US Supreme Court overturns Roe vs. Wade

[CrowKenobi]

Before things get out of hand, please try to limit the discussion to the thread’s title. Going beyond that could be considered off-topic and would probably just irritate someone (resulting in heated discussion that would probably get this thread locked).

[ramlaen]

Originally Posted by BWTraveller

See 90% of people’s arguments against those they oppose, whether it’s a matter of abortion, economics, politics or religion. Both sides either seek out the most ignorant and deranged of the other side, or make up things they think the other side “would say”.

I would say it's the sad state of media these days but it has always been like this, information is just less gated now so it is easier see when it happens.

Originally Posted by cyberdemon

You realize that argument can easily be reversed right?

Yes you can use the same argument when a right winger makes a right wing caricature of a left wing position, but we aren't discussing a video where that happens.

[stray]

Originally Posted by BWTraveller

The trimester measures were replaced with viability (which, as I said before, has changed over time and probably will continue to change).

BTW I don't know what you mean by this but both Roe and Casey used viability as a standard and fetal viability has not changed since 1972 or since the dawn of humanity really. Without viability as a standard you're basically saying a woman is a slave to a clump of cells. Its still probably the best standard in terms of balancing the rights of the mother with a fetus that has the potential to someday be a human life.

Alito's draft doesn't even try to counter viability because as a standard its basically bulletproof, he just throws a bunch of other shit out there on why abortion is bad.

[BWTraveller]

Originally Posted by stray

BTW I don't know what you mean by this but both Roe and Casey used viability as a standard and fetal viability has not changed since 1972 or since the dawn of humanity really. Without viability as a standard you're basically saying a woman is a slave to a clump of cells. Its still probably the best standard in terms of balancing the rights of the mother with a fetus that has the potential to someday be a human life.

Alito's draft doesn't even try to counter viability because as a standard its basically bulletproof, he just throws a bunch of other shit out there on why abortion is bad.

First off, I was going off of Wikipedia there, where it says that the RVW ruling specified a trimester-based system, which was replaced by viability in Casey.

As for viability, it may not have changed much in recent years, I am not versed in it, but it can and has changed. Viability is only a measure of whether modern technology can keep them alive outside the womb, nothing more and nothing less. It most certainly has changed as technology has improved, allowing us to save premature children who could not be saved in the past.

And while I said that viability might not be a system that we can guarantee will remain as is from now on, I most certainly wasn't saying that we shouldn't have any system at all, just that it's not exactly clear.

And while I said before that I am against abortion laws, please don't throw around nonsense like "clump of cells". Technically, we are all clumps of cells, just like technically even the zygote is a unique, individual organism of species human, that is, a living, individual human. As far as science is concerned, that "clump of cells" is no less a human than you or me. The question about abortion has always been "what constitutes a person" and since this is a moral, ethical, or philosophical concept rather than a scientific one, it's not something that can be defined and set in stone. But either way, everything from zygote to "clump of cells" to old man/woman is all stages in human development, so using those sorts of phrases is just plain misleading. There's a reason I don't use terms like "pro-life" or "pro-choice": these terms are designed to insist one view things in a certain way and imply that disagreeing with the one is tantamount to murder, while disagreeing with the other is tantamount to slavery. It's deliberate manipulation, just as a sizable portion of what both sides say.

[ramlaen]

FWIW the definition of a viable pregnancy used in the failed abortion bill that Senate Democrat just tried to pass.

The term “viability” means the point in a pregnancy at which, in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating health care provider, based on the particular facts of the case before the health care provider, there is a reasonable likelihood of sustained fetal survival outside the uterus with or without artificial support.

Others would call a pregnancy viable if it could reasonably be expected to result in a live birth and survival.

[stray]

Originally Posted by BWTraveller

And while I said before that I am against abortion laws, please don't throw around nonsense like "clump of cells".

Fundamentally we're talking about something that can not survive on its own. Tone policing and/or candy coating the wording doesn't change the fact the outcome is zero sum; to confer rights to a fetus you have to revoke rights from a woman. If you don't like the term "slave" then I'll hear you out if you're able to offer up something better, but the functional outcome is the same.

Viability is still the only way to balance the rights of the mother with the rights of the potential she's carrying. It was correct in 1972, 1992, and its still correct in 2022.

[The Green One]

"My beliefs give me the right to tell strangers what to do by force."

This applies to both sides.

That's all this really is when you strip away all the fancy talk and excuses.

This and those who exploits this for other means regardless if they agree and/or believe it because it's who they're trying to pander to want to hear because of the first reason.

[BWTraveller]

Originally Posted by stray

Fundamentally we're talking about something that can not survive on its own. Tone policing and/or candy coating the wording doesn't change the fact the outcome is zero sum; to confer rights to a fetus you have to revoke rights from a woman. If you don't like the term "slave" then I'll hear you out if you're able to offer up something better, but the functional outcome is the same.

Viability is still the only way to balance the rights of the mother with the rights of the potential she's carrying. It was correct in 1972, 1992, and its still correct in 2022.

I'm not really arguing when too set it. Viability is probably the best we have right now, I was just saying it's still not exactly a great system either.

And if you want to insist on the word slavery, then how about "mutual slavery"? After all, while you may have a woman who, from the point where the law won't allow her to abort to the point of birth, has no choice but to continue to allow another human to live inside her, you also have another human that has no say in where it's put, what happens to it, what it eats, or anything else until it's born. Again, the question of "when does a human go from being a so-called 'clump of cells' to a person" is not something that can even be defined scientifically, especially since things like consciousness can't be clearly defined, much less pinpointed, and other things like souls can't even be proven to exist or not exist. To those that see an embryo or zygote as a person, you're declaring that a woman can kill this person whenever she wants without any regard for that person's rights. And to those that don't see them as people, you're taking away a woman's rights based on "just a mass of cells".

Either way, I'll say it again, I have other reasons to oppose such laws. Honestly, simply getting to a point where a woman has a pregnancy she doesn't want as a result of her own choices is not cool. We have ways to reduce the chances of pregnancy by massive margins (along with a couple methods to reduce those chances to zero), so we really need to learn just how useless it is to put the cart before the horse.

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by The Green One

"My beliefs give me the right to tell strangers what to do by force."

This applies to both sides.

That's all this really is when you strip away all the fancy talk and excuses.

Sorry to say but, I don't think you are quite right here; if the pro-life argument prevail, it would remove woman's right to abortion (like you said, ''tell strangers what to do by force'' ) but can really say the same thing if the pro-choice position? It do not force anyone to do anything it do not even force pro-life proponents to change their opinions.

[stray]

Originally Posted by BWTraveller

And if you want to insist on the word slavery, then how about "mutual slavery"? After all, while you may have a woman who, from the point where the law won't allow her to abort to the point of birth, has no choice but to continue to allow another human to live inside her, you also have another human that has no say in where it's put, what happens to it, what it eats, or anything else until it's born.

I... am just sort of in awe that you found that a compelling enough argument to write down.

Again, the question of "when does a human go from being a so-called 'clump of cells' to a person" is not something that can even be defined scientifically, especially since things like consciousness can't be clearly defined, much less pinpointed, and other things like souls can't even be proven to exist or not exist.

I mean if you're talking about "souls" you're not even remotely talking about science to begin with. Moreover you're muddling the issue and still talking about revoking the rights of the woman based on arbitrary standards and opinions beyond the simple question of whether the baby can survive outside of the mother's body. Viability is still the only real standard that respects that a woman has inalienable rights.

Originally Posted by The Green One

This applies to both sides.

I don't understand this "both sides" narrative. Literally no one is promoting forced abortions. Don't like abortions? Don't have one! Problem solved... in a perfect world.

[Ithekro]

If one is using souls via Christian ideals, wouldn't those be based on older Jewish ideas? As I was under the impression that old Jewish text don't have a person having a soul until they are born/"breath of life" or some such thing.

[stray]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

If one is using souls via Christian ideals, wouldn't those be based on older Jewish ideas? As I was under the impression that old Jewish text don't have a person having a soul until they are born/"breath of life" or some such thing.

In the 1970s it was only really Catholics that opposed abortion; Evangelicals were totally fine with it. After a big push by politically minded Evangelicals in the late 1970s -- Jerry Falwell in particular -- that changed dramatically.

[ramlaen]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

Sorry to say but, I don't think you are quite right here; if the pro-life argument prevail, it would remove woman's right to abortion (like you said, ''tell strangers what to do by force'' ) but can really say the same thing if the pro-choice position? It do not force anyone to do anything it do not even force pro-life proponents to change their opinions.

There have been some sixty million abortions in the US since Roe vs. Wade, to say that the aborted did not have that forced upon them...

[BWTraveller]

Originally Posted by stray

I... am just sort of in awe that you found that a compelling enough argument to write down. I mean if you're talking about "souls" you're not even remotely talking about science to begin with. Moreover you're muddling the issue and still talking about revoking the rights of the woman based on arbitrary standards and opinions beyond the simple question of whether the baby can survive outside of the mother's body. Viability is still the only real standard that respects that a woman has inalienable rights.

And I'm surprised you can't see it. If you consider the embryo to be a person, then you indeed have a person who has absolutely no say in their existence at all and is completely at the mercy of the person who brought them into this world. Giving the mother the right to abort means giving her the right to take that life from a person who has absolutely no way to defend himself/herself (again, if you consider the embryo to be a person, something that can't be defined).

And you're forcefully trying to oversimplify a complex issue to just "if it can't survive without help, it doesn't have a right to life". And I specifically said that there's no way to even prove that the soul exists. I was just saying that there is no way to gain a consensus on even what constitutes "being a person", and thus it is entirely impossible to achieve any kind of determination of when that takes place and thus when a child gains a "right to life". Not to mention that I've said from the start that I agree with having abortion rights, it's just that almost any point we can currently measure has problems with it and it's worth acknowledging that it is a difficult decision to choose just when that cutoff is; viability is really no more valid than any other, it's just the one you like. And I'm fine with that, I don't know when else to put it (though I'd probably oppose anything later) and honestly wouldn't want to be part of any governing body that has to debate the matter.

And again, my focus is and always has been on the other side of things, and on people having the ability to make properly informed decisions every step of the way. Saying stuff like "until it's able to survive on its own it's not actually a human person so you don't have to worry about 'killing' it" may be useful to make people feel a little better about themselves when taking one option after the fact, but it's still inaccurate and deliberately misleading in order to make people feel better, and diminishes the weight of making bad decisions earlier on. Rather than deal with people arguing about women having or not having an "inalienable" right to make a decision, I'd rather focus on the decisions that they have to make to get there (again, excepting victims of certain types of crimes), and for that I want them to know exactly how to properly use various precautions, how much of a chance there is for pregnancy when taking those precautions as well as the chances if they don't do it right, and for them to know exactly what is and isn't so that they can decide for themselves. Telling them "It's just a 'possible future human'", again, deliberately denies that lasty part, sugarcoating and twisting things to make people feel better after the fact when we should be making sure they actually think things through beforehand.

[stray]

Originally Posted by BWTraveller

And I'm surprised you can't see it. If you consider the embryo to be a person,

I don't, because it is not.

And you're forcefully trying to oversimplify a complex issue to just "if it can't survive without help, it doesn't have a right to life".

No, more specifically its right to life doesn't exceed the mother's right to her autonomy. You're just disregarding the mother's rights completely and making emotional cases about "teh people!!11"

And again, my focus is and always has been on the other side of things, and on people having the ability to make properly informed decisions every step of the way.

Abortion clinics are already legally required to misinform their patients in a lot of states. The longer we discuss this the less I can respect your argument. You're not even really responding to my arguments, you're just regurgitating disingenuous arguments I've already heard ad nauseum.

Originally Posted by ramlaen

There have been some sixty million abortions in the US since Roe vs. Wade, to say that the aborted did not have that forced upon them...

That's nice and all but I'm not sure what the benefit of forcing the US population to 400 million is. Is there a solution for poverty or homelessness in there somewhere?

[Tenzen12]

Originally Posted by The Green One

"My beliefs give me the right to tell strangers what to do by force."

This applies to both sides.

That's all this really is when you strip away all the fancy talk and excuses.

This and those who exploits this for other means regardless if they agree and/or believe it because it's who they're trying to pander to want to hear because of the first reason.

That's what laws are. It literally tells "strangers" not kill, not steal, pay taxes etc. "Strangers" in this case means citizens protected by very same laws and armed forces so they are not killed or stolen from by both fellow citizens and external enemies.

Eitherway woman can decide if they want children before there is even need for abortion , but fetus/unborn baby have no choice if they will live.

[BWTraveller]

Originally Posted by stray

I don't, because it is not.No, more specifically its right to life doesn't exceed the mother's right to her autonomy. You're just disregarding the mother's rights completely and making emotional cases about "teh people!!11"Abortion clinics are already legally required to misinform their patients in a lot of states. The longer we discuss this the less I can respect your argument. You're not even really responding to my arguments, you're just regurgitating disingenuous arguments I've already heard ad nauseum.That's nice and all but I'm not sure what the benefit of forcing the US population to 400 million is. Is there a solution for poverty or homelessness in there somewhere?

Again, there is no definition of person that can be made by consensus, and as such, all that you can honestly say is you don't consider an embryo to be a person. Personhood is nothing but a matter of opinion or arbitrary legal decision that can change at the drop of a hat if the law changes. You can insist all you want that it isn't, but it's never going to amount to anything more than an opinion. You chose a criteria for what you consider things to be, but no matter how adamant you are about it you're really no different from people who say that something is simply bad or simply good as if their consideration was some kind of absolute law.

And how am I failing to respond to your arguments? Especially when a lot of your arguments are centered around accusing me of wanting to take away rights that I've repeatedly said I do not want to see taken away AT ALL. Just the mere fact that I don't agree with some of the stuff you say is enough for you to ignore what I've repeatedly said and accuse me of wanting things I've specifically said I'm opposed to.

My entire point is that if you're old enough to have sex, you're old enough to hear the facts. All the facts. What is, what isn't and what we can't say is or isn't, without any sugarcoating or oblique language. They should be faced with the weight of what they do and what they don't do and seriously think about things before they go and do it. Decide for themselves with enough knowledge to appreciate that decision. If they did ensure that kids were well-informed and knew how to do things and just what it would mean if they didn't do certain things, the rates of unwanted pregnancies would come fairly close to negligible numbers. I am strongly opposed to any laws requiring a clinic to deceive patients, just like I am strongly for laws requiring better sexual education. How is telling me that various states demand misinformation in any way a point against my advocation for people to be properly informed? If I said I was for better gun control, would you be hurting my statement in any way by telling me that there are a lot of states that don't have enough gun control?

[stray]

Originally Posted by BWTraveller

Again, there is no definition of person that can be made by consensus, and as such, all that you can honestly say is you don't consider an embryo to be a person. Personhood is nothing but a matter of opinion or arbitrary legal decision that can change at the drop of a hat if the law changes. You can insist all you want that it isn't, but it's never going to amount to anything more than an opinion. You chose a criteria for what you consider things to be, but no matter how adamant you are about it you're really no different from people who say that something is simply bad or simply good as if their consideration was some kind of absolute law.

If its not viable I don't really give a fuck what you or anyone else's opinion is TBH. The woman's rights supersede the embro/fetus/not-person/whatever you want to call it. I was pretty clear that viability was the gold standard because it balanced the rights of the woman with the potential she's carrying. There's almost no other outcome. Inalienable rights are not up to democracy to bestow or remove. If abortion is distasteful to you that's nice I guess but I'm not compelled by emotional arguments that trample on women's rights. I'm betting no one in here has a uterus either.

I might agree with you on sex ed but abstinence only sex ed has made as many babies as the rhythm method in the grand scheme. Contraception is obviously a better solution than abortion but its not a perfect world.

[Tenzen12]

It's pretty bad if you arbitrary decide who rights supercede whose, especially if it's lesser rights (autonomy) superceding higher rights (life).

[stray]

Originally Posted by Tenzen12

It's pretty bad if you arbitrary decide who rights supercede whose, especially if it's lesser rights (autonomy) superceding higher rights (life).

Viability isn't arbitrary.