[Abortion Thread] (POLL 4) A compromising position...

[Spirit of Hope]

Then what is your basis for apposing abortion? The fetus is hurting the woman and the woman would like to take steps to end it. The fetus is not a person, as before the third trimester it does not have the capacity to survive outside the womb or the brain activity to count as being alive.

I am ambivalent on the question of abortion itself as I am unsure about ensoulment. What I am opposed to is allowing the Federal government to regulate any medical procedures including abortion.

However, using "the capacity to survive outside the womb or the brain activity to count as being alive" is somewhat dangerous, as it could define someone in a deep coma or a vegetative state on a ventilator as not being alive either.

I mean brain dead is how most states define death, a person in a vegetative state that is brain dead is someone who is not alive. A person in a coma has the required brain activity to still be alive. There are various tests that can be done to differentiate between a vegetative state, a coma, and brain death.

I don't see why you have an issue with the federal government (in this case the federal courts) saying that the right to have access to a specific medical procedure is protected by law. Especially when the FDA is deeply involved with regulating the medical field.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

Then what is your basis for apposing abortion? The fetus is hurting the woman and the woman would like to take steps to end it. The fetus is not a person, as before the third trimester it does not have the capacity to survive outside the womb or the brain activity to count as being alive.

I am ambivalent on the question of abortion itself as I am unsure about ensoulment. What I am opposed to is allowing the Federal government to regulate any medical procedures including abortion.

However, using "the capacity to survive outside the womb or the brain activity to count as being alive" is somewhat dangerous, as it could define someone in a deep coma or a vegetative state on a ventilator as not being alive either.

So who should regulate it? The states are still beholden to the constitution.

[Elwher]

I am ambivalent on the question of abortion itself as I am unsure about ensoulment. What I am opposed to is allowing the Federal government to regulate any medical procedures including abortion.

However, using "the capacity to survive outside the womb or the brain activity to count as being alive" is somewhat dangerous, as it could define someone in a deep coma or a vegetative state on a ventilator as not being alive either.

So who should regulate it? The states are still beholden to the constitution.

And nowhere in the Constitution is the Federal government given the power to regulate medical procedures. Roe was decided on the basis of Griswold, and that one, to me, is a prime example of legislation from the bench in its creation of a right to privacy that is nowhere found in the text. By the 10th Amendment, that red-headed stepchild of the Constitution, medical regulation is reserved to the states as it is not an enumerated power of the Federal government.

[Elwher]

I am ambivalent on the question of abortion itself as I am unsure about ensoulment. What I am opposed to is allowing the Federal government to regulate any medical procedures including abortion.

However, using "the capacity to survive outside the womb or the brain activity to count as being alive" is somewhat dangerous, as it could define someone in a deep coma or a vegetative state on a ventilator as not being alive either.

I mean brain dead is how most states define death, a person in a vegetative state that is brain dead is someone who is not alive. A person in a coma has the required brain activity to still be alive. There are various tests that can be done to differentiate between a vegetative state, a coma, and brain death.

I don't see why you have an issue with the federal government (in this case the federal courts) saying that the right to have access to a specific medical procedure is protected by law. Especially when the FDA is deeply involved with regulating the medical field.

Because the 10th Amendment clearly states that powers not granted to the Federal government are reserved to the states. Nowhere is the regulation of medical procedures granted as a Federal power. And not to get off-topic, but a great deal of what the FDA does is also overreach in my opinion.

[Godular]

So who should regulate it? The states are still beholden to the constitution.

And nowhere in the Constitution is the Federal government given the power to regulate medical procedures. Roe was decided on the basis of Griswold, and that one, to me, is a prime example of legislation from the bench in its creation of a right to privacy that is nowhere found in the text. By the 10th Amendment, that red-headed stepchild of the Constitution, medical regulation is reserved to the states as it is not an enumerated power of the Federal government.

I disagree on a fundamental level. Restricting access to medical procedures, including abortion, is in my view a violation of the right to privacy as described in the fourth amendment. Just because it doesn't state the word 'privacy' in that amendment does not mean the right to it doesn't exist.

[Well-Armed Philosophers]

[Fetuses] literally have no thoughts and no awareness.

[citation needed]

(not implying that it is morally unjustifiable to end the life of something with awareness without its consent)

[Spirit of Hope]

So who should regulate it? The states are still beholden to the constitution.

And nowhere in the Constitution is the Federal government given the power to regulate medical procedures. Roe was decided on the basis of Griswold, and that one, to me, is a prime example of legislation from the bench in its creation of a right to privacy that is nowhere found in the text. By the 10th Amendment, that red-headed stepchild of the Constitution, medical regulation is reserved to the states as it is not an enumerated power of the Federal government.

I mean brain dead is how most states define death, a person in a vegetative state that is brain dead is someone who is not alive. A person in a coma has the required brain activity to still be alive. There are various tests that can be done to differentiate between a vegetative state, a coma, and brain death.

I don't see why you have an issue with the federal government (in this case the federal courts) saying that the right to have access to a specific medical procedure is protected by law. Especially when the FDA is deeply involved with regulating the medical field.

Because the 10th Amendment clearly states that powers not granted to the Federal government are reserved to the states. Nowhere is the regulation of medical procedures granted as a Federal power. And not to get off-topic, but a great deal of what the FDA does is also overreach in my opinion.

The right to privacy is implied by the First, Third and Forth Amendments. Plus the Ninth Amendment means that just because a right isn't written in the constitution doesn't mean the people lose that right.

Medical supplies cross state boundaries, so the federal government definitely has the constitutional power to regulate it. But you are correct that bit is off topic, so I'll leave it at that.

[Genivaria]

[Fetuses] literally have no thoughts and no awareness.

[citation needed]

(not implying that it is morally unjustifiable to end the life of something with awareness without its consent)

The very beginnings of our higher brain structures only start to appear between weeks 12 and 16. Crucially, the co-ordinated brain activity required for consciousness does not occur until 24-25 weeks of pregnancy. We cannot say when consciousness first emerges, but it cannot rationally be called before the end of the second trimester at 24 weeks of pregnancy.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/the- ... -1.3506968

[Well-Armed Philosophers]

We cannot say when consciousness ... emerges

The claim that fetuses literally have no thoughts and no awareness is literally unfalsifiable, as are most claims about consciousness. Personally, I believe that consciousness, at its most basic, rudimentary level, can be expressed outside of what some neurologists would consider a sufficiently-developed brain, and I would be happy to defend that view but probably not in the abortion thread. I just think that "fetuses have no soul" is as lazy an argument as "every life is sacred". We really have no way of knowing whether a fetus is aware of its abortion and it very well might be. But then what about all the other innocent human beings who suffer non-consensual deaths that are as easy to prevent as unwanted pregnancies?

[Godular]

The claim that fetuses literally have no thoughts and no awareness is literally unfalsifiable, as are most claims about consciousness.

A thirty second google search would suggest otherwise.

That said, mayhap the use of 'literally' was a tad hyperbolic on their part, but that does not give cause to make such wide ranging blanket statements as you do here.

Personally, I believe that consciousness, at its most basic, rudimentary level, can be expressed outside of what some neurologists would consider a sufficiently-developed brain, and I would be happy to defend that view but probably not in the abortion thread. I just think that "fetuses have no soul" is as lazy an argument as "every life is sacred". We really have no way of knowing whether a fetus is aware of its abortion and it very well might be. But then what about all the other innocent human beings who suffer non-consensual deaths that are as easy to prevent as unwanted pregnancies?

I personally believe that simply claiming something to be unfalsifiable does not inherently make it so, and that predicating your argument on such a position is more than a little impulsive.

[Elwher]

And nowhere in the Constitution is the Federal government given the power to regulate medical procedures. Roe was decided on the basis of Griswold, and that one, to me, is a prime example of legislation from the bench in its creation of a right to privacy that is nowhere found in the text. By the 10th Amendment, that red-headed stepchild of the Constitution, medical regulation is reserved to the states as it is not an enumerated power of the Federal government.

Because the 10th Amendment clearly states that powers not granted to the Federal government are reserved to the states. Nowhere is the regulation of medical procedures granted as a Federal power. And not to get off-topic, but a great deal of what the FDA does is also overreach in my opinion.

The right to privacy is implied by the First, Third and Forth Amendments. Plus the Ninth Amendment means that just because a right isn't written in the constitution doesn't mean the people lose that right.

Medical supplies cross state boundaries, so the federal government definitely has the constitutional power to regulate it. But you are correct that bit is off topic, so I'll leave it at that.

But the 10th, which is after the 9th and therefore supersedes, or at least modifies, it, states that the power to regulate such rights not given to the Federal government is granted to the states. Hence, my objection to Griswold, and in true, Roe.

[Neuer California]

The right to privacy is implied by the First, Third and Forth Amendments. Plus the Ninth Amendment means that just because a right isn't written in the constitution doesn't mean the people lose that right.

Medical supplies cross state boundaries, so the federal government definitely has the constitutional power to regulate it. But you are correct that bit is off topic, so I'll leave it at that.

But the 10th, which is after the 9th and therefore supersedes, or at least modifies, it, states that the power to regulate such rights not given to the Federal government is granted to the states. Hence, my objection to Griswold, and in true, Roe.

Which court cases say this? Remember that the courts are the final arbiters of the constitution.

[Spirit of Hope]

The right to privacy is implied by the First, Third and Forth Amendments. Plus the Ninth Amendment means that just because a right isn't written in the constitution doesn't mean the people lose that right.

Medical supplies cross state boundaries, so the federal government definitely has the constitutional power to regulate it. But you are correct that bit is off topic, so I'll leave it at that.

But the 10th, which is after the 9th and therefore supersedes, or at least modifies, it, states that the power to regulate such rights not given to the Federal government is granted to the states. Hence, my objection to Griswold, and in true, Roe.

14th Amendment means that states can't violate rights guaranteed by the constitution.

States have the right to regulate abortions, which they regularly do, they just don't have the right to ban abortions.

Also the bill of rights, the first ten amendments, were adopted at basically the same time. Amendment 10 doesn't supercede amendments 1-9.

[Well-Armed Philosophers]

A thirty second google search would suggest otherwise.

So pop-science has solved the hard problem of consciousness now?

I personally believe that simply claiming something to be unfalsifiable does not inherently make it so

Nor does it inherently make it not so.

and that predicating your argument on such a position is more than a little impulsive.

My point to the issue of abortion is that whether or not a fetus possesses consciousness, awareness, self-awareness, soul, spirit, etc., should not factor into the debate because no matter what your position, it opens up a huge slippery slope for all sorts of other issues, such as euthanasia, capital punishment, animal cruelty, or AI research. It makes no sense to base any kind of policy on something we cannot define, measure, or identify objectively.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

A thirty second google search would suggest otherwise.

So pop-science has solved the hard problem of consciousness now?

Insofar as science can ‘solve’ anything, sounds like they’ve got it pinned pretty good.

I personally believe that simply claiming something to be unfalsifiable does not inherently make it so

Nor does it inherently make it not so.

Sounds like you want others to prove a negative, which doesn’t fly.

and that predicating your argument on such a position is more than a little impulsive.

My point to the issue of abortion is that whether or not a fetus possesses consciousness, awareness, self-awareness, soul, spirit, etc., should not factor into the debate because no matter what your position, it opens up a huge slippery slope for all sorts of other issues, such as euthanasia, capital punishment, animal cruelty, or AI research. It makes no sense to base any kind of policy on something we cannot define, measure, or identify objectively.

And that sounds like you’re assuming there’s anything more to consciousness than what has been found by actual experimentation an inquiry. Unless you can prove that there is something more, there is no reason to operate as if that conclusion is true.

I for one have experienced what a complete loss of consciousness is like, simply by going under general anesthesia. You blink and two days have passed. No sensation, no capacity to mark time, just… you wake up and time has passed. For a fetus, there’s no ‘before’, and the point where it ‘wakes up’ is very late in a pregnancy. So far, that seems the best point to make the distinction, and there hasn’t been much to prove otherwise yet.

So claims that the fetus can feel anything before that point are functionally based on speculation, which is functionally worth its weight in vacuum.

[Alcala-Cordel]

Consent applies to people involved, you have no right to force yourself into the situation and deny people the right to an abortion.

And again, fetuses aren't people.

He honestly makes me thing of the horribly cringy "Myth of Consensual Sex" Christian meme.
https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/new ... 94/dc8.jpg

So that's why Jesus hasn't come yet.

[Elwher]

But the 10th, which is after the 9th and therefore supersedes, or at least modifies, it, states that the power to regulate such rights not given to the Federal government is granted to the states. Hence, my objection to Griswold, and in true, Roe.

Which court cases say this? Remember that the courts are the final arbiters of the constitution.

Separate but equal was right until Brown? Legal, yes, but was it right?

[Elwher]

But the 10th, which is after the 9th and therefore supersedes, or at least modifies, it, states that the power to regulate such rights not given to the Federal government is granted to the states. Hence, my objection to Griswold, and in true, Roe.

14th Amendment means that states can't violate rights guaranteed by the constitution.

States have the right to regulate abortions, which they regularly do, they just don't have the right to ban abortions.

Also the bill of rights, the first ten amendments, were adopted at basically the same time. Amendment 10 doesn't supercede amendments 1-9.

Implied is not the same as guaranteed. The right to privacy created in Griswold is not explicitly found in the Constitution and as a textualist, I claim that means it does not exist.

[San Lumen]

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watc ... -should-be

A Republican Missouri Senate candidate said last week that teenagers who become pregnant as a result of incest or rape should be denied abortions, saying he does not "believe in any exceptions.”

Mark McCloskey made the statement after being asked about politicians who are anti-abortion and support exceptions for rape and incest,

[Vassenor]

14th Amendment means that states can't violate rights guaranteed by the constitution.

States have the right to regulate abortions, which they regularly do, they just don't have the right to ban abortions.

Also the bill of rights, the first ten amendments, were adopted at basically the same time. Amendment 10 doesn't supercede amendments 1-9.

Implied is not the same as guaranteed. The right to privacy created in Griswold is not explicitly found in the Constitution and as a textualist, I claim that means it does not exist.

Not believing in the right to privacy implies you are OK with being doxxed.

[Neuer California]

Which court cases say this? Remember that the courts are the final arbiters of the constitution.

Separate but equal was right until Brown? Legal, yes, but was it right?

Didn't say the courts rulings are automatically right. No idea where you got that from.

The courts get it wrong, but until they rule otherwise, the law as they set it down is the law.

[Spirit of Hope]

14th Amendment means that states can't violate rights guaranteed by the constitution.

States have the right to regulate abortions, which they regularly do, they just don't have the right to ban abortions.

Also the bill of rights, the first ten amendments, were adopted at basically the same time. Amendment 10 doesn't supercede amendments 1-9.

Implied is not the same as guaranteed. The right to privacy created in Griswold is not explicitly found in the Constitution and as a textualist, I claim that means it does not exist.

So the 9th amendment is useless then. The founders wrote that amendment explicitly because they knew they couldn't think of every right that they wanted to protect. So they wrote an amendment to protect rights that they hadn't explicitly written down. And you are ignoring that amendment.

[Ifreann]

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/578875-republican-missouri-senate-candidate-teen-incest-victims-should-be

A Republican Missouri Senate candidate said last week that teenagers who become pregnant as a result of incest or rape should be denied abortions, saying he does not "believe in any exceptions.”

Mark McCloskey made the statement after being asked about politicians who are anti-abortion and support exceptions for rape and incest,

Look at that, consistency.

[The V I C]

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/578875-republican-missouri-senate-candidate-teen-incest-victims-should-be

A Republican Missouri Senate candidate said last week that teenagers who become pregnant as a result of incest or rape should be denied abortions, saying he does not "believe in any exceptions.”

Mark McCloskey made the statement after being asked about politicians who are anti-abortion and support exceptions for rape and incest,

Is the American pro life movement really about protecting "unborn" ""life"" or is it just about harming women? Considering how unbelievably fucked up this pro life crap has become, I'm guessing the latter, and just like how anti arabism has been dressed up behind the fear of "a tyrannical religion" (Islam), the torture and oppression of women has been dressed up behind the guise of protecting alleged lives.

Now I'm not saying everyone who considers themselves pro life is a misogynist. I'm just saying that America's mainstream and republican pro life advocates sure tend to be.

[Elwher]

Implied is not the same as guaranteed. The right to privacy created in Griswold is not explicitly found in the Constitution and as a textualist, I claim that means it does not exist.

So the 9th amendment is useless then. The founders wrote that amendment explicitly because they knew they couldn't think of every right that they wanted to protect. So they wrote an amendment to protect rights that they hadn't explicitly written down. And you are ignoring that amendment.

Useless, no. However, when taken in conjunction with the 10th it transfers the power to define and protect those non-enumerated rights from the Federal level to the states themselves. For example, a Federal law to prohibit abortions would fall afoul of the 9th.