Overturning Roe V Wade

[pearl]

Moreover, the woman should have thought of the possibility or pregnancy before she hopped in bed.

Sure, blame the woman. She did not impregnate herself! We need a law that goes after the father to live up to his responsibility through mandatory child support until the age of 18.

George Carlin sums up the anti-abortion, now it seems a reality, pretty accurate.
George Carlin's Infamous Rant About Abortion And 'Pro-Life' Conservatives Resurfaces Amid Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade Leak - Digg
I am pro-life in the full meaning of the term. But to those who advocate against abortion are they willing to seriously consider the help necessary to support a woman's needs for raising a child? Are we willing to invest in the future of the child 'saved', I have my doubts.
The Top 12 Solutions To Cut Poverty in the United States - Center for American Progress

 

[Audie]

In response to your "binding contract" idea:

I think there is some unavoidable truth to the philosophy that we are "human animals". It's certainly the case that our conscious, logical, linguistic "minds" are not at all in control of our "subconscious" brains. We don't yet know much about our subconscious brains (or just "brains" for now), but we do know that they are in control of a lot of our behaviors that are above the security level of our minds.

As "human animals" I think we need to accept that our minds simply cannot control our brains completely. This is not to say we should accept mayhem, but we will fail if our systems require perfect perfect behavior.

I think we have to acknowledge the limitations of our biologies and plan accordingly, and attempting to limit sexual activity using logic is almost certainly untenable.

Of course. I am talking ideals.

Ideally, byw, one wont sign amy contract they are not willing to honour, but it happens all the time.
Usually there is no easy out.
Killing someone in order to get out of it
is really bad.
Pretending its not a terrible thung is -

Of course, modern society is full of very
messed up things.

 

[Audie]

What bodily autonomy do you think I need to give up in order to be a part of society? Just abortion\medical rights, or something else?



I understand. I too have had someone forcibly take possession of my body without my consent. That person committed a crime against me.


What do you mean by that? Paying taxes isn't the same thing as surrendering my bodily autonomy, imo.



I claim that every person has the right to bodily autonomy.


Are you talking about abortion here? If a person doesn't want something in their body, they will find a way to remove it themselves, by whatever means possible. We know this from human history.

If we're talking about a fully grown, fully conscious human being with social ties and connections, versus a fetus which has none of those things, I'm going to have to go with the former.

[/QUOTE]

If its only having to wriggle your fingers
to sign a tax form, its a loss of pure total
bodily autonomy, is it not?
Most people are " wage slaves" dragging their
unwilling selves to work for mknths of the year,
just to pay taxes.
Others are conscrpted to armed forces.
Claiming they got no rights to your body
wont help.
Examples are endless and obvious.

As for the value of any human being,
I will go with the thing attributed to Jesus-

Whatsoever you do unto thevleast among yoi,
you do also unto me.

Not that I am religious.

But killing a helpless person for being a temporary inconvenience, if thats not inherently
wrong, nothing is.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The difference is that natural abortions happen due to biology not by an unethical choice by humans. Do you agree that a zygote has a chance to become a person if left alone?

The chances are stacked against it.
And abortion is unethical? If that's the case I'll gladly and proudly be unethical until the end of time because having an abortion saved my best friend's life, which also saved the life a sister, daughter, and mother.

 

[Trailblazer]

I don’t think “they” have enough understanding to make such a decision which is why I think it must be up to the mother.

Of course they don't, but Imo the mother should think of more than just herself.

I wouldn’t be upset if I wasn’t.

Of course you wouldn't be because you would not exist (at least not in this world) but you don't know how you would have felt if you were born into this world.

Define “we all”. In this situation I think you will find it strangely hard to define.

I believe the soul comes into being at the time of conception so that is what I mean by "we all."

 

[Trailblazer]

What lack of services? Are you saying that if your sister had a baby, you wouldn't help? Or if your sister was hungry you wouldn't feed her?

That made me think of what Jesus said: Matthew 25:35-45

 

[Trailblazer]

Do you really think getting an abortion is "as easy to get as going to the corner store for a soda?" And do you really think that's how people view abortions and make decisions about them?
Come on.

Getting an abortion is sure a lot easier than carrying a child for nine months, delivering and raising a child.
I really do not know how women view abortions and make decisions about them, but I imagine it is very individualized.

 

[Trailblazer]

You just don't agree that having an abortion amounts to a person taking responsibility for their actions?

I don't agree that having an abortion amounts to a person taking responsibility for the consequences of their actions.

 

[Trailblazer]

Spontaneous abortions are fairly common, so if there is a God, this God apparently isn't bothered all that much by aborting babies.

God is not aborting babies because God is not controlling what happens in the natural world.

According to my beliefs, souls who are aborted spontaneously will go to the next world and will be under the care and protection of God. That also applies to souls who were aborted by the mother, but the point is that the child did not have a chance at life in this world if the mother aborted it.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Ultimately, unless it is a rape, the woman is responsible for consenting to sex so Imo she is responsible for any unwanted pregnancies. It takes two to tango but there can be no tango without two.

Consent to sex is not consent to childbirth. Any more than consenting to drive a car is consent to having to donate blood and organs to someone you may hit as a natural consequence of driving a car.

Also, medical consent (and this is for @Audie too) does not work like a labor contract. You can't sign anything and it's forever taken away, it's actually illegal to attempt to do so (just like signing yourself into slavery is both illegal and unenforcable.) Consent can be revoked at any time. Even if doing so might kill someone. Nobody is entitled to your body no matter what you previously agreed to. No matter how responsible you are for someone needing your body.

 

[Trailblazer]

You would need to prove that there is some magical quality imbued on to the zygote at conception.

Magical quality or not, it is a scientific fact that a zygote becomes a person if allowed to develop.

 

[Trailblazer]

Honestly, I'm so tired of this "abstinence" type of argument which is completely unrealistic for grown adults, especially married ones.
It's unrealistic and completely ignores the realities of life.

I am not suggesting abstinence....
Ever heard of birth control? I have been married for 37 years and had plenty of sex, but I never got pregnant, and I did not even use the most effective method of birth control.

I wonder how many abortions are the result of a woman who was conscientious about birth control.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Roe v. Wade is about the right to privacy.

The basis for the decision was privacy. They made it up from the 14th amendment which was about ensuring minority people especially black people have the same rights as everyone else following the civil war. It has nothing to do with abortion. In that decision they claimed the unborn was not a person according to the constitution since any reference to a person in the constitution has no application to the unborn. The problem with this is that the constitution doe snot reference children as well and they are considered persons. The decision was arbitrary. Most states at the time actually had laws saying the unborn were persons and abortion was a crime on that person. So why would they codify abortion in this amendment?

Then they claimed that the 14th amendment had a right to privacy for women on the abortion issue saying that it could be a detriment to women. The problem with this is there are countless things that can be detrimental to a woman that is not protected. This is just special case made up by the court. What they did was use strict constructionist interpretation to define what a person is under the constitution and the most liberal broad interpretation to find the right to an abortion.

In the end if this is the majority position I guarantee a woman can still get an abortion in California, New York, Chicago, Minneapolis etc. It would not outlaw abortion in the US.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Really? You can't be reasonable? That is not rational. You would need to prove that there is some magical quality imbued on to the zygote at conception. Good luck with that.

Why? Do you not agree that a zygote has a chance to become a person? Because zygotes do become people.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yikes! This seems flawed on many levels:

- It takes two to tango - so should the man be forced by law to be an active parent for the next 18 years?

Ever heard of child support? Other than that he does not have to be active if he doesn't want to be.

- Do we really want a society filled with families that don't want to be families? Are we willing to support the kids who would clearly be scarred growing up in such an environment?

Ever heard of adoption? There are many women desperate to have a child who cannot have a child so any baby that is born would be wanted by many women.

- Teenagers' brains are not fully developed, and their hormones are raging, it seems like expecting them to logically take the long view and constantly fight their hormones is a losing proposition.

Too bad about the raging hormones. If children were brought up right they would not be having sex as teenagers or before marriage. If course that is just according to my beliefs which are not the norm in this society which lacks any sense of morality.

 

[Wandering Monk]

The basis for the decision was privacy. They made it up from the 14th amendment which was about ensuring minority people especially black people have the same rights as everyone else following the civil war. It has nothing to do with abortion. In that decision they claimed the unborn was not a person according to the constitution since any reference to a person in the constitution has no application to the unborn. The problem with this is that the constitution doe snot reference children as well and they are considered persons. The decision was arbitrary. Most states at the time actually had laws saying the unborn were persons and abortion was a crime on that person. So why would they codify abortion in this amendment?

Then they claimed that the 14th amendment had a right to privacy for women on the abortion issue saying that it could be a detriment to women. The problem with this is there are countless things that can be detrimental to a woman that is not protected. This is just special case made up by the court. What they did was use strict constructionist interpretation to define what a person is under the constitution and the most liberal broad interpretation to find the right to an abortion.

In the end if this is the majority position I guarantee a woman can still get an abortion in California, New York, Chicago, Minneapolis etc. It would not outlaw abortion in the US.

If you read the leaked decision, the specifically limited privacy implications ONLY to abortion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Basically, at that point, it simply goes to the individual States to make their decision what they want to do. You will have some states that will be pro-life and others pro-abortion.

Some states where pregnant people are denied rights even afforded to corpses, you mean.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

The SCOTUS said that blacks were not entitled to constitutional protection in Dred Scott. Did the Constitution permit slavery? Apparently not, because many of the Constitution's authors were slave holders. Should the issue of slavery still be a state's rights issue today? If you say yes, then states can PERMIT abortion if they wish. Are you OK with that? If so, does that mean that you believe abortion is NOT murder?

No because the constitution actually prohibits slavery:

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. 13th amendment to the US Constitution

Also, I am actually advocating for the states to decide on the abortion issue. I have never claimed abortion is murder.

 

[Trailblazer]

Sure, blame the woman. She did not impregnate herself!

But unless she was raped she voluntarily consented to have sex. Whoever was responsible for using the birth control is to blame.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

The chances are stacked against it.

How does this matter?

And abortion is unethical? If that's the case I'll gladly and proudly be unethical until the end of time because having an abortion saved my best friend's life, which also saved the life a sister, daughter, and mother.

If an abortion saved a persons life then I am ok with it. If it is between a mother and a childs life the mother and family should get to make that decision. But if you mean something different than this situation then please explain.