Roe v. Wade overturned

Discuss the news, current events, politics, etc.

Roe v. Wade overturned

Unread postby René » 27 June 2022, 11:07

I've heard from a lot of Americans who are incredibly angry about this.

Looking in from the outside as a European, it seems crazy that rights like abortion come from court decisions instead of elected legislatures. It's possible to think abortion should be legal (within reasonable limits) without somehow inferring it from vague wording in the constitutional documents of your country.

The question in the recent Supreme Court case (Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization), as I understand it, was whether your constitution prohibits pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions. Not whether abortion should be legal. Because that's not for courts to decide. It's for the people and their elected representatives.

Is it true that 6 states and D.C. allow elective abortion right up until birth? If so, eek. That seems crazy as well. Like, there's literally no difference between the thing you're killing and a newborn baby at that point, it's just in a different place. Ask anyone born prematurely.

I think abortion can make sense in certain cases, but is it unreasonable to ask people to make up their minds before the thing inside them looks a whole lot like a human being with feelings and a capacity for suffering?

Most European countries set limits for elective abortions around 3 months, which seems like a reasonable balance to me. But again, that's a policy view, and I'm not gonna try to read it into your constitution. :P

What are your thoughts?
ImageImageImageImage
User avatar
René
Administrator
 
Posts: 7945
+1s received: 2953
Joined: 20 December 2012, 20:12
Location: Lanarkshire, Scotland / Maryland, USA
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: Roe v. Wade overturned

Unread postby rogonandi » 27 June 2022, 14:02

Is it true that 6 states and D.C. allow elective abortion right up until birth? If so, eek. That seems crazy as well. Like, there's literally no difference between the thing you're killing and a newborn baby at that point, it's just in a different place. Ask anyone born prematurely.


I’m not 100% sure, but I seriously doubt it. It sounds like insidious exaggeration by those who are against abortions in general. ;)

My thoughts on it are that the overturning of Roe vs Wade is an absolute travesty and only serves to show just how worthless the rule of law truly is. I wonder when other protections that were coded into law will be taken away as well?
Image
User avatar
rogonandi
 
Posts: 2426
+1s received: 1582
Joined: 12 May 2016, 10:02
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada (ca)

Re: Roe v. Wade overturned

Unread postby René » 27 June 2022, 14:46

rogonandi wrote:
Is it true that 6 states and D.C. allow elective abortion right up until birth? If so, eek. That seems crazy as well. Like, there's literally no difference between the thing you're killing and a newborn baby at that point, it's just in a different place. Ask anyone born prematurely.

I’m not 100% sure, but I seriously doubt it. It sounds like insidious exaggeration by those who are against abortions in general. ;)

From what I've read, Alaska, Colorado, the District of Columbia, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon and Vermont have no time limit on elective abortions whatsoever. :runaway:

rogonandi wrote:My thoughts on it are that the overturning of Roe vs Wade is an absolute travesty and only serves to show just how worthless the rule of law truly is.

I'm not seeing that. The ruling means you can actually have laws, e.g. ones saying you can't kill a perfectly viable baby. It seems more like a win for the rule of law to me; you just don't like some of the laws that get passed. :P

rogonandi wrote:I wonder when other protections that were coded into law will be taken away as well?

What protection coded into law was taken away?
ImageImageImageImage
User avatar
René
Administrator
 
Posts: 7945
+1s received: 2953
Joined: 20 December 2012, 20:12
Location: Lanarkshire, Scotland / Maryland, USA
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: Roe v. Wade overturned

Unread postby rogonandi » 27 June 2022, 15:54

René wrote:
rogonandi wrote:
Is it true that 6 states and D.C. allow elective abortion right up until birth? If so, eek. That seems crazy as well. Like, there's literally no difference between the thing you're killing and a newborn baby at that point, it's just in a different place. Ask anyone born prematurely.

I’m not 100% sure, but I seriously doubt it. It sounds like insidious exaggeration by those who are against abortions in general. ;)

From what I've read, Alaska, Colorado, the District of Columbia, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon and Vermont have no time limit on elective abortions whatsoever. :runaway:

rogonandi wrote:My thoughts on it are that the overturning of Roe vs Wade is an absolute travesty and only serves to show just how worthless the rule of law truly is.

I'm not seeing that. The ruling means you can actually have laws, e.g. ones saying you can't kill a perfectly viable baby. It seems more like a win for the rule of law to me; you just don't like some of the laws that get passed. :P

rogonandi wrote:I wonder when other protections that were coded into law will be taken away as well?

What protection coded into law was taken away?

Are you ‘pro-life’ or ‘pro choice?’ Edit: That's actually not a fair question to ask.

I actually did a bit of research and apparently in six states there really isn't a limit on when a fetus can be aborted. Well f--- my ass and call me Freddy!

I'm not seeing that. The ruling means you can actually have laws, e.g. ones saying you can't kill a perfectly viable baby. It seems more like a win for the rule of law to me; you just don't like some of the laws that get passed. :P


Okay, sure. Why not?
Last edited by rogonandi on 27 June 2022, 16:51, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
rogonandi
 
Posts: 2426
+1s received: 1582
Joined: 12 May 2016, 10:02
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada (ca)

Re: Roe v. Wade overturned

Unread postby René » 27 June 2022, 16:50

rogonandi before edit wrote:
René wrote:
rogonandi wrote:
Is it true that 6 states and D.C. allow elective abortion right up until birth? If so, eek. That seems crazy as well. Like, there's literally no difference between the thing you're killing and a newborn baby at that point, it's just in a different place. Ask anyone born prematurely.

I’m not 100% sure, but I seriously doubt it. It sounds like insidious exaggeration by those who are against abortions in general. ;)

From what I've read, Alaska, Colorado, the District of Columbia, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon and Vermont have no time limit on elective abortions whatsoever. :runaway:

rogonandi wrote:My thoughts on it are that the overturning of Roe vs Wade is an absolute travesty and only serves to show just how worthless the rule of law truly is.

I'm not seeing that. The ruling means you can actually have laws, e.g. ones saying you can't kill a perfectly viable baby. It seems more like a win for the rule of law to me; you just don't like some of the laws that get passed. :P

rogonandi wrote:I wonder when other protections that were coded into law will be taken away as well?

What protection coded into law was taken away?

Are you ‘pro-life’ or ‘pro choice?’

I'm not sure how that's relevant to the question of whether the constitution says anything about abortion (as much as politically appointed, intellectually dishonest judges (of all persuasions) seem to feel the constitution is the embodiment of their own political views...), but if you must know, please refer back to my original post:

René wrote:I think abortion can make sense in certain cases, but is it unreasonable to ask people to make up their minds before the thing inside them looks a whole lot like a human being with feelings and a capacity for suffering?

Most European countries set limits for elective abortions around 3 months, which seems like a reasonable balance to me. But again, that's a policy view, and I'm not gonna try to read it into [the US Constitution]. :P

I.e. I'm all for access to safe, legal abortion within reason, as it exists in the vast majority of countries in Europe, the vast majority of US states, and all provinces of Canada.

But again, the main point is that the US Supreme Court doesn't get to set the rules beyond determining what violates the US constitution, and in this case they didn't find anything in the constitution that says states can't make their own laws about this.

If you don't think states should be able to make their own laws, you may have an issue with the federal system per se. (Note that the federal system is also what gave some US states the ability to e.g. introduce same-sex marriage before it was recognised federally, and what enables some states to have zero limits on abortion, abhorrent though many of us think that is.)

rogonandi after edit wrote:Are you ‘pro-life’ or ‘pro choice?’ Edit: That's actually not a fair question to ask.

I actually did a bit of research and apparently in six states there really isn't a limit on when a fetus can be aborted. Well f--- my ass and call me Freddy!

I was surprised as well.
ImageImageImageImage
User avatar
René
Administrator
 
Posts: 7945
+1s received: 2953
Joined: 20 December 2012, 20:12
Location: Lanarkshire, Scotland / Maryland, USA
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: Roe v. Wade overturned

Unread postby rogonandi » 27 June 2022, 17:01

I'm not sure how that's relevant to the question of whether the constitution says anything about abortion (as much as politically appointed, intellectually dishonest judges (of all persuasions) seem to feel the constitution is the embodiment of their own political views...), but if you must know, please refer back to my original post:


Well I withdrew that question in an edit, as it wasn't fair to ask.

I.e. I'm all for access to safe, legal abortion within reason, as it exists in the vast majority of countries in Europe, the vast majority of US states, and all provinces of Canada.

But again, the main point is that the US Supreme Court doesn't get to set the rules beyond determining what violates the US constitution, and in this case they didn't find anything in the constitution that says states can't make their own laws about this.

If you don't think states should be able to make their own laws, you may have an issue with the federal system per se. (Note that the federal system is also what gave some US states the ability to e.g. introduce same-sex marriage before it was recognised federally, and what enables some states to have zero limits on abortion, abhorrent though many of us think that is.)


I'm mostly just worried that this overturning will serve as a beginning domino that'll end up damaging a lot of other civil liberties.
Image
User avatar
rogonandi
 
Posts: 2426
+1s received: 1582
Joined: 12 May 2016, 10:02
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada (ca)

Re: Roe v. Wade overturned

Unread postby René » 27 June 2022, 17:31

rogonandi wrote:I'm mostly just worried that this overturning will serve as a beginning domino that'll end up damaging a lot of other civil liberties.

Honestly, those rights should have been established by legislatures, not courts. And legislatures have had endless time to codify this stuff even after the ruling — almost 50 years in the case of Roe v. Wade.

If the dominos fall, well, I suppose it may take another civil war for the US to sort itself out.

I'm mostly just saying you can't blame the justices for doing their jobs. I'm sure all the justices were partly ideologically motivated, but you can't blame them for ruling in line with the constitution just because the consequences are unfavourable for reasons that aren't their fault.
ImageImageImageImage
User avatar
René
Administrator
 
Posts: 7945
+1s received: 2953
Joined: 20 December 2012, 20:12
Location: Lanarkshire, Scotland / Maryland, USA
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: Roe v. Wade overturned

Unread postby Marmaduke » 27 June 2022, 20:03

I don’t know that I’m entirely surprised by, or meaningfully against, there being no time limit on abortion. I think the protection of life under law isn’t merely the preservation of biological function, but rather the preservation of consciousness. Yes, the mechanical potential is there for a foetus to feel pain, but it has never been conscious. It has no notions, much less a notion of pain. There has been no input, there is no baseline upon which to build consciousness. The slate is pristinely blank.

If artificial intelligence were a thing, would I feel conflicted about the device built to host it being irreparably damaged and disposed of before it was ever switched on? Before that intelligence was installed? I don’t think I would. I can’t imagine why I would. But because the device built to host the intelligence in question is biological, this becomes a more nuanced debate and I’m not sure I subscribe to the notion that it should be. It seems to inexorably draw itself back to moral relativism and sparing the upset of the Lord God Almighty, and therein lies the issue.

America, Greatest Country In The World :usa:, is the only country in the western world which is consistently still genuinely debating freedoms and liberties that we outside of it’s star-spangled embrace take for granted. It does this exclusively because of religious moral superiority. We all know this, America knows it, it’s not surprising. Your system is fundamentally broken, and like all broken things it will make everything it touches worse until it gets fixed or replaced.

Today, you have struck down a freedom 50 years in the standing. A freedom that 5, 10, 15 years ago it would have been unimaginable that you’d lose. A freedom that meant a genuine mistake didn’t need to have catastrophic ramifications on a woman’s life in a country where healthcare, where childcare, where paid time off and maternity leave are all things that are not provided for you. On a child’s life, born into a situation wholly unfit to sustain it. A child now forced into that situation by people claiming to only care for it’s wellbeing, who only actually care about pandering to a system that simply values the appearance of moral authority.

Tomorrow, the same-sex marriage you’re happily in finds itself stripped of legitimacy and rendered moot. The day after, men having sex with men finds itself open once again to being re-criminalised. Before you know it, shops can deny service to black people and Muslims no longer have the freedom to practice their faith. These are freedoms taken for granted. They are freedoms you will lose as long as you continue to abide a system which also takes them for granted.

Perhaps, America, a constitution written for a fledgling nation 230-something years ago is no longer fit for purpose. Perhaps, instead of seeking to amend, you should re-write. Perhaps, when deciding the course set by the moral compass of a nation, the nation itself should speak by referendum instead of asking 9 old fucks to make an interpretation of a document written with no consideration whatsoever given to the subject at hand.
User avatar
Marmaduke
 
Posts: 8605
+1s received: 3315
Joined: 23 December 2012, 17:56
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: Roe v. Wade overturned

Unread postby McTaggartfan » 27 June 2022, 20:19

Marmaduke wrote:I don’t know that I’m entirely surprised by, or meaningfully against, there being no time limit on abortion. I think the protection of life under law isn’t merely the preservation of biological function, but rather the preservation of consciousness. Yes, the mechanical potential is there for a foetus to feel pain, but it has never been conscious. It has no notions, much less a notion of pain. There has been no input, there is no baseline upon which to build consciousness. The slate is pristinely blank.

If artificial intelligence were a thing, would I feel conflicted about the device built to host it being irreparably damaged and disposed of before it was ever switched on? Before that intelligence was installed? I don’t think I would. I can’t imagine why I would. But because the device built to host the intelligence in question is biological, this becomes a more nuanced debate and I’m not sure I subscribe to the notion that it should be. It seems to inexorably draw itself back to moral relativism and sparing the upset of the Lord God Almighty, and therein lies the issue.

America, Greatest Country In The World :usa:, is the only country in the western world which is consistently still genuinely debating freedoms and liberties that we outside of it’s star-spangled embrace take for granted. It does this exclusively because of religious moral superiority. We all know this, America knows it, it’s not surprising. Your system is fundamentally broken, and like all broken things it will make everything it touches worse until it gets fixed or replaced.

Today, you have struck down a freedom 50 years in the standing. A freedom that 5, 10, 15 years ago it would have been unimaginable that you’d lose. A freedom that meant a genuine mistake didn’t need to have catastrophic ramifications on a woman’s life in a country where healthcare, where childcare, where paid time off and maternity leave are all things that are not provided for you. On a child’s life, born into a situation wholly unfit to sustain it. A child now forced into that situation by people claiming to only care for it’s wellbeing, who only actually care about pandering to a system that simply values the appearance of moral authority.

Tomorrow, the same-sex marriage you’re happily in finds itself stripped of legitimacy and rendered moot. The day after, men having sex with men finds itself open once again to being re-criminalised. Before you know it, shops can deny service to black people and Muslims no longer have the freedom to practice their faith. These are freedoms taken for granted. They are freedoms you will lose as long as you continue to abide a system which also takes them for granted.

Perhaps, America, a constitution written for a fledgling nation 230-something years ago is no longer fit for purpose. Perhaps, instead of seeking to amend, you should re-write. Perhaps, when deciding the course set by the moral compass of a nation, the nation itself should speak by referendum instead of asking 9 old fucks to make an interpretation of a document written with no consideration whatsoever given to the subject at hand.


How does it draw itself back to moral relativism?
User avatar
McTaggartfan
 
Posts: 968
+1s received: 300
Joined: 7 February 2021, 02:12
Location: Washington, D.C.
Country: United States (us)

Re: Roe v. Wade overturned

Unread postby Marmaduke » 27 June 2022, 20:26

Nothing in America is right or wrong in and of itself. America doesn’t ask what is right or wrong. America asks what God would think is right or wrong, or what James Madison might have imagined was right or wrong, whether a choice between something being right or wrong reflects on why America fought in World War 2 or besmirches the veterans than fought in Korea. The actual facts of the issue at hand are never the issue at hand. The here and the now can only be understood by America when referenced against the glory days of it’s past, or the baby Jesus.
User avatar
Marmaduke
 
Posts: 8605
+1s received: 3315
Joined: 23 December 2012, 17:56
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: Roe v. Wade overturned

Unread postby McTaggartfan » 27 June 2022, 20:35

Marmaduke wrote:Nothing in America is right or wrong in and of itself. America doesn’t ask what is right or wrong. America asks what God would think is right or wrong, or what James Madison might have imagined was right or wrong, whether a choice between something being right or wrong reflects on why America fought in World War 2 or besmirches the veterans than fought in Korea. The actual facts of the issue at hand are never the issue at hand.


Ah, I hadn't understood divine command theory to be a sort of relativism, but I can see how it could be understood as offering right/wrong relative to the mental states of a deity. In any case, I do see your point. Yes, too much of ethical thinking amounts to little more than motivated or otherwise biased reasoning. But I've given up on trying to get people to actually consider what's right or wrong, which is supremely difficult and, admittedly, I'm quite pessimistic about our ability to have moral knowledge, despite being someone who wholeheartedly believes in a cognitivist metaethical theory. Anyway, sorry, I've little to say here, since the application of philosophical theory to more concrete issues is beyond my abilities and my estimation of what's currently feasible in today's epistemic environment (if you will)—i.e., to put it very simply, I'm not very knowledgeable about political matters and have no pretensions to the contrary; I find it interesting and I'm curious enough about it, as is obvious in my asking for clarification about your post, but I've little I think I could substantively add to the discussion.
User avatar
McTaggartfan
 
Posts: 968
+1s received: 300
Joined: 7 February 2021, 02:12
Location: Washington, D.C.
Country: United States (us)

Re: Roe v. Wade overturned

Unread postby Sullivan » 27 June 2022, 22:22

René wrote:I'm mostly just saying you can't blame the justices for doing their jobs. I'm sure all the justices were partly ideologically motivated, but you can't blame them for ruling in line with the constitution just because the consequences are unfavourable for reasons that aren't their fault.

I vigorously blame them for being dumb, logically inconsistent, and very ideologically motivated fuckwits.
The Constitution is short, and vague, and doesn't account for many things presently foundational to the basic functioning of U.S. society. If most of the court weren't religious fanatics wedded to some version of "originalism"—a more fatuous, ahistorical philosophy I know not—they would allow the law to change with the times instead of ossifying it and dooming us.

They appeal to federalism and some shit interpretations of history to overturn Roe. The day before, they flout federalism, and ignore the historical fact that none of our revered founders could have anticipated semi-automatic weapons, in order to rule against states' abilities to regulate the presence of firearms in public.

The court's a death cult, and when they strip the EPA of its regulatory powers, which is coming up on their docket, the effects of their malfeasance will be of global significance.
User avatar
Sullivan
 
Posts: 704
+1s received: 220
Joined: 25 July 2013, 02:12
Location: Chicago
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: Roe v. Wade overturned

Unread postby Brenden » 28 June 2022, 16:45

rogonandi wrote:I'm mostly just worried that this overturning will serve as a beginning domino that'll end up damaging a lot of other civil liberties.

Perhaps civil liberties oughtn't to be derived from extremely liberal interpretations of vague constitutional wordings by judges in a system in which future judges can supplant those interpretations. :toogay:
Disclaimer: All views expressed in my posts are my own and do not reflect the views of this forum except when otherwise stated or this signature is not present.

ImageImageImageImage
User avatar
Brenden
Administrator
 
Posts: 9167
+1s received: 3548
Joined: 20 December 2012, 20:12
Location: Maryland
Country: United States (us)

Re: Roe v. Wade overturned

Unread postby McTaggartfan » 28 June 2022, 16:46

Brenden wrote:
rogonandi wrote:I'm mostly just worried that this overturning will serve as a beginning domino that'll end up damaging a lot of other civil liberties.

Perhaps civil liberties oughtn't to be derived from extremely liberal interpretations of vague constitutional wordings by judges in a system in which future judges can supplant those interpretations. :toogay:


"oughtn't" :heart:
User avatar
McTaggartfan
 
Posts: 968
+1s received: 300
Joined: 7 February 2021, 02:12
Location: Washington, D.C.
Country: United States (us)

Re: Roe v. Wade overturned

Unread postby Brenden » 28 June 2022, 16:49

Marmaduke wrote:I don’t know that I’m entirely surprised by, or meaningfully against, there being no time limit on abortion. I think the protection of life under law isn’t merely the preservation of biological function, but rather the preservation of consciousness. Yes, the mechanical potential is there for a foetus to feel pain, but it has never been conscious. It has no notions, much less a notion of pain. There has been no input, there is no baseline upon which to build consciousness. The slate is pristinely blank.

So I suppose premature babies aren't conscious either, unless you think passing through a vaginal canal or a caesarian incision magically imparts consciousness?

I mean, in many, many ways children aren't particularly conscious beings until a few years into their life. Maybe we should also allow very late-term abortions up to the point at which they can pass the mirror test!
Disclaimer: All views expressed in my posts are my own and do not reflect the views of this forum except when otherwise stated or this signature is not present.

ImageImageImageImage
User avatar
Brenden
Administrator
 
Posts: 9167
+1s received: 3548
Joined: 20 December 2012, 20:12
Location: Maryland
Country: United States (us)

Re: Roe v. Wade overturned

Unread postby Marmaduke » 28 June 2022, 19:39

Brenden wrote:
Marmaduke wrote:I don’t know that I’m entirely surprised by, or meaningfully against, there being no time limit on abortion. I think the protection of life under law isn’t merely the preservation of biological function, but rather the preservation of consciousness. Yes, the mechanical potential is there for a foetus to feel pain, but it has never been conscious. It has no notions, much less a notion of pain. There has been no input, there is no baseline upon which to build consciousness. The slate is pristinely blank.

So I suppose premature babies aren't conscious either, unless you think passing through a vaginal canal or a caesarian incision magically imparts consciousness?

I mean, in many, many ways children aren't particularly conscious beings until a few years into their life. Maybe we should also allow very late-term abortions up to the point at which they can pass the mirror test!

No, I don’t think I’d consider them conscious until they first gain consciousness. I’m not saying that needs to immediately develop into intelligence, but from the off there is information being held and the building blocks are being laid. Before birth, there is no consciousness, there is no data in, there is no data out.

Fatuous as you make it sound, yes, passing through a vaginal canal is the process by which first consciousness is imparted. On one side, an unconscious and never before been conscious baby enters a canal, the traumatic process if it passing through delivers a baby on the other side now awake and screaming, functioning on pure instinct but for the first time conscious. From THAT moment, that child exists. In THAT moment it goes from being a little meat computer to a baby.
User avatar
Marmaduke
 
Posts: 8605
+1s received: 3315
Joined: 23 December 2012, 17:56
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: Roe v. Wade overturned

Unread postby McTaggartfan » 28 June 2022, 20:20

Brenden wrote:
Marmaduke wrote:I don’t know that I’m entirely surprised by, or meaningfully against, there being no time limit on abortion. I think the protection of life under law isn’t merely the preservation of biological function, but rather the preservation of consciousness. Yes, the mechanical potential is there for a foetus to feel pain, but it has never been conscious. It has no notions, much less a notion of pain. There has been no input, there is no baseline upon which to build consciousness. The slate is pristinely blank.

So I suppose premature babies aren't conscious either, unless you think passing through a vaginal canal or a caesarian incision magically imparts consciousness?

I mean, in many, many ways children aren't particularly conscious beings until a few years into their life. Maybe we should also allow very late-term abortions up to the point at which they can pass the mirror test!


The mirror test purports only to check for self-awareness (of a sort), not for consciousness of the sort I'd imagine you guys have in mind. Also perhaps worth noting is that awareness of oneself as a person, a subject, an agent, or a self, is going to likely be distinct from any mere ability to engage in behaviors indicative of the capacity to distinguish one's body from the bodies of others, to distinguish it from one's surroundings, or else to recognize one's body as one's own. Moreover, the exact sense or type of self-awareness that the test purports to measure (if that's the right word) is unclear to me, and it very well may have little to do with whether the creature passing the test qualifies for membership in a moral community (i.e., whether we've any moral obligations, prohibitions, etc., concerning our actions towards it). It seems to me, at least, a remarkably complicated piece of business to endeavor to tackle at any length or depth whatsoever.

Just in case it wasn't already known, by the way, there's a bewildering number of senses in which one can use the term 'consciousness' and its cognates. Without specifying it before hand, it therefore becomes difficult for me (if not others—I wouldn't know) to evaluate statements such as, "children aren't particularly conscious beings until a few years into their life." For all I know, for that matter, it's honestly unclear to me whether you're using "conscious" in the just quoted sentence in the same sense you're using it in talking of babies having consciousness magically imparted to them. I don't mean to seem pedantic here, or else simply wishing to irritate; for that's truly far from my intention and sincere wishes. Yet at the same time, I rather find it challenging to consider things like this without going into these kinds of distinctions, preliminary points of definition and conceptual introduction, etc. Anyway, take all of this however you guys would like, I suppose, or even ignore it entirely lol
User avatar
McTaggartfan
 
Posts: 968
+1s received: 300
Joined: 7 February 2021, 02:12
Location: Washington, D.C.
Country: United States (us)

Re: Roe v. Wade overturned

Unread postby McTaggartfan » 28 June 2022, 20:28

Marmaduke wrote:
Brenden wrote:
Marmaduke wrote:I don’t know that I’m entirely surprised by, or meaningfully against, there being no time limit on abortion. I think the protection of life under law isn’t merely the preservation of biological function, but rather the preservation of consciousness. Yes, the mechanical potential is there for a foetus to feel pain, but it has never been conscious. It has no notions, much less a notion of pain. There has been no input, there is no baseline upon which to build consciousness. The slate is pristinely blank.

So I suppose premature babies aren't conscious either, unless you think passing through a vaginal canal or a caesarian incision magically imparts consciousness?

I mean, in many, many ways children aren't particularly conscious beings until a few years into their life. Maybe we should also allow very late-term abortions up to the point at which they can pass the mirror test!

No, I don’t think I’d consider them conscious until they first gain consciousness. I’m not saying that needs to immediately develop into intelligence, but from the off there is information being held and the building blocks are being laid. Before birth, there is no consciousness, there is no data in, there is no data out.

Fatuous as you make it sound, yes, passing through a vaginal canal is the process by which first consciousness is imparted. On one side, an unconscious and never before been conscious baby enters a canal, the traumatic process if it passing through delivers a baby on the other side now awake and screaming, functioning on pure instinct but for the first time conscious. From THAT moment, that child exists. In THAT moment it goes from being a little meat computer to a baby.


To be fair, I'm not really sure one can confirm something's being conscious by simply observing its acts of crying and screaming. I mean, from an everyday, unreflective standpoint one can do so, and one can probably do so as well in a few other contexts and from a couple other perspectives (if you will). I don't exactly know if anyone has much confidence in my comments on these things, but for what it's worth I'm fairly sure that crying and screaming don't, of themselves, serve to definitively indicate consciousness. If they did, I'd imagine the "problem of other minds" wouldn't be nearly as tricky.
User avatar
McTaggartfan
 
Posts: 968
+1s received: 300
Joined: 7 February 2021, 02:12
Location: Washington, D.C.
Country: United States (us)

Re: Roe v. Wade overturned

Unread postby rogonandi » 28 June 2022, 20:37

Personally I think it’s a baby when it can function without an umbilical cord for an extended period of time. Otherwise, it is literally a part of the mother.
Image
User avatar
rogonandi
 
Posts: 2426
+1s received: 1582
Joined: 12 May 2016, 10:02
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada (ca)

Re: Roe v. Wade overturned

Unread postby PopTart » 29 June 2022, 04:31

I agree, this was a matter for the federal government to address, sometime in the last 50 years.

The dereliction of this duty, is what has precipitated the decision being made by the supreme Court.

That said. I don't disagree with the ruling in principle. I don't buy into the arguments around when a foetus becomes conscious, as justification for a termination right up to birth.

I don't buy into the idea that consciousness is imparted upon passing through the magical wormhole of motherhood, like some cosmic checkout, wherein prior to the transit, one is a "product" of the "store" and on the other side, one has a brand spanking new consciousness, suddenly human, no refunds accepted, your statutory rights are unaffected. If the hyperbole of some around here is to be believed... their soon to be non-existent anyways.

It is hotly debated in academic and philosophical circles and has been for thousands of years, what exactly consciousness is, how to quantify it and to whom and indeed what, it can be applied.

I shall not get into those that recall being in the womb (do they really though? Or are they imagining it? We don't know. We can't say)

To make grand and sweeping statements using it as the foundation for terminating life, often seems callous, uncaring and frankly, a little cold.

It's often a grim but amusing reality, that those that champion the right to terminate upto birth are also those that call for gunmen who shoot a pregnant mother, be charged with double homicide. I guess consistency is too much to ask for. Probably because their attitudes are influenced more by politics than by any genuine morals. It's my experience that most people don't genuinely have any.

I agree that most of Europe and the west have come to a good compromise on when abortion should be legal and at which point it should not be.

I recognise that this overturning, might allow certain states to roll back abortion rights in a more significant way. Key word *MIGHT*

If they do, that would be the time to get on ones high horse.

Otherwise, people are just catastrophising. Go figure.
ImageImage
User avatar
PopTart
 
Posts: 4065
+1s received: 3028
Joined: 12 December 2017, 11:15
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Next

Recently active
Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot], JamesCat, Rodneywhort, Trendiction [Bot] and 35 guests