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

[Spirit of Hope]

It is alive, no one is disputing that. Alive is meaningless, you sustain your own life by killing millions of living things. Every meal is a mass murder, even a vegan meal. Do we live in a world where people get their nutrition from minerals?

By alive I meant sentient, has a soul, has consciousness.

A fetus doesn't have the required brain activity/structure for sentience/consciousness until the third trimester.

[The New California Republic]

It is alive, no one is disputing that. Alive is meaningless, you sustain your own life by killing millions of living things. Every meal is a mass murder, even a vegan meal. Do we live in a world where people get their nutrition from minerals?

By alive I meant sentient, has a soul, has consciousness.

When the overwhelming majority of abortions are carried out, 12 weeks or before, the fetus has no consciousness at all, being absolutely incapable of it. They only begin the process of the type of brain development that leads to consciousness after week 13 at the very earliest, and even at a late stage of development they only have minimal consciousness, due in part to the neural connections just not being there yet, and also due to endogenous sedation in the womb.

[HISPIDA]

It is alive, no one is disputing that. Alive is meaningless, you sustain your own life by killing millions of living things. Every meal is a mass murder, even a vegan meal. Do we live in a world where people get their nutrition from minerals?

By alive I meant sentient, has a soul, has consciousness.

which fetuses in 100% of all abortions aren't. in 97% of all abortions fetuses aren't even able to respond to external stimuli

[The Blaatschapen]

It is alive, no one is disputing that. Alive is meaningless, you sustain your own life by killing millions of living things. Every meal is a mass murder, even a vegan meal. Do we live in a world where people get their nutrition from minerals?

By alive I meant sentient, has a soul, has consciousness.

Humans have souls?

Can you show me where in the body a soul should be?

[Page]

It is alive, no one is disputing that. Alive is meaningless, you sustain your own life by killing millions of living things. Every meal is a mass murder, even a vegan meal. Do we live in a world where people get their nutrition from minerals?

has a soul, has consciousness.

The former is unfalsifiable, the latter is false.

[Limonovshchina]

It is not sentient, however. It will not be sentient until about 30 weeks -- long after the legal limit for abortion (notwithstanding emergencies) in most jurisdictions.

Many things are alive, but sentience makes the greatest difference.

No, it doesn't. Personhood makes the difference and it begins at birth. Plenty of animals are sentient, including those we farm for food and those which threaten our health and safety in some way or are in general a nuisance, and we care absolutely less for those for a good reason. We care absolutely less for fetuses for the same reason. They are not people and do not by that fact alone deserve in any conceivable way similar amount of consideration to people.

Sentience is a completely garbage attempt by certain people to extend personhood outside people themselves and then end up infringing upon actual people in the process. It should be irrelevant to political questions while letting people make their preferred moral choice by themselves for themselves only.

[Page]

It is not sentient, however. It will not be sentient until about 30 weeks -- long after the legal limit for abortion (notwithstanding emergencies) in most jurisdictions.

Many things are alive, but sentience makes the greatest difference.

No, it doesn't. Personhood makes the difference and it begins at birth. Plenty of animals are sentient, including those we farm for food and those which threaten our health and safety in some way or are in general a nuisance, and we care absolutely less for those for a good reason. We care absolutely less for fetuses for the same reason. They are not people and do not by that fact alone deserve in any conceivable way similar amount of consideration to people.

Sentience is a completely garbage attempt by certain people to extend personhood outside people themselves and then end up infringing upon actual people in the process. It should be irrelevant to political questions while letting people make their preferred moral choice by themselves for themselves only.

The word sentient has multiple definitions. It can be used to mean awareness of one's own existence or simply the capacity for subjective experience. We know many animals have the latter.

It's bad morality to base rights on intelligence but it's good morality to base rights on the capacity to feel. But a first and most of second trimester fetus has neither.

[Limonovshchina]

No, it doesn't. Personhood makes the difference and it begins at birth. Plenty of animals are sentient, including those we farm for food and those which threaten our health and safety in some way or are in general a nuisance, and we care absolutely less for those for a good reason. We care absolutely less for fetuses for the same reason. They are not people and do not by that fact alone deserve in any conceivable way similar amount of consideration to people.

Sentience is a completely garbage attempt by certain people to extend personhood outside people themselves and then end up infringing upon actual people in the process. It should be irrelevant to political questions while letting people make their preferred moral choice by themselves for themselves only.

The word sentient has multiple definitions. It can be used to mean awareness of one's own existence or simply the capacity for subjective experience. We know many animals have the latter.

It's bad morality to base rights on intelligence but it's good morality to base rights on the capacity to feel. But a first and most of second trimester fetus has neither.

I am not basing morality on intelligence. I'm basing it on personhood. Personhood in any realistic sense is defined by being born as homo sapiens sapiens. That is, until some kind of alien civilization is discovered, hence the realistic part.

[The Free Joy State]

It is not sentient, however. It will not be sentient until about 30 weeks -- long after the legal limit for abortion (notwithstanding emergencies) in most jurisdictions.

Many things are alive, but sentience makes the greatest difference.

No, it doesn't. Personhood makes the difference and it begins at birth. Plenty of animals are sentient, including those we farm for food and those which threaten our health and safety in some way or are in general a nuisance, and we care absolutely less for those for a good reason. We care absolutely less for fetuses for the same reason. They are not people and do not by that fact alone deserve in any conceivable way similar amount of consideration to people.

Sentience is a completely garbage attempt by certain people to extend personhood outside people themselves and then end up infringing upon actual people in the process. It should be irrelevant to political questions while letting people make their preferred moral choice by themselves for themselves only.

A first and second trimester foetus has neither. A third trimester foetus is beginning to have the capacity to feel (at about thirty weeks). It does not give that foetus rights to use a human's body without consent (though, generally, abortions are only performed in severe circumstances by then). But then, neither does personhood give a born person the right to use another human's body to support themselves without consent.

Personhood can be a a false flag in my opinion, too. Personhood is a legal question and one which is very often hijacked by certain persons in an attempt to give foetuses certain rights that born humans, rightly, do not have.

Sentience is a testable point of development, one that requires more than life.

[Limonovshchina]

Personhood can be a a false flag in my opinion, too. Personhood is a legal question and one which is very often hijacked by certain persons in an attempt to give foetuses certain rights that born humans, rightly, do not have.

Which is why I defined personhood specifically as being born as homo sapiens sapiens. A fetus is not a person.

Sentience is a testable point of development, one that requires more than life.

And also completely irrelevant, like I already explained.

[The Free Joy State]

Personhood can be a a false flag in my opinion, too. Personhood is a legal question and one which is very often hijacked by certain persons in an attempt to give foetuses certain rights that born humans, rightly, do not have.

Which is why I defined personhood specifically as being born as homo sapiens sapiens. A fetus is not a person.

And I agree. And so does Congress. But, unless you have the final vote in states looking to roll back abortion rights, those persons who do have a vote and are hijacking personhood to give foetuses those unwarranted rights are not any less of a threat to women. Are they?

Hence why personhood, although a thing that can be looked at, is far from the only thing worth looking at.

[Limonovshchina]

Which is why I defined personhood specifically as being born as homo sapiens sapiens. A fetus is not a person.

And I agree. And so does Congress. But, unless you have the final vote in states looking to roll back abortion rights, those persons who do have a vote and are hijacking personhood to give foetuses those unwarranted rights are not any less of a threat to women. Are they?

Of course they are a threat. Them defining personhood in a way which makes no sense and ends up diminishing actual people doesn't change personhood into something else. That just has to be combated in every possible way, all the more because people motivated by pro-life ideology have gone to lengths of attacking medical personnel and bombing clinics before.

Hence why personhood, although a thing that can be looked at, is far from the only thing worth looking at.

Well, I explained why sentience ain't it. Animals have sentience and we don't use that sentience as a good enough moral basis for sparing them from cruelty, especially if these animals are food, utilities, threats to people or when we displace them when building industry, infrastructure, accommodation or anything else.

[Dogmeat]

By alive I meant sentient, has a soul, has consciousness.

Humans have souls?

Can you show me where in the body a soul should be?

The bottom of the foot.

[The Blaatschapen]

Humans have souls?

Can you show me where in the body a soul should be?

The bottom of the foot.

[Katganistan]

Citing a passage in a 2000 year old book doesn't help your arguments for a modern day issue look credible.

Especially since said book does not speak about a prohibition against abortion at all, and indeed talks about priests inducing it in women supposed to be faithless, and also only charging a fine for causing a miscarriage, but far heavier penalties for harming the woman.

This forum does nothing but argue
None of this discution is good.its just fighting without a reason

Then stop spamming the "discution" with irrelevant whining about the discussion and find one that interests you.

do i really have to explain why prostitution is bad the women who do it are probably broke which is said but i mean come one go work at MCDONALDS!

Which even if you COULD get a job there, since they had been snapped up as second jobs by older adults trying to make ends meet the last few years, it still would not provide you a living wage.

Not to mention McDonald's replacing pretty much all their cashiers with touchscreens.

So, yeah, a BIT out of the loop on the availability of jobs at McDonald's.

I’ve only got one pillar: A born person can’t use another person’s body without their consent, giving the unborn such a right is hypocritical.

Well let me ask you then.
Imagine someone is dying, and only you can stop it.
To save them, you must pay the government 1$, would you do it ?
How about 10, or 100. How far until you would stop.

Or, in a way not directly tied to money,
Say you must endure a small annoyance, to save a life, only you can do it.
Say for 3 days at midnight some one will knock on your door.

These may not be the best analogies, but basically, I’m trying to ask to what degree you’ll you be willing to sacrifice liberty, or accept some burden to save a life. (In general, not only abortion)

Why should anyone be forced to shoulder that responsibility against their will?
Why is it my personal responsibility that a stranger is dying, why must I provide my own bodily fluids, my own being, to prevent that?

No, I'm talking about your entire argument. It cannot be compared to abortion as the difference of degree that you have been arguing so far across the length and breadth of your argument as a whole is so ridiculously wide that it cannot be compared to abortion.

Ok, how about this.
How far up do you believe bodily autonomy is in liberty.
Do you believe that letting some stranger crash at your house for 9 months, putting prune juice in your food, and causing you stress, would be worth it if you could save a life through that act ?

No.

My answer to the poll is that there is a possible compromise,

You know the question I mean. Would you think it acceptable to have a kidney forcibly removed (which may not kill, but can cause risks due to surgery -- forced in this case -- and pain and a long recovery) to save a life?

And if your remaining kidney is damaged or diseased later, well, guess you're just fucked.

[The Alma Mater]

Citing a passage in a 2000 year old book doesn't help your arguments for a modern day issue look credible.

Especially since said book does not speak about a prohibition against abortion at all, and indeed talks about priests inducing it in women supposed to be faithless, and also only charging a fine for causing a miscarriage, but far heavier penalties for harming the woman.

As well as arguing execution for women who cheated, with no "but do wait 9 months because the child carries no blame" clauses at all.

[Page]

Especially since said book does not speak about a prohibition against abortion at all, and indeed talks about priests inducing it in women supposed to be faithless, and also only charging a fine for causing a miscarriage, but far heavier penalties for harming the woman.

As well as arguing execution for women who cheated, with no "but do wait 9 months because the child carries no blame" clauses at all.

And dashing already born babies' heads against the rocks.

[Stellar Colonies]

What to listen for as Supreme Court weighs the right to abortion and Roe vs. Wade (Los Angeles Times)

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court’s new conservative majority on Wednesday will weigh the fate of a famous liberal precedent: the Roe vs. Wade decision and the right of pregnant women to choose abortion.
Lawyers for Mississippi will defend a law that bans abortions after 15 weeks, and they will urge the court to go further and overrule the right to abortion set in 1973.

The nine justices and the attorneys will gather in a nearly empty courtroom, but the audio will be livestreamed on the court’s website beginning at 10 a.m. Eastern.

By midday the court will also post a transcript of the arguments in the case of Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.

Here’s what to listen for during the argument:

Do justices focus on the 15-week limit or on the validity of Roe itself?

The biggest question is whether five conservative justices are ready to overturn the right to abortion now and boldly declare the Constitution offers no such protection to women.

Last year, when Mississippi filed its appeal petition, its lawyers asked the court to rule on whether the state could forbid abortions after 15 weeks. Even if upheld, this limit would not affect 95% of abortions.

But once the court voted to hear the appeal, the state changed course and called on the court to strike down Roe vs. Wade. Do any of the justices on the right sound troubled by the state’s bait-and-switch tactics? Or do some take the opportunity to question whether the 1973 ruling should be overturned?

Does Justice Barrett ask about the role of precedent?

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the newest to the bench, could decide how far and how fast the court goes to restrict abortion. She is a former clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia, a fierce critic of Roe vs. Wade.

As a law professor at Notre Dame, she wrote often about precedent and argued for overturning past court rulings that were not based on a correct reading of the Constitution.

If she asks about precedent, it may signal she has already concluded Roe vs. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overruled.

In her first year, however, Barrett avoided broad constitutional rulings when cases could be decided narrowly. If she continues that pattern, she could focus on the justification for a 15-week limit.

Does Justice Kavanaugh focus on a narrow ruling?

Along with Barrett, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh will be key to whether the court rules narrowly on whether states may put tighter time limits on legal abortions or broadly on whether abortions may be outlawed entirely.

In his three years on the court, he has been a reliable but moderate-sounding conservative. He usually asks probing questions of both sides, leaving some doubt as to how he will rule. If he seems interested in only the 15-week limit, it may signal he’s not ready to overturn Roe.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch may be ready to overturn Roe vs. Wade now, but they would need Kavanaugh and Barrett to have a majority.

Where does Chief Justice Roberts try to steer the court?

John G. Roberts Jr. is a conservative and skeptical of abortion rights, but as the chief justice, he often seeks incremental rulings that do not make dramatic changes in the law.

He can take control of the court’s opinion if he is in the majority. Will he try to convince his colleagues to focus narrowly on the 15-week limit?

Roberts had reliably joined conservatives in the past to uphold abortion restrictions, but more recently, he switched sides and cited precedent.

Last year, he cast a deciding fifth vote to strike down a Louisiana abortion law on the grounds it was nearly identical to a Texas law the court had struck down a few years before.

The abortion-rights lawyers in the Mississippi case are stressing the importance of precedent, since Roe vs. Wade said women could choose abortion until the 24th week of a pregnancy when the fetus may be capable of living on its own.

Do the liberal justices sound angry?

Sometimes, the best clue on where the court is headed comes from the three liberals.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Stephen G. Breyer do not have votes to decide the outcome, but they often join in to voice agreement when their conservative colleagues explore a middle-ground position.

If they sound frustrated and angry as the argument proceeds, however, it may mean they have given up on salvaging anything from the decision.

Apparently I was out of the loop enough to miss this "little" situation going down.

[Kowani]

SCOTUS is now hearing oral arguments in Mississippi v. Dobbs, the abortion ban case

There’s a player in the link if you want to listen in

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

SCOTUS is now hearing oral arguments in Mississippi v. Dobbs, the abortion ban case

There’s a player in the link if you want to listen in

this would be a prime opportunity for the actual People to blockade SCOTUS until the Trump nominees comes to an epiphany not on the side of slavers.

[Neutraligon]

this would be a prime opportunity for the actual People to blockade SCOTUS until the Trump nominees comes to an epiphany not on the side of slavers.

I predict buses and non=profit type thing if things go south.

[Diahon]

this would be a prime opportunity for the actual People to blockade SCOTUS until the Trump nominees comes to an epiphany not on the side of slavers.

bah humbug! that would be threatening judicial deliberations, ya hear?

[New haven america]

I mean, ~70% of the country supports it, so if was to be banned again we'd be seeing a pretty severe societal meltdown. (Also, I'm pretty sure no abortion service would actually follow the law, see Texas' absolute inability to enforce its own ban and not being able to host the promised Whistleblower site due to relentless trolling and cyberattacks)

It's just that the 30% that don't are very rich, loud, and corrupt.

I do predict that this will lead to violence not seen in decades though.

[Senkaku]

I mean, ~70% of the country supports it, so if was to be banned again we'd be seeing a pretty severe societal meltdown. (Also, I'm pretty sure no abortion service would actually follow the law, see Texas' absolute inability to enforce its own ban and not being able to host the promised Whistleblower site due to relentless trolling and cyberattacks)

It's just that the 30% that don't are very rich, loud, and corrupt.

I do predict that this will lead to violence not seen in decades though.

Only some states are going to ban it; the violence is going to take the form of police raids, rightist militants and mobs, and women in red states being subjected to back-alley quackery. Democrats will give it plenty of airtime, and there may even be some good-sized protests, but the prosperous suburbanites who set the party’s priorities can just travel if they or their family member really ends up needing one or already live in states it won’t be a concern in— and I’m pretty sure it’s not going to be some sort of revolutionary leftist tipping point.

[Arlenton]

I mean, ~70% of the country supports it, so if was to be banned again we'd be seeing a pretty severe societal meltdown. (Also, I'm pretty sure no abortion service would actually follow the law, see Texas' absolute inability to enforce its own ban and not being able to host the promised Whistleblower site due to relentless trolling and cyberattacks)

It's just that the 30% that don't are very rich, loud, and corrupt.

I do predict that this will lead to violence not seen in decades though.

Repealing Roe V Wade will not ban abortion nationwide. It will allow states themselves to ban it, or not ban it, or put whatever regulations they want on it.

There won't be societal meltdown. Probably plenty of protests, sure.

And the abortion law here in Texas will no longer be necessary with a repeal of Roe. The current law has citizens enforce it by suing those who have abortions, perform abortions, or in any way help someone get an abortion. It was made this way in order to get around Roe. But without Roe, the state government can enforce a ban.