Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

It's Official: SCOTUS Overturns Roe v. Wade


Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

They're just late term abortions. 

Alberto Giubilini* and Francesca Minerva,** 'After-birth Abortion: Why Should the Baby Live?', Journal of Medical Ethics 39:5 (2013), pp. 261-63.

Abstract:

Quote

Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.

*Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, Charles Sturt University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia (now senior research fellow in the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics at the University of Oxford)

**Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia (now research fellow in the Department of Philosophy at the University of Milan)

 

Edited by Hamba Tuhan
Link to comment
8 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I remember my dad telling me that he had an embryo inside his body, so I guess that would be his twin. But now I'm second guessing my memory, or he was pulling my leg.

It has happened with twins.

Link to comment
17 hours ago, Duncan said:

from Pres. Oak's talk given by teddyaware

"Our leaders have taught that the only possible exceptions are when the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest, or when a competent physician has determined that the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy or that the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth. But even these exceptions do not justify abortion automatically."

also from the same talk

"She herself chose what would happen to her body by risking pregnancy. She had her choice. If she has no better reason, her conscience should tell her that abortion would be a highly irresponsible choice.

“What constitutes a good reason? Since a human fetus has intrinsic and infinite human value, the only good reason for an abortion would be the violation or deprivation of or the threat to the woman’s right to choose what will or will not happen to her body. Social, educational, financial, and personal considerations alone do not outweigh the value of the life that is in the fetus. These considerations by themselves may properly lead to the decision to place the baby for adoption after its birth, but not to end its existence in utero."

Your original claim was that "we have some leaders who won't allow [abortion] under any circumstance."

When I asked which leaders you were talking about you specifically identified President Oaks, and I asked for proof. 

Yet, in both of the quotes you have provided from President Oaks, he expressly lists exceptions for when abortion may be justified. I have reformatted your quote above to show them in bold

His comments seem to squarely fit within the Church's official policy on abortion, which also allows for abortion under certain circumstances. What am I missing here?

 

Link to comment
19 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I don't see how having a legal option for late term abortion would ever increase the chances for a baby's survival. 

I do, and could think of several ways it could.

Deadlines increase the sense of urgency and shorten the time a person has to make a decision.

Link to comment
24 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I don't believe that restrictions on late term abortions dehumanize women. 

They do so by treating them as objects carrying the unborn rather than a person with another person inside them.

24 minutes ago, Amulek said:

In Utah, for example, the statute covering abortion (76-7-302) sets the cutoff for abortion at viability but - even at that stage - still allows exceptions for health of the mother, severe / fatal birth defects, and when the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest. 

The law is interference inherently, it requires more legal rigor and time of the healthcare provider needed for them to be assured they're complying with the law. This can mean important time for the patient that can be lost and impacting her health negatively.

24 minutes ago, Amulek said:

In other words, if you elect to keep your child to the point where the child is capable of living without you, then there needs to be a really good reason to abort at that point. That seems like a fairly reasonable position, which takes into consideration both the health of the mother and the rights of the unborn child. 

 

It's not always a matter of choosing to delay, it is often a matter of being forced to delay.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Your original claim was that "we have some leaders who won't allow [abortion] under any circumstance."

When I asked which leaders you were talking about you specifically identified President Oaks, and I asked for proof. 

Yet, in both of the quotes you have provided from President Oaks, he expressly lists exceptions for when abortion may be justified. I have reformatted your quote above to show them in bold

His comments seem to squarely fit within the Church's official policy on abortion, which also allows for abortion under certain circumstances. What am I missing here?

 

Why would teddyaware make the following statement? "A reality check for those active Church members who are allowing themselves to be lured away from the Church’s official pro-life position to the so-called pro-choice position on abortion." is he saying that Pres. Oaks is doing the luring away from pro life? because clearly as you and me both know what Pres. Oaks actually said in the video the church allows exceptions. Teddyaware either didn't view the video or if he did he doesn't know what it's talking about when he said that statement about getting lured away. I don't know if it's incompetency or stupidity on his part.

my personal opinion is Pres. Oaks is pro life. SO, what you are missing is why did teddyaware share a video that allows for exceptions and then teddyaware makes claims about getting lured aware from pro life-which it doesn't say

Link to comment
58 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

They do so by treating them as objects carrying the unborn rather than a person with another person inside them.

How are they being treated as an "object"?  I don't understand. 

People are accountable to the law, not objects.  We hold people, by law, to be responsible stewards of the human life they create through their own actions, not objects.   

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Amulek said:

I believe most states which have restrictions on late term abortions set viability at 22-24 weeks. I don't know about you, but six out of nine months seems like ample time for a person to "make a decision" in my view.

 

In your view, sure, but you don't know everyone's situations do you?

Link to comment
21 minutes ago, Obehave said:

You're saying the same thing twice but in different words.  The object in the first instance is a woman and the unborn is the person inside her.

Nope. 

Link to comment
51 minutes ago, pogi said:

How are they being treated as an "object"?  I don't understand. 

People are accountable to the law, not objects.  We hold people, by law, to be responsible stewards of the human life they create through their own actions, not objects.   

 

Doesn't sound like that's happening with abortion bans. They are making it the stewardship of the state instead. 

 

Link to comment
13 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

The Netherlands already allows infant euthanasia in the case of unbearable suffering or poor expected quality of life https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groningen_Protocol 

Hell, under the latter criterion, I would have qualified! <_< :rolleyes: 

Link to comment
23 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Doesn't sound like that's happening with abortion bans. They are making it the stewardship of the state instead. 

 

As you have made abundantly clear, the state can't carry the child.  The mother is the only viable steward through birth.  Paraphrasing your own words, if I remember correctly. 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Amulek said:

I disagree. These laws do treat the woman as a person with another person inside her.

Nope.

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

And since she has another person inside her, if she decides to take the life of that person without cause then she will be held accountable for that decision.

Nope, they are removing her consent to have or not have that person inside her. Without consent, she is treated as less than.

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

 

Hospitals have entire departments to deal with the legal rigors of complying with the law. Are there edge cases that might require additional scrutiny? Sure, but we're not talking about some hospital needing over a year to decide on something.

Those facilities depend on the hospital and provider. Women have waited in agony for hospital boards to review the legal requirements.

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

And again, all states have exceptions for the health of the mother. If her life is legitimately at risk, then an abortion is allowed. 

How do you think that works in real life? 

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

Forced to delay? By whom? 

Any number of situations can delay the decision to continue or not continue a pregnancy.

I'll give you a realistic scenario. The woman experience relationship breakdown and become a one income household instead of two. Now she cannot take time off work to continue being pregnant safely, or to stay home with her baby once the baby is born. She has other children so she has to think about them, too.

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, pogi said:

As you have made abundantly clear, the state can't carry the child.  The mother is the only viable steward through birth.  Paraphrasing your own words, if I remember correctly. 

Yes, she is. That's why the state should stay out of it, in stead of deciding how she should be responsible or accountable. 

IOW she is accountable *to herself*. The responsibility starts and stops with her. 

I think this is probably the core issue many people might have--the idea that a woman or even any person can be accountable to themselves (and maybe God, directly) and themselves alone is difficult to comprehend. But for women and pregnancy, that how we're made. It's a universe within us.

Edited by Meadowchik
Link to comment

The people who support abortion are those who made it through the fetal development and birth process and were successfully born into this world.  Since they made it through the whole process without being aborted, it is easy for them to support abortion because they are not a risk of being aborted themselves.  It is always easy to support views that have no affect on you personally.  You see that in all ares of life.  People don't mind raising taxes on the rich because they are not rich so it does not affect them at all. It is a somewhat cowardly position to take.  

I propose a fix to this problem that at will at least address some of it.  That would be legal, retroactive post birth abortions.    That being after birth, a mother as long as she is alive, should be able to decide to terminate the lives of her kids.  If a 80 year old mom decides that her 38 year old daughter needs to to have her life ended, it is done.  That would reduce the numbers who support abortion as they know that as long as mom is still alive, she can still get them. 

Edited by carbon dioxide
Link to comment
10 minutes ago, Obehave said:

We're not going to get very far in our discussion if you can't see what is obvious.  A pregnant woman is always a person and the object carrying the unborn person inside her.

Lol the implication of my statement is that she's being treated like a mere object only. 

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Obehave said:

If only the government stayed out of every personal issue.  Do you realize the government is involved in our personal lives every day of our lives?  Where and how and when we can live, including what we are responsible and accountable for.

That's not an excuse to police wombs.

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

The people who support abortion are those who made it through the fetal development and birth process and were successfully born into this world.  Since they made it through the whole process without being aborted, it is easy for them to support abortion because they are not a risk of being aborted themselves.  It is always easy to support views that have no affect on you personally.  You see that in all ares of life.  People don't mind raising taxes on the rich because they are not rich so it does not affect them at all. It is a somewhat cowardly position to take.  

I propose a fix to this problem that at will at least address some of it.  That would be legal, retroactive post birth abortions.    That being after birth, a mother as long as she is alive, should be able to decide to terminate the lives of her kids.  If a 80 year old mom decides that her 38 year old daughter needs to to have her life ended, it is done.  That would reduce the numbers who support abortion as they know that as long as mom is still alive, she can still get them. 

Instead of that, imagine a world where abortions were accessible, safe, but rarely used. Where instead of trying to force women, society helps them or removes obstacles that prevent them from having safe pregnancies and outcomes.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

The people who support abortion are those who made it through the fetal development and birth process and were successfully born into this world.  Since they made it through the whole process without being aborted, it is easy for them to support abortion because they are not a risk of being aborted themselves.  It is always easy to support views that have no affect on you personally.  You see that in all ares of life.  People don't mind raising taxes on the rich because they are not rich so it does not affect them at all. It is a somewhat cowardly position to take.

Although I suspect you and I agree as to the ultimate conclusions to be reached relative to elective abortions, I think the foregoing does not sufficiently take into account the legitimate points being made by the "pro choice" side.  Rights of privacy, bodily autonomy and self-determination are important considerations.  Physical/mental/emotional health implications and risks to the mother are important considerations.  Sociological and financial implications are important.  

To be sure, there are some on the "pro choice" side who take a "no big deal" approach.  Who seem to give little or no thought or consideration or weight to the personhood of the unborn child.  But such abject apathy is not, I think, fairly attributed to the entirety of the "other side" of the debate. 

Thanks,

-Smac

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

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