Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Roe v. Wade Potentially Dead


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

to me it just shows a lack of real knowledge of what happens in our legal system when someone is raped. We have so many problems with the current system in just reporting rape because of its intrusive nature and tendency to re-traumatize. So many where it takes weeks to accept what happened to them. anyone with basic knowledge/experience of this process would automatically be super hesitant if not outright repulsed by the idea. I sure am. 

 

With luv,

BD

Even if we ignore the trauma that our legal system causes to rape victims (which probably cannot completely be helped, due to the nature of 'innocent until proven guilty), there is still the huge issue of the time it takes to prosecute and get a conviction.  It can take years.  And if the state accepted that someone was raped and so was allowed an abortion (or decided not to allow an abortion on the grounds of rape) before due process was complete, that could seriously impact the trial later.

When we are talking about something that would need to be handled as soon as possible, even a quick trial process would be way to long for a rape/abortion issue.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

The thought of any government determining whether or not you have a legitimate reason for an abortion makes my skin crawl. 

Do you believe in placing any restriction on abortion at any point up to delivery?  If not, then that makes my skin crawl.  If so, are there any "legitimate reasons" for the government to allow for legal abortions beyond that point?  If not, then that makes my skin crawl too. 

 

Link to comment
Just now, pogi said:

Do you believe in placing any restriction on abortion at any point up to delivery?  If not, then that makes my skin crawl.  If so, are there any "legitimate reasons" for the government to allow for legal abortions beyond that point?  If not, then that makes my skin crawl too. 

 

Why would you think I support no restrictions on abortions at any point up until birth? Have I said anything that suggests that? 

Link to comment
21 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Why would you think I support no restrictions on abortions at any point up until birth? Have I said anything that suggests that? 

I didn't think that you supported abortions up until birth.  It was used to make a point in the second question.   If you connect the dots in my line of questioning and answer my second question, you might see the problems with the comment you just made. 

 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
3 hours ago, bluebell said:

I don't believe it is a living human being, not yet anyway.  I also don't believe that science proves it's a living human being. 

So you disagree that the common name for "Homo sapiens" in biology is "human being"?  Those are not synonymous in biology?

Link to comment

Below is a really good layman's+ overview of the history of Roe v. Wade as well as a couple of other relevant court cases. I love Hillsdale College and appreciate that they put this info out for all of us. I strongly recommend a viewing. ; )

 

Link to comment

 

 

15 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Maybe I’m not that smart, but I don’t know what you mean. My position is that there is space for compromise. If it were up to me, I’d leave it up to the woman until viability, after which abortion would be available only under certain conditions. Obviously that’s not acceptable to most people here. 

That is kind of funny that you think your position here is not the popular one considering how many up-votes it got.  

Let me connect the dots.  I was responding to the following comment:

16 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

The thought of any government determining whether or not you have a legitimate reason for an abortion makes my skin crawl. 

I don't know how you don't see the problems with this comment given your position.  Unless you believe that the government has no right to set the terms and limits of abortion at any point in pregnancy, then your comment is nonsense and you absolutely believe that the government should determine what the legitimate reasons for abortion should be.   It goes against your own position which you stated above.  Clearly, the government has an obligation to determine the laws and conditions ("legitimate reasons") for an abortion.   One "legitimate reason" you claim the government should determine is that the fetus cannot be past the age of viability.   Abortion, in your eyes, is only "legitimate" in the eyes of the government before the age of viability, and not after.  You also hint at other potential "legitimate reasons" for abortion that must be determined by the government beyond that point of viability. 

It is beyond clear to me that you believe the government should indeed determine what the legitimate reasons for an abortion are.  So, again, unless you are a radical who thinks it is ok to terminate a fetus's life up to the point of delivery for any reason whatsoever, then you do believe that the government needs to decide what the legitimate reasons for abortion are.  You just don't like it when people disagree with you as to what those legitimate reasons should be - that is what is making your skin crawl. 

 

 

Link to comment
17 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

Bold mine. All 3 of these questions focus on what makes a human fully human.

Maybe according to your personal philosophy (not mine, or many others), but I am talking about biological categorizations. 

17 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

Science doesn't answer this.

Your next comment disagrees:

17 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

Raw science focuses on categorizing, naming, and describing processes.

Exactly!!! You just proved my point.  Not just processes though, but categorizing types of life as well.  

17 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

Human being in common vernacular is different than how science describes human organisms. In science any descriptor given to human form is working to be amoral, neutral, and merely a label to describe something occurring in the physical world. In common vernacular is has emotive, spiritual, and imagery bias. It's a weighted term. I veer away from describing zygotes or early embryos as human beings because the common vernacular/weight behind it....that weight is not scientific, it's a lived/emotional interpretation of the physical world. 

 This seems to be where the disconnect is.  Despite every attempt to clarify that I am not applying philosophy or morality or value, or meaning beyond biological categorization of types of life, etc. to the word.  I have made it abundantly clear that I am speaking in biological, not  philosophical, or any other ways that some people might use or think of the word, but I am speaking in the biological terminology and labeling types of life, such as is the case in the "common name" for Homo sapiens.  This is something that science can and does answer.  It is not beyond the realm of science.   In the eyes of biology (again, not philosophy etc.) the zygote is classified as a human being - a living human being.  That is beyond dispute.   "Personhood", which is a scientifically arbitrary term, has nothing to do with biology or science.  In science and biology, "person" and "human being" are not synonymous terms.  You are trying to make them synonymous - and perhaps they are for some people, but not for me, and not in the eyes of biology.  That is the point I have been trying to make this whole time. 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
16 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

If it were up to me, I’d leave it up to the woman until viability

This seems to be the popular position here, so lets look at it more closely to see what logical and moral substance there is to it.

First question:

Is this the moral line-in-the-sand for you?  Or is this scientifically arbitrary point of cut off based on some other principle?  

 

Link to comment
23 minutes ago, pogi said:

 

 

That is kind of funny that you think your position here is not the popular one considering how many up-votes it got.  

Let me connect the dots.  I was responding to the following comment:

I don't know how you don't see the problems with this comment given your position.  Unless you believe that the government has no right to set the terms and limits of abortion at any point in pregnancy, then your comment is nonsense and you absolutely believe that the government should determine what the legitimate reasons for abortion should be.   It goes against your own position which you stated above.  Clearly, the government has an obligation to determine the laws and conditions ("legitimate reasons") for an abortion.   One "legitimate reason" you claim the government should determine is that the fetus cannot be past the age of viability.   Abortion, in your eyes, is only "legitimate" in the eyes of the government before the age of viability, and not after.  You also hint at other potential "legitimate reasons" for abortion that must be determined by the government beyond that point of viability. 

It is beyond clear to me that you believe the government should indeed determine what the legitimate reasons for an abortion are.  So, again, unless you are a radical who thinks it is ok to terminate a fetus's life up to the point of delivery for any reason whatsoever, then you do believe that the government needs to decide what the legitimate reasons for abortion are.  You just don't like it when people disagree with you as to what those legitimate reasons should be - that is what is making your skin crawl. 

 

 

In a word, no. After viability, it would be up to a doctor to determine the appropriateness of an abortion. Do I object to all government restrictions? Obviously not. But there is a rather large difference between having the government be the gatekeeper of all abortion decisions from conception on and having a limited number of exceptions later in the pregnancy. If that makes me an extremist, I’m OK with that. 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, pogi said:

This seems to be the popular position here, so lets look at it more closely to see what logical and moral substance there is to it.

First question:

Is this the moral line-in-the-sand for you?  Or is this scientifically arbitrary point of cut off based on some other principle?  

 

I think it’s a reasonable compromise.

Link to comment
47 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

In a word, no. After viability, it would be up to a doctor to determine the appropriateness of an abortion. 

In other words, if a person can find an abortion clinic which specializes in late term abortions up the point of delivery, and that they determine that it is appropriate as an elective procedure for all who want it for any reason, then that should be considered legitimate by the government?   Well...there goes any government restrictions beyond viability out the window.  

Basically what you are saying is that any abortion is ok up the point of delivery, so long as it is performed by a doctor.  You don't see any problems with that position?  What will come to fruition is that you just legalized extremism in abortion, because there will be doctors in every state willing to get paid to perform abortions at any stage. 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
33 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I think it’s a reasonable compromise.

I don't know if you have been to a NICU, but there is nothing not artificial about what is preserving a preemie's life at that point.  In other words, you are essentially arguing that the basic and fundamental right to life of a fetus should be determined by technology and nothing else.  That seems absurd and without reason to me that the right to life should hinge on technology.  If that is what pro-choice's truly want, they may be shooting themselves in the foot.  Science may find a way to artificially preserve a life from an embryo outside the womb.  I think that is a very likely scenario some day.  The age of viability is getting younger and younger all the time, after all. 

Link to comment
19 minutes ago, pogi said:

In other words, if a person can find an abortion clinic which specializes in late term abortions up the point of delivery, and that they determine that it is appropriate as an elective procedure for all who want it for any reason, then that should be considered legitimate by the government?   Well...there goes any government restrictions beyond viability out the window.  

Basically what you are saying is that any abortion is ok up the point of delivery, so long as it is performed by a doctor.  You don't see any problems with that position?  What will come to fruition is that you just legalized extremism in abortion, because there will be doctors in every state willing to get paid to perform abortions at any stage. 

 

3 minutes ago, pogi said:

I don't know if you have been to a NICU, but there is nothing not artificial about what is preserving a preemie's life at that point.  In other words, you are essentially arguing that the basic and fundamental right to life of a fetus should be determined by technology and nothing else.  That seems absurd and without reason to me that the right to life should hinge on technology.  If that is what pro-choice's truly want, they may be shooting themselves in the foot.  Science may find a way to artificially preserve a life from an embryo outside the womb.  I think that is a very likely scenario some day.  The age of viability is getting younger and younger all the time, after all. 

Why do you insist on putting words in jkwilliams' mouth? I see none of what you are attributing to him in his statements. That's not good faith discussion.

Link to comment
27 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Why do you insist on putting words in jkwilliams' mouth? I see none of what you are attributing to him in his statements. That's not good faith discussion.

If am understanding his words different than you are (not uncommon, I have found on internet forums), then jk can clarify.  No need to attribute poor faith motives on me.

I honestly don't know how you could say I am putting words in his mouth.

Did he not say that any abortion should be ok if it is found to be appropriate by a doctor?  I am pretty sure he did.  I am not putting words in his mouth by explaining to him what the results of that would be.

Did he not say that the determining factor as to when a fetus should be given protections against abortion is at the point of viability?  I am pretty sure he did.  Again, I am not putting words in his mouth by explaining to him what the results of that would be. 

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

I don't know if you have been to a NICU, but there is nothing not artificial about what is preserving a preemie's life at that point.  In other words, you are essentially arguing that the basic and fundamental right to life of a fetus should be determined by technology and nothing else.  That seems absurd and without reason to me that the right to life should hinge on technology.  If that is what pro-choice's truly want, they may be shooting themselves in the foot.  Science may find a way to artificially preserve a life from an embryo outside the womb.  I think that is a very likely scenario some day.  The age of viability is getting younger and younger all the time, after all. 

My wife worked in a NICU for years, so yes, I understand. Sure, I think a good compromise is viability, and technology might change that. So what?

Link to comment
37 minutes ago, pogi said:

In other words, if a person can find an abortion clinic which specializes in late term abortions up the point of delivery, and that they determine that it is appropriate as an elective procedure for all who want it for any reason, then that should be considered legitimate by the government?   Well...there goes any government restrictions beyond viability out the window.  

Basically what you are saying is that any abortion is ok up the point of delivery, so long as it is performed by a doctor.  You don't see any problems with that position?  What will come to fruition is that you just legalized extremism in abortion, because there will be doctors in every state willing to get paid to perform abortions at any stage. 

That’s absurd. I agree with Tim that you’re not engaging in good faith.

Link to comment
18 hours ago, bsjkki said:

I think what people are arguing is when it is worthy of protection and rights. I think in a life and death situation, the mothers life should come first if it’s an either/or. So, I concede the point that while the fetus is in womb, it’s rights are less than the mothers. But, that doesn’t mean abortion for convenience is okay either. 
 

We have low cost preventions that are easily purchased or free. Personal responsibility is a thing. (The vast majority of abortions are for convenience.)
 

Once the baby is out of the womb, making an either/or choice would be in an extreme ‘rescue’ type situation. So not really any different than making that choice in any of those types of situations.

I think the common adage about abortions being for “convenience” can be a little diminutive. When I picture this, I picture a young adult in college hailing from a middle class home who likely has options in support and no other children. For this person, a baby would be difficult to balance…it may short term pause her plans…but it likely would be doable. 
 

But I think this ignores the real struggle for financially strapped families. Or other concerns that are not that straight forward  and where convenient is a real stretch in the definition. I’m not just talking about the ones we generally view as justifiable (life of mother, fetal abnormalities, rape). But sticky ones like getting off or currently abusing drugs/alcohol, prolonged poverty, difficulty supporting the kids they do have, malnutrition, high stress/low health/low support situations that increase the general risk of pregnancy. And though this is improving since the ACA and reduction of the 08 recession, there are still problems with access to birth control and general knowledge about contraceptive options, particularly among the poor. 
 

I don’t know if this is enough moral justification…but I think we do a disservice in describing this a matter of convenience when, in the US at least, abortion strongly correlates with poverty. Where it largely ties with being unable to pay for basic necessities. To me there’s nothing convenient in being between a rock and a hard place. 
 

with luv, 

BD 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, pogi said:

Maybe according to your personal philosophy (not mine, or many others), but I am talking about biological categorizations. 

Your next comment disagrees:

Exactly!!! You just proved my point.  Not just processes though, but categorizing types of life as well.  

 This seems to be where the disconnect is.  Despite every attempt to clarify that I am not applying philosophy or morality or value, or meaning beyond biological categorization of types of life, etc. to the word.  I have made it abundantly clear that I am speaking in biological, not  philosophical, or any other ways that some people might use or think of the word, but I am speaking in the biological terminology and labeling types of life, such as is the case in the "common name" for Homo sapiens.  This is something that science can and does answer.  It is not beyond the realm of science.   In the eyes of biology (again, not philosophy etc.) the zygote is classified as a human being - a living human being.  That is beyond dispute.   "Personhood", which is a scientifically arbitrary term, has nothing to do with biology or science.  In science and biology, "person" and "human being" are not synonymous terms.  You are trying to make them synonymous - and perhaps they are for some people, but not for me, and not in the eyes of biology.  That is the point I have been trying to make this whole time. 

Okay. We’re clear then. So you can now address my other points or move on. I’m really done talking about this single tiny semantical point. 
 

with luv, 

BD 

Edited by BlueDreams
Link to comment
17 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

My wife worked in a NICU for years, so yes, I understand. Sure, I think a good compromise is viability, and technology might change that. So what?

To make sure I understand (because it doesn't seem like you are understanding the implications here), if technology advances to where all embryos become viable, your position is that they should all be protected from abortion?  If that truly is your position, ok, but I don't think pro-lifer's would see that as a reasonable compromise.  I just don't see how basing human rights on technology makes sense or is reasonable.  

 

Link to comment
42 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

That’s absurd. I agree with Tim that you’re not engaging in good faith.

I'm sorry you feel that way.  I truly don't understand then.  I have no intention of putting words in your mouth or arguing with strawmen.  That would be a waste of my time.  I don't have it out for you.  I am not here to attribute anything to you that you do not intend to portray.  I genuinely want an answer to my question.    If you think that a doctor should have full unbridled and unrestricted authority to determine the appropriateness of abortion without any medically legal qualifications from the government for the word "appropriate", then how would the scenario I portrayed not be the end result?   Anyone will be able to find a legal abortion clinic in any state that will have a doctor who is willing to perform an abortion at any point and for any reason.  How do you intend to plug that loop-hole without the government qualifying the word "appropriate"?  

I'm sorry, but medicine is not unregulated, nor should it be.  The government (not private doctors) gets to decide the legal and appropriate boundaries of medical practice in the US.  Do you think abortion should be an exception?  If not, then again, your original comment about the government placing "legitimate reasons" for abortion is nonsense.   

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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