US-Roe vs Wade overturned

[geordief]

8 minutes ago, swansont said:

Filling vacancies that occur under administration, by following the rules, is not “packing”

 

 

No,but the effect is similar.Is it not better that the appointment of Supreme Court Judges  should be non partisan?

The refusal to appoint Obama's pick felt like reverse packing to me.

[swansont]

2 minutes ago, geordief said:

No,but the effect is similar.Is it not better that the appointment of Supreme Court Judges  should be non partisan?

The refusal to appoint Obama's pick felt like reverse packing to me.

That, and it was packing by the subsequent administration.

[J.C.MacSwell]

4 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

There is also the distinction between rights and protections. Something that can't decide or make its desires known can't exercise its rights; it can only be taken under the protection of a decision-making entity that purports to represent its best interests. A foetus can't exercise any rights - only the ownership of it is in contention. A dog, which is aware, able to make decisions and exercise its own will, still doesn't have rights: it is living a life owned by others.

How exactly does the aforesaid day old baby exercise it's rights?

A dog has rights. You might own it, you might get to choose to put it down, but you are not allowed to torture it.

Ownership has limits.

[Peterkin]

13 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Please correct me if that's not correct.

I have.

13 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

If you can acknowledge that a full term fetus is human,

What's humanness got to do with it? That's an element beyond alive/non-alive, living/not living. The species of the biological does not affect its viability, but does affect the legal position. So, now the legal position is not about viability, but species identity. Viability is never guaranteed by stage of development: many foetuses do not survive to term; many newborns do not survive the first minutes, hours or days post-partum. There is nothing magical about the moment - more generally, in humans, several hours - of birth. Nor is the newborn, whether viable of not, an independent entity; it can't have rights, because it can't live its life: it has to be owned by some adults for a considerable time.  

Quote

and that a few duplicating cells after conception is not yet, then you're well on your way to joining the majority of North Americans...in a place where reasonable laws can be considered.

I have been in that majority since before it was a majority.

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

5 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Nor is the newborn, whether viable of not, an independent entity; it can't have rights, because it can't live its life: it has to be owned by some adults for a considerable time.  

I have been in that majority since before it was a majority.

 

Your definition of rights is not the same as the one everyone else is working with.

Edited June 25, 2022 by J.C.MacSwell

[Peterkin]

13 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

A dog has rights. You might own it, you might get to choose to put it down, but you are not allowed to torture it.

Ownership has limits.

A dog has the protection of the state. Some dogs. Some states. Up to a point. You can put it down, kill it, force it bear young, buy and sell it, abandon it, even torture it if you're wearing a white coat. Some of us may pretend that the meager protections amount to a right for the dog to exercise, but it's no such thing. Any more than the tug-of-war over ownership of a human egg, sperm, foetus or child amounts to rights exercised by that child. 

The mother is able to exercise rights, and is prevented from doing so by the protection extended by the state to a foetus whose desires cannot be known. It's  about ownership. (I was going to say simply about ownership, but it's not simple at all.) The whole right-to-life thing is a great big puff of smoke.

17 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

How exactly does the aforesaid day old baby exercise it's rights?

I was explicating as how it doesn't, can't, and hasn't any.

22 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Your definition of rights is not the same as the one everyone else is working with.

But then, I've thought seriously about this concept and have a definition.

Edited June 25, 2022 by Peterkin

[MigL]

15 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

25 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

How exactly does the aforesaid day old baby exercise it's rights?

I was explicating as how it doesn't, can't, and hasn't any.

No such thing as inherent rights.
Rights are granted by a society to individuals through laws and regulations.

If we as a society, deem that babies have rights, then they do.
If we deem a fertilized bunch of cells not to have rights, then they don't.

The importance of good, and viable laws and regulations is most important, not whether it complies with the writings of a Constitution  over 2 centuries out of date.

[swansont]

36 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

A dog has rights

Can you point to any legal document that says this? In the US there is a constitution that highlights the rights of people. 

4 minutes ago, MigL said:

No such thing as inherent rights.

That’s not the position of the US. The rights are recognized by society, but they are inherent. That was a foundational concept.

[J.C.MacSwell]

7 minutes ago, swansont said:

Can you point to any legal document that says this? In the US there is a constitution that highlights the rights of people. 

 

https://nslegislature.ca/legc/bills/60th_2nd/3rd_read/b186.htm

[swansont]

18 minutes ago, MigL said:

The importance of good, and viable laws and regulations is most important, not whether it complies with the writings of a Constitution  over 2 centuries out of date.

Also contrary to the US position; the Constitution is the supreme law of the land

(Article VI, Clause 2)

6 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

https://nslegislature.ca/legc/bills/60th_2nd/3rd_read/b186.htm

Laws ≠ rights

The only rights mentioned in that are rights of members in the society, and only the rights pertaining to the society 

[J.C.MacSwell]

9 minutes ago, swansont said:

Also contrary to the US position; the Constitution is the supreme law of the land

Laws ≠ rights

The only rights mentioned in that are rights of members in the society, and only the rights pertaining to the society 

I'm of the opinion that if a law prohibits certain cruelties to an animal, to the degree it is enforceable that law is extending a right to the animal to not have the described cruelties done to it.

Generally this would be described as animal rights.

[Peterkin]

18 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

https://nslegislature.ca/legc/bills/60th_2nd/3rd_read/b186.htm

Protection Act. Not Bill of Rights. That quite clearly states that Nova Scotia  law protects animals. That places limitations on the rights of humans, and imposes obligation upon humans. It does not a confer rights to animals.

26 minutes ago, swansont said:

That’s not the position of the US. The rights are recognized by society, but they are inherent. That was a foundational concept.

For most human organs while under the auspices of a fully functional adult human brain, yes. Doesn't include the uterus, apparently. Actually that foundational concept was only extended to women and people of African descent as late afterthoughts. The basis of inherency isn't all that clear-cut, either.  

Edited June 25, 2022 by Peterkin

[J.C.MacSwell]

4 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Protection Act. Not Bill of Rights. That quite clearly states that Nova Scotia  law protects animals. That places limitations on the rights of humans, and imposes obligation upon humans. It does not a confer rights to animals.

It effectively does, and is is what most people believe they are considering when discussing animal rights.

I made no claim animals had a Bill of Rights. Humans had rights prior to any Bill of Rights.

[Peterkin]

36 minutes ago, MigL said:

If we as a society, deem that babies have rights, then they do.

Okay. Say they do. There is baby wearing diapers lying on the grass in the park, crying. We all leave it alone, because it's not breaking any laws: its genitals are covered, there is no Keep off the Grass sign and public weeping is legal in my district. Nobody's violating its rights by walking past. 

6 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Humans had rights prior to any Bill of Rights.

There were legal documents prior to the bill of rights that outlined which humans had which rights.

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Okay. Say they do. There is baby wearing diapers lying on the grass in the park, crying. We all leave it alone, because it's not breaking any laws: its genitals are covered, there is no Keep off the Grass sign and public weeping is legal in my district. Nobody's violating its rights by walking past. 

Is it unattended and in obvious distress?

You can make human rights laws as different from fetal rights laws as you like, but it doesn't change the moral equation.

[MigL]

36 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

There is baby wearing diapers lying on the grass in the park, crying. We all leave it alone, because it's not breaking any laws: its genitals are covered, there is no Keep off the Grass sign and public weeping is legal in my district. Nobody's violating its rights by walking past. 

There are 'deliberate indifference laws in most jurisdictions, that are extended to adults as well as babies.

"Deliberate indifference is the conscious or reckless disregard of the consequences of one's acts or omissions. It entails something more than negligence, but is satisfied by something less than acts or omissions for the very purpose of causing harm or with knowledge that harm will result."

Deliberate Indifference Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.

 

Did you not see the last episode of Seinfeld ?

[iNow]

2 hours ago, geordief said:

Will they be vulnerable in Red states now?

Gerrymandering makes this unlikely. Voting district lines have been drawn in such a way that this probably actually helps them since their base has become so homogenized due to gerrymandering. 

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

You can make human rights laws as different from fetal rights laws as you like, but it doesn't change the moral equation.

So, we move into yet another realm...

 

41 minutes ago, MigL said:

There are 'deliberate indifference laws in most jurisdictions, that are extended to adults as well as babies.

Yes, there are obligations and responsibilities imposed on citizens, and laws that curtail, limit and condition the rights of citizens. If a society as, a legal unit, has taken on the obligation to protect its members, then it becomes incumbent on each capable member of that society (not just the ones who voted for that law) to fulfil those obligations. Every such obligation decreases the individual's freedoms and rights.

So, if a society, as a legal entity, decrees that all of its members have a right to medical attention, then all the members, whether they voted for universal health care or not, have an obligation to contribute. The society may even decree that no member has a right to refuse treatment on behalf of a patient who can't exercise  their rights. If that society decrees that human kidneys are community property, then members with failing kidneys may claim one from a healthy member, and the healthy member has no right to refuse. If all uteruses are community property, then presumably women who cannot carry a foetus to term may have a right to colonize someone else's for the gestation period; presumably, men whose spouses are infertile have a right to impregnate handmaids, etc.

Edited June 25, 2022 by Peterkin

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Is it unattended and in obvious distress?

You can make human rights laws as different from fetal rights laws as you like, but it doesn't change the moral equation.

What do you think the moral equation is?

When is it ok to kill? Is a thread I started a while back, which seems a more appropriate thread, to post your answer.

[TheVat]

Could the red herring be let go?  No one is having abortions of sentient babies.  The extremely rare abortions later than 22 - 24 weeks are allowed in only six states (and DC) and have generally been of anencephalics, or similar conditions where there can be no viable sentient existence and any "life" postpartum would be brief and horrible.  There is no support for abortions of healthy babies at 25-40 weeks, not anywhere on the mainstream political spectrum.  This is a controversy manufactured by media RW shock jocks to draw devil horns on the heads of pro-Choice Liberals.  

 

[zapatos]

The Supreme Court seems to be going in two different directions as it simultaneously limits early term abortions while making very late term abortions available at local schools.

[swansont]

4 hours ago, Peterkin said:

For most human organs while under the auspices of a fully functional adult human brain, yes. Doesn't include the uterus, apparently. Actually that foundational concept was only extended to women and people of African descent as late afterthoughts. The basis of inherency isn't all that clear-cut, either.  

Yes. An ugly truth that at the founding of the US, any folks other than white men were considered to be lesser beings, and that attitude persists.

[TheVat]

I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.

Thomas Jefferson 

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.

Thomas Jefferson 

A wise man. The present SC and GOP doesn't do his words justice. I don't think the founders of the US Constitution ever imagined it to be like the Ten Commandments.

[Peterkin]

55 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

A wise man. The present SC and GOP doesn't do his words justice. I don't think the founders of the US Constitution ever imagined it to be like the Ten Commandments.

God never put in an amendment formula; they did.