U.S. Supreme Court set to overturn Roe v. Wade abortion rights decision

[Foxi4]

Damn that was a fast reply. I guess I can get in one more reply before bed...

I will always consider all points of views, as long as they're backed by evidence or logic. If I put out a hypothetical, I need to be willing to consider all hypotheticals. It's what helps us understand ourselves better.

I went back and saw what you meant by "time lost", and see where you thought I mixed up what you meant the first time around (I also chuckled that you said it was "a little edit"). I don't think that would enter the equation as much since I'm pretty confident that nobody who was about to have an abortion has thought "Maybe I should reconsider since I would be removing someone from the economy". Even with the apocalyptic hypothetical, it would be similar, but not quite. That would just be fueled by the desire to keep the species alive, and nothing more. There's actually a very good chance that in that situation abortions would be made illegal for that goal.

You would be surprised by how much napkin math is going on in your head at all times without you even realising it, on a micro and macro scale. We as humans are constantly faced with decisions that have pros and cons, and those decisions can be represented mathematically. I would argue that large swathes of abortions are performed for purely economic reasons, particularly in the less wealthy areas of the country. A child at the wrong time can make or break one’s personal finances not just for the period of pregnancy and subsequent care, but for a lifetime due to opportunity cost. Assuming the mother chooses to care for the child, that’s 18 years of divided attention at minimum, time which could’ve otherwise been spent on gaining qualifications and/or climbing the economic ladder - you can’t make that up later in life. I’m a numbers man - can you tell?

In any case, have a nice nap. We can get back to our chat when you’re well-rested, I’m glad that I’ve given you something amusing to think about.

 

[osaka35]

While we’re in the subject of hypotheticals, there’s something that always bugged me about the right to choose. The assumption is always that it’s the woman’s right to choose by the virtue of her carrying the child, which is fair from the bodily autonomy perspective (if we assume that the child has no bodily autonomy, or that the mother’s bodily autonomy supersedes the child’s, which is hotly debated, but that’s not really my point, nor a discussion I’m interested in having). What I’m interested in is what people’s opinion is on the father’s right to choose, since you need two for this kind of tango. Let’s assume a hypothetical scenario in which the father does not want the child, but the mother does - the financial responsibility for child support falls on the father, and it is socially acceptable to expect the father to pay because “he shouldn’t have had sex if he didn’t want a child”. That measuring stick only works one way though - if we apply the same logic to a woman not wanting to bear responsibility for the intercourse, that’s an infringement of her right to choose. What’s the solution to this conundrum that would apply equal treatment to both parties? Should the father not have the right to disown an unwanted child? If a woman wants to keep the child in spite of the father’s objection, and willingness to fund the abortion, should she not also accept full financial responsibility? What are people’s thoughts on this? As a big fan of equal treatment, this disparity has always seemed quite glaring to me. Naturally we’re comparing 9 months of pregnancy to 18 years of financial support, so the metric isn’t the same, but the principle still seems unequal based on the sex of the parent.

I think if a human body wasn't needed, then it would very much be an equal discussion and it would be completely different. it'd be a formal contract. but the bodily autonomy discussion superseedes this discussion as you shouldn't be able to force an able-bodied person into using their body without their consent. and whoever births has the decision to birth or not, and i guess the rest just flows from that more important decision?

but that's about viability. financial fairness feels like a whole other matter, as you say. I'm not sure why when one party says "no", and the other party says "yes", the no party is financially on the hook. two "no"s and nobody's on the hook. once the child is born, the viability issue is off the table, but it doesn't seem to be reevaluated then either. even in issues of adoption or surrogate, it rarely seems to be evaluated fairly.

 

[Foxi4]

I think if a human body wasn't needed, then it would very much be an equal discussion and it would be completely different. it'd be a formal contract. but the bodily autonomy discussion superseedes this discussion as you shouldn't be able to force an able-bodied person into using their body without their consent. and whoever births has the decision to birth or not, and i guess the rest just flows from that more important decision?

but that's about viability. financial fairness feels like a whole other matter, as you say. I'm not sure why when one party says "no", and the other party says "yes", the no party is financially on the hook. two "no"s and nobody's on the hook. once the child is born, the viability issue is off the table, but it doesn't seem to be reevaluated then either. even in issues of adoption or surrogate, it rarely seems to be evaluated fairly.

I wonder what the societal results of implementing the possibility of disowning a child pre-birth would be. I suspect we’d see a lot of single mothers living below the poverty line, and we’d quickly need the state to step in with a more robust support framework. That being said, the lack of fairness is certainly there as far as the financials of this ordeal are concerned. There’s really no legitimate reason for the father to support the child without sounding hypocritical, if we assume that parenthood is always elective rather than a result of circumstance. Elective parenthood entails a right to choose, circumstance does not.

 

[Valwinz]

A lot of the anti-LGBT bills we've been seeing are going to result in dead children. The anti-abortion bills/trigger laws are going to result in dead women. I wonder if conservatives will be accepting any of that so-called personal responsibility.

I guess close those legs women also what anti-LGBT bills? i have seen none

 

[Glyptofane]

It's amazing in a sad and pitiable sort of way that industrialized child sacrifice on the altar of Moloch is somehow rationalized, justified, and twisted into some sort of virtuous human right. On one hand, it does ensure that at least some of the most morally defunct among us will never spawn, but the practice continues to empower the enemy who seeks to destroy us from within.

 

[JeepX87]

Nevermind.

 

[The Catboy]

A lot of the anti-LGBT bills we've been seeing are going to result in dead children. The anti-abortion bills/trigger laws are going to result in dead women. I wonder if conservatives will be accepting any of that so-called personal responsibility.

They won’t. Conservatives don’t care about women, children nor anyone else, they just want to control people.

 

[Lacius]

LGBT issues have nothing to do with this thread.

Putting my original point aside for a moment, LGBT issues are still quite relevant to the topic of this thread. The legal reasoning behind Roe v. Wade is almost identical to the reasoning behind something like Lawrence v. Texas, for example. In fact, the former was legal precedent for the latter. If one falls, there's no legal justification the other shouldn't fall either.

In other words, a court that doesn't believe women have a constitutional right to abortion access is also a court that doesn't believe you have a constitutional right to have the kind of sex you want with the consenting adult you want to have sex with. I haven't looked at the Lawrence trigger laws lately, but that probably means no blowjobs in some places.

 

[dAVID_]

“The unborn” are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus, but actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn.”​

― Methodist Pastor David Barnhart

 

[smf]

Abortion is one of those issues that should be asked in a referendum, with binding result.

Why does it need a referendum? If you are in favor of it then you have an abortion, if you are not in favor of it then you don't.

It's amazing in a sad and pitiable sort of way that industrialized child sacrifice on the altar of Moloch is somehow rationalized, justified, and twisted into some sort of virtuous human right. On one hand, it does ensure that at least some of the most morally defunct among us will never spawn, but the practice continues to empower the enemy who seeks to destroy us from within.

I think you misunderstand reproduction and abortion.

It is not such a cut and dry issue as you make out.

Also, what enemy within?

 

[Dark_Phoras]

Why does it need a referendum? If you are in favor of it then you have an abortion, if you are not in favor of it then you don't.

The issue is divisive and it affects the personal feelings and values of several people. Either ruling will always get exposed to whoever rules parliament and the government. A referendum that puts clear terms on abortion is the purest indication achievable of the will of the people and it's not easily irrevocable.

 

[smf]

The issue is divisive and it affects the personal feelings and values of several people. Either ruling will always get exposed to whoever rules parliament and the government. A referendum that puts clear terms on abortion is the purest indication achievable of the will of the people and it's not easily irrevocable.

But if the result of the referendum is that nobody is allowed to have an abortion then it doesn't solve anything

People will still have abortions, they will just have to travel. Or more likely, obtain pills via other means.

Trying to ban abortions will never work. Backdoor bans, by making it illegal to have an abortion a week after conception (when the mother is unlikely to be aware) is also not going to work.

Meanwhile, if the referendum is that people should be allowed to have an abortion then that doesn't solve anything either.
People won't stop being craycray just because there was a vote.

We could test it first with a referendum on gun ownership.

Either choose the status quo, or get rid of all guns (so you will never have to worry about being attacked by someone with a gun).

 

[Deleted member 559230]

Putting my original point aside for a moment, LGBT issues are still quite relevant to the topic of this thread. The legal reasoning behind Roe v. Wade is almost identical to the reasoning behind something like Lawrence v. Texas, for example. In fact, the former was legal precedent for the latter. If one falls, there's no legal justification the other shouldn't fall either.

In other words, a court that doesn't believe women have a constitutional right to abortion access is also a court that doesn't believe you have a constitutional right to have the kind of sex you want with the consenting adult you want to have sex with. I haven't looked at the Lawrence trigger laws lately, but that probably means no blowjobs in some places.

You're stretching. LGBT issues don't have anything to do with this topic.

 

[Lacius]

You're stretching. LGBT issues don't have anything to do with this topic.

You should actually look into the legal grounds for rulings like Roe, Lawrence, etc. before making idiotic posts. If you get rid of the established right to privacy in Roe and pull that thread, other rulings based on that right to privacy fall apart.

 

[The Catboy]

You should actually look into the legal grounds for rulings like Roe, Lawrence, etc. before making idiotic posts. If you get rid of the established right to privacy in Roe and pull that thread, other rulings based on that right to privacy fall apart.

Let's be real here, Conservatives are the best at making up junk slippery slopes while ignoring actual slippery slopes.

 

[x65943]

You should actually look into the legal grounds for rulings like Roe, Lawrence, etc. before making idiotic posts. If you get rid of the established right to privacy in Roe and pull that thread, other rulings based on that right to privacy fall apart.

From having read most of the leaked document, the court is not arguing there is no such thing as right to privacy - they tend to skirt that reasoning altogether (although of course it was a large part of the original roe case)

The court is rather arguing more so that abortion itself is not a fundamental right protected by the 14th amendment or otherwise. It's also interesting they use common law arguments to back their points and oddly enough even reference UK statutes that were passed after US independence.

 

[The Catboy]

From having read most of the leaked document, the court is not arguing there is no such thing as right to privacy - they tend to skirt that reasoning altogether (although of course it was a large part of the original roe case)

The court is rather arguing more so that abortion itself is not a fundamental right protected by the 14th amendment or otherwise. It's also interesting they use common law arguments to back their points and oddly enough even reference UK statutes that were passed after US independence.

I wonder what kind of mental gymnastics are required to consider this not a violation of privacy? It seems like a violation of privacy to question someone's right to a medical procedure.

 

[x65943]

I wonder what kind of mental gymnastics are required to consider this not a violation of privacy? It seems like a violation of privacy to question someone's right to a medical procedure.

The right to privacy itself is rather vague and while present in common law, it's not an enumerated right

We get that right through the 14th amendment as Lacius alluded to

However (and this is touched on in the official document) we don't have a right to privacy when it comes to say taking a drug not blessed by the government or engaging in sex work

Both of these things would be protected as private matters if there was a sweeping right to privacy as regards to our body - why should the government say under what circumstances I can have sex (for money or not) or whether I can smoke the leaves or buds from a plant. But here we are in a world where they can - because the right is vague and applies only in some circumstances

That's why the official document goes to great lengths to talk about which matters we are allowed to have in peace and which we aren't

This is the trouble with unenumerated rights and how vague the 14th amendment is

 

[SG854]

My Body my Choice

No forced Birth
No forced Vaccine

 

[Dark_Phoras]

@SG854 that argument is a false equivalency. You can't catch infertility or forced abortion for being around people who proceeded with abortions.