The Supreme Court, and abortion.

[Larry]

50 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

Is that why people are aborting at seven months? There isn't much research on it, but Ive seen stuff range from issues the baby was having during gestation, not being able to access abortions earlier in the pregnancy (cost, logistics, state laws, etc), or life-threatening situations for the women carrying the child.

 

And its a small number of cases. I am not sure how often it is "I have been pregnant for seven months, but I have finally decided I do not want this kid." And even on the chances that is the case, and?

 

Just to throw another "what if" into this mix, but there ARE people who come in to the ER in labor, who don't know they're pregnant. 

 

I certainly HOPE they're rare. But they do exist. 

[MartinC]

1 minute ago, MisterPinstripe said:

I have been trying to put it into perspective, but I guess Im not getting it across.

 

Can you answer this question for me? It may make it clearer to you, but at least should make it clearer to me how to get why across:

 

Why did the people working to abolish slavery feel they had the right to impose their view that slavery was wrong on slave owners?

 

Because while reasonable people can disagree on exactly when a fetus becomes a person no reasonable person could argue that someone born in Africa or born from those people abducted from Africa is a person. 

 

Also the impact (harm) of slavery was far wider than to the individual slave - there was societal level impact in the nations that slaves were stolen from, on the economies of the nations where slavery took place and from where the slaves were taken, to the families of slaves and the treatment of slaves in captivity.

 

I don't know if they had opinion polls back then, I don't know if a majority of people wanted to end slavery or not. But I think we can be certain a majority would now. We also know there is no majority of opinion against availability of legal abortion. Imposition by a minority on a majority is tyranny.

[tshile]

1- what does opinion polling have to do with why someone who sees it as murder should not then feel obligated to do something about it (even if it’s just to vote to ban it)?

 

2- I’m sure at one point “slavery is bad” was a minority opinion. This is a bad measuring stick. 

 

3- I’m going to throw this “minority imposing on majority is tyranny” argument at people next time I get a chance. I don’t think it’s as good of an argument as you think. Might want to reconsider how many minority groups out there rely on being able to impose on the majority for things to be fair 

 

4- even if that wasn’t true, rule by simple majority is hardly an indication of doing the right thing. 

Edited May 20, 2019 by tshile

[MartinC]

Just now, tshile said:

 

3- I’m going to throw this “minority imposing on majority is tyranny” argument at people next time I get a chance. I don’t think it’s as good of an argument as you think. Might want to reconsider how many minority groups out there rely on being able to impose on the majority for things to be fair 

 

 

I am sure there are examples - and possibly some good ones (in terms of intent and impact). Have you any in mind?

 

But as a generalization I am VERY comfortable taking a position that a minority imposing a position on a majority is a bad thing.

[CousinsCowgirl84]

It always comes down to morality and morality is essential opinion mixed with experience, recognized by a society.

 

slavery didn’t end because it was wrong, it ended because enough people thought it was immoral.

 

Abortion is legal or isn’t not because it’s wrong or right, but because enough people believe the government getting involved in a woman’s choice is immoral, or that killing the unborn is immoral. 

 

Right and wrong exist regardless of what we think.  Whether or not we choose to do right or wrong depends on whatever the interpretation of right or wrong is at the moment, and our thoughts can be easily swayed to think something that is wrong is right or vice versa.

 

Edited May 20, 2019 by CousinsCowgirl84

[Springfield]

And @tshile, let me go further.

 

I don’t think that people should get late term abortions.  I think that they should have made their mind up LONG before it gets to the third trimester.  In some cases of defect or complication, then sure.  But a woman (and her partner, if she so chooses) should have determined the fate of that child immediate after she discovered that she was pregnant.

 

I just think that trying to decide if something is actually “alive” and what constitutes that is impossibly difficult.  To me, it’s alive from when the seed is germinated.  That doesn’t make it a real person though.

[twa]

30 minutes ago, MartinC said:

 

I just checked. Apparently there are 13 States 

 

https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2019/january/only-these-states-say-babies-are-humans-heres-an-update-on-the-fierce-abortion-battles-across-the-us

 

"Thirteen states have laws on the books that state unborn babies are people. These personhood statements are often included under the criminal code to protect mothers and their unborn babies from violent attacks like domestic abuse"

Homicide ...Homicide is the act of one human killing another.

We could get into the difference between a human and a person but that gets on peoples nerves

 

 

Quote

 

 According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 38 states have “fetal homicide” laws, though the group is quick to note the political ramifications of designating a crime against a pregnant person versus a crime against the entity within the pregnant person.

https://consciousstyleguide.com/are-fetus-and-unborn-child-interchangeable/

 

 

Quote

 

With 37 states recognizing the unborn child under criminal law and 38 states recognizing the unborn child under civil law, there can be no doubt that there is widespread recognition of the personhood of the unborn child in the United States.

https://aul.org/2011/11/17/states-acknowledge-unborn-despite-personhood-amendment-defeat/

 

 

 

[tshile]

1 minute ago, MartinC said:

 

I am sure there are examples - and possibly some good ones (in terms of intent and impact). Have you any in mind?

 

But as a generalization I am VERY comfortable taking a position that a minority imposing a position on a majority is a bad thing.

 

None off the top of my head that are appropriate for this thread. 

 

In general I consider measuring the quality of an idea based on which side is the minority or majority not of any value. People don’t tend to be on the right side of things simply because more people agree with them  

1 minute ago, Springfield said:

And @tshile, let me go further.

 

I don’t think that people should get late term abortions.  I think that they should have made their mind up LONG before it gets to the third trimester.  In some cases of defect or complication, then sure.  But a woman (and her partner, if she so chooses) should have determined the fate of that child immediate after she discovered that she was pregnant.

 

I just think that trying to decide if something is actually “alive” and what constitutes that is impossibly difficult.  To me, it’s alive from when the seed is germinated.  That doesn’t make it a real person though.

 

My issue is with your wording. The way you worded it people could draw their lines anywhere. The line could even be drawn after birth, and for quite a while. That makes it a useless standard to me. That’s all. 

[Cooked Crack]

 

[MartinC]

5 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

In general I consider measuring the quality of an idea based on which side is the minority or majority not of any value. People don’t tend to be on the right side of things simply because more people agree with them  

 

But democracy starts to break down when the majority feel they are being disenfranchised/marginalised by a minority. It's also dangerous when a party in power from broad public appeal impose minority views and go further and stack the court system with political appointees to hold their fingers on the scales even if they are voted out of power (having judges appointed by politicians is a novel and scary concept to me - in the UK there is legislation which explicitly limits the role and influence of politicians in judicial appointments).

 

It's a dangerous road on which to tread. 

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

32 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

 

It would appear that my faith that "this satire is so far over the top that I don't need to label it" is incorrect. At least on this subject. 

 

Which I guess I should understand. It is, after all, a subject which pushes a lot of very powerful buttons on a lot of people. (Including me. Which probably causes me to work harder to try to be ironic, or something.). 

 

No, this is not "not my fault y'all are too stupid to see what's obvious". This is "maybe if one person doesn't get it, then it's just him. But if multiple people don't, then maybe it's me."  

 

sarcasm or not, it's not funny, imo.  

[MartinC]

48 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

I think it’s disingenuous to wrap all that up in a little box as a presentation as to why people shouldn’t be against abortion. 

 

I agree its not an argument for why someone shouldn't be against abortion. But its reasonable to ask those people pushing legislation through which will result in the birth of more children, often into difficult economic circumstances how they are planning to help support the lives of those children. 

 

To wit.

 

'

[Renegade7]

What are the stats on the number of 7 month abortions?  Like is that something that's actually common or thrown out to make this conversation harder then it already is?  I've never met a woman that waited that long because they just didn't want to have a kid, not even close. 

 

Someone put out a stat that only a third of 20-24 week old infants make it, that is a disturbing failure rate to act like all the mother has to so is get the fetus out the womb if they don't want it, that doesn't sound the case at all and how much does that cost?  Who's paying to save premature babies when the parents don't want them?

[TheGreatBuzz]

1 hour ago, MartinC said:

 

What you have not answered is why you feel the right/need to impose your views and version of morality? (And it may well be you don't feel the need to impose them - but that's what is happening in these States where these new 8 week laws are being imposed as part of a wider attempt to strike down Roe v Wade).

Here is what I think he is saying.  He sees the fetus as a human being.  He thinks killing another human is wrong.  So the justification for him "pushing his morality" is the same it would be for him disagreeing with some killing their neighbor because he doesn't want a neighbor.  Killing a human is wrong, born or unborn.  (A position I don't agree with)

[No Excuses]

14 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

What are the stats on the number of 7 month abortions?  Like is that something that's actually common or thrown out to make this conversation harder then it already is?  I've never met a woman that waited that long because they just didn't want to have a kid, not even close. 

 

 

“Late term abortions” are about 1% of cases, and seem to happen because women lack access at earlier stages in some parts of the country. 

[TheGreatBuzz]

3 hours ago, MisterPinstripe said:

With that said, what do you mean by holy wars? If its in reference to wars that happened in the old testament in the bible I have and see no contradiction but if you want me to expound further send me a message. This could easily go off the rails from the actual topic of abortion which I don't want to do.

You are right that you haven't brought up religion.  It happens so often I just assumed you did.  I apologize. 

 

By holy wars I mean holy wars.  The crusades, etc.  Not stories from the bible but actual factual, historical wars fought in the name of God.  It is usually a point of hypocrisy when someone claims abortion is wrong because [insert whatever religious justification] but holy wars were fought because it's what God wanted. 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/war/religious/holywar.shtml

 

But again, since you didn't mention religion, it is off topic.  Sorry for the derail.

[MisterPinstripe]

24 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

What are the stats on the number of 7 month abortions?  Like is that something that's actually common or thrown out to make this conversation harder then it already is?  I've never met a woman that waited that long because they just didn't want to have a kid, not even close. 

 

Someone put out a stat that only a third of 20-24 week old infants make it, that is a disturbing failure rate to act like all the mother has to so is get the fetus out the womb if they don't want it, that doesn't sound the case at all and how much does that cost?  Who's paying to save premature babies when the parents don't want them?

I was one that mentioned 7+ months but that was just in response to someone that had stated that it wasn't a person until born. 

10 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Here is what I think he is saying.  He sees the fetus as a human being.  He thinks killing another human is wrong.  So the justification for him "pushing his morality" is the same it would be for him disagreeing with some killing their neighbor because he doesn't want a neighbor.  Killing a human is wrong, born or unborn.  (A position I don't agree with)

Yes basically, thanks for putting that a bit better than I have.

[tshile]

11 minutes ago, MartinC said:

 

But democracy starts to break down when the majority feel they are being disenfranchised/marginalised by a minority. It's also dangerous when a party in power from broad public appeal impose minority views and go further and stack the court system with political appointees to hold their fingers on the scales even if they are voted out of power (having judges appointed by politicians is a novel and scary concept to me - in the UK there is legislation which explicitly limits the role and influence of politicians in judicial appointments).

 

It's a dangerous road on which to tread. 

 

Sure

 

but the whole reason we are a republic and not a democracy is because majority rule without checks is foolish. 

 

I feel as though some of you have gone out of control with applying general, overarching themes about governance to a very specific issue. 

 

Being in the majority is not really a good standard for whether an idea is “good” or not. It just isn’t. And just because that’s the case, and just because someone argues that in this specific issue the majority isn’t right (not my argument, but clearly it is some others), doesn’t mean our system of government is going to crumble if they’re right. It certainly doesn’t mean you can use the threat of crumbling to shut them down. 

 

I guess what I’m saying is that I’m not against the general idea you’re using, I just don’t know that it applies to this specific case. I don’t know that it’s fair to look at the abortion debate and declare that the people who want it banned because they view it as murdering a life are wrong simply because majority of the country think abortion (on some level) should be legal. 

 

Dont get me wrong, I think they’re wrong that it should be banned. But not because they’re a minority opinion and making that law would be tyranny. 

34 minutes ago, MartinC said:

I agree its not an argument for why someone shouldn't be against abortion. But its reasonable to ask those people pushing legislation through which will result in the birth of more children, often into difficult economic circumstances how they are planning to help support the lives of those children. 

 

Agreed. 

 

I think this is yet another issue where there’s just no empathy for the other side. One has chosen to care about the unborn (their wording), the other has chosen to care about women (their wording), and neither seems interested in reconsidering why someone might actually disagree with them. Some do. But the vast majority don’t. Reading the posts in here there are very militant people on both sides. 

[twa]

Using stats on how well people are doing or provided for to justify killing humans is a rather dangerous path imo.

 

Freedom and opportunity at any level do not exist w/o life.

 

[MartinC]

14 minutes ago, twa said:

Using stats on how well people are doing or provided for to justify killing humans is a rather dangerous path imo.

 

Freedom and opportunity at any level do not exist w/o life.

 

 

Thats clearly true. But then we come back to the central issue of what is life and when is that life considered (legally) a person. 

24 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

Sure

 

but the whole reason we are a republic and not a democracy is because majority rule without checks is foolish. 

 

 

I’ve seen this ‘we are not a democracy or we are republic’ argument made in other contexts and forums. I don’t get it. A republic is a form of democracy - I understand the way in which a republic is a particular form of democracy. But it’s still a democracy.

[Bozo the kKklown]

21 minutes ago, MartinC said:

I’ve seen this ‘we are not a democracy or we are republic’ argument made in other contexts and forums. I don’t get it. A republic is a form of democracy - I understand the way in which a republic is a particular form of democracy. But it’s still a democracy.

 

It’s a statement made by people who were failed by their US civics teachers.

[twa]

53 minutes ago, MartinC said:

 

Thats clearly true. But then we come back to the central issue of what is life and when is that life considered (legally) a person. 

 

 

And what procedures medical professionals can perform and when.

 

We have limits  even on fertilized human eggs.....since we recognize their humanity.

 

[TheGreatBuzz]

1 hour ago, MartinC said:

I’ve seen this ‘we are not a democracy or we are republic’ argument made in other contexts and forums. I don’t get it. A republic is a form of democracy - I understand the way in which a republic is a particular form of democracy. But it’s still a democracy.

https://www.thoughtco.com/republic-vs-democracy-4169936

[MisterPinstripe]

1 hour ago, MartinC said:

 

Thats clearly true. But then we come back to the central issue of what is life and when is that life considered (legally) a person. 

 

I’ve seen this ‘we are not a democracy or we are republic’ argument made in other contexts and forums. I don’t get it. A republic is a form of democracy - I understand the way in which a republic is a particular form of democracy. But it’s still a democracy.

Sure the US as a democratic republic, or representative democracy, has aspects of a democracy but it's very different. The republic aspect of it is there to protect from majority rules through the Constitution. If I remember correctly that was one of the main reasons it is not a democracy but a combination.

[tshile]

1 hour ago, MartinC said:

 

I’ve seen this ‘we are not a democracy or we are republic’ argument made in other contexts and forums. I don’t get it. A republic is a form of democracy - I understand the way in which a republic is a particular form of democracy. But it’s still a democracy.

 

A true/pure democracy is everyone having one vote on every issue. 

 

A republic is everyone having one vote vote for a representative;  who then convenes with their peers to vote on issues, presumably on your behalf (lol)

 

it’s usually brought up to illustrate that simple majority rule is silly.