[RD] Abortion, once again

[The_J]

Then rise up! Storm the Court! Stop talking about this and take physical action NOW!!!

Moderator Action: Any further messages which are like this will be deleted and the poster will be warned.
Don't advocate violence in this forum.

 

[EvaDK]

I wonder if the Supreme Court judges have considered the potential consequences, if it engages in - effectively - making policy. Technically the judges might argue that is not what this ruling represents if effectuated, but I suspect that some 70% of the American people will strongly disagree with that argument. I reckon the ruling will only increase public distrust in the Courts and other institutions of the American democracy. Let's see how much noise the Democrats and various American civil rights and grassroot movements will make in the coming months.

 

[El_Machinae]

We kill the innocent every day and don't seize resources, property or blood/bodyparts in order to prevent so. Therefore, killing the innocent (or permitting them to die and blaming them for being poor) is an acceptable and barely even questioned standard in our society.

In all practical considerations, we hold "letting someone die" very different from "killing someone".

Also, and this is a really weird psychological quirk, but we prefer to stop people from doing bad things than helping people (especially when it's strangers). So, there are a lot of confounded intuitions and misplaced efforts when it comes to this topic.

I still think that this umbrella under which abortion rights existed was always quite fragile in the US. And I'm quite unsure what mitigation efforts are available at the Supreme Court level. Or even the Federal level.

It's times like these where curating damning (relavent) blackmail on politicians might have been wise. Rub the "for me, not thee" aspect of abortion in their faces. I guess we tend to use such ammo quickly ...

 

[João III]

I disagree with your view but morality is subjective. In the USA case it's don't tell me what right or wrong tell me what's legal.

That goes both ways.

First, I'd say I don't believe in moral relativism. Second, just because something's legal doesn't make it right. I've written more extensively on this earlier in the thread. I'd rather not type it all out again, as I'm on my mobile browser. Perhaps you can appreciate that at least

"You cannot have the right to do what is wrong!" - Abraham Lincoln

We kill the innocent every day and don't seize resources, property or blood/bodyparts in order to prevent so. Therefore, killing the innocent (or permitting them to die and blaming them for being poor) is an acceptable and barely even questioned standard in our society.

Speak for yourself

Therefore, why do you advocate for this special standard of seizing bodies of an actual person for the use of a hypothetical person?

Respect for human life is a universal standard, not a special standard

You're conflating Church and state, by the by.

Not really, no. I haven't referenced God (Jewish, Christian, Muslim, or otherwise) to support my arguments once in this thread, by the by

 

[Remorseless1]

Let's revisit the issue of "personhood." Certainly there is a minority who debate whether life begins at birth, at the point of viablity, and/or actual birth. This is a cultural discussion. LEGALLY, citizenship (legal personhood) begins at birth. As I stated before, a fetus is not considered a citizen and has no explicit rights - such as ownership of property, serving as a dependent on tax returns, can't vote, etc. That is the LEGAL definition of personhood. Conferring citizenship on a fetus raises a whole host of issues that the antiabortion movement hasn't considered. As an example, if a fetus is a "person" and a woman has a miscarriage, that would require a police determination as to whether the fetus died as a result of natural causes or the behavior of the mother had anything to do with the miscarriage. Not only would this put hundreds if thousands of women through a demeaning and terrifying process, it would also clog up police services since one in four pregnancies ends in a miscarriage.

But finally, the question should be cast in a Jeffersonian context. If a woman gets an abortion, why is it anyone else's business? This isn't like the Covid vaccines where an unvaccinated asymptomatic person could infect dozens of people, potentially putting other lives at risk.

This is simply an attempt to limit a woman's control over her own body, and in a larger sense, to roll back rights gained over the past 70 years. I would not be surprised to see challenges to Brown v Board of Education, the 1954 ruling that ended segregation. Heck, the Constitutional originalists might want to challenge the 13th Amendment that ended slavery. After all, slavery was in the Constitution and was a longtime tradition in America, so Alito would be on board, correct?

I'll end with this. In 230+ years, the US Supreme Court has NEVER removed a civil right. Ever - until now.

 

[Gorbles]

Not really, no. I haven't referenced God (Jewish, Christian, Muslim, or otherwise) to support my arguments once in this thread, by the by

The belief in the sanctity of life comes across as inherently Abrahamic, if not explicitly Christian.

Who (or what) says that we don't have the right to take an innocent life? The law, typically. So what the law permits, gives us the right. Morality isn't necessarily a part of it. However, I don't feel like you're referencing the law here, I feel like you're referencing morality. And "who" tends to refer to an authority figure.

I'm open to an alternative explanation, as I absolutely made some assumptions. Feel free to provide one.

 

[Senethro]

Speak for yourself

I'm not. I think its awful.

Respect for human life is a universal standard, not a special standard

Its a nice aspiration, but the actions of the pro-life don't match it or support it.

 

[El_Machinae]

Abrahamism gets no say on this topic, due to their codification of deeply evil precedents.

 

[Joij21]

I'll end with this. In 230+ years, the US Supreme Court has NEVER removed a civil right. Ever - until now

Yeah about civil rights. If you want them to have any staying power they cannot exist as normal laws, they must be enshrined in the Constitution otherwise courts can more easily throw them out.

P.S. Your statement on civil rights not being taken away until now isn't true. Black people throughout our entire history (post civil war specifically) have gained only to repeatedly have their rights taken away by the same Supreme Court.

 

[Joij21]

Who (or what) says that we don't have the right to take an innocent life?

So if the law says it's okay to murder and eat your flesh it's okay?

 

[João III]

The belief in the sanctity of life comes across as inherently Abrahamic, if not explicitly Christian.

I can't help it if it "comes across as inherently Abrahamic". See Ahimsa, particularly as practiced in Jainism

Who (or what) says that we don't have the right to take an innocent life? The law, typically. So what the law permits, gives us the right.

I don't like this rationale as slavery and Apartheid can become acceptable as they were once law

Morality isn't necessarily a part of it. However, I don't feel like you're referencing the law here, I feel like you're referencing morality. And "who" tends to refer to an authority figure.

Do you only rely upon the law to distinguish between human rights and animal rights?

I'm open to an alternative explanation, as I absolutely made some assumptions. Feel free to provide one.

Thank you for acknowledging you made some assumptions

I'm not. I think its awful.

Its a nice aspiration, but the actions of the pro-life don't match it or support it.

I can only speak for myself. Please don't assume I hold one belief because I hold another

 

[Gorbles]

So if the law says it's okay to murder and eat your flesh it's okay?

I don't like this rationale as slavery and Apartheid can become acceptable as they were once law

The law makes things legal. That's not the same as something being right. But in that case, you shouldn't issue questions like "who gives us the right to kill other humans" or the like. Because rights are codified as law, that's the whole point of them. That's why we're discussing abortion rights.

Your personal morality, and mine, are essentially inconsequential. They have no impact on policy. I can think it's justified, and you can think it's not. What more do we have to discuss, except for its legal standing and the rights granted to the impacted individuals?

 

[João III]

The law makes things legal. That's not the same as something being right. But in that case, you shouldn't issue questions like "who gives us the right to kill other humans" or the like. Because rights are codified as law, that's the whole point of them. That's why we're discussing abortion rights.

Well the Court seems set to rule there is no right to abortion. And if the law says there is no right to abortion, how can you advocate for abortion rights then?

Your personal morality, and mine, are essentially inconsequential. They have no impact on policy.

In societies in which people vote on policymakers, personal morality is inconsequential?

I can think it's justified, and you can think it's not. What more do we have to discuss, except for its legal standing and the rights granted to the impacted individuals?

Again, show do you advocate against slavery or Apartheid if you defer to the law? Moreover, if rights are based purely on what's legal, then you cannot assert something as a right until it is law. So, based on this logic, if something's not law and therefore not a right, then you're not advocating for a right, you're advocating for your personal morality to become a right

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Love it that we have a dude outright saying that trans men and women's bodily autonomy and even life is intrinsically worth less then that of a fetus and thst the latter should be prioritized over the former

Just pure degradation of women and trans men

If someone said that white people's lives and bodily autonomy outweigh poc's lives and bodily autonomy in terms of who to preserve, they'd be condemned as racist bigots.

 

[João III]

Love it that we have a dude

Are you referring to me? Are you assuming I'm a dude?

outright saying that trans men and women's bodily autonomy and even life is intrinsically worth less then that of a fetus and thst the latter should be prioritized over the former

Just pure degradation of women and trans men

Quite the contrary. If you took the time to read what I've written previously like I suggested, you'd know that, but I suppose it's easier to spout off ignorant takes

 

[Lexicus]

In societies in which people vote on policymakers, personal morality is inconsequential?

People don't vote for the Supreme Court, and three of the justice comprising this majority were installed by a President who won an election with fewer votes than his opponent. So yes, personal morality of the voting public is obviously quite inconsequential in this context.

Respect for human life is a universal standard, not a special standard

No, it is demonstrably not a universal standard. For example, imagine an anonymous internet poster lecturing you about the sanctity human of life while having as their avatar the Portuguese monarch during whose reign Portuguese ships began the trans-Atlantic slave trade.

 

[sophie]

People don't vote for the Supreme Court, and three of the justice comprising this majority were installed by a President who won an election with fewer votes than his opponent. So yes, personal morality of the voting public is obviously quite inconsequential in this context.

And another two were installed by a President whose victory was ratified out of whole cloth essentially by the judicial fiat of this selfsame institution.

 

[João III]

People don't vote for the Supreme Court, and three of the justice comprising this majority were installed by a President who won an election with fewer votes than his opponent. So yes, personal morality of the voting public is obviously quite inconsequential in this context.

I was unaware the Supreme Court was the only branch of government in the United States. And when the Supreme Court established Roe, I guess the undemocratic nature of the Court wasn't an issue then

No, it is demonstrably not a universal standard. For example, imagine an anonymous internet poster lecturing you about the sanctity human of life while having as their avatar the Portuguese monarch during whose reign Portuguese ships began the trans-Atlantic slave trade.

I don't condone João III's actions anymore than Firaxis

 

[The_J]

So if the law says it's okay to murder and eat your flesh it's okay?

Just to play a bit the devil's advocate: Ask the Aztecs. Or cannibals.
Such things change over time, hopefully to the better, but whatever is right now could have been wrong in the past, or the opposite.

(that said I don't know who's arguing for what right now lol)

 

[Remorseless1]

If the antiabortion crowd really cared about children, there wouldn't be one in five children being food insecure, schools would be a higher priority and not an institution they demean and underfund, there would psychological counseling available to every child, financial assistance would be available to parents to improve housing, all underserved neighborhoods and small towns would have government grocery stores to give every child access to fresh fruit and vegetables, every foster child would be cared for by foster parents and there would be hardly any children up for adoptions.

But in reality, once a child is actually born, then the pro-lifers stop caring. The sheer hypocrisy completely discredits their commitment to the "sanctity of life."