US-Roe vs Wade overturned

[mistermack]

3 hours ago, TheVat said:

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 

I've often thought that they should pass a law that the right to bear arms should refer to muzzle loading old flintlocks, or whatever they were shooting when they wrote the constitution. 

Keeping it real !!

[geordief]

24 minutes ago, mistermack said:

I've often thought that they should pass a law that the right to bear arms should refer to muzzle loading old flintlocks, or whatever they were shooting when they wrote the constitution. 

Keeping it real !!

That would be originalist.

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

I've often thought that they should pass a law that the right to bear arms should refer to muzzle loading old flintlocks, or whatever they were shooting when they wrote the constitution. 

It just says "Arms" - easily interpreted as everything from spears to nuclear missiles.

[mistermack]

49 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

It just says "Arms" - easily interpreted as everything from spears to nuclear missiles.

Yes, but, when they wrote it, they meant stuff like this : 

 

[Peterkin]

20 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Yes, but, when they wrote it, they meant stuff like this : 

 

No, they meant arms in general. They knew stuff like that had replaced earlier stuff and later stuff would replace that stuff and the militia would always use the latest stuff. Give them some credit!

[mistermack]

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

the militia would always use the latest stuff. Give them some credit!

So what kind of weapons do you think will be available in 220 years time?

[Peterkin]

3 minutes ago, mistermack said:

So what kind of weapons do you think will be available in 220 years time?

Rocks.

[Sensei]

20 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

If it's alive. It's alive.

Peterkin seemed to suggest fetuses were not.

What does it mean to be alive?

Are viruses alive?

They are organic matter, but some argue that they are not alive because they cannot reproduce without a host.

Is this not the case?

Can sperm or a woman's egg cell divide and spread on its own?

 

Perhaps we/you should start with a definition of what is alive?
 

5 hours ago, mistermack said:

So what kind of weapons do you think will be available in 220 years time?

..do you want to be resurrected to check it out.. ?

 

 

[mistermack]

3 hours ago, Sensei said:

some argue that they are not alive because they cannot reproduce without a host.

Neither can I. That's me dead then. Unless they clone me. 

 

3 hours ago, Sensei said:

..do you want to be resurrected to check it out.. ?

Not really. The music's bad enough now. I can't imagine what shite they will be playing in 2242. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

4 hours ago, Sensei said:

What does it mean to be alive?

Are viruses alive?

They are organic matter, but some argue that they are not alive because they cannot reproduce without a host.

Is this not the case?

Can sperm or a woman's egg cell divide and spread on its own?

 

Perhaps we/you should start with a definition of what is alive?
 

 

 

 Why? Will it help us determine if a premature baby is more or less alive than a full term fetus? More or less human?

Do you have something in mind that would be helpful for the discussion?

 

18 hours ago, TheVat said:

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.  

 

Certainly. Pro choice advocates can simply stop advocating for choice right up to birth for viable fetuses. Might take the wind out of the sails of those that feel compelled to protect them, and allow the focus to be on a women's choice where she is overwhelmingly the biggest shareholder in the pregnancy, before that shifts toward a viable fetus.

[Peterkin]

17 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Will it help us determine if a premature baby is more or less alive than a full term fetus? More or less human?

Degree of aliveness is not the issue; it is not a legal question. Degree of humanness has never been anyone's issue but yours. The medical position is to decide at what stage of development a foetus is viable - 22+ weeks of gestation. This is a contentious line, since the infant in question is so premature as to need the most advanced technological intervention to survive. Which opens the further question as to the stage of viability in different conditions,  locations and circumstances. There is a further medical complication in that a viable unwanted foetus is still unwelcome in the womb it's inhabiting: those who want to 'save' it also want to leave it in situ; she who wants to be rid of it considers it a parasite there. (Yes, parasites are alive and many of them are human.) A further social complication is that nobody else wants the  premature babies, either - least of all the medical community, who have enough problems just now. Hardly anybody wants the full-term ones, or has shown any indication of making provision for them, and the decisions about their long-term future do not seem to be a concern for the pro-lifers so het on saving them from 'a painful death' they don't even know about, for a painful life they - not the pro-lifers - will have to suffer through. 

The legal position is much simpler. What is a citizen? At what point in its development does a human qualify for citizenship in its own person? At what stage of life and what circumstances does a citizen lose power of attorney over their own life and become a ward or the state?

37 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Pro choice advocates can simply stop advocating for choice right up to birth for viable fetuses. Might take the wind out of the sails of those that feel compelled to protect them, and allow the focus to be on a women's choice where she is overwhelmingly the biggest shareholder in the pregnancy, before that shifts toward a viable fetus.

What pro-choice advocates say or don't say has no influence on what the the so-called pro-life advocates want. That political banner was unfurled, ready for war, in the 1970's, and they've been yelling slogans and breaking windows too loudly to hear anyone's argument, ever since.

[J.C.MacSwell]

30 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

 Degree of humanness has never been anyone's issue but yours.

 

Hadn't realized I was so unique in considering such an obvious question.

33 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

 

What pro-choice advocates say or don't say has no influence on what the the so-called pro-life advocates want. That political banner was unfurled, ready for war, in the 1970's, and they've been yelling slogans and breaking windows too loudly to hear anyone's argument, ever since.

Who's yelling slogans and breaking windows now?

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/violence-extremists-occur-weeks-wake-supreme-court-decision/story?id=85664462

[iNow]

15 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Who's yelling slogans and breaking windows now?

I’m reminded of the BLM protests. One group asks for agents of the state to stop murdering black people so often. The other group ignores that issue entirely trying to get us to focus instead on the one guy in Portland who broke a window while out among the other tens of thousands of peaceful protestors. Good times. 

[Peterkin]

22 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Hadn't realized I was so unique in considering such an obvious question.

I think most of us have been aware that the egg fertilized by a human male in a human female has a 99.99% probability of being human.

 

24 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Who's yelling slogans and breaking windows now?

Now, it's the people with sufficient cause to be outraged. Makes a change.

[J.C.MacSwell]

57 minutes ago, iNow said:

I’m reminded of the BLM protests. One group asks for agents of the state to stop murdering black people so often. The other group ignores that issue entirely trying to get us to focus instead on the one guy in Portland who broke a window while out among the other tens of thousands of peaceful protestors. Good times. 

Yeah. I hate it when they do that. They make it seem like it wasn't an isolated incident.

55 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Now, it's the people with sufficient cause to be outraged. Makes a change.

How's that working out?

[Peterkin]

23 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

How's that working out?

How'm I supposed to know?

[J.C.MacSwell]

"Sufficient cause to be outraged" seems to be in the eye of the beholder...with condoned violence not looking good for either side.

[mistermack]

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

a viable unwanted foetus is still unwelcome in the womb it's inhabiting:

You seem to be arguing for unrestricted abortions right up to AND INCLUDING forty week healthy pregancies that can be born bonnie and bouncing babies. All the mother needs to do is declare it unwelcome, to have the right to have it killed and removed. 

It's not a great look. Really no difference at all to just killing the baby on delivering it. Probably the safest procedure for the mother at that stage. 

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

6 minutes ago, mistermack said:

You seem to be arguing for unrestricted abortions right up to AND INCLUDING forty week healthy pregancies that can be born bonnie and bouncing babies. All the mother needs to do is declare it unwelcome, to have the right to have it killed and removed. 

It's not a great look. Really no difference at all to just killing the baby on delivering it. Probably the safest procedure for the mother at that stage. 

 

More possibilities for the most humane way to execute the infanticide as well.

[Peterkin]

17 minutes ago, mistermack said:

You seem to be arguing for unrestricted abortions

I'm not arguing at all. I'm delineating the legal, medical and social issues involved in decisions that are - instead - made on political and 'moral'* grounds. 

Quote

right up to AND INCLUDING forty week healthy pregancies that can be born bonnie and bouncing babies.

Healthy, bonnie babies may be included among the unwanted and unwelcome, and afaics, no provision is being made for them, which will have long-term social consequences as well as personal. Should the society that insists of bringing them to term make provision for such healthy babies, I do believe we could safely let the mother decide whether to give birth. It is, however, far more likely that late-term abortions will be of unhealthy, unsightly, unviable infants whose brief post-partum would be a misery in any case. (As the Vat has point out on several occasions) BTW - none of them bounce.  

 

17 minutes ago, mistermack said:

It's not a great look.

You're the one painting the picture.

17 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Really no difference at all to just killing the baby on delivering it

Obviously. Has anyone said otherwise? But infanticide - whether it's euthanasia or murder - was not in this discussion....

Quote

More possibilities for the most humane way to execute the infanticide as well.

...up to now...

Yet another dark realm opens, and none of us with a flashlight.

 

* Morals are amorphous, subjective, partisan, ill-defined and difficult to discuss - which is why I haven't.

Edited June 26, 2022 by Peterkin

[mistermack]

2 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

I do believe we could safely let the mother decide whether to give birth.

Even though you dodged the question of aborting 40 week healthy pregnancies, you seem to be advocating it again, if the mother wants it. 

Any chance of a non-dodge response? 

[J.C.MacSwell]

5 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

I'm not arguing at all. I'm delineating the legal, medical and social issues involved in decisions that are - instead - made on political and 'moral'* grounds. 

Healthy, bonnie babies may be included among the unwanted and unwelcome, and afaics, no provision is being made for them, which will have long-term social consequences as well as personal. Should the society that insists of bringing them to term make provision for such healthy babies, I do believe we could safely let the mother decide whether to give birth. It is, however, far more likely that late-term abortions will be of unhealthy, unsightly, unviable infants whose brief post-partum would be a misery in any case. (As the Vat has point out on several occasions) BTW - none of them bounce.  

 

You're the one painting the picture.

Obviously. Has anyone said otherwise? But infanticide - whether it's euthanasia or murder - was not in this discussion.

* Morals are amorphous, subjective, partisan, ill-defined and difficult to discuss - which is why I haven't.

Without considering them, how are you able to favour one side over the other?

[CharonY]

36 minutes ago, mistermack said:

You seem to be arguing for unrestricted abortions right up to AND INCLUDING forty week healthy pregancies that can be born bonnie and bouncing babies. All the mother needs to do is declare it unwelcome, to have the right to have it killed and removed. 

It's not a great look. Really no difference at all to just killing the baby on delivering it. Probably the safest procedure for the mother at that stage. 

 

Even without laws preventing it, which healthcare provider would actually do that? At that stage going through with birth or c-section would be safer, as you mentioned. After all, it is still a medical procedure and is subject to medical guidelines.

In that regard I think the right (i.e. not able to be criminalized for an action) and medical necessity, reality and regulations are not the same thing. I.e. you can have the right over your body and but you are not entitled to every medical procedure you want. In Canada, for example, there are no criminal restrictions for abortion. But no abortions are provided beyond ~23 weeks.

This is an important distinction with severe legal consequences. For example, miscarriages especially late in term could and in fact already are, being investigated as manslaughter.

In the US women are failed for manslaughter and even murder for taking drugs while pregnant. In one (now overturned case) a woman was sentenced to 11 years, for example. I.e. it means that during pregnancy, women could and are criminalized for actions, if they could affect the development of the fetus. The most common situation for conviction right now are use of illicit drugs. But realistically that could easily include other potential harmful actions. And considering the biological variability of child development, evidence can be very flimsy. And that is with Roe vs Wade in place. 

 

[Peterkin]

57 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Without considering them, how are you able to favour one side over the other?

I'm considering "them" - by which I suppose you mean the various moral positions. I'm just not discussing them in this venue, since it's meant to be about the legal decision, and my tolerance for thread deraliment doesn't stretch that far.  . And by what authority am I required to favour a side? 

 

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

Even though you dodged the question of aborting 40 week healthy pregnancies, you seem to be advocating it again, if the mother wants it. 

I dodged the same herring I've been batting away for pages now. And I'm still not 'advocating'. I offered the supposition that most women who had already brought a baby to term would not choose to kill it, unless they believed that every other option available to them was worse. 

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

"Sufficient cause to be outraged" seems to be in the eye of the beholder...with condoned violence not looking good for either side.

If you believe those "sides" to be equivalent, you are woefully underinformed.

[TheVat]

One reason infanticide sidebars are a red herring here is that they are substantially a different topic in bioethics: euthanasia.  Specifically, for severe birth defects.  Mothers who have carried for 24+ weeks aren't saying, "wow, this is boring and I'm tired of lower backaches and pissing every thirty minutes - let's yank that sucker outta there!".  Only in lurid RW scare stories is that happening.  In reality, that behavior is indicative of mental health issues and patients are referred for psychiatric help.  Usually for depression. And/or substance abuse.  

The issue of this thread is if the right to abortion is an unenumerated right given Constitutional recognition by a 1972 SCOTUS landmark decision, then clarified on the matter of a viability criterion by a 1992 decision, thus establishing stare decisis, i.e. law settled by precedent.  And, if so, on what Constitutional grounds could it be  reversed?

I strongly recommend this as a good read, laying out all the faulty arguments...

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/06/roe-overturned-supreme-court-samuel-alito-opinion/661386/