Considering Trump criticized Biden for not withdrawing earlier (https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1383836754730315777?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1383836754730315777%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessinsider.com%2Ftrump-biden-afghanistan-pullout-wonderful-and-positive-thing-to-do-2021-4), I don't see how you can believe the situation would have been any better under Donald J. Trump.

Nevertheless, while our actions of not continuing the 20 year war in Afghanistan allowed the Taliban to gain control again, we are still not the ones who are forcing Afghani women wear burqas.  That responsibility goes to the Taliban.  What American conservatives are responsible for is taking away the choice for women to decide whether or not their bodies are more than just baby factories.  They apparently intend to take that choice from individual women and give it to the State governments.  And, I'm pretty sure, in the near future, take that choice from State governments and impose it on all States.  Because how can some states consider abortion murder while others consider it a woman's right??  That won't fly for long.

The bottom line is that we only have limited influence on other nations, like Afghanistan.  But we have a much greater influence on our own.  So we bear much greater responsibility for what happens in our own nation than what we allow to happen in other nations.  And if American conservatives take away a woman's right to say how her own organs should be used, that is a much bigger responsibility than if we allowed another government to abuse women.

Besides, if American conservatives don't give a damn about American women, what makes you think they'll give a damn about Afghani women? ;)
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: cherrypoptart on May 09, 2022, 03:18:42 AM
Fenring

"It's true, I think Biden should have not only stayed there but also conquered Saudi Arabia, North Korea, and everyone else who don't meet America's standard for treatment of women. Probably best to occupy Russia for a century or two as well, if I'm guessing."

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

The hard part was already done in Afghanistan. We had it. The women were free.

Let's put it this way for Biden's defenders.

If we knew what did happen was definitely going to happen should we have done exactly what we did anyway?

Someone should ask Biden that.

That's what his defenders seem to be saying, that knowing what we know now it was still the right move to do exactly what we did then, surrender Afghanistan to the Taliban. Since we were assured that wouldn't happen, something just doesn't add up there.

The left had a chance to secure women's rights. They blew it. Gave them all away to the Taliban. And even now defend that as the right thing to do. It's hard to take the conviction seriously after that especially when so many seem to be fine with how it all worked out in the end.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: cherrypoptart on May 09, 2022, 07:27:42 AM
"Incidentally which branch of the armed forces are you currently serving with?"

We had no combat deaths for over 18 months. Their military was shouldering most of the load and they just needed logistics and support, maintenance for equipment and supplies. We left them high and dry. Just finished watching Homeland and the Pakistani ISI lady called it. She said the Americans would just up and leave, pull another Saigon, and then Pakistan would be left with the Taliban as their next door neighbors which is why they were two-faced in helping us, because they knew we would never stay the course. Twenty years wasn't enough? Well apparently seventy years isn't enough either. Not in Germany and Japan and South Korea. And Trump's deal? Trump never had a deal for the Taliban to take over the country. As soon as the Taliban started taking cities any deal there was should have been off. Unless that was Biden's deal.

Not to get too far off on a tangent though. I do understand that American Democrats are serious about abortion rights, about killing unwanted American fetuses in the womb. I get that. Never doubted it. Just looking at the big picture though, it's still hard to take them seriously when it comes to women's rights. I'm just not seeing it. When they had a chance to secure them for millions of women, not even to win them but just to keep them from being lost, they all said to hell with it and to hell with those women and girls. It's a real stain on the entire Democrat Party and on the whole of America. Nobody can take Democrats seriously and nobody can take America seriously either, not when we left thousands of the Afghans who did to the tender mercies of the Taliban who hunted them down, dragged them out into the street, and executed them for the crime of trusting America and helping us. Only fools will ever make that mistake again, either here or abroad.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Fenring on May 09, 2022, 08:47:04 AM
Not to get too far off on a tangent though. I do understand that American Democrats are serious about abortion rights, about killing unwanted American fetuses in the womb. I get that. Never doubted it. Just looking at the big picture though, it's still hard to take them seriously when it comes to women's rights.

If you really want to look at the big picture over the last 50 years then neither party cares about women's rights outside of the U.S.

I won't even bother going into details, but propping up dictators or knocking out anti-U.S. secular governments is obviously bad for women (and others) in those countries, but it's especially bad for women when it's extremist governments being propped up. Even now fighting Russia may mean turning to the Saudis...what do you think about that?
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: cherrypoptart on May 09, 2022, 09:55:00 AM
I've never been one to say that we have to go to war everywhere to fight for women's rights. Obviously that's going to make things a lot worse for everyone, including the women there. Go to war in Saudi Arabia to fight for women's right to abortion there? Counterproductive.

But we had already won in Afghanistan. We didn't fight for women's rights of course. That was nowhere on the agenda. But we had them won already anyway with no need to give them up.

In a way, the Supreme Court decision, if it's legit, makes my point.

America cannot be counted on for consistency. Not by anyone. Not by the people in Afghanistan and not by the women in America if they are for abortion. It's just not in the nature of our system of government. And most of the time that's fine, a little unpredictability makes life interesting and sometimes better. But every now and then it's a complete and total disaster.

Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: yossarian22c on May 09, 2022, 10:03:25 AM
I've never been one to say that we have to go to war everywhere to fight for women's rights. Obviously that's going to make things a lot worse for everyone, including the women there. Go to war in Saudi Arabia to fight for women's right to abortion there? Counterproductive.

But we had already won in Afghanistan. We didn't fight for women's rights of course. That was nowhere on the agenda. But we had them won already anyway with no need to give them up.
...

We hadn't won in Afghanistan. The fighting was ongoing. Progress was being made, maybe we needed another 20 years. But corruption and tribalism prevented any real idea of national unity. In the end Afghans weren't willing to fight without Americans standing beside and behind them. That speaks to our 20 year failure there. A lot of things we could have done differently. But at the end of the day it is what it is. We should have been training women to fight in the Afghan army. Maybe they wouldn't have abandoned their posts the second we weren't there to back them up because they had something real to fight for. This is a bipartisan American failure. To claim Trump would have done better is an iffy preposition at best. He announced multiple times he was leaving, he negotiated leaving, to claim he would have reversed course last minute when things were going bad, maybe, but doesn't seem likely.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: yossarian22c on May 09, 2022, 10:05:14 AM
Probably shouldn't have even engaged on that front. Just another right wing talking point to distract from how unpopular their abortion policies are overall. The leak, Afghanistan, just ignore us outlawing abortions in every state we can.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: msquared on May 09, 2022, 01:02:20 PM
Well if you are thinking about getting any type of medical treatment, make sure your phone is off and the SIM card is removed.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/law-enforcement-may-fully-unleash-200836026.html
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Seriati on May 09, 2022, 08:48:55 PM
This is an extraordinarily long thread on a SC case for such limited discussion of the merits of the actual case.  Roe was always poorly reasoned, and that's never been a secret.  It's always been a pure judicial power play to usurp the democratic process for deciding whether any restrictions at all can be placed on abortions.  It's never been just about the right to an abortion, but always has also been about the entire made up framework that was opposed by fiat by the decision of the SC.  It was judicial authoritarianism at it's peak, and that's why it's settled virtually nothing over the years.  This opinion does correctly recognize that the SC never had the legal authority to declare that abortions could not be controlled by the people if they so chose.

The SC has no moral authority to dictate to a country whether or not it can make laws where the Constitution is silent.

The reality is that most states will not ban abortions out right, but many will restrict them in ways that overwhleming majorities of their own populations support.  I saw an article on how this is handled in Europe and many of them developed laws on the topic that look like what will probably end up applying here in the US (surprisingly to me, most European countries are actually a bit more restrictive timing-wise than the law that the SC was reviewing), but that allow abortions but also place restrictions on when and how they can occur.  There's always been a majority of the country that favors access to abortion, with limitations on abortions.  The SC's interference has previously prevented that situation from occurring.  I'm hard pressed to understand why laws reached that a majority would support on this issue are "clearly" wrong in a country with our system of government, and protecting Roe from being overturned has compromised legal principals over and over again impacting other rights.

It's also bizarre that so many are taking the position that states are automatically going to go to the extremes on this.  First, it would have to be what the majority of their populace actually wants to stick.  But second, it's not like we don't already rely on the states to make critical life and death decisions on what are laws are.  How for example, self defense operates, or when a killing is a murder, or when an assault becomes a felony, are all already in control of the states.  Third, it won't last.  Most of the hard line politicians on both sides were elected against a back drop where they couldn't achieve their goals.  Now that goals can be achieved, I suspect voters will place a premium on people with the reasonable positions that the voters hold themselves.  Honestly, I didn't care before, but I'll be looking at this going forward because it could matter.

And its beyond stunning that any cares what progressives think on this.  They have ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM electing prosecutors to act as mini-dictators and completely ignore the laws of a community, but have a problem with the SC undoing its own theft of authority.  So it's okay for a single person to overrule democracy, but not for the SC to put something back into the hands of democracy?  What  exactly, other than pure political power, is the guiding principal here?

While I get the appeal of claiming that Roe threatens other rights, it's active disinformation to claim that the opinion provides that basis.  First, it expressly disclaims that it means those other rights are in danger.  It literally distinguishes abortion from those rights.  Second, most of them actually rest on (and have always rested on) much stronger legal grounds.  For example, you won't find a right to marriage in the Constitution either, but you will find any number of promises of equality under the law, which means if a state establishes ANY right to marriage it has to do so in a manner consistent with that Constitutional promise.  Virtually none of the list of "in danger" rights actually involve a balancing of conflicting rights that could even plausibly be analogous to Roe.

I don't love the Court digging into this now, and quite probably saving the worst President in history or his party, which gives them even more time to damage our country.  But Roe was never a good decision and it should not have stood this long.  It may also be the case that this court will rule on some of the more extreme laws that are imposed by some states.  There are still other basis to do so, even if they aren't implicated by a proposed 15 week ban.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: wmLambert on May 11, 2022, 06:58:30 PM
Totally agree with Seriati on this. Moreover; the Constitution wants States to decide mob-rule stuff. Let the States be a laboratory to prove what works or doesn't. Allowing the Fed to force laws on us that are dictatorial is not fair. A Republic allows the individual to be sovereign - not the Government. Our Founders did not want a Democracy for this very reason.

As Greg Guttfeld said, The Pro-Life argument is too simple for Abortion-Rights apologists to debunk. Life trumps murder. There is no Woman's right over her own body that lets her murder someone else. Adoption also trumps any inconvenience arguments.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Wayward Son on May 12, 2022, 11:23:44 AM
Funny how you mention the best argument for allowing abortions, and then completely forget about it.  ;D

Here's a question for y'all:  why can't someone force you to give blood to save someone who need it?

And why can't someone or the State force you to risk your life to save someone life?  ;)
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: yossarian22c on May 12, 2022, 11:48:44 AM
...

As Greg Guttfeld said, The Pro-Life argument is too simple for Abortion-Rights apologists to debunk. Life trumps murder. There is no Woman's right over her own body that lets her murder someone else. Adoption also trumps any inconvenience arguments.

By that logic sex leads to so much death that it should probably be outlawed. I mean somewhere between 1/4 and 1/2 of fertilized eggs never implant or lead to successful pregnancies. How can we allow an activity that we know will lead to killing 1/2 of the time???!!!!!!!
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Wayward Son on May 13, 2022, 05:54:29 PM
Axios has a good article tracking abortion bans (https://www.axios.com/2022/04/16/abortion-ban-red-states-tracking-roe-supreme-court) in various states: those that have been enacted, those that were passed but are currently blocked, and those in the legislative process.  So we all know what we are talking about. :)
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: TheDrake on May 13, 2022, 06:16:32 PM
So about the right to privacy that Roe v Wade was based on, and rejected by the strict constructionists, here's the bathwater that would go out with the "babies". Other rulings that said the government should stay out of the private matters of citizens.

Viewing pornography in the home
Sodomy laws
Forcing all children to attend public school
Housing ordinances that prohibit family members from living together
A law that prohibited the sale of contraceptives to married couples
A law prohibiting a patient from terminating life extending treatments

Have fun putting the genie back in the bottle when the supreme court rules that there is no reason why someone's gun ownership should be a private matter.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Fenring on May 13, 2022, 08:22:46 PM
So about the right to privacy that Roe v Wade was based on, and rejected by the strict constructionists, here's the bathwater that would go out with the "babies". Other rulings that said the government should stay out of the private matters of citizens.

Viewing pornography in the home
Sodomy laws
Forcing all children to attend public school
Housing ordinances that prohibit family members from living together
A law that prohibited the sale of contraceptives to married couples
A law prohibiting a patient from terminating life extending treatments

Ok so if you think these are all "like" allowing governments to rule on whether something is murder or not, I think your analogy is...um...not good. The closest any of these comes is euthanasia and/or pulling the plug, since at least that's on the topic of whether or not someone is being unlawfully killed. These other things don't have anything to do with it. Kids going to school is a matter of civil choices. Now maybe there are other rights involved; like the right of a parent to raise their child without state indoctrination in the public school system. That's a worthy debate but a separate one and it has nothing to do with how life or murder are defined. If you're going to go down that road you may as well say that if we're not careful will start mandating all kinds of things! Oh wait, never mind. And even contraceptives - not even religious people think using that is murder. They may think it's a sin, but for completely different reasons that have nothing to do with criminal law. I would like to parenthetically mention that at present it's quite contradictory for a left-wing argument to involve the premise that the government should stay out of people's private affairs. That is not at all a plausible argument in this day and age given all the simultaneous calls for government to control things ranging from what people say (online or in person) to how they must do things like hiring.

If the argument was coming from an absolute libertarian I would understand perfectly where that perspective is coming from. But coming from the left-wing faction it's plainly clear that the objection has nothing whatever to do with government controlling things they shouldn't, and everything to do with sex culture. Find out what people gain and you'll typically find the motive. If you did a sociological study controlling for sexual mores I'll bet you'll find the dividing line strongly correlated. That said I've known very lefty people who are anti-abortion on a personal level, but I don't think I know of one offhand who thinks the law should reflect that. So the most I've ever gotten is "I would never have one" on the sex-culture side of it. Although there might be some anti-abortion folks in the hippy/granola faction, I'm not sure about that.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: TheDrake on May 14, 2022, 01:11:18 AM
But the "compelling interest" test only a limitation on trying to extend a right of privacy. I'm not calling them equivalent, I'm saying that if the argument is that the court MUST not extrapolate from the existing document - an argument that has been made here - then unless it is enumerated in the document, it is fair game.

Conservatives aren't making the compelling interest argument, from what I've seen. They don't say, "in this case we are talking about murder, which is a compelling state interest".
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Fenring on May 14, 2022, 02:04:08 AM
Conservatives aren't making the compelling interest argument, from what I've seen. They don't say, "in this case we are talking about murder, which is a compelling state interest".

I couldn't tell you what conservative lawyers would argue, so I'd bow out of disputing this point. All I was saying is that the argument in the abstract that if the government is allowed to track or regulate abortions then it can regulate anything seems to be spurious. Although I suppose I should mention that it's funny adding home-viewing pornography to your list since that is essentially already regulated in a light-handed manner. They definitely do track porn consumption for certain red flags, which means they do inspect the contents being downloaded even though they perhaps don't concern themselves with material that doesn't raise red flags. But they are monitoring it and policing it for sure.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: TheDrake on May 14, 2022, 09:32:32 AM
Conservatives aren't making the compelling interest argument, from what I've seen. They don't say, "in this case we are talking about murder, which is a compelling state interest".

I couldn't tell you what conservative lawyers would argue, so I'd bow out of disputing this point. All I was saying is that the argument in the abstract that if the government is allowed to track or regulate abortions then it can regulate anything seems to be spurious. Although I suppose I should mention that it's funny adding home-viewing pornography to your list since that is essentially already regulated in a light-handed manner. They definitely do track porn consumption for certain red flags, which means they do inspect the contents being downloaded even though they perhaps don't concern themselves with material that doesn't raise red flags. But they are monitoring it and policing it for sure.

You are correct. And when it comes to child pornography, the state interest is considered to have become compelling. My point is only that the courts can no longer stop government intrusion if you have no right to privacy.

Here's one article (https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/445975-what-do-you-mean-theres-no-right-to-privacy-in-america/) on the subject.

Quote
Conservative legal heroes such as Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas hate this. Each has explicitly argued that the right to privacy is not a constitutional right because the Founders did not did not explicitly say there’s one. In 2007, Justice Thomas wrote that there is “no general right to privacy” or relevant liberty in the U.S. Constitution. Justice Scalia, in the same Lawrence v. Texas case, spoke disparagingly of the “so-called ‘right to privacy.’”

This line of reasoning has enormous consequences for Americans that go well beyond the abortion debate. For example, the Supreme Court has used the right to privacy to prevent government from deciding what we read or watch in our own homes (Stanley v. Georgia, 1969), to overturn a local housing ordinance that said grandmothers could not live with their grandchildren (Moore v. East Cleveland, 1977), to allow patients to refuse medical treatment for themselves (Cruzan v. Missouri Department of Health, 1977), and to protect gays from being arrested for being gay (Lawrence vs. Texas, 2007). The court even referred to the right to privacy when legalizing gay marriage nationwide (Obergefell vs. Hodges, 2015).

Alito in the leaked draft appears to be trying to build a wall around abortion and say that there is a right to privacy and that it can't apply in the case of another life being involved. But the argument made by some on this board is that if it isn't spelled out in the Constitution, then its crap.


Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: cherrypoptart on May 14, 2022, 12:49:03 PM
There's always an easy way to fix this. We can just amend the Constitution to protect the right to privacy. Why don't some Democrats propose it? Sure, they'll need Republican support but if the idea is good enough to get the backing of enough Americans to warrant its inclusion in the Constitution, then they'll get it. If the new Right to Privacy Amendment doesn't have enough support from the public that they tell their duly elected representatives it's want they want, then maybe it doesn't deserve Constitutional protection. Throw up options that either include or disallow various aspects of privacy like abortion. Debate and compromise. Maybe abortion doesn't make the cut but we can save some of the other stuff, or maybe after public debate abortion does make the cut though that appears very unlikely. At least we'll see exactly where we stand right now politically instead of willfully twisting the Constitution to say things nobody who wrote it or supported the Amendments they applied to it ever intended or would agree to. If we want these things to be rights now, we can do it ourselves the way our system of government demands.

I think I'd be on board with it especially if it included rights to digital and online privacy in the same direction the Europeans are going. Get rid of all the information brokers that sell everything they know about you to have it immediately posted on the internet every time you buy something online, apply for a job, or open an account anywhere. Then throw in home phone line privacy against spam calls including from charities and you've got a deal.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: yossarian22c on May 14, 2022, 01:15:48 PM
Wonder how conservatives will react when gun rights don’t apply to self defense anymore and start allowing states to require gun owners to register for state and local militias.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: NobleHunter on May 14, 2022, 01:26:34 PM
I know it always fills me with warm and fuzzy feelings when my rights get put up for debate and I have to seek consensus with people who be just as happy if I were dead. That's my favourite feature of a functioning democracy.

If only the founders had foreseen people would take the Bill of Rights as an exclusive list.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: msquared on May 16, 2022, 08:17:11 PM
A comment from my SIL that she posted on FaceBook.

I believe Pete Buttigieg has the right idea, and here’s why…
Back in the early 90s, Kevin and I lost our first child together. I was in my 6th month of pregnancy. Our child, a little boy, had developed a fetal anomaly in the womb and, by the time this was discovered, he had no chance of survival. I chose to have a third trimester induced delivery, which is technically a third trimester abortion.
We had named him Ian. We had planned for him and we loved him fiercely. The doctors told me I could continue to carry him, that my body would eventually reject the fetus and my labor would start, probably in a month or two.
That would mean two months of walking around with an obviously pregnant belly, of having friends and even strangers innocently ask when I was due, if it was a boy or girl or if I’d felt a kick yet. Two months of a waking nightmare. If I continued the pregnancy, I also ran a high risk of developing complications, some of which could affect my ability to conceive another child, or could even threaten my life. Because of this, I chose to to terminate my pregnancy. A year later, I went on to carry another healthy child, who I am thankful for every day.
Deciding to end this pregnancy was one of the most difficult decisions I had ever faced. It was incredibly personal and very private. Today, I still believe we made the right decision, and I am thankful every day that I had the option to make it.

I remember when this happened. It was devastating to all concerned. But to be forced to go through with it would have been worse.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Fenring on May 16, 2022, 08:45:51 PM
I remember when this happened. It was devastating to all concerned. But to be forced to go through with it would have been worse.

I don't know the details of your anecdote beyond what you said, but I believe the vast majority of pro-lifers would absolutely allow a medical procedure designed to prevent harm to a woman, whose side effect happens to be an abortive result. In this case the side effect is in fact the way to protect the mother, but there are other cases (e.g. cancer treatment) where the procedure in question may be fatal to the fetus but where an abortion isn't the purpose of the procedure. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that certain fundamentalists might be even against this, but offhand I don't know which group(s) would actually hold that position. Do you? Or put a different way, who are you actually arguing against here?
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: TheDeamon on May 16, 2022, 09:41:24 PM
Show me the word abortion or the word privacy in the Constitution, anywhere. It's not there. Control over abortion is clearly not a power delegated to the federal government and clearly not a power prohibited to the States so according to our system of government, the one the left claims to support but really only does so as it's convenient, abortion is an issue that is reserved to the States and the people to decide.

This Supreme Court is just setting right the ridiculously absurd political ruling made by its predecessors.

Quote
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things .
Fourth Amendment can be somewhat interpreted in the direction of creating a "right to privacy"
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: TheDeamon on May 16, 2022, 10:38:32 PM
In the long long run I suspect a repeal of roe will work against those 'pro choice' as the die has been cast.
Sex has over the years become more and more detached from the notion of relationship, commitment... and within that context procreation.  I don't see that rolling back. If it be at a state level or federal one.

The youth will not allow Sex to be uses as a tool to control them (as the church as used it) Once the baby boomers are gone this attitude to 'Freedom' will prevail, time is on thier side. I don't see anything stopping it except maybe force.  And then everyone loses.

Yes... But also no. Repeal of Roe as it stands will work against the "Right to Life" crowd because of how extreme many of the "circuit breaker laws" are on restricting abortion and contraceptive access.

A large portion of Gen X, and a much larger share of the Xenials, Millenials, and Zoomers are going to find that unacceptable enough that they will act to roll the more extreme laws back without regard to party affiliation in many cases. And the problem with that is we're basically dealing with a pendulum at that point. The counter swing will be a massive setback for the Right to Life crowd, although it'll likely "correct" and move more to the center in the years that follow.

It'll be interesting to see how the fallout settles on this one, as an overturn is likely to take some of the wind out of the sails of the Republicans while it gives the Democrats a boost as a great many Republicans will be afraid to speak against what members of their own party did.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: TheDeamon on May 16, 2022, 11:43:14 PM
So about the right to privacy that Roe v Wade was based on, and rejected by the strict constructionists, here's the bathwater that would go out with the "babies". Other rulings that said the government should stay out of the private matters of citizens.

Viewing pornography in the home
1st Amendment and 4th Amendment. Freedom of Speech and Press (which has been expanded to include media) and protections against unreasonable search and seizure come into play. There also is the 1st Amendments proscription against establishment of a religion. In order to make it not be struck down on religious grounds, they'll need to demonstrate both the "public interest" and "public harm" in John looking at naked women on the Internet in the privacy of his own home.

Good luck building a case that'll stand up to serious scrutiny.

Quote
Sodomy laws

Again, they'll have to establish what "the public interest" in the matter is, and what "public harm" is happening as a consequence of sodomy taking place. In addition to the 4th Amendment proscription against unreasonable search and seizure once again... Exactly how are they aware of sodomy happening in the first place?

Quote
Forcing all children to attend public school

Hahahahahahaha

Quote
Housing ordinances that prohibit family members from living together
A law that prohibited the sale of contraceptives to married couples
A law prohibiting a patient from terminating life extending treatments

Have fun putting the genie back in the bottle when the supreme court rules that there is no reason why someone's gun ownership should be a private matter.

Those get to be a bit more interesting, but generally speaking, those rulings aren't very contested at present.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: msquared on May 17, 2022, 07:31:48 AM
Fenring,

What about all of the laws waiting to go into effect that have no allowance for situations my SIL went through? they are saying no abortions ever for any reason.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Fenring on May 17, 2022, 09:48:43 AM
Fenring,

What about all of the laws waiting to go into effect that have no allowance for situations my SIL went through? they are saying no abortions ever for any reason.

Two things about that. 1) De Tocqueville suggests that laws always follow after social values, but in the medium-long term. In the short term a law could be passed that doesn't really reflect public sentiment and in theory this usually corrects sooner or later. That's not really a comfort in the here and now, but in principle lawmakers that try to pass laws that are out of touch should (in theory) be subject to criticism by their constituents. If democracy itself is at a point where it's not functioning properly then this system might well break down, in which case abortion is far from the only problem. 2) The way law works in the U.S. is that one can't tell whether a legislative move is 'legal' until it's made into law, and subsequently challenged in a court. That's an annoying procedure to have to go through, in a way, but it seems to be the way the system works. Afaik (and maybe a lawyer here could add to this) courts don't pre-emptively go after laws they think are bad, but rather have to wait until someone with standing brings a suit to challenge the law. In the case of life-saving procedures that happen to terminate a pregnancy the unfortunate thing is that they will need a speedy decision but I don't know if that would translate into a (very) speedy court case. So I believe a law being passed is not a done deal, as there is still room to sue.

All this to say, I think it's stupid to prevent life-saving procedures, and if one lives in a state where they pass insane laws it's probably time to move? There's obviously a different between a reasonable pro-life law and a stupid one. Even a legislative move that has wide popular support (let's say, preventing murders) can be enacted in bad faith or stupidly, with no eye to reality. Now on its face I don't think it's a good argument that Roe needs to be maintained because otherwise legislators will all turn into Skeletor and institute bad faith laws that don't even stand in agreement with a typical pro-life person. If there are actually such legislators I guess I'm sorry to hear it.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: NobleHunter on May 17, 2022, 10:03:02 AM
Generally speaking, I had thought Americans preferred to assume that legislators will turn into Skeletor and institute bad faith laws. The idea that the government will abuse any power granted to it seems baked into the Constitution.

Though in this case it's not so much turn into Skeletor but that declare victory and start monologuing. If one is going to comment on how state governments are going to react to the end of Roe, maybe one should pay more attention to what the states have been doing.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Fenring on May 17, 2022, 10:30:01 AM
Generally speaking, I had thought Americans preferred to assume that legislators will turn into Skeletor and institute bad faith laws.

I guess it depends on what level of government. I think the older idea was that the more local the government, and the more local people were participating in it, the less this would be the case. Whereas the Federal government, by contrast, is so far removed from ordinary life that few people can say they influence it directly. I personally tend to think that tyranny in the American sense will typically come from a bureaucratic structure, rather than an individual bad actor. So IMO conflicts of interest and structural corruption are a more significant danger than a particular legislator bringing bad bills to vote.

Quote
The idea that the government will abuse any power granted to it seems baked into the Constitution.

Isn't this more of an executive concern than a legislative one? Although I would agree at the municipal level that cities pass all sorts of crazy laws at the drop of a hat.

Quote
Though in this case it's not so much turn into Skeletor but that declare victory and start monologuing. If one is going to comment on how state governments are going to react to the end of Roe, maybe one should pay more attention to what the states have been doing.

Well I guess we'll have to see. It's unfortunate that if you are right it would mean that well-intentioned pro-life people don't really have people representing their best interests in government. Yes, they'd get their ban on abortion, but not in the way most of them would want if they were asked about situational decision-making. And I'd be the first to agree that if the system is broken (i.e. the 'representatives' only represent themselves, not the voters) then all sorts of mayhem could ensue. But again, the purpose of a SCOTUS decision should not be to prevent bad-faith actors passing bad laws. Their job is to interpret what the current laws say.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Wayward Son on May 17, 2022, 11:54:33 AM
From what I understand, the Constitution forbids the government from forcing a person to give or provide use of any of the person's bodily organ, even if to save the life of another person.  You can't force someone to give blood; you can't force them to provide a kidney; you can't force them to provide a bone marrow transplant.  This article talks about it. (https://medium.com/inside-of-elle-beau/body-autonomy-is-protected-by-the-constitution-ede4fb256ebb)

So by the same reasoning, the government can't force a woman to use her uterus to provide sustenance for a fetus, even if that would result in the death of the fetus.  The government cannot take control of a person's organs.  Otherwise, the government would also have the right to your kidneys, your bone marrow, your lungs, and other body parts that you would not require to survive, even if it might subject you to more danger of dying than if not, in order to preserve the life of another person.  Is anyone really OK with that? ;)
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Mynnion on May 17, 2022, 12:03:45 PM
Take it a step further. To force someone to provide blood or organs you would also have to force them to be tested and force those testing to share that information (bye bye HIPAA).
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Fenring on May 17, 2022, 12:13:46 PM
So by the same reasoning, the government can't force a woman to use her uterus to provide sustenance for a fetus, even if that would result in the death of the fetus.  The government cannot take control of a person's organs.  Otherwise, the government would also have the right to your kidneys, your bone marrow, your lungs, and other body parts that you would not require to survive, even if it might subject you to more danger of dying than if not, in order to preserve the life of another person.  Is anyone really OK with that? ;)

Just to be clear, are you strictly talking about the legal side of it, or are you addressing the moral issue about how to evaluate the fetus/mother relationship? These are not necessarily the same, nor would one's conclusions necessarily be the same on both.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Wayward Son on May 17, 2022, 01:53:56 PM
So by the same reasoning, the government can't force a woman to use her uterus to provide sustenance for a fetus, even if that would result in the death of the fetus.  The government cannot take control of a person's organs.  Otherwise, the government would also have the right to your kidneys, your bone marrow, your lungs, and other body parts that you would not require to survive, even if it might subject you to more danger of dying than if not, in order to preserve the life of another person.  Is anyone really OK with that? ;)

Just to be clear, are you strictly talking about the legal side of it, or are you addressing the moral issue about how to evaluate the fetus/mother relationship? These are not necessarily the same, nor would one's conclusions necessarily be the same on both.
There certainly is a special relationship between a mother and the fetus.  However, that is mainly dependent on the mother's view, isn't it?  ;) 

So I would limit this discussion to the legal side, since the moral side is wide and would necessarily have to encompass a wide variety of views, and would have to address how to deal with such a wide variety--a whole can of worms in and of itself.  ::)

Besides, morality is usually not in the Supreme Court's purview. :)
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Fenring on May 17, 2022, 02:38:36 PM
So I would limit this discussion to the legal side, since the moral side is wide and would necessarily have to encompass a wide variety of views, and would have to address how to deal with such a wide variety--a whole can of worms in and of itself.  ::)

Then my view, although I'm not a lawyer and don't have a legal opinion, is that the abortion issue has really never been tackled. The U.S. has avoided it thus far, sort of kicking the can down the road, and Canada likewise has no law defining whether the fetus, at any stage of development, may have any rights. It seems that Canada's unofficial view is that is has none, but this is not strictly speaking a legal precedent. In the U.S., where the social view that the fetus is a person has far more popular support, I think we would be entering a totally new field of legal inquiry to try to figure out how to protect legal rights of people not yet born. If that debate ever happens in a court of law I couldn't guess what its resolution would be. That there's a potential conflict of rights involves is pretty obvious. How it would play out is really beyond me to guess. As you and others have intimated, it ought to be a complicated matter to work out, and not as simplistic as some lawmakes would like to pretend it is.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: yossarian22c on May 19, 2022, 04:37:29 PM
https://www.npr.org/2022/05/19/1100173223/oklahoma-legislature-passes-bill-banning-nearly-all-abortions (https://www.npr.org/2022/05/19/1100173223/oklahoma-legislature-passes-bill-banning-nearly-all-abortions)

Quote
Oklahoma's legislature passed a bill Thursday that prohibits nearly all abortions beginning at fertilization.

The legislation builds on an Oklahoma bill passed earlier this month, which prohibits abortion after about six weeks of pregnancy — echoing a similar move in Texas.

At fertilization. Outlawing plan B and potentially some IUDs (they prevent implantation but some also prevent fertilization, definitely a legal gray area with that law). It didn't even take Oklahoma until Roe was officially dead to go all the way to fertilization. And you guys said we're all crazy for thinking that's where the right was headed.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: msquared on May 19, 2022, 04:42:35 PM
But the Courts will fix it.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Wayward Son on May 19, 2022, 04:51:16 PM
I thought we were in this fix because the Court fixed it?  ???  ;)
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Wayward Son on May 23, 2022, 04:58:43 PM
Interesting article on the abortion divide from FiveThirtyEight. (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-real-dividing-line-on-abortion/)

Basically, it argues that abortion is not really a men vs. women issue, but a traditional gender roles vs. no gender roles issue, specifically which gender has and/or should have the most power.

We could do a little survey here, too.  Answer the following yes-or-no, non-abortion related questions:

1. Women generally are too easily offended.
2. Men generally make better political leaders than women.
3. The country would be better off if we had more women in political office.
4. Access to birth control affects women's equality.
5. Lack of women in political office affects women's equality.
6. The MeToo movement was, in the balance, a good thing.
7. Systems in society give men more opportunities than women.

Pro-choice people will tend to have a distinctive set of opinions on these questions than anti-abortion people.

The one thing about the article is that it didn't address the tribalism in today's politics.  Being an anti-abortionist tends to drive a person toward the Republicans, just as being pro-choicer tends to drive a person toward the Democrats.  And joining either side pressures a person into embracing the party's other political beliefs.  I'm not sure if these gender attitudes are the cause of abortion divide or the result of it. :(

Still, an interesting perspective on the debate.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Fenring on May 23, 2022, 05:11:27 PM
Basically, it argues that abortion is not really a men vs. women issue, but a traditional gender roles vs. no gender roles issue, specifically which gender has and/or should have the most power.

Sounds to me like a typical position borne of the CRT training program: break down any disagreement into an innate power struggle and define the problem as merely being a disparity in power. So no, I don't think the way people think about gender has the slightest bit of relevance for almost anyone on either side of the abortion debate. It certainly has zero relevance to pro-lifers, and for pro-choicers, while many are obviously in the gender studies camp, their rationale are not based on their definition of gender. The gender issue came far after the abortion issue was already formed into its current divide. Once again this is CRT having no knowledge of history.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: TheDrake on May 23, 2022, 05:20:35 PM
Is is possible that two bad arguments can just cancel each other out?

Whether or not there is a correlation of the many views suggested, does not suggest that the argument against abortion rests on those views. And meanwhile that is not what CRT is about, and how it found its way into a gender discussion is boggling.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Wayward Son on May 23, 2022, 05:45:16 PM
Basically, it argues that abortion is not really a men vs. women issue, but a traditional gender roles vs. no gender roles issue, specifically which gender has and/or should have the most power.

Sounds to me like a typical position borne of the CRT training program: break down any disagreement into an innate power struggle and define the problem as merely being a disparity in power. So no, I don't think the way people think about gender has the slightest bit of relevance for almost anyone on either side of the abortion debate. It certainly has zero relevance to pro-lifers, and for pro-choicers, while many are obviously in the gender studies camp, their rationale are not based on their definition of gender. The gender issue came far after the abortion issue was already formed into its current divide. Once again this is CRT having no knowledge of history.

While correlation does not prove causation, you can't just brush off the correlation as being simply "CRT" (whatever that means). 

If how people think about gender and power has nothing to do with abortion beliefs, why is there such a strong correlation?  A single question could be a coincidence, but a whole series of related questions?  The odds say there must be some sort of link.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: TheDrake on May 23, 2022, 06:22:23 PM
Some people might be indoctrinated. But that still doesn't suggest why that group thinks that something is immoral, nor does it adjust for the correlation showing all other things equal. You'll probably also find that people who are anti-abortion think taxes are too high and that immigration is an invasion.

Meanwhile your examples aren't even correlated. Only 21% of the population say men make better leaders.

Anti-abortion advocates believe one relevant thing: An embryo is no different from a toddler in terms of its right to life.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Fenring on May 23, 2022, 06:58:56 PM
While correlation does not prove causation, you can't just brush off the correlation as being simply "CRT" (whatever that means). 

If how people think about gender and power has nothing to do with abortion beliefs, why is there such a strong correlation?  A single question could be a coincidence, but a whole series of related questions?  The odds say there must be some sort of link.

LOL, have you seen any of the websites showing "correlation" between ludicrous and unrelated things? I don't have a link off the top of my head but you can easily find them. The point is that correlation in and of itself is meaningless in a zero-dimensional analysis. The connection between gender theory and abortion position is so trivially irrelevant that it's hilarious that you would even defend it without having had a strong demonstration of why there should be such a connection. In other words the only reason you're not treating this as an "invisible elephant" claim is because the gender theory thing sits within your camp and it would suit you for your opponents to be doubly wrong rather than just wrong. If the correlation instead happened to show that being pro-choice correlated with lack of being conscientious on the conscientious/un-conscientious big-5 scale you'd call it right wing propaganda. So what?
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Wayward Son on May 23, 2022, 10:18:49 PM
You're not thinking very deeply about this, Fenring.  This isn't just one correlation; it is about seven.

If I found a correlation between anti-abortionist and driving blue cars, I would agree, that is silly.  But what if I found correlation between driving blue cars, living in blue houses, and wearing blue clothing, and their favorite color being blue, and eating Blue Bunny ice cream, and having the Blue Boy painting in their houses, and staying at the Blue Bonnet Inn on vacations.  When similar correlations come up again and again and again, then the odds of it being just some random coincidence goes down significantly.

And I've already given two possible explanations.  One is my own, that anti-abortionists being drawn to the Republican party means that they have embraced other stances of the party.  Then there is their explanation, that the deep motive of those against abortion is that they want to cement the traditional roles of men and women, and being anti-abortion is simply one of the aspects of that.

Once again, this is not just one correlation.  This is a series of similar correlations.

As Goldfinger said, once is coincidence; twice is bad luck; three times is enemy action.  When you reach seven times, it is being stubborn to simply brush it off as simple coincidence. ;)
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: yossarian22c on May 24, 2022, 08:47:00 AM
You're not thinking very deeply about this, Fenring.  This isn't just one correlation; it is about seven.
...

But his counter argument still stands. Politics has become tribal. You could have picked any 7 statements Republicans are more likely to agree to than Democrats and found the same result. Using this strategy you could show a relationship between attitudes about; guns and abortion, taxes and abortion, Trump and abortion, the wall and abortion, etc.

So unless you think there is some causation there, let this one go. Its either half assed social science research or half assed statistics by the people at 538. Unless you can point to some causal link one way or the other its just showing that if you chose statements one political party is more likely to agree on than the other you can show correlation between that and any other political topic.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: cherrypoptart on May 24, 2022, 10:53:43 AM
The attempt at making a connection also misses the point of most of the people against recreational abortion. They believe that life begins at conception. Even the ones who are less against abortion the earlier it happens, the life there in the womb becomes more and more human as time goes on and by three months or so is human enough to have some rights.

So back to the connection between abortion and gender. Supposedly, if men were the ones to become pregnant, the argument is that the same people who believe that life begins at conception and becomes more and more deserving of human rights as a sentient being the older he or she gets, they wouldn't believe any of that if men became pregnant instead of women. That argument doesn't hold up well to scrutiny.

I know some vegans and understanding how precious they consider all animal life, there's nothing about gender in any of that. It's not so far fetched that so many humans, the ones against abortion, would feel at least as strongly about innocent human lives whether they are in the womb or not. And even vegans have been forced to admit the value of womb dwellers once they've achieved even higher levels of feeling and emotion compared to the other animals they care about. Nothing to do with gender in any of that.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: NobleHunter on May 24, 2022, 11:50:11 AM

Sounds to me like a typical position borne of the CRT training program: break down any disagreement into an innate power struggle and define the problem as merely being a disparity in power. So no, I don't think the way people think about gender has the slightest bit of relevance for almost anyone on either side of the abortion debate. It certainly has zero relevance to pro-lifers, and for pro-choicers, while many are obviously in the gender studies camp, their rationale are not based on their definition of gender. The gender issue came far after the abortion issue was already formed into its current divide. Once again this is CRT having no knowledge of history.

CRT has no knowledge of history? Yet you claim gender issues post-date abortion? I must be misreading you.

So back to the connection between abortion and gender. Supposedly, if men were the ones to become pregnant, the argument is that the same people who believe that life begins at conception and becomes more and more deserving of human rights as a sentient being the older he or she gets, they wouldn't believe any of that if men became pregnant instead of women. That argument doesn't hold up well to scrutiny.

You underestimate people's ability to adopt beliefs based on personal convenience. If the patriarchy still existed, there would absolutely be consensus that life begins in very late pregnancy at the earliest and possibly not until birth (which some people still believe). That pregnancy would interfere with men's ability to participate in the public sphere would be an acceptable justification for abortion because otherwise it would undermine the entire argument that the public sphere is the domain of men and women are properly constrained to the private sphere (which they may stronger influence but still don't dominate).

While it's nice to believe that people come to their convictions through reason or personal experience, they're more likely to adopt (or have imposed) convictions and then tailor their recollections and logic to fit. That beliefs about gender roles correlate to beliefs about abortion seems almost tautological. While the "pro-life" (you'll note the Right's famously pro-life judges just said the state can murder someone because correcting mistakes at trial or appeal would be too inconvenient) side insists it's just about human life, prioritizing the embryo or fetus--or even just the idea of the pregnancy--over the woman is going to lead to regressive views on gender.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: rightleft22 on May 24, 2022, 12:22:00 PM
Quote
You underestimate people's ability to adopt beliefs based on personal convenience
What! Never happens  :o ):
Actually did a spit take.

Quote
that the deep motive of those against abortion is that they want to cement the traditional roles of men and women, and being anti-abortion is simply one of the aspects of that
In the community I grew up in that is not a correlation but a fact.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Fenring on May 24, 2022, 01:31:04 PM
CRT has no knowledge of history? Yet you claim gender issues post-date abortion? I must be misreading you.

If by gender issues you mean the underlying realities (whatever they are) then obviously these go back to the Neanderthals and before. But I meant the public conceptualization of the alphabet soup gender spectrum, which absolutely did not exist in the 60's. And I'm being generous putting the timeframe in that era because realistically the conceptualization of abortion and its morally relevant features goes back way before the 1960's, and in fact was a serious issue of contention going back millennia. So yes, the idea that people's abortion beliefs are some sort of symptom of their beliefs about gender is patently preposterous. Many of the Christian beliefs about abortion go back right to the time of Christ, although obviously the medical detailing has improved. Life at conception vs life a few weeks later is an issue that was not as firm back then as it is now, for fairly obvious reasons, but the general principle of a fetus being a fully fledged human pre-birth is very, very old in Judeo-Christian thought. So yeah, CRT has zero conception of actual history.

Quote
You underestimate people's ability to adopt beliefs based on personal convenience. If the patriarchy still existed, there would absolutely be consensus that life begins in very late pregnancy at the earliest and possibly not until birth (which some people still believe). That pregnancy would interfere with men's ability to participate in the public sphere would be an acceptable justification for abortion because otherwise it would undermine the entire argument that the public sphere is the domain of men and women are properly constrained to the private sphere (which they may stronger influence but still don't dominate).

I know this wasn't directed at me, but...the times when the so-called patriarchy was at its strongest was the time most vehemently of the position that abortion was unacceptable. It's only been since the contraceptive revolution, women in the workforce, free love, and other such social/technological developments that there is strong pressure to consider a fetus a non-person. So if anything it was the anti-patriarchy movement taking the position you're indicating above. Note that the original anti-abortion position was taken by the early Christians, for instance, as a repudiation of various common practices which included abortion, exposing unwanted infants, and use of contraceptive potions. It was not a position taken from a position of power but rather one challenging the power elite in the attempt to defend the defenseless, among other theological motives. But the common thread of these motives was the maximum fostering and encouragement of life. Note that these positions can't really be divorced by other ways in which the early Christians differed from their pagan counterparts, for instance in not wanting to watch gladiators be eaten by lions. So back then the 'pro-life' position really meant that. Obviously once a minority position becomes the majority position in an eventual empire it's easy to think that these beliefs are designed to perpetuate some kind of oppressive anti-woman power structure, but again that's CRT-type thinking going all wrong. The actual beliefs predate all that, and the current moral positions on the topic are largely traceable back to those, obviously with more medical details being added. The fact that it's possible to take an old moral position and be a jerk is nothing new. Obviously some pro-life people are jerks and hypocrites, just as people in any camp can be. But the current pro-life position is not some brew concocted to bring back the good old days; it's a very old position.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: NobleHunter on May 24, 2022, 01:42:24 PM
If by gender issues you mean the underlying realities (whatever they are) then obviously these go back to the Neanderthals and before. But I meant the public conceptualization of the alphabet soup gender spectrum, which absolutely did not exist in the 60's. And I'm being generous putting the timeframe in that era because realistically the conceptualization of abortion and its morally relevant features goes back way before the 1960's, and in fact was a serious issue of contention going back millennia. So yes, the idea that people's abortion beliefs are some sort of symptom of their beliefs about gender is patently preposterous. Many of the Christian beliefs about abortion go back right to the time of Christ, although obviously the medical detailing has improved. Life at conception vs life a few weeks later is an issue that was not as firm back then as it is now, for fairly obvious reasons, but the general principle of a fetus being a fully fledged human pre-birth is very, very old in Judeo-Christian thought. So yeah, CRT has zero conception of actual history.

Quote
You underestimate people's ability to adopt beliefs based on personal convenience. If the patriarchy still existed, there would absolutely be consensus that life begins in very late pregnancy at the earliest and possibly not until birth (which some people still believe). That pregnancy would interfere with men's ability to participate in the public sphere would be an acceptable justification for abortion because otherwise it would undermine the entire argument that the public sphere is the domain of men and women are properly constrained to the private sphere (which they may stronger influence but still don't dominate).

I know this wasn't directed at me, but...the times when the so-called patriarchy was at its strongest was the time most vehemently of the position that abortion was unacceptable. It's only been since the contraceptive revolution, women in the workforce, free love, and other such social/technological developments that there is strong pressure to consider a fetus a non-person. So if anything it was the anti-patriarchy movement taking the position you're indicating above. Note that the original anti-abortion position was taken by the early Christians, for instance, as a repudiation of various common practices which included abortion, exposing unwanted infants, and use of contraceptive potions. It was not a position taken from a position of power but rather one challenging the power elite in the attempt to defend the defenseless, among other theological motives. But the common thread of these motives was the maximum fostering and encouragement of life. Note that these positions can't really be divorced by other ways in which the early Christians differed from their pagan counterparts, for instance in not wanting to watch gladiators be eaten by lions. So back then the 'pro-life' position really meant that. Obviously once a minority position becomes the majority position in an eventual empire it's easy to think that these beliefs are designed to perpetuate some kind of oppressive anti-woman power structure, but again that's CRT-type thinking going all wrong. The actual beliefs predate all that, and the current moral positions on the topic are largely traceable back to those, obviously with more medical details being added. The fact that it's possible to take an old moral position and be a jerk is nothing new. Obviously some pro-life people are jerks and hypocrites, just as people in any camp can be. But the current pro-life position is not some brew concocted to bring back the good old days; it's a very old position.

Fail. Who's books were the Nazis burning again?  What is the Jewish stance on abortion? Where did WS mention trans issues or "alphabet soup gender spectrum"? How long has Christianity been arguing about the role of women in church leadership? What was the evangelical position on abortion prior to Roe vs Wade? Why do you think you can blithely argue for continuity over two thousand years of religious, scientific and philosophical developments? Why did you miss the fact that I was talking about men being pregnant and thus discussing an obvious counterfactual? Why do you keep mentioning CRT which has SFA to do with gender?
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: rightleft22 on May 25, 2022, 11:10:56 AM
Quote
if men were the ones to become pregnant....That argument doesn't hold up well to scrutiny
I wonder if we will ever see any laws that require men/boys (family) who get a woman pregnant to be accountable for that new life..... not going to hold my breath
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Ouija Nightmare on May 25, 2022, 02:27:44 PM
Quote
if men were the ones to become pregnant....That argument doesn't hold up well to scrutiny
I wonder if we will ever see any laws that require men/boys (family) who get a woman pregnant to be accountable for that new life..... not going to hold my breath

And the girl/woman’s loss of earnings potential over her life. Let’s make sure they buy the whole cow. Personal responsibility and all that.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Fenring on May 25, 2022, 02:30:53 PM
Fail.

Sorry for the delay getting back to you, I've been sick...

I'll answer the following questions, but I'm not sure on what grounds you're disputing what I wrote above. I'm not an historian by trade by the facts I mentioned are not exactly contentious vis a vis the history of modern anti-abortion views.

Quote
Who's books were the Nazis burning again?

Actually I don't know, I've never studied the particulars of the titles they chose. According to Wiki they burned any views that would cause problems to Nazism, which I guess goes under duh. It says they burned things ranging from socialist/communist, to Jewish books, to pacifism books, and "sexology" books. It would appear, basically, anything not in line with their program. But I'm not sure why you're asking?

Quote
What is the Jewish stance on abortion?

From what I understand the strict religious position (which should not be confused with common secular Jewish opinions) is that it's not kosher, excepting certain cases such as danger to the mother and so forth. I don't know offhand what a Talmudic scholar would say about the moment "life begins," but seeing as Judaism does not have a centralized teaching authority like Catholicism does they may well be divergence on points like this.

Quote
Where did WS mention trans issues or "alphabet soup gender spectrum"?

He didn't, so there are some hidden premises I failed to mention to make that connection. Basically when an article now features talk about gender roles I have to assume it is in context of what "gender" is technically taken to mean in the modern context, which involves the alphabet soup designations both on the gender and sexuality front. But I will admit I threw that in and it probably distracted from my main point, which is that the social/political movement regarding traditional gender roles is itself at most decades old, whereas many of the contemporary views on abortion go back centuries or further. If you like you can disregard my remark about alphabet soup and understand my point in this way.

Quote
How long has Christianity been arguing about the role of women in church leadership?

Actually good question, if you're talking about clerical roles I have no idea when the first inklinks were of whether to have woman priests, or women rabbis for that matter. If you're talking about non-clerical roles (like church administrators and so forth) then I suspect this is more of a 'women in the workplace' issue than a strictly doctrinal religious issue. So my guess there would be post-WWII, but I'm definitely not studied on this.

Quote
What was the evangelical position on abortion prior to Roe vs Wade?

Seeing as how there are tons of different Christian sects it's really hard for me to address this. I'd have to be much better versed in the particularities of specifically U.S.-based evangelical groups. Like, even among current Seventh Day Adventist groups I can find sources saying abortion is wrong, but also sources saying it's sometimes done, and so on. It's messier and less centrally controlled than just 'yes' or 'no' since by definition Protestants protest a central authority. To go back to 1930 or something I'd have to find some old documents about it, which I guess would be a neat research project, but sorry to say I'm not up to it right now. I may delve into that one day, it would be interesting.


Quote
Why do you think you can blithely argue for continuity over two thousand years of religious, scientific and philosophical developments?

Well you would have to just go and read some of the church fathers to see what they say? You don't really have to take my word for it. That's for Catholicism. For Judaism it's harder because I have found it difficult to trace direct continuity between current Rabbinic Jewish views and, say, the Pharisees, or the Jewish groups that spread out after the second temple was destroyed. So I think modern Jewish ideas about abortion might be traceable, or at least be concordant with, some older Talmudic sources, but how far back that continuity goes I'm not certain. You do realize this is an enormous topic of study, right? It's not like *you* can just blithely assume that modern abortion ideas are obviously recent inventions when you have no idea about the history. I'm not the one making the positive assertion, I might remind you, that anti-abortion positions are probably self-serving positions of convenience to serve a gender-roles agenda. *That* is the positive assertion I'm arguing against.

Quote
Why did you miss the fact that I was talking about men being pregnant and thus discussing an obvious counterfactual? Why do you keep mentioning CRT which has SFA to do with gender?

I didn't address it precisely because it's a counterfactual that is only being introduced because it sounds like it demonstrates bad faith on the anti-abortion side. Its general tenor was to reinforce the idea that abortion stances are just a fig leaf for sexism, which is precisely why I brought up the early Christian period where there is just no honest way to claim those anti-abortion (and anti-infaniticide) positions were intended to be sexist. We're talking about a group that was uniformly persecuted, men and women alike, but those who very much wanted to keep these practices in society. It seriously undermines any attempt to show the anti-abortion position as such as being inherently designed to oppress women. The reason I keep bringing up CRT is because the mode of analysis which suggests that the issue of abortion can more or less be broken down into a gender roles power struggle is a fundamentally CRT-trained type of position. It's a short circuit approach to any topic where instead of studying actual history and learning details one can instead just handwave away that immense storehouse of detail and instead break it down into someone oppressing someone else. It's Marxist analysis translated into the social sphere. What I find hard to belive is why so many find it hard to see this for what it is.

I have no problem agree with the premise that many louses out there use a real argumentative position as a fig leaf to cover up their true sexist or domineering position. Everyone knows that happens. In a very corrupt society or institution it can happen a lot, or even a majority of the time. But that has no relation whatever to the actual validity of the positions these people hide behind. Murderers like Stalin hid behind "equality" and "the working man"; does that mean we should reject any arguments favoring equality and the working man?
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: NobleHunter on May 25, 2022, 03:13:06 PM
So you don't know what people thought but you were still positing that there were consistent and continuous beliefs on the subject for two thousand years. Perhaps you should limit yourself to claims where you are better informed.

The question on Judaism was aimed at the phrase "Judeo-Christian" which can easily be replace with "Christian but needs to sound more inclusive." Christian and Jewish thought/philosophy/theology diverged about two thousand years ago and can't really be meaningfully grouped together (also worth noting is that protecting the life of the mother is now a decidedly pro-choice position. I expect there will be a first amendment challenge on those grounds).

The role of women in the church is, in fact, discussed in the Bible, so it doesn't get any older.

The evangelical position on abortion prior to Roe vs Wade that it was mostly something the basically pagan Catholics worried about. Which speaks to the point of continuity, saying that Christian beliefs on the subject date back to the early church erases Christians (even by the narrowest definition) have held different beliefs on the subject over time and space. This isn't an ironclad and foundational tenet of the faith that the "pro-life" side would have you believe. Any more than transubstantiation is. Discontinuity is the null position because continuity requires effort and deliberate action. 

Further to continuity, there basically isn't any between the early Christians and the current pro-life movement. Contrary to the mythology, the pro-life movement did not organically arise in horror due to Roe vs Wade but from the need to find a new coalition after the defeat of segregation. If it had been organic, it would have been Catholic-centered as they have a much stronger history of anti-abortion activism. So you can't use the early church to argue for the purity of the current movement. Sure, it's possible to be anti-abortion without intending to oppress women but that's not the mainstream position of the pro-life movement. As demonstrated by WS's link.

Nor does early Christian concern about abortions necessarily map to an idea of "life begins at conception/implantation or even quickening." Pre-modern methods of abortion are basically drink poison or induce physical trauma and hope you miscarry before you die. It may also be difficult to parse out their position on abortion from their opposition to infanticide. Historical persons rarely cooperate in making their precise beliefs plain. Not to mention pro-choice advocates would be as horrified at forced abortions as forced births.

Lastly, pro-choice is 100% a question of gender roles in society. There is no pretense that it's about protecting women's autonomy over their own bodies and therefore their ability to participate in the public sphere. The two are inextricably linked. Which would be another reason why anti-abortion beliefs correlate with beliefs about "traditional" gender roles.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: TheDrake on May 25, 2022, 03:28:40 PM
The Southern Baptists didn't have a position on abortion on Roe v Wade. In 1910, all states outlawed abortion. So there wasn't much need to have a pro-life stance at that time.

Quote
Between 1967 and 1973, four states — Alaska, Hawaii, New York, and Washington — repealed their abortion bans entirely, while 13 others enacted reforms that expanded exceptions.

At the time of Roe v Wade, residents of most states didn't have thousands of unborn lives to save - well of course, they weren't being saved, they were being aborted anyway but let's table that.

In particular, southern states were not among the groundbreaking ones that had made any change. So naturally they weren't spending a lot of time pondering something that was pretty much how they'd like it to be. Most clearly, they also were not in favor of abortion reform.

As Fenring points out, there is no overarching "Protestant" body, so you'd have to look separately at everyone from Methodists to Seventh Day Adventists to try and form an opinion about their historical opinions on abortion - but where would that get you?
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Wayward Son on May 25, 2022, 04:00:00 PM
I think it would be more accurate to say that the Southern Baptists didn't have a single, consistent position on abortion. (https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133/)

Quote
In 1971, delegates to the Southern Baptist Convention in St. Louis, Missouri, passed a resolution encouraging “Southern Baptists to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother.” The convention, hardly a redoubt of liberal values, reaffirmed that position in 1974, one year after Roe, and again in 1976.

When the Roe decision was handed down, W. A. Criswell, the Southern Baptist Convention’s former president and pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas, Texas—also one of the most famous fundamentalists of the 20th century—was pleased: “I have always felt that it was only after a child was born and had a life separate from its mother that it became an individual person,” he said, “and it has always, therefore, seemed to me that what is best for the mother and for the future should be allowed.” ...

“Religious liberty, human equality and justice are advanced by the Supreme Court abortion decision,” wrote W. Barry Garrett of Baptist Press.

I challenge anyone to find a Southern Baptist leader that holds a similar view today.  ;)

If Southern Baptists once officially applauded Roe v Wade, I think it is safe to assume there has not been a consistent position on abortion by Protestants for the last 2000 years. :)
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: msquared on May 25, 2022, 04:10:30 PM
Especially since they have not been around for 2,000 years.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Fenring on May 25, 2022, 04:19:05 PM
So you don't know what people thought but you were still positing that there were consistent and continuous beliefs on the subject for two thousand years. Perhaps you should limit yourself to claims where you are better informed.

I think you are confusing my arguments. I said the positions can be traced back to then. I didn't say that all current groups espousing those positions can be traced back through history, nor that their motives for doing so are the same as those from 2,000 years ago. I am talking strictly about the argument and logic, not about the people. People have all sorts of reasons for saying what they say and believing what they believe, but many people through history have been against abortion, for many of the reasons argued 2,000 years ago. So the "pro-life position" is certainly not predicated on modern politics. But I also made the proviso several times that it is obviously possible for people to espouse the argument while having other motives.

Quote
The question on Judaism was aimed at the phrase "Judeo-Christian" which can easily be replace with "Christian but needs to sound more inclusive." Christian and Jewish thought/philosophy/theology diverged about two thousand years ago and can't really be meaningfully grouped together (also worth noting is that protecting the life of the mother is now a decidedly pro-choice position. I expect there will be a first amendment challenge on those grounds).

Check the rabbinic sources if you want, but I think you'll find the preponderance of Medieval and scholastic Jewish thought on the side against elective abortion. The specific scenario of whether the life of the mother takes precedence over the life of the fetus (or at least can be chosen above it) may have some disagreement, as we might expect. But overall, yeah, the Jewish historical tradition is going to be in line with the Catholic one enough for both to pretty obviously fall within "pro-life". It's not like pro-lifers necessarily agree on every single bit of minutiae either.

Quote
The role of women in the church is, in fact, discussed in the Bible, so it doesn't get any older.

Role of women, yes. Gender roles vs "no gender roles" (as WS put it)? No, the concept of 'no gender roles' aka everyone does the same things is an innovation essentially borne of tech and industrial innovation. That was never part of the issue about abortion.

Quote
The evangelical position on abortion prior to Roe vs Wade that it was mostly something the basically pagan Catholics worried about. Which speaks to the point of continuity, saying that Christian beliefs on the subject date back to the early church erases Christians (even by the narrowest definition) have held different beliefs on the subject over time and space.

This is a continuance of the earlier misunderstanding I mentioned. The ideas have continuity, not the denominations. That new groups can take up old ideas does not make the ideas new.

Quote
Further to continuity, there basically isn't any between the early Christians and the current pro-life movement.

Seriously, go look up arguments against abortion circa 100-250 A.D. and compare to current arguments made. You'd think it was all a bunch of bloggers of the same era, other than the language used. So it sounds like you're saying the current pro-life groups are not...Catholics? I'm not sure what other argument you could be making. Because the ideas are totally old ones. Now again if you want to asbribe nefarious motives to various groups espousing these arguments, ok, I can even probably get behind you on that on a case by case basis. But that does not undermine the arguments themselves, which is what the article apparently thinks it's doing.

Quote
There is no pretense that it's about protecting women's autonomy over their own bodies and therefore their ability to participate in the public sphere. The two are inextricably linked. Which would be another reason why anti-abortion beliefs correlate with beliefs about "traditional" gender roles.

This, actually, is true, and is one of the problems in current pro-life argumentation. So long as we're taking the ideas seriously I think one can indeed find certain issues with the current theory, or even life philosophy, of the pro-life side. The fact that participation in the public sphere seems to find itself at home with the pro-choice side is a powerful factor, and one the pro-life side does not seem to take seriously. So you see if one is being honest about the logic of both sides, there is room to debate the issue in good faith. But arguing that one's opponents are really just sexists, and using this logic to undermine their position without actually addressing the issues, is the nonsense I was disputing.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: NobleHunter on May 25, 2022, 04:40:42 PM
The current pro-life position *is* a product of modern politics. Continuity is more than just using the same arguments and logic. Otherwise you could argue there is significant continuity between the US government and the First Nations since they non-monarchies on the North American continent. Just because the current movement is recycling old arguments doesn't mean there's any connection between the two groups. And I should go look up the primary sources as I expect they sound more like "please save my baby from the pater familias" than "life begins at conception." I also expect finding accurate translations to be difficult.

Quote
Gender roles vs "no gender roles" (as WS put it)? No, the concept of 'no gender roles' aka everyone does the same things is an innovation essentially borne of tech and industrial innovation. That was never part of the issue about abortion.

How to tell me you're unfamiliar with pro-choice thought without telling me you're unfamiliar with pro-choice thought.

Catholics are a bit player in the American pro-life movement. They might make noises about excommunication or try to embarrass pro-life Catholics but they aren't getting people elected.

Quote
The fact that participation in the public sphere seems to find itself at home with the pro-choice side is a powerful factor, and one the pro-life side does not seem to take seriously.

And why don't they take it seriously? Because keeping women at home is part of their objective. Given the groups involved in the pro-life movement, if abortion (and birth control) didn't make it easier for women to be independent, they wouldn't care at all. As evidenced by the historical lack of concern over the issue until Roe vs Wade and the development of medically safe abortions.

Also keep in mind that the pro-life movement's position (as shown by the laws being put in place) are no abortions, ever. Which makes even the strictest rabbi pro-choice.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Fenring on May 25, 2022, 06:17:54 PM
The current pro-life position *is* a product of modern politics. Continuity is more than just using the same arguments and logic.

It sounds like your main argument is the same one we've already established, which is that all sorts of different views have gotten lumped in with politics, and specifically tribal politics. That makes is true that the right-wing is the party of pro-guns and also the party of anti-abortion, and as yossarian mentioned all sorts of other views that are baked into a R ticket. That these views come as part of the same tribal basket is sort of trivially obvious. That is not the same as arguing that arguments about abortion are fundamentally reduceable to views on the other items sitting in the same basket (such as views on gender roles). The real question to ask is why pro-life arguments got bunched in with all these other right-wing positions. That would be a good question, and one which is far more complex than "well gee I guess Republicans are all regressive sexists." I would likewise ask why it's the case that pro-social safety net arguments all sit on the left-wing, and so forth. Harder questions to answer than just "cause the other side is regressive".

So I would agree that the current cluster of positions is a product of modern politics (and media). But I do not agree that the actual positions on abortion have anything to do with politics in and of themselves. Only if you take those positions to be fake, i.e. not in good faith, can the abortion position be reduced to a position on some other topic.

Quote
Catholics are a bit player in the American pro-life movement. They might make noises about excommunication or try to embarrass pro-life Catholics but they aren't getting people elected.

Historically Catholics in the U.S. were sidelined, yes. Now I think there are more of them and they're taken more seriously, but that's not really part of my general argument. Again, I was talking about the historical continuity of the logic of the positions.

Quote
Quote
The fact that participation in the public sphere seems to find itself at home with the pro-choice side is a powerful factor, and one the pro-life side does not seem to take seriously.

And why don't they take it seriously? Because keeping women at home is part of their objective.

If you're talking some ultra-religious communities, like Mormon, ultra-orthodox Jewish, super Bible Belt evangelical, then maybe some of them do believe strongly in traditional family organization like this and literally don't want women to work. I wouldn't bet that this is the majority of pro-life people. Your question and your answer to it are once again a short circuit, though. You have to be much more invested in analyzing both sides of the argument if you're going to be serious about addressing why pro-life people don't take the participation in society argument seriously enough. It's a notable hole in the position, and I've looked at it a lot. I see no evidence on your part or on the part of other pro-choice advocates of having any interest in why a pro-life person wouldn't take it seriously, but if you did want to have a side discussion for real about that I'd be happy to. First you'd have to understand that practicality can be in conflict with morality, sometimes so severely that there is no neat engineering solution to just settle both sides of it. And you'd also have to realize what many of the great playwrights did, that sometimes moral imperatives can be in conflict with each other so that you cannot pursue both at once in the same worldly sphere. It is a very serious philosophical topic, one covered by plays such as Hamlet, the Oresteia, and many more. Before recognizing the existence of this area of thought there's no room for a serious discussion on the topic.

Quote
Given the groups involved in the pro-life movement, if abortion (and birth control) didn't make it easier for women to be independent, they wouldn't care at all. As evidenced by the historical lack of concern over the issue until Roe vs Wade and the development of medically safe abortions.

Until the thing people cared about was challenged no one fought about it, proving they didn't actually care about it? That sounds like circular reasoning to me. TheDrake also addressed this point just earlier.

Quote
Also keep in mind that the pro-life movement's position (as shown by the laws being put in place) are no abortions, ever. Which makes even the strictest rabbi pro-choice.

I agree that these laws are not a good representation of moral discussion on the topic. I don't agree that this means that pro-life people all think the same thing, i.e. the thing the proposed laws say. I do agree that blanket laws with no nuance are problematic. I don't agree that therefore there should be no laws on the books about various things in the world.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: NobleHunter on May 25, 2022, 08:30:21 PM
Abortion can be linked to other topics because humans like to have consistent beliefs and once you go ride-or-die against abortion it's hard to be consistent without reducing women to baby-makers. Especially since vanishingly few people reason their way to being pro-life without regards to other beliefs and assumptions. In a lot of cases, the starting point is that women's primary purpose is to make babies and then justification is sought for why abortion is wrong. It's not an accident that most people end up agreeing with the dominant beliefs of their surroundings.

The problem with your philosophizing is that the other side is actually regressive. Sure, not all pro-life people or Republicans are working for a theocratic white ethnostate but they're perfectly happy to caucus with those who are. I mean, if you believe that the Republican Justices are done eviscerating civil rights then I absolutely have a bridge to sell you.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: TheDrake on May 25, 2022, 09:48:31 PM
I've come to think the exceptions business has always been a copout. If you think that a two month old fetus is a person with rights, then how could there be exceptions? You can't kill a two year old who is the product of rape, incest, or one who has a birth defect. To make that work you have to cobble together a whole new class of quasi-human to whom murder applies selectively. Knowing that this is the most blameless scenario makes it more clear that the effort has been more about holding women responsible for being promiscuous than it is about a determination of life. If the fetus is not a person, then it has no more right to life than a cyst.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Fenring on May 25, 2022, 10:34:33 PM
I've come to think the exceptions business has always been a copout. If you think that a two month old fetus is a person with rights, then how could there be exceptions? You can't kill a two year old who is the product of rape, incest, or one who has a birth defect. To make that work you have to cobble together a whole new class of quasi-human to whom murder applies selectively. Knowing that this is the most blameless scenario makes it more clear that the effort has been more about holding women responsible for being promiscuous than it is about a determination of life.

I think your suggestion that part of it is holding people responsible for being promiscuous has more merit than the idea that it's about gender roles. In this case it's actually specified verbatim, that people should have to own up to the consequences of their actions. And this view - about personal responsibility - actually does line up with other right-wing views that are not specifically about abortion. In this case the promiscuity is seen as a negative, and tbh it's not only right-wingers who happen to hold that particular view (plenty of liberal people get uptight at the idea of outright promiscuity, as differentiated from simply having sex before marriage), but it's the right-wingers who will also hold the views regarding taking taking the consequences of it. Since I personally view this as being a very limited way of understanding personal agency (I don't think agency can really be disentangled from environment) I can see why many liberals see this whole line as being kind of callous. But one thing it isn't is merely self-serving, as in, a fake position that merely offers the group espousing it some advantage. So again it's an issue riddled with cross-currents with other moral positions. And yes, these can reinforce each other. In way they should...why would you want your various views to be contradictory with each other?

Now about the 'exceptions', the issue here is both moral and legal. The Rabbinic tradition, in arguing that the life of the mother can be taken as superior to the life of the fetus, is not making an exception to the premise that the life of a fetus has value, but merely assigning greater value to the life of the mother if a conflict arises between these. It's not an exceptional case but a statement of fact (in their view) about the general value system involved. So there is no inherent reason to say "abortion to save the life of the mother" is an exception to the idea that the fetus is a person. On the other hand, if the child is the product of rape then, yes, that would be creating a strange exceptional case where a life is not a life if it was produced in an unfortunate way. So I think one must be clear about not only the various scenarios but also the reasoning behind them. And as we've pointed out already, there is not exactly a unified view on abortion on either side. Some of the arguments are very old, but that doesn't mean everyone is using the same arguments. In fact even the pro-choice arguments are shifting over time. Just as an example on this latter point, it seems that an increasing number of pro-choice arguments seem to actually grant that the fetus has something which we might call rights or 'life value', but that other concerns must override this (which is probably where both sides could agree if they were being reasonable, i.e. in that there's a conflict of rights in play).
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: cherrypoptart on May 26, 2022, 01:08:59 AM
Could allowing rape not to be an exception actually encourage rapists?

The urge to foster progeny is one of the strongest in every form of life. If it wasn't, most life wouldn't exist at all. Humans included.

And forcing a woman who was raped to carry her rapists child to term seems grotesque. But if the exceptions for all abortions including rape are at a cutoff of two or three months, that doesn't seem unreasonable, except of course to the ardent pro-lifers, then rape abortions get tucked into that time frame. Nothing against the ardent pro-lifers but if the consensus comes down to abortion is legal up to three months then that seems like a pretty good compromise for most people. Anyone who is raped should be on top of the situation as far as pregnancy goes so they catch it very early.

I'm sure there are pro-lifers who believe that abortion is equally wrong whether happens at conception or as a partial birth abortion, but the vast majority of people probably see it as getting more and more wrong the more developed the fetus becomes. Unless abortion becomes totally illegal, and even the states coming up with anti-abortion laws for the most part haven't gone that far, then the rape exception shouldn't be that much of an issue except in a relatively small number of exceptional cases where the pregnancy can't be discovered early on.

Bottom line, the rape exception doesn't lead to any contradictions if abortions are allowed up to two or three months post conception.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Fenring on May 26, 2022, 08:57:55 AM
And forcing a woman who was raped to carry her rapists child to term seems grotesque. But if the exceptions for all abortions including rape are at a cutoff of two or three months, that doesn't seem unreasonable, except of course to the ardent pro-lifers, then rape abortions get tucked into that time frame. Nothing against the ardent pro-lifers but if the consensus comes down to abortion is legal up to three months then that seems like a pretty good compromise for most people. Anyone who is raped should be on top of the situation as far as pregnancy goes so they catch it very early.

If there was a 2-3 month cutoff then discussing it as an exception would be unnecessary. If, however, there is not a 2-3 month cutoff, then bringing this type of exception into it would be seriously problematic on a legal level: how do you prove rape in 2-3 months? Presumably you'd need a criminal trial to have been brought and completed within the necessary timeframe to actually establish there was in fact a rape. Otherwise everyone would just say rape, right?
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: TheDrake on May 26, 2022, 11:45:00 AM
Quote
arguing that the life of the mother can be taken as superior to the life of the fetus, is not making an exception to the premise that the life of a fetus has value, but merely assigning greater value to the life of the mother if a conflict arises between these

I deliberately left out that exception because it does have more merit, but I will posit that there is still an inherent distinction. We don't let people kill their two year old and harvest their liver to save their life.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: NobleHunter on May 26, 2022, 11:48:33 AM
I deliberately left out that exception because it does have more merit, but I will posit that there is still an inherent distinction. We don't let people kill their two year old and harvest their liver to save their life.

We also don't forcibly take people's kidneys to save two-year-olds either.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Wayward Son on May 26, 2022, 11:56:43 AM
And forcing a woman who was raped to carry her rapists child to term seems grotesque. But if the exceptions for all abortions including rape are at a cutoff of two or three months, that doesn't seem unreasonable, except of course to the ardent pro-lifers, then rape abortions get tucked into that time frame. Nothing against the ardent pro-lifers but if the consensus comes down to abortion is legal up to three months then that seems like a pretty good compromise for most people. Anyone who is raped should be on top of the situation as far as pregnancy goes so they catch it very early.

I'm sure there are pro-lifers who believe that abortion is equally wrong whether happens at conception or as a partial birth abortion, but the vast majority of people probably see it as getting more and more wrong the more developed the fetus becomes. Unless abortion becomes totally illegal, and even the states coming up with anti-abortion laws for the most part haven't gone that far, then the rape exception shouldn't be that much of an issue except in a relatively small number of exceptional cases where the pregnancy can't be discovered early on.

Bottom line, the rape exception doesn't lead to any contradictions if abortions are allowed up to two or three months post conception.

The thing is, cherry, what you are describing here is pretty much the Roe v Wade decision.  As Wikipedia summarizes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade#:~:text=Roe%20v.%20Wade%2C%20410%20U.S.,abortion%20without%20excessive%20government%20restriction.):

Quote
In January 1973, the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision in McCorvey's favor ruling that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides a "right to privacy" that protects a pregnant woman's right to choose whether to have an abortion. It also ruled that this right is not absolute and must be balanced against governments' interests in protecting women's health and prenatal life.[4][5] The Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the three trimesters of pregnancy: during the first trimester [up to 12 weeks], governments could not prohibit abortions at all; during the second trimester, governments could require reasonable health regulations; during the third trimester, abortions could be prohibited entirely so long as the laws contained exceptions for cases when they were necessary to save the life or health of the mother.[5]

The Court could have (or still could?) tweaked Roe v Wade in saying that States had the right for reasonable health regulations from the moment of conception.  But, instead, it appears to plan to throw out everything, saying that there is no "right to privacy" when carrying a child, nor a right to choose how your own organs are used if it may result in the death of another human.  Look forward to mandatory blood and kidney donations in the future. :)

All in all, it sounds like you're more on the pro-choice, status quo side of this debate.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: TheDrake on May 26, 2022, 12:29:13 PM
Quote
All in all, it sounds like you're more on the pro-choice, status quo side of this debate.

IIRC, cherry disliked Roe for the mechanism more than the outcome.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Fenring on May 26, 2022, 02:17:07 PM
The 'stealing each other's livers' analogy unfortunately doesn't work. Pregnancy is a unique situation not comparable to other medical scenarios. There is the "we are attached to each other in a hospital bed" scenario, and others. Bottom line, pregnancy is just its own situation. It's a hard scenario to crack using nothing but quick arguments.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: TheDrake on May 26, 2022, 04:00:10 PM
To me it is all very simple. It isn't a tough nut to crack, it's not Schrodinger's Baby, both a person and not a person at the same time. Not that any of the arguments matter anyway. People are going to decide based on astrology, what their mom or dad told them to believe, or what Pastor Bob said was right, or what Jesus whispered to them, or what a doctor said. Probably not what some rando posted on a backwater part of the internet.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Wayward Son on June 30, 2022, 05:29:16 PM
Here's another example of what happens when a person is not in control of her own body: (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/even-exceptions-to-abortion-bans-pit-a-mothers-life-against-doctors-fears/)

Quote
Layla Houshmand was eight weeks pregnant in the spring of 2021 when she woke up to find her field of vision smeared with a hazy sheen, like Vaseline rubbed on the lens of a camera. She was already worried about her own health. She’d spent the day before nursing herself through the pain of a migraine. But now the headache was worse and her vision was blurring and Houshmand was even more scared. Then the vomiting began. Nothing would stay down. During one 90-minute appointment with an ophthalmologist, she remembered vomiting 20 times.

Something was clearly going horribly wrong with Houshmand’s body. Her ophthalmologist suspected a stroke in her optic nerve and told her the condition can be caused by pregnancy, but Houshmand was stuck in a Catch-22: The pregnancy was now also preventing treatment. Doctors told her that she needed steroids and blood thinners and a specific type of MRI that could make sure there wasn’t something even more serious happening. But she couldn’t get any of those things because they could endanger her fetus.

Houshmand decided she wanted an abortion. She wasn’t willing to risk losing eyesight and continuing to be in pain, vomiting over and over, with no solution … not for an eight-week pregnancy. But her doctors couldn’t help her — abortion wasn’t even an option they brought up. Houshmand had to find a private clinic that could treat her on her own. After the abortion she found out the truth: She had a life-threatening infection in her optic nerve.

As long as she was pregnant, none of the doctors Houshmand encountered would do the things that needed to happen to diagnose her — or treat her. Without an abortion, she was just a sick pregnant woman, rather than a woman who needed an abortion to save her life.

... Some, like Houshmand, will be people who are seeking abortion because of the way a pregnancy is affecting their health. In theory, this shouldn’t be a problem, thanks to exceptions for the life of the mother that are common, even in the strictest abortion bans. But the medical professionals, legal experts and researchers we spoke to said those exceptions are usually vague, creating an environment where patients have to meet some unspoken and arbitrary criteria to get treatment.

When it’s not clear what is legal, patients are often treated as though nothing is. It can be hard to prove your medical emergency is enough of an emergency to get an abortion in a doctor’s office or hospital, or to get Medicaid and other insurers to pay for it. Uncertainty breeds fear and stigma for doctors, who might delay treatment so they can evaluate just how close a person is to dying. In some situations, patients are simply shuttled from one facility to the next like a hot potato until they find a place willing to offer care.

There are a lot of unknowns about what will happen in the wake of the Dobbs decision. But doctors say they do know at least one thing: Overturning Roe v. Wade will lead to more situations where the health and safety of a pregnant person comes second to doctors’ own risks and fears. They know this because it’s already been happening for years. ...

Houshmand felt trapped between the parts of the medical system that were ideologically opposed to her choice, and the parts that were too afraid of controversy to help her.

And it is pretty common for sick pregnant people to end up squeezed in that vise, said Dr. Lisa Harris, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Michigan who specializes in treating pregnant patients with complex medical problems. While she can remember cases where death was certain if an abortion couldn’t be performed — a patient with heart and lung failure, for example — they only come up maybe once a year in her work. But patients like Houshmand happen all the time, she said. “Maybe it’s a 30 or 50 percent chance that someone might die. And they might not die immediately. Maybe it would be in the next week or month, or even year or beyond.”

Abortion bans and abortion restrictions nearly all contain exceptions that allow abortion to save the life of the mother, and, in some cases, preserve her health as well. But every law and statute that contains this exception is written a little differently, and most of them are ambiguous about what constitutes “life-threatening” and how that should be determined.

The whole article is quite enlightening.

This is how anti-abortion legislation is going to cost people's lives. Not through callous disregard of obvious, certain death, but borderline cases where maybe only 30 percent of the patients will die.  But once you start applying this for thousands of patients, you're talking about hundreds of deaths.  Hundreds of certain deaths.

Remember the costs, and pray that your loved-ones won't have to pay them someday. :(
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Fenring on June 30, 2022, 05:56:11 PM
That article is from spring 2021, when Roe was still in effect. How does the narrative it presents make sense, that this is what happens when women aren't allowed to get abortions, from a time when they could get them? Was the issue just that certain medical practitioners did not want to offer a treatment that would kill the fetus out of their own personal moral conviction? If so, is your argument that doctors should not be allowed to follow their own consciences in medical matters?
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Wayward Son on June 30, 2022, 06:53:06 PM
The argument is that these things were happening when abortions were legal and doctors did not face severe criminal penalties for unnecessary abortions.  Now that they could be sent to prison for the rest of their lives if they guessed wrong about the health of the mother will only make matters worse.

And tell me--would you really be OK if your mother or sister or wife or daughter died because her doctor refused to treat her, or even diagnose her, because he was "following his conscience" and thought her fetus was worth more than her life?? Don't you think she should have some say in the matter?  In fact, a very, very large say? >:(
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Fenring on June 30, 2022, 07:35:03 PM
The argument is that these things were happening when abortions were legal and doctors did not face severe criminal penalties for unnecessary abortions.  Now that they could be sent to prison for the rest of their lives if they guessed wrong about the health of the mother will only make matters worse.

But the situations aren't comparable. In one case you're talking about a doctor who was frankly the wrong doctor for this person, although I'm not entirely happy about the marketplace argument in medical matters. The bakery analogy doesn't hold water when comparing to a time sensitive emergency, which to me is more an issue of the general problems in the U.S. medical system. In principle a doctor acting on his conscience is not the same at all as the state banning something. In practice this might mean people would need to scout for doctors well in advance of any sexual activity to make sure that in a crunch they know who to go to so that they don't have a doctor whose beliefs conflict strongly with their own.

That being said, I personally have a hard time believing that any doctor could face legal sanction of any kind of offering a legitimate medical service that has an unfortunate side effect. Maybe some of these fool legislators think they can ban cancer treatment for pregnant women, but I doubt anything so ridiculous would hold water when challenged in court. FWIW it's an annoying system to have to wait until someone sues before untrained (or immoral) legislators are told what is actually a legal law and what isn't.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: NobleHunter on June 30, 2022, 08:33:04 PM
Quote
Maybe some of these fool legislators think they can ban cancer treatment for pregnant women, but I doubt anything so ridiculous would hold water when challenged in court

Except cancer treatment isn't a right deeply rooted in American history and tradition.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Fenring on June 30, 2022, 09:29:41 PM
Quote
Maybe some of these fool legislators think they can ban cancer treatment for pregnant women, but I doubt anything so ridiculous would hold water when challenged in court

Except cancer treatment isn't a right deeply rooted in American history and tradition.

Um, I'm not so sure. I really wouldn't be able to venture a guess about law as it intersects with medical ethics, but I have at least a suspicion that legislators cannot legislate away medical ethics (such as barring lifesaving treatment). This could be a human rights issue, which in theory would supersede any legislative powers granted to a legislature or governor.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: NobleHunter on June 30, 2022, 09:42:55 PM
I would not put anything past this Supreme Court.

And at the moment, medical professionals seem to be assuming that the law beats medical ethics or they wouldn't be waiting for ectopic pregnancies to go critical before treating the mother.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Ouija Nightmare on July 01, 2022, 12:26:14 PM
Quote

Echoing the high court’s language in striking down Roe, the Alabama appeal filed on Monday argued that the state has the authority to outlaw puberty-blocking hormones and other therapies for transgender minors in part because they are not “deeply rooted in our history or traditions.”


And with that we continue sliding down that slope into poorly reasoned madness.

Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: msquared on July 01, 2022, 12:44:17 PM
Well in the South slavery will probably be back since it is deeply rooted in their history and culture.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Wayward Son on July 01, 2022, 12:47:30 PM
Quote
In one case you're talking about a doctor who was frankly the wrong doctor for this person, although I'm not entirely happy about the marketplace argument in medical matters. The bakery analogy doesn't hold water when comparing to a time sensitive emergency, which to me is more an issue of the general problems in the U.S. medical system. In principle a doctor acting on his conscience is not the same at all as the state banning something.

Except it wasn't only one doctor.

Quote
Her ophthalmologist suspected a stroke in her optic nerve and told her the condition can be caused by pregnancy, but Houshmand was stuck in a Catch-22: The pregnancy was now also preventing treatment. Doctors told her that she needed steroids and blood thinners and a specific type of MRI that could make sure there wasn’t something even more serious happening. But she couldn’t get any of those things because they could endanger her fetus.

Houshmand decided she wanted an abortion. She wasn’t willing to risk losing eyesight and continuing to be in pain, vomiting over and over, with no solution … not for an eight-week pregnancy. But her doctors couldn’t help her — abortion wasn’t even an option they brought up. Houshmand had to find a private clinic that could treat her on her own. After the abortion she found out the truth: She had a life-threatening infection in her optic nerve.

As long as she was pregnant, none of the doctors Houshmand encountered would do the things that needed to happen to diagnose her — or treat her.

She saw multiple doctors, not just one who had a problem with her pregnancy.  And it was because the procedures to diagnose and treat her could endanger the fetus.

Which is the Catch-22: you can't know if the illness is serious enough to kill the fetus until it is diagnosed, but you can't diagnose the illness without killing the fetus.  You either have to risk killing the fetus or wait until the illness is so serious that it is obvious the mother will die--at which point it may be too late to save the mother (and often the fetus). :(

So the only way to know if the illness is serious enough to kill the fetus is to kill the fetus.  But it isn't medically necessary at that point, because no one knows if it is that serious.  So it is an illegal abortion, and the doctor should go to jail.

So the doctor has a choice of killing the fetus but saving the mother--and possibly going to jail (in some cases possibly for life)--or risk the life of both by holding off as long as he can--and possibly getting a malpractice suit (with a good chance of beating it).

Which do you think most doctors will do most of the time? ;)

Of course, the mother could choose to terminate the pregnancy herself.  Except that now she can't in many states because there is no exception for "mother believes it is medically necessary."

The mother doesn't get to make her own medical decisions.  Only the doctors can do that.  And the doctors are incentivized not to make the decision that might cost the fetus' life, because the penalties for making the wrong decision are much worse in that case, even though it will cost of life of the mother and sometimes the fetus in a number of such cases.

Quote
And it is pretty common for sick pregnant people to end up squeezed in that vise, said Dr. Lisa Harris, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Michigan who specializes in treating pregnant patients with complex medical problems. While she can remember cases where death was certain if an abortion couldn’t be performed — a patient with heart and lung failure, for example — they only come up maybe once a year in her work. But patients like Houshmand happen all the time, she said. “Maybe it’s a 30 or 50 percent chance that someone might die. And they might not die immediately. Maybe it would be in the next week or month, or even year or beyond.”
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Fenring on July 01, 2022, 01:24:28 PM
The general argument being made is bad, anyhow. You can't have a piecemeal approach to good policy. Pretending for the moment that "protecting the fetus" was a generally accepted good starting place, that can't exist in a vacuum. If people use bad reasoning or immoral logic in other aspects of their approach to a pregnant women it doesn't say anything about the starting place. If people say "no abortion" and simultaneously throw young pregnant women under the bus and offer no services to single mothers, this isn't a commentary on abortion but rather on other matters. In the case of doctors there is plenty of room for improper decision-making even if (according to the premise) it is correct to protect the fetus if possible. I too would be dismayed at the idea of a doctor withholding necessary treatment because he decides personally that he just doesn't want the woman to have it. That doesn't mean I have to be pro-choice as a result.

Although to be fair part of the culprit here is a lack of first principles. It seems pretty obvious to Christians that the lack of a central authority among all Christian sects means you can't expect to have common ground in anything. Sure, someone could say they are "pro-life" due to their beliefs but that barely tells you anything. For a Catholic to say that it may mean something very different from a Mormon or Bible Belt Baptist. The words are the same, the underlying principles (if indeed there are any) may not agree. So in a practical case you can have, say, a Catholic pregnant woman wanting lifesaving treatment and baffled that a Baptist doctor thinks the fetus' life is more important than hers. It really matters when people are not even speaking the same language, but somehow have to interact in a practical matter involving life and death. It's a problem. In all seriousness it suggests there may be very good reason to find a doctor (if possible) sharing your belief system, and there are other reasons reinforcing this being a good idea.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: wmLambert on July 01, 2022, 01:29:34 PM
Once we fully revert back to the States' control of abortion, such treatment can go forward legally and save the lives like Houshmand. It is not medical ethics that point to solutions. The two points will always coexist: Is it okay to kill an unborn child to possibly save a mother, or not?

BTW: the best use I know of for men to use sanitary napkins is as emergency use to stop bleeding of wounds. Special Ops warriors swear by them.

Otherwise, the only way to scientifically decide man or woman is simple: XX or XY.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Tom on July 01, 2022, 02:18:51 PM
Quote
Otherwise, the only way to scientifically decide man or woman is simple: XX or XY.
Scientists overwhelmingly disagree with you on this.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: msquared on July 01, 2022, 02:24:32 PM
You trust scientist?  They say the world is billions of years old and that evolution is real?  How can you trust people like that?
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: TheDrake on July 01, 2022, 02:36:39 PM
You trust scientist?  They say the world is billions of years old and that evolution is real?  How can you trust people like that?

They deny the existence of angels! Do you need to know anything more?
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Wayward Son on July 01, 2022, 03:16:58 PM
The general argument being made is bad, anyhow. You can't have a piecemeal approach to good policy. Pretending for the moment that "protecting the fetus" was a generally accepted good starting place, that can't exist in a vacuum. If people use bad reasoning or immoral logic in other aspects of their approach to a pregnant women it doesn't say anything about the starting place. If people say "no abortion" and simultaneously throw young pregnant women under the bus and offer no services to single mothers, this isn't a commentary on abortion but rather on other matters. In the case of doctors there is plenty of room for improper decision-making even if (according to the premise) it is correct to protect the fetus if possible. I too would be dismayed at the idea of a doctor withholding necessary treatment because he decides personally that he just doesn't want the woman to have it. That doesn't mean I have to be pro-choice as a result.

It does not address the first principle of "protecting the fetus," or more to the point, "the fetus is a human life."  But it does address the first principle, "the mother has control of her own body."

By making it illegal for a mother to abort a fetus without permission (i.e. except in certain circumstances) means that the mother no longer has control of her own body.  Which means doctors can refuse to perform certain diagnosis which may harm the fetus or certain treatments that may harm the fetus, but which the mother requires.  The mother can no longer decide what is best for her; she must have agreement from the doctor and the state.  And either may arbitrarily deny her of what's best for her.

And while the state does have an interest in preserving human life, does it have such an interest when it robs the rights of its citizens to control their own bodies, or even their own health and life?
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Wayward Son on July 01, 2022, 03:22:01 PM
Once we fully revert back to the States' control of abortion, such treatment can go forward legally and save the lives like Houshmand. It is not medical ethics that point to solutions. The two points will always coexist: Is it okay to kill an unborn child to possibly save a mother, or not?

I don't see how States' control can change things for the better.

Quote
Otherwise, the only way to scientifically decide man or woman is simple: XX or XY.

So you believe that women who were born with penises should be required to use women's dressing rooms?  I didn't realize you were such a liberal!  ;D

Or are you suggesting we should create a third sex, based on the science?  Which rest rooms should they use?  ;)
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: TheDrake on July 01, 2022, 05:43:00 PM
Once we fully revert back to the States' control of abortion, such treatment can go forward legally and save the lives like Houshmand. It is not medical ethics that point to solutions. The two points will always coexist: Is it okay to kill an unborn child to possibly save a mother, or not?

Except most of the anti-abortion crowd isn't content with state's rights on this. They can't wait to outlaw abortion on a national level through congress. You don't think they want to let Massachusetts and California keep killing babies, and there's no way they get that through those state legislatures?
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Wayward Son on July 14, 2022, 06:54:53 PM
Well, we're off and running.

I believe President Biden mentioned a 10-year-old rape victim who was denied an abortion in Ohio.

At first, there was denial. (https://twitter.com/KristiNoem/status/1545598783433629697)  "it was all made-up."

Then they caught the guy who raped her. (https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/2022/07/13/columbus-man-charged-rape-10-year-old-led-abortion-in-indiana/10046625002/)  The AG, who denied they even had such a case, now is crowing about catching him. :)

But, of course, she was able to get an abortion in Indiana.  So Indiana's Republican reaction?

Write a law requiring 10-year-olds to have their rapist's baby. (https://politicalwire.com/2022/07/14/proposed-law-would-have-forced-10-year-old-to-have-baby/)  "She would have had the baby, and as many women who have had babies as a result of rape, we would hope that she would understand the reason and ultimately the benefit of having the child."  You can't explain to most 10-year-olds the benefit of going to sleep on time.  ::)

This also completely ignores the fact that it is life-threatening to make a child that young have a baby. (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/05/to-make-a-10-year-old-give-birth-isnt-just-horrifying-its-life-threatening)  (This article has nothing to do with the current situation, since is bemoaning a similar situation from 2015--in Paraguay.)

Not to be outdone, the Indiana AG is going after the one truly guilty person he can:  the doctor who performed the abortion. (https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1547367841539756038?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1547367841539756038%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffpost.com%2Fentry%2Ftodd-rokita-investigate-doctor-10-year-old_n_62cfc023e4b0c0bdba666332)

Because, after all, when Republicans see a bunch of 5th graders playing in the school yard, they naturally think, "Oh, they'd all make fine mothers!"  ::) >:(
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Wayward Son on July 15, 2022, 01:06:15 PM
An MSNBC story that more fully documents the initial reaction of denial and doubling-down by the Right. (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/how-conservative-media-weaponized-a-story-about-a-10-year-old-and-abortion/ar-AAZC20Z?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=9547f04685c8432ea6b8e5982bb13cc0)
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: msquared on July 15, 2022, 01:24:26 PM
If only that 10 year old girl could learn the benefits of having a child. They could share the bus to school together, or even day care.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Wayward Son on July 19, 2022, 05:16:42 PM
And it just keeps on going:

A woman in Texas had an ultrasound at 9 weeks that showed her fetus has no heartbeat.  So she asked for the dead fetus to be removed.  Then the problems began. (https://www.cnn.com/videos/health/2022/07/18/woman-carried-dead-fetus-texas-anti-abortion-ban-cohen-new-day-dnt-vpx.cnn)

Quote
Her doctor refused.  That procedure, called a D&C, is the same procedure used to remove a living fetus.

"He said, "Because of the new law that passed, you're going to have to get another ultrasound for me to do anything for you.""

Overwhelmed emotionally and physically--"The pain would get so severe it would be hard to walk"--she went to get another invasive ultrasound at another imaging center...

"Even after that second ultrasound, would you're obstetrician give you that surgical procedure?"

"No. No."

She had to get another ultrasound showing her dead fetus.

"You had to go walking around carrying a dead fetus?" ...

"When a woman is walking around with a dead fetus, what is the danger to her?"

"She can develop an infection that can make her sterile..."

Or even worse.  "When the baby dies inside, the baby starts to release parts of its tissue which can get into the mother's blood supply, which can cause organ failure, which can cause death."

In Texas and in other states, a doctor who does the right thing and removes a dead fetus can be vulnerable to an expensive lawsuit.

"Any private citizen can walk into a court and say, "Dr. Smith performed an abortion.""

Citizens are incentivized to bring such cases.  They can win more than $10,000.  And even if the doctor can prove that the fetus was dead, the doctor still has to be responsible for his own legal fees.

"They are going to lose even if they win.  And that's the chilling effect.  They face the specter of endless, ruinous litigation that they can't stop, can't avoid, can't pre-empt."

It took her two weeks before she could get the D&C.

So healthy mothers who want a child may (and probably will soon) end up dying because doctors are worried that some brain-dead person thinks he can make a quick $10,000 suing the doctor for an abortion.  So a doctor has to decide between doing a simply procedure to save a mother's life and possibly being sued to bankrupcy, or...not. :(

Because some brain-deads out there--like like the Idaho GOP (https://www.mediaite.com/news/idaho-gop-rejects-exception-to-abortion-ban-to-save-life-of-the-mother-in-amendment-to-state-party-platform/)--think we should stop all abortions, regardless of the cost.  >:(
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Crunch on July 22, 2022, 04:39:17 PM
If only that 10 year old girl could learn the benefits of having a child. They could share the bus to school together, or even day care.

If only illegal aliens that rape children could be kept out of the US. But that's not convenient for you, is it?
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: TheDrake on July 22, 2022, 04:48:14 PM
Yes, if only we put up a westeros wall sealing off the length of the mexican border, no 10 year old would ever be raped again.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Wayward Son on July 22, 2022, 07:02:56 PM
If only that 10 year old girl could learn the benefits of having a child. They could share the bus to school together, or even day care.

If only illegal aliens that rape children could be kept out of the US. But that's not convenient for you, is it?

That's the Republican answer to all the problems they are creating, isn't it?  Stop all crime.

If all crime stopped, there wouldn't be a need for gun control.  If we cure all insanity, there wouldn't be a need to keep guns away from crazy people.  If there were no rapes and pushy boyfriends and medical problems with pregnancies, there wouldn't be a need for abortions.

But you guys can't wait, can you?  You first have to repeal all gun control measures and ban all abortions in a world where there are criminals and crazy shooters and rapists and ectopic pregnancies and miscarriages and then blame all the pain, misery and deaths that you cause with your brainless laws on these problems that no one can completely solve--not even you guys.

Here's a brilliant idea--why don't you ban all these things after you've created your fantasy world, and NOT while there are 10-year-old girls who get pregnant from men who are BOTH legal and illegal residents.

...Instead of trying to distract from the REAL problem--that Republicans want to require 10-year-old girls to have their rapist's babies, regardless of where their rapist comes from.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: yossarian22c on July 26, 2022, 09:35:41 AM
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2022/07/26/1111280165/because-of-texas-abortion-law-her-wanted-pregnancy-became-a-medical-nightmare (https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2022/07/26/1111280165/because-of-texas-abortion-law-her-wanted-pregnancy-became-a-medical-nightmare)

Quote
Elizabeth stood up to get some lunch. That's when she felt something "shift" in her uterus, down low, and then "this burst of water just falls out of my body. And I screamed because that's when I knew something wrong was happening."

Her waters had broken, launching her into what she calls a "dystopian nightmare" of "physical, emotional and mental anguish." She places the blame for the ensuing medical trauma on the Republican legislators who passed the state's anti-abortion law, on Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, who signed it
...
 For a fetus at 18 weeks, the chance of survival in that state is almost nonexistent, according to Peaceman: "This is probably about as close to zero as you'll ever get in medicine."

Republican policy. Wait until women are about to die to treat them, even if the fetus has no chance to survive.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: msquared on August 03, 2022, 08:58:52 AM
Well in a huge turn out for a mid term primary election, voters in Kansas voted down an anti abortion change to the State's Constitution by 2-1 margin.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/sorry-kansas-voters-crusade-revoke-100000682.html
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: NobleHunter on August 03, 2022, 11:23:53 AM
While the decision was decisive, I wonder if the balance of people confused by the question affected one side more than the other. It seemed to be deliberately arcane and I'm not sure we can take it as given that both sides were equally confused by it.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: TheDrake on August 03, 2022, 01:07:41 PM
Honestly, I don't see how this is confusing.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2022/aug/02/kansas-abortion-ballot-language


This article describes it as confusing, but it seems clearly stated to me.

Quote
A vote for the Value Them Both Amendment would affirm there is no Kansas constitutional right to abortion...

In the articles rewording that they say is clear:

Quote
Voting “yes” would mean supporting an amendment that would change the Kansas state constitution so it no longer protects abortion,

How is that not the same thing? You don't even have to plow through all the other usual verbiage once you have that salient fact.

Now I'll grant you that people are stone dumb for the most part, which is why I am having growing misgivings about democracy on the whole. I just don't know what would be better. Now add to this the fact that there was no shortage of campaigns, and there was nothing confusing about the yard signs strewn about, religious leaders advocating yes, phone campaigns, media campaigns.

I doubt there was much actual confusion on which direction to vote. if anything, the wording encoraged a yes vote, which is why the Coalition for Constitutional Freedom (a reproductive rights organization trying to prevent a ban) complained about it. So there might actually have been more support to protect abortion than indicated by the vote.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: jc44 on August 03, 2022, 02:06:31 PM
Having read the ballot question I'd certainly believe that it was designed to confuse and, to me at least, appears to be in favour of "yes". There are far too many words there. It could, and should, and been cut down to "Repeal the Kanas Constitutional amendment that protects abortion? yes/no".

On the other hand it seem unlikely anyone was actually confused due to the publicity surrounding the vote.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Ephrem Moseley on August 03, 2022, 04:57:51 PM
hahahahaha

sucks to not be in the top caste doesn't it?

laws shouldn't be made based on the extremes

priests will deal with the extremes

I know you don't trust us

some of you will, some day, perhaps.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: msquared on August 17, 2022, 11:04:12 AM
Well in WV the Governor does not think the people should get a choice in the matter.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/wva-governor-voters-shouldnt-decide-175201007.html

That's right, let the people decide unless they are going to decide against what we want, then it is not their issue to decide.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: msquared on August 21, 2022, 06:14:56 PM
So the hand recount  in KS turned up a change of 60 votes out of 922,000 cast. That is a change of I think .006%  change. Yeah there was a chance a recount could change the totals.

This is the result of  Trump and his lackies election denials.  People wanting recounts on results that are so large there is no way the recount could change the results.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: TheDrake on August 22, 2022, 05:38:13 PM
So the hand recount  in KS turned up a change of 60 votes out of 922,000 cast. That is a change of I think .006%  change. Yeah there was a chance a recount could change the totals.

This is the result of  Trump and his lackies election denials.  People wanting recounts on results that are so large there is no way the recount could change the results.

But what about the server in New Zealand that was flipping votes?
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Wayward Son on August 22, 2022, 06:37:25 PM
Ah, but you forget the server in Minsk that changed others back!

Unfortunately, it wasn't enough to overcome the server in New Zealand, so it was a wash in the end.  :(  ;)
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: msquared on August 31, 2022, 08:48:31 PM
So a liberal MI group wanted to get an abortion rights amendment on the ballot for the fall. They needed 425,000 signatures to get it on the ballot. They got 750,000. And the Board of State Canvassers, split 2-2 on party lines, blocked putting it on the ballot.

The Republican members "argued that spacing and formatting errors in the text circulated to voters for their signatures rendered the effort invalid."

https://www.yahoo.com/news/michigan-board-blocks-certification-abortion-210314718.html

It clear enough for almost 3/4 of a million people to sign to get it on the Ballot. But now they will have to go to the State SC.

Republicans say "leave it to the people and the states" but do not really mean that.  Look at KS.  What do the Republicans fear with putting it on the Ballot? They fear it being made part of the state Constitution.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Wayward Son on September 09, 2022, 05:18:21 PM
The South Carolina legislature tried to pass a bill during a special session that bans all abortions, with no exceptions for rape or incest, only for the life of the mother.

The Republicans had a majority of votes to pass the bill, but were stopped by 5 Republicans joining all the Democrats in filibustering the bill. (https://apnews.com/article/abortion-us-supreme-court-health-legislature-south-carolina-b3cc183420b2641650d1c8214891dd1d)

Quote
“You want to believe that God is wanting you to push a bill through with no exceptions that kill mothers and ruins the lives of children — lets mothers bring home babies to bury them — then I think you’re miscommunicating with God. Or maybe you aren’t communicating with Him at all,” Shealy said...

That's Republican state senator Katrina Shealy. :)

When Republicans start using such strong language in opposing an abortion bill, you know the Republicans have gone too far. ;)
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Fenring on September 09, 2022, 06:01:42 PM
That AP article seems badly written, since the ordering makes it appear that the "miscommunicating with God" quote is about the exceptions for rape or incest. But the actual quote says it's about forcing mothers to bring babies home to bury them, which would be regarding the issue of (I assume) disallowing abortions even when pregnancies are non-viable. Although I can see why that scenario concerns many people, it doesn't seem to be mentioned as the reason why the 5 Republicans won't support the bill as is. Also messy is that the article seems to flipflop on whether there are in fact exceptions for rape and incest, as finding clarity on this point requires double-checking with a linked article in the article suggests that they finally decided on the exception for rape and incest being reduced from 20 to 12 weeks. So in the end it does look like there are exceptions? The reporting just isn't very good.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: msquared on September 10, 2022, 04:00:37 PM
So the MI voter initiative is on the ballot after the state SC ordered the Board that had dead locked to put it on the ballot for this fall.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/abortion-rights-amendment-made-michigans-110309533.html

So we will see this fall how this vote turns out. MI is more liberal than KS so I expect it will pass easily.

Not to be out done by silly things like what the Public wants, Republicans in many state houses are trying the raise the level needed for passage of voter initiatives from 50% to 60% or higher.

So much for the argument to let the States decide.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: msquared on September 13, 2022, 12:22:09 PM
So much for leaving it to the States.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/republican-lindsey-graham-proposes-nationwide-153715632.html

Not that it will pass.  This seems like a very tone deaf move on his part.  We have already seen a backlash against the Roe V Wade decision and I do not see how this helps anything.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Wayward Son on September 22, 2022, 04:12:07 PM
More examples of women being denied the right to control their bodies, this time from Ohio. (https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/2022/09/22/affidavits-more-pregnant-minors-who-were-raped-denied-ohio-abortions/)

Quote
The affidavits were filed in Cincinnati as part of a lawsuit aimed at stopping enforcement of Ohio’s strict new abortion law, which it temporarily did last week. Originally paused for two weeks, on Tuesday the enforcement delay was extended to at least Oct. 14.

If true, the affidavits show that a Columbus 10-year-old was not the only child or teen rape victim forced to leave the state. They also describe more than two dozen other instances in which the abortion law put women under extreme duress.

The descriptions include those of three women who threatened suicide. They also include two women with cancer who couldn’t terminate their pregnancies and also couldn’t get cancer treatment while they were pregnant.

Another three examples were of women whose fetuses had severe abnormalities or other conditions that made a successful pregnancy impossible. Even so, they couldn’t get abortions in Ohio.

And in three cases, debilitating vomiting was caused by pregnancy — so bad in one case that a woman couldn’t get off the clinic floor. But neither could these women get abortions in Ohio, the affidavits said. ...

In 2021, Ohio’s Children’s Advocacy Centers saw 6,717 cases of sexual abuse against Ohioans between infancy and adulthood. And in 2020, the most recent year for which statistics are available, 571 girls aged 17 or younger received abortions in Ohio, according to the state department of health. Fifty-two of them — or one a week — were 14 or younger.

Sadly, the affidavits filed in late August and early September by workers at abortion clinics provide further evidence that child and teen rape and subsequent pregnancy is a problem in Ohio. But so long as fetal cardiac activity is detected, S.B. 23 requires such victims to either have those babies or scramble out of state and try to find an abortion. ...

The affidavits also detail cases of fetal abnormalities and other problems so severe that pregnancies can’t result in a successful birth. One patient at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Southwest Ohio had a fetus with abnormalities including “a lack of lower extremities and the contents of the fetus’s abdomen, including possibly the heart, protruding through a defect in the abdominal wall,” Liner, a doctor, said in her sworn statement.

Because S.B. 23 doesn’t allow women in such cases to abort their pregnancies if they don’t pose an imminent threat to their health, they either have to leave the state for an abortion or carry the fetus to term — even though that “can be extremely distressing for patients,” Liner said.

In another case, this one in Dayton, a woman was 13 weeks pregnant but had no amniotic fluid, prompting her doctor to tell her the pregnancy was “nonviable.”

“However, because the fetus still had fetal heart tones, the physician discharged her with instructions to call the office if she developed a fever,” Trick said in her affidavit.

As we know, lack of amniotic fluid means that the fetus' lungs will not properly develop and so will not function.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Fenring on September 22, 2022, 04:47:12 PM
As we know, lack of amniotic fluid means that the fetus' lungs will not properly develop and so will not function.

I am sympathetic to outrage over stupidities in lawmaking, including denying medical aid for mothers when it might harm the baby, and other extreme cases where a non-viable pregnancy is forced to go to term (this last one requires more nuance, but there are cases I can sympathize with). But the link above seems to be all over the place, including in its evidence mothers who threaten suicide, and those who feel very sick while pregnant. One must be clear about what one means and not play both sides of the argument: if a fetus is a human being with rights (innate rights, I don't mean legal rights) then it seems irrelevant to cite mothers who really, really want to abort the fetus for various personal reasons. The level of discomfort a mother has would seem to me immaterial in regards to killing someone else. However as I mentioned there are other cases where I have no doubt the laws bypass reason and end up being some kind of moral trumpet, or even vindictive punishment, rather than an attempt to maximally protect all involved parties. Journalism sucks.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Wayward Son on September 22, 2022, 05:32:17 PM
What you seem to be forgetting, Fenring, is that women do commit suicide because of pregnancies.  And not just because they "really, really want to abort the fetus."  Pregnancy messes with a woman's hormonal and chemical balances, and sometimes this leads to serious depression and/or temporary insanity.  Some women really, really mean it when they say they are going to kill themselves, and terminating the pregnancy is at times the only way to save their lives.

Also note that they were talking about debilitating nausea and vomiting.  The article mentioned a 16-year-old who lost 20 pounds from vomiting from her pregnancy.  How much more weight do you think she could lose while growing a baby before you'd lose both of them?

I would also like to remind you of the case discussed before where a woman had an infection behind her eye (partly caused by her lower immune system due to her pregnancy) which couldn't be diagnosed because it required an MRI, which could not be performed since she was pregnant.  Her symptoms were headaches and debilitating vomiting.  If she hadn't gotten an abortion and then the MRI, the infection would have gone into her brain and she would have died.  Vomiting is not just some excuse used by women who happen to want an abortion. 

There are some on the Right who would rather see these women die than to admit that they do not really understand pregnancy and how complex and hard it can be.  They'd rather bury people's wives and daughters than admit that their simplistic view of life and medicine is wrong.  Don't be fooled by these fools.  Pregnancy is hard, and it can do weird and horrible things to a woman's body chemistry.  It is one of the few natural biological functions that can, and does, kill people.  It is risky.  And declaring that any abortion that some ignorant politician does not agree with is murder is an abomination.  No matter how much innate rights one might believe that a fetus has.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Fenring on September 22, 2022, 05:44:18 PM
The suicide point also perhaps requires more nuance since we'd have to look on a case by case basis. As a general principle "I'll kill myself unless X" is not a particularly good reason to do X. In fact it seems to be becoming a more prevalent type of threat as far as I can see. Now there are people with personality disorders (like BPD) who may be more prone to such sentiments, and if that's so then the solution to this needs to also be more nuanced than just "do what they want". Temporary insanity is probably a loose term, but in cases where a person is at risk to harm themselves and others, I'm not sure an abortion is the most obvious answer as you do. That's sort of like saying if someone poses a risk to someone else we should eliminate that someone else preemptively to remove the threat of harm, like in Speed (shoot the hostage). As for extreme nausea, I've know a few women who had this, it sucks. That doesn't seem to me that relevant other than as a particular example of really really wanting an abortion. Other reasons can include poverty, mental health issues, lack of family support, and other issues, all of which will be very unpleasant. For all of this you'd have to ask how much unpleasantness a person should be going through before we finally say it's ok to kill a baby - note this would be the necessary argument if a fetus is a person as mentioned above. The most apparent fact in the debate is that people who cite many reasons to grant abortions typically are not going to grant that premise, in which case there's not really much of a debate other than about what a fetus is. The details you mention become ancillary if that issue is up in the air, hence why abortion is an impossible topic. A good start would be to at least recognize what the other side of the coin would be if your starting premise was different, and to respect how others enact that belief. In some cases they honorably pursue that belief (even if you disagree with them), in others naturally many people will be scumbags. YMMV
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Wayward Son on September 22, 2022, 06:56:58 PM
Quote
As a general principle "I'll kill myself unless X" is not a particularly good reason to do X. In fact it seems to be becoming a more prevalent type of threat as far as I can see. Now there are people with personality disorders (like BPD) who may be more prone to such sentiments, and if that's so then the solution to this needs to also be more nuanced than just "do what they want". Temporary insanity is probably a loose term, but in cases where a person is at risk to harm themselves and others, I'm not sure an abortion is the most obvious answer as you do. That's sort of like saying if someone poses a risk to someone else we should eliminate that someone else preemptively to remove the threat of harm, like in Speed (shoot the hostage).

You are not understanding the situation.  You seem to keep thinking that the suicidal thoughts and tendencies are coming from some other source, such as personality disorders.  But that is not the case.

In some cases (perhaps many), the cause of the suicidal thoughts is the pregnancy.  There is no doubt about it.  When you have a person who has had no such thoughts in the past, and suddenly becomes very serious about it when she becomes pregnant, there is good reason to believe the correlation is causation when it happens again and again and again.

If there was a drug that people were taking, and the leading cause of death of those taking it was suicide, wouldn't you consider it a strong possibility that the drug was causing at least some of those suicides?

Now look up the leading cause of death for pregnant women and mothers in the first year after their pregnancies.  Guess what it is. ;)

This is not to say that all women who feel suicidal should automatically be allowed to have an abortion.  But it does pretty well dispel the idea that the pregnancy has nothing to do with those suicidal feelings and ideas.  So it cannot be dismissed as being from other causes.

And if the pregnancy is causing serious intentions of suicide, then that affects the intrinsic right of the fetus to live.  If the fetus' presence is causing a dangerous situation, the fetus' life may become secondary.

It's like a castaway in a boat that is found by a passenger ship.  The castaway has typhus, which would infect most of the passengers and crew of the ship.  Is the ship obligated to rescue the sick castaway, with the almost certain knowledge that his presence will kill many of the passengers and crew?  I suspect that maritime law would say no, and certainly not call it murder.

Yet if the presence of a fetus is causing the mother to become mentally sick, these laws deem it murder if the mother tries to get rid of the cause of her illness. :(  Certainly it is not the fetus' fault that he/she is making the mother ill.  But the fetus is the cause.

When a doctor determines it is the fetus that is causing severe mental illness to the point of suicide, then abortion should be an option.  To deny it is to condemn mothers, and often their fetuses, to death.  And that would be putting the life of the fetus above that of the mother.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Fenring on September 22, 2022, 07:51:16 PM
Quote
As a general principle "I'll kill myself unless X" is not a particularly good reason to do X. In fact it seems to be becoming a more prevalent type of threat as far as I can see. Now there are people with personality disorders (like BPD) who may be more prone to such sentiments, and if that's so then the solution to this needs to also be more nuanced than just "do what they want". Temporary insanity is probably a loose term, but in cases where a person is at risk to harm themselves and others, I'm not sure an abortion is the most obvious answer as you do. That's sort of like saying if someone poses a risk to someone else we should eliminate that someone else preemptively to remove the threat of harm, like in Speed (shoot the hostage).

You are not understanding the situation.  You seem to keep thinking that the suicidal thoughts and tendencies are coming from some other source, such as personality disorders.  But that is not the case.

In some cases (perhaps many), the cause of the suicidal thoughts is the pregnancy.  There is no doubt about it.  When you have a person who has had no such thoughts in the past, and suddenly becomes very serious about it when she becomes pregnant, there is good reason to believe the correlation is causation when it happens again and again and again.

That's just a truism: the bad thing caused in circumstance X occurs during circumstance X. It says nothing about causation, merely about timing. You can take a packed up box of dynamite, and when a gorilla sits on it you may have circumstantial reason to suggest that gorillas may be the cause of major explosions. But I trust you can see that this really tells us nothing about gorillas, but rather than there's a system in play that was not previously acknowledged.

Quote
If there was a drug that people were taking, and the leading cause of death of those taking it was suicide, wouldn't you consider it a strong possibility that the drug was causing at least some of those suicides?

Are you likening a natural biological process to taking experimental drugs? Granted the body is a drug factory of sorts, but this seems like an otherwise tenuous analogy.

Quote
This is not to say that all women who feel suicidal should automatically be allowed to have an abortion.  But it does pretty well dispel the idea that the pregnancy has nothing to do with those suicidal feelings and ideas.  So it cannot be dismissed as being from other causes.

You can quote me above where I said pregnancy had no relation to suicidal ideation. What I said was that a person threatening (or wanting) suicide is not ipso facto a reason to accede to a request. It is, however, a cause for real concern that should be taken seriously.

Quote
And if the pregnancy is causing serious intentions of suicide, then that affects the intrinsic right of the fetus to live.  If the fetus' presence is causing a dangerous situation, the fetus' life may become secondary.

You are torturing the word "causing" here, to understate the point. There may be many factors, not the least of which are the mother's preconceptions about pregnancy, the society and its narratives, and the physical conditions the mother expects to encounter. None of these exists in a vacuum, and they are totally unrelated to the physical fact of the pregnancy itself. You would have to argue that the suicidal ideation is 100% biochemical (good luck with that argument, we won't have this kind of science for 500 years), and even if we granted this you still have no credible basis for the premise that someone's life becomes secondary even if their presence causes danger for someone else. For instance take a famine situation, or some other zero-sum environment: would you argue that the presence of an extra person in a famine, which necessarily constitutes a mortal danger for others who may starve if this person eats, therefore establishes that the value of this 'extra' person's life becomes 'secondary'? I'd also like to parenthetically note that the term 'secondary' may make the matter sound cold and dry but recall we're talking (according to the argument) about a person. Not that you need to pepper your clauses with terms like "unfortunately" and "with bitter regret", but it would be nice if at least you thought them before choosing brevity.

Quote
It's like a castaway in a boat that is found by a passenger ship.  The castaway has typhus, which would infect most of the passengers and crew of the ship.  Is the ship obligated to rescue the sick castaway, with the almost certain knowledge that his presence will kill many of the passengers and crew?  I suspect that maritime law would say no, and certainly not call it murder.

You have your analogy backward. The proper framing in this example would be that there's a castaway in the boat, and their presence makes someone else sick. Now this framing (and thus the analogy) would be mired by the fact that typically you make someone else sick because you are sick, which is not in evidence in the fetus case. So let's tweek it to be that a castaway is in the boat, and someone else present is fatally allergic to them. Do you think it would be reasonable in this case for the person with the allergy to have the right to declare the castaway's life as of 'secondary' importance? We might well imagine this extreme scenario could degenerate into a "me or you" choice, but luckily IRL there are other options.

Quote
Yet if the presence of a fetus is causing the mother to become mentally sick, these laws deem it murder if the mother tries to get rid of the cause of her illness. :(  Certainly it is not the fetus' fault that he/she is making the mother ill.  But the fetus is the cause.

No, a single thing cannot cause someone to become mentally sick. We don't have this kind of analysis available. You can cite the pregnancy as triggering it, perhaps, but that is not causation. The pregnancy could have catalyzed something else already in play, etc etc. I'm surprised I have to point this out to you.

I'm reminded a legal case a lawyer friend told me about, where the presence of a fly in someone's water allegedly caused him such mental distress that he lost total control of his life, couldn't work, and was in therapy. Naturally he was suing for damages. While one could perhaps believe the plaintiff really did have these symptoms and wasn't malingering, it is obviously farcical to posit as the primary theory that the fly caused this man's life to spiral out of control.

Quote
When a doctor determines it is the fetus that is causing severe mental illness to the point of suicide, then abortion should be an option.  To deny it is to condemn mothers, and often their fetuses, to death.  And that would be putting the life of the fetus above that of the mother.

I'm not really sure why you are intent on framing this as a fetus causing a (presumably) biochemical problem, and yet insistent that it would require a surgical solution. Why not a biochemical one, if it's just a question of hormones? Unless you're willing to admit into evidence that the mother's ideas can be contributory, in which case your argument falls into a world of trouble.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: TheDrake on September 22, 2022, 10:51:32 PM
As Fenring points out, all of this hinges on the intractable question of personhood. If the fetus has an equal right to life as the mother, then its difficult to allow any abortion except one where the viability of the pregnancy is 0%. You might just have to strap the Mom in restraints for the duration of her suicidal thoughts. She needs to be committed involuntarily to protect the child.

Now, I personally think it is absolute nonsense to consider an entity without brain and therefore without thought as a person, but if I can't convince people on that front, very few of these tragic cases hold up as morally wrong according to their deduction from that premise. Would we allow one conjoined twin to deliberately kill the other in order to be separated?
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Fenring on September 23, 2022, 12:07:45 AM
As Fenring points out, all of this hinges on the intractable question of personhood. If the fetus has an equal right to life as the mother, then its difficult to allow any abortion except one where the viability of the pregnancy is 0%. You might just have to strap the Mom in restraints for the duration of her suicidal thoughts. She needs to be committed involuntarily to protect the child.

This is at least a correct way of inspecting the question from both sides, and I agree with this type of process. A detailed investigation of possible solutions might involve quite a number of solutions, but this is how to begin to look at it.

Quote
Now, I personally think it is absolute nonsense to consider an entity without brain and therefore without thought as a person, but if I can't convince people on that front, very few of these tragic cases hold up as morally wrong according to their deduction from that premise. Would we allow one conjoined twin to deliberately kill the other in order to be separated?

That's totally ok, and I think the important thing is to remember that good people believe the other side of it. Maybe it's hard to respect hypocrites, but one should try to find respect for people who act decently within their own premises. If we all did that we'd have a much better environment, no matter how much we disagree on stuff. I do actually disagree that very few cases hold up as morally wrong if you accept their premises, though. Or at least, I'd agree with WS's sentiment in a fair number of cases that the way people act is often quite disreputable. You can claim to believe XYZ but if you're a jerk you're a jerk. I find jerkiness of every stripe highly aggravating. I think it would still be possible for completely decent people to still disagree about abortion, but as things stand there is no real journalism or public discourse about it since the entire thing is about narrative control and clicks.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: TheDrake on September 23, 2022, 05:46:44 PM
Quote
I think the important thing is to remember that good people believe the other side of it

I have a problem with that. There are some things that are just wrong, and people on the other side are not deserving of respect. Like the folks that thought slavery wasn't a crime against humanity. I'm not bringing that up by accident, it is in fact a similar question of personhood. If a slave is a person, then they would have all the rights and privileges of other persons. You can't say, "well, I don't agree with you that negros are sub-human, but to each their own."

I will continue to try to turn people who think that Plan B is killing a person, and I refuse to give them any respect. I just know its futile to throw tragic cases at them and say, what about this? At best you'd get them to admit that the law should be amended to clarify specific cases, all of which would only apply to 0% viability cases. At best.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Fenring on September 23, 2022, 05:58:23 PM
I have a problem with that. There are some things that are just wrong, and people on the other side are not deserving of respect. Like the folks that thought slavery wasn't a crime against humanity.

You know what? If someone proposed a serious and genuine reason in favor of slavery, I'd listen to the argument. For instance context matters: if we were situated in 500 B.C. I might very well be inclined to agree that slavery is necessary if the reasoning was solid. At this point in history, not, but that's for ancillary reasons to morality, such as technology level. I'm not actually advocating for relative morality, but rather discussing whether to dismiss someone for a view I disagree with. For instance I've been giving more thought lately to the warhawk view of reality. I am trying to see through their eyes more, even though that type of mentality is alien to me.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: NobleHunter on September 23, 2022, 10:13:36 PM
Even if they were arguing that you and your family, specifically, should be slaves? Or murdered by the state? Or forced to give birth to the children of their rapist?

There may be value in attempting to understand why people have certain beliefs but that doesn't mean we shouldn't dismiss those beliefs out of hand.

Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Fenring on September 23, 2022, 10:24:03 PM
Even if they were arguing that you and your family, specifically, should be slaves? Or murdered by the state? Or forced to give birth to the children of their rapist?

There may be value in attempting to understand why people have certain beliefs but that doesn't mean we shouldn't dismiss those beliefs out of hand.

Being unable to distinguish between rational and irrational positions is part of it. Hence why understand first, judge second. And underlying worldview matters too. For instance someone whose worldview is "I own everyone, no one else matters but me", then in a sense it would be 'rational' to try to enslave everyone. But that's not what I mean by rationality; I mean rather the use of truth in reasoning, and I personally hold that it is not true that everyone else can belong to one person. But then how could I accept any argument about slavery? It would have to go something along the lines of it being objectively bad but forestalling something worse. So to use your example, if someone presented to me a legitimate concern wherein the enslavement of my family would be the best option to avoid some horrible evil, I might consider that argument to be rational, if unfortunate. There is, after all, such a thing as intentional self-sacrifice for a greater good. Killing your own people is bad, but frame it as them choosing to die for their country and suddenly it might be acceptable. I don't want to call even that a good, per se, but it might well be better than the alternative (e.g. the enemy winning). That's why the context and the underlying moral framework matters. And I can assure both you and TheDrake that there is a bone fide underlying moral framework wherein an anti-abortion position is rational. The trick is to understand that it's possible for two, antagonistic, rational positions to be put forward at the same time. This type of tension is quite difficult to unravel: are they disagreeing because one is right and the other wrong? How else could they disagree? But those are not the only options when confronting a dynamic tension in the development of understanding. Just keep aware that we are basically infants in our level of understanding; I doubt either side of any modern debate actually really knows what they're talking about.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: jc44 on September 24, 2022, 11:06:28 AM
Even if they were arguing that you and your family, specifically, should be slaves? Or murdered by the state? Or forced to give birth to the children of their rapist?

There may be value in attempting to understand why people have certain beliefs but that doesn't mean we shouldn't dismiss those beliefs out of hand.
It is possible to both believe that a given philosophy is correct and for you to be directly disadvantaged by it - indeed you can argue that it is only by taking negative consequences from a belief that you can show that you actually believe in it rather than it just being a convenient cover for self-enrichment.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Wayward Son on October 03, 2022, 03:43:52 PM
Quote
You are torturing the word "causing" here, to understate the point. There may be many factors, not the least of which are the mother's preconceptions about pregnancy, the society and its narratives, and the physical conditions the mother expects to encounter. None of these exists in a vacuum, and they are totally unrelated to the physical fact of the pregnancy itself. You would have to argue that the suicidal ideation is 100% biochemical (good luck with that argument, we won't have this kind of science for 500 years)...

No, a single thing cannot cause someone to become mentally sick. We don't have this kind of analysis available. You can cite the pregnancy as triggering it, perhaps, but that is not causation. The pregnancy could have catalyzed something else already in play, etc etc. I'm surprised I have to point this out to you.

I didn't have sufficient time to respond until now.  I hope the ideas haven't gone cold since then. :)

First, I don't think there is any doubt that severe depression--so severe that it can lead to suicide--cannot be biochemically driven.  We absolutely know that suicidal depression can be chemically driven from the medicines we already give to the ill.  I've seen articles on how chemotherapy that can lead to suicide, and I'm sure you've seen commercials on TV that include "side effects can include thoughts of suicide..." (A real plus for taking that medicine, right?  ::) )  There are many medicines that can lead to suicide in some patients.

Furthermore, it is documented that certain brain tumors can radically affect a person's personality, although I suppose one could argue that this is not a chemical change to personality but rather one caused by a physical change to the brain itself.

But finally, there is the fact that a significant percentage of women do suffer from depression when and after they are pregnant, but not before, and lose that depression after the baby is no longer in the her body.  These are all indications that changes to the body that actually cause depression, and not just enhance it.

There is also the question of whether something needs to be "100%" the cause of the mental illness.  We don't have such criteria for other causes of death.  I mean, if a man is dying from an illness and his bodily functions are at only 10% of normal, we don't say that a person putting a pillow over his face only 10% killed him (to give a gruesome example).  If a person fell down a cliff and was seriously injured, we don't say that a man who kicked him a few times is only partially responsible for killing the person.  That which pushes a person over the edge holds a great deal of the responsibility for the person's death.

So if a woman who is a little depressed but has never had thoughts of suicide suddenly is making plans because she is pregnant, can you really say that the pregnancy has nothing to do with it?  That the pregnancy didn't push her over the edge?  That the pregnancy has nothing to do with the suicidal ideation?  Especially when some mothers, after losing their child, no longer have such ideation?

And could you say that any doctor that had serious fears that a patient would kill herself while pregnant would be a murderer is he had the pregnancy terminated to save her life, instead of seeing both her and her child die?

This is not to say that other methods of helping the mother would not be preferable and/or should not be taken if possible.  But this is one of those circumstances where the opinion of those directly involved, primarily the mother and the doctor, take precedence over everyone else's opinions.  Judging how close someone is to killing herself requires intimate knowledge of the situation.

Quote
I'm reminded a legal case a lawyer friend told me about, where the presence of a fly in someone's water allegedly caused him such mental distress that he lost total control of his life, couldn't work, and was in therapy. Naturally he was suing for damages. While one could perhaps believe the plaintiff really did have these symptoms and wasn't malingering, it is obviously farcical to posit as the primary theory that the fly caused this man's life to spiral out of control.

But a fly is not a chemical in one's body.  Would the lawsuit seem so ridiculous if it was LSD that put in the glass of water? ;)

Quote
I'm not really sure why you are intent on framing this as a fetus causing a (presumably) biochemical problem, and yet insistent that it would require a surgical solution. Why not a biochemical one, if it's just a question of hormones? Unless you're willing to admit into evidence that the mother's ideas can be contributory, in which case your argument falls into a world of trouble.

It's not the fetus per se that is causing the problems, but the biochemical changes to the mother that is the culprit.

And, yes, if we knew exactly which chemicals were causing the mental illness, then we could--and should--treat those.  But (1) we don't know which ones they are, our bodies being kludged together so that one chemical or DNA strand can have multiple effects on the entire system, and (2) even if we can treat chemical, would it kill the fetus?  Is the chemical so important to the fetus that it would cause the fetus' death?  And would you be comfortable if a doctor tried experimenting with different chemicals for the mother (in order to find out which one was causing depression i the mother) if such experiments could lead to the fetus' death?

The mother does not just "carry" a child.  Her whole body changes to become an incubation chamber, providing the fetus with chemicals and hormones that are necessary for the child's development.  And some of these chemicals and hormones are not beneficial to the mother, and can be downright detrimental.  And the only way we know how to bring the body back to normal is to remove the cause of these new hormones, which is the pregnancy itself.  The fetus in a sense is collateral damage.  But the mother has the right to save herself if a pregnancy is likely to kill her, or if it will not result in the birth of a viable child.  Otherwise, she is no longer a person but an incubation chamber with no rights or free will.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: TheDrake on October 03, 2022, 04:36:33 PM
Quote
The famous Wagon Mound case set the reasonable foreseeability requirement as “the foresight of a reasonable man”. (Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd. v The Miller Steamship Co. (The Wagon Mound, No. 2), [1967] 1 AC 617) While some people are more susceptible than others to serious psychiatric injuries, it would not be reasonable to require third parties to be aware of such possibilities.  Unusual or extreme events caused by negligence are imaginable but not reasonably foreseeable.  The law of negligence draws the line for compensability of damage.  One cannot use unique frailties as a form of insurance.

That's your legal case, not that it actually applies in any way. It is obviously reasonably foreseeable that someone might suffer from post-partum depression. Then again, 81% of women have been found to suffer from depression after having an abortion as well, so be careful about championing the right to an abortion because of depression, because you might also be arguing that abortions should be withheld because they might foreseeably cause depression and make the clinic responsible for damages.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: TheDeamon on October 03, 2022, 06:05:08 PM
Quote
The famous Wagon Mound case set the reasonable foreseeability requirement as “the foresight of a reasonable man”. (Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd. v The Miller Steamship Co. (The Wagon Mound, No. 2), [1967] 1 AC 617) While some people are more susceptible than others to serious psychiatric injuries, it would not be reasonable to require third parties to be aware of such possibilities.  Unusual or extreme events caused by negligence are imaginable but not reasonably foreseeable.  The law of negligence draws the line for compensability of damage.  One cannot use unique frailties as a form of insurance.

That's your legal case, not that it actually applies in any way. It is obviously reasonably foreseeable that someone might suffer from post-partum depression. Then again, 81% of women have been found to suffer from depression after having an abortion as well, so be careful about championing the right to an abortion because of depression, because you might also be arguing that abortions should be withheld because they might foreseeably cause depression and make the clinic responsible for damages.

This is one of my biggest reasons for having a pet theory that so many of the women who vehemently pro-abortion rights are also people who have had abortions themselves are even a thing.

They're suppressing/rationalizing what happened with their own abortion, and view any attempts to restrict abortions as personal attacks on the choice they made.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: TheDrake on October 03, 2022, 06:18:59 PM
It's hard not to take "you are a murderer" as anything other than a personal attack.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Wayward Son on October 03, 2022, 06:28:58 PM
Quote
Then again, 81% of women have been found to suffer from depression after having an abortion as well, so be careful about championing the right to an abortion because of depression, because you might also be arguing that abortions should be withheld because they might foreseeably cause depression and make the clinic responsible for damages.

And it is a balancing act, isn't it?  Pregnancy can cause depression; abortion can cause depression.  How can anyone decide which would be better for any individual?  Especially for one who is severely depressed.

But more importantly, who should decide for an individual?  ;)
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Fenring on October 03, 2022, 07:51:43 PM
Quote
Then again, 81% of women have been found to suffer from depression after having an abortion as well, so be careful about championing the right to an abortion because of depression, because you might also be arguing that abortions should be withheld because they might foreseeably cause depression and make the clinic responsible for damages.

And it is a balancing act, isn't it?  Pregnancy can cause depression; abortion can cause depression.  How can anyone decide which would be better for any individual?  Especially for one who is severely depressed.

But more importantly, who should decide for an individual?  ;)

Your argument is already that an individual (the mother) should be deciding for another individual (the baby). So that line seems to go right out the window. Again this point becomes trivially apparent if you already think the fetus is a baby, and can become invisible if you don't.

But the TheDrake's point seems to stand, which is that if you are specifically using the possibility of suicidal ideation as justification for the mother's needs to override the baby/fetus, you would need to somehow demonstrate that the depression during the pregnancy is greater than or equal to the depression that might follow. Naturally this is a ridiculous condition since you can't demonstrate something that hasn't happened yet, which is precisely the trouble with arguing that one person's rights vanish because another person might get themselves into trouble. And indeed, not only do you enter a quagmire when reasons such as emotional pain become justification for abortion, but you open up an entire world of connections that you would need to allow into the conversation. For instance, what if a mother's choice to have an abortion causes depression and suicidal ideation in people who believe that babies are being killed? Does the risk now present in this depressed pro-lifer nullify the rights of the mother whose choice is causing the depression? And I'd like to note that once we're admitting in concepts like "is causing depression" you would much more easily be able to demonstrate that a person becoming depressed because (in their view) a murder is happening is directly caused by the murder; contrast with depression in a pregnant woman, where even if the physical pregnancy was a contributing factor it would not be obvious at all how to show that the fetus itself is the cause and therefore its removal is a necessary medical solution. I'm not so much rehashing the same point I made above, but rather pointing to the fact that once you allow supposed causes of emotional pain then you will find the world is full of causes of emotional pain. I mean, maybe GOP politicians should lose their rights if their presence and actions cause crippling depression in Democrat constituents. As appealing as that might be, I don't see it as being quite what you want to argue, but fundamentally what you are arguing is that if a person is very very upset about someone else then any steps necessary can be taken to rectify that.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Tom on October 03, 2022, 07:54:23 PM
Quote
Your argument is already that an individual (the mother) should be deciding for another individual (the baby).
I'm not sure that's the argument. I think the argument is two-fold: 1) that a zygote/fetus is a lower level of "human" that is not deserving of full personhood; 2) even if you grant a zygote personhood, that no individual should be required to contribute their body to another individual's survival.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Fenring on October 03, 2022, 08:00:26 PM
Quote
Your argument is already that an individual (the mother) should be deciding for another individual (the baby).
I'm not sure that's the argument. I think the argument is two-fold: 1) that a zygote/fetus is a lower level of "human" that is not deserving of full personhood; 2) even if you grant a zygote personhood, that no individual should be required to contribute their body to another individual's survival.

Well those are some arguments, but not the argument we're discussing :)
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: TheDrake on October 03, 2022, 08:01:27 PM
Quote
Then again, 81% of women have been found to suffer from depression after having an abortion as well, so be careful about championing the right to an abortion because of depression, because you might also be arguing that abortions should be withheld because they might foreseeably cause depression and make the clinic responsible for damages.

And it is a balancing act, isn't it?  Pregnancy can cause depression; abortion can cause depression.  How can anyone decide which would be better for any individual?  Especially for one who is severely depressed.

But more importantly, who should decide for an individual?  ;)

100% it should be between a doctor and the woman with the fetus inside her. And possibly a parent if we're dealing with a minor. It shouldn't require a reason. That's a distraction. The entire willingness to carve out exceptional cases is accepting the loss of the main battle. Oh, well, if it threatens her health because of a potential complication, that's not good enough, even when there's no amniotic fluid. Let's fix that one little exception. When we start fighting over which carve outs are "okay", we have already conceded the battle that a woman and doctor can decide for any reason, or no reason at all.

To Fenring, I reiterate my known position that the fetus is in fact NOT an individual in any meaningful sense prior to a certain point of development, and therefore deciding about it is equivalent to deciding if someone can remove a gallbladder. Nobody needs to look out for the gallbladder's rights, nor provide any justification other than whether a doctor agrees it ought to come out.

I would be highly conflicted about aborting a fetus after it develops an actual brain for the sake of the mother's health if the fetus could be viable. At that point, I think those arguments ought to hold.

I think you have to be assuming that a doctor is highly unethical if she's winking and nodding at a patient who is just "upset" so they can have a late abortion. I don't think you'd see much of it, but it certainly could happen. Doctors like any other persons can fail to follow norms, look at how some of them throw prescriptions around like candy at a parade.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Fenring on October 03, 2022, 08:07:24 PM
To Fenring, I reiterate my known position that the fetus is in fact NOT an individual in any meaningful sense prior to a certain point of development, and therefore deciding about it is equivalent to deciding if someone can remove a gallbladder. Nobody needs to look out for the gallbladder's rights, nor provide any justification other than whether a doctor agrees it ought to come out.

Noted. But it is far more important to map out the logic on both sides of that assumption than to dwell on your take, regardless of what you personally think the reality is. What would the arguments be if the fetus was a full individual? That is what I'm discussing. I've not brought up (nor do I intend to at this time) any points to try to convince you that a fetus is a person. It is especially important to assess the validity of someone else's claims, based on their own premises. If the premise disagrees with yours but their logic is sound you'll probably do fine talking to them about stuff. You can't always sue for total agreement.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: msquared on October 04, 2022, 03:58:20 PM
Looks like Herschel Walker paid for a girlfriends abortion by check and wrote her a nice card.

Besides lying about it (but Herschel is in the Trump School of telling the truth) the hypocrisy stands out.  It would not surprise me that Trump paid for a girlfriend abortion back in the day but was smart enough to give her cash.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: TheDrake on October 04, 2022, 04:48:35 PM
Sorry, I'm not taking an uncorroborated report from "The Daily Beast" as a legitimately researched claim. The Daily Beast's evidence? A generic get well card is in their article. The other items? Not published. I have to wonder when the woman in question decided to come forward, why she chose that publication and if others turned down her evidence. It doesn't sound like the first outlet you would call if you had decided to try to derail your abortion daddy's campaign.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Wayward Son on October 05, 2022, 04:47:15 PM
But the TheDrake's point seems to stand, which is that if you are specifically using the possibility of suicidal ideation as justification for the mother's needs to override the baby/fetus, you would need to somehow demonstrate that the depression during the pregnancy is greater than or equal to the depression that might follow.

Actually, I don't believe I do have to demonstrate that.

If the depression is severe enough that the doctor believes the mother will take her life, and all other methods of treatment won't help, then abortion would be the treatment of last resort, whether the abortion itself would or would not also cause depression.  Because if the mother takes her life, then the fetus will die anyway.  And even if she still takes her life after the abortion, there was at least a chance that she wouldn't.

The outcome for the fetus is the same either way. :(

Quote
Naturally this is a ridiculous condition since you can't demonstrate something that hasn't happened yet, which is precisely the trouble with arguing that one person's rights vanish because another person might get themselves into trouble.

When that "get themselves into trouble" means slashing of wrists or serious attempts, then the probability goes way up. Then the question becomes not "might get into trouble," but "might succeed." :(

And, once again, if the doctor's experience says a person like the mother will try to kill herself, who are you, or anyone else, to overrule him? 

Quote
And indeed, not only do you enter a quagmire when reasons such as emotional pain become justification for abortion, but you open up an entire world of connections that you would need to allow into the conversation. For instance, what if a mother's choice to have an abortion causes depression and suicidal ideation in people who believe that babies are being killed? Does the risk now present in this depressed pro-lifer nullify the rights of the mother whose choice is causing the depression? And I'd like to note that once we're admitting in concepts like "is causing depression" you would much more easily be able to demonstrate that a person becoming depressed because (in their view) a murder is happening is directly caused by the murder; contrast with depression in a pregnant woman, where even if the physical pregnancy was a contributing factor it would not be obvious at all how to show that the fetus itself is the cause and therefore its removal is a necessary medical solution.

I would say that "emotion pain" caused by events is actually different than those caused by chemical imbalance and such inside a person.

One has to do with the personal reaction to an event or circumstance.

The other has to do with the chemistry of the brain, causing the brain to misfunction, leading to possible depression, psychosis and loss of inhibition.

I would say they are actually very different diseases, since they have different causes and often require different treatments.

If the pregnancy is causing a chemical imbalance, no amount of talk therapy will sufficiently help.  You have to go directly to the cause of the imbalance and treat that.  And pregnancy can limit the types of medications available to the mother, since some of them are proscribed because they can affect the fetus.  (Sure, you could give it to the mother anyway, but, depending on the medication, it could create birth defects, or worse, induce an abortion--which you're trying to avoid.)

And I'll say again, the pregnancy doesn't have to be the main cause of this imbalance, if it increases the problem until it is life-threatening, and no other treatment is available. :(

And again, while the fetus is not the cause of the chemical imbalances, the presence of the fetus in the womb is.  If there is a way to safely remove the fetus and stop the pregnancy, I'm all for it.  But that is the problem with banning abortions--you can't separate the fetus' body from the mother's body.  Her body is the only incubator for the fetus.  Which means that you are taking away the sovereignty of the mother over her own body--even if it kills her. :(
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Fenring on October 05, 2022, 04:58:22 PM
By hanging your hat on it being a chemical imbalance 'causing' the suicidal ideation, rather than it being a 'personal reaction to an event', you are inadvertently demonstrating my earlier point, which is that you are literally defining the problem as being biochemical, but are avoiding even the hint of a discussion of a biochemical solution. For instance if you really believed your own argument, you'd think the first response to a suicidal pregnant woman would be "ok, we'd better insist on a varied treatment plan to help deal with this problem, including medications, anti-depressants, etc, prior to a surgical solution. As I've mentioned elsewhere in the thread, denying a pregnant woman medical treatment is not concordant with a 'proper' pro-life position (we may distinguish between people who care deeply about both the mother and the fetus, as between people who secretly want to punish the mother and have little to no concern for her). But I think you will find the pro-choicers scarce who would agree that it should be required to attempt an alternative to abortion in the case of a suicidal mother prior to, as you put it, using the treatment of last resort. It sounds an awful lot like the "last" resort is in fact the first solution you and others would advocate for, which means that the argument itself is a fig leaf for the fundamental belief that there is really no reason to try to prevent abortions in the first place.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: TheDrake on October 06, 2022, 11:44:13 AM
Quote
If the depression is severe enough that the doctor believes the mother will take her life, and all other methods of treatment won't help

I thought when people were suicidal they will be placed into involuntary commitment. That is, in fact, a method of treatment.

How Involuntary Hospitalization for Depression Works (https://www.verywellmind.com/involuntary-hospitalization-for-depression-1067261)

You keep acting as though there's no other option but abortion to save a depressed mother's life. I'm not saying this is preferable, but you have to acknowledge that once you confer personhood on a fetus, this sort of thing is inevitable to not only save the mother but also the child.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Ouija Nightmare on October 06, 2022, 12:22:52 PM
Quote
If the depression is severe enough that the doctor believes the mother will take her life, and all other methods of treatment won't help

I thought when people were suicidal they will be placed into involuntary commitment. That is, in fact, a method of treatment.

How Involuntary Hospitalization for Depression Works (https://www.verywellmind.com/involuntary-hospitalization-for-depression-1067261)

You keep acting as though there's no other option but abortion to save a depressed mother's life. I'm not saying this is preferable, but you have to acknowledge that once you confer personhood on a fetus, this sort of thing is inevitable to not only save the mother but also the child.

So your solution is to establish women of childbearing years in farrowing crates?

That is a solution of sorts although not one I’d have devised.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Fenring on October 06, 2022, 12:24:54 PM
So your solution is to establish women of childbearing years in farrowing crates?

That is a solution of sorts although not one I’d have devised.

It is not his solution. It is a solution, being presented as an alternative to above arguments suggesting that abortion is the only possible solution to a suicidal mother.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: NobleHunter on October 06, 2022, 12:34:20 PM
I'm pretty sure acute suicidal ideation (i.e. when someone is at actually at noticeable risk of killing themselves) is a transitory state. I know people who've survived jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge began to regret their choice on their way down. Likewise, reducing access to means of suicide--the removal of gas ovens for instance--correlates with a lower incidence of suicide.

Which implies that temporary involuntary commitment is a reasonable means of treating acute suicidal ideation.  Though it's very easy to do it badly, that's a different issue.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Wayward Son on October 06, 2022, 01:33:56 PM
By hanging your hat on it being a chemical imbalance 'causing' the suicidal ideation, rather than it being a 'personal reaction to an event', you are inadvertently demonstrating my earlier point, which is that you are literally defining the problem as being biochemical, but are avoiding even the hint of a discussion of a biochemical solution. For instance if you really believed your own argument, you'd think the first response to a suicidal pregnant woman would be "ok, we'd better insist on a varied treatment plan to help deal with this problem, including medications, anti-depressants, etc, prior to a surgical solution. As I've mentioned elsewhere in the thread, denying a pregnant woman medical treatment is not concordant with a 'proper' pro-life position (we may distinguish between people who care deeply about both the mother and the fetus, as between people who secretly want to punish the mother and have little to no concern for her). But I think you will find the pro-choicers scarce who would agree that it should be required to attempt an alternative to abortion in the case of a suicidal mother prior to, as you put it, using the treatment of last resort. It sounds an awful lot like the "last" resort is in fact the first solution you and others would advocate for, which means that the argument itself is a fig leaf for the fundamental belief that there is really no reason to try to prevent abortions in the first place.

I can accept that treatment, medical and psychological, for suicidal tendencies and psychosis be required before an abortion is permitted.  But will you accept that:

1. If treatment is not successful, that an abortion is a treatment of last resort.

2. That the mother and the mother's doctor, who know the case best, should be the ones who decides if it is necessary to use the last resort, and not some other group who are not nearly as familiar with the particular case.

3. Neither the doctor, medical facility, or mother will bear any punishment or blame if, in their opinion, this last resort procedure was necessary.

Sometimes it is necessary to end a person's life in order to save another person's life.  And a person is not obligated to provide their body or parts thereof to save another person's life.  Even if that life is a child growing in a person's body.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: TheDrake on October 06, 2022, 02:44:10 PM
I'm pretty sure acute suicidal ideation (i.e. when someone is at actually at noticeable risk of killing themselves) is a transitory state. I know people who've survived jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge began to regret their choice on their way down. Likewise, reducing access to means of suicide--the removal of gas ovens for instance--correlates with a lower incidence of suicide.

Which implies that temporary involuntary commitment is a reasonable means of treating acute suicidal ideation.  Though it's very easy to do it badly, that's a different issue.

See linked article. Absolutely extended commitment also exists. As Fenring said, it is not my solution. My solution is that a doctor and her patient can abort a brainless fetus at any time and for any reason. As for a depression that occurs too late? There are typically many levels of intervention for that, and they'd look a lot like post-partum depression. If we found out that killing the infant cured post-partum depression, would we kill the infant to save the mother? I mean, that's the implication of the statement "sometimes it is necessary to end a person's life in order to save another person's life".

Quote
Extended Commitment
The third type of hospitalization, extended commitment, is a bit more difficult to obtain. Generally, it requires one or more persons from a specific group of people—such as friends, relatives, guardians, public officials, and hospital personnel—to apply for one.

Often a certificate or affidavit from one or more physicians or mental health professionals describing the patient's diagnosis and treatment must accompany the application.

In virtually all states a hearing must be held, with a judge or jury making the final decision about whether the person can be held.

A typical length for extended commitment is up to six months. At the end of the initial period, an application can be made for the time to be extended, generally for one to two times longer than the original commitment. Requests can be made for further commitment when each period expires, as long as the patient continues to meet the legal criteria.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: JoshuaD on October 06, 2022, 03:58:06 PM
I can accept that treatment, medical and psychological, for suicidal tendencies and psychosis be required before an abortion is permitted.  But will you accept that:

1. If treatment is not successful, that an abortion is a treatment of last resort.

No.

2. That the mother and the mother's doctor, who know the case best, should be the ones who decides if it is necessary to use the last resort, and not some other group who are not nearly as familiar with the particular case.

No.

3. Neither the doctor, medical facility, or mother will bear any punishment or blame if, in their opinion, this last resort procedure was necessary.

No.

Sometimes it is necessary to end a person's life in order to save another person's life.  And a person is not obligated to provide their body or parts thereof to save another person's life.  Even if that life is a child growing in a person's body.

No.  It is never necessary or good to murder an innocent person. If mom legitimately needs chemotherapy to save her life and it is expected it will kill the fetus, mom can get chemotherapy. She can't stab the child in the skull or poison the womb with salt water or rip it apart with forceps. Never.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Tom on October 06, 2022, 04:05:13 PM
Which is of course one of the many reasons that extending full personhood to a fetus is nonsensical.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Fenring on October 06, 2022, 05:00:58 PM
Which is of course one of the many reasons that extending full personhood to a fetus is nonsensical.

What it means is that extending full personhood to a fetus is intractably difficult for many people to accept. It's not actually that hard to implement in practice. There are a few edge cases, medically speaking, where one might ask is this treatment really necessary, in order to weigh cost/benefit of doing the treatment and risking the fetus. No doubt at a certain point it would have to come down to a conscientious decision between mother and doctor in certain select cases. But that's not really what the main thrust of the issue here is, and starting with those edge cases is really a red herring to the actual point on the table. That's the thrust of my arguments here.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Tom on October 06, 2022, 05:58:30 PM
It's intractably difficult, period. Because another tradition codified into law is that no person's bodily autonomy can be sacrificed for another's health without their consent.

These two principles are incompatible with each other when applied to fetal personhood, because it creates a responsibility for the health of a second individual that is reliant on the physical sacrifice of the first.

We do not require that Siamese twins keep each other alive. We do not require that fathers give up their kidneys for their children. We do not mandate that someone donate bone marrow, or even blood. Legally, we cannot; there is ample precedent here.

But in the unique case of fetal personhood, we are telling someone that if she chooses to smoke or drink wine within a specific time period, she is potentially criminally liable for damaging the health of a completely separate person. That if she does not exercise enough, or eat the right food, that person may not develop optimally. That if preserving that person's health requires her to undergo an otherwise optional surgery, or take specific drugs, or even attend classes, she has to do so. For as long as she contains that fetus endowed with full personhood, she is no longer fully a legal person.

Fetal personhood is a legally nonsensical position if you also want to maintain a tradition of bodily autonomy.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Wayward Son on October 06, 2022, 06:39:41 PM
Tom nails it.

If a mother is required to bring a baby to term that has no chance of viability and might maim or kill her, then:
--why can't we require parents to provide a kidney, lung, eye, or testicle for their child, and accuse them of murder if they don't;
--heck, why not for strangers, too; :)
--why can't we require bone marrow tests for everyone, and require transfers for a match;
--why can't we require bi-monthly blood donations from everyone.  Think of the lives that would save!

Give the mother chemo and kill the fetus?  That's abortion by another name, and one far more dangerous for the mother than an abortion.  (Save the mother from cancer by killing her with a dead fetus in her womb.  ::) )

Either you're going to say the life of the fetus trumps that of the mother or the life of the mother trumps that of the fetus.  If it's the former, then the mother becomes just an incubator for the fetus, with no rights or say in what happens to her or her body.  If the latter, then we recognize that while the fetus is a person, it is not a self-sufficient individual, but part of the mother.

Because before the fetus is self-sufficient,  the mother and the fetus are united, one in the same.  The fetus cannot live without the mother.  It is a part of her.

The closest analogy would be Siamese twins.  And, yes, often doctors remove one twin from the other, especially when they aren't viable together, so that
at least one will live instead of both dying.

It's the same with a mother and a fetus, even if you consider both as persons.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Fenring on October 06, 2022, 06:41:30 PM
It's intractably difficult, period.

As things stand, yes. But not for the reasons people typically argue about.

Quote
Because another tradition codified into law is that no person's bodily autonomy can be sacrificed for another's health without their consent.

Not being a lawyer, I can't comment on what is or isn't cemented into the law. However "another's health" is a term that is too vague to be helpful. No case other than pregnancy is pregnancy.

Quote
These two principles are incompatible with each other when applied to fetal personhood, because it creates a responsibility for the health of a second individual that is reliant on the physical sacrifice of the first.

I would say (tautologically) that the only incompatible positions in play are that a fetus is a person, and a fetus is not a person. Beyond that I don't personally believe the issues have been explored all that well by most people involved in the conversation. No special philosophical argument is necessary to "create" a responsibility from the mother to her fetus, and frankly I think the majority of people already believe this. What some of them also believe is that some things are more important than that responsibility; and the thing rarely debated is what those things really are.

Quote
We do not require that Siamese twins keep each other alive. We do not require that fathers give up their kidneys for their children. We do not mandate that someone donate bone marrow, or even blood. Legally, we cannot; there is ample precedent here.

It seems somewhat pedestrian for me to say, once again, that nothing other than pregnancy is pregnancy, so these analogies are of no use. And yet I do say it once again, because of the many ways people to try skirt around the real issue here, this is a very widespread one (even on the pro-life side!). I don't think you are trying to skirt around the issue, per se, but too much exposure to common arguments can cause one to be persuaded that they're legitimate (they aren't).

Quote
But in the unique case of fetal personhood, we are telling someone that if she chooses to smoke or drink wine within a specific time period, she is potentially criminally liable for damaging the health of a completely separate person. That if she does not exercise enough, or eat the right food, that person may not develop optimally. That if preserving that person's health requires her to undergo an otherwise optional surgery, or take specific drugs, or even attend classes, she has to do so. For as long as she contains that fetus endowed with full personhood, she is no longer fully a legal person.

In the face of these types of arguments we would need to make a separation between moral and legal arguments, a step I typically don't see in these types of conversations. This is important because it would be necessary to establish that some things can be immoral and yet legal, and I do think there are various types of activities that should be legal while yet being universally regarded as immoral. In discussing personhood, the typical pro-life person is trying to bring the law into alignment with morality in the case of what they see as a murder; but precedent to that should to create recognition of what is going on. The morality should lead to law, not the other way around; and indeed De Tocqueville pointed out (in his opinion) that law typically or even always follows from the public morality and private views of life. So I would be happy to grant that some matters are legally prickly, but this should not serve as some kind of blank check for the entire matter to be deemed irrelevant to the public good and thus deregulated.

Now I could point out, for instance, that I am fully in favor of legal penalties for a parent smoking and drinking within a specific time period; for instance a mother smoking while her young children are home, or a father drinking while driving. So your idea that people should never face penalties for doing certain otherwise legal activities under certain circumstances seems to me to defy basic common sense. We could quibble about 'what if it's in the first two weeks and the mother doesn't know she's pregnant yet' and so forth. Lots of details one could browse here. But I'm not that into this type of sub-thread since my main point, which I'll stress again, is that the abortion debate isn't and never was about edge cases like suicidal mothers and incest.

Quote
Fetal personhood is a legally nonsensical position if you also want to maintain a tradition of bodily autonomy.

Well I guess this dilemma settles itself, then?
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Fenring on October 06, 2022, 06:52:23 PM
WS, all of the points you just brought up have either all been addressed already, or else fall prey to the typical reductio ad absurdum strategy: to try to reduce the other side's position to a nonsensical one, which is obviously a strawman. I think you can try to do better, and additionally to retain the arguments already presented against certain of your arguments rather than just presenting them again as if they're breaking news. Being able to collect and make 10 arguments at once may qualify as a fire hose, but it doesn't qualify as new ground. And note again I am not even defending a pro-life position in this thread; rather I am defending the sanctity of good logic.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Tom on October 06, 2022, 07:10:23 PM
Quote
No special philosophical argument is necessary to "create" a responsibility from the mother to her fetus...
I disagree.
Does a father owe a responsibility to an unborn fetus that would require him to, say, give up a liver to it? Does a cancer patient owe a responsibility to their cancer? Are we asserting that women, uniquely of all legal persons, can be expected to sacrifice their bodily autonomy if they become pregnant for any reason, with or without intent? The assertion that pregnancy is a special legal condition is one that, I submit, takes its own conclusion as a premise.

Quote
Well I guess this dilemma settles itself, then?
I know you meant this to be tongue-in-cheek, but the answer is "yes." To pro-lifers who've seriously considered the topic, their response is that women do not in fact possess bodily autonomy. That this is an entirely unacceptable position for many people is why this issue keeps getting bumped to courtrooms.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Fenring on October 06, 2022, 07:26:13 PM
I disagree.
Does a father owe a responsibility to an unborn fetus that would require him to, say, give up a liver to it?

It will be simpler to appeal to your experience of life than to make an abstract argument here: among the married couples you know, did the husbands feel like they owed a responsibility to the fetus? Did they want to take steps to protect it, notwithstanding the fact that the mother is more in a position to do so? If they did, why do you think they did? Again we begin with life-oriented questions prior to legal ones; otherwise we're trying to base a legal battle on nothing.

Quote
Quote
Well I guess this dilemma settles itself, then?
I know you meant this to be tongue-in-cheek, but the answer is "yes." To pro-lifers who've seriously considered the topic, their response is that women do not in fact possess bodily autonomy. That this is an entirely unacceptable position for many people is why this issue keeps getting bumped to courtrooms.

Well, haha, not to be flippant about it, but what do you expect? For instance in the Catholic faith it is literally asserted that a person does not own their own body, but rather it belongs to God. Obviously people who believe that would reject as nonsense the idea of individual bodily autonomy. At least, on a moral basis they would. The legal basis is much worse because "law" sounds obvious but I doubt most people can define what law means. It definitely does not mean a 1:1 explication of right and wrong, but at minimum does include what we will hurt, incapacitate, or kill you for doing. What we should decide to hurt someone over is not as simple as discussing what is morally wrong, so that's why I'm appealing to your sense of life rather than to legal minutiae.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Tom on October 06, 2022, 07:36:19 PM
Quote
Obviously people who believe that would reject as nonsense the idea of individual bodily autonomy.
How many Catholics who obviously reject the idea of bodily autonomy in women nevertheless insisted that the Covid vaccine could not be forced on them?
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Fenring on October 06, 2022, 07:49:13 PM
Quote
Obviously people who believe that would reject as nonsense the idea of individual bodily autonomy.
How many Catholics who obviously reject the idea of bodily autonomy in women nevertheless insisted that the Covid vaccine could not be forced on them?

Phrased in that way you're alluding to chauvinists, in which case I don't know the answer. If you reframed it as Catholics who reject in principle that a person absolutely owns their own body, then I think you would find many Catholics of this sort were fine taking a vaccine. 'Forced on them' is a tough phrase since I assume you mean government requiring it by law; and I also assume you're asking whether they would agree with that law, which maybe some wouldn't. But the Catholic faith is also quite explicit that it is mandatory to obey local laws, so that point is not really in question. There would be an edge case where local laws specifically required a person to violate the faith, for instance requiring murder, or disallowing church attendance (which was actually the contentious Catholic issue during the pandemic, doctrinally speaking).
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: msquared on October 07, 2022, 10:31:02 AM
Well whether Walker paid for the abortion or not, Republicans have shown their colors. They do not care if he did. As long as he helps them win the Senate, his personal relationship with abortions, and children out of wedlock, do not matter.  Just winning the Senate. Personal morals be damned.  Walker is a Trumpist dream. A man who wants to push morality on other people that he personally does not have to follow.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: JoshuaD on October 08, 2022, 03:22:19 AM
Does a father owe a responsibility to an unborn fetus that would require him to, say, give up a liver to it?

No. Action is different than inaction. Murdering someone is different than refusing to donate them a life-saving organ.

Does a cancer patient owe a responsibility to their cancer?

No. Cancer is a dysfunctional part of the patient's body. It can be removed for the good of the patient.

Are we asserting that women, uniquely of all legal persons, can be expected to sacrifice their bodily autonomy if they become pregnant for any reason, with or without intent?

Yes. There is no analog to pregnancy; it is its own unique thing. It is the nature of women to have a child inside of them. The woman isn't "sacrificing her own bodily autonomy". The nature of being a woman is that sometimes you get pregnant.

The assertion that pregnancy is a special legal condition is one that, I submit, takes its own conclusion as a premise.

No. It is not a premise; it is a result of other facts of reality:
1. The unborn child is an innocent person.
2. It is never morally permissible to intentionally kill an innocent person.
3. The child is currently gestating inside her mother.

As a result, the mother's body is subject largely to the child's needs until birth.

We do not require that Siamese twins keep each other alive.

We don't allow Siamese twins to stab each other in the skull either. That would be murder.

--------

What we are talking about is whether doctors can be licensed and paid to murder children at the behest of their mothers. The answer is simple: no.

I would largely not be looking to pursue legal action against mothers who lost a child. I would assume she suffered a tragic miscarriage and would support her right to privacy. Does this mean some woman will murder their own children and get away with it legally? Yes. I don't care. Does this mean that women who want to murder their unborn child will have to do so less safely than is currently available? Yes, and I also don't care.

Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: msquared on October 08, 2022, 08:05:10 AM
So now Walker admits he knew and had a relationship with the women who claims he paid for her abortion (and is the mother of one of his out of wedlock children). This after claiming for several days that he did not know her.

https://currently.att.yahoo.com/att/herschel-walker-admits-had-relationship-043122394.html?.tsrc=daily_mail&uh_test=1_11

Of course he knew her. In the first day or so Walker said he was going to file a defamation law suit about this case but never did. Why? Because the truth is an absolute defense in those types of cases, and Walker was lying.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Tom on October 08, 2022, 11:22:43 AM
Quote
It is the nature of women to have a child inside of them.
Perhaps you can understand why so many women find this particular assertion offensive.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Fenring on October 08, 2022, 11:30:27 AM
Does a father owe a responsibility to an unborn fetus that would require him to, say, give up a liver to it?

No. Action is different than inaction. Murdering someone is different than refusing to donate them a life-saving organ.

Hm, I'm not sure you ought to go so far with this rebuttal. The fact that it is not utterly mandatory in moral terms for a father to donate a liver to an unborn fetus, does not have to imply he doesn't positively owe a responsibility to it. Just as a more general example, I absolutely do owe a responsibility to all of mankind, and if someone is in need, no matter who, it is my business to at least consider what I can do. It may be my weakness, or the frailty of being alive, that I can't fulfill all of the responsibilities I'd like to in life. And it may be I need to do cost/benefit sometimes and decide whether my family or something else needs my energies, but I do actually owe a debt (in my view) to others; in ordinary terms you could call it civic duty, but to me it goes much further than that. How much more, than, must a father owe his unborn child? So I do think there's a positive responsibility there, and moreover (as I suggested to Tom) I think most fathers would instinctively feel this as well. Maybe a given father would choose to give a liver, maybe not, but most would feel bad about if they chose not to.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Grant on October 08, 2022, 02:09:13 PM
Quote
It is the nature of women to have a child inside of them.
Perhaps you can understand why so many women find this particular assertion offensive.

I don't know how we are defining "so many" here.  I can see how some women may be offended by the proposition that only people that have babies are women, but I think what is being proposed is that only women can become pregnant. 

I know that this is debated in some circles, and that the counter argument is that the argument is circular, but that is the nature of a definition.  But I don't know that "so many women" would find it offensive anymore than men being offended by the proposition that they cannot be pregnant. 

Personally I am pretty flexible on abortion.  It is probably an issue that I have kind of gone back and forth on through the years.  I can see both sides and would probably call myself both pro-life and pro-choice. 

I personally believe that regardless of how you define a fetus or a zygote, if it is a "person" or isn't, which would require concrete definition of "personhood" to begin with, I can most definitely assert that a zygote and a fetus are future persons.  Whatever a person is, a zygote and fetus will one day become a person, unless something like a miscarriage or birth defect or other complication occurs.  Every "person" you have ever met and talked to and had a conversation with was once a fetus and a zygote.  I was.  You were.  As a strict Materialist, Tom, I would think you would appreciate the idea that a "person" was nothing but a group of cells, rather than any mystical connotations of the soul, etc.  There is a direct line between the cell of a zygote and every cell in every "person"'s body.  When you destroy a zygote or a fetus, you destroy a future person. 

I am of the opinion that most morality is generally four dimensional.  That is to say, the reason something is immoral is often not because of the immediate action, but because of its results.  Sometimes the law is less clear on this distinction, but sometimes it is.  If I killed a 2 month old baby, I've taken away it's future.  Were I to poison you by flooding your home with carbon monoxide or other toxic gas, you may slip gently from unconsciousness to non-existance, never knowing the difference.  But you won't be able to wake up again and have another day. 

Because of this I'm generally anti-abortion.  Certainly I don't have a problem with the procedure in the case where the mother's life is in question.  At that point it should be up to her.  But I don't know when we start talking about mental health of a mother.  You can stretch that pretty far. 

The flip side is that I recognize the concept of bodily autonomy in the law, and I recognize it's value.  I recognize the general desire to not have the government be able to tell people what they can do with or to their body or the government take control of someone's body.  If a newborn baby immediately required a blood transfusion and the only person that could provide that transfusion would be the mother or father, I recognize that the law cannot force either the mother or father to give blood.  Or donate an organ.  I recognize that the government cannot force organ donation or blood donation regardless of the recipient is a child of the prospective donor or not.  I recognize the general immorality of the action while recognizing the view that granting the government power to force these things is dangerous. 

What is funny to me though is that Democrats as a whole are really not that libertarian anymore.  They may have been in the 60s and 70s when the sexual revolution occured.  But not so much anymore.  The Democrats and liberals in general are more about preventing harm and preservation of life these days.  Regardless of how it impacts personal freedom.  So if a starving child were to plop itself down on my front yard, the Democrats and liberals would generally proscribe that it was my duty to feed that child, and tax me accordingly.  They would take my food and give it to the child.  A conservative or Republican may see the morality of feeding the child (at least they used to, maybe not anymore, depending on if the child was Mexican or not) while saying that it should not be in the governments power to force me to feed the child. 

In turn if a baby vampire attached itself to my neck and needed to stay attached for 9 months to survive, a Republican might argue that it is within their rights to shoot the little sucker, or have it forcibly removed, while maybe a liberal or Democrat would say otherwise. 

As it has already been pointed out, Republicans are now the party of "don't force me to take a vaccine" while Democrats are the opposite in many cases.  The general layout of the values of the parties does not jive with their positions on abortion and bodily freedom.  Republicans are more libertarian now and more about bodily freedom than Democrats are in many cases.  People like to point out the seeming hypocrisy all the time.  Republicans want to take care of fetuses but not feed children.  Liberals want to force parents to feed their children, vaccinate their children, but don't want to force women to have a child if they are pregnant.   

I think the answer is that when the whole position began, the values were more reversed.  The conservatives of the 60s and 70s were in fact more restrictive on personal freedoms than liberals were.  In some cases they still are (drug use, homosexuality) but conservatism is rapidly evolving and so is liberalism.  Since then, women in general and feminists in particular have been a part of the Democratic Party coalition.  It's a democratic interest group, and I think the Democratic party was basically built around a coalition of interest groups in the 70s and 80s, while the Republicans in the 70s and 80s remained more broad in aims. 

Now, I'd like to close with some observations that have been made that I think are valid.  The first is that motherhood, or pregnancy, is a particular condition.  Yes, only women can get pregnant. Only women can have periods.  Only a woman can fake it.  Only a woman can look sexy while drinking a cosmopolitan. 

This may seem unfair, or unjust, but it just simply is.  This is the maddening aspect for some liberals because I understand that sometimes this is used as an excuse for injustice.  "That's Just The Way It Is".  But in this case, I do not believe it is a matter of justice.  It is simply biological destiny.  You may not like it, but life and nature in general is not just.  This is also infuriating for some liberals, but one of the aspects of conservatism (at least in the past) was to look on the brighter side of life.  I don't believe in forcing women to become pregnant, but I also don't think that it is socially unjust that only women can become pregnant. 

The special aspect of pregnancy makes it a little different than refusing to take a vaccine or not wanting to feed the poor or a vampire baby attached to your neck.  Pregnancy is essential to the survival of the human race.  It is in fact a good thing overall.  It may not be seen as a good thing to a prospective mother, but it is still a public good.  Pregnancy is a miracle.  It is, in my opinion, not a curse, but a special privilege and trust given to women.  This is of course looking on the brighter side of things rather than focusing on how unfair it might be. 

Finally, I would like to point out some of the flaws in the libertarian argument when it pushes into "the government can't" realm.  While it may not be good, or should be limited in general by conservative standards, bodily autonomy has limits.  The government can indeed force you to do things with your body.  The government can draft you and force you to go to war.  They can sit right next to you with a gun pointed at your head and tell you to go march off to the sound of the guns.  It has happened. 

The government can indeed force you to take vaccines.  It has in the past and still does in particular cases.  Military personnel.  Medical personnel.  Travellers.  Immigrants.  School children.  Teachers.  Etc. 

The police in many states can indeed forcibly take your blood if you have been arrested on suspicion of DUI.  The police can forcibly take DNA samples if you are charged with a felony. 

In all of these cases, the general rule is that when the good of the general public is threatened, your bodily autonomy can be sacrificed.  This is not particular to women, only pregnancy is.  In fact, until recently only men could be drafted. 
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Tom on October 08, 2022, 02:37:22 PM
Quote
I can see how some women may be offended by the proposition that only people that have babies are women, but I think what is being proposed is that only women can become pregnant.
Neither of those is the particularly offensive part -- although of course there are people who have reasons for being offended by both of those observations as well.

The offensive part is the assertion that it is the nature of women to be pregnant -- that, in fact, a woman who chooses not to ever become pregnant is rejecting her very nature, and a woman who for whatever reason cannot become pregnant is definitionally less of a woman than one who can.

-----------

Quote
I think the answer is that when the whole position began, the values were more reversed.
I don't think so, but that's because there's another axis here that you aren't taking into account. Republicans believe that certain actions have natural consequences that should be borne (even to the extent that they will impose artificial consequences if the natural ones do not sufficiently terrify), whereas Democrats believe that one of the roles of society is to ameliorate undesired consequences. Pregnancy does not have to result in childbirth, to a Democrat; to a Republican, allowing a woman to engage in sex without having to risk childbirth is a grave offense.

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

As a Materialist, by the way, I find the idea of "biological destiny" completely nonsensical when used to argue against our ability to apply technology and medicine to alter what biology would otherwise require. Telling someone that it's their "biological destiny" to be deaf or blind when we can fix these conditions is indeed an option, but I would argue that it's not a rational one.

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

Quote
Pregnancy is a miracle.  It is, in my opinion, not a curse...
I submit that our opinion on this topic is going to consist of uninformed overgeneralizations at best.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Fenring on October 08, 2022, 02:41:22 PM
What is funny to me though is that Democrats as a whole are really not that libertarian anymore.  They may have been in the 60s and 70s when the sexual revolution occured.  But not so much anymore.  The Democrats and liberals in general are more about preventing harm and preservation of life these days.  Regardless of how it impacts personal freedom.
[...]
As it has already been pointed out, Republicans are now the party of "don't force me to take a vaccine" while Democrats are the opposite in many cases.  The general layout of the values of the parties does not jive with their positions on abortion and bodily freedom.  Republicans are more libertarian now and more about bodily freedom than Democrats are in many cases.  People like to point out the seeming hypocrisy all the time.  Republicans want to take care of fetuses but not feed children.  Liberals want to force parents to feed their children, vaccinate their children, but don't want to force women to have a child if they are pregnant.   

Some good stuff in your post, Grant, particularly the observations I quoted. But I also don't think it's an accident that these things don't jive correctly; if looked at from the correct axis they would jive more. As I alluded to Tom above, the question is what real issues are on the table, rather than the issues people claim are important. You'll likely find the positions being defended on both sides quite concordant with the real core issues, but the trouble is to plumb them out when no one is willing to say it.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Fenring on October 08, 2022, 02:45:45 PM
The offensive part is the assertion that it is the nature of women to be pregnant -- that, in fact, a woman who chooses not to ever become pregnant is rejecting her very nature.

I wouldn't ever put things the way Joshua does, but you have to remember the philosophical context of his remarks: he doesn't mean he personally mandates that women do a thing or else violate their nature. It's that their bodies are built the way they are for a purpose, regardless of their particular life choices. You can think of it even as simply as in mechanics: it's the nature of a ball (as massive object) to fall in a gravity well, but that doesn't mean it's 'rejecting its nature' if it happens to be propped up on a shelf. But, being on a shelf also doesn't mean the ball isn't drawn to fall if given the opportunity. It's not about whether a ball should fall, but rather just a matter of stating that it's an object with mass.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Tom on October 08, 2022, 02:48:38 PM
Oh, I understand that the repugnant and offensive position Joshua holds is a necessary consequence of a specific belief in certain supernatural claims. But I think he understands that not all women are necessarily grateful to be thought of as special factories uniquely capable and explicitly intended to wrap souls in meat for distribution. :)
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Fenring on October 08, 2022, 02:51:30 PM
Now, I'd like to close with some observations that have been made that I think are valid.  The first is that motherhood, or pregnancy, is a particular condition.  Yes, only women can get pregnant. Only women can have periods.  Only a woman can fake it.  Only a woman can look sexy while drinking a cosmopolitan. 

This may seem unfair, or unjust, but it just simply is.  This is the maddening aspect for some liberals because I understand that sometimes this is used as an excuse for injustice.  "That's Just The Way It Is".  But in this case, I do not believe it is a matter of justice.  It is simply biological destiny.  You may not like it, but life and nature in general is not just.  This is also infuriating for some liberals, but one of the aspects of conservatism (at least in the past) was to look on the brighter side of life.  I don't believe in forcing women to become pregnant, but I also don't think that it is socially unjust that only women can become pregnant. 

I wasn't sure whether to throw this point in, but I think I will (sorry for the multiple posts). I think you should keep in mind that there's a very significant strain of transhumanism present in the left, and although it's rarely called that you might be surprised at just how many contemporary left (or maybe far-left) values are actually predicated on - or perhaps lead to - a transhumanist outlook. The general gist of it is that nothing is fixed, changes of all sorts are like a cafeteria for selecting as desired, and that anything currently fixed will cease to be so soon enough. I don't mean to imply that this is the manifesto of liberals or the left in general, but rather than a fairly small sub-section of the left believes something just like this, and that the view of life underlying these kinds of ideas has spread quite far into even mainstream leftist thinking these days without being noticed. So part of why you may be a bit surprised at some people who seem to not be able to accept the way things are, part of it may well be because they are looking forward to the time when there will be no fixed boundaries of this sort, and in fact may view such boundaries as a kind of oppression. Whether it's cosmetic or surgical alteration, or eventually genetic engineering, I think much more of this will be seen in the future.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Tom on October 08, 2022, 02:56:18 PM
Most congenital deafness has already become a cosmetic option. Skin color, hair color, and eye color will be there within a generation, and I expect sex to be determinable through more than just abortion within 20 years. The American rich already routinely undergo leg-lengthening surgeries and wear veneers on their teeth; the majority of South Koreans now consider it a parental duty to pay for plastic surgery for their children. The idea that we are "destined" by our biology to, say, die of Type 1 diabetes or Lou Gehrig's disease is something that I don't think most people would accept.

Biological limits exist only until we can eliminate them.

---------

Edited to add: I am not saying that all these things -- especially the things I specifically listed here -- are unalloyed goods. My point is that expecting humans not to transcend biology after we've invented flippers to help us swim and planes to help us fly and special goggles to see in different spectra of light is probably a non-starter.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Fenring on October 08, 2022, 05:08:59 PM
Tom, I'm not talking about using science to help with disease. I think most people would be happy to at least consider cosmetic surgery for birth-related issues or even injuries such as burns, and although it's contentious to be sure I think many people would consider genetic engineering to remove all chances of developmental disorders. Most people want a chance, and for the kids to have a chance, to live a 'normal' human life. What I am talking about is people who reject human life such as it is, even in its normal form, and want it to change to something else. That might include technological additions, genetic modifications, surgical additions, and cosmetic changes. What you are talking about is not even in the same ballpark. Although I do not doubt that at such a time as genetic engineering is possible to enhance physical and mental attributes, certain Asian cultures will be the first to make such procedures socially mandatory.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Grant on October 08, 2022, 05:26:28 PM
The offensive part is the assertion that it is the nature of women to be pregnant -- that, in fact, a woman who chooses not to ever become pregnant is rejecting her very nature.

I'm not quite sure if that is what Josh was saying RIGHT THERE.  But I also would not be particularly surprised if he would agree with that general statement, since it is generally in line with Catholic/Scholastic/Neo-Aristotelian thought. 

The general premise being that morality being linked with teleology and purpose or "nature".  It's kind of like every person having a responsibility to be the best person they can be.  To achieve their "best destiny".  This of course being linked somewhat to the ancient greek value of arete, or "excellence".  "Be all you can be".  To eschew your duty to be your best self is a sin and immoral.  Just maybe not as immoral as other forms of immorality, but immoral all the same.  Though Sloth was considered a "deadly sin" by the Scholastics, Dante noticeably leaves the slothful out of his Inferno, instead consigning them to a mid level of his Purgatory Mountain. 

While the thought does not go as far as saying that a woman who choses never to become pregnant is evil, (nuns are not evil, nor are the sterile), it does stress that it is against the nature and telos of womanhood, and is a rejection of it.  The key being that the rejection of purpose can only be moral if the rejection is in favor of a higher purpose (serving the community, serving God).  It would be akin to a man refusing to fight for their country, given the general concept that this was part of a man's telos/nature/purpose.  The whole thing being biologically and socially sound, since you can preserve your community through time by sacrificing men rather than women, since only women can become pregnant and maintain your birth rate.  Throwing your women on the front lines and giving them all the dangerous jobs is bad in a social evolutionary since, while throwing your men on the front line and giving them dangerous jobs while keeping women pregnant is somewhat good from the social evolutionary standpoint.  Not sure if the Scholastics really made the arguments from a social evolutionary standpoint, but I think it was somewhat self-evident to them. 

The rejection of purpose is seen as a rejection of an individual's responsibility towards the creator or to the community.  While modern liberal thought might balk at the concept of responsibility towards a creator, they can certainly understand responsibility towards community.  Yet the rejection is part of what pre-Vatican II Catholicism would see as a turn towards individualism and away from community, or Americanism, individual autonomy, and personal freedom.  Obviously all this concept of responsibility being forced by birth ran contrary to the culture of the 60s, and is basically still with us in many aspects.  Any attribute forced by birth being contrary to extreme self-determination or extreme freedom. 

Whether it is indeed a "best destiny" of women to become mothers or men to become fathers is debatable.  Certainly a society cannot exist without mothers or fathers as of now. Perhaps in the future this might change, though the argument there would be concerning a loss of purpose.  There is again a different outlook between obligation and responsibility to being a burden, or being a joy.  Children and general, and pregnancy in particular, can probably be best seen as a combination of both.  How we handle our burdens and joys is part of our characters. 
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Tom on October 08, 2022, 06:12:56 PM
Quote
people who reject human life such as it is, even in its normal form, and want it to change to something else
I think there is a fuzzier line between this and, say, curing diseases or choosing an eye color than you may think -- to the extent that I would argue that part of being human, as opposed to being animal, is being able to reject human life as it is.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Grant on October 08, 2022, 06:15:05 PM
Quote
I don't think so, but that's because there's another axis here that you aren't taking into account. Republicans believe that certain actions have natural consequences that should be borne (even to the extent that they will impose artificial consequences if the natural ones do not sufficiently terrify), whereas Democrats believe that one of the roles of society is to ameliorate undesired consequences. Pregnancy does not have to result in childbirth, to a Democrat; to a Republican, allowing a woman to engage in sex without having to risk childbirth is a grave offense.

I think this is an overgeneralization. Maybe some Republicans believe this, particularly some types of Christian Republicans, but certainly not all do.  For instance, some Republicans may be alright with abortion in the case of rape, when the woman had no choice involved in deciding to have sex.  Other Republicans may believe that choice has nothing to do with it.  Some Republicans may decide that birth control is alright.  Other Republicans are perfectly fine with it.  And I don't think there is a clear majority.  Instead you present a caricature.  A kind of straw-man to stand in for an entire group. 

I could add that even some Democrats think this way about sex and abortion.  Either way.  They're just in a silent minority. 

Regardless, I don't think it has anything to do with what Joshua was alluding to. 

Quote
As a Materialist, by the way, I find the idea of "biological destiny" completely nonsensical when used to argue against our ability to apply technology and medicine to alter what biology would otherwise require. Telling someone that it's their "biological destiny" to be deaf or blind when we can fix these conditions is indeed an option, but I would argue that it's not a rational one.

I don't think anyone here has argued against using science and technology to cure deafness or blindness.  I don't think any Republicans have either. This is basically another straw-man.

The idea of biological destiny is as simple as saying that a seed becomes a tree.  Are they the same object?  A fetus becomes a person.  Are they not the same object?  Metaphysically perhaps not.  Spiritually perhaps not.  In attributes perhaps not.  They are obviously different otherwise we would not different names for them. But in SUBSTANCE, in MATERIAL, they certainly are. 

I don't think that any Republicans have argued against utilizing technology or science or medicine to cure disease or defects.  But the question becomes is pregnancy a disease or defect?  Does pregnancy require a cure?  Or is it simply unwanted? 

Quote
I submit that our opinion on this topic is going to consist of uninformed overgeneralizations at best.

To suggest that a particular piece of knowledge or truth can only be understood and be "informed" if we personally experience them is to limit our ability to understand the world and universe to an extreme degree.  To limit the validity of our opinions to only things that we have personally experienced would generally eliminate most forms of knowledge.  Certainly experience gives a greater understanding and appreciation, but one does not need to be grunt from Charlie Company, 1/20 IN in 1968 to know that massacring women and children are bad.  Nor does one need to be a doctor to understand that healing deafness or blindness is a good. 
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Fenring on October 08, 2022, 07:07:38 PM
Sorry Grant, but whose post was your last reply directed toward? I can't find the original post at the moment.

The idea of biological destiny is as simple as saying that a seed becomes a tree.  Are they the same object?  A fetus becomes a person.  Are they not the same object?  Metaphysically perhaps not.  Spiritually perhaps not.  In attributes perhaps not.  They are obviously different otherwise we would not different names for them. But in SUBSTANCE, in MATERIAL, they certainly are. 

This is going to be a tough argument for anyone who's not looked at the problem of continuity in philosophy. Just to be clear, this is the issue of how we define whether a "thing" is the "same" as the thing it was a moment ago, or a year ago. And the same goes for people. This isn't only just about how you can demonstrate that the material is 'the same' as the material that was there a moment ago, but in the case of a human whose cells and atomic matter are literally not the same stuff as they were made of years before, in what sense is it the "same" person? I bring this up because there's a conceptual thread involved with tracing a continuity of substance and asserting that a continuity implies sameness. Interestingly people do assert this quite readily regarding identity and thingness (an evolutionary necessity) but find the same maneuver actually suspicious when the thing goes through a transformation, such as a fetus into a child.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Grant on October 08, 2022, 07:56:20 PM
Sorry Grant, but whose post was your last reply directed toward? I can't find the original post at the moment.

Tom.  2:37 PM Central. 

Quote
This is going to be a tough argument for anyone who's not looked at the problem of continuity in philosophy. Just to be clear, this is the issue of how we define whether a "thing" is the "same" as the thing it was a moment ago, or a year ago. And the same goes for people. This isn't only just about how you can demonstrate that the material is 'the same' as the material that was there a moment ago, but in the case of a human whose cells and atomic matter are literally not the same stuff as they were made of years before, in what sense is it the "same" person? I bring this up because there's a conceptual thread involved with tracing a continuity of substance and asserting that a continuity implies sameness. Interestingly people do assert this quite readily regarding identity and thingness (an evolutionary necessity) but find the same maneuver actually suspicious when the thing goes through a transformation, such as a fetus into a child.

Yes, it's related to the Ship of Theseus problem.  Or the Grandfather's Ax problem.  Whichever you like.  But it is also very closely related to the rudimentary physics of Heraclitus.  These concepts of course are matured in the physics and metaphysics of Aristotle (Sorry, Tom. You don't have to read this.). Specifically it deals in the ideas of actuality and potentiality, or dunamis and energeia.

Basically all physical things can change.  Yet they are the same thing.  Water may become steam.  Steam may go back to being water and then turn to ice.  Yet it is all the same physical thing.  But it is subject to change.  Water may become steam, even if it is not at the time.  Becoming steam does not fundamentally change an aspect of the water.  Still the same molecules. 

Likewise, a newborn baby may become a toddler, than a child, than an adolescent, then an mature adult, then finally a geriatric adult.  Some of the molecules change.  Some stay the same.  Personality may change.  Cognition may change.  The geriatric may not even remember anything of who he or she once was.  But there is a continuity between the person, the individual.  This is evident since temporally, if you kill the child, the adult will not exist.  If you cut off the arm of the baby, the child will not have an arm, (or at least the same arm, depending on science and technology). 

The Ship of Theseus experiment of course is specific to the philosophy of the mind, and the challenge it makes is when the physical material changes whether the object is still the same.  But the thought experiment can be extended.  If the object simply changes, due to decay, corrosion, etc, is it still the same?  An ax has become rusted and corroded, it's handle begining to rot.  Is it still the same ax?  Yes, it has gone through a physical transformation, but due to continuity, it is still the same ax. 

A tadpole goes through no greater a transformation, maybe even greater, than a fetus does when transforming into a baby.  A zygote an even greater transformation than either.  But one cannot deny that the tadpole becomes a frog and that the frog was once a tadpole and that it is the same biological entity.  A zygote is a potential human person.  Even if there is distinct material differences in makeup between the zygote, the child, and the elderly man/woman, there is a direct continuity between all three.  You can argue that the old man may be a completely different person than the child.  You can argue that the zygote isn't even a person at all.  But you cannot deny that there is a direct connection and that all three are distinctly the same thing though time.  All persons were once zygotes.  All zygotes have the potential to become persons (debatable, but generally true). 

The same question of material continuity can be applied to the star trek transporter problem.  The transporter copies a person's atomic structure.  Recreates it in another place but with different atoms, but the original disintegrates.  The new person is an exact replica, but the material continuity is broken.  Personally I believe the transporter is murder.  Every time Kirk tells Scotty to beam him up, he is committing suicide.  His body is disintegrated and an exact copy, but not really him, is created.  Die hard trekkies will argue against this.  The person that asked to be beamed up is destroyed.  Poof. 
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Fenring on October 08, 2022, 08:12:54 PM
Die hard trekkies will argue against this.

I am, and I would not. I've been arguing Bones' side of things for years :)
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: JoshuaD on October 09, 2022, 12:06:47 AM
Die hard trekkies will argue against this.

I am, and I would not. I've been arguing Bones' side of things for years :)

Same. The episode in TNG with "Thomas" Riker basically proves this theory true.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: JoshuaD on October 09, 2022, 12:27:41 AM
Quote
It is the nature of women to have a child inside of them. The woman isn't "sacrificing her own bodily autonomy". The nature of being a woman is that sometimes you get pregnant.

Perhaps you can understand why so many women find this particular assertion offensive.

Truth doesn't care if someone finds it offensive. Two and two make four; it is part of a woman's nature to bear children. It is her nature, whether she likes it or not.

Quote
Tom:  Does a father owe a responsibility to an unborn fetus that would require him to, say, give up a liver to it?
Josh: No. Action is different than inaction. Murdering someone is different than refusing to donate them a life-saving organ.
Fenring: Hm, I'm not sure you ought to go so far with this rebuttal. The fact that it is not utterly mandatory in moral terms for a father to donate a liver to an unborn fetus, does not have to imply he doesn't positively owe a responsibility to it.

I'm not going "so far" with this rebuttal. I'm responding to Tom's specific question. A parent is not morally required to sacrifice an organ to prevent her child from dying. A parent is not morally permitted to murder their child (or hire someone else to murder their child).

Quote from: Tom
The offensive part is the assertion that it is the nature of women to be pregnant -- that, in fact, a woman who chooses not to ever become pregnant is rejecting her very nature, and a woman who for whatever reason cannot become pregnant is definitionally less of a woman than one who can.

No. It is human nature to have vision. Some people are born unable to see or lose their sight in an accident. That does not make them less human.

Quote from: Tom
Republicans believe that certain actions have natural consequences that should be borne (even to the extent that they will impose artificial consequences if the natural ones do not sufficiently terrify), whereas Democrats believe that one of the roles of society is to ameliorate undesired consequences.

I don't have any interest in talking about "Republicans". I will talk about my views if you'd like.

I am happy to do everything we can do to save people from undesired consequences, as long as in doing so we don't do something evil. Murdering children is deeply evil.

It's my nature that I have to eat to survive. As a consequence, I have to work. We've developed technology which has reduced the need for me to work, and I love that. But I can't go murder my neighbor's child to save myself from the unpleasant business of working. It has nothing to do with "bodily autonomy". We can't murder innocent children.

Oh, I understand that the repugnant and offensive position ... But I think [Joshua] understands that not all women are necessarily grateful to be thought of as special factories uniquely capable and explicitly intended to wrap souls in meat for distribution. :)

It is telling that you call things "offensive" and "repugnant", because your framework of thinking about morality is entirely void of any appeal to truth. Your entire set of beliefs appears to be a negotiation of social pressures and your gut instincts. It has no meaning and no authority.

[The position] Joshua holds is a necessary consequence of a specific belief in certain supernatural claims.

My views on abortion predate my belief in God, and they do not rely upon any supernatural claim aside from the very simple idea that we can know reality through our senses.

It is the nature of woman (among other things) to conceive and carry children. You might think that it would be better if reality were another way. It's not another way. It's this way. Women join with men to procreate and the child lives inside the mother until it is born.

We cannot murder unborn children just because they can't cry out in their own defense. It's evil. Deeply, horrifyingly evil.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: JoshuaD on October 09, 2022, 12:31:11 AM
Quote from: Grant
The general premise being that morality being linked with teleology and purpose or "nature".  It's kind of like every person having a responsibility to be the best person they can be.  To achieve their "best destiny".  This of course being linked somewhat to the ancient greek value of arete, or "excellence".  "Be all you can be".  To eschew your duty to be your best self is a sin and immoral.  Just maybe not as immoral as other forms of immorality, but immoral all the same.  Though Sloth was considered a "deadly sin" by the Scholastics, Dante noticeably leaves the slothful out of his Inferno, instead consigning them to a mid level of his Purgatory Mountain.

While I agree with those views, I am not invoking them here. I am not making any sort of teleological claim. Fenring understood me: it is the nature of a ball to have mass and roll. It is the nature of a tree to grow. It is the nature of the sun to shine. It is the nature of oxygen to aggressively claim electrons. It is the nature of dogs to see and smell. It is the nature of women to conceive and carry children until birth.

It is one of the most banal assertions one could make, and it would be entirely unobjectionable if it weren't for the context.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Fenring on October 09, 2022, 02:41:45 AM
Quote
Tom:  Does a father owe a responsibility to an unborn fetus that would require him to, say, give up a liver to it?
Josh: No. Action is different than inaction. Murdering someone is different than refusing to donate them a life-saving organ.
Fenring: Hm, I'm not sure you ought to go so far with this rebuttal. The fact that it is not utterly mandatory in moral terms for a father to donate a liver to an unborn fetus, does not have to imply he doesn't positively owe a responsibility to it.

I'm not going "so far" with this rebuttal. I'm responding to Tom's specific question. A parent is not morally required to sacrifice an organ to prevent her child from dying. A parent is not morally permitted to murder their child (or hire someone else to murder their child).

Tom's question wasn't really a single question, but two questions lumped into one. I would say, given your view, the best answer would be a soft no rather than a hard no. That's because Tom was drawing a distinction between a mother and a father's responsibilities (to try to show a hypocrisy in giving unfair burdens to women), and I believe the correct answer to that in context is that they don't really have different levels of responsibility, just different situations. Both should do what they can (in a pro-life context) to protect the unborn. They are, in fact, compelled to try to do so (by morality, not by the government). That part of Tom's question should actually have the answer of "Yes, a father does owe a responsibility that is not optional." It's the second part, where he's asking if the father specifically must give up a liver, which is a hard no; that particular action is not compelled. Some kind of action is compelled, but morality can't spell out what that is. He should do his best for all of his family, of which the unborn child is a part. We don't have the eternal calculus to know which solution is best, so we can decide how best we can. Maybe that means giving a liver, maybe not. That's why I pushed back a bit against your rebuttal; Tom's supposition that the father strictly speaking needs do nothing, while the mother needs to do everything and has no choice, wouldn't be a good reading of a decent pro-life position. But I do agree with your separation of direct action versus declining to do an action.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Grant on October 09, 2022, 10:04:48 AM


Quote
As a Materialist, by the way, I find the idea of "biological destiny" completely nonsensical when used to argue against our ability to apply technology and medicine to alter what biology would otherwise require. Telling someone that it's their "biological destiny" to be deaf or blind when we can fix these conditions is indeed an option, but I would argue that it's not a rational one.

I don't think anyone here has argued against using science and technology to cure deafness or blindness...

Ugghhh.  I realize now that I responded to the wrong portion of the OP.  Sorry, Tom.  I realize now this was in response to my quote that, to paraphrase, it was a woman's biological destiny to become pregnant. 

I understand now the issue with that statement, especially as compared to my using "biological destiny" to describe an automatic biological process, like a seed becoming a tree.  So I think I used the wrong term here and it's proper to point it out.  Because it is not "biological destiny", in the way I use the term, for a woman to become pregnant.  It is not "inevitable", sans interference (death, disease, environment, etc).  It is in fact not inevitable that any woman becomes pregnant.  It is not even automatically considered immoral if a woman choses not to have children according to the Scholastic POV. 

Instead I probably should have used the term "biological determinism".  That is, the ability to become pregnant is determined by biology, which is outside the realm of justice as traditionally seen.  It is no different than an individual who is born short, or tall, or with any number of other attributes either greater or lesser than others in terms of being just.  There are of course the ability of modern science and medicine to make changes to an individual's body and biological processes.  A short individual can have limb extension surgery.  There are all kinds of cosmetic surgeries.  A woman can take birth control or have a tubal ligation.  Men can have vasectomies.  Children can have cleft palates corrected.  While there are differing views of the morality of these surgeries, my basic assertion that the ability of women to become pregnant being just or unjust stands. 


Josh said:
Quote
While I agree with those views, I am not invoking them here. I am not making any sort of teleological claim. Fenring understood me: it is the nature of a ball to have mass and roll. It is the nature of a tree to grow. It is the nature of the sun to shine. It is the nature of oxygen to aggressively claim electrons. It is the nature of dogs to see and smell. It is the nature of women to conceive and carry children until birth.

If what you are stating here is your exact position, then I personally don't really agree with it, and it seems there is a difference in your examples.  Gravity, the growth of a tree, the sun shining, chemical reactions, are all automatic processes.  It is not automatic that a woman becomes pregnant.  It is automatic that a zygote becomes a fetus and a fetus becomes a baby and a baby becomes an adult etc (given correct conditions).  The ABILITY to become pregnant is in the nature of women, but not the actuality itself.  I think this creates confusion. 

Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Tom on October 09, 2022, 10:53:56 AM
Quote
your framework of thinking about morality is entirely void of any appeal to truth
This is, I would argue, one of its main strengths, as any appeal to fictional arbiter(s) of Truth couples inflexibility with observational bias.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Grant on October 09, 2022, 11:13:01 AM
This is, I would argue, one of its main strengths, as any appeal to fictional arbiter(s) of Truth couples inflexibility with observational bias.

Replaced by what?  Without observational bias? 

Even a moral relativist will require an arbiter of moral truth.  It may not be "fictional", as you assert, but it certainly has observational bias. 

Even moral psychologists and evolutionary psychologists will posit a truth, that morality evolves because it aids societies to exist together and thrive. 
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Tom on October 09, 2022, 11:29:30 AM
Quote
Even a moral relativist will require an arbiter of moral truth.
I'm using "arbiter" in this scenario to mean a third party who has asserted that something is truth, and whose word you've chosen to accept. That said, yes, many relativists might trust the assertions of others -- but a true relativist will not assert that their position on truth is universal or unimpeachable.

Appeals to truth are dangerous precisely because they are a) untestable; and b) intolerant of dissent.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Grant on October 09, 2022, 12:26:20 PM
I'm using "arbiter" in this scenario to mean a third party who has asserted that something is truth, and whose word you've chosen to accept. That said, yes, many relativists might trust the assertions of others -- but a true relativist will not assert that their position on truth is universal or unimpeachable.

Appeals to truth are dangerous precisely because they are a) untestable; and b) intolerant of dissent.

I'm using "arbiter" in a broader sense.  Anything that helps differentiate between what is true and untrue. The senses. The mind.  Tools.  Guidelines.  Processes. 

An epistemological relativist will indeed assert their position on truth is not universal.  A moral relativist may indeed apply this to moral assertions but not apply them to other assertions.  I think it is problematic at best.

I think epistemological relativism is a rather weak position, personally.  I undercuts the very concept of epistemology, the idea of knowledge, and truth.  I think there are very few epistemological relativists around, and if they are, they rarely act in their daily lives as if what they believe is true. 
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Tom on October 09, 2022, 12:34:23 PM
It should be noted that we are not discussing whether any and all Truth is unknowable, but rather whether moral Truth can be considered absolutely knowable. There is an epistemological distinction to be made between "is it wrong to do harm" and "what wavelengths of light are refracted by sodium."

My position is that moral surety is at best false confidence, especially moral surety rooted in third-party assertions. It is not that we cannot, for example, know what 2+2 equals.

(Edited to add: of course, there's always the whole "but what if we're living in a simulation and all the evidence of our senses is absolutely false" question. But the only sane response to that one remains "we choose to live as if that's not true.")
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Fenring on October 09, 2022, 01:02:28 PM
a true relativist will not assert that their position on truth is universal or unimpeachable.

There are no true relativists, because no one is willing to admit their sacred cows may be wrong. And they all have sacred cows, things that anger them when people disagree. In my experience, people who do not believe in a fixed notion of truth are the most easily rattled when they meet opposition. Just to be clear, by "fixed notion of truth" I mean the concept that truth is something to be discovered, rather than decided on by fiat. The vast, vast majority of people believe that certain things are absolutely right and wrong, but in explicating why they will come up with all sorts of contradictory answers. So their metaphysics is screwed up, but they instinctively are not moral relativists. I think you will have to look long and hard to find someone who believes that moral truth is relative in their hearts. Maybe it's no one.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Tom on October 09, 2022, 01:41:25 PM
Quote
There are no true relativists, becase no one is willing to admit their sacred cows may be wrong.
I know this to be demonstrably false, depending on how you're defining a "sacred cow" and how willing you are to admit that some people may not have any.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Tom on October 09, 2022, 01:50:26 PM
Also: what does it look like when a moral relativist is "rattled" by someone else's disagreement? I ask because we've had a fair number of religious wars and inquisitions over the years, and I hadn't assumed that most of them were launched by relativists who couldn't find an argument to demonstrate the wrongness of someone else's position. Assuming you don't mean THAT kind of "rattled," then, I'm left wondering what the symptoms are.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Fenring on October 10, 2022, 01:41:47 AM
Quote
There are no true relativists, becase no one is willing to admit their sacred cows may be wrong.
I know this to be demonstrably false, depending on how you're defining a "sacred cow" and how willing you are to admit that some people may not have any.

Putting aside the obvious fact that no one can put their abstractions ahead of their core beliefs (thus cannot live out their ideas as if they 'believe' them), there's the simple fact of every day lived experience: you can find people of every stripe who just have something going on they can't let go of. Call it Pride, call it weakness, call it the fallacy of first person perspective, but there are always some issues for each person that they can't accept they're wrong about. I don't mean they aren't willing to concede in some debate setting, although usually they can't, but that simply they get rattled inwardly when certain premises come into question. It can be topical stuff, or emotionally loaded stuff. I'm not trying to pigeonhole atheists or something as particularly bad; I think for everyone there are beliefs that if they come into question cause pain and can't (without extreme difficulty, so say the Buddhists) let go of. But in context of our discussion, I have personally found that people who 'float around' morally are the most susceptible especially to being riled up with very little provocation if you question their beliefs. Certain intellectuals do indeed come across as quite reasonable and amenable to debate any topic, like a Stephen Fry, but it's worth mentioning that (a) I don't think he in particular considers himself a moral relativist, (b) distancing yourself from your own beliefs via intellectualism can be a way of 'not caring' if your core beliefs are questioned, and (c) the attitude toward an antagonistic belief system seems to me to qualify as being rattled. For an example of (c), I think both Fry and Christopher Hitchens are fine examples, where not only do they argue certain points about religion, for example, but seem to do so with a sort of vehemence and even hurt that bespeaks something very sensitive indeed in the outcome of the topic for them. To the extent that you may have come across someone who truly doesn't have any fixed moral concepts, and additionally who's hunky dory having any moral rule questioned, I would at least wonder whether you're not just observing the outward behavior of a hedonist or something. It would be a rare beast indeed.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Wayward Son on October 12, 2022, 05:13:29 PM

No. It is not a premise; it is a result of other facts of reality:
1. The unborn child is an innocent person.
2. It is never morally permissible to intentionally kill an innocent person.
3. The child is currently gestating inside her mother.

As a result, the mother's body is subject largely to the child's needs until birth.

You're "facts" break down in step 2.  There are times--perhaps numerous times--when it is morally impermissible not to kill an innocent person.

Let's take a pertinent example.

A pregnant woman has a disease which can be cured (such as a cancer), but the treatment will kill the fetus.  But the woman is so weak already that having a dead fetus in her womb will almost certainly lead to her death.  What are the choices?

A. Do nothing.  The mother and fetus both die.
B. Give her the treatment.  The fetus dies, causes an infection, and the mother dies, too.
C. Abort the fetus and give her the treatment.  The fetus dies, but the mother lives to go on and have other children.

The only choice that leads to someone not dying and there being more children is C.

How could this be the morally impermissible choice?  ???

Or take a previous real-world example.  A woman is severely dizzy and severely throwing up.  She has headaches.  A doctor suspects she has a tumor.  The only way to know is to perform an MRI.  But the MRI will very like hurt or kill the fetus.  So the doctor refused to do the MRI or treat the possible tumor.

So the mother had an abortion.  Turns out she did have a tumor and would have died.  But it was easily treated and she survived.

So why is saving the mother's life instead of killing her with the fetus the supposedly only "morally permissible" choice? 

Quote
Yes. There is no analog to pregnancy; it is its own unique thing. It is the nature of women to have a child inside of them. The woman isn't "sacrificing her own bodily autonomy". The nature of being a woman is that sometimes you get pregnant.

The problem with that stance is not the fact that women sometimes get pregnant.  It is the belief that, since she is pregnant, she no longer has sovereignty over he own body.  That other people, specifically men who never had to personally deal with the sometimes hard choices associated with pregnancy, can overrule her decisions about her own body.  That she is nothing more than an incubator, with no more say over what happens to herself than a mechanical one.  >:(

For almost every other circumstance, the individual has the final say over their own body and bodily parts.  Even after you're dead, doctors cannot take parts of your body without permission. But because someone decided that a developing human being is exactly like a fully developed, independent human being, the mother has no say over her own body and health.  And the people who makes these rules (i.e. men) never have that right taken away from them.

That's what makes women mad.

Just because you can get pregnant doesn't mean you should lose control of your own body.  Especially if you didn't have any choice if you got pregnant or not.  Especially if it might kill you.

Fact #2 is not a "fact" at all, but an ill-conceived "moral" opinion.

(Although it is good to know that you're against the death penalty.  ;D)
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Fenring on October 12, 2022, 05:29:44 PM
A pregnant woman has a disease which can be cured (such as a cancer), but the treatment will kill the fetus.  But the woman is so weak already that having a dead fetus in her womb will almost certainly lead to her death.  What are the choices?

A. Do nothing.  The mother and fetus both die.
B. Give her the treatment.  The fetus dies, causes an infection, and the mother dies, too.
C. Abort the fetus and give her the treatment.  The fetus dies, but the mother lives to go on and have other children.

The only choice that leads to someone not dying and there being more children is C.

How could this be the morally impermissible choice?  ???

Sorry, WS, but you are just not understanding what Joshua is saying. You are misinterpreting "intentionally kill" to mean "can never allow to die", which are completely different. See the "double effect principle" if you want to know more. This is the formal belief Joshua is referring to.

Quote
Quote
Yes. There is no analog to pregnancy; it is its own unique thing. It is the nature of women to have a child inside of them. The woman isn't "sacrificing her own bodily autonomy". The nature of being a woman is that sometimes you get pregnant.

The problem with that stance is not the fact that women sometimes get pregnant.  It is the belief that, since she is pregnant, she no longer has sovereignty over he own body.  That other people, specifically men who never had to personally deal with the sometimes hard choices associated with pregnancy, can overrule her decisions about her own body.  That she is nothing more than an incubator, with no more say over what happens to herself than a mechanical one.  >:(

I'm mostly replying to the bolded part: don't you think it's pretty sexist to claim that only men are concerned about the moral implications of abortion? That seems pretty regressive. I think you will find, if anything, the public pro-life movement to be more overtly populated by women than by men. Contrary to what you may experience in your own circle of acquaintances, it is not the case that pro-life values stem from a cabal of men trying to control women's bodies. That is a media narrative that I guess you've come to believe, but even if you use basic common sense is a most unlikely reality. Can you seriously imagine families all over the U.S., with the husband decidedly pro-life while the wife is pro-choice? Sounds like a problematic family situation if that's what you're imagining!

Quote
Just because you can get pregnant doesn't mean you should lose control of your own body.

That is, in fact, exactly what's being debated (between the two sides). Obviously if you're pro-choice you'll assert that control over your body should trump all other considerations, but don't start to think that saying this is an argument. It's just an a priori axiom you're asserting. You would have to offer reasons why body sovereignty is more important than all other moral considerations. Note again I'm mostly talking moral, not legal.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Tom on October 12, 2022, 05:35:00 PM
Quote
I think you will find, if anything, the public pro-life movement to be more overtly populated by women than by men.
How are you defining "public?"

Quote
Can you seriously imagine families all over the U.S., with the husband decidedly pro-life while the wife is pro-choice?
Yes. In fact, multiple demographic studies indicate that this is not infrequent. On a purely anecdotal level: until recently, I was pro-life while my wife served on the board of a local Planned Parenthood.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Grant on October 12, 2022, 07:11:52 PM
How are you defining "public?"

Yes. In fact, multiple demographic studies indicate that this is not infrequent. On a purely anecdotal level: until recently, I was pro-life while my wife served on the board of a local Planned Parenthood.

I imagine he is talking about the people who march, attend rallies, and generally speak out about abortion.  Photographs of pro-life rallys are inconclusive, but there are plenty of women. They're not lacking.  Same with public speakers.  Looks like a mix to me.  But it does cut against the concept that it is just men telling women what to do with their bodies. 

I recall that you were one of the few pro-life liberals (or socialist/progressive/whatever) on the forum.  I'm curious as to what made you recently change your mind, and what your initial position was based on.  I recall you were often silent during many of the debates being that the pro-life arguments were not really yours. 
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Fenring on October 12, 2022, 07:34:27 PM
Quote
I think you will find, if anything, the public pro-life movement to be more overtly populated by women than by men.
How are you defining "public?"

As Grant suggested, people who put themselves in the public sphere. At least in my personal experience, when I see pro-life speakers, groups, and personalities, it seems to be women more often than men. And in fact I believe I observe the same thing with activism on the leftist side as well, for instance on campuses. If I may wager an hypothesis, I suspect that women generally tend to be more prominent in activism for some reason. Now that I think of it, that's always seemed natural even though I never questioned it.

Quote
Quote
Can you seriously imagine families all over the U.S., with the husband decidedly pro-life while the wife is pro-choice?
Yes. In fact, multiple demographic studies indicate that this is not infrequent. On a purely anecdotal level: until recently, I was pro-life while my wife served on the board of a local Planned Parenthood.

I was referring to the idea that it would be nonsensical to assume that marriages generally have a pro-life husband and a pro-choice wife. Obviously a given family can have any setup, but it would be illogical in the extreme for the general trend to be conflicting views on this topic within a marriage. My remark was a reductio ad absurdum of the contention that pro-life positions are dominated by chauvinistic men, since even a cursory glance at ordinary families should demonstrate that this is not even possible, let alone true. At best one could opine that many women in America are chauvinistically anti-woman if they take up the pro-life side. But that in itself would be a fairly sexist assessment.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Tom on October 12, 2022, 08:15:53 PM
Quote
I'm curious as to what made you recently change your mind, and what your initial position was based on.
My previous position -- which I held for nearly 20 years -- was a consequence of some very horrific experiences my wife (and, to a lesser degree, I) had during a late-term abortion and the way I rationalized them. I changed my mind based on conversations with both my wife and a few of our female friends, some of whom had had similarly traumatic abortions and some of whom had not, and their anecdotal descriptions of the value they felt they'd derived from being able to delay or completely defer child-rearing as compared to the emotional and physical costs of the procedure. A couple frank conversations with high school friends who retrospectively wish they'd had abortions, and with a few of my daughters' friends who've fallen on either side of this issue, have also swayed my point of view a bit. It should be noted that it was often quite difficult to have these conversations, because the social stigma is still quite extreme in many environments; my wife had an abortion twenty years ago, is glad she did it, and donates both time and money to abortionists because she is so supportive of the option, but still refuses to tell her (very Catholic) family about it (despite my belief and assertion that one of the most powerful things a pro-choice woman might do to sway public opinion is to be open about her own historical decisions; I think the fact that so many abortions happen in "secret" is a major issue.)

Anyway, I was initially inclined to be fine with first trimester abortions and strictly against abortions in the late third trimester, but I've come to recognize the ultimate incoherence of that position. I'm still not satisfied by the fact that we need to legally (and morally) define personhood by drawing a bright but largely arbitrary line, and would love if we were able to develop technological solutions that might allow us to reconcile the competing rights of a potential person and a fully actualized person, but until that point I've been persuaded by many very thoughtful and impassioned people that "potential" is not sufficient grounds to restrict the "actual."
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Fenring on October 12, 2022, 08:23:44 PM
I'm still not satisfied by the fact that we need to legally (and morally) define personhood by drawing a bright but largely arbitrary line, and would love if we were able to develop technological solutions that might allow us to reconcile the competing rights of a potential person and a fully actualized person, but until that point I've been persuaded by many very thoughtful and impassioned people that "potential" is not sufficient grounds to restrict the "actual."

Would you agree that if the technology existed to teleport out the fetus at any time and raise it elsewhere, that then there would be no argument in favor of abortion as opposed to simply extracting the fetus? Or should the mother have the right not only to avoid pregnancy, but also the right to terminate the fetus if she so chooses?

As an aside I am constantly baffled about how many people say that the options are between having an abortion or raising a child before they're ready. Why does no one ever mention putting the newborn up for adoption? It's literally the most obvious option.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Tom on October 12, 2022, 08:33:32 PM
Carrying a baby to term isn't exactly a zero-cost decision for a variety of reasons. I mean, the whole reason Magdalene laundries existed was so that girls could vanish for a school year and then come back. And there's ample evidence that adoption has not historically been a reliably compassionate choice, either; part of the indigenous school scandal in Canada involved secret graves of not only students but the discarded babies of (presumably) students.

But, yes, if we could safely extract a fetus from a womb and somehow convince society to shoulder the cost of its birth and upbringing, I'd argue that the cost of preserving potential human life might be low enough to make abortion completely unnecessary. The only obvious philosophical argument against that would be a hardcore insistence that a fetus is not biologically distinct enough from its mother that its mother must retain all rights regarding its disposition, but I think that's a good example of foolish consistency.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Fenring on October 12, 2022, 08:40:10 PM
But, yes, if we could safely extract a fetus from a womb and somehow convince society to shoulder the cost of its birth and upbringing, I'd argue that the cost of preserving potential human life might be low enough to make abortion completely unnecessary. The only obvious philosophical argument against that would be a hardcore insistence that a fetus is not biologically distinct enough from its mother that its mother must retain all rights regarding its disposition, but I think that's a good example of foolish consistency.

Actually I'm equally baffled by the insistence (not yours, but generally) that somehow bringing a baby into the world inconveniences society, public resources, or anything of the sort. There are hoards of parents who can't conceive (a separate by important problem) and are clamoring to adopt, and face years on waiting lists. In fact some friends of mine had a fairly significant wait even for from agency for special needs kids. There is no need for society to do much of anything; tons of couples would jump at the chance - indeed would probably bid significant $$ - to adopt an America-born newborn. So the issue I'm raising is strictly about how much a pro-choice position is predicated merely on not being forced to continue being pregnant, versus actually not wanting the baby in the world. I would hope most reasonable people would abhor the latter reason, except that in practice I fear my hopes would be disappointed.
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Fenring on October 12, 2022, 10:40:20 PM
Sorry for the typo: "A separate but important problem."
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: TheDrake on October 13, 2022, 07:30:22 AM
I'm still not satisfied by the fact that we need to legally (and morally) define personhood by drawing a bright but largely arbitrary line, and would love if we were able to develop technological solutions that might allow us to reconcile the competing rights of a potential person and a fully actualized person, but until that point I've been persuaded by many very thoughtful and impassioned people that "potential" is not sufficient grounds to restrict the "actual."

As an aside I am constantly baffled about how many people say that the options are between having an abortion or raising a child before they're ready. Why does no one ever mention putting the newborn up for adoption? It's literally the most obvious option.

Because it often doesn't happen that way.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2019/05/why-more-women-dont-choose-adoption/589759/

Essentially, guilt. There is an emotional bond that forms carrying to term and giving birth. There is social pressure against giving up your baby.

Perhaps if we celebrated such women and applauded them, there might be more willing. Perhaps if someone else were willing to pay for prenatal care and lost work and all the other costs of pregnancy we'd get more. Most of these women are not going to be the ones that get chosen as a type of surrogate. They are sometimes addicted to drugs, not likely to be having good nutrition. Another factor might be pressure from the father.

But the real question is why should they have to go through the significant effort to gestate and deliver the fetus in the first place?
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Wayward Son on November 30, 2022, 06:52:08 PM
Well, the Indiana AG is asking the state's medical board to punish the doctor who gave an abortion to the 10-year-old girl from Ohio. (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/indiana-ag-seeks-punishment-for-doctor-who-provided-abortion-to-10-year-old-rape-survivor)

Quote
The complaint alleges Dr. Caitlin Bernard violated state law by not reporting the girl’s child abuse to Indiana authorities and violated patient privacy laws by telling a newspaper reporter about the girl’s treatment. ...

“Dr. Bernard violated the law, her patient’s trust, and the standards for the medical profession when she disclosed her patient’s abuse, medical issues, and medical treatment to a reporter at an abortion rights rally to further her political agenda,” the office said in a statement. “Simply concealing the patient’s name falls far short of her legal and ethical duties here.”

Such blatant hypocrasy.  He wants to punish her for not keeping silent, so that Republicans could claim that such things never happen, and he has the audacity to accuse her of doing so "to further her political agenda."  IOW, he can't stand facts contradicting his political agenda, and wants to see her punished for it.  ::)
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Fenring on November 30, 2022, 07:07:49 PM
I'm not sure quite what you are arguing here, WS: are you saying it's not a clear violation of doctor/patient ethics (and of the law) for a doctor to give sufficient information about a patient and their treatment for others to be able to deduce who it is?
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: Wayward Son on November 30, 2022, 07:14:07 PM
The problem was that many Republicans were loudly arguing that no such abortion for a 10-year-old rape victim had ever occurred.  So saying nothing would be allowing a lie to be perpetuated.  A lie that would ultimately harm other such girls.

Besides, how do we know that the 10-year-old Ohio rape victim was her patient?  ???  Do we know for certain that the doctor hadn't treated another such girl?  ;)
Title: Re: Whose cell/womb is it anyways?
Post by: DJQuag on December 03, 2022, 07:06:25 PM
Whilst being technically correct is often acknowledged as being the most satisfying type of correct, there was a ten year old girl who was raped and then struggled to not have to go through the incredibly dangerous prospect of pregnancy at ten and wanted an abortion. Also, she was raped. She might not want a momento of that.

That she had to cross state lines to get what she needed makes me think of other times people had to cross state lines to get what they needed.