Jump to content

Roe v. Wade Potentially Dead


Recommended Posts

40 minutes ago, Calm said:

One Child Policy program in China worked well to protest the children.  :P 

The documentary One Child Nation on Prime is one of the hardest documentaries that I've ever watched.  Mostly because of the number of babies that were forcibly aborted or killed after birth because of the policy.  They did not shy away from showing those practices or explaining them in detail.  

I recommend it to everyone though because I think it's an important history to face (even though it's not our history specifically).

Link to comment
44 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am wondering, I am not sure if importance or value are the correct terms because they have nuances I don’t want to apply…but can we (you and me, not sure if Bluedreams cares to get involved in this side question) agree that if there is no personal relationship to newly developed “Homo Sapiens” and they are as far as known healthy, there is still a difference of perception of the need to protect different aged Homo sapiens meaning if someone had to choose which to save, they would not choose randomly, but would most likely choose to save a two day old baby over a 22 week fetus and that before a two month old embryo, which would most likely be saved before a five day old blastocyst….think of this as a highly unlikely future scenario where there are portable incubators for developing babies from conception to when they are put in parents’ arms to go home, so the Good Samaritan doesn’t have to worry that they would die in transporting any more than they would die in normal development, as even in the unlikely future there are still ‘miscarriages’. (I don’t plan on getting involved in a long discussion on this, hopefully this is written as a straightforward, if long question that when answered will confirm or remove one of my assumptions about your POV.

So if I can hijack this thought as it makes me think of the gal in a previous ward who had cancer. Married with 3 children. She had treatments, recovered some and got pregnant. Her cancer returned and she chose to delay treatment and delivered a healthy baby. Now she's dead. Whether what she did was right or wrong I don't know but I think it's pretty cool she was given the choice. 
When does it become a compelling interest of the state to force her to abort in order to receive treatments in the hopes that she not leave her children motherless? 

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Personal experiences definitely impact how we each view this issue.  Probably none of us are completely correct in our views and judgements, but I think most people really try to sincerely find the most moral place to land.  It's a given that we won't all agree on where that is, but understanding where each of us is coming from helps not demonize the other camp I think.  

That's where I find value in these kinds of threads.  I don't change my mind necessarily but I can learn to see other perspectives more clearly, and understand where they are coming from.  Extreme perspectives that villainize those they disagree with are pretty useless to me, but well reasoned and moderate positions can be very useful.  I appreciate everyone who shares such a perspective. 

I become a better, more reasonable, person for being exposed to them.

I love this a thousand times. It is very nice to have this discussion and not be called a baby killer or asked if I'm a Christian or private messages saying they are going to pray for me. Apparently, even women in the Church don't understand that their own doctrine allows for exceptions and they do not want to have civil discourse about it. Fun times!

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
21 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think that's kind of unrealistic.  If we are going to impose such a significant burden on women, we ought to have some pretty good reasons for it, and we ought to be able to explain and justify those reasons.

Umm, I don't think I follow your point here. I suggested on libertarian grounds that women ought to have the right to determine what happens inside their own bodies, regardless of whether a given choice is moral or not. In response, you say we shouldn't "impose such a significant burden on women." That sounds awfully misogynistic--like you are saying women need the help of men to figure out whether or not having an abortion is the right thing for her to do. That couldn't really be your point, could it? That women can't handle the burden of making their own healthcare decisions?

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

Did the kidney donor cause the medical circumstances giving rise to the need for a transplant?  Nope.

The woman didn't necessarily "cause the medical circumstances" resulting in pregnancy, either. But thinking this is a distinction does prove my point that it isn't merely about saving "innocent lives" and that the preferences of the people who could save the life, at great personal sacrifice, matter.

The outstanding question is whether you can provide a good reason why the line should be drawn where you draw it and that "causing the medical circumstances" is a valid reason to use the law to force a woman to make a sacrifice she doesn't want to make. 

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

But there is no "duty of care" to donate a kidney.

We have always had a "duty of care" in some form for expectant mothers.

That's precisely my point. The weakness of your rationalization that there is no duty of care to donate a kidney while there is a duty of care to rent out a uterus exposes the ad hoc nature of your rationalizations to oppose a woman's right to control her own body.

Edited by Analytics
Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Analytics said:

you say we shouldn't "impose such a significant burden on women." That sounds awfully myogenetic--like you are saying women need the help of men to figure out whether or not having an abortion is the right thing for her to do.

As far as I can make sense of this, it makes no sense. Assuming that myogenetic is the muscly form of patriarchal, it still translates to something like "not telling women what to do - this is like women needing men to tell them what to do".

Link to comment
39 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Personal experiences definitely impact how we each view this issue.  Probably none of us are completely correct in our views and judgements, but I think most people really try to sincerely find the most moral place to land.  It's a given that we won't all agree on where that is, but understanding where each of us is coming from helps not demonize the other camp I think.  

That's where I find value in these kinds of threads.  I don't change my mind necessarily but I can learn to see other perspectives more clearly, and understand where they are coming from.  Extreme perspectives that villainize those they disagree with are pretty useless to me, but well reasoned and moderate positions can be very useful.  I appreciate everyone who shares such a perspective. 

I become a better, more reasonable, person for being exposed to them.

Sometimes for me, the righteous anger of another when it is legitimately and carefully directed does alert me to another perspective and help be improve my perspective.

That's not the same as villifying, though. Villifying says, "YOU'RE BAD," while righteous anger says--when brought down to it's essence--"THIS IS BAD."

Sometimes very well intentioned people can do very bad things.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Sometimes for me, the righteous anger of another when it is legitimately and carefully directed does alert me to another perspective and help be improve my perspective.

That's not the same as vilifying, though. Vilifying says, "YOU'RE BAD," while righteous anger says--when brought down to it's essence--"THIS IS BAD."

Sometimes very well intentioned people can do very bad things.

Yes, very true.  Being well intentioned doesn't mean that we are right.  It also doesn't mean that we can't still cause harm.

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, Analytics said:
Quote
Quote

I don't follow your argument here. One can argue that having an abortion ought to be a legal right without getting into the nuances of whether exercising that right in a particular circumstance is moral or not.

I think that's kind of unrealistic.  If we are going to impose such a significant burden on women, we ought to have some pretty good reasons for it, and we ought to be able to explain and justify those reasons.

Umm, I don't think I follow your point here.

"Because I say so" is a less satisfying basis for the legislature to impose a significant burden on women.  However, we often appeal to basic notions of morality, fairness, etc. when justifying legislation.  The morality of electively killing unborn children, versus the morality of protecting their right to life, goes a long way in explaining why elective abortion may be constrained under the law.

17 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I suggested on libertarian grounds that women ought to have the right to determine what happens inside their own bodies, regardless of whether a given choice is moral or not.

Broadly speaking, I agree with you.  As I noted previously in this thread

Quote

Principle 8: We as a society ought to hold the concept of bodily autonomy in high regard.  Abortion is distinguishable from other manifestations of bodily autonomy because it involves the life of a baby.  The personhood of the child matters.

And here:

Quote

I find the "'controlling the agency of women' agenda" claim to be absurd.  I couldn't care less what women do to their hair or ears or any other of their body.  Tattoos?  Whatever.  Elective cosmetic surgery?  As you like.  Sterilization?  It's your choice.  And on and on and on.

I hold the concept of bodily autonomy in high regard.  The only reason I think about abortion is because it involves the life of a baby.  I think that is the overwhelmingly predominant concern of pro-lifers.  So the accusation that we (including around half of all women) have some sort of dark and twisted desire to "control the agency of women" is absurd.  Stupid.  I reject it out-of-hand. 

Those libertarian sentiments are important, but they cannot be absolute.  Not when another person's life is at stake.

17 minutes ago, Analytics said:

In response, you say we shouldn't "impose such a significant burden on women."

That's not what I said.  I said: "If we are going to impose such a significant burden on women, we ought to have some pretty good reasons for it, and we ought to be able to explain and justify those reasons."

17 minutes ago, Analytics said:

That sounds awfully myogenetic--

Huh?  "Myogenetic" apparently means "Originating in or starting from muscle."  What does that have to do with abortion?

17 minutes ago, Analytics said:

like you are saying women need the help of men to figure out whether or not having an abortion is the right thing for her to do.

I have said nothing of the sort.  

Legislatures pass laws all the time that infringe on the bodily autonomy of both men and women.

Again, I hold the concept of bodily autonomy in high regard.  The only reason I think about abortion is because it involves the life of a baby.  The personhood of the unborn child merits attention and emphasis.

17 minutes ago, Analytics said:

That couldn't really be your point, could it?

Not remotely.  You have utterly misunderstood what I have said.

17 minutes ago, Analytics said:

That women can't handle the burden of making their own healthcare decisions?

Where "healthcare decisions" affect the life of the child, I think the government has a role to play.

There is nothing new here.  Even under Roe the government imposed some constraints on abortion, on women and their "healthcare decisions."

17 minutes ago, Analytics said:
Quote

Did the kidney donor cause the medical circumstances giving rise to the need for a transplant?  Nope.

Even under Roe we as a society essentially imposed on women a duty to not harm her unborn baby in some circumstances.  Conversely, we have never imposed any duty on any party to donate a kidney.

The woman didn't necessarily "cause the medical circumstances" resulting in pregnancy, either.

As I have stated previously:

Quote

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.  

I hope that clarifies things.

17 minutes ago, Analytics said:

But thinking this is a distinction does prove my point that it isn't merely about saving "innocent lives"

You'll have to explain this, as I don't understand how your point is proved.

I am overwhelmingly indifferent to what women choose to do with their own bodies.  Hairstyles, piercings, clothing, medically necessary surgery, elective surgery, food and drink, etc.  I've even become more libertarian as pertaining to drug abuse (largely because I think the "War on Drugs" is ineffectual and causing more harm than good).

The only reason I stake out a position on abortion, why I differentiate this issue from virtually all other issues of bodily autonomy, is because innocent lives are at stake.

17 minutes ago, Analytics said:

and that the preferences of the people who could save the life, at great personal sacrifice, matter.

Okay.  But the life of the child also matters.  The personhood of the child matters.

We're not treading on any new ground here.  Even under Roe the mother's "preferences" were not absolutely determinative.

17 minutes ago, Analytics said:

The outstanding question is whether you can provide a good reason why the line should be drawn where you draw it

The life of the child.

The choice to participate in behavior, the natural and foreseeable consequence of which is pregnancy.

The ability to avoid the consequences of that behavior.

17 minutes ago, Analytics said:

and that "causing the medical circumstances" is a valid reason to use the law to force a woman to make a sacrifice she doesn't want to make.

If a man fathers a child, he is obligated to pay child support, right?  He cannot disclaim that legal obligation based on his "preferences."  The law imposes it on him, even if it comes "at great personal sacrifice."  

17 minutes ago, Analytics said:
Quote

 

But there is no "duty of care" to donate a kidney.

We have always had a "duty of care" in some form for expectant mothers.

 

That's precisely my point. The weakness of your rationalization that there is no duty of care to donate a kidney while there is a duty of care to rent out a uterus exposes the ad hoc nature of your rationalizations to oppose a woman's right to control her own body.

There is nothing ad hoc about protecting the life of the unborn child.

Again, even under Roe there was never an unfettered right to abortion.

I think the weakness of your position is:

A) You infantilize women (and men) when you refuse to address the reality that an unexpected/unwanted pregnancy is a natural and foreseeable risk and consequence of engaging in sexual activity.  Women (and men) can avoid the consequence by avoiding the behavior.  But if the risk/consequence materializes, then there is more than the individual's bodily autonomy at issue.

B) You dehumanize the unborn child when you refuse to acknowledge their humanity.  You justify abortion using the same themes slaveholders justified slavery.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Chum said:

As far as I can make sense of this, it makes no sense. Assuming that myogenetic is the muscly form of patriarchal, it still translates to something like "not telling women what to do - this is like women needing men to tell them what to do".

I meant misogynistic, of course. I corrected it.

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

Zygotes still can split into multiple individuals to form to create no individual. It's not accurate to say they are an individual in my head without some means to acknowledge that the individualization, even on the degree of simply biological distinction, isn't fully complete. 

These parts are interpretations of the science in accordance to one's personal beliefs about what a living individual human being means....in this case as only a distinct biological entity of living cells. Just because the person writing it assumes neutrality does not make the analysis suddenly neutral. This person is making an argument with science. Arguments are interpretations of scientific data. This is my problem and has been from the beginning. Not the data...the interpretation of the data into socially derived terms. Just as I would an athiest insisting that science proves there's no god. That is an interpretation of the data...not the data itself. 

With luv,

BD 

I feel like I am getting whiplash and honestly feel like you are just messing with me now.  But I know that is not your style and personality, so what am I missing here?  Genuinely. 

This is what you just said:

14 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

this weird back and forth on "science" that neither of us disagree on beyond our interpretation of its significance is getting frustrating at this point.  

Again, not something I disagree with (though this is hardly a peer-review journal). I disagree what you're inferring about it. A belief in this human life as equal (or at least near-equal) to a baby is where things fall apart for me. Pointing to this does not immediately assert this belief.  I'm not exactly sure how many times you want me to repeat that. 

What do you think I am inferring about it?  I am just repeating what you agreed with to clarify if we indeed are on the same page as far as biology goes - without any inferred meaning whatsoever.  That it is a human being.  That is what biology states.  Any meaning that you or others want to place on that is up to you, but that is not the purpose of the taxonomy of biology in relation to humans.   

You literally just said that "neither of us disagree" with the biology and labeling, but only on the "interpretation of its significance".  You then accused me of making inferences as to being equal in rights or meaning etc. which I did not do.  I am simply trying to get you to acknowledge the basic fundamental terminology of human life.  Which has been like pulling teeth.  Just when I feel like we were finally getting somewhere you hit me with this most recent response. 

With the quote that you now appear to be backtracking on and equivocating with, you said "Again, not something I disagree with".  You only disagree with what I "am inferring about it".  I was super duper duper careful to respond in a way to only address the taxonomic labels that biologists apply to human life.  I was making it ONLY about biologicals terms and taxonomic identification.    I was extremely careful to not interpret any significance onto it.  I was only repeating what you already "agreed" with in that the zygote is a human being.  Am I to understand that you actually disagree with that quote, with me, and with the consensus of biology on this subject of human taxonomy and nomenclature - even though you just claimed that we are agreed on the biology?  I am not suggesting any inherent or philosophical meaning on to the term human being at this point.  It is a biological term that distinguishes species type so that we can agree on the biological basics of what we are talking about. 

To call any individual organism an "individual organism" is not an interpretation or application of meaning or value to the entity.  It is simply stating the biological fact that it is a unique individual (single or distinct from mother or father) organism.  Why you are taking issue with this or think it is an "interpretation" of biology which is placing meaning on these terms, is beyond me.  It simply means that it is unique and distinct from all other living human organisms - so as to not confuse it with other types of human life (like a liver or skin cell).    Whatever philosophical meaning you are placing on the word "individual" is on you.  I have been careful not to go there.  The other term is "human being".  Again, whatever meaning you place on that term is on you, that is not the purpose of biology.  Homo sapiens aka human being are biological taxonomy to identify species type.  Are you suggesting that the zygote is not of our species?  Once and for all, is it or is it not a human being?  Because at first you said it was not, then you agreed that it was, now...I have no idea where you stand.    

Color confused.  I feel like you are all over the place here.   

14 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

Because the diversion is necessary when one moves from basic labeling of a biological process to interpreting what that must mean to something that is not simply a biological question: what is sufficient to be considered fully human (stated in the sociological/philosophical/legal context)....and then again a full human with certain rights and protections under the law.  

Identifying an organism by its proper biological taxonomy and nomenclature (human being) is NOT "interpreting what that must mean to something..."  I have been careful to avoid applying any philosophical meaning or legal rights to the term.  I am trying VERY HARD to keep it to simple and pure biological terms.  I am keeping to the science.  You are project meaning on those words and are accusing me of inferring things that I have not.  For several pages now, I have been beyond clear that I am trying to simplify the conversation and make it just about biology.  I have done so.  Will you PLEASE join me when you are ready?

It was clear to me that we did not agree on the biological taxonomy and nomenclature of humans at conception.   You made it very clear that I was wrong and that there was not biological consensus.  You then surprise me suggesting that we agree on the biology and that you agree with the quotes I provided suggesting it is a human being.  Now, I have no idea what you agree with.   Individual organism is a biological term.  So is human being.  How is this not biology?  Do we or do we not agree on the biology?

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
35 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You'll have to explain this, as I don't understand how your point is proved...

The life of the child.

Yes, the life of the embryo. You care deeply about that.

But what about the life of the person who needs a kidney? Why do you care about one more than the other? 

35 minutes ago, smac97 said:

There is nothing ad hoc about protecting the life of the unborn child.

But you aren't willing to protect the life of the person who needs a kidney transplant. Your rationalization as to why the law should protect the life of the embryo but not protect the life of the person who needs a kidney transplant is what's ad hoc

35 minutes ago, smac97 said:

A) You infantilize women (and men) when you refuse to address the reality that an unexpected/unwanted pregnancy is a natural and foreseeable risk and consequence of engaging in sexual activity.  Women (and men) can avoid the consequence by avoiding the behavior.  But if the risk/consequence materializes, then there is more than the individual's bodily autonomy at issue.

Insisting that a woman can decide how to handle her own pregnancy is not infantilizing her.

Does sex occasionally result in pregnancy? Yes, occasionally it does. That has no bearing on my argument that women should have the freedom to choose how to handle their pregnancies. 

Link to comment
15 hours ago, bsjkki said:

Just read a tweet from someone who read the Alito opinion. How many have actually read it? 
 

The Alito opinion does not argue the rightness or wrongness of abortion. It is a legal opinion on the constitutionality of the case. 
 

Anyone able to refute his legal points?

Don't be silly, no one here actually cares about the Legal issues.  

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
40 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Yes, the life of the embryo. You care deeply about that.

But what about the life of the person who needs a kidney? Why do you care about one more than the other? 

I care about both.  

Under the law, however, there is no duty of care, no obligation to donate a kidney.

Conversely, under the law there is a duty of care to the unborn.  We are now adjusting who gets to define and regulate that duty of care and its parameters.

40 minutes ago, Analytics said:
Quote

There is nothing ad hoc about protecting the life of the unborn child.

But you aren't willing to protect the life of the person who needs a kidney transplant.

You'll need to flesh this out.  I've previously addressed this issue (duty of care, assumption of the risk, constraints under Roe, etc.).  You have not addressed these.

40 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Your rationalization as to why the law should protect the life of the embryo but not protect the life of the person who needs a kidney transplant is what's ad hoc

Ad hoc.  

19789999.jpg

It's a useful Latin phrase, but it's not a replacement for, you know, responding to the substantive points I have raised.  Here are the ones I would most like to see addressed:

Point 1: Assumption of the Risk

Quote

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. 

Point 2: Personhood of the Child as a Material Consideration

Quote

And when that risk actualizes, there is at that point another life, another person, that is part of the equation, or ought to be.  

...

A fetus is, during much of its development, an inchoate person, but a person nonetheless.  The value of this person matters.  A lot.  A lot.  It is a central consideration.  Many of the justifications used for elective abortions (matters of convenience, expense, preference, etc.) are abhorrent, even evil, and ought not be tolerated where the life of the child - who has personhood - is at stake.  If a young mother is having difficulties with her newborn, do we as a society take a 100% "hands off" approach and let her do whatever she wants?  Drug the baby so that he sleeps at night?  Strike the baby when he's crying?  Kill the baby if he's inconvenient?  No, no and no.  Why?  Because the child's personhood is acknowledged, and the government has a role in protecting the child.  The humanity, the personhood of the child is a central consideration here.

...

This is not the first time we as as a society have struggled to address the legal ramifications of granting personhood to parties previously denied it.  The stain of slavery is still on us, though it was abolished long ago.  Our country, our system of laws, treated black men, women and children as chattel, and refused them personhood and the legal rights associated therewith.  It took, and still takes, much effort to undo this terrible wrong.  It is now time to start undoing the terrible wrong of dehumanizing unborn children by denying them personhood and characterizing them as parasites, blobs of cells, and so on.

Point 3: Constraints on Abortion during Roe

Quote

Even under Roe we as a society essentially imposed on women a duty to not harm her unborn baby in some circumstances. 
...
Even under Roe the mother's "preferences" were not absolutely determinative.

Point 4: Differing Duties of Care

Quote

{W}e have never imposed an affirmative duty to donate a kidney.

Conversely, we have always had some constraints on affirmatively killing an unborn child.

Point 5: Safe Haven Laws

Quote

"Safe haven" laws allowing abandonment of the newborn child, no questions asked, weaken the public policy argument pertaining to women being obligated to spend 18 years raising and paying for the child.  Also, those who truly find elective abortion to be abhorrent should prepare themselves and stand ready to adopt unwanted children abandoned by their birth mothers under such laws.

Point 6: Proper Jurisdiction/Oversight

Quote

The structure of the Constitution is better supported by leaving this issue to the states rather than to the Nine Enrobed Ones.

I'd like to see something more than another "ad hoc."

40 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Insisting that a woman can decide how to handle her own pregnancy is not infantilizing her.

That's not what I said.

40 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Does sex occasionally result in pregnancy? Yes, occasionally it does.

I'm glad you acknowledge this.  Through gritted teeth, it seems, but still...

40 minutes ago, Analytics said:

That has no bearing on my argument that women should have the freedom to choose how to handle their pregnancies. 

Tell that to a father trying to get out of child support.

Yes, it matters.  It matters a lot.  I will once again present 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 by smac97
Link to comment
1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Yes, very true.  Being well intentioned doesn't mean that we are right.  It also doesn't mean that we can't still cause harm.

It's truly one of the most painful personal lessons of my life!

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Calm said:

I am wondering, I am not sure if importance or value are the correct terms because they have nuances I don’t want to apply…but can we (you and me, not sure if Bluedreams cares to get involved in this side question) agree that if there is no personal relationship to newly developed “Homo Sapiens” and they are as far as known healthy (meaning there could be unknown genetic defects), there is still a difference of perception of the need to protect different aged Homo sapiens meaning if someone had to choose which to save, they would not choose randomly, but would most likely choose to save a two day old baby over a 22 week fetus and that before a two month old embryo, which would most likely be saved before a five day old blastocyst….think of this as a highly unlikely future scenario where there are portable incubators for developing babies from conception to when they are put in parents’ arms to go home, so the Good Samaritan doesn’t have to worry that they would die in transporting any more than they would die in normal development, as even in the unlikely future there are still ‘miscarriages’ and unpredictable mechanical failures (to substitute in this scenario for today’s prenatal issues, thus a two day old is more likely to survive to 5 years old than a 22 week old fetus, which will survive longer than a two month old embryo and a blastocyst has the lowest survival till 5 years old stat).  
 

PS:  I don’t plan on getting involved in a long discussion on this, hopefully this is written as a straightforward, if long question that when answered will confirm or remove one of my assumptions about your (Pogi’s) POV.  Perhaps one post clarifying if needed if not much confusion, but if there is I will drop it to not derail other conversations.

These are al moral dilemmas that I don't have good answers for.  We can make moral dilemmas all day, but they don't tell us much.  For example, in your hypothetical situation of "different aged Homo sapiens", what if your choice was between a 99 year old and a 5 year old?  What does this tell us about their legal rights to protection and our moral obligation to do our best to preserve both lives?  Not much really.  Most will instinctually lean towards saving the 5 year old, for several of the reasons you mentioned above, but what if the 99 year old is your mother and the 5 year old is the son of a terrorist who just killed your father?  Perceptions and decisions might change slightly for some given more context.  But again, it doesn't tell us much. 

In questions of morality and ethics, I have always leaned towards protecting those who are born and living in extreme scenarios where there must be a choice - like an ectopic pregnancy or other scenario that could potentially kill the mother and one must choose.   I have always allowed for extreme measures under extreme scenarios.  I am not trying to paint a n equal value or moral equivalency.  But I am trying to protect from a moral bankruptcy on the issue. 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
17 minutes ago, pogi said:

These are al moral dilemmas that I don't have good answers for.  We can make moral dilemmas all day, but they don't tell us much.  For example, in your hypothetical situation of "different aged Homo sapiens", what if your choice was between a 99 year old and a 5 year old?  What does this tell us about their legal rights to protection and our moral obligation to do our best to preserve both lives?  Not much really.  Most will instinctually lean towards saving the 5 year old, for several of the reasons you mentioned above, but what if the 99 year old is your mother and the 5 year old is the son of a terrorist who just killed your father?  Perceptions and decisions might change slightly for some given more context.  But again, it doesn't tell us much. 

In questions of morality and ethics, I have always leaned towards protecting those who are born and living in extreme scenarios where there must be a choice - like an ectopic pregnancy or other scenario that could potentially kill the mother and one must choose.   I have always allowed for extreme measures under extreme scenarios.  I am not trying to paint a n equal value or moral equivalency.  But I am trying to protect from a moral bankruptcy on the issue. 

My experience with covid has shown me that it's okay if both die. For the economy.  But hey, if a women needs to limit the size of her family for economic reasons that is wrong. 

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, mtomm said:

My experience with covid has shown me that it's okay if both die. For the economy.  But hey, if a women needs to limit the size of her family for economic reasons that is wrong. 

First, this sort of sarcasm about weighty matters is not helpful. 

Second, sarcasm is not an argument.

Third, this seems like a strawman.  No reasonable person has said anything like "it's okay" for people to "die ... for the economy."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

First, this sort of sarcasm about weighty matters is not helpful. 

Second, sarcasm is not an argument.

Third, this seems like a strawman.  No reasonable person has said anything like "it's okay" for people to "die ... for the economy."

Thanks,

-Smac

Sarcasm that makes a real point is legitimate. Constant detached clinical dialogue, on the other hand, is not the humaneness that weighty matters require. Those need wholeness, more soul.

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I care about both.  

Under the law, however, there is no duty of care, no obligation to donate a kidney.

Why not? If you care about the life of the person who needs a kidney, why isn't there an obligation to donate a kidney?

Saying "because that's the way law has always been" is a copout.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Point 1: Assumption of the Risk

Yes, there is an assumption of risk. I'll note that you qualified your statement about this with "Absent force, coercion or deceit." In the real world, those things exist in different degrees, and anti-abortion laws don't deal with these extenuating circumstances.

If a woman was manipulated or lied to when she became pregnant, very few anti-abortionists will grant her the freedom to choose for herself whether she should carry the pregnancy full term.

Since you would force somebody to have a baby even when she didn't assume the risk, talking about assumption of risk is an irrelevant distraction.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Point 2: Personhood of the Child as a Material Consideration

We grant birth certificates when a child is born, not when they are conceived. 

According to Wikipedia:

In Federal law, the concept of legal personhood is formalized by statute (1 USC §8) to include "every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development." That statute also states that "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being 'born alive' as defined in this section."

It's interesting that you choose to ignore the law on this point.

In reality, a fetus is alive by the grace of its mother. That is the reality of the situation. Once born, the child is recognized as a person. That is how the law is, and that is how the law should be.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Point 3: Constraints on Abortion during Roe

Yes. I find the constraints under Roe to be quite reasonable.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Point 4: Differing Duties of Care

I agree. There isn't a legal "duty of care" to save the life of somebody who needs a kidney donation.

The fact that people who insist there is a right to life aren't up in arms about the law being this way illustrates the inconsistency of their position. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Point 5: Safe Haven Laws

Safe Haven Laws are great, but they don't go far enough. Carrying a baby to term can cause months of disability. It can permanently damage her body. It can even kill her. And since the people who are "pro life" are the ones most adamant that we shouldn't have universal health care, carrying a baby to term is also very expensive. Because of these considerations, safe haven laws should be expanded so that a woman can have an abortion until the child is viable outside of the womb. No questions asked.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Point 6: Proper Jurisdiction/Oversight

I don't particularly like "the Nine Enrobed Ones" giving people constitutional rights and then taking them away. The reality of law is messy that way, I suppose. Presuming the Nine Enrobed Ones do take away what is for now a legal constitutional right, the abortion battle won't be over. Nobody is going to say, "We won! It's a states issue. Go home and relax." Instead, they will fight to make abortion illegal on a federal level, and if they were to win that, they'd fight to make it homicide on a federal level and if they win that, they'll fight to make their anti-abortion protection enshrined in the Constitution. That is because the pro-life crowd is a useful tool for people who care most about shifting wealth to the rich, and they aren't going to give these tools up. That's why this issue will never go away. The pro-life crowd won't be content with this being an issue left to the states.

Edited by Analytics
Link to comment
28 minutes ago, mtomm said:

My experience with covid has shown me that it's okay if both die. For the economy.  But hey, if a women needs to limit the size of her family for economic reasons that is wrong. 

Just curious, are you even aware of my experience with Covid?   You seem to be doing some type of stereotyping here that if I am pro-life I must also be anti public health in relation to Covid.  I think you have me mis-pegged a tad.

In fact, I think I am one of the few consistent ones who is pro-life both directions.   I am guessing that you are not consistent here.  Let me guess - pro-life with Covid, but switch sides and go pro-choice with abortion.  Am I right?

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Sarcasm that makes a real point is legitimate.

Not really.  It's a strawman.  No reasonable person or group has said anything like "it's okay" for people to "die ... for the economy."

6 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Constant detached clinical dialogue, on the other hand, is not the humaneness that weighty matters require. Those need wholeness, more soul.

I don't know what this means.

If advocating for the preservaton of life where is not humane, nothing is. 

If acknowledging the burden an unwanted pregnancy imposes on a woman is not humane, nothing is. 

If accounting for the importance and value of bodily autonomy is not human, nothing is.

If recognizing and acknowledging circumstances that can create genuine moral dilemmas is not humane, nothing is.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
28 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Sarcasm that makes a real point is legitimate. Constant detached clinical dialogue, on the other hand, is not the humaneness that weighty matters require. Those need wholeness, more soul.

Constant detached clinical dialogue is nothing but a means to establish common objective ground that we can then build meaning from.   Unfortunately, no one dares admit the objective biological fact that an embryo is a human being, because then they have to face the "humaneness" of it.  I am all happy to get to the humanness of it, but that would require us to acknowledge what is and what is not biologically/objectively human first. 

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, pogi said:

Just curious, are you even aware of my experience with Covid?   You seem to be doing some type of stereotyping here that if I am pro-life I must also be anti public health in relation to Covid.  I think you have me mis-pegged a tad.

In fact, I think I am one of the few consistent ones who is pro-life both directions.   I am guessing that you are not consistent here.  Let me guess - pro-life with Covid, but switch sides and go pro-choice with abortion.  Am I right?

I didn't make any assumptions about you or anyone else with my answer.  I just answered with my observation. I am pro-choice for both.  I also am fine with an employer requiring vaccination for employment just as I am fine with some restrictions on abortion. I also believe that people should making an effort to mitigate covid by wearing a mask, getting vaccinated and staying home if sick. I would also support funding free and easily accessible sex education and birth control to minimize unwanted pregnancy.  We all know that none of the time do all of these things work 100%  

(I'm pretty sure you've gotten many "likes" from me on your covid comments in the long covid thread.)
 

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...