US Supreme Court overturns Roe vs. Wade

[ramlaen]

Is it a viable pregnancy is easier than arbitrarily picking a stage of development.

[GDB]

That's also an arbitrarily picked stage of development.

[Tenzen12]

Originally Posted by Key Board

The fetal heartbeat law restricts the window to 5 weeks, which is nowhere near enough for a poor income family.

If you want to use physiology, than a fetus doesn't develop a consciousness until around the 25th week.

That means Japan's law is closest to that, offering service until the 21st week, and that's still a lot more time that the proposed fetal heartbeat
//

Sorry but that's BS. There is no consensus what even conciusness is. Nor anyone can prove it exist. There may be physiological argument for 25th week, but this ain't it.

If I had to decide I would be fine with 6th week, which where fetus start showing brain activity.After all presence of brain activity or lack of thereof is how we decide if it's ok end life of fully adult people as well. Eitherway laws set to protect rights of unborn children shouldn't be decided on basis which time frame fits the potential parent.

[mangamuscle]

Allow me to bypass the circular argument of what is right and what is wrong. The simple truth is that RvW is not being overturned because it "was terrible from a legal/constitutional context". It is 100% politically motivated and it is but the tip of the iceberg, the only question left unanswered, how far right will the right wing supreme court go?

[Tenzen12]

While I am plenty sure Supreme Court not gonna overturn bad right wing policies anytime soon. As long as "iceberg" consist of terrible laws in legal sense then I don't think there is reason care how political it is. I would fine if it was other way around as well. As long as bad laws and precedents go away, there is no reason care about motivations. Only question is if they know where to stop.

[ramlaen]

Originally Posted by GDB

That's also an arbitrarily picked stage of development.

A pregnancy being viable isn't a stage of development.

Originally Posted by mangamuscle

Allow me to bypass the circular argument of what is right and what is wrong. The simple truth is that RvW is not being overturned because it "was terrible from a legal/constitutional context". It is 100% politically motivated and it is but the tip of the iceberg, the only question left unanswered, how far right will the right wing supreme court go?

The leak was most likely politically motivated (upcoming mid terms) given that the draft is several months old.

Do you have something to support the claim that the reason Roe Vs. Wade was overturned in the draft was political rather than for the reasons argued in the draft?

Despite all the hand wringing over Trump getting three nominations the actual ideological balance of the court has barely moved in the last fourty years.

[GDB]

Originally Posted by mangamuscle

Allow me to bypass the circular argument of what is right and what is wrong. The simple truth is that RvW is not being overturned because it "was terrible from a legal/constitutional context". It is 100% politically motivated and it is but the tip of the iceberg, the only question left unanswered, how far right will the right wing supreme court go?

If I recall, the opinion specifically called out gay marriage, interracial marriage, and contraceptives. Interracial marriage would likely be the lowest on that list to tackle, so expect one of the other two to be next.

Originally Posted by Tenzen12

Eitherway laws set to protect rights of unborn children shouldn't be decided on basis which time frame fits the potential parent.

If we're so, soooo concerned with the unborn, why not make literally everything regarding pregnancy free? Oh, right, because it isn't actually about protecting anyone, it's just about forcing birth because the right wing decided that'd be a good wedge issue less than 100 years ago, whereas before all these religious and conservative types were all for abortion.

Originally Posted by Tenzen12

While I am plenty sure Supreme Court not gonna overturn bad right wing policies anytime soon. As long as "iceberg" consist of terrible laws in legal sense then I don't think there is reason care how political it is. I would fine if it was other way around as well. As long as bad laws and precedents go away, there is no reason care about motivations. Only question is if they know where to stop.

What you consider "bad" and what's actually bad may not align. Most would consider stripping women of their bodily autonomy to be bad, yet here you seem to be praising it.

Originally Posted by ramlaen

A pregnancy being viable isn't a stage of development.

So you're saying a fetus can get brain activity or a heartbeat without pregnancy being viable? Then stop forcing women to be pregnant.

Originally Posted by ramlaen

Despite all the hand wringing over Trump getting three nominations the actual ideological balance of the court has barely moved in the last fourty years.

Nearly 50/50 with a swing vote that usually leaned one way but not always is hardly the same as a guaranteed majority regardless of the swing vote. To think otherwise is to be purposely ignorant.

[Key Board]

Originally Posted by Tenzen12

Sorry but that's BS. There is no consensus what even conciusness is. Nor anyone can prove it exist. There may be physiological argument for 25th week, but this ain't it.

If I had to decide I would be fine with 6th week, which where fetus start showing brain activity.After all presence of brain activity or lack of thereof is how we decide if it's ok end life of fully adult people as well. Eitherway laws set to protect rights of unborn children shouldn't be decided on basis which time frame fits the potential parent.

But people in a permanent vegetative state still have brain activity.
They are not terminated because they no longer show any brain activity.
They are terminated at the request of a family member because the vegetative person will never become a person again.
There's a reason why it's called a vegetative state. They're a vegetable. Yes, they can even react to stimuli sometimes, but they have no conscious thought.

And on the subject of pre natal infant consciousness, there are many peer reviewed papers on the subject.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/

I just don't think a six week fetus is a person

At six weeks, a fetus doesn't even have a cerebrum yet. Just a precursor forebrain.
Heck, at six weeks it shouldn't even be called a fetus. It's still an embryo.

//

[Tenzen12]

At least link actual article. Eitherway you don't think 6 week fetus is already baby? I am fine with that. I already said there is no easy answer where to draw line. I would do it around 6th week for reason I said, you 25 weeks because you believe that's where consciousness arise.

Originally Posted by GDB

If we're so, soooo concerned with the unborn, why not make literally everything regarding pregnancy free? Oh, right, because it isn't actually about protecting anyone, it's just about forcing birth because the right wing decided that'd be a good wedge issue less than 100 years ago, whereas before all these religious and conservative types were all for abortion.

Because that's impossible. Plain and simply. No amount of good will can create money out of thin air. I don't know if religious conservatives were ever for abortions, I could not find anything about it, nonetheless US is pretty crazy with with abortion hype. Majority of countries including super liberal like UK or Germany has regulations. Given that's default wanting unrestricted abortion is abnormality, not wanting them.

What you consider "bad" and what's actually bad may not align. Most would consider stripping women of their bodily autonomy to be bad, yet here you seem to be praising it.

That's another strawman I am all for woman bodily autonomy. I am also for not killing babies. Important part is find compromise where woman can exercise her autonomy without denying baby right to live.

[ramlaen]

Originally Posted by GDB

So you're saying a fetus can get brain activity or a heartbeat without pregnancy being viable?

I'm pretty sure you understand what a viable pregnancy is.

Then stop forcing women to be pregnant.

A pregnancy that is the result of consensual sex is the result of a woman's choice.

Nearly 50/50 with a swing vote that usually leaned one way but not always is hardly the same as a guaranteed majority regardless of the swing vote. To think otherwise is to be purposely ignorant.

Going by the rulings of the current SCOTUS (assuming the newly seated Judge Jackson follows her predecessor) is 4 right wing, 3 left wing and 2 swing votes.

Originally Posted by Tenzen12

Because that's impossible. Plain and simply. No amount of good will can create money out of thin air. I don't know if religious conservatives were ever for abortions, I could not find anything about it, nonetheless US is pretty crazy with with abortion hype. Majority of countries including super liberal like UK or Germany has regulations. Given that's default wanting unrestricted abortion is abnormality, not wanting them.

Europe has more restrictive abortion laws than the US.

[Jaden]

Practically speaking in Finland, any woman can have an abortion before the 12th week of pregnancy without anyone questioning the justification. After that, a doctor's admission is required based on medical, ethical, or social considerations. This is not necessarily granted, but the cases are rare.

Is this really more restrictive than the US? I think it just looks that way, because various institutions in European countries have a more active role in people's affairs, not limited to abortion. It's a different paradigm that doesn't value individual liberty as highly.

[cyberdemon]

That’s not a bad stance. It’s enough time to realize the woman is pregnant and decide. After that is more about medical reasons rather than just a change of heart. But the us lacks such middle ground. You have to be extreme one way or another

[Magin]

Originally Posted by Tenzen12

. Important part is find compromise where woman can exercise her autonomy without denying baby right to live.

So the bolded part is what it all comes down to, and this is arguably the most dangerous part. For the ones who are super-religious, there's the whole "Thou shall not kill" bit, going back to at least Moses and the Commandments. But then y'all seem to ignore the parts about adultering (y'know, you're married but are having sex with someone other than your spouse. That's also forbidden, you realize). Plus always being in support of the troops, who ARE out killing people.. wait, I thought you were supposed to be against killing people? Is it fine if it's someone else doing the killing but not you? Hm...

But more to the issue around abortion and a baby's right to live. Let me ask this question: whose life is ultimately more important, the mother's or the baby's? Here are some actual examples:

If the baby is born, there's a high chance that the mother WILL die. Oh, and probably the baby too.

A girl gets raped while a young teenager (we're talking 13~14) and is in no way ready to be a parent. So, are we willing to destroy her life in order to preserve the baby's?

The list goes on and on and on. And so I ask anyone who is "pro-life"... no, it's "pro-forced birth", are you really saying that the life of someone who's never even actually experienced life is more important than that of someone who's actually experienced life and is a member of society?

[GDB]

Originally Posted by Magin

For the ones who are super-religious, there's the whole "Thou shall not kill" bit, going back to at least Moses and the Commandments.

Also ignoring the part of the Bible that says a baby isn't a person until it's born and has the "breath of life".

A girl gets raped while a young teenager (we're talking 13~14) and is in no way ready to be a parent. So, are we willing to destroy her life in order to preserve the baby's?

Reminder, according to the laws being passed in a lot of these GOP lead states, they'd advocate that said girl is mature enough to have her life destroyed BUT she's also not capable of handling the concept of being told gay people exist.

[serenade_beta]

The GOP let Trump swim in the capital for 4 years, right? At that point, I just say their actions are 99% politically motivated and maybe 1% actually cares about the US and its people

[Tenzen12]

Originally Posted by Magin

So the bolded part is what it all comes down to, and this is arguably the most dangerous part. For the ones who are super-religious, there's the whole "Thou shall not kill" bit, going back to at least Moses and the Commandments. But then y'all seem to ignore the parts about adultering (y'know, you're married but are having sex with someone other than your spouse. That's also forbidden, you realize). Plus always being in support of the troops, who ARE out killing people.. wait, I thought you were supposed to be against killing people? Is it fine if it's someone else doing the killing but not you? Hm...

But more to the issue around abortion and a baby's right to live. Let me ask this question: whose life is ultimately more important, the mother's or the baby's? Here are some actual examples:

If the baby is born, there's a high chance that the mother WILL die. Oh, and probably the baby too.

A girl gets raped while a young teenager (we're talking 13~14) and is in no way ready to be a parent. So, are we willing to destroy her life in order to preserve the baby's?

The list goes on and on and on. And so I ask anyone who is "pro-life"... no, it's "pro-forced birth", are you really saying that the life of someone who's never even actually experienced life is more important than that of someone who's actually experienced life and is a member of society?

So you are saying I have to be religious (and it have to be Christianity) to care about life? Does that mean all vegans are religious fanatics because they they don't want eat meat? Or
old school hippies or Buddhists (well yes those are religious I admit). My country is one of most atheistic in the world and we still generally think US is crazy.

Just because someone gives a birth doesn't mean they have to or should be parents.

Also all human life is equal under law. It doesn't matter how much experiences they have or how much they contribute society. And argument that some life's are more important then others is what historically led to actual genocides and should not be propagated in modern society.

It's diffent matter if it's medical decision, though and pretty much everwher in the world abortions are allowed for sake of mother health. Moral it's ambiguous but if can't save both then it's chosen not who is more important but who has higher chance to survive ie mother.

[BWTraveller]

This's honestly an incredibly difficult matter to deal with, as is obvious by this debate. Any answer will be hard to work. Even my own viewpoints are, in a word, complex.
For one thing, I rather dislike talk of "the woman's right to 'choose'", as this doesn't make sense to me in the majority of cases unless you completely disconnect the reproductive act from the result known as "reproduction". Outside of rape (which I place right alongside medical necessity as an exception whose exclusion is absolutely unforgivable), a choice was already made. On the other hand, while one certainly can choose not to do this, with a mix of pressures, desires, hormones and more, it's obvious that, beyond almost anything else, the number of young women who make a choice that they will afterward feel unable to carry through with is staggering, and as a result illegalizing abortions won't decrease them by much, it will only drive women to extreme measures to reach legal facilities or, lacking the money to reach such places, illegal facilities that, already acting outside the law, will have far less oversight to ensure that the procedure is performed properly and the equipment is maintained and kept clean.

On top of that, passing laws on abortion is, in my opinion, acting on the wrong end of the matter. As I said, decreasing the amount of sex through these sorts of laws is highly unlikely. Instead, the focus should be on ensuring that kids are very well educated on contraception, so that they will know what does and doesn't work, how it works, etc. There's plenty of "methods" that are frankly dangerous. "Safe days" are really just "safer than other days" but can still lead to pregnancy at times. Condoms can lose much of their efficacy if worn wrong (or overlapped for "added protection"). Pulling out at the last moment is just about as safe as playing chicken with a freight train. Even with birth control pills, one needs to check with a doctor as there ARE certain situations and conditions in which the pill might not be as effective as it should be. Basically, I'm opposed to abortion laws regardless of personal beliefs or feelings, but I am strongly for sex education in late junior high or early high school, with a thorough education about contraception. Yes, the students should still be encouraged not to just jump into it until they're really ready, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be taught exactly what to do when they actually do it. Heck, even those who choose to wait for marriage will still need this information as it's hardly uncommon for newlyweds to want a little time to get things situated and save up a bit before they start having kids.

And if anyone is opposed to something they see as teaching kids to go ahead and have sex with anyone anytime, I'd just say that teaching kids how to wear their seatbelts and ensuring that all vehicles have airbags doesn't mean we're encouraging people to drive recklessly, and teaching people to have a designated driver in their group doesn't mean teaching them to get plastered. In the same way, teaching kids what precautions they should take if they choose to do something doesn't at all equate to encouraging them to do it, or exclude firmly discouraging them from doing it too soon. In fact, giving them a more thorough understanding of everything could encourage some to think twice.

ETID: On second thought, this's hardly the place and seriously not worth getting into a debate here.

[ramlaen]

Originally Posted by Jaden

Practically speaking in Finland, any woman can have an abortion before the 12th week of pregnancy without anyone questioning the justification. After that, a doctor's admission is required based on medical, ethical, or social considerations. This is not necessarily granted, but the cases are rare.

Is this really more restrictive than the US? I think it just looks that way, because various institutions in European countries have a more active role in people's affairs, not limited to abortion. It's a different paradigm that doesn't value individual liberty as highly.

Less than half of US states have time restrictions on when an abortion can be performed. Of those that do only Texas and Oklahoma (which disallows abortion after a heartbeat starts) require them to be done sooner than the 12th week, most that have them are between 20 and 24 weeks.

Florida recently lowered its restriction to 15 weeks and the left threw a big stink about it.

[Jaden]

Oh, ok. Seen some people lately linking this map, except they had cut out America from the image. Was slightly irritated, because it's making Europe seem more prohibitive than it actually is, while in practice the required conditions for having an abortion only rarely become a hurdle.

But anyway, your claim that "Europe has more restrictive abortion laws than the US." is totally true.

[The Green One]

All banning abortion is going to do is drive it underground and just make it more dangerous for the one trying by forcing it to be done through more unsafe methods. Thinking banning abortion is going to stop it is foolishly naive. There will always be those who just don't care or are desperate enough for their own reasons.

Trying to convince someone banning abortion is right/wrong is honestly a futile effort. All this is going to do is spark an argument that will get this thread locked.