US-Roe vs Wade overturned

[Peterkin]

35 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Presumably you would baulk at the woman killing her own hours-old baby. Are you one of the old guys forcing her not to kill it? I am. That's the essence of the disagreement. 

That's exactly what happens when sex education, birth control and abortion are made difficult or unattainable. That's exactly what the old guys are forcing some young women to do. The second least good option is to abandon the baby in a shopping mall or hospital (convents being rather thin on the ground). The third option - best or worst is in POV is suicide relativelt early in the pregnancy, or an unskilled illegal abortion, which may amount to the same thing, only slower.

Welcome to the Middle Ages!

[J.C.MacSwell]

9 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

That wasn't the subject, and that wasn't my reference https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8274866/

Your subject and reference for that was your quoting Mistermack. You quoted him and that was your direct reply.

[Peterkin]

5 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Serious question?

Right to live. Right to avoid a painful death.

Right to get born. Right to live is to be negotiated, hour by hour, with the environment into which the infant is born.

5 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Right to avoid a painful death.

Who said it's painful? Who said it gives the newborn any chance - lat alone right - to avoid more painful deaths?

Edited June 24, 2022 by Peterkin

[J.C.MacSwell]

3 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

That's exactly what happens when sex education, birth control and abortion are made difficult or unattainable. That's exactly what the old guys are forcing some young women to do. The second least good option is to abandon the baby in a shopping mall or hospital (convents being rather thin on the ground). The third option - best or worst is in POV is suicide relativelt early in the pregnancy, or an unskilled illegal abortion, which may amount to the same thing, only slower.

Welcome to the Middle Ages!

Surely you don't condone infanticide with that argument??

1 minute ago, Peterkin said:

Right to get born. Right to live is to be negotiated, hour by hour, with the environment into which the infant is born.

Who said it's painful?

I'll certainly say it for a well developed fetus. Do you doubt it?

Would you also question it for the aforesaid day old baby?

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

What this court is doing is taking away those rights. That the majority wants the rights means there is potential leverage for legislative action. But that’s blocked by some senators who don’t feel they have to bow to the will of the people. And until people vote out the bad actors, they won’t.

Not only that, they took away body autonomy specifically from half of the population. I think  RBG stated that there would be no equal rights without reproductive rights.

[J.C.MacSwell]

23 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Right to get born. Right to live is to be negotiated, hour by hour, with the environment into which the infant is born.

Who said it's painful? Who said it gives the newborn any chance - lat alone right - to avoid more painful deaths?

WTF. Do you consider a fetus to be less than alive? 

[Peterkin]

19 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Surely you don't condone infanticide with that argument??

It's not an argument. It's a historical and psychological reality. People pushed to walls take desperate actions. What I might or might not condone doesn't come into it: I don't stand in judgment over those women: Clarence Thomas does. 

 

22 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I'll certainly say it for a well developed fetus. Do you doubt it?

Yes, I do. Much depends on the method employed. As with the execution of adults who do know what to expect, and are forced to expect it for years (a situation strongly supported by the "pro-life" faction) , it can painful or painless, fast or slow. By back-street hack, probably slower and nastier than by skilled surgeon.

And why would you wait for it to be "well-developed" anyway? I'd get it done before the foetus had any pain receptors at all.

2 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Do you consider a fetus to be less than alive? 

No. Being alive (passive) however, is not equivalent to living (active). Everything has an unquestioned right to be alive until it's dead, but hardly anyone has an unquestioned or uncontested right to live. 

I don't consider an earthworm to be less than alive, either. So, should we make a law guaranteeing the earthworm's right to live - but only up to the moment somebody threads it onto a fish-hook? 

[J.C.MacSwell]

31 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

 

And why would you wait for it to be "well-developed" anyway? I'd get it done before the foetus had any pain receptors at all.

 

I think pretty much everyone, here at least, would agree with that. If it's to be done I think a moral, logical and scientific argument can obviously be made to do it earlier than later. (I will admit a moral, logical and scientific argument can be made to delay it as well)

Most objectors to abortion object more so to later ones than earlier ones.

Edited June 25, 2022 by J.C.MacSwell

[Peterkin]

19 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

If it's to be done I think a moral, logical and scientific argument can obviously be made to do it earlier than later.

Those decisions were the norm for 50 years. At least in civilized countries.

20 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

(I will admit a moral, logical and scientific argument can be made to delay it as well)

What are those arguments? I have not heard them.

20 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Most objectors to abortion object more so to later ones than earlier ones.

They really ought've spoken up before their states passed laws forbidding abortion at any stage, and took away one exception after another, and closed one family planning clinic after another. It's all academic now. Incapacitated, imprisoned, intimidated, inebriated or in love, women are no longer to be a given any choice as to whether they give birth to a well-developed, underdeveloped, defective, addicted, malnourished, soon-to-be-neglected and potentially abused baby or not.

[J.C.MacSwell]

4 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

What are those arguments? I have not heard them.

Not a proponent, so I'll take a pass on that. 

 

6 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

They really ought've spoken up before their states passed laws forbidding abortion at any stage, and took away one exception after another, and closed one family planning clinic after another. It's all academic now. Incapacitated, imprisoned, intimidated, inebriated or in love, women are no longer to be a given any choice as to whether they give birth to a well-developed, underdeveloped, defective, addicted, malnourished, soon-to-be-neglected and potentially abused baby or not.

Did they not? Were they really that drowned out by the "ban all abortions/abortions anytime and any excuse" crowd?

[TheVat]

2 hours ago, StringJunky said:

What is the point of their existence otherwise?

To interpret the Constitution in a nonpartisan manner, unswayed by public opinion.  The Court was founded to be entirely independent of the legislative branch.  

The will of the people is supposed to manifest through the elected bodies, Congress and the Executive branch.  The Court was founded to be something set apart from all that, answerable only to the principles codified in the Constitution.   As you might imagine, this rather scary formula has moved many people to push the idea of the Living Document, and that interpretations by SCOTUS must follow changes in society and growth in human knowledge.  

What a shitshow Originalism (the rival to Living Document) has proved to be, especially on this day.

3 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Interpret law (to my understanding) and ensure it holds with the Constitution.

I'm pretty sure it's not to evaluate and affirm the will of the people. (though that could be the default in some cases? I'm not sure)

Wow, a Canadian did their homework!  

Now if we could  just get Congress to do ITS job and affirm the will of the people.  

[zapatos]

10 minutes ago, TheVat said:

To interpret the Constitution in a nonpartisan manner, unswayed by public opinion. 

It is my understanding that things are not nearly that simple.

Besides the various types of judicial interpretations you spoke of such as Originalism, or trying to understand the minds of the framers, SCOTUS often refuses to hear cases of relatively new types of legal issues (e.g. online bullying) for years, allowing the will of the people to be heard through local legislation. Only after the court sees which way the wind is blowing will they hear a case that allows them to put their stamp of approval via "interpretation" of the Constitution. 

In many ways it is not possible to simply interpret the Constitution wrt a particular law, as the Constitution could not foresee the types of issues that might come up.

SCOTUS does do the will of the people to some extent.

[TheVat]

27 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

 

 

Did they not? Were they really that drowned out by the "ban all abortions/abortions anytime and any excuse" crowd?

Yes.  Damn, you were doing so well with Constitutional Law 101, now this. JK.

Yes, a small incredibly vocal, sometimes violent, activist wing of the Republican Party is sufficient to push the whole party to take up the cause, and even get some thumbsucking Independents to come over by relentless pounding of the infanticide red herring (red herring because almost nowhere are abortions post-viability being performed in this country, and the vast majority are done before 15 weeks).  So we have a nation overwhelmingly pro-Choice being controlled by a minority that does indeed drown out a quieter majority.

 

 

 

4 minutes ago, zapatos said:

It is my understanding that things are not nearly that simple.

Besides the various types of judicial interpretations you spoke of such as Originalism, or trying to understand the minds of the framers, SCOTUS often refuses to hear cases of relatively new types of legal issues (e.g. online bullying) for years, allowing the will of the people to be heard through local legislation. Only after the court sees which way the wind is blowing will they hear a case that allows them to put their stamp of approval via "interpretation" of the Constitution. 

In many ways it is not possible to simply interpret the Constitution wrt a particular law, as the Constitution could not foresee the types of issues that might come up.

SCOTUS does do the will of the people to some extent.

This was sorta my point, referring to Living Document.  But you elucidated it neatly, which I did not.  Yes, many cases aren't heard precisely so that Congress may have reasonable time to act, and lower level courts can handle cases where the path is clearer and the heavyweight nine aren't needed.

[Peterkin]

44 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Did they not? Were they really that drowned out by the "ban all abortions/abortions anytime and any excuse" crowd?

Evidently. And they have lots of well-funded megaphones.

[StringJunky]

I don't really know what to say. The SC is not apolitical and the Constitution, modern though it was in it's day, is like the Ten Comandments of The Bible today: archaic. How can a court ban something that is acceptable to more than 50% of a population, or even a significant minority? Quite honestly, I'd just pack the SC.

[zapatos]

3 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

How can a court ban something that is acceptable to more than 50% of a population, or even a significant minority?

Does any legitimate court in the world make rulings based on public sentiment over the rule of law?

[Sensei]

7 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Serious question?

Right to live. Right to avoid a painful death.

What happened to your sperm today?

Did it end up in the toilet? Or on wall?

Did your girlfriend's tampon end up in the trash can?

A quick rinse in the shower?

 

Did you know that there are religious extremists who make "graves" out of tampons..

(these guys and girls are "level up", in their craziness..)

 

7 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

WTF. Do you consider a fetus to be less than alive? 

Do you consider a sperm or cell to be less than alive?

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

4 hours ago, Sensei said:

 

 

Do you consider a sperm or cell to be less than alive?

 

If it's alive. It's alive.

Peterkin seemed to suggest fetuses were not.

 

What makes a late term fetus less special than a premature child?

You don't need to believe "every sperm is sacred" to acknowledge that a fully developed fetus is every bit as human as a child just out of the womb.

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

if it's alive. It's alive.

Peterkin seemed to suggest fetuses were not.

I could have sworn I was clearer than that.

Every cell in your body is alive and no cell in your body is living a life, or has a right to life. You can kill any cell in your body without committing murder or removing a living entity from the world. You can kill all of them at once, thus removing a living entity from the world, and still not commit murder. Some governments and religious organizations outlaw suicide on the grounds that a person's body is God's property, not their own, while some permit another party to assist in suicide, because the person in the body is presumed to own and have all rights of decision over each body.

Slugs, ants, mice and pigs also are alive as well as living lives, while the cells in their bodies are alive but not living lives. You can remove any of these entities from the world, either cell by cell or as a whole, with impunity as regards human law in most countries, but some religions forbid the taking of lives lived by other entities, as they are not considered to belong to mankind but have a right to their own lives.

Aliveness is  not all equal under the law.  

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

You don't need to believe "every sperm is sacred" to acknowledge that a fully developed fetus is every bit as human as a child just out of the womb.

Here comes the full-term herring again. Just for dramatic effect, knowing  that this is not the situation with the vast majority of legal abortions. All the arguments have been made previously in multiple media on multiple platforms, in legal, moral and medical debates, as to what constitutes independent existence, at what stage a foetus is viable, has the ability to live its own life, and at what stage it has the potential ability with external help, to live its own life; at what point it can be declared no longer being the property of the the mother, but a ward of the state, and at what stage of development a child that has already been born and is therefore under the protection of the state can be considered to have a life of its own with autonomous decision-making rights, and during that minority, how much control is exercised by parents and guardians and how much by the state. And even, in the more advanced countries, what obligations the state owes to mothers, children, infants and foetuses.

The minute before/minute after argument is the weakest argument of all.   

Edited June 25, 2022 by Peterkin

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

If it's alive. It's alive.

Peterkin seemed to suggest fetuses were not.

 

What makes a late term fetus less special than a premature child?

You don't need to believe "every sperm is sacred" to acknowledge that a fully developed fetus is every bit as human as a child just out of the womb.

The general standard is when a fetus becomes viable to birth and have a reasonable chance of survival... about 24 weeks. The reason for pro-choice is so that each individual pregnant woman can decide where that line is for themselves... they have to live with the consequences of their decision, not us.

[MigL]

7 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Quite honestly, I'd just pack the SC.

Isn't that how this whole mess got started ?
Previous administrations  ( Republican ) packed the Supreme Court with politically influenced judges, who interpret ( or find ways to interpret ) laws according to political ideology, and not just the Constitution

What happened here is that the SCJustices found a way to reverse the Roe vs Wade decision by claiming the Supreme Court did not have authority, and have left it up to individual states to decide.
those idiots in Congress and the Senate need to pass viable laws, which stand up to Constitutional scrutiny, and are harder to overturn than simply withdrawing a previous decision by partisan SCJustices.

[geordief]

Do all administations not try to pack the Court with their own picks.

 

Any chance the Repubs will reap the whirlwind from this most transparent and seemingly unpopular episode?

 

Will they be vulnerable in Red states now?

[J.C.MacSwell]

23 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

 

Here comes the full-term herring again. Why?

Because you seem to believe terminating a full term fetus isn't killing a viable human.

Please correct me if that's not correct.

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

Edited June 25, 2022 by J.C.MacSwell

[swansont]

2 minutes ago, geordief said:

Do all administations not try to pack the Court with their own picks.

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

 

 

[Peterkin]

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.