US-Roe vs Wade overturned

[StringJunky]

5 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Both mothers and medical personnel need restrictions on their choices. Without it infanticide would be legal.

However you want to call it, the best judges are in the labour room, not a politician who takes their life lessons from a book of unknown or vague origins.

[J.C.MacSwell]

48 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

However you want to call it, the best judges are in the labour room, not a politician who takes their life lessons from a book of unknown or vague origins.

What happens in the labour room, stays in the labour room?

No restrictions?

[MigL]

Some people ( Peterkin ) don't seem to realize that 99 % of laws are morality based and implemented by lawmakers/politicians.
( although the better laws are implemented with input from 'experts' )

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

That's exactly as clear as wanting individual voters to correct flaws in an electoral process that has already been damaged beyond repair. 

Well, thats that, then.
Might as well declare the US a failed state.
( at least in Peterkin's opinion )
 

[TheVat]

 

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

 

Both mothers and medical personnel need restrictions on their choices. Without it infanticide would be legal.

...and that has been done, illegally, in our country.

 I love the smell of red herring in the morning.  Smells like breakfast in Trondheim.

The concept of pluralistic secular society isn't that esoteric: when moral positions vary between different sects and faiths, the secular society tries to stay neutral and let each sect make choices, with a few guardrails in place so we don't have human sacrifice or infanticide or institutionalized pedophilia.  If your sect doesn't believe in abortions, you are free to not have one.  The point of secularism is that the sects that oppose abortion, or gay marriage, or cross-dressing your dog or whatever, are not allowed to force their beliefs on others even if they comprise a majority.  Alexis de Tocqueville in his influential writings on America noted that the tyranny of a majority, if directed at an unpopular minority, could be very dangerous to freedom and a secular society.  Our founders were very aware of this danger, especially in regards to the potential to return to a theocracy, and wrote a Constitution to discourage such a regression.  

 

Edited July 20, 2022 by TheVat
Typo

[MigL]

9 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Our founders were very aware of this danger, especially in regards to the potential to return to a theocracy, and wrote a Constitution to discourage sich a regression.  

Stop hiding behind your Constitution to perpetuate all sorts of anti-social behaviour.
It is your Constitution that is protecting the rights of demented people to go into schools and shoot up kids.
It is a literal and original interpretation of the Constitution that has lead to the overturning of Roe vs Wade.

What passed for 'morality' a couple of hundred years ago, such as owning slaves, is no longer valid.
Maybe it is time for some changes ...

Edited July 20, 2022 by MigL

[Peterkin]

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

That of their constituents...

The moral position of their constituents was the prevailing status quo prior to the co-opting of governments and courts by a right-wing minority. That is what has just been overturned.

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

..but you are slowly getting there

I was 'there', had a small part in getting the rest of my country 'there' and to a large extent am still 'there', even though our health-care system is collapsing. 

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

despite your extreme polarizing mindset.

As illustrated by which of my statements? And not evident in which of the US Supreme Court's and US state legislatures' decisions?

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Both mothers and medical personnel need restrictions on their choices.

And why need these restrictions be imposed by ignorant outsiders with no stake in the outcome? Why cannot an informed, impartial medical ethics board set the terms and conditions of doctors' authority? Why cannot a woman be guided by her own moral code, rather than Abraham's? (He wasn't all that nice to his own bastard or its mother... having piously made sure it was borne to term. And the "moral" US legislatures are meting out similar treatment to their servant-class women.)

 

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Without it infanticide would be legal.

How does this follow?

 

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

and that has been done, illegally, in our country.

All kinds of killing of humans by humans is done all the time, in every country - some countries more than others, some countries, a lot more. It's done for a great variety of reasons. Infanticide is typically done for one of two reasons: pity for a suffering baby, or despair in a girl who  was denied protection or help by her community. Less commonly, an extreme emotional state brought on by sleep-deprivation, frustration and anxiety, which culminates in a single drastic act of blind rage.

Sometimes jealousy, revenge or anger against one adult by another, with the baby as mere instrument. Sometimes greed, sometimes convenience, sometimes pathology.

The only way in which abortion laws affect infanticide is that outlawing abortion invariably raises the incidence of the first three reasons for infanticide - mercy, despair and loss of control - as well as perinatal mortality rates. Infanticide will definitely rise as a result of these recent legislations, as will suicide and domestic violence, including child battery.

The way that legislators could reduce perinatal mortality and morbidity, as well as infanticide, child neglect and abuse, would be to allocate resources to pregnancy prevention, prenatal health care - including an informed choice* of termination - post-partum support and child wellness programs.  

(They know this, but don't care.)

*Choice - and this is the most willfully overlooked aspect of the issue - implies other options. Rather than the simple extremes of abort whatever quality of foetus or carry it to term, choice would also include to abort a defective foetus, but carry a healthy one to term with the expectation that its needs will be met, and that the mother's needs will be met, whether she keeps the baby or not. Where the choice is between abortion, with at least a chance at autonomy, or motherhood as a miserable outcast, infanticide begins to look like a reasonable option.  

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Might as well declare the US a failed state.
( at least in Peterkin's opinion )

It's damn close to that tipping-point, yes.

Edited July 20, 2022 by Peterkin
poor proofreading

[TheVat]

6 minutes ago, MigL said:

Stop hiding behind your Constitution to perpetuate all sorts of anti-social behaviour.
It is your Constitution that is protecting the rights of demented people to go into schools and shoot up kids.
It is a literal and original interpretation of the Constitution that has lead to the overturning of Roe vs Wade.

What passed for 'morality' a couple of hundred years ago, such as owning slaves, is no longer valid.
 

    The interpretations that allow owning military assault weapons are hardly "literal" or based on the original purpose of allowing state militias.  Your last sentence is obvious, and many here have pointed out how slavery led to later Constitutional reform.  FWiW, many founders did not see slavery as moral, but lacked the political clout to expressly forbid it to Southern colonies who would have refused to come into the uneasy Union.  Hindsight is 20/20.

Nor is Dodd v Jackson's ignoring two cornerstones of unenumerated rights and equal protection in any sense an "original" interpretation where Roe is concerned.  Roe was settled law for fifty years because of its strong Constitutional grounding in century old amendments.  I think you have missed several posts here that clarified the situation with a newly radical RW and conservative Catholic SCOTUS.  I feel like this discussion was already done in previous pages, so won't revisit.

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Might as well declare the US a failed state.
( at least in Peterkin's opinion )

I am not alone in this opinion.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/nov/01/us-politics-state-government-democrats-left

...which is touching in its irony, given that

Quote

The failed state was invented in late 1992 by Gerald Helman and Steven Ratner, two US state department employees, in an article in – you guessed it – Foreign Policy, suggestively entitled Saving failed states.

and tossed at various other countries, including their own puppet governments, with gay abandon by American politicians ever since.

[MigL]

11 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

I am not alone in this opinion.

Yes you are.
Your link says 'failing state'.
You say already 'failed'.

33 minutes ago, TheVat said:

  The interpretations that allow owning military assault weapons are hardly "literal" or based on the original purpose of allowing state militias. 

And I said 'literal' and 'original' in reference to overturning Roe vs Wade.
Not the enshrining of the right to bear arms in the Constitution.

Seems all Americans pick and choose what parts of the Constitution they deem important.
Even "We, the people ..." fails when some are not classified as 'people'.

[Peterkin]

3 minutes ago, MigL said:

Your link says 'failing state'.

and my opinion was

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

It's damn close to that tipping-point, yes.

not

 

4 minutes ago, MigL said:

already 'failed'.

FTR

[MigL]

 

My apologies; guess I misinterpreted this 

4 hours ago, Peterkin said:

That's exactly as clear as wanting individual voters to correct flaws in an electoral process that has already been damaged beyond repair. 

 

[Peterkin]

13 minutes ago, MigL said:

 

My apologies; guess I misinterpreted this 

 

That's understandable. It made more sense in the context of a reply to someone [J.C.MacSwell] urging citizens to accomplish two opposites over neither of which they have control.

The only thing that could save the US from sliding over into failed status is a progressive Democratic majority with the popular mandate and the courage to enact massive electoral reform, tax reform, judicial reform and administrative restructuring.  I see no clear path from here to there.

[J.C.MacSwell]

6 hours ago, TheVat said:

 

 I love the smell of red herring in the morning.  Smells like breakfast in Trondheim.

The concept of pluralistic secular society isn't that esoteric: when moral positions vary between different sects and faiths, the secular society tries to stay neutral and let each sect make choices, with a few guardrails in place so we don't have human sacrifice or infanticide or institutionalized pedophilia.  If your sect doesn't believe in abortions, you are free to not have one.  The point of secularism is that the sects that oppose abortion, or gay marriage, or cross-dressing your dog or whatever, are not allowed to force their beliefs on others even if they comprise a majority.  Alexis de Tocqueville in his influential writings on America noted that the tyranny of a majority, if directed at an unpopular minority, could be very dangerous to freedom and a secular society.  Our founders were very aware of this danger, especially in regards to the potential to return to a theocracy, and wrote a Constitution to discourage such a regression.  

 

Is "whatever" infanticide? Gun control? Just wondering what point you think it's fair to start forcing your beliefs on others.

What makes it morally okay to support aborting a fetus while protecting her twin brother born 5 minutes earlier?

Why can't your guardrail include her?

[StringJunky]

26 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Is "whatever" infanticide? Gun control? Just wondering what point you think it's fair to start forcing your beliefs on others.

What makes it morally okay to support aborting a fetus while protecting her twin brother born 5 minutes earlier?

Why can't your guardrail include her?

'Kinell. Not going to happen.

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

19 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

'Kinell. Not going to happen.

 

Just comes down to Peterkin Economics of Abortions 101.

2 kids cost more to bring up than 1.

6 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Where the choice is between abortion, with at least a chance at autonomy, or motherhood as a miserable outcast, infanticide begins to look like a reasonable option.  

 

[Peterkin]

24 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

2 kids cost more to bring up than 1.

Just comes down to Peterkin Economics of Abortions 101.

And 7 or 8, given male rights and female subservience as legislated in the Medieval South, cost even more. 

You really have no data-base for this subject, have you? Economics - not mine; capitalist society's - does play a part, pushing poor women with unwanted children deeper into poverty https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/11/06/united-states-poverty-rate-for-every-group/40546247/

Social dynamics do, as well. The mother - never mind whether she got pregnant by rape and was given no options -  has a baby, or more than one, no available childcare, maybe a husband with substance problems who beats her and the kids and can't hold down a job - has to try to juggle one or more part-time jobs with looking after the kid she can't afford to feed or house properly, so it's sick half the time, and no way in hell can she afford medical insurance, so she has to keep lugging it to the free clinic, however far away that is, since the holy moral government closed most of them down for giving birth control advice to people like her, and sit for hours in the waiting room - if there are chairs to go around - so of course she misses a shift and gets fired. Now she and the child or children are living in the street. 

Not the first time a society has treated its lower classes this way. We had hoped it wouldn't come around again.

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Just wondering what point you think it's fair to start forcing your beliefs on others.

Oddly enough, that's what I've been wondering about your support for the control of medical treatment by "moral lawmakers" .

[J.C.MacSwell]

3 hours ago, Peterkin said:

 

Oddly enough, that's what I've been wondering about your support for the control of medical treatment by "moral lawmakers" .

There are medical personnel on this planet that would be more than happy to harvest your organs against your will to "donate" to someone they feel is more in need, more deserving, or simply willing to pay enough for the service.

Fortunately there are "moral lawmakers" that won't allow it.

[StringJunky]

20 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

There are medical personnel on this planet that would be more than happy to harvest your organs against your will to "donate" to someone they feel is more in need, more deserving, or simply willing to pay enough for the service.

Fortunately there are "moral lawmakers" that won't allow it.

I think you'll find that will come under control of the medical fraternity's ethics committees. I would rather be subject to the moral jurisprudence regarding matters of life and death in the hands of medical professionals, who follow time-worn, tested principles, than the spontaneous 'professional' viewpoinjt of a politician, who is most likely riddled with all the logical fallacies under the sun ruling his head.

Edited July 21, 2022 by StringJunky

[J.C.MacSwell]

3 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I think you'll find that will come under control of the medical fraternity's ethics committees. I would rather be subject to the moral jurisprudence regarding matters of life and death in the hands of medical professionals, who follow time-worn, tested principles, than the spontaneous 'professional' viewpoinjt of a politician, who is most likely riddled with all the logical fallacies under the sun ruling his head.

We essentially have that with control and guidance, due to lawmakers, and avoid spontaneous viewpoints of politicians, due to lawmakers (and our constitutions and our courts...also due to lawmakers)

Of course...when I say we have that...we can debate whether that includes Americans...

The medical fraternity didn't simply plant a flag and gain that right and responsibility.

[Peterkin]

20 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

We essentially have that with control and guidance, due to lawmakers, and avoid spontaneous viewpoints of politicians, due to lawmakers (and our constitutions and our courts...also due to lawmakers)

Of course...when I say we have that...we can debate whether that includes Americans...

We could debate whether that includes any nation. And there certainly are wrongdoers in every walk of life.

As a category, politicians may not be spontaneous, but I believe their general willingness too compromise principle in favour of popularity, as well as their record of corruption and breach of trust is rather higher than that of medical personnel.

If you were to attend the weekly morbidity conference at any general hospital and compared it to a senate committee hearing, you might learn the difference between the standards to which doctors and lawmakers hold their own profession. 

 

20 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

The medical fraternity didn't simply plant a flag and gain that right and responsibility.

No, they didn't simply plant a flag. Statesmen and generals do that. Medical practitioners earn trust through achieving desired results - like helping people live longer with less pain.

Edited July 21, 2022 by Peterkin

[J.C.MacSwell]

12 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

We could debate whether that includes any nation. And there certainly are wrongdoers in every walk of life.

 

Right. That's why we need laws that we can accept. We certainly need inputs from professionals in their areas of expertise but they can't pass them.

 

(unless of course, we elect them)

On topic, this current dilemma is lawmaker fail, not SCOTUS fail.

[iNow]

10 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

On topic, this current dilemma is lawmaker fail, not SCOTUS fail.

Not mutually exclusive. In reality, it’s both. 

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

On topic, this current dilemma is lawmaker fail, not SCOTUS fail.

Neither. They both succeeded brilliantly in what they intended to do.

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

That's why we need laws that we can accept.

That's the most profound comment you have contributed to this whole thread.

[TheVat]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/10/26/dr-oz-debate-abortion-local-political-leaders-satire/

Greg, the local political leader, makes a decision on abortion...

(Screenshot for nonsubscribers:

https://archive.ph/KymKl

 

 

Edited October 27, 2022 by TheVat
Um

[CharonY]

How about we get those political leaders nice uniforms and, give them a fancy title like, I dunno, commissar, perhaps? I am sure compliance issues will be way down to approved levels.