Roe v. Wade Potentially Dead

[jkwilliams]

57 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

I have told the Pre-birth story of a young unwed mother who was struggling with the decision about whether to have the baby who reported a visit from her unborn child who said, "You've to make up your mind one way or the other because I am supposed to get to a particular family and if you don't do it I have to make other arrangements."

One of the striking things about that story is the consideration regarding the choice.  And that other arrangements can enter in. There is opposition in all things and that by "Proving contrarities truth is made manifest."  It follows that by suppressing contrarities, ideology is made manifest.

One thing I notice about legal abortion is that nothing about legality makes it compulsory. That distinguishes it from rape, for instance, where compulsion is the defining characteristic.  Rather, the person on whom the responsibility most heavily weighs gets to weigh in.  And they might even seek and obtain divine guidance.

I think about how priesthood authority works without compulsory means.  I think about the recent headline about the Taliban announcing head to toe clothing for women.  The Taliban, like those who enforce female circumcision, justify themselves as doing it to protect women from the consequences of poor life choices. The restrictions, the ritualized mutilation, is supposedly, a protection.  And if such situatutions involves mutilation of innocence, and/or the threat of violence or prison, the alternative is to allow imperfect people to choose for themselves. Even victims of rape might not do or think exactly what we want, which, it goes without saying, must be what God wants and is therefore, beyond the possibility of question or debate.  Thinking in absolutes rather than proving contraries that consider specific circumstances.

Persuasion, gentleness, long suffering, meekness, and pure knowledge that greatly enlarges the soul without hypocrisy and without guile are nice in theory, but the threat of prison or the death penalty, is much more reliable in getting people to conform.  Is the first and great commandment love or conformity?  A contracted soul means not having to consider how different another's life and experience might be.  

I think about Benjamin talking about not trying to run faster than one has the strength.  My wife worked in ICN and labor and delivery for nearly 40 years, and had two difficult and dangerous pregnancies that left permanent physical changes on her body.  She says she would not personally have an abortion, nor help with one, but does not believe it should be illegal.  She has seen way too much, a wide range of difficult circumstances to favor one choice for all people everywhere. Particularly when those making and enforcing that choice don't carry or feel the responsibilities and consequences. And prefer that all those babies and mothers not be a burden on taxpayers because that might lead to Venezualan styled socialism.  Rather, lift yourself up by your bootstraps.  If President Trump could rise on his own wits and big a-brain, without any help from the government, and just a few hundred million tax free from Dad, and armies of lawyers and enablers, why not them?

I think of Shauna deciding to watch 5 minutes of Rush Limbaugh to see what an in-law saw in him, and finding him sneering at unwed mothers and the notion they deserved any compassion or consideration, she got so angry she could not stand it for another second.  She's still angry.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Temporarily Sunnyvale

Thank you for that. My wife used to be a single-issue voter: she voted for the anti-abortion candidate. After many years working in the labor, delivery, and NICU units of a hospital, she has completely changed her mind. 

[Chum]

"Abortion debates are all the rage. ALL of it."

- me

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said:

I have told the Pre-birth story of a young unwed mother who was struggling with the decision about whether to have the baby who reported a visit from her unborn child who said, "You've to make up your mind one way or the other because I am supposed to get to a particular family and if you don't do it I have to make other arrangements."

One of the striking things about that story is the consideration regarding the choice.  And that other arrangements can enter in. There is opposition in all things and that by "Proving contrarities truth is made manifest."  It follows that by suppressing contrarities, ideology is made manifest.

One thing I notice about legal abortion is that nothing about legality makes it compulsory. That distinguishes it from rape, for instance, where compulsion is the defining characteristic.  Rather, the person on whom the responsibility most heavily weighs gets to weigh in.  And they might even seek and obtain divine guidance.

I think about how priesthood authority works without compulsory means.  I think about the recent headline about the Taliban announcing head to toe clothing for women.  The Taliban, like those who enforce female circumcision, justify themselves as doing it to protect women from the consequences of poor life choices. The restrictions, the ritualized mutilation, is supposedly, a protection.  And if such situatutions involves mutilation of innocence, and/or the threat of violence or prison, the alternative is to allow imperfect people to choose for themselves. Even victims of rape might not do or think exactly what we want, which, it goes without saying, must be what God wants and is therefore, beyond the possibility of question or debate.  Thinking in absolutes rather than proving contraries that consider specific circumstances.

Persuasion, gentleness, long suffering, meekness, and pure knowledge that greatly enlarges the soul without hypocrisy and without guile are nice in theory, but the threat of prison or the death penalty, is much more reliable in getting people to conform.  Is the first and great commandment love or conformity?  A contracted soul means not having to consider how different another's life and experience might be.  

I think about Benjamin talking about not trying to run faster than one has the strength.  My wife worked in ICN and labor and delivery for nearly 40 years, and had two difficult and dangerous pregnancies that left permanent physical changes on her body.  She says she would not personally have an abortion, nor help with one, but does not believe it should be illegal.  She has seen way too much, a wide range of difficult circumstances to favor one choice for all people everywhere. Particularly when those making and enforcing that choice don't carry or feel the responsibilities and consequences. And prefer that all those babies and mothers not be a burden on taxpayers because that might lead to Venezualan styled socialism.  Rather, lift yourself up by your bootstraps.  If President Trump could rise on his own wits and big a-brain, without any help from the government, and just a few hundred million tax free from Dad, and armies of lawyers and enablers, why not them?

I think of Shauna deciding to watch 5 minutes of Rush Limbaugh to see what an in-law saw in him, and finding him sneering at unwed mothers and the notion they deserved any compassion or consideration, she got so angry she could not stand it for another second.  She's still angry.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Temporarily Sunnyvale

I don't think anyone here is arguing for absolutes in terms of banning abortion.  And while all the principles you talk about are good, there is also danger in taking them to the absolute extreme.  We find many of these same arguments used over on LDSFreedom forum in relation to Covid.  Persuasion without compulsory means is a good thing, but when taken to the extreme of absolute liberty (anarchy) it is no longer a good thing.  

The basic fundamental principle of our government revolves around the right to life.  Even liberty is sacrificed when the right to life is threatened.  Religious liberty too is not without boundaries when life is threatened.   You ask about the first great commandment - indeed it is love rather than conformity.  But love without law is not what he was suggesting.   If we take your position and argument as absolute, then we run into entirely different problems.  We all understand such limits when it comes to life after birth.  If we were to use your same argument in regard to a mother and a born child, then I think we see the problem with your position - it doesn't, and shouldn't apply in all situations, than why should it be applied with absoluteness in this situation?  The question is and will always be one of where to draw the line and why?  What are the guiding principles we should follow in relation to preserving a human being's life.  For example, according to your argument, we should allow a D&C just prior to delivery.  Have you ever seen a D&C and understand what it entails?  Should there be no compulsory measures to protect such life? 

It would help if we could agree on what a human being is.  From there we could discuss what circumstances justify exceptions to the rule of protecting life over liberty. 

 

Edited May 8, 2022 by pogi

[Nofear]

Saw this fun philosopher dreamt up dilemma:

Quote

“You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist’s circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you”

Question: Are you obligated to keep the musician alive, or do you cut him loose and let him die because you want to?  (https://bigthink.com/personal-growth/seven-thought-experiments-thatll-make-you-question-everything/ #7)

Though, for me personally, the issue of abortion isn't really so much about whether or not the fetus is a "human being". For others, it is about that question. In which case, the thought dilemma becomes more relevant.

[Calm]

34 minutes ago, Nofear said:

Saw this fun philosopher dreamt up dilemma:

Though, for me personally, the issue of abortion isn't really so much about whether or not the fetus is a "human being". For others, it is about that question. In which case, the thought dilemma becomes more relevant.

That sounds almost like a rape scenario.  Perhaps another scenario is you enter a lottery for which you get an automatic prize (whatever is comparable to what benefits you get having sex) while knowing the price of the lottery is  some will be used as hosts to ill, but valuable to society whatever.  You wake up and find the odds were against you (assuming you don’t like the idea).

Edited May 9, 2022 by Calm

[jkwilliams]

53 minutes ago, Calm said:

That sounds almost like a rape scenario.  Perhaps another scenario is you enter a lottery for which you get an automatic prize (whatever is comparable to what benefits you get having sex) while knowing the price of the lottery is  some will be used as hosts to ill, but valuable to society whatever.  You wake up and find the odds were against you (assuming you don’t like the idea).

What I don’t understand is the idea that, once you have made a choice, you have no right to mitigate the consequences. This makes no sense. If a smoker gets lung cancer, we don’t deny treatment because the smoker is responsible. We don’t deny treatment for STDs, accidents due to reckless driving, and any number of self-inflicted conditions. 

[Ragerunner]

17 hours ago, Chum said:

This seems like an unclear area to me. In search of clarity, I found the below quote from a 1987 Ensign article.

I learned it's up to us whether we want to list stillborn children as BIC (for recording purposes).

As for miscarried children, they are "not normally recorded" in family history records. The article has some helpful distinction between stillborn and miscarriage; it's just after the above quote. 

Past all that is more elaboration about stillborn babies.

This changes my understanding from Temple Ordinances Insure A Path For Everyone To Live Eternally With Their Families to - Well, Maybe Not Everyone.

The last of the article is dedicated to when souls enter bodies. It provides some avenues to reconcile the discontinuity of my previous sentence.

Thanks for the research. 
It’s clear we don’t know. I think that is why the church’s official position is:

“A stillborn child are not reported as births or deaths on Church records. It should also be noted, that no temple ordinances are performed in behalf of a stillborn child.”

[bluebell]

13 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

What I don’t understand is the idea that, once you have made a choice, you have no right to mitigate the consequences. This makes no sense. If a smoker gets lung cancer, we don’t deny treatment because the smoker is responsible. We don’t deny treatment for STDs, accidents due to reckless driving, and any number of self-inflicted conditions. 

I think it’s because with abortion, the “treatment” affects another life.

If a smoker gets lung cancer, they can be denied a lung transplant for example. Not as a form of punishment but because giving them a new lung takes that lung away from someone else who didn’t make the choice to smoke.

If mitigating a self inflicted condition means negatively impacting someone who didn’t cause the bad consequence, that’s when we typically balk at it.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Nofear said:

Saw this fun philosopher dreamt up dilemma:

Though, for me personally, the issue of abortion isn't really so much about whether or not the fetus is a "human being". For others, it is about that question. In which case, the thought dilemma becomes more relevant.

I always thought this was the dumbest analogy ever for abortion (it was very popular in my philosophy classes in college), because it’s only relevant to people who get pregnant due to rape.

For those pregnancies that happen because people had sex irresponsibly, it’s not relevant at all.

[Nofear]

15 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

What I don’t understand is the idea that, once you have made a choice, you have no right to mitigate the consequences. This makes no sense. ...

We mortals lack the ability to mitigate dead. An aborted fetus is a dead fetus. As you know, many consider abortion tantamount to murder. Even if one doesn't equate the two (I don't), the idea of allowing one the liberty of changing one's mind does not necessarily mitigate the moral obligation to the potential human. Those that would argue for uninhibited right to abortion must also argue that the mother has no moral obligation to the potential human or that any moral obligation that is present is inferior to the whim of the mother.

[Nofear]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I always thought this was the dumbest analogy ever for abortion (it was very popular in my philosophy classes in college), because it’s only relevant to people who get pregnant due to rape.

For those pregnancies that happen because people had sex irresponsibly, it’s not relevant at all.

I don't disagree. Of course, one could remove the kidnap provision and say that one voluntarily hooked oneself up to the poisoned individual. Having made that choice, is there a moral obligation to continue even if one changes their mind?

[jkwilliams]

24 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think it’s because with abortion, the “treatment” affects another life.

If a smoker gets lung cancer, they can be denied a lung transplant for example. Not as a form of punishment but because giving them a new lung takes that lung away from someone else who didn’t make the choice to smoke.

If mitigating a self inflicted condition means negatively impacting someone who didn’t cause the bad consequence, that’s when we typically balk at it.

And thus we get back to the unresolvable question: at what point does an embryo become a “someone” with rights. At conception? At viability? Again, this is an ideological question, not science. 

[pogi]

21 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

I have the cfr in pics on my cell phone...I'll add them in a minute. I would note that I'm not really expecting you to be satisfied with them. If you aren't, that's not my problem anymore, I would prefer not to go in circles on this. Finding ones that were open enough to share any significant quote was a pain in the butt. Mainly because my stance is that what makes a human being a complete human being isn't settled science. Proving a negative is harder...especially when that negative is basically that this isnt an area of simply science but a mesh of science, law, and philosophy/theology. Also, I'm not personalizing cherry-picking as an individual stance, but one I've seen repeated in multiple pro-life sources period. And I would say there is a reason that several medical organizations most linked to pregnancy are against the current decision. 
the first three is from the textbook of perinatal medicine. (Referencing below) Green are relevant quotes indicating that this is not an issue of merely science. Yellow is the part where they use the word “potential” in connection to human life…which is probably as close as I’ll get to winning the bonus points on a term I made up on the fly. The last is a summary of another research article in a series of articles I think. Also saying that this is a) not settled science and b) not something that can be derived solely from science. They both distinguished “human life” in general and what constitutes a human being. 
Also this  for the reference to several organizations supporting abortion access to the supreme court: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-the-supreme-court-should-know-about-abortion-care/?amp=true

extra edit: this is a book that came up on google scholar from the mid 90’s. It highlights a variety of views from varying professional perspectives indicating the wide range of assumptions and intellectual theories surround the start of life and the ethical areas surrounding it. It’s likely not scientifically up to date, but many are base theories/views I’ve seen floated in things like the article I gave you a whole back: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-94-015-8257-5

No, you're misreading me. I'm saying there isn't a biological consensus, that it's not something that can be figured out simply by a DNA swab but is dependent on several different fields of study and philosophical/theological interpretation. My personal assumption, based on both science, personal experience, and current theories leans to brain development and/or viability as the line for personhood.   

Repeating yourself does not make the gaping problems with this research go away. If anything this stat should give pause to question whether the significance and definition of "life" are the same for both researcher and scientists that answered. If everyone assumed life to have the same meaning/signifance that you do I assure you all but the most sociopathic would also be "pro-life." But most don't....in or out of the scientific/medical world. 

You are right, I am not really happy with your sources.  None of them are from a peer reviewed journal of biology as I asked.   I have already shown that peer reviewed literature in journals of biology identifies fertilization as the beginning of life for a human being.  I am yet to see any legitimate biology source which contradicts it.  From the beginning, I have made this about biological understanding and literature.  Most Americans agree that biology (the study of life) is the most qualified field to identify when a human being's life begins.  No other science is fully dedicated to the study of life like biology is.  You are trying to introduce "law" and "philosophy" etc. to murky up the waters, but this in no way proves that there is not consensus in biology - which is my point that you are refuting without evidence.  Law and philosophy are not even sciences. let alone biology.  They don't get to decide what the consensus is in biology.  I am talking about biological science.  I will also note that after getting after me for "cherry picking" from an older source, you yourself provide a source around 30 years old - and it wasn't even a biology source.   So, I have a hard time accepting the accusation that I am cherry picking and that there isn't consensus in biology, when you have failed to provide any evidence that I am wrong from a biological source and instead try to change the subject to other fields that are not even science. 

I have shown that there is indeed consensus in biology.  Your rebuttal that we should question if the "significance and definition of life are the same for both researcher and scientists that answered" is a moot point.  It doesn't matter what their definition of life is.  The point is that they nearly all agree, regardless of their definition, that it begins at fertilization - aka consensus.   Fertilization qualifies under their collective definitions of life as the beginning of it.   I am kind of surprised that you are now arguing about the word "life", when you have already agreed that human life begins at fertilization, but that it is not yet fully a human being.  I think the problem is that you are confusing a fully developed human, with being fully human.  There is no point in the life of a human where it changes species or entity, it simply changes form through stages of development - it is the same entity of life, with the same biological nomenclature, throughout development.  Significance of life was not part of the question or point I was making, nor did it have any part in the study.  So to try and dismiss the fact that there is biological consensus as to when a human life begins based on their understanding of "significance" of life is a diversion and a moot point in relation to consensus of when a human being begins life.  

I don't want to go around in circles either, but until we can agree on what a human being is, it seems pointless to discuss anything else until we have that foundation to build on.   As a consensus of biologists agree that a zygote is a human being, as evidenced by biological literature and peer reviewed journals and through research of biological opinion on the matter (of which I have seen no rebuttal for from a source of biology, and preferably a peer reviewed journal of biology), it seems wise to accept the science of life as the building blocks of this discussion and go from there.  We can discuss the philosophy of life, but that is not the science of it. We can discuss law, but that is not the science of life.  We can discuss all sorts of angles that deserve to be discussed, but until we agree on the biology of life, again, it all seems pointless.  We will be speaking past each other and not using the same language.  

Edited May 9, 2022 by pogi

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, pogi said:

You are right, I am not really happy with your sources.  None of them are from a peer reviewed journal of biology as I asked.   I have already shown that peer reviewed literature in journals of biology identifies fertilization as the beginning of life for a human being.  I am yet to see any legitimate biology source which contradicts it.  From the beginning, I have made this about biological understanding and literature.  Most Americans agree that biology (the study of life) is the most qualified field to identify when a human being's life begins.  No other science is fully dedicated to the study of life like biology is.  You are trying to introduce "law" and "philosophy" etc. to murky up the waters, but this in no way proves that there is not consensus in biology - which is my point that you are refuting without evidence.  Law and philosophy are not sciences.  I am talking about biological science.  I will also note that after getting after me for "cherry picking" from an older source, you yourself provide a source around 30 years old - and it wasn't even a biology source.   So, I have a hard time accepting the accusation that I am cherry picking and that there isn't consensus in biology, when you have failed to provide any evidence that I am wrong from a biological source and instead try to change the subject to other fields that are not even science. 

I have shown that there is indeed consensus in biology.  Your rebuttal that we should question if the "significance and definition of life are the same for both researcher and scientists that answered" is a moot point.  It doesn't matter what their definition of life is.  The point is that they nearly all agree, regardless of their definition, that it begins at fertilization - aka consensus.   Fertilization qualifies under their collective definitions of life as the beginning of it.   I am kind of surprised that you are now arguing about the word "life", when you have already agreed that human life begins at fertilization, but that it is not yet fully a human being.  I think the problem is that you are confusing a fully developed human, with being fully human.  There is no point in the life of a human where it changes species or entity, it simply changes form through stages of development - it is the same entity of life, with the same biological nomenclature, throughout development.  Significance of life was not part of the question or point I was making, nor did it have any part in the study.  So to try and dismiss the fact that there is biological consensus as to when a human beings life begins because.  

I don't want to go around in circles either, but until we can agree on what a human being is, it seems pointless to discuss anything else until we have that foundation to build on.   As a consensus of biologists agree that a zygote is a human being, as evidenced by biological literature and peer reviewed journals and through research of biological opinion on the matter (of which I have seen no rebuttal for from a source of biology, and preferably a peer reviewed journal of biology), it seems wise to accept the science of life as the building blocks of this discussion and go from there.  We can discuss the philosophy of life, but that is not the science of it. We can discuss law, but that is not the science of life.  We can discuss all sorts of angles that deserve to be discussed, but until we agree on the biology of life, again, it all seems pointless.  We will be speaking past each other and not using the same language.  

When an embryo has rights is not a question of biology, your insistence to the contrary notwithstanding. 

[pogi]

21 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

When an embryo has rights is not a question of biology, your insistence to the contrary notwithstanding. 

I have never insisted anything to the contrary.  I am simply trying to lay a foundation of common language and understanding that we can build upon based on the science of life - biology.   Once that is established, then we can move on to rights, meaning, significance, and other legal, political, and philosophical questions.  

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, pogi said:

I have never insisted anything to the contrary.  I am simply trying to lay a foundation of common language and understanding that we can build upon based on the science of life - biology.   Once that is established, then we can move on to rights, meaning, significance, and other legal, political, and philosophical questions.  

It’s irrelevant. This is not and never has been a question of science. 

[smac97]

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

What I don’t understand is the idea that, once you have made a choice, you have no right to mitigate the consequences.

Where "mitigate the consequences" means "end the life of another person," that sort of mitigation may not be available.

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

This makes no sense.  If a smoker gets lung cancer, we don’t deny treatment because the smoker is responsible.

Treating lung cancer does not entail the elective killing of another person.

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

We don’t deny treatment for STDs, accidents due to reckless driving, and any number of self-inflicted conditions. 

Here's my take: Absent force, coercion or deceit, an unexpected/unwanted pregnancy is a natural and foreseeable consequence of engaging in sexual activity, and when we ignore that we A) infantilize women (and men), and B) dehumanize the unborn child (by, for example, comparing her to lung cancer, STDs, etc.).  Apart from the foregoing circumstances, the risk of pregnancy is an inherent part of coitus.  And when that risk actualizes, there is at that point another life, another person, that is part of the equation, or ought to be.  

Comparing an unborn child to lung cancer, STDs, etc. is a poor analogy.  It dehumanizes the child and disregards the fact that his life is at stake.  Nevertheless, the issue you raise about "self-inflicted conditions" merits some attention.  To that end, I offer the following analogy: Back in 2019 the Utah Supreme Court published a decision that may have some utility (emphases added):

Quote

Sometimes known as the "brawl that begins with prayer," recreational basketball in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a history of getting out of hand.

There was even a movie made about it in 2006 called "Church Ball." An IMDb summary of the comedy includes the line, "What was supposed to strengthen the body, invigorate the mind and cultivate brotherly love seems to bring out the worst in these church-going ball players."

Though most incidents between opponents — typically members of the same geographic area known as a stake — don't end up in court, one case made it all the way to the Utah Supreme Court.

The court recently ruled against a Utah man who sued an opposing player after being injured in a church-sponsored game in 2012.

In his arguments, an attorney for the man invoked a quote attributed to the late Arizona Sen. John McCain during a 1989 Senate floor speech:

"While the lawlessness of MMA is a dangerous and brutal exercise, there is one sport, more vicious and cold-blooded, that takes place in Mormon meetinghouses across this great nation of ours. I speak, of course, of LDS Church basketball."

While the justices say they couldn't find the quote in the Congressional Record and that it might be "internet apocrypha," it conveys an accepted view of "church ball" among many who have "experienced this phenomenon — an athletic competition acclaimed on some local T-shirts as 'the brawl that begins with prayer.'”

"At least one of the parties to this case seems to see it that way," Associate Chief Justice Thomas Lee wrote in the court opinion.

Judd Nixon was dribbling the ball down the court to take a shot with Edward Clay chasing him to contest it. As Clay approached Nixon’s right side, he extended his right arm over Nixon’s shoulder to reach for the ball, according to court documents.

Nixon came to a “jump stop” at the foul line and began his shooting motion. Clay’s arm made contact with Nixon’s right shoulder. Nixon then felt his left knee pop and both men fell to the ground. The referee determined the contact wasn't intentional and called a common foul on Clay.

Three years later, Nixon filed a court complaint alleging that Clay's negligence caused his knee injury.

Clay asked the district court to adopt a “contact sports exception” that provides that participants in bodily contact sports are liable for injuries only when the injuries are the result of “willful” or “reckless disregard for the safety of the other player.”

The court agreed and ruled in Clay's favor, also accepting his other argument that no jury could find that he acted negligently based on the play.

Nixon appealed the ruling to the Utah Supreme Court.

In a 5-0 decision, the justices affirmed the lower court ruling, though on a slightly different legal basis.

Instead of relying on the “contact sports exception” that hinges on a defendant’s state of mind and on whether an activity qualifies as a "contact sport," the justices found basketball is inherently a contact sport, citing "boxing out" for a rebound as permitted under the rules.

"It is undisputed that Nixon was injured when Clay 'reached in' and 'swiped at the basketball,' incidentally making contact with Nixon’s shoulder," Lee wrote. "And the undisputed evidence shows that these actions are inherent in the game of basketball."

Lee wrote that the justices decided that voluntary participants in sports don't have to avoid contact that is inherent in the activity.

An injury arising from "actions {that} are inherent in the game of basketball" does not give rise to a legal claim.

The risk of injury is part of the game of basketball.  If you want to avoid such risks, don't play the game.  I am not diminishing the seriousness of a knee injury (my father suffered a knee injury in his youth while playing football, and it has adversely affected the entirety of his life since then).  But if such an unintentional - but nevertheless foreseeable - injury were to happen to a player today in Utah, the player would not have legal recourse.  He must cope with the injury as best he can.  

If women (and men) want to avoid the risk of an unwanted pregnancy, they have the option of not "playing the game."  If they do decide to play the game, and if a risk "inherent in the activity" actually comes to pass, then the law may limit what sorts of legal remedies are available to address that actualized risk.

Now that it appears SCOTUS is returning this issue to the states to decide (where it should have been for the last half century), we will see a variety of approaches to addressing this issue.  Some approaches will work better than others.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited May 9, 2022 by smac97

[smac97]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

And thus we get back to the unresolvable question: at what point does an embryo become a “someone” with rights.

I don't understand.  How is this question "unresolvable?"  SCOTUS "resolved" it, albeit in a very bad way, in 1973 in Roe, and kinda sorta refined that resolution is 1992 in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.  Now SCOTUS appears to be turning this issue over to the states to address.  

The question is "resolvable" through legislative action.  People may disagree on the "question" of the appropriate speed limit in a residential neighborhood, but once the legislature sets it at 25 MPH, the question is "resolved."  

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

At conception? At viability? Again, this is an ideological question, not science. 

I think this is both a scientific/biological and philosophical/ideological question.  The law addresses such mixed questions all the time.

Thanks,

-Smac

[pogi]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

It’s irrelevant. This is not and never has been a question of science. 

It absolutely is relevant.  When does a human being's life begin is a question of biology.  I think that should have at least some influence in how we decide law and philosophy of rights.  Human rights belong to human beings, so if it is understood that an embryo is not a human being, then they can be denied all human rights without question.  How can you insist then that this question is not relevant?   Why do you think I am getting such strong push back from pro-choicer's on stating that there is biological consensus on what a human being is if it wasn't relevant?  It really simplifies things if we can just dehumanize them, doesn't it?

It is important that we are talking about the same thing when discussing rights, isn't it?

Edited May 9, 2022 by pogi

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, Ragerunner said:

Thanks for the research. 
It’s clear we don’t know. I think that is why the church’s official position is:

“A stillborn child are not reported as births or deaths on Church records. It should also be noted, that no temple ordinances are performed in behalf of a stillborn child.”

That's an interesting quote, a thinker for sure. It may be because they get an automatic ticket to the CK like those that are Down Syndrome. It use to be, not sure if it still is, that they didn't baptize them because of their straight shot to the CK. But maybe it's changed, hope so, because I can't imagine being told my soon to be 8 year old child can't be like the rest. I just remember reading about a child not being baptized because they had Down Syndrome.

ADD: https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1976/04/i-have-a-question/should-mentally-retarded-children-be-baptized?lang=eng&adobe_mc_ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.churchofjesuschrist.

 

 

Edited May 9, 2022 by Tacenda

[teddyaware]

With all the exceptions to the no abortion rule being advocated on this thread, I have honest question: In light of the highly unusual circumstances surrounding Mary’s first pregnancy and the extreme power imbalance that existed between her and God the Father, would Mary have been justified had she aborted Jesus, and would the act not be considered a sin? 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

And thus we get back to the unresolvable question: at what point does an embryo become a “someone” with rights. At conception? At viability? Again, this is an ideological question, not science. 

I didn't say anything about rights or personhood, and that was intentional. 

It's a scientific fact that abortion ends a life.  Different ideologies disagree about whether or not that life has a right to continue to live, but science is clear.  It is "living" at the point that it is aborted.  Abortion kills it.

And my point stands.  You asked why we don't see the same pushback from attempts to mitigate negative consequences from bad choices except for abortion. I provided an example that shows it's not just abortion that is seen in that light.  If STDs could only be treated by taking a leg from a shelter cat, you'd get pushback on treating STDs as well (probably more pushback that you get for abortion from some sectors). 

Humans generally start to pushback against mitigating consequences for bad choices when that mitigation negatively affects other innocent living things; it doesn't really matter what the topic is.  And the affected living thing doesn't even have to be human.  Our sense of "justice" is generally piqued under those conditions, and mercy for the inflicted gets weighed against mercy for the one their choices will inflict.  We might collectively be willing to cut down a sequoia to cure every kid who has leukemia, but try to get us to collectively agree to cut down a sequoia to save someone who has cirrhosis of the liver from drinking and you'd have a fight on your hands.

 

 

[Tacenda]

19 hours ago, pogi said:

I don't think anyone here is arguing for absolutes in terms of banning abortion.  And while all the principles you talk about are good, there is also danger in taking them to the absolute extreme.  We find many of these same arguments used over on LDSFreedom forum in relation to Covid.  Persuasion without compulsory means is a good thing, but when taken to the extreme of absolute liberty (anarchy) it is no longer a good thing.  

The basic fundamental principle of our government revolves around the right to life.  Even liberty is sacrificed when the right to life is threatened.  Religious liberty too is not without boundaries when life is threatened.   You ask about the first great commandment - indeed it is love rather than conformity.  But love without law is not what he was suggesting.   If we take your position and argument as absolute, then we run into entirely different problems.  We all understand such limits when it comes to life after birth.  If we were to use your same argument in regard to a mother and a born child, then I think we see the problem with your position - it doesn't, and shouldn't apply in all situations, than why should it be applied with absoluteness in this situation?  The question is and will always be one of where to draw the line and why?  What are the guiding principles we should follow in relation to preserving a human being's life.  For example, according to your argument, we should allow a D&C just prior to delivery.  Have you ever seen a D&C and understand what it entails?  Should there be no compulsory measures to protect such life? 

It would help if we could agree on what a human being is.  From there we could discuss what circumstances justify exceptions to the rule of protecting life over liberty. 

 

Which means we must trust women's judgement about aborting a child. And her doctor. It's not an easy decision I'll bet. What in your mind is an acceptable reason for an abortion, asking because you're more knowledgeable than me, for sure. 

If it were up to me, I would probably not abort unless it means the baby was already dead or if I was sure it's organs etc weren't growing and the baby was suffering. But I'm not everyone. 

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Nofear said:

I don't disagree. Of course, one could remove the kidnap provision and say that one voluntarily hooked oneself up to the poisoned individual. Having made that choice, is there a moral obligation to continue even if one changes their mind?

If you changed the analogy to the person not being poisoned until you hooked yourself up to them, and then you remaining hooked up was the only way to cure them, then the analogy would be relevant.

And under those circumstances, I would say that no, someone couldn't then morally change their mind, except under very rare circumstances where their own life hung in the balance.

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

With all the exceptions to the no abortion rule being advocated on this thread, I have honest question: In light of the highly unusual circumstances surrounding Mary’s first pregnancy and the extreme power imbalance that existed between her and God the Father, would Mary have been justified had she aborted Jesus, and would the act not be considered a sin? 

Don't go there.