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

[The Great Zaganza]

forcing a woman to give birth against her will IS force, and any claim that it isn't is bunk.

As long as you acknowledge that, we can talk about weighing the life of a viable foetus against over considerations.

 

[catsmate]

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.

Yes.
Unlike some people I'm willing to take responsibility and make decisions. Hence I'm not a 'philosopher'.....


Several times I've asked the anti-abortion nuts to put an actual value on the risk to the life of a woman, how much extra risk do they find acceptable.
They evde the question.


Wrt religous/social/cultural indoctrinaton that is a cop-out; the god botherers incessantly demand special privleges due to their (supposed) beliefs, regardless of the negative effects on other people and on society.

 

[Hercules56]

forcing a woman to give birth against her will IS force, and any claim that it isn't is bunk.

As long as you acknowledge that, we can talk about weighing the life of a viable foetus against over considerations.

Nobody can force a woman to give birth, only nature can do that.

Take your objections up with Nature.

 

[Hercules56]

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.

Oh so you are against all gun laws? Interesting.

 

[Darat]

Nobody can force a woman to give birth, only nature can do that.

Take your objections up with Nature.

I looked in Nature and the only papers I found were about the various drugs that can force a woman to give birth.

A quick list (not on Nature's site)

https://www.drugs.com/condition/labor-induction.html

 

[Hercules56]

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....

So you oppose the right of a woman to decide on her own health care.

Thank God there are only maybe a couple dozen clinics in the USA willing to perform abortions during the 8th and 9th month, providing health care to women.

Only extremists seem to believe women aren't capable of making their own health care decisions.

Forcing someone to give birth for the benefit of ideologs is no force?

I guess we don't have to wonder whether you ever asked a woman for her opinion


At least a kidney can do some objective good.
Forcing births is just so some people can appease their Sky Daddy

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.

Seems clear now that the overwhelming objection here is the govt forcing a woman to give birth to a child she does not want. They believe the mother has full bodily autonomy and the govt has no right to restrict what she can do to her body, include killing her fetus whenever she wants.

I get it, I really do.

But luckily we have a solution.

Society wants to protect the life of an unborn healthy fetus that's in the 3rd Trimester, and the Left wants to let the woman decide to terminate the fetus at any stage of ita development. So here's what we do.

If we are in the 3rd Trimester and the fetus is healthy and viable, the govt will not allow an abortion unless its to save the life of the mother or protect her from severe physical injury..... but they will provide a free Cesarean and take custody of the child. Woman will not be forced to give birth or raise the kid. Society will take custody, give her free medical care after the procedure. The only caveat is she cannot terminate the fetus.

Both sides are happy. The child is allowed to live, the mother doesn't have to give birth or raise the child, both sides get what they want.

 

[acbytesla]

Oh so you are against all gun laws? Interesting.

Huh?

 

[Darat]

...snip...

Society wants to protect the life of an unborn healthy fetus that's in the 3rd Trimester, and the Left wants to let the woman decide to terminate the fetus at any stage of ita development. So here's what we do.

...snip..

Nope - not "the left". Many things are not about your rather er... infantile perception of "left" and "right".

 

[Hercules56]

Nope - not "the left". Many things are not about your rather er... infantile perception of "left" and "right".

This is a discussion about abortion in the USA. The Right is not pushing for unlimited access to abortion rights, please dont derail the conversation or make personal attacks.

 

[acbytesla]

Roe v Wade says that The People have the Constitutional and moral authority to regulate abortion during the 3rd Trimester. cans believe that there should be abortion-on-demand during the 3rd Trimester.

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.

Oh so you are against all gun laws? Interesting.

Seriously, what the hell are you talking about? I point out that Roe v Wade doesn't say what you said it does and you go off on a tangent about guns?

Why don’t you acknowledge you got it wrong?

 

[Hercules56]

Seriously, what the hell are you talking about? I point out that Roe v Wade doesn't say what you said it does and you go off on a tangent about guns?

Why don’t you acknowledge you got it wrong?

Self defense is a civil liberty as much as the right to bodily self determination.

 

[Aridas]

Yes.
Unlike some people I'm willing to take responsibility and make decisions. Hence I'm not a 'philosopher'.....

Err... Taking a position that one side of a philosophical dilemma is better than the other doesn't make you not a philosopher. Rather, it confirms that you're engaging with philosophy. Ethical dilemmas, in general, are about conflicts between values and which are prioritized. Hence, your response here suggests fundamental misunderstanding, given that those who choose differently than you can easily be willing to take responsibility and make decisions and that that has much to do with the point that was actually being made.

This is a discussion about abortion in the USA. The Right is not pushing for unlimited access to abortion rights, please dont derail the conversation or make personal attacks.

"The Left" is not even remotely compromised solely of those that favor unrestricted abortion access, though, and nor can those who you're reacting to be properly used as determinative of what "the Left" thinks as a whole. Your "the Left" vs "Society" and your general attempt to engage in caricaturization immediately triggers more of the usual warning bells that ring with your choice of expressed concerns and arguments, either way.

Regardless, I, personally, have no real problem with your suggested compromise. I'm generally fine with democratically selected 3rd trimester regulations or the lack thereof in line with Roe, though, provided that they're not excessively intrusive or coercive. I have distinctly limited trust that such a course of action would last in the face of one of our political parties becoming ever more the Party of Irresponsibility, but would be happy to be proven wrong there.

 

[Hercules56]

Err... Taking a position that one side of a philosophical dilemma is better than the other doesn't make you not a philosopher. Rather, it confirms that you're engaging with philosophy. Ethical dilemmas, in general, are about conflicts between values and which are prioritized. Hence, your response here suggests fundamental misunderstanding, given that those who choose differently than you can easily be willing to take responsibility and make decisions and that that has much to do with the point that was actually being made.




"The Left" is not even remotely compromised solely of those that favor unrestricted abortion access, though, and nor can those who you're reacting to be properly used as determinative of what "the Left" thinks as a whole. Your "the Left" vs "Society" and your general attempt to engage in caricaturization immediately triggers more of the usual warning bells that ring with your choice of expressed concerns and arguments, either way.

Regardless, I, personally, have no real problem with your suggested compromise. I'm generally fine with democratically selected 3rd trimester regulations or the lack thereof in line with Roe, though, provided that they're not excessively intrusive or coercive. I have distinctly limited trust that such a course of action would last in the face of one of our political parties becoming ever more the Party of Irresponsibility, but would be happy to be proven wrong there.

The Pro side wants the fetus out, the Anti side wants the fetus to stay alive. These two goals are clearly mutually exclusive.

 

[Aridas]

The Pro side wants the fetus out, the Anti side wants the fetus to stay alive. These two goals are clearly mutually exclusive.

Ugh, the framing here...

Clarifications for the sake of reducing the ugh.
1) Pro women's rights vs anti abortion? You're mixing deceptively.
2) In context, this should only apply to a minuscule subset, but as quoted, it's hard to take it as anything other than all, given that -
3) You are claiming that the goals are mutually exclusive. This, after you literally just gave an example of a case that shows that they're clearly not mutually exclusive if you were staying in prior context, so it's hard to treat that as remaining in prior context rather than pushing something much more broad and not in line with Roe.

 

[acbytesla]

Self defense is a civil liberty as much as the right to bodily self determination.

You have no idea what my position is on guns. BTW, the Constitution doesn’t explicitly say you have a right to self defense. I do however believe that is a civil liberty that the Constitution does protect.

I find it interesting that you seem to believe self defense is a civil liberty. Isn't protecting one's body a right of self defense?

But before you address that, I want you to acknowledge that you were mistaken when you said that Roe v Wade said that the State has both a moral and legal right to regulate abortion when in fact it doesn't say either.

That it does say the State "may" regulate it. And that it "shall' make exceptions when the woman's health is threatened.

.

 

[Aridas]

But before you address that, I want you to acknowledge that you were mistaken when you said that Roe v Wade said that the State has both a moral and legal right to regulate abortion when in fact it doesn't say either.

Not just legal - Constitutional. The legal that overrides all other legal and practically sets things in unarguable stone.

 

[acbytesla]

Not just legal - Constitutional. The legal that overrides all other legal and practically sets things in unarguable stone.

It doesn't say "Constitutional". And it certainly doesn't say "moral."


It also says "may," which means it is not obligatory.

 

[catsmate]

Nobody can force a woman to give birth, only nature can do that.

Take your objections up with Nature.

Oh so you are against all gun laws? Interesting.

So much straw.

 

[catsmate]

Huh?

Indeed.

Nope - not "the left". Many things are not about your rather er... infantile perception of "left" and "right".

Also true.

 

[Hercules56]

You have no idea what my position is on guns. BTW, the Constitution doesn’t explicitly say you have a right to self defense. I do however believe that is a civil liberty that the Constitution does protect.

I find it interesting that you seem to believe self defense is a civil liberty. Isn't protecting one's body a right of self defense?

But before you address that, I want you to acknowledge that you were mistaken when you said that Roe v Wade said that the State has both a moral and legal right to regulate abortion when in fact it doesn't say either.

That it does say the State "may" regulate it. And that it "shall' make exceptions when the woman's health is threatened.

.

So you're saying the right to abortion is the right to defend oneself against an evil fetus?

Fascinating.

And yes Roe v Wade says that the government does have the right and authority to restrict abortions during the third trimester. They aren't obligated to but they can if they wish to.