Roe v. Wade overturned

Discuss the news, current events, politics, etc.

Re: Roe v. Wade overturned

Unread postby EleniDoSorto66 » 29 June 2022, 04:47

Well, if anyone is wondering what the agenda is, the Supreme Court ruled against the right to abort - given to a certain limitation (I believe). However, they're now (seemingly) targeting gay-marriage; sexual orientation (translation: homosexuality MAY, in one form or another, become criminalized) even as well as interracial relationships.

The ability to hold sway over and to make ones own decision of the autonomy of ones body is one of the most basic rights I can think of. If you strip that away from a human being, what other freedom can you essentially take away? Unfortunately, as has been speculated, this was essentially just one piece of the puzzle for the Republican party to do away with and enforce more of a Fascist-type of ruling with their agenda not just ending at abortion rights. They have other goals and ambitions. And if so, if this comes into fruition, God help us all.

Those whom have the means to have been fleeing the country and denouncing their American citizenship. And with the fact of the horrific minds of some whom speak to the most base part of our human morality; the ones arguing over the use to own assault weapons; the ones voting for and against the right to decide if a rape victim or a woman who can not carry to term, can or should abort; those against the ability to marry whom we love or even who we love in the privacy of our very own homes. The insurrection; the surmounting homelessness as prices reach astronomical heights; the seemingly never ending senseless shootings; the lack of humanity for those less fortunate where property is valued over a human life in such a capitalist nation; the horror of the out of control killings, murders and homicide, framing, and brutalization of and by a Police nation where children can be slaughtered by a mentally unstable shooter - and where the terrified and frantic adults forced outside are arrested, tazed, pepper sprayed and hand-cuffed because they fought for the Police to do their jobs - where they took credit for "quick action" and yet the reality being they did nothing for 45 minutes.

It seems like a good idea to jump ship as these problems, where we have been fighting against and hoping to resolve, only to be swiped away by a disinterested Court system that is rotten and corrupt to its very core. The problem wasn't JUST about women's rights - but what this may have meant in the long-haul over other freedoms and the separation of Church VS State which they're now indoctrinating into the very fabric of American life.

The question on everyone's lips is: what is next?
Last edited by EleniDoSorto66 on 29 June 2022, 05:02, edited 2 times in total.
"'You're critical of everyone,' observes Iris.
'Oh, not everyone,' says Clara in an offhand manner. 'Only everybody who's alive as well as most people who are dead. I feel quite neutral about anybody not yet born.'"
User avatar
EleniDoSorto66
 
Posts: 452
+1s received: 108
Joined: 30 October 2013, 00:03
Country: United States (us)

Re: Roe v. Wade overturned

Unread postby PopTart » 29 June 2022, 04:55

It's the end of the world! The sky is falling! The great wolf will devour us all!

Woe to those that can't see!

The end is nigh!

The media, big tech, academia and the halls of political and even military power in the US are all firmly in the hands of Liberal thinkers.

Why does everyone think that the fascist state is just around the corner?

Because the media, big tech, academia, politicians and high ranking military officials are all telling you it is. :shrug:
ImageImage
User avatar
PopTart
 
Posts: 4092
+1s received: 3050
Joined: 12 December 2017, 11:15
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: Roe v. Wade overturned

Unread postby EleniDoSorto66 » 29 June 2022, 05:07

I literally just stated facts.

But, OK. Are you a Trump supporter may I ask? Because that would really put a lot into perspective.
"'You're critical of everyone,' observes Iris.
'Oh, not everyone,' says Clara in an offhand manner. 'Only everybody who's alive as well as most people who are dead. I feel quite neutral about anybody not yet born.'"
User avatar
EleniDoSorto66
 
Posts: 452
+1s received: 108
Joined: 30 October 2013, 00:03
Country: United States (us)

Re: Roe v. Wade overturned

Unread postby PopTart » 29 June 2022, 05:31

It's telling that I express dissent about your opinion and you assume I support Trump. Tribalism to the front I see.

I'm in the UK, I couldn't care less who occupies the White House, though I find all your recent choices troubling. Right back to Bush 2.

That you go there however simply highlights why Americans and their close neighbours opinions on this matter and a multitude of others, can be readily dismissed.

You have all lost perspective. That's democrats and republicans. Your whole nation is deeply mired in the political and ideological polarisation that is ruinning your society.

I rather regard the US like a covid patient.. You ought to be isolated from the general population, until you get over your ailment or die a death so richly deserved, for allowing things to get this bad in the first place.

Your like those covid deniers, who refuse to wear a mask, congregate in like minded groups foaming at the mouth, only to watch the sickness spread and think it a victory.

You can't be objective here, because you've lost all reasonable perspective. Your opinions are so coloured by politics and ideology masquerading as morality, that you likely couldn't find your way out of a poory lit room. Let alone complex issues such as these.

It's all, democrats commies! Republican fascists! Cue circus music and politicians clamoring out of a clown car.
ImageImage
User avatar
PopTart
 
Posts: 4092
+1s received: 3050
Joined: 12 December 2017, 11:15
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: Roe v. Wade overturned

Unread postby McTaggartfan » 29 June 2022, 05:40

Why do I feel as though I'm getting lumped into these sweeping generalizations about us Americans. Not really fair, I think; but perhaps you're being a tad hyperbolic anyway, and your post doesn't mean quite as much, and in as literal a fashion, as it could be taken to mean.

Also 'masquerading' is a nice word choice.
User avatar
McTaggartfan
 
Posts: 1032
+1s received: 315
Joined: 7 February 2021, 02:12
Location: Washington, D.C.
Country: United States (us)

Re: Roe v. Wade overturned

Unread postby EleniDoSorto66 » 29 June 2022, 05:56

Well, seeing how his first reply was to state a belief in a conspiracy theory - while re-instating a conspiracy theory which I found troubling. Than he ends his next reply with a "I can't believe you all allowed it to go this far" and that we "deserve" death, so suffice to say, I would mutually find his rantings dismissive.
"'You're critical of everyone,' observes Iris.
'Oh, not everyone,' says Clara in an offhand manner. 'Only everybody who's alive as well as most people who are dead. I feel quite neutral about anybody not yet born.'"
User avatar
EleniDoSorto66
 
Posts: 452
+1s received: 108
Joined: 30 October 2013, 00:03
Country: United States (us)

Re: Roe v. Wade overturned

Unread postby PopTart » 29 June 2022, 05:58

McTaggartfan wrote:Why do I feel as though I'm getting lumped into these sweeping generalizations about us Americans. Not really fair, I think; but perhaps you're being a tad hyperbolic anyway, and your post doesn't mean quite as much, and in as literal a fashion, as it could be taken to mean.

Also 'masquerading' is a nice word choice.

Ofcourse, it's a generalisation and can't be applied to everyone. But it's a generalisation with solid foundation as it accurately describes a majority of Americans.

Those that don't feel comfortable being lumped together with the rest of the riff raff, should perhaps, endeavour to be the voices of change or reason that seem to be so desperately needed yet so sorely lacking.

@Eleni republicans have been coming for same sex marriage, interracial marriage and all that good stuff, for as long as these issues have been political game changers.

In that time, rights and liberties around these issues have only been expanded and grown.

What makes you think that is going to change now?
ImageImage
User avatar
PopTart
 
Posts: 4092
+1s received: 3050
Joined: 12 December 2017, 11:15
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: Roe v. Wade overturned

Unread postby PopTart » 29 June 2022, 06:00

EleniDoSorto66 wrote:Well, seeing how his first reply was to state a belief in a conspiracy theory - while re-instating a conspiracy theory which I found troubling. Than he ends his next reply with a "I can't believe you all allowed it to go this far" and that we "deserve" death, so suffice to say, I would mutually find his rantings dismissive.

Conspiracy theory? Which conspiracy theory exactly? And according to whom?

Ranting? I'm not the one who is proclaiming the end of democracy, civil liberty and justice. That would be you darling.

And yes, the opinion I expressed, was dismissive. I dismiss the opinions of people who are so steeped in political division and ideological thinking that they can't discern fact from fancy.
ImageImage
User avatar
PopTart
 
Posts: 4092
+1s received: 3050
Joined: 12 December 2017, 11:15
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: Roe v. Wade overturned

Unread postby EleniDoSorto66 » 29 June 2022, 06:14

The fact that you said the media is own by "liberals" is in itself a conspiracy theory - as well as a "political" division in itself, so spare me the bull.

Secondly, I do not know where your ideology in thinking things are not going to change just because you simply say such, because that has quite literally been happening for a while now, and freedom can always turn back if not kept in check. The fact that the next agenda is gay marriage and even orientation; the fact that they have already overturned the federal rule of gay marriage in Trump's term of election is real.

Also for one going against people who lump others together as Republican Vs Democrat and base such within a sense or frame of morality while you yourself lump a group of people together as such is also not helping your case.

As for ranting, you continue to do so, because nothing you have said has held any water nor made a decent or plausible counter-argument. You really are just foaming at the mouth raving bologna. And don't call me "darling" - I am not your darling.
"'You're critical of everyone,' observes Iris.
'Oh, not everyone,' says Clara in an offhand manner. 'Only everybody who's alive as well as most people who are dead. I feel quite neutral about anybody not yet born.'"
User avatar
EleniDoSorto66
 
Posts: 452
+1s received: 108
Joined: 30 October 2013, 00:03
Country: United States (us)

Re: Roe v. Wade overturned

Unread postby McTaggartfan » 29 June 2022, 06:16

rogonandi wrote: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.


I've a friend who thinks likewise. And it certainly seems true, at least on my first thinking about it, that, yes, the fetus is quite literally a part of the parent who carries it. But whether, and to what extent, that's morally relevant to deliberation on the matter of abortion is unclear to me—from a strictly hyper-reflective and philosophical standpoint, that is. It's still an interesting thing to consider, however.
User avatar
McTaggartfan
 
Posts: 1032
+1s received: 315
Joined: 7 February 2021, 02:12
Location: Washington, D.C.
Country: United States (us)

Re: Roe v. Wade overturned

Unread postby McTaggartfan » 29 June 2022, 06:23

PopTart wrote:
McTaggartfan wrote:Why do I feel as though I'm getting lumped into these sweeping generalizations about us Americans. Not really fair, I think; but perhaps you're being a tad hyperbolic anyway, and your post doesn't mean quite as much, and in as literal a fashion, as it could be taken to mean.

Also 'masquerading' is a nice word choice.

Ofcourse, it's a generalisation and can't be applied to everyone. But it's a generalisation with solid foundation as it accurately describes a majority of Americans.

Those that don't feel comfortable being lumped together with the rest of the riff raff, should perhaps, endeavour to be the voices of change or reason that seem to be so desperately needed yet so sorely lacking.

@Eleni republicans have been coming for same sex marriage, interracial marriage and all that good stuff, for as long as these issues have been political game changers.

In that time, rights and liberties around these issues have only been expanded and grown.

What makes you think that is going to change now?


I do try to be a voice of reason, when I can muster the energy and the patience required for it. I'm not very outspoken though, either in my own more personal life (with friends, family, etc.) or else in a more public sphere; since people tend to get mad at me when I poke at their simplistic views on things—not to mention, too, that they often get annoyed with the immense amount of time it takes to get anywhere in reasoning through matters of ethics (I mean, philosophy is still going at it, even after two millennia; these things take time, as do many of the best things in life). But again, I do try.

As for being a voice for change, I'm somewhat limited in what I can do, since I'm often too emotionally distressed by the thought of facing a crowd to actually go and protest, volunteer, etc. I would if I could, and I do feel badly for my problems in this regard, since there's so much that I wish I could go and do to help people. I try to find ways to do things that don't require triggering too greatly my social anxiety.
User avatar
McTaggartfan
 
Posts: 1032
+1s received: 315
Joined: 7 February 2021, 02:12
Location: Washington, D.C.
Country: United States (us)

Re: Roe v. Wade overturned

Unread postby Sullivan » 29 June 2022, 06:28

PopTart wrote: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.

I'm not going to curate easily obtainable information for you, but the impacts of the ruling have been immediate and draconian in many states already.
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 PopTart » 29 June 2022, 17:34

EleniDoSorto66 wrote:The fact that you said the media is own by "liberals" is in itself a conspiracy theory - as well as a "political" division in itself, so spare me the bull.

Secondly, I do not know where your ideology in thinking things are not going to change just because you simply say such, because that has quite literally been happening for a while now, and freedom can always turn back if not kept in check. The fact that the next agenda is gay marriage and even orientation; the fact that they have already overturned the federal rule of gay marriage in Trump's term of election is real.

Also for one going against people who lump others together as Republican Vs Democrat and base such within a sense or frame of morality while you yourself lump a group of people together as such is also not helping your case.

As for ranting, you continue to do so, because nothing you have said has held any water nor made a decent or plausible counter-argument. You really are just foaming at the mouth raving bologna. And don't call me "darling" - I am not your darling.

I said the media is "In the hands of the Liberal left" this is clearly evidenced by independant, third party, fact checking websites which also tell you which political leanings are predominant from a given outlet. And they are predominantly left leaning, especially when you consider online platforms aswell.

That is true. Just because conspiracy nutjobs have identified this reality, doesn't mean that the reality is infact a falsehood, but simply, that conspiracy nutjobs are better at accepting reality than most liberals.

Hardly surpsing. Liberals are merely reflections of their counterparts, the conservatives. Same clothes, different colour.

My ideology in thinking... sigh. I gave a clear example of my thinking. Republicans and conservatives of all persuasions have been trying to roll back civil liberties for generations, sometimes while having far greater political and social power, than they do now, yet civil rights and liberties have instead, flourished, despite these attacks. I'm not simply saying it shall be and so it shall be. You failed to grasp the point of was making. History is my evidence. Panic and fear mongering is yours.

As for lumping all Americans into the same basket, stop behaving the same way then. Stop being dragged down into the same political quagmire that your hated Conservative enemies occupy. This is not the end of civil liberties. This is not the end to freedom or justice. No amount of running off at the mouth otherwise, makes it so. Have perspectives in the US become so warped, that people can't even tell genuine oppression from imagined hardships anymore?

I'm hardly ranting, I'm sorry if you can't tell a facetious tone in text format, or even understand what facetiousness is.

As for you not being my darling, I should imagine you aren't anyone's darling. Especially if you go around believing that anyone who doesn't follow the orthodoxy you subscribe to, a Trump supporter. Honestly, you can't get any more thick, mate.
ImageImage
User avatar
PopTart
 
Posts: 4092
+1s received: 3050
Joined: 12 December 2017, 11:15
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: Roe v. Wade overturned

Unread postby PopTart » 29 June 2022, 17:52

Sullivan wrote:
PopTart wrote: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.

I'm not going to curate easily obtainable information for you, but the impacts of the ruling have been immediate and draconian in many states already.

Sorry, but I've seen nothing substantative to back up your claims. Indeed, I can find a multitude of articles and political pieces on how it might play out. How the ruling could lead to a regression on women's rights. I've even read an article that sought to promote abortion because "men who participate in an abortion decision, are more likely to go to college"

Yay college, I guess?

Infact, my understanding is that this entire case was precipitated by an argument over what the term of viability is. 15 weeks or 24.

Here in the UK the limit is 24 weeks. I think that's reasonable.

The decision of the supreme Court in this instance, has simply favoured the lower estimate. It hasn't banned abortion for women. It has set a precedent in a single case.

Now would be the time for central government to get off it's indolent arse and assume it's legislative responsibility to fix the problem, so that it isn't being decided on an ad hoc basis by geriatric judges.

It should be decided by geriatric millionaires instead.

The fact that there are women who now can't have abortions that before they could...

Not to sound mercenary, but maybe people should take some responsibility and you know, use contraception?

Got a rape baby? Don't hang around to get an abortion.

Find yourself pregnant but don't want the child? Put it up for adoption. There are tens of thousands of couples (many gay ones) who would gladly adopt an unwanted child.
ImageImage
User avatar
PopTart
 
Posts: 4092
+1s received: 3050
Joined: 12 December 2017, 11:15
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: Roe v. Wade overturned

Unread postby PopTart » 29 June 2022, 17:58

McTaggartfan wrote:
PopTart wrote:
McTaggartfan wrote:Why do I feel as though I'm getting lumped into these sweeping generalizations about us Americans. Not really fair, I think; but perhaps you're being a tad hyperbolic anyway, and your post doesn't mean quite as much, and in as literal a fashion, as it could be taken to mean.

Also 'masquerading' is a nice word choice.

Ofcourse, it's a generalisation and can't be applied to everyone. But it's a generalisation with solid foundation as it accurately describes a majority of Americans.

Those that don't feel comfortable being lumped together with the rest of the riff raff, should perhaps, endeavour to be the voices of change or reason that seem to be so desperately needed yet so sorely lacking.

@Eleni republicans have been coming for same sex marriage, interracial marriage and all that good stuff, for as long as these issues have been political game changers.

In that time, rights and liberties around these issues have only been expanded and grown.

What makes you think that is going to change now?


I do try to be a voice of reason, when I can muster the energy and the patience required for it. I'm not very outspoken though, either in my own more personal life (with friends, family, etc.) or else in a more public sphere; since people tend to get mad at me when I poke at their simplistic views on things—not to mention, too, that they often get annoyed with the immense amount of time it takes to get anywhere in reasoning through matters of ethics (I mean, philosophy is still going at it, even after two millennia; these things take time, as do many of the best things in life). But again, I do try.

As for being a voice for change, I'm somewhat limited in what I can do, since I'm often too emotionally distressed by the thought of facing a crowd to actually go and protest, volunteer, etc. I would if I could, and I do feel badly for my problems in this regard, since there's so much that I wish I could go and do to help people. I try to find ways to do things that don't require triggering too greatly my social anxiety.

You've hardly expressed a strong opinion either way. And rarely do so on many matters.

Not everyone is cut out to be activists. Thankfully. We have too many as it is. What we need more of, is dissenters. People who speak out not in support of a political movement or a specific camp but for individuals.

Wade v Roe, is a political issue. As such, it is bogged down in the politics of the day.
ImageImage
User avatar
PopTart
 
Posts: 4092
+1s received: 3050
Joined: 12 December 2017, 11:15
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: Roe v. Wade overturned

Unread postby René » 29 June 2022, 18:44

PopTart wrote:I can find a multitude of articles and political pieces on how it might play out. How the ruling could lead to a regression on women's rights. I've even read an article that sought to promote abortion because "men who participate in an abortion decision, are more likely to go to college"

I do believe various states were all set up to ban abortion completely (and in some cases automatically) the moment the ruling came in.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/202 ... -wade.html

In some, abortion is now illegal even in cases of rape.

Which seems pretty bad to me. But again, that doesn't change what the Constitution has to say on the topic, which... isn't much. :P

PopTart wrote:Infact, my understanding is that this entire case was precipitated by an argument over what the term of viability is. 15 weeks or 24.

Here in the UK the limit is 24 weeks. I think that's reasonable.

The decision of the supreme Court in this instance, has simply favoured the lower estimate. It hasn't banned abortion for women. It has set a precedent in a single case.

My understanding is that the main question was whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional, and the majority opinion held that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives.

PopTart wrote:Now would be the time for central government to get off it's indolent arse and assume it's legislative responsibility to fix the problem, so that it isn't being decided on an ad hoc basis by geriatric judges.

It should be decided by geriatric millionaires instead.

:lol:

PopTart wrote:The fact that there are women who now can't have abortions that before they could...

Not to sound mercenary, but maybe people should take some responsibility and you know, use contraception?

Got a rape baby? Don't hang around to get an abortion.

Find yourself pregnant but don't want the child? Put it up for adoption. There are tens of thousands of couples (many gay ones) who would gladly adopt an unwanted child.

I do mostly agree with this, though it should be noted that the newly active laws in some states force raped women to carry babies to term even when they immediately decide they don't want to, with no hanging around at all.

I would personally have the limit be the end of the first trimester. That's roughly what it is in most of Europe, and I feel like that should be enough time to decide, while also leaving virtually no doubt that you're not killing something that's developed some level of consciousness or capacity for suffering.

But once again, that's all irrelevant to the ruling.
ImageImageImageImage
User avatar
René
Administrator
 
Posts: 8025
+1s received: 2983
Joined: 20 December 2012, 20:12
Location: Lanarkshire, Scotland
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: Roe v. Wade overturned

Unread postby Eryx » 30 June 2022, 01:32

PopTart wrote:It's the end of the world! The sky is falling! The great wolf will devour us all!

Woe to those that can't see!

The end is nigh!

The media, big tech, academia and the halls of political and even military power in the US are all firmly in the hands of Liberal thinkers.

Why does everyone think that the fascist state is just around the corner?

Because the media, big tech, academia, politicians and high ranking military officials are all telling you it is. :shrug:
Jesus... What happened to you while I was out? :wide-eyed:

Anyway, an 11-year-old got raped here in Brazil and only found out she was pregnant at week 20. She went to the courts to get an abortion because we're backwards AF and the judge tried to convince her not to get one and kept postponing decisions so she'd go past the 24-week window. She got an abortion at her 26th week of pregnancy after the media fanfare, but people were still not happy about it.

Then the next week, a journalist exposed an actress that gave her baby up for adoption after she was raped (what a common theme!) and she was cancelled and chastised for doing so. Women can never win, aborting makes you the devil and "abandoning" your child as well, apparently.

Then a dossier comes out about how over 1 million children under the age of 14 work on the streets selling candy. What a wonderful life.

I personally don't care anymore about either euthanasia or late abortions. I personally don't consider it life until it's out. I don't care to explain anymore why that is my position, that's just how I'm going to see it and vote it, because I'm aware of what hardships these "lives" have to face when they get here, which is something most people in the developed world can't grasp, and probably never will.

The world sucks, lately.
ImageImageImage Image Image Image ImageImage

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.
— Harlan Ellison
User avatar
Eryx
 
Posts: 3091
+1s received: 2045
Joined: 20 December 2012, 21:48
Location: Belo Horizonte, MG
Country: Brazil (br)

Re: Roe v. Wade overturned

Unread postby PopTart » 30 June 2022, 03:56

This ultimately comes down to responsibility.

Personal responsibility and legislative responsibility.

When people abrogate their responsibilities they aren't in a position to whine when someone else comes along and makes a choice they themselves would not have made.

Don't want children, don't get pregnant. Its not like contraception isn't a thing.

Don't want people taking away your right to abortion? Get your government to do something about it.

Sure, accidents happen and rape happens. These should be exceptions under which a government would legislate just law to reflect the will of the people on this matter.

Problem in this instance? The US is so riven by division, that it can't make up its mind what colour the sky is. Let alone a complex issue like this. Congress and the senate both shy away from meaningful decisions like these, because they are vote losers one way or another. They cede the legislative authority then, to other bodies through virtue of not wanting to tackle hard issues.

That is what polarisation and tribalism is doing to the US and to other western democracies

When half the population stops talking too and listening too the other half of the population, this is what happens. This is the reality of all the shit that has been happening for the last decade, playing out in meaningful terms.

Don't like it? Stop doing what people like Eleni are doing and step outside of your tribalism for a moment to look around.

Or maybe too many people have nailed their flag and with it, their sense of identity, belonging and self worth, to a mast and can't help but go down with the ship, because they wouldn't know who they were otherwise.

Eryx wrote:Jesus... What happened to you while I was out? :wide-eyed:
The world happened to me while you were out.

Sick to the back teeth of catastrophising, of facile political rhetoric, of intolerance and orthodoxy on both sides of the political spectrum and the shit show it is making of the world that you correctly identify, sucks.

It sucks for a reason. Those are the reasons. People contribute to the suck without even realising it. Cuz everyone is too busy just following their tribe.

OT I know, a rhetorical question, I know.
ImageImage
User avatar
PopTart
 
Posts: 4092
+1s received: 3050
Joined: 12 December 2017, 11:15
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: Roe v. Wade overturned

Unread postby PopTart » 30 June 2022, 04:13

René wrote:
PopTart wrote:I can find a multitude of articles and political pieces on how it might play out. How the ruling could lead to a regression on women's rights. I've even read an article that sought to promote abortion because "men who participate in an abortion decision, are more likely to go to college"

I do believe various states were all set up to ban abortion completely (and in some cases automatically) the moment the ruling came in.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/202 ... -wade.html

In some, abortion is now illegal even in cases of rape.

Which seems pretty bad to me. But again, that doesn't change what the Constitution has to say on the topic, which... isn't much. :P

PopTart wrote:Infact, my understanding is that this entire case was precipitated by an argument over what the term of viability is. 15 weeks or 24.

Here in the UK the limit is 24 weeks. I think that's reasonable.

The decision of the supreme Court in this instance, has simply favoured the lower estimate. It hasn't banned abortion for women. It has set a precedent in a single case.

My understanding is that the main question was whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional, and the majority opinion held that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives.

PopTart wrote:Now would be the time for central government to get off it's indolent arse and assume it's legislative responsibility to fix the problem, so that it isn't being decided on an ad hoc basis by geriatric judges.

It should be decided by geriatric millionaires instead.

:lol:

PopTart wrote:The fact that there are women who now can't have abortions that before they could...

Not to sound mercenary, but maybe people should take some responsibility and you know, use contraception?

Got a rape baby? Don't hang around to get an abortion.

Find yourself pregnant but don't want the child? Put it up for adoption. There are tens of thousands of couples (many gay ones) who would gladly adopt an unwanted child.

I do mostly agree with this, though it should be noted that the newly active laws in some states force raped women to carry babies to term even when they immediately decide they don't want to, with no hanging around at all.

I would personally have the limit be the end of the first trimester. That's roughly what it is in most of Europe, and I feel like that should be enough time to decide, while also leaving virtually no doubt that you're not killing something that's developed some level of consciousness or capacity for suffering.

But once again, that's all irrelevant to the ruling.

Thanks for info btw, I wasn't able to find it amidst the sensationalist news coverage.

And your right, its irrelevant to the ruling. The ruling isn't wrong. It's absolutely right that the constitution doesn't implicitly state anything about abortion rights either way.

It was the place of government to legislate in this matter. It didn't. It didn't because it doesn't want the responsibility.
ImageImage
User avatar
PopTart
 
Posts: 4092
+1s received: 3050
Joined: 12 December 2017, 11:15
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: Roe v. Wade overturned

Unread postby Brenden » 30 June 2022, 11:14

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.

Babies kick within their mothers before birth, often in reaction to external stimuli such as loud noises, speaking, rubbing, etc. They have sleep-wake cycles, with dreaming. They learn to distinguish their mother's voice from other voices. They retain recognition of specific speech heard during gestation. They begin to develop their native language.
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: 9193
+1s received: 3557
Joined: 20 December 2012, 20:12
Location: Lanarkshire, Scotland
Country: United States (us)

PreviousNext

Recently active
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], CommonCrawl [Bot] and 72 guests