Utopia Talk / Politics / Roe v Wade

Dukhat Member	Thu Dec 02 06:22:36 Just repeal it. Turn everyone 40 against the GOP forever please.
Rugian Member	Thu Dec 02 06:26:07 Roe v wade was one of the worst pieces of judicial activism in American history. Feel free to argue otherwise though. I really would love your take on how the Constitution mandates that people have a fundamental right to murder unborn children.
Seb Member	Thu Dec 02 06:37:33 Rugian: I'd love to understand how you think the constitution doesn't provide a fundamental right to your own body - and if they don't, why actual proper mandatory* vaccinations are an infringement of your constitutional rights. *As in the government actually forces you, on pain of criminal sanction, to have a vaccination irrespective of any other criteria.
jergul large member	Thu Dec 02 07:32:12 Ruggy The sanctity of self rests at the core of Roe versus Wade. A mindboggling number of principles are at stake here. Want a gun? Why? Protection? What for? You have no right to self.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Dec 02 08:36:44 There isn't just one body or just the "self" when it comes to this issue. Honestly I think this is hygien level acceptance and acknowledgement of reality, which is completely missing from the abortion debate.
patom Member	Thu Dec 02 09:24:38 Rugian, how does the Constitution mandate that women be subject to men telling them when and how they can reproduce?
Seb Member	Thu Dec 02 09:40:19 Nim: Yes, hence it's resolution by a body takes with resolving conflicting fundamental rights and inevitable. The only person here suggesting that the situation is so clearly defined in law and constitution such that for the case to have been heard and ruled on can only be explained as judiciary breaching their remit and extending into the legislative or even constitution mmaking role reserved for others is Rugian. The rest of us recognise there was an issue to resolve, but recognised it was resolved back in '73.
jergul large member	Thu Dec 02 09:40:32 Nimi Well, maybe, if you want to redesign a whole new philosophy that abandons the concept of self-integrity. It always works out to some feudal idea or another, so be careful with that. In practical terms, there is a huge degree of acceptance to the line of thinking you have. Hence first trimester abortions being acceptable many places and third trimester not so much. Even the ruling for consideration is for bans on abortions after 15 weeks. Which is more lenient than the norm in Norway Pragmatically, perhaps just donate money into artificial wombs and charity-supported fetus transplantation and fostering. Termination of pregnancy does not need to mean terminating a fetus if there is a willingness to pay for the costs that would follow.
Seb Member	Thu Dec 02 09:40:34 *Body tasked with
Seb Member	Thu Dec 02 09:42:25 The very crux of the ruling is setting the point where the baby can be said to have its own rights that supercede the mothers which the state has a duty to protect!
Sam Adams Member	Thu Dec 02 09:42:50 "Bodily autonomy" is not an argument the left can use right now. Now obviously allowing abortions is proper for a host of other reasons, but that one doesnt cut it now.
Seb Member	Thu Dec 02 09:44:43 To say the understanding is missing - except among those that think the whole fact that the supreme court ruling, one way or another, was fundamentally unnecessary and unjustified - is an extremely odd thing to say.
Seb Member	Thu Dec 02 09:46:41 Sam: Bodily autonomy can be easily accommodate with vaccine "mandates". Bodily autonomy allows you to refuse the vaccine. It does not allow you to continue to work in a care home. Similarly, bodily autonomy means I can drink what the fuck I like, how much I like. It does not mean I am allowed to drive a vehicle after doing so.
Sam Adams Member	Thu Dec 02 09:50:16 I agree with you. But thats not how its going to play out in the news. Thats a level of nuance beyond the average american and far beyond the average journalist.
Seb Member	Thu Dec 02 10:05:26 Bodily autonomy vs states duty to defend other rights - trades offs happen all the time. The right tends to see these things in cartoonish absolutes whenever it satisfies them - which renders all rights little more than arbitrary privileges to be extended in accordance with the rights preferences - not legally enforceable rights based on a sound principles that can be adjudicated. Libertarians are like house cats - fiercely proclaiming their rugged independence whilst utterly reliant on systems they are incapable of acknowledging or understanding.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Dec 02 10:29:25 "Well, maybe, if you want to redesign a whole new philosophy that abandons the concept of self-integrity. It always works out to some feudal idea or another, so be careful with that." I don't think "maybe" is the most appropriate answer honestly. What I said is a fact, an observable physical reality and our philosophy can't abandon the anchor to reality, whatever else it does. I also don't believe things always works out to anything, really, because our understanding changes, but certainly not that this project would be destined to become a horror show. The same way I don't believe that we can't dive into the details of the biology and genetics of our condition, without resorting to eugenics and concentration camps.
jergul large member	Thu Dec 02 11:03:29 Nimi The principle is not a physical, observable reality. We have agreed on the sanctity of self. There are other ways of looking at it. But if we agree on that, then we cannot justify forcing someone to do with their body what they do not want to do. The compromise position here is that we force people to make a timely decision while accepting that it is their decision to make. There may be medical solutions that can address you concerns, but they will be pretty expensive.
Habebe Member	Thu Dec 02 12:04:32 Seb, Now in all fairness I actually support a right to abortion. However, claiming that the right to privacy to ones body grants you the right to abortion how is that different from drug use? The idea of my body my choice if it is so absolute that you can kill your own offspring surely you should.be allowed to inject heroin in your neck.
Habebe Member	Thu Dec 02 12:10:00 That said I would also argue that if Abortion is such a right derived from the 4th amendment then Child support shouldn't be able to be forced upon a parent without their consent.Their body their choice.
jergul large member	Thu Dec 02 12:22:25 Possession and supply are the illegal bits. You can be sentenced for drugs in your pocket, but not in your blood. You are mixing up principles. The right of privacy stems from the right of the integrity of self. On fatherhood. You may do better arguing that the right to privacy protects a person from being forced to acknowledge paternity. Arguing that parents have no obligation to support their children seems unwinnable.
kargen Member	Thu Dec 02 12:36:44 Until science can provide an actual definitive answer as to when the fertilized egg becomes a viable living thing it really isn't governments business either way on this issue. "Child support shouldn't be able to be forced upon a parent without their consent." Can't argue that though with the decisions many courts currently make. In some cases a sperm donor can be forced to pay child support even though it was agreed ahead that the donor would in no way be associated with nor responsible for the child.
Habebe Member	Thu Dec 02 12:46:12 "Possession and supply are the illegal bits. You can be sentenced for drugs in your pocket, but not in your blood." So can we just ban an essential part of abortion? Why would my right to privacy not include my pockets? They are generally considered an area where I should expect a great dealnof privacy. "Arguing that parents have no obligation to support their children seems unwinnable." But arguing that parents have a right to have someone stab their offspring to death is? Protecting abortion rights through the 4th doesn't make sense unless other actions are treated in kind.It just appears as judicial cherry picking.
Habebe Member	Thu Dec 02 12:54:13 Jergul, Your probably right about the parental issue.
jergul large member	Thu Dec 02 13:01:05 habebe 9th and 14th ammendments. The matter is not so much about the right to stab a fetus to death as it is the right of the mother not to host it. A key concept is personhood/quickening/viability. I used an archaic term to indicate the principle is firmly established in common-law. Babies capable of surviving outside the womb have always been seen as different than those that could not. All kinds of laws on neglect prohibit parents from mistreating their children once they are viable. I really can't believe we are discussing this in 2021. Kargen The idea of when personhood is achieved is interesting. I see no reason why a fetus could not be removed and placed on advance surrogate support.
Habebe Member	Thu Dec 02 13:06:29 " The matter is not so much about the right to stab a fetus to death as it is the right of the mother not to host it. A key concept is personhood/quickening/viability." Well then we go back to havung a parent bwing forced to pay support.18 years has nothing on 9 months. Viability is an odd standard I think because it is dependant on an ever changing technology. Also the US allows abortion far later than mostnof even Europe.In the league of north korea and China.
jergul large member	Thu Dec 02 13:13:11 Again, it relates to the integrity of self. A person can choose not to be violated by having a fetus within itself. An extension of self (your pocketbook) is not afforded the same protections. Thus legislation obligates parents to care for offspring. My personal take of viability is that anyone considering abortion should have enough time to think before it is too late. Our 12-week limit is arbitrary and perhaps indicates that less principled approaches give better outcomes.
Seb Member	Thu Dec 02 13:15:17 Habebe: "However, claiming that the right to privacy to ones body grants you the right to abortion how is that different from drug use?" Drugs liberalisation is a signature left wing policy though. Generally most of us will quietly say "yeah, that's why we oppose criminalisation of drugs use". Generally it is supply that is criminalised - though a case can be made against buying it too - but use and addiction should be seen as a medical issue. "then Child support shouldn't be able to be forced upon a parent without their consent. Their body their choice" How does that follow? They had their choice when they chose to have sex. Child maintenance doesn't violate bodily autonomy. "Until science can provide an actual definitive answer as to when the fertilized egg becomes a viable living thing" Kargen - that's already answered by science. Once it is a thing that is viable without the mother is when the mother starts to have responsibilities to it.
Forwyn Member	Thu Dec 02 15:09:07 "Drugs liberalisation is a signature left wing policy though." It was leftwing judicial expansionism of interstate commerce that made the war on drugs possible.
Seb Member	Thu Dec 02 15:18:42 Yes, obviously interstate commerce was a big conspiracy by the left to begin the war on drugs.
Habebe Member	Thu Dec 02 15:39:22 Seb, "Drugs liberalisation is a signature left wing policy though. Generally most of us will quietly say "yeah, that's why we oppose criminalisation of drugs use". I'm in that boat. I'm arguing that legally you cant have one without the other if the 4th amendments privacy rights os the issue.I want both to be legal. As for the supply side arguement.Possesion is widely criminalized. Also in the case of the TX and the Mississippi laws they also only criminalize the supply side.You can only use those who performed the procedure or helped, not the woman who had it. My phone shut off so I had to re answer it... "How does that follow? They had their choice when they chose to have sex. Child maintenance doesn't violate bodily autonomy." By that notion only rape would be an excuse for abortion. How do the payers of child support get the money they pay? Generally through labour, that's determining what you do or do not do with tour own body.18 years of labour is a lot longer than 9 months of pregnancy. Anyone watching the trial? It sounded like Roberts wants to get rid of the viability standard. Jergul, I havnt read yours yet, I will respond, losing the last post and all.
Forwyn Member	Thu Dec 02 17:07:08 "Yes, obviously interstate commerce was a big conspiracy by the left to begin the war on drugs." Nice strawman, retard. FDR pushed the first Congressional legislation concerning marijuana, and pressured the courts to side with him on cases concerning federal powers, that drastically expanded under his reign. We previously pushed amendments to allow Congress to do stupid shit like regulate the possession and manufacture of personal use products, instead of opting for the retarded line that anything that could conceivably affect interstate commerce is ergo interstate commerce.
Habebe Member	Thu Dec 02 17:21:53 Jergul, What about my home? That is surely afforded a similar amount of privacy as integrity over our body. As for viability.Personally, all laws aside.I think the first line of defense is to limit the need for abortion with quality healthcare , free contraception etc. But also I think sentience would be an ideal line, but its hard to pinpoint or define. At some point though it does seem barely undistinguishable from infanticide/murder.At what point does the fetus become a person? Personhood is a flexible goal post. There definitely is a group of people who abuse it, as there is with anything and I think reasonable restrictions should be in place.
Seb Member	Thu Dec 02 17:28:02 Habebe: "As for the supply side arguement. Possesion is widely criminalized." Yes, and I can see a strong argument for that - at least possession of an amount sufficient or with intent to supply others. Ultimately, you can put this stuff into you; but if it is addictive, there is also a strong argument that building a business and trade off of supplying it to others is a societal problem and something the state can regulate. "You can only use those who performed the procedure or helped, not the woman who had it." But if we have established that an abortion isn't harmful because the fetus isn't an independent life with independent responsibilities, what are the grounds for prohibiting supply? It's not exploitative, like with addictive drugs, and we have already decided the action isn't harmful to the fetus as the fetus is not an independent life with individual rights at that point. "How do the payers of child support get the money they pay? Generally through labour," How they get their money is their issue - but this argument is overreach. e.g. tax is a violation of bodily autonomy? This is what I mean by cartoonish simplicity. Any right taken to an extreme and allowing extension to second or third degrees clashes with other rights and responsibilities. "18 years of labour is a lot longer than 9 months of pregnancy." Then don't have sex with people. Once your spunk has left your penis, you have lost some control of what happens. Forwyn: Are you saying FDR pressured the courts into expanding interstate commerce clauses to ban marijuana?
Seb Member	Thu Dec 02 17:30:26 Because it sounds to me like you are taking two separate issues, one of which happened over quite an extensive period of time and is driven by the needs of managing an integrated economy without beggar thy neighbour and regulatory arbitrage issues - and linking them fairly aritrarily by picking a specific instance of both under a left wing president - and constructing a tissue thin argument off the back of it. You will forgive me if I'm not particularly impressed.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Thu Dec 02 17:33:09 "Until science can provide an actual definitive answer as to when the fertilized egg becomes a viable living thing it " right... as R's are always so willing to accept scientific consensus per google, 21 weeks is world record for being kept alive... not that keeping alive every single human possible seems remotely important
Seb Member	Thu Dec 02 17:36:23 The war on drugs is a left wing thing because FDR pushed for leveraging interstate commerce powers as part of new deal economic policies and getting the US economy working as an integrated whole; and he also banned Marijuana. Ipso facto Nixon's speech declaring war on drugs - which his former political advisors that helped shape the policy explicit admit was intended to help him associate demographics that did not vote for him with criminality and shore up base support - is actually a left wing policy; or at least somehow associated with the left wing. Er, no. No Forwyn. That's bullshit.
Habebe Member	Thu Dec 02 17:46:56 "How they get their money is their issue - but this argument is overreach. e.g. tax is a violation of bodily autonomy?" Two people who have chosen to have sex and one can kill their offspring if they don't feel like it having it for a few months is an undue burden? But forced labor for almost 20 years is a stretch? That doesn't make sense. "Then don't have sex with people. Once your spunk has left your penis, you have lost some control of what happens." As long as the woman chose to take that sperm then by that same logic they can and shpuld be regulated accordingly. As for on what grounds, the burden of evidence should be the opposite,the right to self control over your own body and what you do with it logically should extend to up until it infringes on another. Bob doing drugs in his own home only hurts bob at worst. As for bringing up addiction, the point would be that they are not of sane and sound mind to continue but Id argue are pregnant women? Hormones make people do things they normally wouldn't just as much if not more than illegal drugs
kargen Member	Thu Dec 02 17:57:30 "right... as R's are always so willing to accept scientific consensus" Republicans don't have a monopoly in ignoring science that goes against their views. But yeah most will and do accept an actual consensus. Problem is the left thinks six people in a room saying hey that's what I think also makes a consensus. Going to the drug thing if drugs were legal and handled like alcohol there would be fewer over doses and maybe fewer addictions.
Habebe Member	Thu Dec 02 18:00:59 I mean we either have a reasonable expectation of control over what goes into or is done to pur bodies or we don't. And supply side for one should mean for all uses deriving from that inherent right. I guess what Im arguing is that Roe V. Wade should sanctify our right to reasonably control our bodies and if that right is infringed it should be counter balanced with the harm. For anti abortion people mass murder in their POV is a great horror. Personhood is subjective.
Forwyn Member	Thu Dec 02 18:01:03 "Are you saying FDR pressured the courts into expanding interstate commerce clauses" Yes "you are taking two separate issues...and linking them fairly aritrarily" B is only constitutionally feasible because of A No one before FDR would have argued with a straight face that Joe growing coca and marijuana for himself and his buddies, never crossing state lines, was under the purview of the federal government. As to the rest of your rant, yes, the left bears a good chunk of responsibility; they don't get to pretend they didn't lay the groundwork (and shore it up; Democratic presidents have had Democratic Congress/Senate majorities and failed to end it - Biden himself was a strong proponent of the Hillary-esque strong-on-crime policy in the 90s), simply because Nixon gave it the name.
jergul large member	Fri Dec 03 00:14:44 Forwyn In 2020, there were 16000 federal drug trials. It is mainly a state offence. Habebe Personhood/viability/quickening is not subjective. A fetus removed from a womb will die predictably up to a certain point. This point is later than most legal abortions globally. The supreme court ruling you are looking for is not placing an undue burden on women seeking abortion. Otherwise, States could target the supply side. Getting an abortion is fine. Supplying an abortion is criminal. Using drugs is fine. Having or supplying drugs is not fine = Having an abortion is fine, being at an abortion clinic or providing an abortion is not fine.
Habebe Member	Fri Dec 03 01:17:02 Jergul, Well the chief justice of the US SC thinks otherwise. I dont think that the viability standard applied in previous case law is without the use of any technology.
jergul large member	Fri Dec 03 02:33:13 Habebe Arbitrary has a different meaning than subjective. Subjective means any view is correct. Arbitrary means other views are possible, but this is the one we have. Technology is only relevant if it is a standard practice commonly in use. 24 weeks is currently the limit with 50% mortality and huge long-term health issues. For reference: "In 2018, 1.0% of all abortions in the United States are third trimester abortions." There is very little overlap between "viable" and "aborted".
Forwyn Member	Fri Dec 03 05:52:03 "In 2020, there were 16000 federal drug trials. It is mainly a state offence." You would have to ignore DEA funding, seizure sharing, joint training and operations, and 1033 military surplus transfers to local and state law enforcement for drug operations - a program started under Clinton, mind you.
jergul large member	Fri Dec 03 06:37:01 The DEA would only amount to the 4th largest police force in the US by employees, but with national jurisdiction. I am not ignoring it, but you are blaming the federal government for things done predominantly by States.
Forwyn Member	Fri Dec 03 06:59:38 "It's the state cops flying drones over pot fields and using Stingrays to intercept communications and driving armored Bearcats into drug den living rooms! Who cares how they got those capabilities, the Feds aren't personally prosecuting many cases anymore!" Lul
jergul large member	Fri Dec 03 07:37:36 Forwyn What part of "you are blaming the federal government for things done predominantly by the States" are you having trouble understanding?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Dec 03 08:08:27 Jergul "The principle is not a physical, observable reality." I understand, but I was responding to your "maybe" to my post about there being more than 1 body, it's not maybe, it is an observable physical reality. Once we accept that, then we can talk about principles, anchored in physical reality, which is what I think is missing from the larger debate. "then we cannot justify forcing someone to do with their body what they do not want to do." It isn't "your" body, which is, as I point out physical reality and a tragic fact for this argument, because this is how new people emerge, from inside other people. So where "my body my choice" would have been sufficient to justify other activities that truly only involves your own body, it isn't The One argument/principle that will help us navigate the issue. It isn't a foreign legal principle, even on the specific issue of abortion, as you point out, the my body argument starts losing its' power as time goes. There are other examples, but I will leave it at that, because as I said I agree with the principle broadly given with the giant caveat that I wrote at the start of this paragraph, in summary: your body ends where another begins. "make a timely decision" And that timing is ethically relevant, but I think we agree. "There may be medical solutions that can address you concerns, but they will be pretty expensive." Not uncommon for medical solutions to be expensive, but I rather it becomes a concern culturally and socially, things have a way to sort themselves out when we reach a critical mass in public opinion. I think something as simple as, imagine if the belly was see through, would make us somehow _feel_ very different about it. This is validated, but old data, things that would be deemed as unethical now, shaming women to not have abortions by showing them ultra sound pictures, because it works. I don't know about you, but that makes me feel like we are horrible mistaken, if a grainy picture is statistically the difference between the right to live or legally be killed. Seb "viable without the mother is when the mother starts to have responsibilities to it" Which is basically conception in a decade or so, if not years. And by "viable" what we are saying is "does not require temporary life support". Personally I think the value of human life, being intrinsic, does not go to 0 because you briefly need medical help to survive. The viability argument is not going to stand the test of time, because of the predictable nature of medical progress in this domain. Personally I see no better ethical framework than the brain.
Seb Member	Fri Dec 03 08:30:27 Habebe: "Two people who have chosen to have sex and one can kill their offspring if they don't feel like it having it for a few months is an undue burden? But forced labor for almost 20 years is a stretch? That doesn't make sense." This is because you are looking at it in terms of fairness between the father and the mother. It is this simple: As a man who inseminates someone, you acquire responsibilities to the resulting child; as does a woman who gives birth to it. As a pregnant woman, you can choose to terminate pregnancy, up to a point when the foetus acquires it's own rights - because it is her body and she can do with it as she like until it conflicts someone else's rights. The fact that a father to be might want her to have a termination, but she does not, does not absolve him of his responsibilities to the child. He's not being sentenced to hard labour. A simple way to resolve this: A decent welfare state that renders the need for alimony secondary. "As long as the woman chose to take that sperm then by that same logic they can and shpuld be regulated accordingly." Er, yeah, they are though. They become the legal guardian of the child with similar obligations to clothe, house and feed it. "As for on what grounds, the burden of evidence should be the opposite,the right to self control over your own body and what you do with it logically should extend to up until it infringes on another." Indeed, so arguing that a father is absolved from his responsibilities to a child on the basis that that he could not force a woman to have an abortion - based on "requirement to work to earn the money is a violation of bodily autonomy" - is an example of trying to extend one right to the point it overrides two other peoples rights. "Bob doing drugs in his own home only hurts bob at worst." No, at its worst, it hurts bobs dependents and resulting in bob taking up a slot in accident and emergency, and bobs criminal activities to sustain his addiction. Hence it seems right to me to regulate supply, even if we accept it is wrong to criminalise Bob actually taking drugs (as opposed to things he might do to sustain his habit or when high). "As for bringing up addiction, the point would be that they are not of sane and sound mind to continue" Hence, criminalising supply is fine, but addicts use should be treated as a medical issue, not a criminal one. "but Id argue are pregnant women? Hormones make people do things they normally wouldn't just as much if not more than illegal drugs" Oh mate...
Seb Member	Fri Dec 03 08:38:00 Forwyn: "B is only constitutionally feasible because of A" That does not make B a planned an intended consequence of A that can be inferred to be part of the motivation for A and thus the agenda of A's proposers. E.g. It is utterly invalid to say that the Japanese agenda was for the defeat of Germany at the hands of America because their attack on pearl harbour ultimately led to that outcome. It is obviously fallacious and you have to be fucking stupid to be wasting our times with this kind of drivel.
Seb Member	Fri Dec 03 08:42:02 "was under the purview of the federal government." FDR argued it was a responsibility under an international treaty - Marijuana Tax Act was an act of congress Also note that alcohol prohibition had predated FDR - so the general principle of the federal involvement is older. This is classic whataboutery.
Seb Member	Fri Dec 03 09:02:07 Nim: "Which is basically conception in a decade or so, if not years. And by "viable" what we are saying is "does not require temporary life support"." Lets cross that bridge when we come to it. At the moment that is far from the case. "The viability argument is not going to stand the test of time, because of the predictable nature of medical progress in this domain. Personally I see no better ethical framework than the brain." I think that is likely to be just as complicated: brain isn't mind - we go from a single neuron to the brain of a new-born. Are we really able to define the point where a mind - and a mind sufficient to grant rights to, as opposed to something with the capabilities of a nematode, or an insect, a fish, or a mammal - has been achieved? I don't really think we will know that from brain scans. IIRC, we have had people wake up from comas that present as brain death on brain scans. I suspect - in terms of practice - there is going to be an arbitrary line set and perhaps the principle of level of assistance required. Could this baby survive if it was born prematurely at this time, given some reasonable level of basic care. For example, do we really want to be in the position of the state picking up a legal obligation to keep alive and sustain to development of a blastocyst just because it can be done technically? And the fact that it can be done technically, does that then mean a mother must do it because otherwise the requirement falls on the state?
jergul large member	Fri Dec 03 09:07:42 Nimi It is the one principle. My body. It is core to most of the humanist ideals we hold dear. No compromise on the physical integrity of self, as every other value derives from it. Then we compromise. Decide to protect your integrity in a timely manner, lest it be too late. Now, I am open to your line of thinking in terms of terminating pregnancies without terminating fetuses. Problem is, no one wants unwanted fetuses. Otherwise, we would have had the technology to carry them to term in surrogate wombs.
Habebe Member	Fri Dec 03 10:15:53 Seb, Those are inane rules you prefer and are innolace currently, its not an ideal system. Why should insemination be the male standard and not the female?seperate but equal? Is the fetus a person at insemination? If it's legally just a blob of cells at that point how can that be the standard or responsibility? "No, at its worst, it hurts bobs dependents and resulting in bob taking up a slot in accident and emergency, and bobs criminal activities to sustain his addiction. " Pure what aboutery, plenty of people get intoxicated daily and are fine.People commit criminal activities for plenty of legal things too.Dont beleive me watch the murder channel and see how many dudes tried to off their wife or business partner to bang young hot chicks on a boat, a legal activity. Oh mate my ass, its a valid point. And keep in mind, Im pro abortion.I think limits and regulations should be in place (like drugs) because again, at some point your brutally murdering a person, and no one really agrees well upon when they become a person. But personhood is legally speaking up to what the SC deems is a person. Is a fetus 3/5ths of a person?
Habebe Member	Fri Dec 03 10:18:42 "Which is basically conception in a decade or so, if not years. And by "viable" what we are saying is "does not require temporary life support"." Lets cross that bridge when we come to it. At the moment that is far from the case." For reference though Roberts sounds like he wants to scrap the viability standard to those listening to the trial. His reasoning was it's dependant on technology and it's ever changing.
Seb Member	Fri Dec 03 10:42:59 Habebe: Because of the principles involved. 1. Parents are responsible for their children and should contribute to their upkeep. 2. People can choose what they do their body. "Why should I pay for a child if a woman could have had an abortion instead" suggests that we should violate 1 or 2.
Seb Member	Fri Dec 03 10:45:15 "If it's legally just a blob of cells at that point how can that be the standard or responsibility?" You pay alimony once it pops out. Your arguing that the woman should have an abortion to save the father the costs of his responsibilities.
Seb Member	Fri Dec 03 10:48:19 And no, we aren't going to ban normal human biology. The principle is bodily autonomy - hence legal to take drugs, but supply is controlled. Explain your "extremely valid point" about pregnancy and presumably also puberty and testosterone spiking here. Because too me it looks beyond stupid.
Seb Member	Fri Dec 03 10:51:36 I would say if we force a woman to go to term because the fetus could be extracted and brought to term artificially, then states should be required to fund accident and emergency departments to do so for any fetus where the woman dies during labour. Constitutionally guaranteed rights of the fetus to life.
Habebe Member	Fri Dec 03 10:58:04 So how does one have an abortion if performing an abortion is illegal? Come on, Your smarter than this. You know what else doesnt make sense, if someone kills a fetus and a pregnant woman they are charged with homicide twice. What sort of legal gymnastics does one have to pull out of there ass to claim its a person if Mr.x kills the kid but the mother and or doctor can and it's not a person.It either is or isn't. You only see thenlaw as a hurdle to get the legislation you want.You seem to have no issue with fair and just application of legal principles.
Habebe Member	Fri Dec 03 10:58:04 So how does one have an abortion if performing an abortion is illegal? Come on, Your smarter than this. You know what else doesnt make sense, if someone kills a fetus and a pregnant woman they are charged with homicide twice. What sort of legal gymnastics does one have to pull out of there ass to claim its a person if Mr.x kills the kid but the mother and or doctor can and it's not a person.It either is or isn't. You only see thenlaw as a hurdle to get the legislation you want.You seem to have no issue with fair and just application of legal principles.
Habebe Member	Fri Dec 03 11:03:10 As for the fathers financial obligations, Id argue that a balance of the three involved should be weighed. The burden on the parents each and the child.Why should the mother's burden outweigh the other two without even consideration? We obviously do not have unlimited bodily autonomy, abortion seems to be the only time this law is argued for such a reason.
Habebe Member	Fri Dec 03 11:12:53 Also, supply side was answered in Roe when they addressed ready access. Drugs and abortions for all!, under a regulatory framework that errs on the side of freedom of the individual.
Habebe Member	Fri Dec 03 11:16:06 It also baffles me that the same people arguing for a right only used to kill ones offspring because autinomy of their body think that people in most other uses should have no control over what is in or not in their body. Drugs and forced vaccinnes.
jergul large member	Fri Dec 03 11:19:24 habebe Because an unwanted fetus violates the physical integrity of the person in question. Every right you hold dear derives from the sanctity of self. The mistake you are making is drawing false equivalence between the integrity of self, and rights that are derived from it. Your pocketbook does not have the same worth as your life.
Seb Member	Fri Dec 03 14:34:40 Habebe: Again, let me walk you through this. Why should an abortion be illegal to perform it is legal to have one? The argument against addictive drugs being illegal to supply while legal to take is around the social harms around the entire business model and supply chain. It doesn't violate your bodily autonomy: if you can get them, you can take them. It is a constraint on the freedom of drug dealers to sell; and there's a clear reason to do so. The basis for making performing an abortion illegal when it is legal to receive one is nonsensical. The only justification would be to protect the rights of the fetus; but the whole point about having a legal abortion is that we've decided the point at which at which the fetus doesn't warrant such protections. This is a no brainer. As for treating loss of a fetus as an aggravating factor in assault cases, the emotional damage of a lost pregnancy is significant. Treating it as "a second victim" though is, particularly in the US, largely a consequence of the same "right to life" people using it to advance their cause. Other jurisdictions aren't quite so biblical about the whole thing and just treat it as an aggravating factor than "OMG TWO VICTIMS"
Sam Adams Member	Fri Dec 03 15:53:09 "Your arguing that the woman should have an abortion to save the father the costs of his responsibilities." If the dad doesnt want the kid, he shouldnt have to pay for it.
Sam Adams Member	Fri Dec 03 15:56:44 Dad has a right to his body too. He shouldnt have to be a slave to a kid for the next 20 years of his life unless he so chooses.
Sam Adams Member	Fri Dec 03 15:59:31 In the case where mom wants the fetus but dad doesnt, the proper solution is for the father to give up his rights to kid if he so chooses. No financial obligations but also no visitation rights, etc.
jergul large member	Fri Dec 03 16:25:17 Nah. Parental obligations are firmly established in both common and written law. Like I said to habebe. You would do better to argue that involuntary paternity tests are a violation of privacy.
Habebe Member	Fri Dec 03 16:28:02 Seb, "Why should an abortion be illegal to perform it is legal to have one?" What I'm saying is that if Abortion is protected because we have reasonable autonomy over our bodies, and that includes choosing when to give birth and be pregnant that right should extend to what we choose to out in our bodies or choose not to. Because they are both based in the right of bodily autonomy. Killing children is a social harm. I realize there should be some sort scale.Many people beleive that abortion is basically no different from infanticide which we all agree is bad. Even people on the SCOTUS beleive that. At what point the fetus becomes a human has a thousand answers from a million people, that's what is on debate now. Drugs are not automatically bad.Most people who use them function and are not addicted.I would argue making them illegal even on the supply side has greater societal negatives.
Habebe Member	Fri Dec 03 16:31:03 "As for treating loss of a fetus as an aggravating factor in assault cases, the emotional damage of a lost pregnancy is significant. Treating it as "a second victim" though is, particularly in the US, largely a consequence of the same "right to life" people using it to advance their cause. Other jurisdictions aren't quite so biblical about the whole thing and just treat it as an aggravating factor than "OMG TWO VICTIMS" Ok, but from a legal stand point there is clear precedence that a fetus under US laws can be a person in some circumstances.I dont think that who chooses to end the life doesn't create nor invalidates the fetuses personhood.
jergul large member	Fri Dec 03 16:31:14 "Because they are both based in the right of bodily autonomy" One is the right to body autonomy. The other is derived from that right. Why is it so hard for you to see that your life is of greater value than your pocketbook? Habebe, you are getting serious answers here, but with some expectation you will learn shit.
Habebe Member	Fri Dec 03 16:36:17 For the same reason you cant force medical treatment on someone against their will, how can we say what may not go in their body. A right that protects one choice works both ways. The right to freedom of speech is the same right that lets you remain silent id you so choose.
jergul large member	Fri Dec 03 16:38:39 A fetus' personhood occurs at some point before birth. The question is where. Maybe every seed is sacred and male masturbation should be illegal. Who knows the limit of human craziness. Almost all law places the transition at practical viability. For like, forever. Now, if you want to invent your own shit, then feel free to do so. But all rights you have that stem from personal integrity fail when that fails. Be careful for what you wish. You might get it.
Forwyn Member	Fri Dec 03 16:46:43 "What part of "you are blaming the federal government for things done predominantly by the States" are you having trouble understanding?" What part of "you are ignoring that the federal government made the things done predominantly by the states possible in the first place" are you having trouble understanding? "It is utterly invalid to say that the Japanese agenda was for the defeat of Germany at the hands of America because their attack on pearl harbour ultimately led to that outcome." If the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor in German flagged vessels and then had agents caught in Germany bombing railways, we could very well say that. Democrats both laid the groundwork, and helped it along. Cops are kicking in doors in military gear due a Clinton program. "FDR argued it was a responsibility under an international treaty" Politicians say a lot of bullshit to avoid saying that their bills are crony instruments to benefit lobbyists. "Marijuana Tax Act was an act of congress" It was literally written by the Executive branch. Once again, you need to do basic research before you involve yourself in these conversations. "Also note that alcohol prohibition had predated FDR - so the general principle of the federal involvement is older." Also note this required a Constitutional Amendment - so the general principle was that federal involvement was unjustified without a requisite Constitutional clause...unless you beat the courts with a stick to get a rereading of an existing clause.
Habebe Member	Fri Dec 03 16:47:47 Jergul, Either way at this point neither of us will probably be thrilled with the putcome of this case. Have you been listening at all?
jergul large member	Fri Dec 03 16:51:39 Forwyn Or we could blame O2. none of this would have happened without oksygen. The federal role in drug enforcement is limited. It is a predominantly a State affair. Habebe The case is about lowering the limit. I will be thrilled because beyond the first trimester is barbaric. The problem is you go all fanatic on shit like that. Any limitation means all limitations are on the table.
Forwyn Member	Fri Dec 03 16:56:45 "The federal role in drug enforcement is limited. It is a predominantly a State affair." This is a blatant fucking lie lol
Forwyn Member	Fri Dec 03 17:00:07 Texas Rangers are deploying to Latin America and gassing jungels and fighting cartels and patrolling the high seas in jergul land fucking lmao
jergul large member	Fri Dec 03 23:53:35 Forwyn You are not very good at taking in new information. The big federal stake would be customs and border control. An organization that is larger than all US police forces except New York's. You have 700 000 police officers. How many US rangers or US coast guard seamen do you think are fighting the war on drugs?
Forwyn Member	Sat Dec 04 01:25:18 How much cocaine you think deputy Jim Bobs are seizing? 27,000 kilos seized here. 145 million seized in 2020. http://tas...ast-guard-drug-record-offload/
jergul large member	Sat Dec 04 01:43:11 Forwyn How is that a relevant metric if Deputy Bob is sending more people away than a coast guard cutter ever will?
jergul large member	Sat Dec 04 01:44:36 1.5 million drug arrests per year. Almost all of them at State level or lower.
Forwyn Member	Sat Dec 04 02:03:28 Again trying to autistically jergulmaths everything without context, state cops out here conducting dealer/user-level interdictions with massive federal assistance, feds taking out unmanned cartel subs and you're like, "Ah yes this is all the doing of Iowa"
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Dec 04 05:38:57 Seb "Lets cross that bridge when we come to it." The point is that the "viability" argument is unsound to qualify the value of human life. Human beings that need life support are given life support, they are not "unviable", especially not if that support is temporary. If you end up in a car accident and need to be in a hospital for the next 6 months to survive, are you "unviable"? Well technically! We have created special use of language to describe this, stripping it of all its' humanity. This same process can be found throughout our modern history to make us feel ok when we mistreat and project violence on a systematical scale on other human beings, one of the most common themes is to compare them to other species, Jews to rats, Africans to "chimps" etc. "brain isn't mind" Brain activity is the medical proxy for mind and it is pretty good and the same metric we use everywhere else. We also know that minds do not exists outside of brains. Outliers don't change this, you want to keep the outliers on the right side of caution. In the example you bring up, it would mean that we give people in comas a lot of time to defy the validity of our crude instruments. "Are we really able to define the point" When in doubt, don't kill. This is my default approach to existing on this planet, apply caution, especially when a life hangs in the balance. Personally I find don't find this kind of pseudo-uncertainty as a comfortable position to take cover behind, so to answer your question, we can definitely point to a week and say there is enough of a brain here, which we know is human. We can ask all these questions about new born babies btw, not much of a mind there, I have had fish and it is definitely less than a fish for the first few weeks, at least. "perhaps the principle of level of assistance required." What we are really talking about is an arbitrary level of support, because full term babies need considerable support to survive, in fact any human being can be unlucky enough in their life and not be able to survive without far more support than a premature needs, and those situation can be permanent unlike a premature. Sorry, but this is a pretty glib stance on the value of human life. Which is a far throw from a few years ago when you assured us that "human life has intrinsic value". I believe it was around that time that kurdish boy washed up on a beach in Turkey. Does human life have intrinsic value? If yes, then uncertainty around when it becomes ethically questionable to chopp it to death, should warrant more caution. Jergul "It is the one principle." We also accept that this principle can legally be violated as there are exceptions to what you can do with your body and certainly to other bodies. You understand this and I understand this within humanist values. We both accept the physical reality that a pregnancy is a body inside another body. "terminating pregnancies without terminating fetuses." We can be creative with solving a problem when it becomes a problem, but my thinking is higher up the stream, but at some point you are responsible for something that you can not undo and I mean that in the legal sense, because a principle of civilized society is that people can't "undo" people they see as problems.
Seb Member	Sat Dec 04 06:19:51 Sam: "If the dad doesnt want the kid, he shouldnt have to pay for it." No, if the dad doesn't want the kid, he shouldn't have got a woman pregnant. Given that he did get a woman pregnant, and he obviously can't get a woman to have a medical procedure to get rid of it, then he retains responsibility *to the child*. It is that simple. "Dad has a right to his body too." He does - but he also has responsibilities and his right to his body does not absolve him of his responsibilities. You cannot argue that you should not pay tax because it is slavery. "the proper solution is for the father to give up his rights to kid if he so chooses" Nope, the kid is not property. The kid is a dependent and you cannot simply walk away from your responsibilities, man-child. Habebe: "Killing children is a social harm." A fetus isn't a child, that's the whole point. If we thought it was, indeed at the *point* we think it meets the threshold for being a person, abortion becomes illegal except under exceptionally tenuous circumstances. "Most people who use them function and are not addicted. I would argue making them illegal even on the supply side has greater societal negatives." That is why I said addictive - regarding making them illegal bringing greater societal negatives - yes that is an argument on the balance point, not the principle. "Ok, but from a legal stand point there is clear precedence that a fetus under US laws can be a person in some circumstances." A good argument for why we shouldn't let mawkish right wing right to lifers create such inconsistent laws. However, if you are arguing that established abortion law is inconsistent with states that treat pregnancies lost due to assault etc. as murder - then you should bring a challenge through appeals to the supreme court and see if they will touch it. I'm guessing though it will be difficult to find constitutional grounds to strike down a lower court for treating a fetus as a life in this context as it is not clear whose right is being infringed: if states want to criminalise terminating a pregnancy against the mothers will as a murder I think they probably have the right to do so; even if the federal government and supreme court thinks that fetus does not have the right to legal protections superseding their mother. Forwyn: The part I am having trouble with is why you think any of this is at all relevant. The war on drugs and anti-drugs policy isn't a predominantly left wing policy, and to the extent that conservatives have used interstate commerce powers to further those policies and that the expansion of those interstate commerce powers for other purposes was originally a left wing policy is to my mind supremely irrelevant. You can daisy chain that back forever and blame all on some random roman emperor if you like. We are talking about policy intent.
Seb Member	Sat Dec 04 06:52:07 Nim: I think you are over thinking it. I don't think the viability argument is that unsound. For example, we know that you can clone and culture cells right? So we could clone and culture eggs. That could be a medical product right? So in that sense, with appropriate life support, is not ever sperm sacred? If we really want to rationalise this out, there is some kind of proportionate life support. A baby born x weeks premature can survive with some level of care we deem proportionate and would deploy in the instance of a premature birth or emergency c-section of an expectant mother that is dying. Prior to that, there is a point we would say "no, not worth it". The idea we can push that back further and further with technology is untested - and to the extent such technology might come to exist, the question would have to be: Would we deploy it if a single pregnant woman with no family arrived at an ER, terminal prognosis, and attempt to rescue the fetus and take it to term? That's the point of viability "We have created special use of language to describe this, stripping it of all its' humanity." Totally disagree. I think you are trying to apply some universal framework and criteria to create a perfectly consistent system. We know such things cannot exist in principle: Godel tells us no framework of logic can be fully complete in this way. The point here is that there is no really good way to define the moment when a fetus is "human" in the sense that their life weighs as much as the mother. Worrying that terminating a 20 week or earlier fetus is equivalent to denying an adult 6 months of temporary life support is stating that a fully formed adult has the same level of complexity and worth as a 20 week old fetus. So it becomes a question of potential vs something that exists. Likening this to the dehumanising of actual living persons who are of a different race is an absolute category error. "brain isn't mind" "Brain activity is the medical proxy for mind and it is pretty good and the same metric we use everywhere else." Firstly, a lot of this is exaggerated. Do you want me to point you to all the science criticising a lot of the early optimism on using functional MRI to correlate brain activity to mind? Remember the dead salmon. Secondly, what we do know is based on looking at child and adult brains that are structurally very different from fetus brains in the first and second trimester - where we can interrogate or at least observe conscious behaviour and correlate it to measurements of the brain and thus infer correlations between brain and mind. But we know comparatively little even in this domain. We know almost nothing about fetuses. "When in doubt, don't kill." Unfortunately, it is not as simple as that, as "don't kill" imposes a quite significant restrictions on the right of the mother. The question before us cannot be ducked - and certainly a positive decision on the balance of rights cannot be gussied up as a "temporary and precautionary" non-decision. "we can definitely point to a week and say there is enough of a brain here, which we know is human." Can we? What week is that? "What we are really talking about is an arbitrary level of support," Depends how you want to define arbitrary - but yet, it's a continuum and there is highly unlikely to be a satisfactory hard cut criteria. Hence viability seems as good a one as any. "Which is a far throw from a few years ago when you assured us that "human life has intrinsic value"." Yes, because we are discussing *when* human life begins; and what you are doing here is suggesting I am being glib by not being sufficient conservative enough on when that starts. Most countries do not allow abortions after the second trimester. The brain start to split into halves and develop the complex structures which - in adults - we associate with the regions involved in higher functions of consciousness. Now we don't if that's correct, or applies to fetuses. I suspect we can never know. But if anything it suggests we are being more than sufficiently conservative using a variation on viability here. This study gives some statistics around surviability of babies born at 22 weeks http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-50144741 These numbers suggest about 15 out of 486, less than 3%. And it does not say if they developed normally. Translated to a mother that wants an abortion, that is a heck of an imposition of her right to her body; based on the 3% *potential* for a future human life (if we accept that the fetus at the time probably is not yet a conscious life with the same validity of a new-born at full term). We don't in any other aspect of society treat the impact an individuals actions might have on future individuals in quite the same way; except for when a pregnancy is lost through assault - and in part that seems to have been driven by setting precedents regarding abortion.
jergul large member	Sat Dec 04 08:35:45 I don't think we can get around the integrity of self being the fundamental building-block in humanism. Still, we can impose on women the burden of making a timely decision that is quite a bit earlier than when fetuses are technically viable.
Habebe Member	Sat Dec 04 09:18:53 Jergul, Actually we may agree on the first trimester as a reasonable stopping point. Im not dead set on a date but I think reasonable time frames are good, I dont support child murder.I dont like the idea of late term abortions. The issue for me is how we legally get there. Something ive noticed is there seems to be two camps. Camp one looks at the law as the law.They would support it being followed with almost no regard to outside forces like politicization.They are not opposed to changing the law via congress if they are not pleased with it. Camp 2 seems to find what they want from the law and and shove that square peg in a round hole because thats what they want from the law. Even the justices, the liberal wing of the court has repeatedly brought up that if liberals dont get what they want now that there are new judges it would de legitimize the court. The more conservative arm of the court seems to be more inclined to give an accurate reading of law and precedent with the idea that the court shouldn't follow the whims of politicians. If they dont like the law they should change it.
jergul large member	Sat Dec 04 09:43:36 Supreme court rulings set the frame for what laws can legally be passed by legislatures. "Undue burden" and "viability/quickening/personhood" Are the core concepts here. The thing is, there is a status quo. The radical thing to do is change the status quo. So, yah the USSC could delegitimize itself if not careful. I think State laws will be overturned. Simply because 15 weeks is way before viability and the laws as written place undue burdens on those seeking abortions. This is not to say States cannot revisit the matter with tweaked legislation.
jergul large member	Sat Dec 04 09:46:01 I don't think the "Still, we can impose on women the burden of making a timely decision that is quite a bit earlier than when fetuses are technically viable." argument flies in the US system. I was making a philosophical and pragmatic point, not commenting on the logic behind the Roe vrs. Wade ruling.
jergul large member	Sat Dec 04 09:47:38 Well, technically is might fall under that purview. Is making up your mind in a timely manner an undue burden?
jergul large member	Sat Dec 04 09:51:04 "but at some point you are responsible for something that you can not undo and I mean that in the legal sense, because a principle of civilized society is that people can't "undo" people they see as problems." That point has been established and long predates codified law. It is at quickening/viability.
Habebe Member	Sat Dec 04 10:34:21 "The thing is, there is a status quo. The radical thing to do is change the status quo. So, yah the USSC could delegitimize itself if not careful." So basically if the left doesn't get what they want. The court should be concerned with the law.Long standing precedent can Absolutley be overturned if it was wrong to begin with. Forget thendrug argument, hownthe fuck is prostitution a crime if you have autonomy over your body. The fact is Roe is such a wierd case that this right can only be used for abortion but no other reasonable autonomy. As it stands now I dont see the viability standard staying.Not with this court.Have you heard this trial? Public opinion is wierd. Basically USians say they support roe v wade.However it's a proxy for allowing women an abortion. Once you ask actual limits the vast majority support 15 weeks as the limit. Which seems reasonable. Now we just need to legalize whores and drugs.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Dec 04 10:51:52 ”So in that sense, with appropriate life support, is not ever sperm sacred?” Sperm and cell cultures are not individuals of our specie with brain activity. ”to the extent such technology might come to exist” Technology does not set the boundaries of human value. We may not be able to give sufficient medical aid to everyone today, but that does not make them less valuable, just tragic. The ”viability” argument here implies that not viable = not valuable. ”and attempt to rescue the fetus and take it to term?” Why wouldn’t you? ”I think you are trying to apply some universal framework and criteria to create a perfectly consistent system.” It is not universal, it is contingent on the emergent facts about human life on this planet. Species intelligent enough to have this conversation that lay eggs or are marsupials will have a different framework and conversation. The goal is to have a framework of ethics, according to principles and criteria. We can’t answer or account for everything, a fact if life. You can disagree, but there is in principle no difference between human beings at different stages of their lives needing life support, not be viable as you call it. As long as we both understand technically what is going on the word is less relevant. ”Worrying that terminating a 20 week or earlier fetus is equivalent to denying an adult 6 months of temporary life support is stating that a fully formed adult has the same level of complexity and worth as a 20 week old fetus.” A fully formed adult, let’s say 25 years old, has a far higher level of complexity than a 6 month old new born, or a 10 year old for that matter. ”So it becomes a question of potential vs something that exists.” Like a 4 year old toddler who can’t even wipe his own ass vs a 40 year. When it comes to offspring, ”potential” is what it is all about, we accept that it takes time for them grow up into their full potential, it comes with the territory. So, there is no real reason to stop with the fetus if we are going here. We can divide all people into their potential. Hand out standardized tests to figure out exactly what level of complexity their brains have. Kill those that fall below an arbitrary limit. ”Likening this to the dehumanising of actual living persons who are of a different race is an absolute category error. ” Fetuses are alive and ”individual of the specie homo sapien” is one category. The fact that we have different words for different stages of their lives, does not make them different ”categories” in this context. ”Firstly, a lot of this is exaggerated.” You are overthinking it. Minds do not exist without brains. ”adult brains that are structurally very different from fetus brains in the first and second trimester” Does not imply it has no experience or morally relevant level of experience. ”imposes a quite significant restrictions on the right of the mother.” Those restrictions are however temporary unlike death, but this is not really something to argue over, we don’t disagree: Certain actions have consequences that impose restrictions on us. I think that is how things are suppose to work, unless the situation is forced upon you to begin with, like getting raped. ”Can we? What week is that?” The brain starts taking form week 6 and by 9-12 weeks there is enough of a brain there to make it unethical to terminate for [insert inconvenience reason] depending on how conservative you want to be. ”there is highly unlikely to be a satisfactory hard cut criteria.” Yet we have abortion laws that already do this, so the question is what criteria do we base them on. Some are less relevant, robust and more arbitrary and expected to be made impotent by the progress of medical science, like viability. Broadly, looking at the brain, does not suffer from any of those issues. ”Yes, because we are discussing *when* human life begins” No, that part is already settled and not meaningful to discuss, it starts at conception. We are talking about when human beings should be granted the right to life and self. Just a minor but important clarification. I don’t think determining these things should be arbitrary nor that it needs to be, because we don’t understand enough. Yes it sounds glib to point to crude instruments and say ”well we just don’t know enough about the fetus” with the implication that it is fine to keep chopping them up. Because at some point we all collectively agree you can’t do that anymore and call it murder. When that is, is not arbitrary and it’s not gradual, it’s a clear line. So to get it correct and base it on relevant metrics like brain activity and not irrelevant things like how much medical aid you need is, you know, important. ”that is a heck of an imposition of her right to her body” But not to the body inside her? And because we can’t ”know” or communicate with this body, and what with it being so alien and foreign to us, we can go psuedo solopsistic and pretend like there are no safe assumptions to make about this other mind, like that it probably wouldn’t approve of being killed. ”future individuals” You mean future potential, because it is an individual a few moments after the egg is fertilized. But I grant you that the way human beings are created is unlike any other aspect of our condition. Or rather that it poses challanges unlike other activities.
jergul large member	Sat Dec 04 10:55:31 habebe The left has what it wants. The question is if the USSC is going to make a radical choice and change the status quo. Its an ideological thing, not a legal one. Though we should actually listen to the oral arguments before making a firm call. Prostitution, drugs etc is not a personal integrity thing. Its an undue burden thing. Solicitation is illegal in your country. Not the act of having sex. Possession is illegal in your country. Not having drugs in your system. The reason there is a distinction is that the integrity of self is the core right from which all others are derived. There are irregularities. Suicide watches and potential loss of enfranchisement by way of circular logic. You want to die? That is insane, therefore you are insane. You can therefore not make that call and must lose the right to make that call until you change your mind.
patom Member	Sat Dec 04 10:58:43 When Roe was written it overturned long standing precedent. That that precedent was wrong then doesn't make it right now. Public opinion hasn't been allowed to make this decision law. It should be allowed to decide this in a National Referendum.
jergul large member	Sat Dec 04 10:59:38 Nimi You can't sidestep viability like that. It has been a principle forever. Something capable of integrity to use that term.
jergul large member	Sat Dec 04 11:01:05 Patom Ultimately, the Senate system may have to be reconsidered. Minority rule over fundamental rights can never last in a democracy.
	show deleted posts