[Abortion Thread] A Tough Pill To Swallow

[Elwher]

My view is:
You’re anti-abortion? Don’t get one.
You’re a man? Your opinion doesn’t matter.
You’re a conservative? Solve the issues like school shootings first.
You’re an unborn baby? Speak up.

How about women who for various medical or age-related issues cannot become pregnant? Do their opinions matter?

[Elwher]

"What it is referring to is that the state does have the power to take your rights away if it follows due process of the legal system, that is generally if you have been convicted of a crime". But it is within the power of the state to determine what a crime is, within the confines of the Federal Constitution.

And part of the confines of the constitution is the fact that states can't make protected rights illegal.

Leading us back to the question of what are the protected rights and who decides. In the case of unenumerated ones, it is the Court that has the ultimate authority and they have spoken.

"The federal government doesn't enforce on the states to not violate the rights, the federal judiciary does, a distinction that you don't appear to understand but an important one" The Federal government is composed of three branches, legislative, executive, and judiciary. The courts are a part of the government, not an entity standing outside of it.

Correct and not at the same time, it depends on the context in which you are speaking. When speaking about the powers of the federal government people are speaking about the executive and legislative, not the judiciary. This is because in the context of federal powers the judiciary largely is distinct and separate from the other two.

"Now it is very true to say that the specific rights citizens have is not well laid out in the constitution, but that isn't a huge issue as long as you aren't an idiot who slavishly follows to what is written in the constitution (ignoring the 9th)" We are a nation of laws, and laws are what is written down. I am a textualist, not an originalist, and I believe that the text of the Constitution, including all the Amendments, should be the basis of Supreme Court decisions. If the text does not adequately solve a problem, be it in Constitution or statute, there are legally acceptable ways of changing it.

So how do you square textualism with a part of the text literally saying not everything that is protected is written down?

There is no contradiction. There are enumerated rights, those written into the text, and there are unenumerated ones, those referred to by the 9th Amendment. Someone, and it is usually SCOTUS, has to determine what those in the second group are. The 9th simply says that just the fact that some rights are not written down does not mean they do not exist. It does not mean, however, that they necessarily do exist either nor does it state that every unenumerated right is within the province of the Federal government (any branch) to regulate.

[Fahran]

Isn’t it just wonderful, to have a place with proper welfare, and universal healthcare. And proper gun laws, and civil rights, and a women’s choice?

There’s like three countries that meet this description. Canada’s healthcare system is murdering patients to cut costs. They also cracked down on peaceful demonstrations recently. The NHS in the UK is creaking under the weight of ever-growing demand. They’ve also had protests against unjustified police killings. The Netherlands look to be alright for the time being. The rest of the EU doesn’t have abortion on demand past the beginning of the second trimester. The US, prior to Roe v. Wade being overturned, had incredibly liberal abortion laws comparatively - at least on paper.

If you ever think the US has it bad, we can always find bad stuff elsewhere. There’s no escape.

[Fahran]

While I don't think the man's opinion should hold as much weight as the woman's, I wouldn't say their opinion doesn't matter at all. Men are the ones getting women pregnant. That's just basic biology.

It does give me an idea though. Start going after the fathers of aborted children and see how many Republican lawmakers suddenly shut up about the issue.

No, this is actually based. Equality means equality. :^)

[The Black Forrest]

While I don't think the man's opinion should hold as much weight as the woman's, I wouldn't say their opinion doesn't matter at all. Men are the ones getting women pregnant. That's just basic biology.

It does give me an idea though. Start going after the fathers of aborted children and see how many Republican lawmakers suddenly shut up about the issue.

Their opinion is greatly lessened due to the long term and body effects of developing, delivering and raising a child.

If there is a solid relationship, women do tend to talk it over with the man. If they are simply dating? I suspect that chance does go down.

Simple thing of it? Unless you are directly attached to the woman in some fashion? Your views really don’t matter.

I don’t have to live with the ramifications of a choice. The woman?…does. I was never faced with this option in my dating time. None of the women told me if they were pregnant. Could have happened and they didn’t tell me……I don’t dwell on it. I figure if it happened; they would have told me as I would have done my part. If she wanted an abortion; I would have offered to pay for it. If she wanted to have the child; I would have done what I could to support it…..

Anyway….the woman has the authority as she has the most effort and the losses in the mater.

[Laasmistan]

Isn’t it just wonderful, to have a place with proper welfare, and universal healthcare. And proper gun laws, and civil rights, and a women’s choice?

There’s like three countries that meet this description. Canada’s healthcare system is murdering patients to cut costs. They also cracked down on peaceful demonstrations recently. The NHS in the UK is creaking under the weight of ever-growing demand. They’ve also had protests against unjustified police killings. The Netherlands look to be alright for the time being. The rest of the EU doesn’t have abortion on demand past the beginning of the second trimester. The US, prior to Roe v. Wade being overturned, had incredibly liberal abortion laws comparatively - at least on paper.

If you ever think the US has it bad, we can always find bad stuff elsewhere. There’s no escape.

When you say Canada is killing patients are you referring to how we have expanded the qualifications for euthanasia?

[Fahran]

There’s like three countries that meet this description. Canada’s healthcare system is murdering patients to cut costs. They also cracked down on peaceful demonstrations recently. The NHS in the UK is creaking under the weight of ever-growing demand. They’ve also had protests against unjustified police killings. The Netherlands look to be alright for the time being. The rest of the EU doesn’t have abortion on demand past the beginning of the second trimester. The US, prior to Roe v. Wade being overturned, had incredibly liberal abortion laws comparatively - at least on paper.

If you ever think the US has it bad, we can always find bad stuff elsewhere. There’s no escape.

When you say Canada is killing patients are you referring to how we have expanded the qualifications for euthanasia?

Yes, and has medical professionals actively coercing patients into being murdered because abuse in assisted care facilities is rampant (globally) and there are inadequate barriers to prevent mentally ill folks from committing suicide. Euthanasia should always be very severely restricted given how easy it is to abuse.

[Laasmistan]

When you say Canada is killing patients are you referring to how we have expanded the qualifications for euthanasia?

Yes, and has medical professionals actively coercing patients into being murdered because abuse in assisted care facilities is rampant (globally) and there are inadequate barriers to prevent mentally ill folks from committing suicide. Euthanasia should always be very severely restricted given how easy it is to abuse.

Speaking as a Canadian I was honestly disgusted when it was announced. There's literally disabled people seeking it out because they cannot find affordable housing that is accessible. It's social murder, plain and simple.

[The Black Forrest]

When you say Canada is killing patients are you referring to how we have expanded the qualifications for euthanasia?

Yes, and has medical professionals actively coercing patients into being murdered because abuse in assisted care facilities is rampant (globally) and there are inadequate barriers to prevent mentally ill folks from committing suicide. Euthanasia should always be very severely restricted given how easy it is to abuse.

Murder? How so?

I mean if a person is going to die quickly; why would you try and fight it so the hospitals, etc. can financially devistisate your family for their profit margins?

[Fahran]

Yes, and has medical professionals actively coercing patients into being murdered because abuse in assisted care facilities is rampant (globally) and there are inadequate barriers to prevent mentally ill folks from committing suicide. Euthanasia should always be very severely restricted given how easy it is to abuse.

Speaking as a Canadian I was honestly disgusted when it was announced. There's literally disabled people seeking it out because they cannot find affordable housing that is accessible. It's social murder, plain and simple.

Yeah, pretty much. It also violates the Hippocratic oath in my opinion, at least when you have medical professionals euthanizing poor patients or mentally ill patients, but we’re a little off-topic. My main point was that there are three or four countries with abortion laws on par with Roe v. Wade’s precedent. And they ain’t unproblematic when it comes to healthcare, political and civil rights, etc. They’re flawed, just like the US is.

[Fahran]

Yes, and has medical professionals actively coercing patients into being murdered because abuse in assisted care facilities is rampant (globally) and there are inadequate barriers to prevent mentally ill folks from committing suicide. Euthanasia should always be very severely restricted given how easy it is to abuse.

Murder? How so?

I mean if a person is going to die quickly; why would you try and fight it so the hospitals, etc. can financially devistisate your family for their profit margins?

We shouldn’t kill poor people because they can’t afford healthcare. We definitely shouldn’t do that if we’re going to claim we have quality healthcare that’s accessible to all. And, yes, telling an elderly patient their treatment option is euthanasia repeatedly and neglecting their healthcare needs is murder. So is killing a suicidal person.

[Spirit of Hope]

And part of the confines of the constitution is the fact that states can't make protected rights illegal.

Leading us back to the question of what are the protected rights and who decides. In the case of unenumerated ones, it is the Court that has the ultimate authority and they have spoken.

Correct and not at the same time, it depends on the context in which you are speaking. When speaking about the powers of the federal government people are speaking about the executive and legislative, not the judiciary. This is because in the context of federal powers the judiciary largely is distinct and separate from the other two.



So how do you square textualism with a part of the text literally saying not everything that is protected is written down?

There is no contradiction. There are enumerated rights, those written into the text, and there are unenumerated ones, those referred to by the 9th Amendment. Someone, and it is usually SCOTUS, has to determine what those in the second group are. The 9th simply says that just the fact that some rights are not written down does not mean they do not exist. It does not mean, however, that they necessarily do exist either nor does it state that every unenumerated right is within the province of the Federal government (any branch) to regulate.

So we are back to the federal courts, which routinely upheld abortion as constitutional, including the Supreme Court twice ruling abortion as a constitutional right.

Then it ruled abortion wasn't a constitutional right, ignoring their prior precedent. Why? Because justices were appointed to the court specifically to overrule that right. In the process they appear to have lied to the senators confirming their appointments. Then their was the shenanigans played with refusing to hear appointments or rushing them through, the President who was appointing them lost the popular vote, and the senators who confirmed them represented less than half the population of the US.

So while I'll admit it is a legally binding decision, I'm not going to stop criticizing it or the process by which it happened. It was a flawed legal decision based more on the personal beliefs of the justices than on law or history.

[Laasmistan]

Speaking as a Canadian I was honestly disgusted when it was announced. There's literally disabled people seeking it out because they cannot find affordable housing that is accessible. It's social murder, plain and simple.

Yeah, pretty much. It also violates the Hippocratic oath in my opinion, at least when you have medical professionals euthanizing poor patients or mentally ill patients, but we’re a little off-topic. My main point was that there are three or four countries with abortion laws on par with Roe v. Wade’s precedent. And they ain’t unproblematic when it comes to healthcare, political and civil rights, etc. They’re flawed, just like the US is.

Abortion laws? What abortion laws? Canada literally has none. Canada is one of only three countries, alongside North Korea and China, without legal restrictions on abortion. The main restrictions here in Canada are in many rural areas not having clinics and also most doctors not willing to perform elective late term abortions.

[The Black Forrest]

Murder? How so?

I mean if a person is going to die quickly; why would you try and fight it so the hospitals, etc. can financially devistisate your family for their profit margins?

We shouldn’t kill poor people because they can’t afford healthcare. We definitely shouldn’t do that if we’re going to claim we have quality healthcare that’s accessible to all. And, yes, telling an elderly patient their treatment option is euthanasia repeatedly and neglecting their healthcare needs is murder. So is killing a suicidal person.

Yes and simply going OMG is a waste of time. Falls in the range of “Thoughts and prayers”. What are you going to do about it?

Again if a person is going to die in a short time; why do you need to fill the coffers of the health care industry just to extend life for a little bit?

Neglecting healthcare is a different arguement…..

[The Black Forrest]

Yeah, pretty much. It also violates the Hippocratic oath in my opinion, at least when you have medical professionals euthanizing poor patients or mentally ill patients, but we’re a little off-topic. My main point was that there are three or four countries with abortion laws on par with Roe v. Wade’s precedent. And they ain’t unproblematic when it comes to healthcare, political and civil rights, etc. They’re flawed, just like the US is.

Abortion laws? What abortion laws? Canada literally has none. Canada is one of only three countries, alongside North Korea and China, without legal restrictions on abortion. The main restrictions here in Canada are in many rural areas not having clinics and also most doctors not willing to perform elective late term abortions.

Elective late term abortions? Have any numbers on that?

Late terms tend to be when genetic testing shows something bad….

[Katganistan]

I agree, and it is up to the legislatures to ensure that it is.

Your thing for needless bureaucracy does nothing to change the fact that the right to an abortion is protected constitutionally, no matter what some ideologues in robes have to say.

Handpicked ideologues in robes, specifically.

There are a lot of rights not mentioned in the constitution, should we take all of them away?

I doubt the founders even really thought about abortion that much as an issue, what with them all being well off white men, so we can't even say that they knowingly left it to the states to decide. Certainly at the time the constitution was written abortions during the first trimester were generally legal and accepted.

Bonus question, why are we even obsessing over what a bunch of amateur political scientists thought before the idea abortions before the idea of germs causing disease was nailed down?

Judges have no business making up rights. If something is not mentioned in the Constitution it is not a Constitutional right. It waa right to overturn the Roe decision.

Specifically, the Roe decisions ruling was that doctor-patient relationship was private and medical decisions should not be infringed/legislated by government.

Now the Reps want to regulate your medical decisions.

At least know what you're arguing.

[El Lazaro]

Yes, and has medical professionals actively coercing patients into being murdered because abuse in assisted care facilities is rampant (globally) and there are inadequate barriers to prevent mentally ill folks from committing suicide. Euthanasia should always be very severely restricted given how easy it is to abuse.

Murder? How so?

I mean if a person is going to die quickly; why would you try and fight it so the hospitals, etc. can financially devistisate your family for their profit margins?

Canada’s euthanasia laws are broader than “mercy killings” of patients who may be dying. Regardless, bodily autonomy should not be a crime (not that you can enforce laws against dead people anyways), but that doesn’t give others the right to violate it. Drinking herbicide? You shouldn’t, but it shouldn’t land you in jail either. Selling yourself to cannibals? You’re within your own rights as an individual, but the prospecting flesh-eaters are not.

[Katganistan]

Just because the word "you can do abortion" is not said explicitly doesn't mean it i
sn't a Constitutional right. No state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, after all, so sayeth Amendment 14th.

Then abortion should be outlawed nationwide because it deprives unborn babies of their rights. Roe needed to be overturned.

Not babies. Embryos, some of which never implant and fetuses, some of which spontaneously abort -- called a miscarriage.

At least use the proper language instead of emotionally charged language.

Unborn babies have rights? Problem; are all pregnancies guaranteed to go to term?

No person is guaranteed our next breath but we have rights. The USSC should make abortion illegal nationwide recognizing that a fetus is a baby.

That's like recognizing an acorn is an oak tree. It's not.

By definition, abortion literally cannot happen to a baby.

I'm assuming the person who said this is a Christian. According to most Christians life begins at conception so they do consider a fetus to technically be a baby.

I can believe that flying unicorns exist and fart rainbows and shit cupcakes, but it doesn't make it true.

These are not the same thing

Are you sure? The logic seems to be boiling down to "If you consent to A which carries the possibility of B occurring, then you consent to B."

Therefore, if you are in a car crash, no paramedics to save your life, no doctors to treat your broken bones. You knew it was possible when you got in the car.

[El Lazaro]

Then abortion should be outlawed nationwide because it deprives unborn babies of their rights. Roe needed to be overturned.

Not babies. Embryos, some of which never implant and fetuses, some of which spontaneously abort -- called a miscarriage.

At least use the proper language instead of emotionally charged language.

Given that’s been 99% of total “deaths” during pregnancy throughout human history, getting justice for the remaining 1% should not be the goal of anyone who claims to believe life starts at conception. I won’t take their crocodile tears seriously until they propose a ban on heterosexual intercourse.

If any of you genuinely believe your own words, please don’t actually.

[Katganistan]

No, he's going by the "Pregnancy is punishment for women being whores!" route.

Which is the latter option, wanting control over women and their sexuality.

We mostly started at "fetuses are persons and thus possess human rights." My guess is that this is a sincerely held belief given the words "whores" and "sluts" have not been forthcoming, and that the conversation has veered into the discussion of murder/killing and comparison of abortionists to serial killers. It absolutely makes sense to be pro-life if you believe fetuses are persons.

Can you claim them on a Federal tax return?
Do they possess a social security number?
Can a pregnant woman carrying twins drive in the HOV 3+ lane?

Why not?????

Are people forgetting that contraception exists? The only options are not abstinence or abortion. There's contraception as well, which anyone wanting to have sex without pregnancy should be using.

The types that want to control women don't believe in contraception, or believe that there should be other options if it fails.

And that's the next thing on the chopping block, btw. Making contraception illegal.

Most contraceptives have a real world effectiveness of about 80% to 90%, so they fail quite regularly across a persons lifetime use. Across a nation they will fail all the time, which shouldn't be that surprising a thing to state given about half of people who seek an abortion reported using contraceptives during the time they became pregnant. Then there are issues about people knowing about sex, pregnancy, and contraceptives use because the US has some places with terrible sex ed. Finally we also have people calling to ban contraceptives in the US.

I know of nobody wanting to ban contraception in the U.S.A. Who is proposing that?

https://www.texastribune.org/2022/06/24 ... -marriage/
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/2 ... s-00042256
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/ ... t-kidding/

Clarence Thomas. One of those activist judges that are ok when it's your side he's on.

Yes, and they might spread the virus and possibly even kill someone without the vaccine.

The vaccines are experimental and don't work. Everyone I know that was vaccinated got it, some really bad.

Anecdotes are worthless.

getting rid of the covid misinformation rule was one of the dumbest things the mods ever did

Everyone knows it doesn't work. By the way, are a freedom lover? All these people claim to support freedom except when it comes to speech. Kill a baby? Sure. Freedom of speech? No.

Ignorant conspiracy theorists think it does not work.

Most of the time it seems to be Christians who believe life begins at conception.

I would have understood those beliefs if they weren't the same folks pushing against contraception, gun control and mask mandates. Almost like, to them, kids only matter when they are not born yet. Hey, that's a song!

Don't forget how gung-ho some are about the death penalty.

Are you referring to Orthodox Judaism? I'm pretty sure Reform Judaism, and even some Conservative Jews, are okay with abortion. I'm not Jewish, though, so cannot claim to speak for them.

Reform Jews themselves may be ok with abortion but Reform Judaism overall is only ok with abortion if the life of the mother is threatened, if the mother is underaged, or rape/incest. Outside of that no

Incorrect. A quick Google search disproves that.

[Loeje]

The types that want to control women don't believe in contraception, or believe that there should be other options if it fails.

And that's the next thing on the chopping block, btw. Making contraception illegal.

I'm going to say now that if they try to make contraception illegal, I will personally find a way to stop that myself. It would be way too far, intolerable.

[Elwher]

Specifically, the Roe decisions ruling was that doctor-patient relationship was private and medical decisions should not be infringed/legislated by government.

Now the Reps want to regulate your medical decisions.

At least know what you're arguing.

So do you apply that to all doctor-patient decisions or just this one? For example, if a doctor and patient decide to forgo vaccinations, is that something that should not be infringed/legislated by the government?

[New haven america]

Specifically, the Roe decisions ruling was that doctor-patient relationship was private and medical decisions should not be infringed/legislated by government.

Now the Reps want to regulate your medical decisions.

At least know what you're arguing.

1. So do you apply that to all doctor-patient decisions or just this one? 2. For example, if a doctor and patient decide to forgo vaccinations, is that something that should not be infringed/legislated by the government?

1. Legally speaking, generally yes, except for abortion which is now the only exception.
2. It already isn't. Doesn't mean private businesses and the military can't punish people for that stupidity.

[Fahran]

Yes and simply going OMG is a waste of time. Falls in the range of “Thoughts and prayers”. What are you going to do about it?

Fortify mental healthcare services and provide adequate standards of care to patients using the allegedly world-class universal system Canada claims to have. Not approve government-assisted suicide for people who aren't dying painfully on the grounds that they have hearing loss in a single ear. Not strong-arm elderly patients in hospice or assisted living facilities into accepting their own murder by persistently refusing to provide them adequate care. Not expand euthanasia laws to permit the euthanasia of children who, as minors, cannot consent to their own deaths. Like, come on, you have government-provided or subsidized healthcare. There's no excuse for running it like an ancap hell-state would. This is literally the sort of nonsense libertarians were warning would happen in 2010, and nobody, myself among them, would have believed it was possible because of how patently evil it is.

Again if a person is going to die in a short time; why do you need to fill the coffers of the health care industry just to extend life for a little bit?

Canada's laws are a lot more permissive than that. Euthanasia isn't just available to patients who are dying and consent to it. We have several high-profile instances of euthanasia being approved or pushed when it shouldn't have been an option at all. You, as a healthcare professional, do not kill the person who has mental health issues and has stopped taking their meds. That's not even controversial. You do not put death forward as an option to an elderly patient who has requested other forms of care and told you "no" verbally multiple times when you told them they need to die. Like this isn't morally complex.

Neglecting healthcare is a different arguement…..

No, it's not. If you build a system where healthcare is neglected and then expand euthanasia to the point that people are coerced into accepting their own murders because the level of care you provide is insufficient, your healthcare system is fundamentally flawed in a systematic way and these issues are all interrelated in making it so. So, yeah, I would consider Canada's healthcare system to have failed in crucial and morally substantive ways - just as I consider America's healthcare system to have failed in crucial and morally substantive ways.

[Fahran]

Can you claim them on a Federal tax return?
Do they possess a social security number?
Can a pregnant woman carrying twins drive in the HOV 3+ lane?

Why not?????

1. As we discussed before, laws are inconsistent on such matters. If a woman carrying a child is murdered, the person who murdered her can actually be charged with double homicide in a number of jurisdictions - which implies that, on some level, the fetus is acknowledged by the judiciary to possess a substantive place in the community and right not to be killed by people other than it's mother. This is one example among many of laws being philosophically inconsistent because they weren't created with a singular philosophical framework in mind.

2. Multiple people who possess rights within the context of the United States legal system do not possess social security numbers. Fetal personhood need not necessarily imply fetal citizenship, especially given how the United States treats and confers citizenship. I do think there's a stronger argument in many other countries for that though. Iure sanguinis and all that.

3. Philosophical inconsistencies and ongoing disputes within our political and legal discourse. See above. And these don't just exist for abortion.