• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Cont: Roe v Wade overturned - this is some BS part II

Hercules56 said:
No, we are talking about allowing a woman to do whatever she wants to her own body, until it affects a viable human being inside of her.

Roe v Wade.
Click to expand...

That's force. You're forcing a woman to remain pregnant and go through the birth process.

Whether it affects a parasitic organism inside her is irrelevant. It is her body. Not mine. Not yours, not the government's and not the fetus's.

We don't force people to give blood, bone marrow etc just because another human being needs it. Why should a fetus have a right that we deny every other living breathing human being?
 
acbytesla said:
That's force. You're forcing a woman to remain pregnant and go through the birth process.

Whether it affects a parasitic organism inside her is irrelevant. It is her body. Not mine. Not yours, not the government's and not the fetus's.

We don't force people to give blood, bone marrow etc just because another human being needs it. Why should a fetus have a right that we deny every other living breathing human being?
Click to expand...

OMFG, this was on another thread. A 3rd trimester fetus is viable. Fine, induce labor. Then give the now alive baby away. Caveat: this of course only applies to health fetuses.
 
acbytesla said:
That's force. You're forcing a woman to remain pregnant and go through the birth process.

Whether it affects a parasitic organism inside her is irrelevant. It is her body. Not mine. Not yours, not the government's and not the fetus's.

We don't force people to give blood, bone marrow etc just because another human being needs it. Why should a fetus have a right that we deny every other living breathing human being?
Click to expand...

Ask the judges who decided Roe v Wade.
 
Hercules56 said:
Ask the judges who decided Roe v Wade.
Click to expand...

Can't do that. Burger, Douglas, Brennan, Stewart, White, Marshall, Blackmun, Powell and Rehnquist have all shuffled off their mortal coils. And they didn’t address that point in the decision.
 
acbytesla said:
Did they also ask if there are conditions which they would not oppose it?

Did they also ask what should happen if someone did have an abortion in the third trimester? This is not a simple issue that can be addressed by one hypothetical.
Click to expand...

I didn't see any evidence if they were asked about conditions where third trimester abortions would be acceptable. However, I did find this 2023 NPR poll which shows they do make a definite difference:

Allows abortion at any time during pregnancy if it is necessary to protect the life or health of the pregnant person: 82%

Allows abortion at any time during pregnancy in cases of rape or incest: 70%
Click to expand...

(I guess a baby resulting from a rape or incest is somehow less deserving of life. :rolleyes:)
 
acbytesla said:
Available or legal and actually performing the procedure are different things.
Click to expand...
Indeed, but the "conservative" trolls aren't actually interested in the health of the women they want to force to carry pregnancies to term.
 
Hercules56 said:
Banning Abortion on Demand during the 7th, 8th and 9th month of pregnancy isn't "forcing" anyone to do anything. Its following the logic of Roe v Wade which everyone used to love.
Click to expand...
Bollocks as usual. It's forcing a woman to endanger her life and health to carry a pregnancy to term.
But then I suppose you don't actually care about women....
:rolleyes:
 
acbytesla said:
You can't have five wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

Individual rights are essential to a democratic republic.
Click to expand...
I expect, given his sudden interest in views of the majority of USAians, Herc is in favour of rent control, more public housing, forgiveness of medical debt, more social welfare, less political donation, civil rights are more important than stopping "terrorism", that racism is a serious problem, child care should be more available, a higher minimum wage, free college education, universal health care, access to contraception, 70% tax rate for high earners, et cetera.
 
catsmate said:
Bollocks as usual. It's forcing a woman to endanger her life and health to carry a pregnancy to term.
But then I suppose you don't actually care about women....
:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I believe in 3rd trimester exceptions to save the life of the mother and to prevent serious physical health issues.
 
catsmate said:
I expect, given his sudden interest in views of the majority of USAians, Herc is in favour of rent control, more public housing, forgiveness of medical debt, more social welfare, less political donation, civil rights are more important than stopping "terrorism", that racism is a serious problem, child care should be more available, a higher minimum wage, free college education, universal health care, access to contraception, 70% tax rate for high earners, et cetera.
Click to expand...

Actually I do support most of those things.
 
catsmate said:
Indeed, but the "conservative" trolls aren't actually interested in the health of the women they want to force to carry pregnancies to term.
Click to expand...

In all fairness, we don't know that. They have different priorities and principles.

It's like the philosophical dilemma if a train is about to run over 5 people and you can divert the train to a track where it kills only one, should you divert it? They might think that taking an active role in killing one person is unacceptable regardless of the circumstances. But you could also think that inaction is an action, so it is justified.

To these trolls, while they sincerely care about the health/life of the women it doesn't justify the what they see as the murder of a child. So I try not to characterize them as being entirely without empathy.

Far too many of them are indoctrinated religious victims that believe they are required to take the position they hold.
 
Last edited:
acbytesla said:
In all fairness, we don't know that. They have different priorities and principles.

It's like the philosophical dilemma if a train is about to run over 5 people and you can divert the train to a track where it kills only one, should you divert it? They might think that taking an active role in killing one person is unacceptable regardless of the circumstances. But you could also think that inaction is an action, so it is justified.

To these trolls, while they sincerely care about the health/life of the women it doesn't justify the what they see as the murder of a child. So I try not to characterize them as being entirely without empathy.

Far too many of them are indoctrinated religious victims that believe they are required to take the position they hold.
Click to expand...

I agree. I respect their beliefs and they have every right to have them. What I do not respect or think they have the right to do is forcing their beliefs onto others by using the law to take away others' rights. The law should never compel someone to have an abortion just as it should not deny the choice to have one.
 
Stacyhs said:
I agree. I respect their beliefs and they have every right to have them. What I do not respect or think they have the right to do is forcing their beliefs onto others by using the law to take away others' rights. The law should never compel someone to have an abortion just as it should not deny the choice to have one.
Click to expand...

Roe v Wade says that The People have the Constitutional and moral authority to regulate abortion during the 3rd Trimester. Most Americans agree. Only a small minority of Americans believe that there should be abortion-on-demand during the 3rd Trimester.
 
Hercules56 said:
Roe v Wade said that women's right to abortion on demand ends when the child becomes viable and can survive outside of the womb.

Do you disagree with this reasoning?
Click to expand...

Not quite so cut and dried.

During the first trimester, the decision to terminate the pregnancy was solely at the discretion of the woman. After the first trimester, the state could “regulate procedure.” During the second trimester, the state could regulate (but not outlaw) abortions in the interests of the mother's health. After the second trimester, the fetus became viable, and the state could regulate or outlaw abortions in the interest of the potential life except when necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.
Click to expand...

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/roe_v_wade_(1973)#:~:text=During%20the%20first%20trimester%2C%20the,interests%20of%20the%20mother's%20health.
 
Hercules56 said:
Roe v Wade says that The People have the Constitutional and moral authority to regulate abortion during the 3rd Trimester. Most Americans agree. Only a small minority of Americans believe that there should be abortion-on-demand during the 3rd Trimester.
Click to expand...

1. Roe doesn’t say that or anything close to that. It says the State may regulate, even proscribe abortion in the third trimester. And that it shall carve out exceptions when the pregnancy threatens the health of the mother.

2. I don't care that most Americans believe they have the right to deny other citizens personal liberties.
 
acbytesla said:
1. Roe doesn’t say that or anything close to that. It says the State may regulate, even proscribe abortion in the third trimester. And that it shall carve out exceptions when the pregnancy threatens the health of the mother.

2. I don't care that most Americans believe they have the right to deny other citizens personal liberties.
Click to expand...

Why do you hate democracy?

:sarcasm:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom